Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62

WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed

Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth#World_Net_Daily_-_RS.3F As detailed there its come up again and again: [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Is it an RS or is it a conspiracy/hate site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) WorldNetDaily does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) WorldNetDaily currently enjoys credentialed representation to the White House as a news organization. Is the White House Press Office in the business of entertaining representatives of media organizations deemed by them or by the journalistic community to be an "unreliable source" in fact reporting? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Say what? I'm not sure what the requirements of the "White House Press Office" are, but permission to sit in one of the 49 seats at the press briefings is administered by the White House Correspondents' Association. "Reliability" is not one of their requirements — they only require that a correspondent pay dues; be employed by a publication or network that regularily covers the White House; and not be also employed by public relations, lobbying or securities firms (See Membership requirements). Your comment misleads in that it fails to note that Les Kinsolving, the White House Press Correspondent for Talk Radio, and more recently, also WND, has been a WH Correspondent since long before WND existed (See his Bio). Kinsolving pays his dues just like the correspondents from Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight.Com, Politico and over one hundred other outlets. Good credentials aren't really required even for the opportunity to be present during the briefings - in fact, one-time day passes are frequently issued, and total imposters using pseudonyms have been known to attend. It is interesting to note that the WHCA, when assigning the limited, prestigious seating to more established correspondents, refers to Kinsolving by his Talk Radio association, instead of his WND association (You may find this an interesting read, too), although WND is listed in the membership rolls. The short answer to your question is: No, being a member of the Press Corps is not in any way an indication of a publisher's reliability - though it certainly doesn't hurt one's image. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Say who? But first, welcome back to the discussion. Before commenting on several elements of your observations, I did, indeed, find your cited article to be an interesting read but, given your assertions above, the following from that same article seems, on its face, to be rather contradictory... It's worth pointing out that the WHCA doesn't decide who can be in the briefing room. Losing a seat is not the same as losing access. Do you have any thoughts or further clarification to offer on 538.com's observation? If the WHCA doesn't decide "who can be in the briefing room", then who does? According to the WHCA website, an "...applicant must have permanent White House press credentials". Are those not issued by the White House Press Office? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) No contradiction at all. The White House Press Office decides who gets into the room (day passes & hard passes), and the WHCA further decides who gets a seat in that room (translation: gets called upon to ask a question of the Press Secretary). Anyone with a name and social security number can get into the room, and getting a permanent WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter). See this link and this Wikiarticle for more insight. You'll note Kinsolving is not part of this more stringent membership, nor is WND (See Membership Rosters), but I assume Kinsolving got his hard pass to the WH briefing room long before they began requiring the Capitol Hill press gallery verification. My ultimate point remains: signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization. I never left the conversation, by the way. I've been bumping this thread with periodic comments in the hope that new editors will see it and add their input, and I've also bee quietly observing your discussions on the RSN talk page; your edits to the WND article; your sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article; etc. I took particular note of your suggestion that we should look to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources as a guide for resolving this WND discussion, but I see that it ultimately refers us back here to RS/N to obtain community consensus. Does this mean that a source (WND) cannot be definitively described as a reliable or unreliable source, but instead each instance of it's use needs to be evaluated by whatever handful of editors are watching here when the issue is raised? I know no source is infallible, but why do I not see citations to the Wall Street Journal brought here with the frequency of WND citations? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) First, I appreciate your making note of my "sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article" and I encourage anyone to take a look. However, it is neither a "sandbox" nor a "rewrite", but a "sub-page" (as is, I believe, recommended by Wikipedia talk page guidelines) and a highlighted reproduction (not necessarily up-to-date as is noted quite clearly in the header). --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I aggree with your "NPOV disaster" assessment, and while you may not consider it relevant to this discussion, I mentioned it because the WND citations in that article are the very reason I am in this discussion. I realize now that was not evident. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Now, if I might proceed to something relevant to a determination of WND RS (and limiting my comments to one observation at a time), as to... WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter). Unfortunately, you neglected to note Part II of the process as is clearly defined in the followup story on the WHCA/WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan meeting referred to in the E&P article you cited (highlights mine)... Although no changes to the system were discussed at the meeting, some WHCA members had said prior to the meeting that a number of potential changes were being considered. Those included tighter restrictions on who can receive daily press passes, such as those Guckert had obtained, and a more active role by the WHCA in approving requests for credentials, which are now solely handed out by the White House Press Office. Currently, two types of press passes are issued. The "hard pass," which allows reporters regular ongoing access to the White House, and "day passes," which must be issued each morning and are good only for one day. Hard passes are more difficult to obtain, requiring the reporter to first obtain a Capitol Hill credential, issued by a committee of congressional reporters known as the Standing Committee of Correspondents. If obtaining permanent White House press credentials is a 2-part process (at least as of Feb 2005) in which the WHCA plays NO (at least apparent) part, then for what purpose did you inject what appears to be irrelevant comments related to WHCA's post-White House credentialing activity? What aspect of my initial observation is it supposed to question, qualify or rebut? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Neglected to note?" Quite the contrary, you just repeated to me exactly what I had written. I've "bolded" sections of my previous comment to clarify, for your benefit. As for my purpose in explaining all of the above, I thought I was clear on that as well: You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not. Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving, I am assuming - was there another?) are members of the Capitol Hill gallery, nor have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process. (Phone calls to both the Capitol Hill Standing Committee and the White House Correspondents Association confirmed this, and gave me the additional information that: "While Congressional Press Gallery credentials are helpful, they are not required for WHCA membership or a permanent Briefing Room pass." Go figure. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving,...have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process. ...which, as you have so admirably reported, has apparently moved into maiden aunt territory inre the issuance of WH "hard passes". Perhaps the Capitol Hill Standing Committee can throw a better annual bash than the WHCA. Quite surprisingly, given the seeming media impetus reflected in the 2 articles above, WHCA/CHSC influence over the process has apparently regressed even further than in 2005, probably much to their chagrin, and WHPO control over the process now reigns supreme. My compliments on your effort in undertaking a rather above-and-beyond pursuit of horse's mouth sourcing and your forthrightness in reporting the "news". Now, as much as I'd enjoy more rhetorical jockeying until we beat this to a fare-thee-well (if we haven't already), I'll forego that pleasure and (again) attempt a return to something perhaps more productive and your now twice-stated yet barely addressed "ultimate point": "...signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization." You stated... You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not. On an assumption that what we're about here is attempting to establish some valid, examinable, referable, consistent markers that might lend themselves to a legitimate consideration of WND RS, I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy, not as some de facto, case closed proof of "reliability". Yet you appear to dismiss it out-of-hand, as an invalid, irrelevant indicy after spending some considerable time trumpeting the crucible of journalistic integrity that was once a "Capitol Hill accreditation process"' and which assumedly is still applied with some considerable vigor, only by a different, perhaps more pragmatic examiner. While I'm tempted to suggest that an RFC on your rather amazing assertion (at least to me) might prove interesting (better make sure Huffpo and TPMites are occupied elsewhere tho), I'd sure be interested in some observations within THIS space on your "ultimate point". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC) That is a lot of words. I like these: "I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy ... of "reliability". My response was to clarify that it is, pending any forthcoming sources from you indicating otherwise, Kinsolving that has "permanent accreditation", not World Net Daily. He has held that status since before WND existed, and he'll hold it long after his agreements with Talk Radio and WND expire (as long as he is employeed somewhere that covers White House news). Neither Kinsolving or WND have been through the Capitol Hill accreditation process, or any similar vetting through the WHPO or WHCA, that might provide "an indicy of reliability". Other opinions, sources and observations are welcome, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Very well then, let's remove Kinsolving/WND from the equation for the moment. In your opinion, is White House Press Office permanent accreditation a legitimate indicy for consideration when making a determination of WP:RS "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability" for ANY media entity? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Hipocrite, and with the others below: World Net Daily doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards expected of most journalistic entities. It is non-RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) To state that WND "doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards..." and "It is non-RS" with nothing additional offered to evidence the validity of those assertions relegates observations such as those to unsupported opinion. Assuming this noticeboard exercise to be something more substantive than vote-casting for your personal position, citing a specific instance(s) that might evidence the validity of an assertion of WND "fact-checking and accuracy unreliability" would be considerably more substantive and, perhaps, advance the assumed purpose of this discussion. I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The publishing of "controversial articles" isn't, as far as I know, a benchmark for determining whether a source meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source - so your vetting of that section of the World Net Daily article in search of justification for WND's "unreliable" reputation may have been in vain. Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I appreciate your forthrightness and, if I understand your position correctly, you are at least open to and are supportive of an examination and consideration of the/any factual basis upon which this "consensus" determination of WND "unreliability" under WP:RS guidelines is based. I believe (as I think you agree) that recurring episodes of RS/N vote-tallying offering little or no substantive support for the conflicting positions offers no opportunity for progress towards resolution of even a temporary nature. Perhaps, on that seeming point of agreement, I'll yield the floor for any further observations on that point by interested editors. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Of course, we can find fault with everyone from the NY Times (see Jayson Blair) to NBC (like exploding pickup trucks). If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The question was not "Are sources 100% faultless?", but "Does WND meet the required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight to be considered a reliable source?" Your two examples illustrate exactly why I would rely on content from NYT or Dateline NBC, and not from WND. Follow the links you provided and observe how heads rolled; editors, producers, even presidents were fired for the transgressions; lengthy apologies were issued; investigations were launched and new processes and procedures were implemented to prevent similar problems - because they do have standards. Show me a similar display of concern for journalist integrity from WND. Aside from quietly issuing a "correction" or disclaiming responsibility for opinions and commentary, I don't believe WND has ever shown the expected responsibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) In what instances, "exactly", did WND fail to demonstrate the "required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight" that you assert. Surely, if their record in that regard is so egregiously bereft of the "journalistic oversight" required by WP:RS, at least a few citable occurences should come to mind? What, exactly, are they? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda. Things that you could take for granted in a more reliable source, like stating a person's occupation, affiliation, educational status, are questionable here. In most cases, if it's noteworthy enough to put in an article a statement should have a better source than WND. It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes, but for the most part if it appears only in WND or if WND contradicts reliable sources, I would discount the likelihood that WND has presented a fair account. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) And yet we routinely use advocacy groups (Media Matters for example) or media outlets with a clear bias (Huffington Post) as sources. It is not an uncommon believe that much of the mainstream media has a bias/agenda of their own. As Blueboar said below, it's about context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC) This has been discussed multiple times... and each time we have stated the same thing: As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question, which needs to be asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) What "final answer"? This final answer has been given over and over again. WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself. Woogee (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Woogee, that is precisely the issue below. WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with this. World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I believe, by anyone's standards, that a reasonable and legitimate indicy of the reliability or reputability of any publication is the participation of noted journalists/commentators who choose to associate their name, professional reputation and standing within the journalism community with the publication in question. Just for the record, here's a few who contribute their work to WND...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press. It somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" within the established journalistic community. It is inconceiveable that the wholesale repudiation of WND as an RS under Wikipedia guidelines should or could even be considered. That is POV at its worst. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way... They are columnists", if you prefer, by anyone's definition, and "columnists" are "journalists"...or do you now propose to edit Wikipedia in support of your assertion? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, I am. Oh, wait - I just checked, and while all of the above have Wikipedia articles, none of them are described as journalists, so no editing necessary. User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Of course not. It would be redundant to say they are a columnist and journalist. But if you look at the article about journalist's, you'll see " A columnist is a journalist who writes pieces that appear regularly in newspapers or magazines.". And in the article columnist you'll read "A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated". So I guess you DO have some editing to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I assume there's a point in there somewhere, but perhaps it's some nuanced attempt at hair-splitting that simply eludes me. You asserted that none of those "political commentators" (by anyone's definition, "columnists") "are not journalists". Wikipedia says you are mistaken...as probably do many other sources. Your error appears to be rather evident. Perhaps you might care to clarify? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "none of those political commentators are not journalists?" Does that mean they are? Never said it, and I'm not sure I even understand it. For my actual point, see below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Oh dear. An actual typo and a failed attempt to quote (you did note the quotes?) your text. I regret and apologize for the confusion it has subjected you to. Fixed --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Apology accepted! Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Would that you might be as forthcoming with an actual response. Your assertion that the aforementioned "political commentators"/"columinists" are not "journalists" is, by definition, demonstrably false...and you need journey no farther than Wikipedia for the evidence. As your premise is false, so goes your assertion that those notable "political commentators"/"columnists" don't represent an association of credentialed and credible "journalists" with WND. You then stand by your flawed definition (to paraphrase your "opinion" below) and suggest dismissal of those established associations as irrelevant to a consideration of WND RS. Nor does your unsupported OPINION that they are unwillingly associated with WND, victimized by the nature of their syndicatation arrangements, pass the smell test. My OPINION is that most, if not ALL, of those "journalists", particularly those who are "household names" in the medium, could opt out of WND publication in a New York minute. They are associated because they opt to be there. ...'journalist', regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. That's a straw man. Nobody here suggested it was a "requirement". All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Your opinion. I believe it to be HIGHLY indicative of WND's stature in the journalism community and, consequently, HIGHLY relevant to any re-consideration of WND/Wikipedia RS. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) An "actual response" to what? I stand by my comments; you've offered your opinions (I assume this is still JakeInJoisey?); and I've accepted your apology. Is there something new? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Again, you are missing the point. Look at the specific example below. If Jerome Corsi (or Chuck Norris) says something in WND, the question here isn't whether or not you don't find what they said to be true (or if you just don't like it), but whether or not it was said in WND. And WND is most certainly a reliable source for whether or not they printed something. This complaining about WP:UNDUE etc is not an issue for RSN. Go fight that battle at BLPN or on the articles talk page. And while you are so flippant in your dismissal of Chuck Norris, I could think of a number of topics he could be a very good source for besides exercise equipment. Probably more topics than either you or I. BTW, you have a stilted definition of what a journalist is. Opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. Journalists are not solely "reporters". Using the correct definition (not your myopic one), Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist and author of 7 best selling books) is a journalist. So is Jerome Corsi (author of 2 best sellers), Dennis Prager (syndicated columnist and best selling author), Bill Press (former TV reporter, author) and even Chuck Norris (author of a book on current events/issues) are all journalists.