Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 202

Archive 195

←

Archive 200

Archive 201

Archive 202

Archive 203

Archive 204

Archive 205

Raw Story

The online Raw Story has its own wiki article and has been discussed on this board, most recently (I think) in this thread found in the archives. The suggestion was to provide a diff so a more focused discussion could take place. Today, in an entirely different context, I have the same question. Specifically, what do ya'll think of the RS quality of the article/post/whatever titled

"Oregon militants keeping women and children around at standoff despite threats to kill or be killed"?

Is that RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

PS Eds at the article where I might wish to propose we use this source were were alerted to this question here, and friends and foes of The Raw Story itself were alerted hereNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not RS - While I personally enjoy RawStory, it is essentially a left-leaning version of Breitbart or Newsmax (basically like ThinkProgress which we have previously determined is also non-RS). Specifically: (a) opinion statements are often intertwined with hard news reporting, (b) the site sometimes republishes content originating from other sources, meaning categorizing RawStory as "blanket RS" is a suicide pact with non-RawStory originated sources, (c) there are not clear editorial controls - in the past the site has hosted user-generated content and it currently provides no information about editors, publishers, or any staff other than its contributors [there isn't even an "About" page on the site], (d) it does not have [at least one that it publicizes] a physical address. LavaBaron (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Lava, Since you've reverted most of my work and characterized some of it as vandalism, I especially would like to hear from non-aligned experts on our neutrality rules. In general, I partially agree with you though. Any "blanket RS" findings for these sorts of sites are dangerous. On the flip side, however, you have applied a blanket NON rs, which is harder to accept since we're on opposite sides in the content dispute. Hence my interest in outside input. Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see the purpose of this query now. NewsAndEventsGuy - it appears you've made somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 edits of which I reverted four (hardly "most of it"), including twice when you blanked pages and once when you used Russia Today as a source. Please don't use noticeboards as a mixing bowl to stir-up drama. But if that's not what you're doing, and you are legitimately inquiring about RawStory, just keep in mind that a public noticeboard is not the best place to pose closed questions restricted to certain editors - personal Talk pages are probably better. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. We could use outside opinion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So anyway, back to your original question, we don't typically assess individual articles for RS, to do so would be OR. We have to make determinations based on factors that are not usually self-evidencing in single units of analysis. The source you originally used for your "human shields" edit, which I removed, was to Russia Today, not RawStory.

Ultimately, I think you're confused about what you're asking. Simply finding a source, RS or not, that uses an emotive term like "human shield" does not constitute a "gotcha!" moment where you can resume peppering "human shields" throughout the article; you need to look at whether the bulk of RS is using that specific terminology, among other factors. So whether or not RawStory is RS is probably secondary to what it seems you're really trying to achieve here. A better place to get a green-light to start making "human shield" edits is probably the article Talk page itself. Hope that helps - LavaBaron (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Later we can debate the USE of this source at an appropriate venue, which this isn't. I confess I lacked the discipline to refrain from talking about WEIGHT and so forth in anticipation of your comments, but I had the discipline to delete it before posting my reliable sources question on this reliable sources board. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, apology accepted. LavaBaron (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

None was made, and the question is.... Do other eds think this Raw Story reference is RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, again, I don't think you quite understand RS. Individual articles aren't "reliable sources." WP doesn't have standards to evaluate single articles, our standards (editorial control, fact-checking process, referencing by other RS) don't make sense as a basis of comparison against single articles. I guess you can keep demanding someone tell you whether this one article is reliable or not, you're not really disrupting anything by doing that, it just seems unusual and I hate to see you waste your energy.LavaBaron (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyriac K. Puliapally regarding caste

Source- https://books.google.com/books?id=xNAI9F8IBOgC&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=Nairs&f=false

publisher- Brill

Author- various, but the portion regarding Puliapally specifically

Date-1976

page number- Mainly pg 28, but a few pages around as well.

Article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair

Content:Indian caste articles are typically very controversial in nature. Theories of origin for caste cannot be speculative, and this one caught my attention as it happens to base itself of off theory after theory. In the text for example, it relies heavily upon a mix of legends and the controversial Aryan Invasion theory (one which has not reached consensus among scientists and historians). Puliapally may be reliable for other different types of material (I have yet to check those), but regarding castes, stating theories to be included on caste origins must be given the utmost level of caution. Rabt man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

artsome.co

ArtSome was recently blacklisted because it has been spammed (Most recent spam discussion), but is currently used as a reference in three articles. Anyone think it is reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• In Jagath Weerasinghe it is used to verify the subject's education:

  He obtained a Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours in Painting at the Institute of Aesthetic Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka in 1981. In 1985 he received a Conservation of Wall Paintings, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, which was followed in 1988 by a Conservation of Rock Art from the Getty Conservation Institute in Los Angeles.

In 1991 Weerasinghe obtained a Master of Fine Arts in Painting at the American University, Washington, D.C.

• In Jitish Kallat (a rather poor article) it is used to verify what types of art Kallat has produced:

  Kallat's work includes painting, photography, collage, sculptures, installations and multimedia works.

• In Manu Parekh, it is used to introduce the subject and establish notability:

  Manu Parekh is an Indian painter, known for his several paintings on the city of Varanasi.

  and verify personal information:

  Parekh is married to Madhvi and the couple has been living in New Delhi ever since his move from Kolkata in 1974.

Looking at the www.artsome.co/aboutus.asp and www.artsome.co/our-contributors.asp , it looks like a collaborative project. I'm leaning to saying it is not reliable for BLPs, and poor for anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

refs for this thread

References

I was not aware of this thread beforehand, but have removed this reference already as blacklisted spammed site. Most of the sourced information is either covered by a second, non-spamming source and redundant, or the information is basic biographic knowledge, that should be uncontroversial and/or easy to replace. I think, all articles can do without this questionable source. GermanJoe (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang's birthdate had not been verified and yet everyone wants to include it anyways.

His age is supported by three citations: [1], [2], and [3]. That's enough for WP:V, which is the only verification that Wikipedia should care about. clpo13_(talk) 00:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

even with those citation his claim is classified as unverified so it fails WP:V. 166.170.47.24 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what WP:V means. From the very first sentence: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. There are three reliable sources that anyone can check and see that the claims made in the article are supported. There's nothing there about your interpretation of "verified" (namely that the GRG should have its say). clpo13_(talk) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if relevant or not but the IP address that started this thread is actually topic banned from Longevity articles (See here ). Not 100% sure if that means they can't post here or not but they shouldn't be editing anything to do with longevity at least. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unusual situation with a source

I have a link here which is used as a source in the article Argument from authority. Now, the attributed author is a respected scientist, but I haven't been able to confirm his authorship of the piece, and the actual location of the source is someone's former geocities website, stored on web.archive.org. Basically, I'm looking for some more opinions on this than my own. I personally find it to be a highly unreliable source (in fact, the majority of online citations to it seem to be from creationist web sites), but given that it is attributed to a reliable author, I'm unsure. Note, the article is sometimes claimed to have been originally published in BBC Focus, issue 2, but I cannot confirm this as their online back catalog only extends as far back as issue 182. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The author may be reputable but if we cannot confirm that he actually wrote the article, we can't use the link. Not sure how one could argue the link in question is reliable. Also, you noted that the citations used are from creationist web sites, however, I can't seem to find any citations for support. Meatsgains (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The real author appears to be BBC science correspondent Robert Matthews: http://www.robertmatthews.org/mediaCV.html. BBC science correspondent sounds reliable for use. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A BBC reporter would normally be considered reliable. My first question is whether we would normally feel the need to confirm that somebody wrote an article when this is attributed to them (this is a genuine question as it may differ between spheres of editing)? The second question (again genuine) is whether web.archive.org. is generally considered RS? The piece actually looks like a blog to me and therefore would not be RS unless we can prove the author is an expert in that area. Has anyone thought of contacting the reporter?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna reply to everything in one comment, I hope this isn't too confusing.
@Meatsgains: What I meant when I said it was cited by creationists, is that when I searched google for the title of the piece, what I found was a large number of creationist web pages, making creationist arguments citing this piece as evidence that science cannot be trusted. I couldn't find a good, reputable source making reference to this piece, and each creationist source linked back to the original geocities address, when it did so at all.

@Perfect Orange Sphere: Thank you for that. A couple of the creationist pages I found mentioned him being a physicist, likely due to the sharing of the name. Not knowing this guy, I ran with that. Either way though, the author's reliability isn't the question, it's the veracity of the piece itself.

@DrChrissy:My first question is whether we would normally feel the need to confirm that somebody wrote an article when this is attributed to them (this is a genuine question as it may differ between spheres of editing)?
Normally, I would say no. Usually such works are published by reputable publishers whose word we can trust that the attributed author is -in fact- the actual author. However, in this case there was an issue with the original publication of the link, as you can see in the next paragraph.
Regarding the web.archive.org address, I would like to point out that what this site does is archive old web pages, allowing them to be read after they were taken offline. Their reliability is not really a question to my mind, because what they do is simply the preservation of content, not the generation of it. The real question of reliability hinges upon the only record of this piece being found on an archived version of a geocities web site, a 'notorious hive of scum and villainy' (if you will pardon the expression) for the self-published nature of all of its contents. Anyone could have written an essay, post it to geocities and attributed it to some reputable source.

All in all, I am sensing pretty much the same hesitation in you all that I have myself, and when it comes to RS's, I'm of the opinion that "when it doubt, leave it out." applies. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The cited link is http://web.archive.org/web/20110514011452/http:/www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cromsome.html. The site archived scientific publications. It has lots of others that are authentic (such as http://web.archive.org/web/20110605073646/http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/algo.html). Saying this one is a fraud is conspiracy-level thinking, especially when what this source reports fits with other accounts of the situation that the page used to cite. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the geocities account, the ability to correctly reproduce one work (which it does in the case of the Holland article, though I should point out that this is not a scholarly source) does not establish its reliability as a source. For instance, in reviewing the original link again, I found a citation, which attributed the original article to the May 14th, 2000 Edition of the Sunday Telegraph. The Telegraph is fully online searchable, so I thought I'd found the answer which would establish it as a reliable source (I would really rather prefer it were, as it would make for a good example), but when I searched their archives, I found nothing. Now, this isn't definitive, but it's about as close to it as you can get. The Telegraph was fully computerized, and had a web presence by May of 2000, so there's no reason to suspect they wouldn't archive an article like that, but they don't have any record of it. If you can find a good citation for this article, I'm all for it. I really am. I think this would contribute to the WP article quite a bit. But this particular source is just too fishy. It's too likely to be challenged and removed, and if so, I wouldn't be able to make a good case for keeping it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that I do think the article is faithfully reproduced on that website. I do think the article was written by that author. I posted here to see what other editors thought about using it, and except for Orange, you seem to be opposed. I have to agree with that judgement, I'm afraid, contrary to my own desire. That being said, if anyone can find a good source for this piece (or which notes a fallacious appeal to authority being used to justify asserting that humans have 48 chromosomes during the early parts of the 20th century), please, please share at the article's talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you look at the bottom of the page, it attributes the article to the Sunday Telegraph, 14 May 2000. David Orrell cites an article of the same title for the same date and publication in the bibliography of The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction (2008). It's possible that Orrell got it from this webpage, because it's plenty old enough. If someone could check the Telegraph we could readily clear this up; sitting here this instant I cannot do that, I'm afraid. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read my second most recent comment above, you'll see that I did that. While they have articles from that time period archived, that particular article doesn't appear at all. About the only way left to verify the attribution is to find a physical copy of that particular newspaper, which is exceedingly unlikely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

E.G.H. Publishing

The article Espen Gaarder Haug raises questions about the reliability of a source used to support a presentation of Haug's physical theory, which itself seems to be a fringe theory. The source in question is Haug's book Unified Revolution: New Fundamental Physics. Oslo: E.G.H. Publishing. 2014. ISBN 978-829-99703-03.. The book is not found at all in WorldCat's listing of books by Haug, who has published chiefly on quantitative economics. The web page of the publisher (E.G.H. Publishing) does not mention any books other than that one by the author. It seems that E.G.H. Publishing is named for Espen Gaarder Haug and has only published his book.

I recently deleted that section and the reference from the article; subsequently these edits were reverted with the comment "Please could someone else than Mr Steve McCluskey consider this, he thinks he has monopoly on wikipedia." I agree that there should be other eyes on this, so could we have some comments on the reliability of this source as documentation of discussion of Haug's physical theory.

Prior discussion is at the article's talk page. --01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs)

I have just restored this section which was deleted by new editor Authorsrights. Relevant to this behavior I note that Authorsrights (talk · contribs) and Green2Ocean (talk · contribs) have only contributed to the Espen Gaarder Haug article and discussions related to it. --14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs)

His book is a "reliable source" as to his opinions only, and is not a reliable source concerning validity of any theories he might hold. SPS sources are valid sources for the author's own opinions, as a rule. As a source about Physics - not. Collect (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Lovearth.net, again

...among others. National City Lines uses it as a reliable source, as well as worldcarfree.net, which has its own issues. Anmccaff (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not RS - this should, hopefully, be blatantly obvious. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yupp, but not to some other editors there, and I'd prefer a third party opinion or three to an edit war. Anmccaff (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unreliable. "Lovearth is an environmental organization". The "Network" is a crazy mash-up of "479 EcoHumanePolitical Websites, 148 Spiritual And Educational Websites, 462 Celebrity Websites".--Zoupan 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Jakarta Post

Specifically the use of [4] in the peranakan Laksa dish article. Background. There are editors who claim that the origins of this dish is only Malaysia, but as explained in the [Laksa#Origin| origins] section of the article, there are many different conflicting claims. If you see the article's history page, the infobox used to include Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore [[5]] as countries of origin. When additional sources like this was added to prove that there are conflicting claims, the "Pro-Malaysia-Only" editors keep removing it as vandalism or unverified in order strengthen their prefered version where Malaysia holds the sole claim. I had suggested bringing the source here as Talk Page and RFC was getting nowhere. FYI the quoted scholar Myra Sidharta is a knownd scholar who is an expert on Indonesian Peranakan history/culture [6] and has written substantially on that topic[7]. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a question of reliability (the JP tends to rank highly among Indonesian newspapers for reliability) but nationalist disputes. It's... not unusual for Indonesia and Malaysia to get up in arms over something like this. Best course of action is to report the different versions without taking sides, like we do at Potato chip. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this, Chris. I was trying to recall a similar example to explain to the other editor but it escaped me back then. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This might be surplus, but I agree completely with Chris. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Transcription of YouTube video

At Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, an editor has added a statement ascribed to a speech by Hillary Clinton.[8] The citation for this is a one-hour long video posted on YouTube by something called "PSB Satellite News". I can find no information about this body, its structure, funding, or editorial policy, and I question whether it can be accepted as a reliable source. Further, there is no link to a transcription of this speech, nor any indication as to when the words in question were used, and the only way in which editors and readers could confirm that the words have been accurately transcribed and cited in context is by listening to the entire hour. Is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a ref to a printed version of Hillary's remarks. I had to tweak the grammar of some of the text inserted in the article before google turned it up. (Demonizing >> demonizes) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

From which it can be seen that the transcription in the article is inaccurate. A clause alleging a rise in antisemitism in Europe, which does not appear in any form in the transcript you offer, has been added, as has a side comment about no nation being above criticism. This adds weight to my second point: is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question; just to be clear, I have not studied the underlying article/edit/reversion, and have no opinion on that. Was just trying to be helpful with a good link; happy consensus seeking, all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@RolandR: you bring up a good point. I can see both sides of the argument. There is no doubt that if an individual was video recorded making statements, that is sufficient proof. However, who has the time to sit through an hour + long video to confirm if in fact the statements were accurately transcribed. I have a feeling this issue has come up and been addressed before on RSN and is archived. Meatsgains (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I can find no information about the source of this video, PSB Satellite News, I am reluctant to accept it as a reliable source. How can we be sure that the recording has not been tampered with? And surely, if a personal transcript of an hour long video is to be acceptable, then the editor must be required to state at what time the words were uttered, in order that others can check this. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The immediate issue has been resolved, since someone has come up with a reliable transcription. But my original question still remains unanswered, and could easily arise another page: is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it not similar to other types of cases, for example texts on blogs that claim to be written by someone but might not be? So for example a video not posted by the person being quoted, and not posted by someone with a known reputation like a media organization, is just like a text being posted on a personal website. (And sometimes these are of concern.) I do think it is a good idea to demand cite time in the video, just as when we demand page numbers sometimes. Not sure if we can make it a totally strict rule, but anyone posting something that others have doubts about can in any case understand that if other editors doubt it, they may well remove it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the Express Tribune be considered a RS?

Express Tribune is a self-admitted censored newspaper. [9], [10] Should the following article be considered reliable? [11] The photo shows an unfinished hospital but the article claims it is treating children. There is no author, and the person who provided the interview was the project coordinator. This is a photo of the hospital taken October 2015 [12]. I'm of the mind that claims made in the Faisalabad article about it being open now, and that it is the 2nd largest children's hospital in the world are noncompliant with WP:V and possibly bordering on puffery until such information can be verified using RS. Correct? [13] Atsme^📞📧 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is indeed the second largest children's hospital in the world, surely we can find a plethora of sources substantiating that. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: thank you for your response. I agree. The October 2015 photos of a largely unfinished hospital place the onus on the editor who wants to add the information. Moving right along....Atsme^📞📧 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Need check on 80grados.net

1. Source: http://www.80grados.net/las-preferencias-de-estatus-politico-en-2014-soberanistas-independentistas-y-los-no-afiliados/
2. Article: Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)
3. Content: "Locally, the term soberanista (lit. "sovereignty supporter") refers to someone that supports reclaiming and employing the archipelago's sovereignty to eliminate any applicability of the territorial clause of the United States Constitution." and "The term soberanista is mostly used in reference to those that support a compact of free association or a variation of this formula [...]"

I have yet to find a reputable publication that uses 80grados.net as a reliable source. I need an assessment on this website as it's known as a highly politicized publication with socialist and Puerto Rican pro-independence tendencies. The only two references that I could find were from NotiCel [14] and from Claridad [15]. Claridad happens to be highly politicized as well with the same inclinations and doesn't seem to be a reliable source either.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• The source is authored by a rather large number of PhD authors (entire list here), including mainstream journalists (some of which work radio or even other written sources, such as El Nuevo Día, the largest local newspaper) and a number of PhD professors, before deciding its reliability based on a Google search, I request that whoever reviews this contacts them here for a better idea of their credentials: ochentagrados@gmail.com; Also of note is that the ideological range of the authors goes from far left to center-left, a number of them are affiliated with the PPD which is far from socialist or pro-independence and moderately conservative. Another note is that the user decided to bring the reference here after it was added likely because he felt that using the word "juvenile" was offensive, eventually taking the matter to AN/I, so I am arguing that Ahnoneemoos is already aware of the mainstream work of these authors and pursuing some sort of vindictive retribution for my "offense". El Alternativo (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• As far as Claridad goes, that one is mainstream, so of we are that concerned with "politization", El Vocero should receive the same treatment. El Alternativo (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please define 'mainstream'. El Vocero is the newspaper with the highest circulation in Puerto Rico per day. [source] Furthermore, its website is the third most visited media website in Puerto Rico. [source] That's why we consider it reliable. What facts can you reference about 80grados.net that would make us consider it a reliable source? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant. A group of PhDs do not automatically constitute a reliable publishing body. For example, WP:NEWSORG establishes that, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." You included statements published by 80grados.net that don't seem to be authoritative, but you still included as if they were facts instead of saying, "Author-so-and-so in X publication said [...]"

I will give you an example: Pedro Aponte Vázquez publishes on Claridad. That alone does not make his articles reliable. But when his articles are about Pedro Albizu Campos his publication is considered reliable because he is an authoritative figure on Albizu, having published six books on him. In a case like that, whether the article is published by Claridad or not becomes irrelevant. The author, in combination with the subject matter, give it enough weight to make the article reliable. Can you say something similar for the information you are adding from 80grados.net?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• That you feel that it requires attribution, or that it does not "fit" the statement, has nothing to do with your questioning of it as a reliable source. That is a matter of relevancy, not reliability. In any case, it is now a moot point since I took the initiative to change the language per your own concerns. Which could have been done in the first place, had you engaged me properly before bringing the reference here. El Alternativo (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post (original content) a reliable source? (2016)

So in Archive 129 there was a bit of a discussion on how HP won the Pulitzer prize in 2012 and whether we can really consider it a self-published source (especially since the last RSN discussions about HP's reliability were from 2008). I think it is time for an update to this matter circa 2016. HP is not being used as a source in the context of a BLP, rather, as a way to source popular opinions of academics and activists on white privilege. Recently, an editor has disputed HP as a reliable source. Could I solicit the consensus over HP's reliability in both this local and global context please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post has many types of articles. That piece on white privilege is an opinion piece, an essay similar to an op-ed in a newspaper. There may be some level of editorial oversight, or selection, but it may also be somewhat self-published. That piece is reliable for the opinions of its author, and it certainly has made the rounds and been widely read. SageRad (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible or practical to make a general rule about a big source like this. It is clearly a good source for some types of things. We would need to discuss real examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As ever, most sources are reliable for their own opinions cited and presented as opinions. Many parts of HuffPo are not then reliable for claims of fact presented as fact. This is also true of any "reliable source" presenting editorials and commentary columns. Collect (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster. The problem is that there are some unwritten rules out there about such large sources. Have you ever tried using the Daily Mail as a source? I did once. Just the once. The reaction was was one of the biggest ****-storms I have ever been involved in. It is clear that many editors find it totally unsuitable as a source for anything, but the naive editor does not know this until it is too late. I actually think it is practical and advantageous to have a WP-list of newspapers graded according to their overall acceptability, although I am aware many others are opposed to this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is generally considered unreliable mainly because of its consistent failure to distinguish fact from opinion, and the number of times it has been provably wrong, especially on medical topics (where it is so often wrong that there is a "Daily Mail oncological ontology project", which tracks things which the Mail claims either cause or cure cancer - many things appear on both lists). We have an article on the Daily Mail which clearly identifies why we rarely use it as a source. HuffPo does a better job of distinguishing editorial from analytical content. It has a large blog section which has no effective editorial oversight at all, but as with all newspaper blogs, even this may be accepted as reliable on a case-by-case basis if the author is a credentialled expert with a reputation for being careful over the factual accuracy of what they write. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that sources like Forbes also have blog sections that are only sufficient for sourcing the opinions of the authors, as well. I think this is actually violated quite often in Wikipedia due to the impressive weight of the Forbes brand, even though many opinion pieces published under the name are essentially blog entries and not subject to editorial discretion. So it's not only HuffPo. Note also that many pieces on HuffPo are edited and therefore some more reliability weight. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Making it even more confusing are NewsBlogs, and when I study their associated legalese in Terms and Conditions some of them look like RS-news, and others just like BLOGS. Thank god for WP:Dispute resolution and eds willing to use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps our citation style should indicate this, e.g. A. Author, (2016). New citation styles (newsblog). Huffington Post. This makes it clear that the newspaper may not actually support the statements made.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the HP is anywhere near the case of the DM, but even the DM can be used for some things, as has been discussed here many times. I do think it sounds like a good idea to mention when a blog is being used, as opposed to a more moderated part of a media website.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My preliminary take is that flagging sources blog or newsblog or blogsomething is a cop-out when we are unwilling to engage in the hard work required to vet such sources under our RS policy. Unless there's a compelling reason to see the proposal in a different light, I'd be opposed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a cop-out. It is simply identifying to readers that a source may have been through a different editorial process. After all, it might be a highly informed piece by an expert in the subject area.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While different Wikipedia:Citation templates start "cite news" or "cite book" those do not generate labeling flags that the reader sees. If there is a reason to create a "NewsBlog" citation template for as an editing tool, OK. But you're talking about putting some sort of flag on the bibliographic reference that will be visible to the reader, right? Do we do that for any other type of reference material? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No we don't. Put perhaps we should for blogs specifically. I for one am a little fed up of seeing content apparently attributed to a respectable publishing organisation only to find that when I chase the reference, it is clearly an opinion piece or a blog. I do not see any harm in labeling a source as such.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick injection of WP:RS - Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability.
• The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
• If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
• Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces

Carry on. Atsme^📞📧 03:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy... Opposed per WP:CREEP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

CREEP would apply if we start saying this needs to be a formal rule. I see no point pushing for that, but I also think noting that a source is a blog (wherever that might be ambiguous) is just good common sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) @Atsme - thanks for this. My suggestion of identifying a source as a blog relates mainly to the third of the bullet points quoted, however, it appears that the quote goes even further than my suggestion and says it should be attributed "in the text of the article". Am I incorrect to think that the "references" and "text" are different?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, if I understand your question correctly, the text of the article must be supported by the reference (cited RS), so yes they are different in that we are obliged to avoid copyvio; however, you can include a quote in the text (prose) as long as you cite it to the reference (source). Hope that helps. Atsme^📞📧 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Harriet A. Hall criticizing Michael Greger

The following lines are present in the article about physician Michael Greger:

Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence.

Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos, and found that many of the claims made were based on cherry-picked, poor-quality or insubstantial research. Hall wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".

All of the above is supported by this link alone: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/

This information was added by Alexbrn and the use of this source and whether similar wording is appropriate were discussed on the talk page for the article veganism here and here. As the result, the source was not kept in the article. --Rose (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The Hall source is in the article, and quite rightly. (more) is your problem about the Gregor article, per the heading, or the veganism article?-Roxy the dog™ woof 09:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if the link is appropriate for use in the article about Michael Greger, in the context provided. --Rose (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So glad you asked about this source, BloodyRose. No, the Science-Based Medicine blog, and Skeptics™ in general are axe-grinding ideological sources. They are not a reliable source of mainstream science (it's not even science) nor of mainstream philosophical views. It's like quoting an Ayn Rand society publication on economics. It's a fringe viewpoint. SageRad (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So would you then also say that the parts I quoted above shouldn't be in the article at all or do you think it's in line with the rules of Wikipedia to rewrite them and provide as simply the opinion of another physician backed up with the source? --Rose (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: in addition to here and Talk:Veganism, this is also being discussed at WP:FTN and Talk:Michael Greger. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Predatory journals

This is basically for information. The 2016 list of problem journals has been published. See [16] for the introductory page. It links to 4 lists: Predatory Publishers, Predatory standalone journals, Misleading metrics companies, and Hijacked journals. See also this recent article which looks particularly at OMICS. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent!! Thank you, Doug Weller. I've bookmarked it. All that remains now is remembering such a resource is available. 😊 Atsme^📞📧 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Doug. It would be great if this list was somehow given a greater profile and editors, particularly new editors, made more aware of its contents.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the 'predatory' descriptor relating to the business practices of the publisher not the reliability; although I suspect that there will be a correlation. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good job, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Daily Telegraph "Sydney Confidential" article

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/silence-of-harold-holt8217s-secret-lover-marjorie-gillespie/story-fni0cvc9-1226718819020 is being used in the Harold Holt biography, and I also placed an RfC about it there - but the issue here is whether a "Sydney Confidential" celebrity gossip piece falls under WP:RS as being a sensationalist bit of reportage a la tabloids. The claim for which it is being used (and which its proponent is absolutely insistent) is the highly important fact: Also on the beach was Holt's lover of the time, Marjorie Gillespie.

Are such articles covered by RS policy as being usable? The author's nom de plume is "Annette Sharp." She has been criticized in many places for her "journalism."[17] [18] [19] inter alia.

Even the Daily Mail carps on Sharp [20] "Daily Telegraph journalist Annette Sharp eventually owned up to the piece."

The Daily Telegraph calls her a gossip columnist directly and she wrote ""Hello. I'm Annette Sharp and I am a gossip columnist."

Under what circumstances can a self-described "gossip column" be used as a source of fact as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So the issue is - are self-described gossip columns a "reliable source" for claims of fact? See also the Talk:Harold Holt RfC which is a very low-readership page <g>. Collect (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say not to use this source for this information, and generally not to use it at all. There may be contexts in which it is appropriate to use it with an in-text attribution, such as extremely lightweight claims or if the article has a section that specifically addresses the Holt's portrayal in the media, it might be appropriate to say, "According to Daily Telegraph gossip columnist Annette Sharp, so-and-so was doing-such-and-such. This was corroborated by source X but contradicted by source Y" and only then if the rest of the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that the matter is in doubt.Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A Crime Magazine article

• Source. Crime Magazine article "Japanese POW Vivisections Admitted (photos)"[21].
• Article. Unit 731.
• Content. Caption to a picture in the Vivisection section, which reads "An unidentified victim of Unit 731"[22]
• Previous discussion. Talk:Unit 731/Archive 1#Image:Unit 731 victim.jpg

Is this Crime Magazine article a reliable source? And does it verify that this is a photograph of "an unidentified victim of Unit 731"?--Dwy (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. The magazine is under editorial control and the article cite the book Disgrace: The Truth Behind the Vivisection at Kyushu University, which is also cited by other sources.- MrX 13:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Author is "Eponymous Rox" - no way can it be used - it is an anonymous blog post at best, and its close: "It seems that grisly information was somehow vital to America’s chemical and biological weapons development." makes clear it is a blog post for sure. See if the book itself meets RS - the blog absolutely fails. Collect (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Come on. This is World War II, there are thousands of clearly reliable academic sources available for most aspects of the conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Have you tried using Google image search to find other sites that might discuss this photograph? Here are instructions. [23] Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of official document compiled from submissions

At Manitonquat (a BLP), there is discussion of a source https://www.bja.gov/Publications/InCustodyPrograms.pdf We have a consensus that this US-government distributed leaflet is a compilation of non-fact checked material from third parties (including Manitonquat, or a closely related party). The text of the leaflet is thus largely out of bounds. However, I'd like to use the inclusion of Manitonquat's material as to say:

As part of a project called Mettanokit, Manitonquat has worked in prison rehabilitation.

or

Manitonquat has worked in prison rehabilitation.

Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A lightweight source can be appropriate for a lightweight claim. But if the fact that Manitonquat has worked in prison rehabilitation is lightweight, wouldn't it be corroborated elsewhere?

The page that mentions Manitonquat posts a link to his book. That link is broken, but I've found it here. [24] Any chance you could use this one instead? It's self-published but considering that all you're trying to say is that the author worked on the program, it could be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If the claim is not unduly self-serving in context and does not make any claims about third parties, you could even use Manitonquat's own web site for this under the same rule. It says he's directed prison programs.[25] Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a billion self published and unreliable sources that he's worked in prisons, we just _really_ don't want to use them because there's a lot of other sourcing issues in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Were they self-published by the same person or circle of people? This 2006 article in Free Republic is attributed to Manchester Union Leader. It mentions Manitonquat in passing under the name "Medicine Story." The original might be available in a library somewhere (Union Leader's own site archive only goes back five years). But you've got a point. If the pickings are this sparse, the article needs a look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MusicBrainz

MusicBrainz is, if I read it correctly, basically a wiki (a good one, but still a wiki). is it comparable to, say, IMDb, or is it truly a reliable source? I'm asking because I was quite amazed to find MusicBrainz as one of the supported parameters in Wikipedia:Authority control, which wsa initially restricted to truly top-level sources like the Library of Congress and the German National Library. Something like the VIAF is created by national libraries from all over the world; MusicBrainz is created by you and me. I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Authority control so they can chime in here as well. Fram (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Two separate issues: (a) Wikipedia:Authority control isn't actually about sourcing the information in the article (if info is drawn from those sources in needs to be referenced) and (b) you are correct, MusicBrainz doesn't do Authority control in the normal sense, but the consensus was that it should be added to the template. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to MusicBrainz, thus not reliable and shouldn't be used as a reference here. Meatsgains (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Authority control isn't about sourcing? Adding a site to "authority control" certainly gives the impression that it is a reliable source for the information. And could you point me to the consensus discussion about that addition please? It doesn't seem to have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Authority control or Help talk:Authority control, where I would expect such a discussion to happen.

From Help:Authority control, intro section: "Authority control enables researchers to search more easily for pertinent information on the subject of an article, without needing to disambiguate the subject manually. For example, authority control is used on music articles so that the information in the article can be easily cross-referenced with the popular MusicBrainz database." (emphasis mine) Cross-referencing the info from the article with Musicbrainz certainly sounds as if it is considered an extra-special reliable source for the info, one that gets added to an authoritative template by us. Fram (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Authority control is a term of art in librarianship which pre-dates computerisation. The discussion happened at Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_3#Adding_MusicBrainz_artist_ids. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that discussion link. As for the "authority control", the end result is that all music pages eventually get a link to one specific (good) musicwiki, in an authoritative-looking box, as if it is a reliable site endorsed by Wikipedia. That it is used by Wikidata is irrelevant (or even a counterindication): Wikidata also provides a Findagrave link on all biographies of dead people, even though Findagrave is a site we definitely don't want linked in most cases. There doesn't seem to be any purpose in having an "authority control" if the authority controller is not a reliable site; and indicating on the Help page that this is used for cross-referencing information is even worse. Fram (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping us from adding links to the authority control template that by default don't display on wikipedia, but update wikidata. Personally I'd like to see some of the country links not display if VIAF is present (VIAF aggregates other authority control systems). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Any idea where best to have the discussion about this (or more general which authority sources are acceptable in Wikipedia display)? A template talk page is not the right place in my opinion, it should be used for technical issues only, not for more profound, content-based discussions. A Village Pump Policy RFC perhaps? Fram (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The place the discussion is held is irrelevant, but certainly cross-posting announcements is important. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I've started the RfC discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control, you are all invited to comment of course. Fram (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Kasaragod article

Hello— I am requesting review of the Kasaragod article, as there are ongoing issues with unreliable sources and original research. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from AN. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I dropped off a few sources. I see that several years ago there was a dispute about how prevalent each language is and that this may have some political ramifications. Is this still the issue? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian nationalist sites