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I have a stilted/myopic definition of journalist? Opinion writers are journalists? Chuck Norris is a journalist? Corsi is a journalist because he published 2 political agitprop books during presidential elections, and they sold? Come again? You'll excuse me if I stick to my myopic interpretation of what journalism is, thanks. From the link you provided: "Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility," and "...they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good." Oh, I get it... I'm being punk'd. Good one, you got me! ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Laugh all you want.....on your way to edit the article about journalist, since that article says opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. I'm sure you'd want to correct it, wouldn't you? But hey, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Merriam Websters dictionary is though. They say a journalist is "a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience". Don't synidcated columnists and writers of best sellers not only aim for, but actually reach, a mass audience? And if they are writing for WND, they are writing for a news medium. Or wait, let's ask the US Government what a journalist is: "Some journalists also interpret the news or offer opinions to readers, viewers, or listeners. In this role, they are called commentators or columnists."[7]. Maybe you'd like some other references. Or maybe you'll just accept that a "journalist" doesn't mean "reporter" and move along. And don't hand me the ethics definition and expect me to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that you would call folks at Dateline NBC "journalists", despite the number of times that program has been caught doing unethical things. Or Dan Rather and the forged paperwork? Stephen Glass was caught serially fabricating and still managed to get work as a journalist again. The ideals of a profession aren't always the reality of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Neither of your cited sources contradict what I have said. Perhaps you should, as you suggest, move along - since "journalist", regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Using your standards, I, too, can find citations supporting the notion that The National Enquirer and The Onion are bastions of journalism because they cover current events, or that J. K. Rowling is a journalist because she penned a best-selling book. No, I'll stick to my interpretation of journalism, thanks. While you are correct that the ideals of a profession aren't always the reality; the actual issue at hand is the difference between sources that try to meet those ideals versus sources that flout those ideals. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) So stick with your definition. It matters little to me if you want to base your views on an overly narrow and outdated point of view. Just remember that 15 years ago, nobody would have considered anyone publishing on solely on the internet to be a journalist, yet we have case law protecting them as journalists now. I'll progress with the times. Say hello to 1950 for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I intend to stick with the definition; your launches down unrelated tangents notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) WND has a reputation, and it is very much not for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say no, not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Lots of things have "reputations". But the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago John Edwards was Clark Kent. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No, the question does not still remain, as it as been answered repeatedly to the point of ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The "question" is...is there anything substantive, beyond mere opinion, within those "ad nauseum" repetitions of "answers" that might make a case for WND unreliability. Thus far, save for one instance 10 years ago, nothing else has been cited. Perhaps you might have a contribution in that regard? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Funny you should mention him. I remember that battle here when the Enquirer or Star (I forget which) broke the story about his affairs. They can't be trusted. They suck. They aren't reliable. They were right....and the first ones to cover the story. (No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need.) There is no contradiction between not being a reliable source and being "right" on a particular story – a stopped (12-hour analog) clock is right twice a day, but is hardly reliable overall. Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability, but one or two successes doesn't make a source any more reliable than the stopped clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't imply there was a contradiction. In fact I thought I was pretty clear when I said "No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need". I just pointed out a coincidence that happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Let's get this clear... the only reason to do a blanket across the board deletion of a source is when it is placed on the Wikipedia black list.... and we never put sources on the black list because of reliability/unreliability (the black list is for spam sites, links that pass on viruses, etc.). Every citation to a source... even the most unreliable source... needs to be examined and challenged seperately. This because the context of how it is used, and exactly what it is supporting is vital in determining whether it is reliable or not. The exact same source may be fully reliable in one article and completely unreliable in another... because the context is different. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I agree there is no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source, since it is generally accepted that WND may be cited in cases of opinion specifically relating to WND, for example. Each instance of usage should be evaluated separately. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) And thats what I did but I think people are upset that consensus will lead to minimal use of this source in only niche cases... its like TMZ or the Weekly World News. Sometimes good, often not. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Nobody is upset about that. The whole reason I got involved in this is the one we are talking about specifically, which should be left. They can reliably source what they've printed, so if you want to source what someone saind in their publication (as in the case of Mercer), they can be used. But you removed it a number of times. BTW, I never hear the mainstream media reference Weekly World News, I do often hear them reference TMZ. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) So there IS consensus then except from Jake, but we don't have a filibuster here, so he's out. Its only reliable to say Jon Osterman said such and such on my own article, but not for anything else. So if Chuck Norris calls me a communist on WND, we will never use WND as a source for that. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is almost as good (or as bad) as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source. Doing so is disruptive.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, there is consensus here that WND is fundamentally not suitable under WP:RS and you're spinning that. But who wants to completely remove it? For every one I nuked correctly yesterday I was leaving 1 or 2. But then you have situations like this nasty bit where it's publications are used as secondary sources in a BLP... it can't be used. It will come out as we find them per this consensus. Since I also read up on consensus, it doesn't ever have to be unanimous, so we're good. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC) One that you removed is the one we are talking about and there is not a consensus that it should be removed. Even some who generally disapprove of WND conceed that they can be used as a source as so what they've printed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) We could care less about what they publish, anyone can register a site and churn out blog posts. But for example these two removals: [8][9] are fine even though they're events invoked by other sources. It doesn't make WND any more reliable. You do know that they print a magazine too, don't you? That's a little more involved than just having a blog, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) A lot has been said here relative to WND and its stature, or lack of, as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia guidelines. Unfortunately, as I've read these opinions, no one here has thus far addressed any specifics of just why WND is still to be treated as though it still wears the "scarlet letter" of "unreliable journalism". It's about time to lance that boil and take a look at some "facts" about this purported "consensus" on WND unreliability. Were this "given" to be substantive, surely the rationale for its application would be evident. But where to look for that "rationale". How about the "Controversial Stories" section in the Wikipedia WND article itself? Would that not be THE legitimate source to support an allegation of WND "unreliability"? Let's take a look at those purported "Controversies"....at ALL of them... 9/11 attacks - Controversial "commentary" published by a contributing author subsequently described by WND Editor-in-chief, Joseph Farah, as "tasteless and ill-advised" suggesting it should not have been published without "...a little more thought and reflection." Is there a current Wikipedia RS media entity that hasn't experienced a journalistic faux pas of this nature? Can we at least stipulate that "commentaries" by guest-writers have little bearing on a purported news entity's reliability as a factual source? Valerie Plame Leak - On November 5, 2005, WND factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) the comments of Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely referencing his recollections of conversations pertaining to Valerie Plame's CIA work and then, on November 8, factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) that Vallely, on further reflection, has amended his recollections. Now, one might reasonably take Vallely to task for his changing recollections, but how, exactly, does this somehow translate into "unreliable" reportage by World Net Daily? Middle East reporting - This one is a beauty. WND hires a bureau chief in Jerusalem who is criticized by "ConWebWatch, a website critical of conservative new media" as being allegedly pro-Israeli. Continuing in Wikipedia, "When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in northern Israel on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians" after the shooting, although he also mentioned that police called the shooting a "Jewish terror attack." Leaving aside the notion that Zada actually WAS "murdered" (certainly by any western sense of jurisprudence) and that Klein also reported the description of the Natan-Zada attack as a "Jewish terror attack", this story is indicative of WND "unreliability"...how? Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy - Looks like there's some needed editing in the WND article on this one...which states... On December 3, 2006 a WND article said that: "Reports that KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko converted to Islam before his mysterious poisoning with radioactive polonium 210 is raising suspicions that he may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly substance to terrorist groups."[32] According to an article in The Times, apparently mentioning the WND article, the evidence for these suspicions was "gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour." "...apparently mentioning the WND article"? Does this Wikipedia editor have difficulty reading? Here's what The Times commentary ACTUALLY mentioned... "The evidence? Gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour. If it’s good enough for the Sunday Express..." Now, did WND actually carry a story based on the Sunday Express reportage? Of course, and the source of that story was acknowledged. Despite the fact that the Wikipedia WND article misrepresents a "commentary" as a news "article" from The Times and whatever the motivation behind the investigation, WND's report that "Scotland Yard detectives are now trying to discover if Litvinenko had any secret links with Islamic extremist terror groups, the London Sunday Express is reporting" is factually accurate. How does this translate into WND "unreliability" as a source? Anglo-Saxon identity - A commentary...I'll say no more North American Union "conspiracy theories" - So WND takes an editorial position that sees merit in the views of one of its writers and author of a book on the subject, Jerome Corsi, that has been "disputed in the mainstream media". Apparently the "mainstream media" found the theory worthy of "dispute"...and that has bearing on WND's reliability as a reporter of fact...how? Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Perhaps someone can discover some WND factual error within this entry but I'm darned if I can. About the closest item to anything of relevance to WND RS might be the last item... "On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist." But is that what WND said, or did the Wikipedia editor take some shameful liberties with his paraphrase? Here's the [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 WND actual text] on the subject...from a story whose very title, "Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?" suggests something entirely different than the manufactured and bogus paraphrase noted above... "California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication." "Purports to be" hardly equates to "...claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained." What absolute bunk! Now, let me skip to the last one quickly before addressing the "Libel "Lawsuit"... Health care reform and Nazi concentration camps - Even if Corsi might arguably be guilty of over-the-top metaphorizing, is there an RS mainstream media entity immune from offerings of this type of rhetoric from its contributing reporters? Please. Libel lawsuit - In the entire Wikipedia section on "Controversial Articles", this is the sole entry on WND that might legitimately have some bearing on WND RS. In 2008, in an out of court settlement, WND acknowledged that the publication of 2 stories, one on Sep 18th and another on Sep 20th, 2000, made assertions of fact damaging to plaintiff based upon "no verified information". Did they blow it on that one? Without question. Does a single case of lousy reporting, 10 years after the fact, still warrant the Wikipedia RS "reputation" that so many here want to continue to treat as a given? Is the record of CBS News over the last 10 years any better? I should think not, and, for the sake of the reputation of this Wikipedia medium, "Good Faith" Wikipedia editors need to do a serious re-consideration of this "sacred cow" of WND "unreliability". It is POV motivated and sustained, and warrants abandonment here...pronto. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above. But I would like to add my voice to Jake's in pushing for a more substantitive, clear-cut description of WND's standing as a citable or uncitable source under various circumstances. This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn? Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? Are there media watchdog groups that have conducted evaluations of WND? Has Jimbo pronounced from on high his opinion of WND? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above. Perhaps WND may have been legitimately perceived as "unreliable" at some point in its history, but one can't examine shadows of perceptions. Looking through prior recurrences of WND RS/N discussions (by no means exhaustive but including those you directed me to earlier on the Swift Boat Vet article talk page), I see no supporting evidence offered, save for the "libel lawsuit" a decade ago, that should preclude a re-consideration of the current validity of that "reputation". A remark made earlier by User:Beyond My Ken is salient in that regard and, I'd submit, bears repeating here...(emphasis mine) Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability... In a decade of "fact reporting", a single, documented and substantiated error in fact-reporting 10 years ago should be "long haul" enough to warrant an RS re-consideration, would you not agree? Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? I appreciate your referencing this entry. I simply overlooked it...perhaps because of its rather odd location within the WorldNetDaily - Reach section. This probably warrants correction. As to the cite itself...an examination of those currently incorporated cites/sources purporting to lend support to the legitimacy of an "unreliable and false" WND characterization suggests that the entry may be quite problematic. Here's the current article text...with links and my comments following... WND has been criticized as unreliable, "false" and "far-right." One can, of course, stipulate that while RS for "far-right" WND characterizations may be plentiful (albeit, perhaps, arguable), WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS. However, as to... ...unreliable,...? It is not without reason that quotation marks were omitted by the editor in the WND article text. It is nowhere to be found in either of the sources cited by the Wiki editor. And as to those sources themselves?... Source 1: "This time, the focus turns on the accusers", The Seattle Times, August 20, 2008, Opinion, John Young This appears to be little more than a run-of-the-mill, anti-rightwing (and WND/John Corsi/Joseph Farah) screed. Perhaps you may see some relevance to a determination of WND RS in something I may have overlooked there, but I certainly can't. That being said, a short excerpt from a 2007 Texas Monthly offering on Mr. Young's political inclinations might be illuminating... IN OLDEN DAYS, John Young would have been horsewhipped or shot in the back for the stuff he writes two or three times a week in the Waco Tribune-Herald....You don't razz right-wingers in what Young has labeled Bush-by-God country not if you value your kneecaps...Young is the rarest of a vanishing breed of Texans: the unapologetically liberal newspaperman. Since 1984 he has edited the Trib's left-of-center opinion page. Source 2: "CBSNews.com article contains language nearly identical to WorldNetDaily article, including falsehood" Media Matters, October 15, 2007, Research, J.M. And the purported "falsehood", also utilized by CBS News, and cited in the WND article evidencing WND "unreliability"?... "Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock..." ...and goes on to explain... In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate. That "pro-Democrat" and "Democrat Party affiliated" are decidedly different declarations of "fact" has apparently escaped "Media Matters"...but, even assuming the criticism to be valid, could it be more petty? And what does this say relative to Media Matter's own standing as a reputable RS? (but that's another discussion already underway elsewhere) ..."false", This is somewhat of a vague descriptive (WND is..."false"? What the heck does that mean?) and, being rather vague, I suppose one might assume that the word implies some sense of deficiency in their fact-checking reliability? You tell me. Perhaps the source can shed some light... Source 3: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs "lied" when he said President Obama's birth certificate is posted on the Internet."The St. Petersburg Times, Undated, Politi-fact.com, WorldNetDaily's File: Recent statements involving WorldNetDaily, Unattributed Author Ahhhh....the alleged WND assertion is "False" on the Politi-fact.com "Truth-o-meter". Perhaps there's some "there" there, but unfortunately there's no link (that I can find) to the purported "Human Events" ad containing the purported WND assertion which would provide both source and context for examination. All in all, little "there" there that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS. (on edit) In your prior comment you stated... This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn? A thought occured to me that FactCheck.org observations related to WND might stimulate the process and present opportunities for advancing the discussion. A search of their website for "World Net Daily" returns 17 hits. One caveat though if I might. I've only checked the first return and, if it's representative of the remaining 16, FactCheck's observations are, by no means, gospel or definitive on matters related to indicies of WND RS. Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left. Nevertheless, their observations might be worth taking a look at as substantive cites of WND "unreliability" aren't exactly pouring in here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC) To quote you, "...WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS." But then you go on to disparage and impune various sources with characterizations such as "tilts decidedly left", "unapologetically liberal", "pro-Democrat media", ... you really can't have it both ways, Jake. World Net Daily "tilts" to the right to the point of nearly toppling over, but that isn't an affirmation of unreliability. Facts will always be facts, regardless of the sources in which they are found - but that isn't the question here, and we shouldn't frame this issue in such a strawman manner. We're trying to determine the basis for the consensus that World Net Daily does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source for statements of fact. We've both reviewed some of the many past discussions, and while I see the consensus as obviously against WND (and you question whether consensus exists), we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking. So I'll repeat my question from above: Where do we turn to resolve this? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Xeno, either I failed miserably to state my position or you are reading into this something I've neither asserted nor believe. But first, I need to address your reference to (and a rather unsporting bit of rhetoric I might also suggest) "unapologetically liberal" and "pro-Democrat media" in quotes as somehow evidencing a desire on my part to "disparage and impune" various sources. As you should well know, A. those were not my words and B. they were offered as illustrative of and in support of...1. My contention that Young's commentary presented no pertinent "facts" relevant to WND RS and was simply "unapologetically liberal" (Texas Monthly 2007) screed masked in commentary and 2. My contention that Media Matters' purported CBS/WND "'pro-democrat' falsehood" was petty at best and specious at worst. Let's play fair here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out? (Strawman alert: I never said those were your words, just that you chose to insert those characterizations. What "illuminating" did you intend by them if not to somehow impune the sources?) Sorry, but I fail to see how pointing out a source's leanings supports a contention that an article contains no facts; or that your opinion that a fact-checking organization "tilts" one way or another is relevant to their value in this discussion. Indeed, let's play fair - and honestly. By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out? That's certainly my intent (but I should hardly be expected to be unresponsive in addressing several allegations you've made...to include your continuing misrepresentation of my "tilts decidedly left"). For the sake of brevity and conciseness, one step at a time. The quotes were provided within the context of a response to YOUR query: Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?. Now, as I took the time to examine that purported sourcing (which your comment certainly invited) and deemed them to be either irrelevant screed or a specious allegation or an ultimately unexaminable source, one might think that a response to my observations (agreeing, disagreeing, something?) might be expected? Nope. Instead you present an exercise in word/phrase parsing and rhetorical gamesmanship, ignoring both the context in which the quotes were contained and the assessment I offered. If it's word/phrase gamesmanship to be, then let's go back to square one and re-roll. In light of your query... Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? Do you now support any or all of the 3 cited sources as being relevant to an RS consideration of WND "reliability"? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC) You hopped over square one and went straight to my rhetorical questions (each of which I had already researched and found lacking in answers to my actual question). So, let's go back to the actual square one query: "So where do we turn?" Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) (We can discuss your justifications for the insertion of statements like "Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left", some other time - the statements, like the justifications for making them, aren't in any way relevant to the issue at hand.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of moving on (and hopefully some progress), I'll forego further rebuttal to your allegations...but my "tilts decidedly left" comment is still germane. I had offered "FactCheck.org" as a possible consideration for your "So where do we turn?" query. Had you been just a bit less hyper-sensitive, I might have hopefully explained to your satisfaction that my "tilts decidedly left" observation was a caveat related to instances where FactCheck.org's observations dealt with OPINION as opposed to FACT (which they do quite often, at least in my experience). Unfortunately, any consideration of that suggestion apparently got lost in the rhetorical shuffle. However, I now believe even suggesting taking a look at FactCheck.org (or Snopes or whatever might provide some substantive indicy of WND reliability) might be premature, given your apparent ongoing indecision as to how to best progress. Let's do back up a step. "So where do we turn?" An answer appears to be rather obvious, and you needn't travel any farther than the guidance of WP:VERIFY for it. Shouldn't allegations of continuing WND "unreliability" in RS/N be supported by something more than a vote? I'd venture (rather ironically), were those same WP:VERIFY standards applied to this consideration of WND RS, you'd be seeing applied to most of the content in this discussion. So where do we turn? Sourcing I'd suggest...an exceedingly rare commodity in this discussion thus far. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Since a consideration of the most appropriate means to examine, demonstrate, test and establish, as definitively as might be possible, a "consensus" on World Net Daily's "unreliability" status under WP:RS remains unresolved, perhaps an examination of a purportedly relevant, substantive example of WND RS "unreliability", already offered in this RS/N and mentioned in another, might be illuminating. I won't offer a repetition critical of the purported WND "unreliability" demonstrated in the "Birth Certificates" issue (please see 1.4 The Last Time on WND or the current work in progress at the WorldNetDaily article itself, to which any contribution is solicited) but rather some evidence from that same article which appears to (quite ironically I'd submit) evidence WND "Reliability" instead. Within the aforementioned article resides the following text... However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg's lawsuit relies on discredited claims. In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child (Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law) However, FactChecker.org (sic) says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document. A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there. Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship. However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated. Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship. A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. A rather remarkable bit of reportage, hardly "helpful" to Berg's "anti-Obama Citizenship" campaign, from a purportedly "unreliable" source...referenced (as I'm coming to understand) by both a Democratic U.S. Congressman and several left-of-center publications. Specific case: WND & Mercer FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilana_Mercer&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Help needed at the fight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilana_Mercer#WND_disallowed BLP or WND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Has anyone looked at what is being sourced in the example just given? They are sourcing the subjects own words in a column she wrote for WND. How on earth is WND NOT a reliable source for what they printed in their own publication? As a source for what the subject (Mercer) wrote, they are a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If we have to source a statement that she said X on WND to WND, and it hasn't been discussed in other sources, then it probably fails WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Both points are exactly right... In this case it IS RS... but mentioning it is probably UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Why does it sound like we're discussing if what she said was true or correct? That's not the issue. She wrote a column for them. They printed it. They are a reliable source for what they printed (and what she wrote for them). THAT is the issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) But that Guy said it fails UNDUE so it needs to come out anyway. No... we said it probably fails UNDUE... if you want a definitive answer on that, go ask at WP:NPOVN or at WP:BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Also isn't that a deflection from the fact that everyone agrees they need to be purged as sources otherwise? The question was, are they a reliable source. For sourcing what they've printed (and what those that write for them said), it is a reliable source. The weight question should be seperate and on the BLPN, not here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) OK, so we can source them for their own odd opinions if they printed it and that fits other rules, but for sourcing anything else, they have to go immediately. I think I get it now. First, please start signing your responses. I'm getting tired of the edit conflicts. Second, this isn't resolved. It's been what? An hour? Let some other people weight in. Don't be in such a hurry about it. Lastly, no, it wasn't said that they can't be a RS for anything else. The whole fallacy of this was trying to get people to say that they never are a RS. It depends on what they are being used to source. BTW, your bias against them is pretty evident. If you want to appear to be doing this out of some neutrality concern or sheer concern for reliablity, you might want to try a different approach.