Are Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com reliable sources? They are openly Albanian nationalist, using Greater Albania and Kosovo Liberation Army in their banners, articles cites no sources, no author, and are used by an user, Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · count), in several articles. --Zoupan 09:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment::I actually use http://www.elsie.de, a Canadian writer and author. Other sources: http://www.radiokosovaelire.com/?nav=70,2&id=14011 , An Albanian source for example referring to Zhuj Selmani article. For Plava and Gucia-article, i use mentioned articles and also journalist pages such as http://koha.net/?id=27&l=13602 "Time". This as well: http://www.zeriamerikes.com/media/video/2981252.html "Expulsion of Albanians from Gucia and Plava". These pages are not nationalist, they write about the albanian history. There is nothing irredentist or nationalist about this. I've provided sources and authors in my articles. --Albanian Historian (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:So i don't flood this page about interests and stuff, send me a message on my talkpage. You seem to be interested in topics that also interest me and can discuss sources etc. Look at my userpage to see if your interests overlap with with mine. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The Albaniapress.com has a folkloric dance scene, Mother Teresa, and a image of Tirana as well on its banner. It is a portal for Albanian diaspora and they publish articles from Albanian media worldwide. The article you refer is in the "History" section and has an author: Jeton Ahmeti (as I mentioned, this article was initially published elsewhere). There is not necessary anything wrong with the article. Of course it sees things on the Albanian point of view, but any emotional color can be easily removed. That's for the article. The portal includes a vast number of articles on today's events, politics, culture, literature, etc, not necessary an unreliable source. Depends what you are looking for. Since it is a portal for Albanian diaspora, it has the KLA flag on it, but the articles' authors are not the portals admins and vice versa. Also, we have to see the context. The article is not about KLA or any other recent event.
The Malsia.eu section has short biographies for key Albanian participants from the League of Prizren, focused on the ones hailing from today's Montenegro and eastern Kosovo. It is ok as far as it is used for less important biographies. For sure it can be not used in sensitive articles, or the ones that need precise academic sources, i.e the Origin of Albanians or Scanderbeg. But for the biography of a local Albanian chieftain it shouldn't be an issue, unless someone has better sources which contradict.--Mondiad (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask you who this Jeton Ahmeti is? Is he reliable? No. The question here is if the sites and their publications are reliable, not what their subject is.--Zoupan 13:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:I'll take care of the Luma page. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: care to comment on the actual thread? Are these sources reliable?--Zoupan 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:I personally would not use those sites to reference the article. I do agree with Mondiad that at least some of these articles were published in other sources, and as is often the case that Albanian websites and media outlets often don't care about copyright or permission from authors to publish. I suggest that better sources, or the academic sources from where some of those articles where originally published be cited. As for the article per se, i have placed in there wp:reliable and wp:secondary regarding the uprising and massacres. There is no doubt that a uprising took place in Luma in 1913 and that the Serb army undertook a reprisal campaign that was scorch earth resulting in mass massacres of the population. That part i cited in the article which is the controversial part. What the article lacks (and it is on the onus of other editors who began the article) is to place proper references regarding the events on when the uprising began until its conclusion that gave way to the massacres. For the time being, tags for references should be placed next to the appropriate sentences needing them before any deletion occurs so editors know what to look for over some time. The article is still very new and probably should go on noticeboards of the various wikiprojects for better editor input.Resnjari (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about an article. I am talking about sources that the user uses in several articles. Please concentrate on the thread, the subject being these sites.--Zoupan 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally would not use those sites. Also i don't know if those articles on those websites were printed in an academic journal/s o\r a chapter in a a edited academic book in Albania or Kosovo and then people from those sites just took it upon themselves to "publish" it. Like i said, the onus is on the editor who has used those sites to vouch for these articles (if printed in another wp:reliable and wp:secondary source and place the reference accordingly. Of all the sources available to me, ironically it is mainly Albanian ones that i lack access too so i cannot check outright. Like i said, the onus is on the editor who used the sources in the first place. Otherwise, the article may be in need of a overhaul. Check to see if you come across stuff in Serbian sources on the Luma thing. I tried looking for stuff (i typed Ljuma, ustanak, bitka, 1913 etc to see if stuff came up even in Cyrillic. You may know better keywords to look for information.Resnjari (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never mentioned Battle of Lumë. That article is not the subject of this thread. Again, I am not talking about an or any article — I am talking about reliable sources. The thread was made with the intention to stop the inclusion of such sources in WP, as I believe them to be highly unreliable; I have listed these two above. The problematic sources are/were used in copyvio "The Expulsion of Albanians" (deleted), Gusinje (see diff), Plav (see diff), AfD The Defense of Plava and Gucia, and linked in Çun Mula. Can we safely conclude that these are not reliable sources?--Zoupan 07:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Albanian Historian: needs to give details about where some of those articles come from (or pinched from academic sources in those websites). Were those articles based in academic publications and can their source/s be located? In general though i would not use those websites as they are not wp:reliable and wp:secondary. On a related though separate matter, I am curious now about a deleted article you cite there called "The Expulsion of Albanians". What was it about (contents etc) ? When was it deleted and which Admin did it? And what was the reason for it being deleted?Resnjari (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Copyright violation of Miloš Jagodić, see his talk page.--Zoupan 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i looked into it and from what i gather on the editor's talkpage he was warned about plagiarizing. Still the events of 1878 regarding the Albanians of Nish Sanjak could have been revamped instead of the article being deleted. Jagodic is not the only source for those events. I know the scholarship very well about Ottoman Muslims and their persecution. Anyway that will have to wait. Since the editor regarding the issues her ehas not replied, its most likely the Luma article will need a trim. First off before that is done, place tags at sentences which you think need sources. Like this other editors can know what to look for regarding sources to at least fill in some of that gap.Resnjari (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian nationalist websites are of course not reliable sources and should never be used anywhere on wikipedia. This whole debate is surreal. WP:RS is very clear: reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Albanian nationalist websites, as all nationalist websites, are not third-party, they are self-published, and they most certainly do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", in fact the opposite. The fact that some users are actually trying to defend these websites shows there is something deeply wrong with their understanding of what a reliable source is, whether intentionally or not. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear i do not defend such websites. I have noted that such websites also do copyright violations of Albanian academia by publishing their works at times (almost always without permission). My question to the editor who placed those sources is can the original publication be located and referenced as such to the author. So far no reply has been given and some trimming will most likely order for the Luma article. Please do not call other peoples understanding "deeply wrong". See: wp:civil. Just point out the polices for them to have a look like i did. The editor using those sites is new. I had to clean up earlier last year in the history section, plagiarism (for the Roudmentof source) and the use of nationalist websites(well copied and pasted from without it being cited from Serbianna.com, though i located it in the end) for the Chams Albanian page. That stuff had been left to fester for more than two years and had been missed by experienced editors who are the first to point out some Albanian sources are an issue. For now a reply is needed from the editor who used those sources and to address the questions i have placed to him. Absent that, the Luma article will need some rewriting.Resnjari (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable. The discussion in this thread is rather confusing, since most of the posts seem to be digressions from the initial question. The answer is an unqualified No, those sites are not reliable. If they should happen to write stuff that can be verified by other sources that are reliable, then those sources must be used instead. --T*U (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:There is still no reply from @Albanian Historian:. Absent that, then one of the articles will need a rewrite and content based on those sites regarding deletion was in line with wp:reliable as they were not wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Summing up, Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com are not reliable.--Zoupan 18:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment:One the Luma article, add tags, where necessary, first to see if information can be located before a massive rewrite occurs.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. It's just amazing how people have no idea what the subject of discussion is.--Zoupan 14:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan i am aware of the problems with the websites and have made my views known in the above comments. Most of the content used for articles has been deleted based on those sites. I want to make sure from the editor who used them if these articles within those sites have come from actual wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources and have been in a way copied and pasted onto those sites since we are having a wide ranging discussion here. I have ping the editor in question and so far still have not heard anything. Will wait a few days more.Resnjari (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, just because they have the KLA somewhere in thebanner, does not make them not reliable per se. They cannot be used for articles of a certain importance and size, but for simple biographical articles why not. As long as there are no controversies and POV, part of the material can be used.--Mondiad (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This kind of nationalistic sites should be removed without any second thought, they are by far the worst kind of references per wp:HISTRS and in straight violation of wp:RS. I'm afraid there are a lot of them in Albanian-related articles. Thus a major clean-up is needed. I appreciate Resnjari's initiative to replace them with decent citations.Alexikoua (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. With some of these sites though they literally copy and paste from academic sources articles etc. Its why i was asking Albanianhistorian to at least track down if possible the source/s of those articles, as i tried so very hard to find them without success. Still there is only one of me to do so. All assistance is appreciated. Anyway, if you thought removing such problematic sources on English Wikipedia was a headache, you should see the mess on Albanian Wikipedia. Its crazy (and that is an understatement). lol ! Its why i only stick to editing village articles there. The task for other articles is just ridiculous. Anyway with the Luma article on Eng. Wiki., tags should be placed on bits that need sources to start remedying the situation.Resnjari (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable - These sites are simply not reliable. Like an above user has already mentioned, they are nationalistic websites and violate wp:HISTRS and should never be used anywhere on Wikipedia. They are not qualified under Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. If the content written in these websites is supported by other reliable sources, then those sources should be used instead. These sites should not be trusted. Hope this gets cleared up. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

NFL Logo Slick

• Source Personal One drive account Pick6 at the URL https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=3a02b2168abfb129&page=view&resid=3A02B2168ABFB129!150&parId=3A02B2168ABFB129!134&authkey=!ABjre5igApB349A&app=WordPdf&wacqt=undefined
• Article Kansas City Chiefs
• Content Official team colors in Infobox (edit and source is no longer live on article)
• Previous discussion 2 active previous discussions exist one at one on User talk:Charlesaaronthompson#Kansas City Chiefs and Talk:Kansas City Chiefs/Archive 1#RFC Dispute over reliable source.--Rockchalk717 04:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this counts as user-generated. Can Pick6's real identity be confirmed?

The other editor says that it was found in a forum thread. Usually, forums aren't reliable sources. Is there a reason why this one would be different? The information seems very detailed and thorough, but it could just be a very energetic fan. Is this some kind of official account? Otherwise, what I'd do is read Pick6's post for information and to learn what to look for in RS elsewhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: The other editor's argument for it is that user got it from NFLMedia.com which is an official page of the National Football League, however, I attempted to locate it on that website and it is nowhere to be found. I think it would be a wonderful source if we can find it on a website that would be considered a reliable source. As I told him on his talkpage, this individual URL is a website that got it from another site and that site got it from a reliable source.--Rockchalk717 05:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's probably available with registration.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that Pick6's role in Wikipedia sourcing is as a "heads-up; this exists" and not as a source him or herself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Pick6 shouldn't be treated as an RS per se. It's akin to finding text on Wikipedia that you want to reuse; don't treat it as necessarily reliable, but you can use the sources it cited to get the information directly.—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to locate the origin source that Charlesaaronthompson mentions but it's nowhere to be found. That person on that thread he mentions a specific webpage, but if you go to that site, you get redirected to NFL Communications main page.--Rockchalk717 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The origin source I found is NFLMedia.com; however, the source now redirects to NFLCommunications.com (I don't know why). The source is the specific webpage. I have tried to ask other people on the Internet where to find an official URL for the Kansas City Chiefs' logo slick; so far, I have not received any responses. I have also contacted the Chiefs' PR Department on Twitter; I have not heard back from them. My guess is the NFLCommunications.com webpage is password-protected. The only thing necessary is a URL; as Bagumba (talk) has pointed out to me, it is not appropriate to post credentials here. So as long as another editor can find an official URL with the same information (w/o listing credentials), that should probably be listed in the infobox of the Chiefs' main article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

On an additional note, I have noticed a similar sources on other team pages.--Rockchalk717 06:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ancient.eu

WP has several dozen references to it. It is an online encyclopedia under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, so, as a wikipedian at first I was OK with it. However after I checked credentials of some of its contributors I realized they are guys just like us, with no particular authority. Therefore , since it is a tertiary source, i.e. interpretations of interpretations, I am asking for an opinion from the community whether wikipedia should rely on it. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked their article Aristippus of Cyrene for an example. It does have an author attributed and that author's, Joshua Mark's, credentials are given: A freelance writer and part-time Professor of Philosophy at Marist College, New York, Joshua J. Mark has lived in Greece and Germany and traveled through Egypt. He teaches ancient history, writing, literature, and philosophy. (There's more on his bio page.[26]) That means he's an probably an adjunct (not tenured or on track for tenure) with at least a master's degree. Whether that makes him an expert... I mean, I've got a master's degree in world history but that doesn't make me an RS-level authority on, say, sociology, for all that I happen to know a good deal about it. I'd go case-by-case basis on this one. Consider every article the user-generated or self-published content of that author, and evaluate per WP:SPS's and WP:USERG's expert criteria. For example, if Joshua Mark has been published elsewhere, I'd say this article is usable.

Contributor Cristian Violatti, however, is listed as a freelance writer, currently studying Archaeology at the University of Leicester, England. He is a regular contributor and one of the editors of Ancient History Encyclopedia, so I wouldn't use his articles, not unless it can be affirmatively shown that his work has been published, which might be the case if he's an advanced PhD candidate.

Another thing: Because ancient.eu lists its sources at the bottom of the page (like we do), it would definitely be suitable to use it to find reliable sources. That is, even an ancient.eu article that is not itself usable might have a source that is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This raises a semi-interesting question. It's not WP:UGC in the exact same sense WP or IMDb are – editable by random people. It's also not self-published like someone's personal blog. But it's not of the calibre of a professionally produced encyclopedia, nor even an independently organized conference or Festschrift with the same researchers who'd be at a university-organized one presenting the same papers. I think it has to be treated like Citizendium and AllExperts.com and Academia.edu and other "experts" group-self-publishing sites (and we also need to be treating arXiv this way, for anything that doesn't actually get accepted into a real journal): It's a borderline SPS, but we can probably treat it as a middling-quality primary source. The editorial control doesn't really seem to be there at all; what there is, is editorial permission. The gatekeeper is not an editor checking the content and the research behind it are of superb quality, it's some kind of baseline level of [alleged] credential-checking. So, it's much like papers presented at typical conference (not computer science ones, which tend to be more rigorous than journals; think humanities academic conference). This category of stuff is clearly less rigorously gate-kept than publication of primary resarch in high-end journals (which are primary sources, but high-quality ones compared to blogs and the like). I concur with the point that regardless of the answer to the main question, this site's articles are liable to ID sources we can us ourselves (though we don't know what kind of criteria they use for selecting them, so we have to run them through our own WP:RS and WP:PSTS checklists).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic and similar sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Introduction

I have noted how widely Skeptic™ sources have been being pushed into articles. This includes articles from CSICOP and Skeptic and associated websites like Dr Gorski's Science-Based Medicine and Steven Novella's websites/writings, and the like. These are pervasive in Wikipedia, and yet they're not pervasive in the world at large. It's like a subculture has been having an undue influence on Wikipedia in general, to very detrimental effect on the state of the encyclopedia. I see these sources as interesting subculture publications, sort of like Ayn Rand followers' subculture of "objectivist philosophers" or like any other very small but ideologically oriented subculture. And yet, these sources are being added across the board on Wikipedia, and used to transform good articles into attack pieces on their subjects. It's a serious thing happening here, and i do not think it serves the readers. Skepticism is great. I am a deep skeptic about everything. However, the Skeptic™ subculture is not as skeptical as it claims to be. It's more a grouping of ideological suppositions with a subtle political agenda. I do not think being a "skeptic" in that sense is a professional title equivalent to "physicist" or "historian", and it does not deserve prominence in being cited in numerous articles all over Wikipedia. This pattern is distorting human knowledge. We need to discuss whether Skeptic magazine and all related Skeptic™ publications are really reliable sources on all the topics about which they write. I hold that they're generally only reliable sources about the ideological positions of the Skeptic™ movement itself, as they're generally POV-pushing tracts. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're so widespread on Wikipedia, has there never been a discussion about whether they should be used? --Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought so, but it appears not really. This in 2009 and this in 2008 but otherwise, not really much on this noticeboard that comes from a search on "Skeptic" before those links. I would think it needs a pretty serious and nuanced discussion. SageRad (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not very familiar with this magazine but the tendencies described remind me quite a lot of a period where I tried to work on topics connected to Intelligent Design after I discovered it was one of the only philosophy articles with an FA status. I like to edit on history of science and philosophy topics. Going to look, I found that it was a poor article, not a valid FA, where there was almost constant debate which was keeping discussions of the obvious links to philosophical topics out of it in order to protect our readers from getting a too positive feeling about Intelligent Design by letting it for example be associated with Aristotle or "normal" Christianity (even though it clearly is in reliable sources). This is stated openly on occasion on the talk page, along with a lot of other things that seem completely opposed to the Wikipedia "way". It has put me off Wikipedia editing quite a lot when I realized that Wikipedia has no real defense mechanism on such editors, as long as they play the system. So yes, I do think that the difficulty people have distinguishing between using the reliable sources, and taking a "scientific" side in popular culture wars, looks like it may be a growing cancer in Wikipedia. We do not seem to have come up with the right ways of discussing this. There are obviously a lot of Wikipedians who feel they can best serve by being foot soldiers for science, though they do not understand how it works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find sources for any "Skeptic™ movement". Any chance of being specific and not so sweeping? Which articles use what sources for what purposes? Doug Weller talk 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Hopefully these old posts will help answer your question about a "Skeptic™ movement":

• How's this for advocacy/astroturfing? Susan Gerbic speaks about controlling a team of "guerrilla skeptics" on WP to promote a "skeptical ideology" (scientism coupled with fanatic atheism) in Wikipedia articles. It's supported by the James Randi Foundation and includes at least 90 editors. They organize on Facebook and elsewhere off-WP to take control of pre-determined pages, attacking critics and adorning those of fellow believers. I hear them echoed on almost every talk page I visit these days. petrarchan47 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)"
• "Did [you] watch the beginning of the video “Susan Gerbic Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia JREF Workshop” mentioned above by Petrarchan47? I watched the first 8 minutes. The purpose of the workshop and recruitment is not to create NPOV articles or improve them. Gerbic indicates that people she urged to edit grew tired of annoying things like having to do research for an article, so instead she gives her team of 90 editors in 17 languages a resource such as any article from Skeptic Magazine, and she asks editors to find a place to add the material. Both she and D. J. Grothe (president of the James Randi Educational Foundation) say that it is activism, marketing and outreach to expand and recruit new people to the skeptic movement and ideology, and that Wikipedia is an excellent "tool", because most skeptics are not very good at marketing and "punking" or "something like that"; instead, skeptics can use Wikipedia as a "tool" to do their marketing in the safety and comfort of their home. So you both feel that is okay for the skeptic movement to use Wikipedia to recruit more people to their movement and ideology this way? Would it be okay for Christians, Scientologists, gamblers, mountain climbers or anti-GMO activists to do the same? David Tornheim (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)"

So what? GSoW is very late to the party, and not that big, and Wikipedia has 15 years' experience of people coming here with an agenda looking to promote their POV. As it happens, GSoW editors are probably more successful than, say, homeopathy fans, for the simple reason that their agenda is much more likely to be in line with Wikipedia's ethos, but the skeptical movement is over half a century old and much ore concerned with the real world than with Wikipedia. I know people who have spent many hundreds of hours and quite large sums of money working to get quacks prosecuted. They have been viciously attacked for this. That's the reality of skeptical activism: it's science activism. It's only controversial when people have a strongly-held belief that is contradicted by science. Again, homeopathy fans are the ones I encounter most often and are also, funnily enough, the most likely to try to poison the well by using terms of art like "Skeptic™". Guy (Help!) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see this warning to SageRad that challenging skeptic sources--even if they are not RS--is ill-advised: "I think you need to be careful because opposing skeptical sources will gain vocal support from a number of bad actors, trolls, cranks and POV-pushers, and you are at risk of putting yourself into one or more of the same categories". here As an admin. shouldn't you be more focused on addressing this bad behavior of the "bad actors" you are reporting on than warning others to be afraid of them, which in effect is condoning the "bad actor's" their behavior? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources associated with what you describe as the "Skeptic Movement" are pretty reliable. The philosophical backbone of these sources, including ScienceBasedMedicine.org and publications by the Center for Inquiry, is based on evaluating the evidence available, considering scientific plausibility, and demanded evidence for remarkable claims. I'd say they essentially reflect WP:FRINGE. The Skeptical Inquirer is one such publication that has a peer review process as described by its editorial board: The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript. [27]

The list of fellows and staff is impressive.[28] I understand that these publications are at least as good as major news sources if not better as they provide an emphasis on scientific consensus and fair balance, rather than false balance that is often seen in news. Delta13C (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be reliable. We need to evaluate if they are indeed reliable. We also need to evaluate whether they have a particular point of view to be aware of.

That quote shows a call to authors to be reliable, but it doesn't show a peer review process per se, as far as I can tell.

Most importantly, though, I hold that the website has an ideological bent and it's publications are ideologically loaded generally. Sure, they make many good points, but they also lack balance and nuance. It's as if an Ayn Rand "objectivist" publication were being used throughout Wikipedia as a mainsteam reliable source, and not attributed as subcultural thing it would actually be. SageRad (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can claim to be reliable. And this being an area where science is important, anyone can also check the credentials of the CSI Fellows and reviewers. Google some of them. Look how many have academic affiliations. Look them up on Scopus. Who can you think of who is more reliable than Edzard Ernst when it comes to assessing the accuracy of a claim made by a homeopath? I can't think of anyone. I suspect the problem is that you have identified a small subset of the skeptical movement which accepts a scientific consensus with which you disagree. The thing is, if the science is wrong, it will self-correct, and they will change their views accordingly. This is the core difference between science and bullshit.

In the field of medicine and related claims, the skeptical movement is essentially the intersection between science and consumer protection. I was part of a small group whose work led to the conviction of two cancer quacks in the UK a couple of years ago, and Rhys Morgan is famous for highlighting the scam that is Miracle Mineral Solution. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Their 'ideological bent' is an ideology which is perfectly parallel with that of WP: reliable sources, verifiability and transparency. Besides which, skeptics align themselves with the scientific consensus (for the same reasons that scientists come to a consensus). For articles on subjects about which skeptical sources routinely write, they may be in the minority among popular publications, but they represent a summary of expert opinions, meaning that excising them due to the movement's relatively small size would be an exercise in lending undue weight to a number of fringe theories. Finally, there's the fact that many scientists and physicians are drawn to, and write for the movement, making their works reliable on the basis of their expertise, regardless of medium. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Any source can be good for something, so we need to look at the case. That is the established position of this message board, but leaves open the real concern I think was being made. This is probably the wrong forum for this discussion, but part of the problem is that we have none on WP? The comments of User:Delta13C are not necessarily wrong, but missing the point. There is a difference between taking a position and reporting one. Wikipedia is supposed to do the second. (That is the mission we set ourselves.) We can report opinions as opinions, but if we use opinion sources but report them as if expert consensus, because they are on the "side" of science, we are making a mistake in our understanding of science (and knowledge) as well as WP policy. In the example I mentioned above, WP has tended to use weak pro-science sources, such as an essay by a young biologist who had not yet published anything else, as a source for a history of science position. But as the talk page shows, the biologist was chosen because editors believe WP needs be part of the fight. It was openly stated that statements by better quality sources concerning Intelligent Design having a pedigree should be avoided in order not to let it look more legitimate, because connected to something old. Searching the editing of related articles and the editors who prowl them was very depressing, showing that this is a widely accepted approach now on WP. The core content policies tell us what to do, but no one is doing it in these specific types of cases (where science is seen as having a side). A lot of Wikipedia editors simply can't easily understand in many of these cases, and they are pushing the wrong way. That is in any case the point I understood was being made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an important and subtle conversation. Yes, Wikipedia is "aligned" with science in that science produces a great amount of reliable sources about the nature of reality. However, Skeptic subculture often uses the language of science without the necessary depth and subtlety, to push an agenda, and without the necessary expertise in the various subjects, and without the same level of peer review and all the rest. To use science as a reliable source, cite science. We don't need to cite Skeptic blogs. If some editors use Skeptic sources as guides in thinking and finding reliable sources, so be it, but they are not necessarily reliable sources in themselves any more than my grandma's blog. Note that I am a skeptic too. Just not that kind. SageRad (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If some editors use Skeptic sources as guides in thinking and finding reliable sources, so be it, but they are not necessarily reliable sources in themselves any more than my grandma's blog. Many skeptical sources (such as Skeptic Magazine) would be a far more reliable source than your grandmother's blog. That being said, I agree that a source which identifies itself as a skeptical source is not necessarily reliable.

To use science as a reliable source, cite science. This, I agree with wholeheartedly. But the implication that skeptical sources are pushing an agenda which isn't necessarily aligned with the science is completely wrong. Their agenda is that science is the most accurate means of establishing knowledge, a position which WP shares. For established skeptical sources such as the magazine I mentioned above, the effort to verify that the skeptic is aligned with science is pointless, because the answer will be yes in each case. However, if someone is citing the blog of a well-known, but un-credentialed skeptic, I think the effort might be worth it. Dr. Gorski, for example, might be a reliable source when it comes to surgical oncology, but if he writes a blog post about ghosts and ESP, citing him would be in error. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just read the Information for Authors of the Skeptical Inquirer[29]. It contains the following.The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. I find this rather worrying as it suggests peer-review is not routine.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: Regarding blogs, The Skeptic states[30] Once familiar with our systems, regular contributors will be able to self-publish blog posts. This suggests to me that there is no editorial input whatsoever for these blogs. I can find no mention that contributions are peer-reviewed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't know how insightful my grandma can be.  :) SageRad (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: You don't know how insightful my grandma can be.  :) lol Touche. And if she has the credentials, then she's as reliable as any other expert.

@DrChrissy: You are correct about that. Claims that Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer are peer reviewed are spurious, and a misunderstanding of the peer review process as it is used in scientific publications. I'm fairly certain there are some scientific journals devoted to skeptical inquiry into fringe science claims, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. The sources we've been discussing are all either expert blogs, or journalistic in nature. They need to be approached and considered as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Hm. "This, I agree with wholeheartedly. But the implication that skeptical sources are pushing an agenda which isn't necessarily aligned with the science is completely wrong." Logically not true. Being sceptical would more or less mean not pushing an agenda, let alone be any kind of guarantee of pushing some kind of "science agenda". Indeed, real science, as part of the nature of what science is, does not push an agenda? Sceptics who fight for science are not at that time practicing science. And this is even wrong on a third level, because those people not practicing science when they fight for it are not even helping science if they effectively demand faith in someone's idea of science. This is where WP sometimes seems to go. So it is not even clear what a "science agenda" would look like, except on trivial matters. (Please note I am a very sceptical and pro science atheist by the way.) Separate point: this should not just be about science, but about expertise generally. Note my example about a biologist opinion piece being cited concerning a history of ideas subject. But subjects even touching science have the problem I am referring to: crude thinking on WP about this leads to it being easy to game the system if you paint yourself as pro-science, and anyone you disagree with as being soft on "fringe", even if the subject is, say, Aristotle or the history of religion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to make things even more interesting, The Skeptical Inquirer lists on its members of staff, the highly respected academics Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins. Both these have supported Memetics, a subject which is actually on our List of topics characterized as pseudoscience! Does this mean Blackmore and Dawkins are/were pro-pseudoscience, or perhaps memetics should not be on the list?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Being sceptical would more or less mean not pushing an agenda, let alone be any kind of guarantee of pushing some kind of "science agenda". Actually, you can read the statements made by a number of these magazines, and see that they do have an agenda. That agenda is invariably something along the lines of "We, as a society and as individuals, should make our decisions based on facts and evidence, not superstition and intuition." That is an agenda, even if it is a laudable and valuable one.

And this is even wrong on a third level, because those people not practicing science when they fight for it are not even helping science if they effectively demand faith in someone's idea of science. I am unaware of any insistence on the part of any respected skeptic or writer for a respected skeptical publication who has ever insisted that we have faith in one particular person's ideas of science. In fact, skepticism is quite the opposite insistence. Skepticism, in fact, relies upon taking the word of others only when one's knowledge is not sufficient to make a determination on one's own, when the other in question is an acknowledged expert in the subject and when the claims of the expert in question are uncontroversial and generally accepted by other experts. For instance, skepticism generally asserts that those without medical expertise listen to the advice of their doctors, but no reputable skeptic would insist that Dr. Oz is thus a reliable source for medical information.

@DrChrissy:Just to make things even more interesting, The Skeptical Inquirer lists on its members of staff, the highly respected academics Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins. Memetics is currently a controversial theory with no clear scientific consensus on its validity (that I am aware of). Basic principles of informal logic mean that while we may accept Dawkins' and Blackmore's expertise in their relevant fields, we should not accept as fact anything they (or their opponents) state about memetics, until such time as a scientific consensus has been achieved. We cannot dismiss science and scientists simply because they are not in complete lockstep agreement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, please don't take my comment regarding Dawkins and Blackmore too seriously. I was simply pointing to a rather whimsical incongruence that using WP's interpretation of pseudoscience, one of the foremost biologists of modern times could be labeled as a pseudoscientist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Duly noted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I think you are missing the point. (At least the one I was making, which I think is the same one which was originally being made.)

• Firstly, yes I can accept that the very general "sceptical science agenda" which you identify above is compatible with the "encyclopedic agenda" which WP has, broadly speaking. But where do we go from there? In practice, this theoretical observation leads editors to highly simplified approaches to editing, whereby anything which is pro-scepticism, and anti fringe, is seen as part of the RS corpus for pretty much anything. We even see this logic extended, whereby we should use the most polemic pro-science source, and not the best source in terms of fact checking and other qualifications we would normally use. I am simply saying that being more aggressively and simplistically "pro-science" is not one of the things which makes a source better in terms of WP:RS.
• Secondly, you write as if my concern is about those sources as such. But I am criticizing Wikipedians. Scientists writing polemics are often very useful sources for WP, and I have nothing against that genre, but the problem being pointed to is the wrong use of such sources by Wikipedians, even to the deliberate exclusion of more appropriate sources. The issue is censorship, gaming the system by hiding behind words like science and fringe.

The example I gave was the use of text from an opinion polemic piece written for a US debate on evolution teaching, by a non-notable biologist as a source for a questioned point concerning the history of old ideas. Rejected for use were essays and books published by very notable academics from the field in question, because using them might (supposedly) make our readers question the wrong things and get confused. It was censorship, extending to demands that even linking to other articles about the history of the relevant ideas should not be too clear and easy. I have no idea where the article is at these days, but similar approaches have been used for years, despite lots of objections by many editors. But the approach seems to be accepted by many. I found there has been quite open discussion, at least historically, about how this censorship and walling off of subjects is needed in order to protect our readers from developing the wrong opinions. I already mentioned the argument that mentioning the link with Aristotle might give the topic too much respectability. How do we all feel about that approach? Another example is the argument that it is important to make sure Christians readers of WP are given the explanation that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Again, this can only be sourced from polemic pieces, often by biologists, not from experts on what defines Christianity or the history of teleology in philosophy and religion. (As a matter of fact, if you remove the teleological understanding of nature from Christianity a lot of theologians are going to question whether this is still Christianity. There is no consensus that you can do this.)

My questioning of this approach, which is apparently commonly accepted on WP, is by no means a criticism of those sources, or any kind of indication that I want to defend fringe theories! Basically this way of using such sources is a way to get your own opinions in WP, while draped in the flag of science.

In the end the main message is simple: we should really use the core content policies and not give special rights to lesser sources because they seem to us to up-hold a "pro science" agenda. I am hoping everyone can agree with the core of that position? I am thinking the main disagreements will be whether that is actually happening often. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have yet to see an appeal to censorship or suppression that was made in support of content that is actually in line with Wikipedia policy.

You view ID as a philosophy article, but that is not the correct category. The subject of our article is, as described, the term coined in a rebranding of creationism by the Discovery Institute in the late 1980s as part of its long-standing mission to try to get round the US constitution and lever creationism into biology classes on a par with a scientific view they reject on entirely religious grounds. Google "cdesign proponentsists".

So no, it is not a legitimate field of philosophy that should be linked to Aristotle or normal Christianity, it is an explicitly Southern Fundamentalist concept with no history to it at all other than as part of the wedge strategy. It is not a philosophy, it is a tool invented and used by a religious sect for purely political purposes, it would not even exist as a term with the currency it has, had the Discovery Institute not failed in its earlier attempts to promulgate "creation science". Guy (Help!) 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:I am simply saying that being more aggressively and simplistically "pro-science" is not one of the things which makes a source better in terms of WP:RS. No, it's not. I was responding to the implication that skeptical sources are inherently untrustworthy because they're pushing an agenda which is not neccesarily pro-science. That's as far as what I said goes. I was refuting an inaccurate implication (which the editor I responded to stated explicitly in the section above this), not suggesting that one take my words to the extreme and assume any skeptical source is inherently reliable. In fact, I stated more than once that I don't believe all sources which identify as being skeptical are reliable.

Secondly, you write as if my concern is about those sources as such. But I am criticizing Wikipedians. If that is the case, then this is not the place for it. The reliability of sources is a completely separate issue from any poor practices on the part of other Wikipedians, and this is the reliable sources noticeboard.

In the end the main message is simple: we should really use the core content policies and not give special rights to lesser sources because they seem to us to up-hold a "pro science" agenda. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise. I certainly haven't. In fact, I've stated that reliable skeptical sources tend to be either expert blogs or journalistic articles, and should be treated as such.