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No, this discussion has not run an hour. It has run months, if not years, and the decision has never changed. Niteshift, WND will never be allowed for any use other than to source what they say about themselves. Ever. Woogee (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) First, that is exactly what they are being used for in this case, a source about what was said in their own publication. Second, this editor is now running around to numerous articles, removing WND sources on sight and using this discussion as his justification for doing it. He's not even listening to what is being said here. And a blanket rejection is not realistic. Take John Stossel for example, a regular contributor to WND. The man has earned his reliable source "bones". Just because he chooses to publish a piece in WND instead of at Huffington Post doesn't mean that piece must be rejected out of hand. Stossel has an established reputation and the venue doesn't automatically change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, let's take John Stossel for example. He is not a regular contributor to WND. He is a regular syndicated opinion writer who distributes his pieces (and the rights to post his name) to any outlet that meets his fees, whether that is WND or the highschool newspaper down the street. He didn't choose to publish in WND, and not in HuffPo — quite the contrary — WND chose to publish his pieces, and HuffPo chose not to. Let's keep this factual, please. Just because WND has paid for the right to be one of many outlets to publish copies of Stossel's stuff doesn't make WND a credible source for factual information, although it apparently works on some folks to improve its facade. If you want to cite content from Stossel, you'd probably be more successful to cite a copy of it from a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Wow, you couldn't have missed the point more. Done trying to explain it to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'll hold you to that. (And I got your point, worry not. I was simply correcting a gross misstatement of yours.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, you missed the point, that's why you think there was a misstatement. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, you. See above. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Specific case: Fluoride in the water/global control crazy conspiracy theories "WND Exclusive Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer? Safety debate over public water treatments heats up with release of shocking new studies"[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514] How does this affect their status as RS for the rest of the world? For example at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=349044154 Unlike the previous situation ... In this case, WND is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Observations or determinations as to WND's "reliability" inre its reportage of specific facts are premature and should be tabled pending some resolution to the overriding issues raised by the RS/N title section and currently under discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Specific case: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth; John Kerry and BLP violations in WND Is this a BLP violation then if WND is an illegal source? Jon Osterman (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Clearly not a reliable source in that case, and stop calling it a law, it's a policy. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Observations or determinations as to WND's "reliability" inre its reportage of specific facts are premature and should be tabled pending some resolution to the overriding issues raised by the RS/N title section and currently under discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The last time on WND Examples of WND acting unreliably http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 - "A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." They added text to this after it became embarassing. How much of the rest of their investigations don't actually "include inspecting the actual document?" I would suggest, Hipocrite, that you carefully re-read the story that you cite as supporting your assertion. In fact, it does quite the opposite. The document WND is referring to is the document obtained, and supported as authentic, by FactCheck.org. WND's "investigation" into its "authenticity" is echoing FactCheck.org's finding. I might also suggest that the very same WND story you've cited offers a bounty of credible and unbiased fact-reporting that WND critics might find to be quite praiseworthy and remarkable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Are you kidding? They said they did an investigation, which proved Obama's birth certificate was not a forgery. When that investigation became embarassing to them, they retracted it, stating that their investigation did not "include inspecting the actual document." This is what you consider the behavior of an insitution with a reputation for reliability and fact checking? Stop digging. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) On Aug 21, FactCheck reported that they had "...now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." WND's "investigation", reported on Aug 23...and based upon what could only have been an examination of the FactCheck proffered "image" of the document by WND's "forgery experts" (unmentioned in the original story), "...supported FactCheck's claim of authenticity." Subsequent to that initial report (parenthetically and quite openly appended to the story), WND qualified its initial report in order to stipulate and clarify that the examination was of an image, not the original document itself and that, because of that actuality, could not establish the same degree of "authenticity" or "proof" that a physical examination of the document might render. You are free to read into that some nefarious motivation to renege on their original assessment, but I'd submit that it was, in fact, not a retraction of their original assessment at all but simply an attempt to "qualify" (as a common and most acceptable custom among even the most reputable sources) its original reportage of its own "investigation" relative to that of FactCheck.org's actual, "hands-on" examination. In fact, and also included in the parenthetical, was the following... The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image's authenticity. Now, you tell me who's "digging" Hipocrite.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=4347 "The original news release by WorldNetDaily.com of September 18, 2000, and the article by Hays and Thompson of September 20, 2000, contained statements attributed to named sources, which statements cast Clark Jones in a light which, if untrue, defamed him by asserting that the named persons said that he had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a 'subject' of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a 'dope dealer,' and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. These statements were repeated in the subsequently written articles and funds solicitations posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website. Clark Jones emphatically denied the truth of these statements, denied any criminal activity and called upon the publisher and authors to retract them. Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true. Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context." More on request, of course, but those two would appear to be disqualifing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) discussion top There seems to be a clear consensus on the part of respondents that WorldNetDaily should not be used as an encyclopedic source for factual claims. Respondents suggest that it may be appropriate as a source documenting the opinions of its contributors, where those opinions are suitable for inclusion under our policies on due weight and biographical material. Discussion seems to have reached an impasse, and barring any dramatically new arguments it seems reasonable to close things here. MastCell Talk 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}} Perhaps WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT, but WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for facts. Hipocrite (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, as per the letter and spirit of WP:VERIFY, you might wish to elevate your contention to something more than barely supported opinion. Your sole contribution in that regard, which you apparently purport to be so breathtakingly definitive as to warrant its own sub-section, was little more than a cut-and-paste of an already acknowledged, dated and quite singular occurence of a decade ago accompanied by such a transparently bogus misrepresentation of a purported WND "transgression" that it still languishes, in all its glory, both undefended and, apparently, indefensible within a now mercifully re-titled (and not by YOU) 1.4 The Last Time On WND. I might also ask under what Wikipedia norm do you presume to tag a "resolved" judgement to an RS/N which you neither started nor to which you have contributed little more than a vote? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) People who are not deeply involved in the arguments here are precisely the appropriate people to close the discussion. Closing again, more firmly this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Worldnetdaily, again It looks like people are asking about WorldNetDaily again. I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. However, like any other news outlet, it conducts interviews, looks through primary sources, and prints editorials. I'd like to propose that for some sources, while the analysis may be too politicized, basic facts should not be a problem, especially facts that come straight from primary sources. A new editor ( though one who found RS on his third edit ) has been doing a linksearch and pulling out cites to WND all over the place. While some of these were situations where better sources were available that superceded WND, on others its difficult to see how WND could be unreliable in the given context. One example would be the article on Jarbidge, Nevada, where an EL to [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18045 The Jarbidge Shovel Brigade] was removed. This is a fairly matter-of-fact account of a protest where people were clearing a path that had been blocked by the Forest Service over a land-use issue. While the EL should be worked into a real cite, and there might be other sources than WND available, this is the sort of thing I'd expect WND to be reliable for and shouldn't be removed. Another example would be the article on Ilana Mercer, where her own columns on WND were removed as a source. Her columns are a reliable primary source on her own views. Here I actually agree with the removal, but not for the reasons given. The quotes were taken out of context, most of them minor points from like nine paragraphs down in essays about other topics. But the unreliability was in WP, not WND. There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source. Some editors have expressed concerns about political bias, but several editors agreed in the previous debate that there's no reason for complete removal of all links to WND. The practice has always been that we do treat WND as a niche source, similar to TMZ for entertainment news. Sometimes WND will be the one that has detailed information on the Tea Party movement or a land-use dispute out West, just as sometimes TMZ has the detailed information on Hollywood. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. All of that is totally irrelevant. WND is not a reliable source because it has a poor reputation for accuracy. Perceived bias has nothing to do with it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) WND is not a reliable source because it has a poor reputation for accuracy. If a "reputation", when examined for its veracity, is found to be unsupportable by even a minimum of sourcing in fact, it can and should be dismissed as unfounded by any rational consideration of its validity. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source." Incorrect. Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content. As noted above, accuracy and oversight, and not political leanings, are the reasons for this consensus. Use of citations to WND to support "opinion of WND" content, or to support "opinions expressed only in WND" are gray areas to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such evaluations, however, are very likely to additionally consider WP:UNDUE; WP:FRINGE, WP:VALID, etc. (Why is this in a separate section from the above current WND discussion?) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What is the source for the claim that it has a poor reputation for accuracy? I think we also have to distinguish between the magazine and the book publisher. They are two different entities, and newspapers in general generally work under quite different timetables and time pressures than do publishers, with corresponding differences on capabilities that relate to reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Most of the criticism of WND that comes up every so often comes up because of perceived bias. People see Creationism or a hawkish stance on the Middle East and question its editorial policies. That may be a valid criticism of an analysis piece; when analysis becomes politicized enough, it becomes rhetoric. Most of the criticism in our article on WND centers around a bombastic tone in some articles. There's only a couple of incidents reported in that article that show potential slipups in fact-checking. One was reporting of the likely-bogus Obama birth certificate. That alone shouldnt disqualify WND; CBS had some trouble a while back with some fake memos about Bush in the National Guard. The other incident revolved around allegations made about a car dealer who was involved in the Gore campaign, which resulted in a lawsuit and a retraction. That appears to be more serious, but should that cause us to ban WND as a source from all articles? There was no consensus to only allow WND for opinions. There may have been a suggestion that WND should be cited with attribution, but that's not the same thing. Facts can be attributed as well as opinions. And yes, there's a reason for starting a new section, as the previous one looks like a chatroom, and is hevily weighted with people who arrived here from talk pages. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, and in no way meaning to question your good faith, I don't believe your characterizations of the discussions are consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I've re-read the several dozen instances of the reliability of WND being raised on this notice board, and the consensus was against WND as a reliable source for factual content. WND is the "publication", by the way - not the contributions printed in it. Specific authors weren't usually mentioned in the discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC) For the millionth time - the website lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The publisher lacks an implicit reputation for accuracy and fact checking. While individual books from the publisher might be reliable sources, and individual articles on the website might be reliable sources, being on the website or by the publisher are evidence against any measure of reliability. WND is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The previous discussion is now beyond TLDR, but it appears some examples given that were supposed to show WND as unreliable actually don't. For example this article about water fluoridation, despite the racy title of Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer?[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514] simply discusses some anti-flouride referendums in different cities. There's a certain tone and impression it conveys; it could use some criticism of the anti-fluoride positions, but there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased. If we were writing an article on, say, an anti-fluoride group, there shouldn't be any problem with using an article like this for basic facts about the group's position. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) The article you point to asserts the following as a fact: "From Pennsylvania to Nebraska and from Europe to New Zealand, there is growing and fierce opposition to plans to fluoridate public drinking water, fueled by a battery of shocking new studies that seriously question a practice routine among U.S. municipalities for nearly the last 50 years.". I would encourage editors to read the article, examine other sources, and then make their own determination as to whether that 'fact' was adequately 'checked for accuracy'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Chef, you also raise an interesting point, however, and the wording you chose prompts me to ask for your further opinion based on your hypothetical scenario: would you see any problem with using the WND article if the anti-flouride group was also "left-leaning" and heavily liberal-sponsored? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Dlabtot, I'm sure WND is RS for the fact that there is some increase of opposition to fluoridation. After you filter out all the rhetoric, it's just "anti-Fl group A says X, and anti-Fl group B says Y". Where we have to be careful is that editors who cite WND must (1) attribute claims to groups that WND is quoting, and (2) not be swayed by any "picture" that seems to be painted by the way facts are presented. That goes for any politicized source, including liberal sources and many foreign newspapers. That said, there is a pecking order of sources, and if the same information was in a Washington Post article we would use that instead. I'd also be more comfortable citing WND in an article about controversies over water fluoridation rather than the main article on water fluoridation. Xeno, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the present-day anti-Fl groups were on the liberal side of the spectrum. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "I'm sure WND is RS for the fact that there is some increase of opposition to fluoridation." If that was what they said, I might agree with you. It's not and I don't. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Frankly even without the sensationalist prose, I would not take at face value any unusual, surprising or controversial claim that I read on WND. "There has been some increase of opposition to fluoridation."... if I read that I would have to double check it somewhere else. Because of the WND's reputation for inaccuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "Xeno, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the present-day anti-Fl groups were on the liberal side of the spectrum" -- not actually an answer to his question. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Are you reading some subtext into his question that I'm not seeing? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Chef, you said, "...but there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased. If we were writing an article on, say, an anti-fluoride group, there shouldn't be any problem with using an article like this for basic facts about the group's position." I disagree with your assertion that there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased when it comes to sourcing statements of fact. While acknowledging that everyone has bias and opinion, the earnest struggle to be objective, uninvolved and unbiased is the hallmark of "reliable" news sources. I read your comment above as implying it would be okay to cite WND as a source of factual content about a group's position, as long as WND is biased toward that group. That would be the same as citing the group's literature or website as a source of factual information, and there is indeed a reason why we do not do that. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I really don't want to wade myself in the middle of this, but one metric I use when determining whether a source is a WP:RS is to see what other reliable sources are saying about the source. Do any of these shed any light on the matter?