I don't think you're actually disagreeing with anything I said, I think you're just reading a bit more into it than necessary, and attempting to discuss a different subject. The editing practices of other Wikipedians are not something we have control over. We can't stop people from assuming a source is reliable because it agrees with their views. All we can do here is establish a consensus on whether sources which self-identify as skeptical are reliable or not. So far, it seems that the majority of people agree that some are and some are not, depending on whether they meet the guidelines at WP:RS. To my mind, that pretty well settles it. If you want to start a discussion about pseudo-skepticism and poor sources being inserted by pro-science editors, then that is a discussion I would happily participate in. It's certainly a problem which would need to be addressed, assuming your concerns are well founded (and I have no reason to believe they aren't). I do think it needs to be discussed in the proper place, however. I'm not sure where that would be, though the Village Pump seems like it might be a good place to start. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Very true. As mentioned several times, I may indeed have gone off topic for this noticeboard. But it seemed in the spirit of the original remark (which was not by me) that we were flagging a thematic concern that possibly does not have a forum or action plan of any clear kind at this time. Obviously I was citing a case from my past as an editor as an example which might confirm that it deserves more looking into. One big normal issue is whether anyone has the time and energy. I gave up on it for now, but just to make it clear this is partly because I felt WP might not ever find a solution. (Yes I know, there have been many such doom and gloom concerns over the years, but this one seems to hit a weak spot.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:PARITY means that if a person opposed to scientific results publishes their ideas in something less than a flagship scientific journal, then there is no compulsion to hold skeptical sources which dispute that person's ideas to a standard of WP:SCHOLARSHIP higher than that which is being debunked. On the whole, you have GMO fear-mongers, anti-evolutionists, and believers in the paranormal publishing in second- to third-rate journals, in-house communiques, personal websites, youtube videos, and so forth. SKEPTICAL sources which are found in second- to third-rate journals, in-house communiques, personal website, youtube videos, and so forth, are therefore legitimate source with which to compare. It's as simple as that. If the people opposed to the "skeptical" movement have sources that are published in Nature (journal) or Science (journal), then that's a different matter. Until such time, notable ideas that find their way into Wikipedia that are demonstrably wrong in an empirical sense (such as GMO fear mongering, anti-evolution, or paranormal beliefs) will necessarily be debunked by sources published at similar levels to them. 146.155.21.237 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The post above this comment is spot on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"+ 1" as they say on the internets. Top scientific journals aren't inclined to examine and comment on every conspiracy theory, unorthodox idea or fantastic claim. Skeptical sources are often the only ones who'll refute obvious bunk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

...Only if it is not meant to imply that being more aggressively and simplistically "pro-science" is not one of the things which makes a source better in terms of WP:RS. And I am afraid that most people who I have seen use the above type of rhetoric (which also sounded good to me the first time I heard it) on WP are in fact trying to push that idea in some concrete case. For example I note the reference to Science and Nature, as being the "standard of scholarship higher". Sounds great but they are not the highest standard for all fields such as in the example I mentioned. So I have learnt to be sceptical of this type of pro-science rhetoric on WP. If we are talking about the history of an idea in science, Science and Nature are not the best sources, and being a biologist or whatever does not make you a higher source than being an historian, depending on the case. BTW very much like the term "pseudo-skepticism"!---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but nothing in that post even remotely suggests that. Nobody's saying that. I think it's time to drop it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should read posts like we read sources, in context. The IP (why post as an IP with no editing record if you edit as a Wikipedian?) is answering a particular discussion, and specifically saying that the "scholarship" standards of WP do not need to be used in the case of discussions about fringe science or anti science sources. I have explained above how this exact attitude can go wrong. Scholarship standards should be maintained as much as possible for a subject matter, not as much as we think appropriate for a subject matter. There should be no special case made which weakens our use of the core content policies when we are fighting a crusade to make the world better for whatever we think science is. Otherwise we end up using low grade "scientists" writing opinion pieces for WP positions on things like theology, which is just silly. Note that most of these fringe debates involve B grade academics, disputing things outside their normal field. WP editors should go to the best sources for each field. But this is not working well on WP for these types of subjects, and in context of this discussion the IP seems to be familiar with the types of discussions where better sources are deliberately not used, and defending this.

Of course the IP posting leaves options open, but but why "drop it" if this is important to make sure we get right, and not leave them open? If we are going to close this discussion, on the RS board, it should surely be with comments that make the most important points relating to RS policy clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, from my perspective it isn't the case that "most of these fringe debates involved B grade academics, disputing things outside their normal field." That's because my interest in fringe relates primarily to archaeology and to a lesser extent history. Sure you get the Barry Fell's who are/were academics working outside their fields, but most are just amateurs who have managed to get substantial publicity but have been ignored by the world of peer reviewed journals. WP:Parity exists for a reason. I hope you aren't suggesting we abandon it. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand WP:PARITY as it allows the use of less reliable sources to counter claims that are only made in less reliable sources. However, i have seen the "fringe" designation and then badly-used "parity rules" applied to concepts that actually do have significant peer-reviewed and otherwise reliable sourcing. For instance, diets about which there are many peer-reviewed articles, or warnings against toxic chemicals in foods that are in fact supported by peer-reviewed science then being supposedly "debunked" by Skeptic™ sources. That is where i see the overreach in the use of Skeptic™ sources. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Science Based Medicine is not Gorski's as such, it is a website with an editorial board, it is written and maintained by a group of people including Gorski, Novella, Harriet Hall, Mark Crislip and others, all of whom are generally writing in areas where they are eminently qualified (Gorski is a professor of surgical oncology, Crislip is an infectious disease specialist, Novella is a consultant neurologist). Science Based Medicine has been discussed before, and has generally been considered reliable for the kind of content it addresses, especially cancer quackery, SCAM (supplements, complementary and alternative medicine), fraudulent medical claims and the like. The Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer are reliable for their areas of specialist interest as well.

The use of "Skeptic™" is not helpful though. You're talking here about a movement that includes people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Simon Singh, Richard Wiseman - professional science communicators who specialise in challenging bullshit. There is such a thing as pesudoskepticism, for example climate change "skeptics" and holocaust deniers.

It's a bit like the Popular Mechanics articles on 9/11: we use them because it was a serious publication that put serious research into the insane claims of Truthers, which for the most part no serious scientific journal would do, because academic science usually doesn't inquire where there's clearly nothing to be found. How can a biology journal publish on Bigfoot when there is no credible evidence Bigfoot exists?

Incidentally, we also cite the Fortean Times as an appropriate authority for a number of - ahem - differently rational ideas. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is Gorski's web publication, a website with many contributors, and it is edited by a small team, but it's not peer-reviewed and it's not an editorial process that i am comfortable with relying on to qualify its contents as coming from a reliable source. Their editorial policy is:

Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, appropriate, and scientifically accurate. The editorial staff looks at all promising submissions: an informal peer-review process. ... We have no firm style guidelines. Being a blog, there’s a lot of flexibility, and room for personality and humour. The main requirement is intellectual rigour: make a well-reasoned, science-based point about health care, and it has a good chance of being published. You’ll get extra points for good scholarship and referencing, but it’s not necessarily required, depending what you’re writing about. Most relevant posts that don’t make the cut are rejected for generally poor quality of writing and/or thinking.

The website's POV is clearly that of a Skeptic™ approach to topics, a term i use not meaning to offend, but to highlight a certain zealotry that takes skepticism and runs too far past the end goal with it, and ends up in the bleachers, so to speak. It becomes a form of ideology that, for instance, labels concern about toxic chemicals as "chemophobia" in a derogatory way in order to pave the way for less examination of chemicals. There's some less biased zone that we need to aim for. Concern over chemicals is warranted to a degree, and is not a phobia. To make a parallel, someone who is constantly afraid of falling may have Acrophobia but someone who is afraid of falling from a height is actually normal.

I advocate for a unbiased skepticism, and often science provides this. (There is bias and influence in science, of course, but that's another topic and it's a huge area of inquiry.) I do understand the WP:PARITY argument, but i also think that gets overused. I've seen a tendency to overuse the "fringe" and "pseudoscience" labels and then to claim "parity" to use zealotous writings as reliable sources in articles, and this has led to articles leaving the neutral zone and tending toward becoming attack pieces on some subjects. I am wary of the use of websites like Science-Based Medicine because of the track record i've seen and because of the nature of the sources. I am a skeptic to the highest degree -- so much in fact that here i am a skeptic of the Skeptics. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug @SageRad, just to confirm/reassure, of course there will be big differences between fields, and I always argue on this board that we should try to discuss real concrete cases. I mentioned which one field concerned me. But I was also trying to give general advice on a general question, even though I guess this board is not a good place for generalizing. My advice is that we should be wary of people claiming special exemptions from the core content rules. Hopefully this is acceptable.

Maybe a rejoinder to try to stick this in people's memories: Subjects which inflame emotions in those who support science are actually those where we should be most methodical, in the spirit of science itself, which does not trust humanity to always be attracted to the truth. The intelligent design debate is clearly such a case. It is a topic which (I learned here) seen many scientists creating a sort of B grade literature about the history of science, which Wikipedia seems to PREFER over better literature. I can't say this is unique. For example Doug, you and I have worked on articles where for example we have had to be careful about relying too much on geneticists who have tried to summarize paleolinguistic and archaeological fields. We've seen how also in those fields, once emotions get into it, because for example it touches on some ethnic group's origins, it can get very difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But ID is not science. There are no scholarly scientific sources supporting ID, at least not without resorting to WP:SYN or some other fundamental failing of policy. ID is a political topic, not a scientific one. It exists only because of the First Amendment. We use skeptical (in this case synonymous with pop science) sources primarily in order to keep the article anchored to that. To pretend it is a scientific or legitimately philosophical topic would be both misleading and entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"It exists only because of the First Amendment." - that is a rather curious statement. Does that mean ID does not exist outside of the US?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's just using the phrase as a short-hand for freedom of speech as practiced in the developed world. In that sense, were it illegal to lie, it would be illegal to support ID. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"ID is not science" is exactly why B grade scientists with strong involvement in US political debates about it are not the best sources for some aspects of what ID is. For example concerning the question of whether they are using an argument first found in Socrates, there are excellent books and articles which can tell us the answer, and the answer is a resounding "yes", and this is in fact an important topic in the history of philosophy which helps us understand how Christianity developed and how modern science developed. US lobbyists who say it is not an argument that has anything to do with traditional Christianity are doing this either out of ignorance or for some political reason such as wanting to make sure the US Christian electorate does not take the side of ID. (Strangely enough, when they say this, they are actually agreeing with the ID movement which claims to be a new scientific movement.) The concern I was raising is that WP tends NOT to use the good sources, but the political ones, in the debates about this, which have gone for years, WP shows itself to be full of people who shoot off slogans about the superiority of science and imply that to do otherwise is to support fringe science. The ID talk page archives show many occasions when it has been said quite openly that it is important to de-link the ID movement from philosophy and traditional Christianity because it makes it sound too dignified. This is against our core content policies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: ID is claimed to be science by those who coined the term, the term was coined in order to try to get creationism into science classes, the term replaced creation science as part of this programme, the wedge strategy. Clearly specifics are important, but I would say that, for example, the NCSE is a wholly legitimate source, since they were intimately involved in the legal cases and producing the compelling scientific case that finally killed ID in court.

@DrChrissy: I suggest you read the article intelligent design, or, as I said above, google the term "cdesign proponentsists". Guy (Help!) 13:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To achieve what?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To achieve understanding. If you Google that term, you will find out why "Intelligent Design" exists as a term in current usage solely because of the First Amendment. Or you could read our articles. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope - that's not really helping my understanding. My understanding (knowledge) is that the term was used in my biology degree in 1983 - well before the publication of the book mentioned in our article and the ensuing legal case. I also seem to remember Richard Dawkins using the term in The Blind Watchmaker published in 1986, again well before publication of the book we cite as being the first to use the term. Perhaps our article is wrong - it happens sometimes.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans then make of it what you will. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine but as the article itself shows, fringe groups actually have very little success getting their stuff on WP. What is remarkable though, is how often you see Wikipedians acting as if this was a major issue in Wikipedia that requires extreme emergency measures such as violating our own content policies, and also nastiness against any editors expressing concern. It is something normal in politics that if you want to exercise more power you try to create a feeling that their is a special enemy infiltrating the system, and you need special powers. You talk about it the whole time in order to avoid other subjects getting discussed. This is an area where WP has simply failed in not becoming part of the politics. Our ID article is basically an original essay and part of a corpus of B grade polemic material on the internet.

Keep in mind that I am personally totally opposed to ID. What I do not share an interest in is the political aspects of for example trying to argue that the wrongness of ID should be of no concern to people who think of themselves as Christian (or as Socrates fans for that matter). We should not be hiding that there are not only valid logical problems with the argument ID uses, but that this argument is an old and influential one with a "dignified" pedigree. By trying to hide this we act the same way as the ID movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

L But, as I pointed out above, ID is a purely political term. The term was coined in the late 1980s by the Discovery Institute, explicitly replacing their earlier term "creation science", as part of the wedge strategy. That's what our article is about. You seem to be conflating ID and biblical creationism, which is a philosophical topic. The fact that this article is about the political concept and its lack of scientific support, and not about creationism more generally, is legitimate. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I know what you are referring to, and we have an article called "Intelligent Design Movement" as well as several other articles to describe what you are referring to. That movement and its wedge strategy are new and the subject of much discussion concerning local politics. No problem. But your understanding about the origin of the term and concept "Intelligent Design" is clearly coming from the political people (both sides) including Wikipedia, which, if you read the talk page, is political on this subject (taking a position aimed at making the world better).

What I discovered on our Intelligent Design article is that over many years the same concerns keep being raised, not to do with defending fringe positions, but simply that it has been quite openly designed to help avoid readers making a link to the other subject often referred as Intelligent Design, Argument from Design, which is a broader and older category that both the political movement and its political opponents do not want the movement to be seen as part of. As someone very interested in the history of science and philosophy, I went checking what good sources there were for what you repeat above, and to cut a long story short there are none. There are sources which say and confirm that the term and the concept are old, even if the movement and the wedge strategy are new. For example, Francisco J. Ayala, writes: "The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument". David Sedley writes that "the primary issue which divides modern "creationists" from their Darwinian critics [...] also divided the greatest thinkers of antiquity". Notable? Seems very notable to me.

Please note that Wikipedia editors asked by me and others to explain why we may not report this have openly said they are doing this to defend our readers from seeing the ID movement as connected to something with a dignified reputation. At least some of the editors involved know very well the best sources disagree with WP. Expert sources which are not specifically about the politics (such as philosophers, biologists broadly looking at the history of ideas, theologians etc) write differently to WP, and do use the term the broader way and insist the concept is very old and not much modified by the movement's re-hash. Indeed, Sedley makes interesting comparisons in his detailed book on classical creationism, between recent ID movement arguments and Galen. Should we not report that? My efforts to adapt the history section led to panic such that even edits to fix grammar were reverted. Wikipedia core content policy tells us we should at least mention such notable commentary which is not hard to find. But we do not. We actually repeat the creationists own explanations about the term not being an old religious one, which were literally thrown out of court! That is because this is a case where both sides in a political debate actually want to promote the same wrong idea.

Hence my concern that we are being meat puppets for a political movement (just to use the "loud" term being thrown around in this discussion, LOL). Nothing pro fringe about this concern, and it is not even really a debate about what the sources say, once you grind through the awkward discussions on the talk archives.

(In terms of how to solve the long run debates on that article, if it is not already solved, I think one day someone with energy will need to get the current ID article merged into the IDM article, because as you yourself rightly indicate, that is what our article is about. I already managed to get a more clear DAB header, despite amazing resistance. On the other hand, there has been long run efforts to work in the opposite direction. Anyway, here we were talking about more general tendencies which can occur on Wikipedia. The question is why people would object to clear disambiguation for example, and somehow feel this was compatible with our core content policies.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet and Skeptics

What i find concerning is what i see as Skeptic™ over-reach. A concrete example would be the article Paleolithic diet, which is a topic that has some serious merit to its underlying premise, and some support within science (such as supportive publications in peer-reviewed journals in many areas like anthropology and nutrition and medicine) and yet the Wikipedia article here has been in a sort of near lock-down state expounding a rather extreme critical point of view toward the article's subject, from the first sentence onward. That would be an example. Of course, how one sees that is relative to one's point of view. People who follow Ayn Rand think she's right about everything, to make a comparison to another ideological system. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The paleo diet is promoted using sciencey-sounding language, but it is scientifically unsupported for many reasons: for example, the absence of any evidence of consistent diet across paleolithic populations, the diversity of those populations and the foodstuffs available, the existence of evolution leading to things like lactase persistence, and the effective absence of any foodstuff on the planet that would be recognisable to Mr. and Mrs. Ug.

Scientific journals generally ignore it, as they ignore most fad diets. They come and go so fast that it's not normally worth studying them. A few that have been studied, such as the HCG diet, are refuted, there is no interest in repeating the refutation, so the scientific community does not address it because there's nothing to learn.

Thus we have to look at popular science articles in the lay press, and the people who write these are very often self-identified as skeptics, because the term skeptic is roughly synonymous with science advocacy. Skeptics analyse sciencey-sounding claims that have no scientific rigour, and are published outside of the scientific press.

A simple example: Vani Hari said this:

The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through. The air that is pumped in isn’t pure oxygen either, it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%. To pump a greater amount of oxygen in costs money in terms of fuel and the airlines know this! The nitrogen may affect the times and dosages of medications, make you feel bloated and cause your ankles and joints swell.

This is not even wrong. Science won't address statements like this. Why would any scientist investigate whether it's a problem that the air used to pressurise aircraft cabins is not pure oxygen? And if science won't touch obvious bullshit, then who is going to do it? Bullshit is lucrative and sometimes harmful, and anyway it pisses us off.

You should read Martin Gardner's fads and fallacies in the name of science. It was pretty much the foundational text of the skeptical movement. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to choose not to engage this discussion here, except to say that there actually is scientific basis for the paleo diet, and the things you wrote about it are partly strawman arguments promoted by a Skeptic™ fringe. It really does come down to nuance. As for chemophobia, there again strawman argumentation is quite easy, if you're willing to cherrypick the worst examples of anyone's full body of work, and to present the very worst actual chemophobia to stand in for valid concern about chemical toxicity. So, i simply call that rhetoric above, and will refrain from further comment here. It makes a case in point, the draining of nuance from discussion in the name of skepticism. It's not good for the real pursuit of knowledge about reality. A true skeptic sees that there is complexity in most questions, and will not engage in cherrypicking or strawman argumentation for an easy "victory". That's also the nature of my concern about the overuse of Skeptic™ publications in a strong ideological way (and even by meatpuppeting as i've shown in another comment in this section, by Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and similar programs). There is a POV pushing problem in Wikipedia that is distorting the best ideals of Wikipedia by sheer volume and insistence of correctness even in the face of evidence to the contrary. SageRad (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm here to discuss Paleo and that only. SageRad you have written that you have done scientific research at Harvard. So when you write things like " there actually is scientific basis for the paleo diet" do you actually mean that someone proposed a falsifiable hypothesis and conducted experiments that provided this basis? If you mean that please provide the sources where that work was published. If you don't mean that, what exactly do you mean by "a scientific basis"? Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, the premise of the paleo diet, a concept that's been developing for nearly a century, is that the human organism was generally adapted to a range of various paleo diets that was not uniform but that differs greatly in substantial ways from average human diet under agriculture and the modern food industry (the typical 2016 U.S. diet for instance) and that eating a diet that is closer to the range of Paleolithic diets in some ways can be helpful and can have health benefits. By "scientific" i mean in the sense that there is a theory informed by scientific understanding of the world which informs multiple testable hypotheses which could either support or discredit the general premise. Within the scientific literature, there are many papers and books on the subject. "Science" in this case includes evolutionary anthropology as well as various subtopics of medicine and nutrition. Some sources (not a complete list) from scientific literature on the subject would be Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet (2009), Diet and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Review of Patient-Targeted Recommendations, Established dietary estimates of net acid production do not predict measured net acid excretion in patients with Type 2 diabetes on Paleolithic–Hunter–Gatherer-type diets Those are academically published papers that look at specific effects of a Paleo type diet. A primary paper on the premise of the diet is: Eaton, S.B. and Konner, M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985; 31: 283–289 and a couple of revisits by similar authors are: Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997) and this 25 year review, Paleolithic and Mediterranean diet pattern scores and risk of incident, sporadic colorectal adenomas... the list could go on. I do say this is not the place for a long discussion on the Paleolithic diet -- the talk page for that article would be the best place. I gave these at your request to illustrate that there is a scientific literature supportive of the premise and there are multiple hypotheses that can be tested (some of which have been). SageRad (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I have to agree with SageRad on this particular case. There's a sound theory behind the paleo diet, one which even makes sense to a layperson, and there is evidence that it has some beneficial effects (I think it's worth noting that most fad diets would have some beneficial effects, because they're substituted for the fatty, salty diet of most average Americans), though not nearly as much as paleo diet advocates would have us believe. It seems to me that this is one of those extremely rare examples of a bunch of altmed woo artists latching onto something that actually does have some basis in reality. That being said, I'm not advocating for it. The extent to which I usually see it practiced (and a lot of people around me have tried it) is usually quite unhealthy, because they're relying on altmed woo artists for information about it. The article, as it currently stands, reads extremely critically of the diet until you get to the last section (a description of the theoretical framework behind it), at which point, it reads like a well-studied endorsement of the diet. Neither of those readings are accurate. Both the critical and supporting statements and sources should be scattered throughout the article. The skeptical sources shouldn't be removed, mind, just moved.

@SageRad: You seem like a very nice person. You seem very intelligent, and as reasonably well informed as I could want in a fellow wikipedian. You are one of the few people with whom I've disagreed with a (non sarcastic) smile on my face. Bear in mind that I say that about this, our only interaction. You have made a very good impression on me in a number of ways, in a very short exchange, and that says a lot. However, your rhetoric sucks, dude. Capitalizing the word skeptic and adding a trademark note, talking about skeptics as if they were a unified group with a specific agenda to push that's not scientific and your general dismissiveness towards scientists, experts and the educated lay who publish their skeptical work outside of scientific publications just screams "crank" to me, and to others. I was going to write a long tirade about how this article was the worst example of your claims of POV pushing, based entirely off of all the red flags your manner of argument has raised. It was only in researching my tirade that I found that there was some scientific support for the diet. And please, please, if you take to heart nothing I've said before, please listen to the next sentence. It was only because I am a skeptic, through and through, to my core that I admitted to myself (and now you all) that I was wrong about what I intended to say the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants and SageRad, I am sorry but there is not a single falsifiable experiment you can do to test if a "paleolithic gut" would tolerate today's diet, nor vice versa. There are no paleolithic humans to test our food on, and you cannot transport the foods we have today back in time to see how a paleolithic person could digest them. There are no large populations of paleolithic people you can epidemiological studies on to see how healthy they were nor even get a great sense of what they actually ate. For all we know paleo people lived short, sick, miserable lives, just long enough to spit out the next generation before they keeled over. The paleo claims are 100% romanticized unfalsifiable pseudoscience bullshit from head to toe. The company you are keeping is phrenology and eugenics (especially the latter which was gussied up with all kinds of fake science bullshit about evolution. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:@SageRad: I think there's some confusion here. The premise of the paleolithic diet is indeed a load of nonsense - there's no evidence whatsoever that paleolithic humans ate anything like what proponents of the diet claim. It seems to be based on pop-culture perceptions of what cavemen were like - they might as well call it the Flintstone diet. On the other hand, I was extremely surprised to find that there is moderate evidence that this diet does have certain health benefits; see these papers: [31][32]. Both are highly cited and respectable as can be, although neither one is MEDRS compliant. SageRad does have a point as far as this goes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that it's nonsense does not make it nonsense. There are many reliable sources (including peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals) that explain the premise in all seriousness. We are editors, not experts. Your understanding of it is also flawed, and therefore your rejection is a strawman argument. There are sources on both the premise and the effects. SageRad (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting that the paleo diet is representative of what paleolithic humans actually ate. You are correct on almost every point of your post. I'm merely stating that the specific diet commonly referred to as the "paleo diet" has been studied and found to have some (take note of these qualifiers, SageRad) specific, small health benefits. However, when you say that the claims are "100% romanticized" bullshit, you are demonstrably wrong. SageRad posted links to several scientific studies of the health effects of the diet, and those links show for a fact that there's a kernel of truth. The claims may be 90% romanticized bullshit. I'd say more like 95%. But they're provably not 100% bullshit. I'm sorry if it seems like I backing the cranks, but I truly believe in accepting that which is evidently true, and I've seen the evidence that there are some specific, small health benefits to the diet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What SageRad wrote is that there is a scientific basis for it. If I make some bullshit it up and some tests some of it and some of it (in relatively small studies) to look good, that does not mean that I didn't make some shit up. Some of it just happened to work (maybe) Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you're assuming that he didn't misspeak and that he isn't mistaken (meaning that his arguments rests upon the fact that the paleolithic diet must be based entirely upon known facts about the actual diet of paleolithic humans). The diet was named after a valid (technically, if not realistically so) hypothesis, but it is a diet, not a serious scientific hypothesis. Sure, it's something that most proponents completely misunderstand, and it quickly became popular among naval-gazing woo artists who have filled the internet with ridiculously false claims about it, but if you can name an actual legitimate advancement of science that even brushed against the mainstream consciousness, and hasn't been misunderstood by the general public and speculated wildly about by bullshit artists, I'll eat my socks ;D. I'm not saying the article should reflect positively on the diet, but it should be neutral throughout. As it stands, the first half is extremely critical, and the second extremely supportive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a case in point, where there is an extreme hostility to the idea that the Paleo diet could even have a valid premise, or that it could even be a possible approach to eating with any validity. In the conversation above, there is a seething hostility toward the Paleo diet concept altogether, and there is a continual use of strawman versions of it, which make it more extreme than it is, to then "debunk" it. This is a good case in point of what i've been calling Skeptic™ over-reach. SageRad (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

On the use of Skeptic™

Above, there is a comment saying that the term Skeptic™ is not helpful. I find it useful to use the term Skeptic™ because it discerns the group (which is an ideological subcultural group) from the root word "skeptic" (of which I am one). The Skeptic™ movement is a movement, with conferences and publications, and an ideology that extends to many content areas as well as methodology questions. The ideology is not "science" but borrows many words from science. It is a subtle but important distinction. There are calls to edit with a Skeptic™ frame ([33] [34] [35]) that i consider meatpuppeting (WP:MEAT) for sure. That's possibly a source of Skeptic™ overreach on Wikipedia. I hear that it may sound harsh to use the term Skeptic™ but i need to use it to make a point. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

On the use of TreeHugger™

Above, there is a comment saying that the term TreeHugger™ is not helpful. I find it useful to use the term TreeHugger™ because it discerns the group (which is an ideological subcultural group) from the root word "environmentalist" (of which i am one). The TreeHugger™ movement is a movement, with conferences and publications, and an ideology that extends to many content areas as well as methodology questions. The ideology is not "science" but borrows many words from science. It is a subtle but important distinction. There are calls to edit with a TreeHugger™ frame (see Sage's Talk page, before he blanked it) that i consider meatpuppeting (WP:MEAT) for sure. That's possibly a source of TreeHugger™ overreach on Wikipedia. I hear that it may sound harsh to use the term TreeHugger™ but i need to use it to make a point. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Roxy the dog. Labeling other editors with sarcastic and baggage-laden terminology, as SageRad (with whom I'm not habitually in disagreement) is doing with this "Skeptic™" thing) is a form of WP:ASPERSIONS, straw man (in that it imputes agreement on the part of those editors with the caricature of their actual arguments that is promulgated by the labeler), and is generally just uncivil and antagonistic. It's exactly the same as labeling as "Nazi™" anyone who, for example, edits an article to be neutral with regard to positive eugenics or neo-eugenics ideas instead of blindly dumping on them. (And no, I'm not triggering Godwin's Law here.) To the extent there was a legitimate interest in making an unsubtle point with the "Skeptic™" label, it was made the first time it was used, and continuing to use it after those labeled with it object to it is just picking fights for no reason. To address SageRad's objection below, "fringe" is a description, not a label; it's a reference to the level of reliable support the idea (not the person) has in mainstream scientific consensus. "Skeptic™" conveys no external, source-based categorization of that kind, and is simply a pejorative label, like "bra-burner" or "hick".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do, but reading that does call to mind Democrat_Party_(epithet) and other such political pettiness. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the use of Skeptic™ is no more petty than slapping the 'fringe' label on the work of career scientists who hold significant minority viewpoints supported by peer reviewed papers in solid journals.Dialectric (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

^Indeed! --David Tornheim (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, when people stop calling everything they don't like "fringe" then i'll stop talking about the Skeptic™ takeover of Wikipedia. In the face of evidence of large-scale meat-puppeting, and extensive editing with this sort of flavor going on, then i'll not stop using a helpful term. The fact that it incenses some people is an indication that it's a useful term. Without a good referent, a real but complex issue is hard to describe. Perhaps i should call it the "Skeptic Movement"? Would that be more acceptable to others? By the way, i advocate editing as "humans" not as "TreeHuggers" -- and i do love trees, and rivers, and wish to protect the ecology of our planet, but that's not unusual. SageRad (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would avoid trying to annoy anyone. But I do think it is worth pointing out the clear double-standards of the skeptic apologists as I did here, who use the word Fringe to try and dismiss anything they disagree with, even when there is RS that supports it. Yes, "Skeptic Movement" is fine. Did you see my post showing clear evidence to Doug Weller of deliberate manipulation by the "Skeptic Movement" that is hardly different than Christians trying to inject their ideology into Wikipedia here?

In my view, it is a very useful thing to do, in that it clearly identifies a likely problem editor. Anyone who capitalises skeptic and adds ™ is almost certainly pushing a fringe POV (and the root of SageRad's problem is blindingly obvious, as is his history with Gorski, so he should probably be backing off this at great speed by now).

Now if you can think of a better term for fringe ideas than fringe then feel free to propose it at WP:FRINGE, but I can't readily think of one that doesn't risk conferring an unacceptably misleading impression of legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone who capitalises skeptic and adds ™ is almost certainly pushing a fringe POV...". You mean like anyone who capitalizes truth and adds ™? Like say, Alexbrn, here in defending Skeptism™? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Here is a more readable link, for there is more of interest there than just another use of the ™ symbol. By the way, i believe i picked up the habit from some unfriendly use of it against me like "The Truth™" by someone, i don't care to remember whom, and i thought "hey, that's clever, i'll use it in my own way." So, it's a good point. That's where i learned how to type "ampersand-trade-semicolon". SageRad (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think these sources can probably be useful for debunking honest-to-goodness pseudoscience - they are probably about as good as The Huffington Post in terms of editorial standards, and often they are the only sources available for deconstructing some blatantly ridiculous theory - in this way they help us avoid original research.

Where it becomes problematic is when they are used to criticize the minority opinions of respectable scientists. As indicated above, the use of the term "skeptic" in that context implies that what they are writing about is bunk, and even leads WP editors to abusively toss around terms like "fringe" for purposes they were never intended for.

For criticism of legitimate science we need peer-reviewed sources, and editors should be careful not to over-apply WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI - I have seen this in multiple places. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Which "respectable scientists" are you concerned about, precisely? jps (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Example of my own misuse of a skeptical source

Many editors here seem to be suspicious that the skeptic-skeptics are really out to promote their own crankery. It's a legitimate concern. To dispel this, I want to point to an example of where I attempted to include a skeptical source in the BLP of a respected scientist.

The article was Carver Mead, a renowned electical engineer. He published a book titled Collective Electrodynamics which aims to "reconceptualize physics" and is, frankly, hokum. In this edit I tried to include a harsh review of the book by a real physicist, and was reverted, justifiably, here. The reason was that the book review hadn't been reputably published, and even though I think (in fact I am pretty damn sure) that what it said was accurate, I have no way of proving it wasn't based on a personal grudge or somesuch, or just a lack of understanding of Mead's work. The relevant policy was WP:BLPSPS, so Mead's jerky book got a section in the article without my naysaying comment. Oh well.

Now consider the case of Harriet Hall of sciencebasedmedicine.org. This blog has an "editorial board", but very lax policies by its own description. Hall has published a huge number of articles in this blog, and is on the six-member "editorial board". Lacking any evidence that she or her close associates do not simply rubber-stamp her submissions, we have no reason not to regard them as self-published. Now take a look at this blog post, wherein she engages in a heated dispute with another "skeptic," Lewis Jones. Supposing the latter had an article, should we write her criticism of him into it? Should we argue amongst ourselves about which skeptic had the better argument? Or should we wait for peer-reviewed science to determine who is and isn't a fraud?

Some have argued that Hall is a reliable source for her own views, to which I say so is the source I tried to insert into the Carver Mead article. The relevant guideline is WP:PRIMARY, which requires that primary sources be reputably published and forbids original interpretations by the self-appointed skeptics of Wikipedia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have some evidence that SBM's editorial board (scare quotes not needed) is not doing the job it claims to do, your argument falls flat. I could use the exact same argument to discredit any source of information used anywhere on WP, be it a newspaper, a book, a film or a scientific journal. Your argument is essentially that SBM hasn't proven beyond all doubt that they're reliable, so we should assume they're not.

<Reductio ad absurdum>Well, I'm afraid Nature doesn't even have an editorial board we can hold accountable. Lacking any evidence that the editors of Nature don't accept only papers from their personal friends and give them only to other personal friends for peer review, we can't assume their articles are fairly representative of scientific progress.</Reductio ad absurdum>

I'm not unsympathetic to your position. However, your argument is fatally flawed in that it uses criteria for dismissing a source which could be used just as validly to dismiss any source whatsoever. You're insisting that editors essentially prove a negative: that their sources are not biased or compromised. That is not a reasonable application of WP:RS, and per WP:IAR, we should ignore any interpretation of WP:RS that stops us from improving WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I linked to that evidence. Read what they say about their own editorial policies - they don't claim to be what we would call an RS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the links? It specifically says that submissions will be reviewed by the managing editor, who will then pass them on to the editorial boards. It also describes an optional step, in which they will be reviewed by an associate editor before any of that. There's absolutely nothing in that that goes against WP:RS. The only difference between them and the vast majority of professional, reliable, unquestioned news sources out there are that the writer's aren't usually employees of SBM. And there are plenty of reliable sources who use that exact process. Finally, as I already explained to you once, your criticisms could be applied to any publication, including the most prestigious ones. Your complaints are completely baseless and your evidence undermines your claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to say except read WP:IRS, particularly the section WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are demonstrating major misunderstanding of what the guidelines are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm disagreeing with you, which means you must find fault with what I'm saying or else be forced to admit you were wrong. Which is perfectly normal, but not at all useful here. Nothing in those policies changes anything I've said, or indeed, affects the particulars of what either of us have been saying. The appropriate section is WP:NEWSORG. Read it. And again, for the umpteenth time: Your criticisms apply equally to a journal like Nature. You are applying the policies one way to sources you agree with, and a completely different (and completely invalid) way to sources you disagree with. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with this discussion

The way I see it, this discussion, including it's sub threads about specific examples, is a generalizing discussion. As such, it can not or should not go too far on this board. Really it would be better to bring real cases here. I am sure each example raised above has a whole world of debate possible, but this does not seem the right place. (BTW, FWIW and as an example, the response of Guy seems to be either based on reading of the ID people themselves, or their low quality anti-ID opponents in politics all over the internet, including WP unfortunately, which is not neutral on this topic. Both of these political movements have it in their interests politically to deny any connection between ID and the past. Neither of these types of sources are RS. What I learned from looking at the case is that both the term ID, and more importantly the concept, given that WP is not Wiktionary, existed long before the movement. This is one of the subjects which constantly comes up on the talk pages of those articles. WP has a strong movement who will not allow this to be mentioned clearly.)

I think that the general conclusions are simple and clear: First, we should always be careful about sources that might not be as appropriate and strong in their field as our first impressions tell us, and in this we can use the core content policies to guide us, (not our feelings about what might make the world better). We should use the best sources available for each topic, and these will vary with context. Second, I raised the concern that there might be problematic tendencies in WP which need some sort of forum for discussion, but this forum does not seem to be the right one. Basically, in complicated cases it seems way to easy to drop the word "fringe" and start a witch hunt that destroys any possibility of good results. (From what I have seen, all such articles dominated by groups of such fringe witch hunters are very poor in quality, though that does not stop them giving themselves FA status!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support closing this discussion per WP:TRAINWRECK. We have too many people arguing too loudly about too many different things. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, real cases are good. However, there is a more general point, which is that skepticism follows the science. I have never seen any proponent of quack remedies change their mind publicly when shown to be wrong (that's not to say it never happened, I just never saw one). By contrast, Bill Nye, a well known skeptic with a high profile and a lot to lose reputationally by being shown to be wrong, has very publicly changed his mind in response to a better understanding of the evidence on an important topic. The essence of skepticism is: prove it. The essence of the skeptical movement is: this person is making X claim, and not proving it. Many skeptics are professional science communicators, who make formal and less formal statements (e.g. David Gorski, who blogs as Orac and also writes under his own name and credentials at Science Based Medicine). This is an area where context and credentials are important, and where WP:PARITY is key: crank claims made in books and on TV but not in the literature, can and should be rebutted by well-known and respected mainstream science advocacy sources - or simply removed altogether. That would make for a gratifyingly short article on the starchild skull for one. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: I have no problem with the use of a scientist who is published in HuffPo or the like to refute stuff like that. But I do have a problem with things like Science Based Medicine being taken as an RS regardless of context. Sometimes the pieces there also comment on genuine science, and this publication, particularly, falls woefully short of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

So I think there are (at least) two questions here. 1. Do we allow self-published scientists to refute bunkum, per the third sentence of WP:SPS? (I think yes.) 2. Do we suspend WP:SCHOLARSHIP's peer-review requirement when a "skeptic" comments on something that doesn't clearly satisfy WP:FRINGE#Identifying fringe theories? (I think no.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: SBM is not a scholarly source. It does not pretend to be, no-one is suggesting it is, and you are wrong to suggest we hold it to those standards (not to mention the standards you actually described, which we don't use at all). You're just plain wrong. Please, drop the stick. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Thank you for conceding that point. We generally require science to come from scholarly sources unless it is justified under the exemption in WP:SPS (statements by an established expert not about living people). If you want to try to justify SBM under WP:NEWSORG, you'll have to contend with the second bullet in that guideline, which reads in part "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for biomedical information in articles". --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Are you really contending that criticism of a person's claims constitutes biomedical information? SBM has been cited as a reference for what the author of the SBM piece said about someone, not as a WP:MEDRS source. You really need to drop it. you're arguing yourself in circles, going from red herring to red herring. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I assume you're referring to the case in Michael Greger, where SBM is cited for Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think". This is a self-published source commenting on a living person and making a biomedical claim. It's not the most egregious case ever, but it is a policy violation in those two respects. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you completely missed the whole "X wrote Y" part of that snippet which you copied and pasted. I have to assume you didn't notice, because I have to assume good faith. However, I can't escape the knowledge that this has been explained to you multiple times. You have responded to numerous arguments without demonstrating any comprehension of what they mean. That lets me know that nothing I or anyone else says will convince you, because you (we must assume, per WP:AGF) do not understand how you could possibly be wrong. Since the consensus is currently against you, I feel no need to continue to belabor the point. You're not going to accomplish anything, therefore you're not going to hurt anything. In that spirit, I will wish you good luck and a good time in your endless complaining and drop the matter. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The two problems with that are: 1. Personal opinions concerning living people are not allowed unless they have been reputably published; 2. Greger himself is a subject expert, and no one, including me, would allow his medical opinions to be represented without a contextualizing MEDRS-compliant source. More bluntly, we do not allow questionable medical or scientific claims to stand just because they are worded as opinions. Respectfully, --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Working steadily through a specific and problematic example is not 'endless complaining'. Any given source or edit can be objected to or supported using a range of policies. In the specific case of the Michael Greger article and Harriet Hall's criticism, there are multiple overlapping issues that cannot be reduced to a single comment and response. Self-published Skeptic sources (blogs) should not generally be taken at their word with regard to author expertise in a given area of science, nor should they be taken at their word in defining what constitutes pseudoscience. If such blogs are to be used as sources, independent RS refs should support both the writer's expertise in the area and the framing of the subject as pseudoscience rather than a minority scientific viewpoint. Unless both of these are established, "X wrote Y" statements are WP:UNDUE. Dialectric (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy I do not believe WP:PARITY is relevant to what we are talking about at all, and continuously citing this as if it is relevant is illogical and concerning. PARITY is about fringe sources, which are not being discussed here, and is not intended to over-rule our core content policies. We are talking about sources which are "pro science", science "fan", essays, journalism, etc. These sources can be good enough or not good enough depending on all the normal things our core content policies tell us to look at. That means they are not to be treated as good just because you are editing "against" fringe sources, which might be worse. Two wrongs don't make a right, and many fringe sources "follow science" just like pro science essays "follow science". In other words they might "follow" wrongly, or accurately, on whatever issues they are discussing. And how are we Wikipedians to judge that? The core content policies tell us. The quality of pro science essays and journalism should be judged independently of the quality of fringe sources they are opposed to. We should not use them just because the quality of other sources is bad.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newspaper clippings

The article Amalia Carneri contains a section under 'References' headed 'News clippings'. It lists 24 items from thirteen publications from 1898 to 1932. They appear all to be in German (apparently from local newspapers in Germany or Austria) and none of the publications concerned have WP articles. Although full dates are given for all but two items, there is no indication of their page number in the publications, or of their contents or how to access them. None of the contents of the article is linked to any of these 'clippings'. What should be the status of such 'references'? It seems to me that as they serve no purpose for the article and seem impossible to verify, that they have no place in the article. As the article itself is presently a subject of contention, some opinion on this would be welcome.--Smerus (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have often seen old newspaper articles (dating to the 1910s-40s) used to support tenuous claims about historical events that remain contentious to this day. In such cases the use of old articles is doubly inappropriate: first as a method of conducting original research into the topic, and second as a method of combating newer, more reliable, academic sources.

I do not think that in this case, old newspaper articles are necessarily a problem in themselves: they could for instance be used to establish the notability of, and document the life of someone who was once a notable artist. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The difficulty is that in this case, the sources cannot be verified; while it's our responsibility to consult them, their inaccessibility here makes that an unreasonable demand.

I believe it's possible that this artist is notable because she once was a noted opera singer, and made very early recordings. But more information on her notability and reception during her life needs to be provided. -Darouet (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally seeing any reason to doubt these newspaper clippings. The editor (Nancypolk1) is a very good-faith editor; the info is also online (on the editor's blog, but referenced to the clippings [36]). (If she is [still] in possession of the clippings, she could always upload scans of them.) The soprano died in 1943 so there are no BLP issues. Accessibility to, or providing accessibility information for, references is not a requirement on Wikipedia. At the same time it's probable that the publications are accessible publicly in Germany or Austria. The references do serve an important purpose in that they apparently substantiate the Biography section. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no rule against using sources that don't have links. It's specifically allowed. Same with older sources. Is there some specific reason to doubt the claims being made? You said there's original research involved. What is it that you think isn't really stated in the source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The rules in question are WP:SOURCEACCESS for non-online sources and WP:NONENG for non-English sources. Again, that doesn't mean that the sources necessarily are being interpreted accurately, but they are not causes for doubt on their own. These sections of WP:V include resources for locating copies of hard-to-find sources and the proper format for requesting that this other editor quote the source for you on the talk page (you are also allowed to just ask). Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WalletHub

Is WalletHub a reliable source for community rankings? See, for example, [37]. 32.218.46.10 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WalletHub can be used as a reliable source but their top largest metropolitan statistical areas wouldn't not be notable enough to add. Meatsgains (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/02/strapped-james-arthur-ray-cant-make-bond.html |

Is this a reliable source for James Arthur Ray for a claim that Ray's attorney argued that Ray could not afford $5 million bail? This source and claim has been repeatedly removed by a editor who insists that the "blog" (by a noted journalist on an ABC News official site citing an AP article which is best available here, and whose existence is beyond dispute as it is findable on nl.newsbank,com )and which has been pointed out to the editor who seems to think such sites and sources are barred by WP:BLP <g>

[38] "Read the URL -- this is a blog and we can't use it BLP. If the AP report exists, use it from a better source. If not, this may be an invention" (stress added) seems to say that the AP report was faked here. His earlier removal had the edit summary "We never use blogs for living persons. which seems to somewhat misapprehend what the Wikipedia use of news organization official sites actually allows.

From nl.newsbank.com:

Guru charged in sweat lodge deaths says he's broke

" Author: FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press Writer Date: February 19, 2010 Publication: Associated Press Archive

"A man who built a multimillion-dollar empire with a motivational mantra that teaches people to create wealth contends he's broke and cannot post bond in a criminal case that threatens the survival of his self-help business.

"James Arthur Ray was charged earlier this month with three counts of manslaughter stemming from the deaths of three people following a sweat lodge ceremony he led last year in Arizona. His bond has been set at $5 million, a figure his attorneys say is "excessive...

I consider this source to be pretty damn well a "reliable source" for the AP report, and the Nightline official site is also a pretty damn good reliable source for the AP report. OK -- Am I wrong and this is a blog post which is likely to be an "invention" or not? Or is Sfarney in error? Collect (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The linked source is a direct reprint of an AP story which provided a link (broken) to the story in the Washington Post. The site itself is a respected news site and the "blog" post was done under the byline of David Schoetz who is/was a writer for Nightline. It is RS and I do not understand how a legitimate argument could be made that it was not. The implication it was somehow fabricated seems to show a total lack of good faith. Jbh^Talk 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As explained on the Talk page, the BLP policy is clear. If you can show that "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," WP editors have no problem with the text. But until that is demonstrated, we can't use it. In any case, why would we use a blog if we have a RS, as indicated above? WP is also quite clear on that point: we use the best source available. And clearly a BLOG that reprints an AP report (that may be altered or even invented), introduced with a personal comment, is not the best source. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no issue with citing the AP story itself as source (There is no requirement that a source be available online) and linking to the online text for reference unless you have some actual reason to think it may be "altered or even invented" - that is a pretty extraordinary claim to make about the Nightline site. Frankly the original removal was more than a little questionable but there is now another source for the source so this is moot. Jbh^Talk 00:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr or Ms Farney - AP news reports are generally considered to meet WP:RS. Nightline/ABCNews official site material written by noted journalists generally count as reliable sources, Even anti-Scientology sites can sometimes be reliable sources. Really.

What is wrong here is a seeming persistence in making sure that a large number of articles seem to convey specific viewpoints wherein all those who seem to oppose Scientology are evil incarnate. Some may in fact be Satanic in nature, but the nature of your edits is quite gradually taking on the appearance of edits made by editors in the past who were banned by ArbCom.

And the suggestion that nl.newsbank.com and Nightline conspired to invent the AP story is sufficiently ludicrous as to make me consider that you may be one of the people who are not actually here to improve the encyclopedia. Do you expect anyone to respect any of your posts here after making that implication? Collect (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of claiming something when quite clearly I have not. Also, your continued inferences about my person are in violation of the rules of discussion. As I have stated before (and you now surprisingly mischaracterize), we don't use blogs for the reason that they are not reliable, and we should use the better newsbank source that you have recently found. Do you know a reason we should not? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• You are in clear violation of WP:CIVILITY,[39] and your removal of the text-strikes[40] is a second offence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• I have replaced the blog source with an actual RS -- there were many prints of the AP story, and insistence on the BLOG was utterly unnecessary. Also corrected the bail amount from a CNN story. Let us consider this question closed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Tvgrapevine.com

TV Grapevine is a website. That's about all I know as it doesn't even have an about page. WHOIS doesn't identify the owner, the registrant name is listed as "Registration Private". It seems to be some privately run discussion forum presenting as a reputable site. It doesn't look at all reliable to me but I'd appreciate some opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I could find nothing about any of their staff, links that work go to unverified twitter accounts. Main twitter account related to site is also unverified. Main page has a login section so looks like a forum or a blog. I can find no evidence of this site having a reputation for fact checking that would make them a usable reliable source. I wouldn't consider this a reliable source based on what I saw at the site. Looks more like a wiki equivalent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the edit summary here where Drovethrughosts observed "it appears that website copy-and-pasted the Variety review on its website" it looks like the site reposts contents from other sources without attribution and doesn't originate it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

smithsonianmag.com

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-prime-minister-who-disappeared-15319213

is being used for the claim:

Also on the beach was Holt's lover of the time, Marjorie Gillespie.

Try as I might, I could only justify, using that source,

Also on the beach was Marjorie Gillespie, and some suspected Holt faked his death in order to run away with her.

The source does not call Gillespie his "lover" nor "mistress" and only includes her for the claim of conspiracy theorists that he faked his disappearance or that he was picked up by a Chinese submarine (also in this magazine). ("It was also widely believed that Holt had been having an affair with Marjorie Gillespie." and "years later Gillespie acknowledged that she’d had a long relationship with him." although the sources for that do not state she was a lover or mistress, alas.) This issue goes back to use of a self-described gossip columnist writing on the topic, and I find gossip columns to be bad news indeed as a source for anything at all. Thus I would like to know whether the more careful wording is a better use of this magazine article by Gilbert King.

Note [41] in its own "gossip-column reportage of Gillespie's death, says carefully

Mrs Gillespie was once the secret lover of Australian prime minister Harold Holt - or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded in the years following Holt's disappearance and prior to her own - as is reporting convention.

Where even the gossip column obit makes clear that they were not claiming she was Holt's lover as a fact, I suggest the careful wording of King's article also notes not make that claim as a fact either. Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the information as you have presented it, the "lover" statement should not be included. The word itself looks foolish in an encyclopedia, in any case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I note that an editor there is consistently misusing the source, alas, and I am estopped from doing anything about it. Argh. Collect (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

He says now my wording was OK -- then edit wars to go back to his claim as he wanted it to be worded because his (uncited) sources say so! (He has the world's perfect biography of Holt, so therefore he does not need to actually follow WP:RS ?) Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Author

I was wondering if we could consider the site Dear Author as a reliable source. I'd asked about this previously and wasn't really given a definitive answer about this.

I'm familiar with the site, so I can say that they do have set writers and there is an editorial process, although this isn't posted. They will sell ad space, but it's only the side bar type of stuff - they don't sell articles or reviews. Now if it was just this then I'd likely consider them a WP:SPS, except that their work has been used in academic books like this, this, and this as a reliable source. (Also here, here, here, and here.)

I would argue that the amount of times cited in academic sources would count them as a reliable source. Their reviews are also routinely put on book jackets published by mainstream publishers, although I don't think that this can really be considered a usable sign of reliability. That's kind of an iffy situation. In any case, my argument here is based on the amount of academic cites. I'm going to consider them usable, but I'd like to have an official consensus to fall back on if this is ever contested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of RS sell ad space; I don't consider that material one way or the other.

Where on Wikipedia are you seeing these used? The critical reception sections of articles on the works reviewed?

It's described as "for readers by readers," so WP:USERG would apply. Content that can be attributed to a named member of the staff with suitable credentials is RS. However, author "Janet" does not have such credentials.[42] (scroll down). Michele Mills "teaches high school English" [43] (scroll down). I don't know that these two writers meet WP:SPS. Is Mills published elsewhere or generally considered an expert? "Jane Little" is cited, but her bio says that she does this as a hobby [44].

It seems that your question comes down to "Does the fact that Dear Author is included in the reference lists of these published works mean that its authors meet Wikipedia's expert SPS requirements?" The answer is it depends on how they're being used. I can see that Dear Author is on the list of references in your first link, but I can't see whether it was used as an example of something or as a source for something. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• The main thing I'd use it for would be reviews, to be honest, but occasionally for their articles about various themes and maybe some news - mostly just minor things of note. It's their reviews and comments on genres (ie, themes, tropes, etc) that I want to use. As far as how the sources are being used, this one (University Of Iowa Press) lists one of their articles where they compared the fanfiction version of Fifty Shades to the mainstream published version. It's listed on page 10, where the author of the article (Jane Litte) is specifically named. In this one (ABC-CLIO) the book again mentions Litte, stating that she wrote an article on an anti-trust lawsuit that has been frequently cited. This one (Ashgate Publishing) doesn't list the citation number and I can't find the author's name in the book offhand but the fact that they're listed as a RS in the book in relation to Random House and digital publishing should count towards something. This (Walter de Gruyter) is similar in that it doesn't have a citation number, but this cites an article Litte wrote about James Frey. The book by McFarland cites DA several times, once for a review and once for an article posted on the site. Litte is specifically named at one point in the book. The book published through Rosen Publishing doesn't give a view of the page but it states that it's on page 50 and a search for page 50 brings up a section about fanfiction. The article used as a source is about fanfiction, so it's likely it was used as a source in that context. Finally, this book by Scarecrow Press lists an article published at DA, written by Heather Massey, about steampunk romance and is quoted on page 46. I also did a search at Highbeam and saw where Litte was interviewed by NPR and mentioned in this Science Letter article. This newspaper article actually gives Litte's real name, Jennifer Lampe, and states that she's a lawyer when she's not working with the website. A search on JSTOR brought up this mention in the Reference and User Services Quarterly, although I'll need to log in later to see how she's mentioned. My point in specifying all of these is that the site - especially Jane Litte - has been repeatedly used as a RS in some of the most well respected academic sources out there. This is more than a lot more than other places get and at this point I really think a site that's repeatedly listed as a reliable source in multiple academic sources, mentioned in the mainstream news, and also in academic journals should be seen as a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your question seems to be "Does the fact that RS cite DA make DA RS?" The answer is no or more correctly, not by itself. These other RS must cite DA as an expert source. The fact that they use them at all is not enough. It depends on how they are used.

Does the writer of UIowa work use Dear Author as an example of what fans and amateurs are saying or does UIowa cite Dear Author as an expert source? There's a difference. Are these works using DA as a primary source ("fans such as those on DA believe this") or are they trusting the expert opinion of the DA writers, treating them as a secondary source ("According to Jane Little of DA, redemption played a bigger role in the original fanfiction version than in the published version")? The Scarecrow book refers to Massey as a "blogger" and she appears to be quoted for observation and color rather than relied upon for interpretation. I was not able to review any of the sources that are behind paywalls so I can't say whether they do or do not indicate that the DA writers are experts. Little being a lawyer has no bearing on whether she is or is not an expert on pop culture criticism or literary criticism.

That being said, citing an opinion as an opinion, with in-text attribution, in a critical response section might be appropriate if done with caution. It shouldn't be that big of a deal. Do what Scarecrow did; say outright that Massey and Little are bloggers and then quote them directly. I would not, however, consider DA RS for interpretation or themes or argue with anyone who deletes the content.

Here is another way to indicate that Little et al. might be experts: Do articles that they have written appear in mainstream sources? Are there articles written specifically about Dear Author saying how good it is? For example, a pair named Elio Garcia and Linda Antonnson run what they call a fansite, Westeros.org, for the Song of Ice and Fire book series. However, articles written by Garcia have been published by MTV and Suduvu. He and Antonssen have been invited to conventions as "guest experts." Independent publications have written articles about them that say how strong their knowledge is [45]. (In addition to this, they've also served as consultants on the Game of Thrones TV show and co-written a book with the author George R.R. Martin, but that's probably above and beyond what we need to meet WP:SPS expert criteria.) This establishes that their site, despite being called a fansite, is RS for facts about the books and TV show. Has anyone done anything like this for DA? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of any indication of editorial oversight and checking, each article should be treated as WP:SPS and thus used sparingly.Martinlc (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks - I figure I'd really only use them sparingly and like I said above, predominantly for their reviews. Litte (I've been misspelling it as Little) has been brought in to speak on literary matters with NPR and Publishers Weekly and the blog has received mention as popular or influential from USA Today and PW, where they've brought her in to comment on various matters. ([46], [47], [48]) The blog has also received some mainstream attention concerning their coverage over Ellora's Cave. ([49], [50], [51], [52]) The reason I'm mentioning that last part is that this might be something worth adding into the Ellora's Cave article, as the lawsuit was a fairly big deal with the company and the blog. On a side note, the EC article does need a lot of work given that the coverage there is pretty weak and has obviously had some COI editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to start cleanup on that now, actually. If I add anything there about the DA stuff, it's going to be via the above secondary sources that comment on the matter. That's one instance where it's best to just do secondary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to go ahead and mention it briefly - it's in too many sources to not cover it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cham Albanians of Greece: A Documentary History

"The Cham Albanians of Greece: A Documentary History" is mainly a collection of historical documents from the late 19th century to World War II. However, the introduction of the book deals with the history of the region and its population (Cham Albanians). It's written by a scholar, namely Robert Elsie, but lacks inlines. Is the introduction WP:RS? See pages XXVIIII-XXXIX. Publisher: I.B.Tauris DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Independent publisher? Writer has expert credentials? Sounds solid. Consider using a citation template with room to cite an editor rather than an author. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert Elsie has strong credentials as a Western scholar and a prominent expert (Albanologist) in Albanian studies. To date no one has brought issues cited with his work by another scholar etc. Pages XXVIIII-XXXIX of the book do not constitute either wp:primary or wp:tertiary. Those pages are also a wp:secondary synthesis and analysis of wp:primary sources contained within the book. The book is also published by IP Tauris, a renowned Western based publisher. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The introductory essay to this collection of historical documents [53] is among the most partisan I have ever seen. It uses inflamatory language ("terrorized", "slaughtered"). It seeks to portray the Chams exlusively as victims, downplaying the atrocities committed by them during the war. It is also riddled with inaccuracies and errors, such as the "Albanian administration of Chameria" in 1917 following the Italian takeover. There was never any Italian takeover of Greek territory in 1917, and no Albanian administration in these areas. There was an Italian takeover on the Albanian side of the border in Northern Epirus, but no such thing happened in Greek Epirus. And it concludes with what is essentially a call to arms ("The Chams must be given their land back bla bla bla). Robert Elsie does not have scholarly credentials in Albanian, his Ph.D. is in Celtic studies. He is not an academic and has never worked as an academic. He worked as a translator for ICTY, but that is hardly a scholarly activity. If some users haven't found criticism of his work, that's not indicative of the quality of his work, but rather an indication that his work has been ignored by the scientific community. Athenean (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the complete lack of inlines this introduction does not even offer a bibliography below. It's just a summary of primary document and falls clearly into the definition of wp:TERTIARY. It's not the first time the specific editor (Elsie) is considered as tertiary and therefore removed (also here Talk:Ali_Pasha#Tertiary_source)Alexikoua (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the statements put forth by Athenean, concerning "inaccuracies and errors" and "inflammatory language" in Elsies work, I made a post on the talk page where I address these points. [54] As for Elsies credentials, fact of the matter is that he's an expert in Albanian studies. He is widely cited on wikipedia on articles related to Albania/Albanians.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Aren't the historical documents presented in a sense a bibliography? And what makes the "Introduction" wp:TERTIARY? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What's important, this specific work is nowhere to be used in any wikipedia article. No wonder, it's just a collection of nationalist declarations accompanied by a brief summary with a complete absence of inline and non-inline citations. That's a #1 rule not only for undergraduate students but also for wikipedia articles to avoid afDAlexikoua (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That changes the map a little. This falls under WP:BIASED. Elsie's opinions alone do not disqualify him. It's his expertise that must be established. 1) Is there official scholarly criticism of Elsie, such as book reviews by established experts or published rebuttals? 2) It does not matter whether Elsie is considered an expert on Wikipedia. Is he considered an expert elsewhere? Has he published things other than this book? Has he been cited as an expert or invited to speak at conferences as a guest expert? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Labeling it as collection of "nationalist declarations" is misleading, and an attempt to discredit his work. The book is a collection of historical documents, and includes reports by e.g. Greek and british officials. To answer your questions:

- According to Northwestern University "Robert Elsie is the West's leading specialist on Albanian literature. He works as a freelance interpreter, primarily Albanian and German, and is the author of numerous books and articles on various aspects of Albanian culture and affairs. He lives in Germany."[55]

- In his review of "Studies in Modern Albanian Literature and Culture" (published by Columbia University Press), Assistant Director at the Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Kozak,[56] describes Elsie as a "renowned Canadian Albanologist".[57]

- In a another review of Elsies work, Ph.D. John Kolsti of university of Texas, summarizes "His scholarly studies and translation efforts continue to widen the audience of Albanian literary poets and, in this remarkable volume, North Albania’s singers of oral traditional tales."[58]

- A piece by Elsie was published by The University of Texas at Dallas in their Translation Review. [59]

- Yale keeps an extensive list of his works in their library (including Book discussed here).[60] Moreover, in a document hosted on their website, some of his work are listed (what can be understood as "recommended reading").[61]

- Antonia Young at University of Bradford [62], writes in her review of Historical Dictionary of Kosova: "Robert Elsie is the world’s English-language authority on Albanian literature, also a prolific writer on other aspects of Albanian life." and summarizes "Despite these minor glitches, and the fact that the focus of events relates predominantly to the last 20 years, this is an extremely objective reference work, whose useful information will be lasting."DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That he is an expert seems to follow somewhat already from his academic career and publications, independent of WP describing him as one. So unless there is universal scholarly criticism/debunking, I'd certainly consider him an expert on the subject.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Google Scholar shows a number of relevant publications, which are reasonably often cited and published by heavyweight academic publishers like Columbia University Press, NYU Press, and Scarecrow. The claim that a PhD in a different (though not entirely unrelated) topic disqualifies him is surprising, to say the least. On the other hand, the fact that Yale has his books also has little weight - academic libraries are rather voracious, and Yale's endowment certainly enables them to get any book a student or faculty has ever suggested. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see at first glance no reason, that would disqualify the book from being listed under literature/further reading or from being used as a source. The book is edited/published by three different established academics and published through reputable scholarly publisher (I.B. Tauris). Also I see no problem to use the introduction as a reliable source. Not every type of academic writing requires inlines and the existence of inlines or not on its own is not a proper criteria to assess the reliability. Elsie is a well known scholar on the subject and scholarly review (see below) doesn't seem to have any major issues with his introduction. A partially online accessible online review can be found here:

review by Eleftheria Manta (Greek scholar).

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the full review [[63]], where several serious issues are addressed with the conclusion that:

All these are indicative of the fact that the ultimate aim of the editors was to create just a reachable and easy-to-use collection of documents in English, a point of reference for international historiography and for anyone who desires to seek information about the history and the fate of the Cham population of Epirus. However, it fails to reach the quality, the objectivity and the high scientific standards of previous collections of documents compiled by other Albanian scholars on the subject

Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This review criticizes the organization of the primary sources (lack of page numbers, etc.) and it describes the introduction as "rather balanced." However, the other concerns are worth noting. I'd say that it depends on what this source is being used to support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree (see my posting below)--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the complete version. It is is also insightful to read the individual point to which the quoted text refers. All in that (still) leads more or less to the same conclusion I stated above. The criticism boils essentially down to stating that not all content is new or particularly exciting (from research scholar perspective) and that there might some better scholarly works. All that doesn't dismiss the use if the book as reliable source in the WP sense. Now if the there is particular content in dispute, then depending on the specific context there might be grounds to overrule Elsie's version and replace it by a better source, but there is no reason can't be used as a source at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually a main concern raised from this introduction, apart from the completele lack of reference (inlines & non-inlines) is that several parts are in straight disagreement with existing mainstream bibliography on the subject. Thus making Elsie defintely not the best option in this case under this context. Nevertheless in case a specific fact isn't contradicted from those "better sources" then this introduction will become our last solution.Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

To name one example, according to [Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question by Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 157:

With regard to the Chams, the Albanian government complained that the Greek government was persecuting the minority. There was little evidence of direct state persecution

On the other hand Elsie's introduction about the same time period claims the opposite:

Under the pretext of searching for arms, the police regularly broke into Cham homes and beat up the inhabitants, often making arbitrary arrests. Even in period when the pressure let up, the Albanian of Chameria were always given to understand that they were not welcome in Greece

It's obvious that there is a strong disagreement between the above authors, but taking into account that there is a situation of goodVSless good source, Elsie's instroduction isn't a solid one in this case..Alexikoua (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why can't I find that specific sentence in the book by Roudometof? [64]

There was little evidence of direct state persecution

I did however find the exact same sentence on a Greek nationalist website [65] which also asserts

Historical revisionism by the Greek Left, Western multi-culturalists, and Albanian Nationalists is rampant these days. The fate of the Albanian Chams is a case in point.

Also, on a forum related to this topic, the second post[[66]] cites Roudometof, and I have no trouble verifying some of this material through Google books (first 4 paragraphs). However, the material you claim is supported by Roudometof is apparently supported by another source (on this forum). Maybe google books left out that part in their search results, or the material is not in fact in the book? Moreover, I don't see why Elsie should be dismissed, especially considering a Greek scholar claims the introduction is "rather balanced" and raises no concerns with regards to the state persecution of Cham Albanians. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets pick some random material from the second post here.

"Greece and Albania did not satisfy Greek claims": Found[67]

"The origins of the minority question in Greek-Albanian relations": Found[68]

"The Albanians are divided into two groups, the Geghs of the north": Found[69]

"Pangalos considered himself a friend of Albania, spoke Albanian": Found[70]

"With regard to the Chams, the Albanian government complained": Not found[71]

"There was little evidence of direct state persecution": Not found[72]

@DevilWearsBrioni: As Kmhkmh clearly noted in accordance with Manda's review "if the there is particular content in dispute, then depending on the specific context there might be grounds to overrule Elsie's version and replace it by a better source" this applies to Elsie's claim about "arbitrary arrests by the Greek police", where a source that meets wp:SECONDARY clearly states that there was no evidence of state persecution.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Elsie's introduction is RS for his own opinions and conclusions and that he can be considered an expert. If there is significant controversy among RS as to whether the Greek government was persecuting minorities, then that is what the article should say. If Elsie holds the minority view, then the article should give him, at most, a direct quote with in-text attribution ("According to Dr. R. Elsie, there was no evidence," etc.). Take this out of the realm of subtle asides and implication and state it directly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I think we need to distinguish two different things here

• a) Is Elsie's introduction a reliable for WP
• b) Is Elsie "correct" on specific detail and should he be used there as a source.

With regard to a) I think the answers yes and it seems most other editors here seem to see it that way too.

With regard to b), I'd say it depends and there is some editorial discretion involved. Principally there are 2 ways to go simply replace Elsie by a better source and go with that or incorporated both sources and mention them as differing views. To decide which of those options is best imho a discussion beyond this project, this belongs on talk page of the article in question or alternatively a wikiproject or portal covering the topic domain the article belongs to. Principally this will boil down to assessing how notable and reputable is Elsie in comparison to the other sources, do the other reputable sources all agree and only Elsie is an outlier or do they distribute over both positions. But such an assessment is best done by people with a greater familiarity with subject and more domain knowledge. You can't really assess that without knowing all the other relevant sources and having some context knowledge.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been settled. My question was with regards to the Introduction and whether it was WP:RS or not. The answers from three neutral editors seem to suggest that the material is good enough for Wikipedia. The introduction is WP:RS and not WP:Tertiary; lack of inlines is not necessarily a determining factor, and the book is not "collection of nationalist declarations”. That’s good enough for me. Thank’s to Kmhkmh, Darkfrog24 and Stephan Schulz for their contributions. All input has been duly noted. The discussion will continue on the talk page. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: In the case of 2b. strong opposition about the use of Elsie contrary to mainstream bibliography in specific cases is already discussed in the correspodent talkpages, but to name one past example of the problematic nature of its use: Talk:Ali_Pasha#Tertiary_source there was a concensus to remove his opinion completely, not even the in form of ...Elsie claimed something else[[73]]. Thus, each addition should take in account available mainstream bibliography, as in the case of the claimed interwar police persecution. @DWB: Sami Frashëri and Faik Konica were, among others, prominent figures of the Albanian national movement & their declarations&opinions are part of this collection.Alexikoua (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One very important clarification to this discussion here needs to be made. Interwar persecution by the Greek state did occur. Whenn "mainstream bibliogprahy" such as Roudementof (2002) [and i do have access to his book, if anyone is interested in those pages and footnotes message on my talk] published their texts (of which reference is made), they had no access or were not privy to the Greek state/government archive. Lambros Baltsiotis, a Greek scholar who works at Greeece's Panteion University and known for his works regarding Albanian speaking groups in Greece has filled a large part of that gap and built on Cham related scholarship in recent times. In Baltsiotis' article titled: "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a "non-existent" minority community". (2011). European Journal of Turkish Studies he extensively cites the Greek government archive and the awareness their policies has in making life very difficult for the Chams. For all interested read the article in full (footnotes and all). [ http://ejts.revues.org/4444] Resnjari (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said before assessing that is imho beyond this board, as it requires having already some domain knowledge on that rather special subject or reading through hundreds of pages to acquire it. I don't have the former and I don't intend to do the latter. As a consequence I can't offer any assessment or opinion on that and my guess is that's probably the same for most or all other editors watching this board.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Labeling Elsie's work as a "collection of nationalist declarations" is disingenuous: it's a collection of historical documents. If an author were to compile a book of historical documents from World War II which included reports by prominent nazis, would you label it as a "collection of Nazi declarations"? Because that's essentially what you're doing here in an attempt to discredit Elsie. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Swmrs

I feel that this edit is problematic. It uses primary sources, unreliable sources, removes maintenance templates (for SoundCloud source). The article itself needs some critical eyes and since I have taken issue with the editors, I don't think I'm the one to do it, but I would be interested in having a project member review all of the sources to determine if they are or are not reliable. Some sources are from sites that are reliable, but without an author, I can't see them being reliable. Some are so short and they parrot the primary source, I would argue that the primary source should be used instead as no critical editing of the content has been made to turn it into a WP:SECONDARY source. This sort of problem will continue. I would suggest we offer some advice around it as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't clicked on the specific source used in this edit, but regarding your issue is with pseudo-secondary sources that do almost no editorializing or criticism, consider this: While primary sources are almost by definition the most reliable sources possible for their own content, they have no bearing on notability. The fact that a primary source has been parroted, however robotically, in another work indicates that the author of that secondary source considers the content in question notable. So yes, you have a point, but there is a flip side. My personal MO in cases like that is to write two citation tags and cite both the primary and secondary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Densho Encyclopedia

Do you think it's acceptable to use the Densho Encyclopedia's article on Albert Saijo as a source for our article on the same topic? I'd like to use it for his full date of birth, some background on his family and relationship with Nyogen Senzaki, and probably some other bits and pieces. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY it's not ideal but it's entirely allowable.

Per Densho's "About Us" page, the source seems reliable. It's written by professionals and closely researched and edited. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Majid Rafizadeh

Does the sourcing in Majid Rafizadeh this article justify the removal of the "Notability" and "Better sources" tags? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)