[10][11][12][13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Rhetorical questions have their place, but I'm not sure RSN is one of them. Why don't you tell us what you think? Dlabtot (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) While I may regret your reluctance to "wade in", your provision and suggestion of sourcing that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS is appreciated nonetheless and is precisely the type of input I have been advocating for. As to the particulars of those sources, I have already reviewed and commented upon the content of the Politi-fact source (I believe both links look at, ultimately, the same issue) but was unable to find a link to the purported WND assertion in the purported Human Events ad that might be examined for both context and content. As I stated earlier, perhaps there's some "there" there, but it is, thus far, unexaminable. As to the "FactCheck.org" links, please note that I have already suggested (and provided a link to) some 17 WND "hits" returned by a FactCheck search but am awaiting further input from Xeno (or anyone for that matter) as to his/their further thoughts on the value of sourcing to a determination of WND RS. As for me, I would be delighted to take a look at any FactCheck article that anyone might care to offer in support of an assertion of WND "factual unreliability". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC) {EC} My question wasn't meant to be rhetorical and I don't have an opinion on the reliability of this particular source. Overall, I tend to be a cautious editor so I try not to use sources that might be questioned (whether justly or unjustly). The one thing I will say is that we should be looking at the totality of reliable sources. If WND is the only source for something, then we don't cite the odd-ball source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Ignoring JakeinJoisey, is there anyone who believes that WND has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of a reputable source? Are we just getting duped into this discussion over and over again by a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument? I think we are. Hipocrite (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I did not know enough to say whether or not WND would deserve a reputation for fact checking or accuracy, I needed additional sources to really make an opinion. For that I started, as you do, with the Wikipedia article, which turned out to be worse than rubbish as it was not just lacking in information but was spreading disinformation. I didn't know that from experience - I never heard of WND before a few days ago. I found that out by looking at how the Wiki article was sourced, and basically it wasn't. It was all original research designed to present WND in as bad a light as possible. While WND may have had criticism much of the criticism in the article was just invented and it is rather disappointing that so few people have been willing to challenge the misinformation held on that page. If the contributors here have evidence of a consistent lack of fact-checking at WND they should perhaps edit the article with some reliable sources instead of referring back and forth on noticeboards which do nothing for the people who actually read the article looking for information. I don't think WND deserves the reputation it has here for consistent inaccuracy. It has made mistakes, like all news agencies, and I wouldn't rely on it alone for controversial claims, but I don't think that WPWEIGHT is best served by relying on just one source, however reliable it is felt to be. Weakopedia (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I am somewhat optimistic that we may be, via a refinement of this now lengthy discourse (unfortunately now occuring, on the same topic, in 2 different RS/N's), approaching the heart of this matter. In the other RS/N, User:Xenophrenic posed the following and I think, perhaps, salient question: By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue? I hope to address (and further develop) the relevancy and importance of that question to these RS/N's upon the resumption of his participation in this discussion...which is his recently stated intent. Briefly stated, it is the undefined and undiscussed (that I can find) concept of WP:RS "reputation for accuracy" that, I believe, is the nub of this problem...and it needs to be resolved...somewhere. I believe that appropriate "somewhere" to be Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. I will limit any further comment on this aspect of WND RS to this more recent RS/N. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Ignore? How archaic. Yes, defending sacred cows can be quite taxing. And those uncomfortable questions? Nah...who needs 'em. Perhaps a cooperative, uninvolved admini...but WAIT! He's HERE! YAAAAAAAAY! What a remarkable experience and demonstration of Wikipedia at its (cough) finest this has been. Enjoy the silence and the degree of credibility that stifled debate ensures...and, perhaps, spend just a moment reflecting upon the notion that the remnant shreds of credibility this Wikipedia experiment might still possess grow fewer and fewer with each abuse of administrative oversight applied. Seeya next go-round Xeno. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) As several attempts to shut down another RS/N discussion on this same topic have been laudably rejected by apparent consensus of those who chose to weigh in on the issue, I am amending my prior comment to retract my observation...written in response to and during the rather unprecedented archival of an ongoing RS/N discussion by a thus far non-participating administrator. I was disinclined to challenge that administrative action and am grateful for the intercession of the Wikipedians who stood up to reject it. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) OK, people, I'm going to throw up a few more examples. Does anybody have a problem with citing WND for any of: Minuteman Civil Defense Corps disbands. This is a volunteer border patrol group, a few days ago they disbanded as a corporation. It still has only light coverage in the national news, but the group was certainly notable and it certainly needs to be mentioned in our article. Is there anything wrong with citing this WND article on the matter?[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131037] Seems to me a topic that WND is reliable in. The Arizona Daily Star also did a couple of good pieces on the matter, and I'd be inclined to cite those, but if only WND was available, would that be citable? Gay Fuel energy drink. Really. This is the sort of topic I wouldn't expect them to cover well, but they did. I'd been looking up energy drinks a while ago and this was the only non-primary source that discussed what herbs went into the drink, what it tasted like, and so forth. Other than using the clinical "homosexual" instead of "gay", rhetoric was to a minimum. Would there be any problem with citing this article, especially as the ingredient facts can be confirmed against primary sources?[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39283] Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. WND was notable in publishing some of the conspiracy theories. When citied with attribution, it's being used almost as a primary source here. I feel it's important to demystify conspiracy theories which means some citation and discussion of them. Many editors wouldn't allow primary citations of conspiracy blog posts and so forth, they would raise questions of notability. I feel some news outlets that are sympathetic to that point of view, while problematic as all-round sources, are useful in showing a modicum of secondary-source attention for writing articles about conspiracy theories. I think the consensus has always been while WND might not be an "all-round RS" in the sense that the Washington Post is, it may be a "case by case" RS where depending on what we're citing may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. I know some editors may be trying to fight off other editors who want to quote WND as gospel, but I'm trying to prevent an outright ban on WND like we have a ban on the LaRouche publications. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) First, while I appreciate your contribution to this discussion (and will look forward to your continuing contributions), as your comment appears to characterize what I assume to be (and my apologies if I assume incorrectly) my prior comments as evidencing some desire to "quote WND as gospel", that is neither my intent nor, do I believe, is such a characterization supportable by anything I have said thus far on the subject. My intent, to be specific, is to demonstrate that, under an examination for substance, an assertion of WND's "reputation for INaccuracy" is unsustainable. What bearing my assertion, if determined to be valid, might have on an ability to cite WND as "gospel" under WP:RS is another question entirely and must await, I'd suggest, some resolution or consensus on WND "reputation for accuracy". A "reputation", unsupportable in "fact", is a sacred cow. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) No, that "gospel" angle wasn't directed at you. I've been on other discussions about WND where that might have been relevant. Often people polarize into camps of "never reliable" and "always reliable". I'm trying to establish a middle ground. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification, and a further comment... I think the consensus has always been while WND might not be an "all-round RS" in the sense that the Washington Post is, it may be a "case by case" RS where depending on what we're citing may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, that may well BE the current "consensus" on considering WND cites, but if an integral element of the recommended WP:RS considerations in establishing that current "consensus", to wit WND's alleged failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy", was proven to be without foundation in fact, how would or should that impact subsequent consideration of WND cites under WP:RS? Shouldn't they be treated as a "reliable source" for any "factual" cites unless the accuracy of any cited "fact" is challenged by some other "reliable source" ? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The overwhelming consensus is that it is not a RS, and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Notwithstanding Squidfryerchef's misguided desire to find a 'middle ground' -- as if this were about making everyone happy rather than about writing an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Your ability to cite that "consensus" is prodigious. Your ability to verify the legitimacy of that "reputation" via examinable sourcing somewhat less...in fact, thus far, undemonstrated. Please provide some examinable sourcing that might support your contention that WND's "reputation" for "innaccuracy" is sustainable...or even demonstrable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC) No, Dlabtot, I'm rationalizing what has been the practice on WP for citing WND. It's been allowed under limited conditions. Being RS is a sliding scale, and there are few sources so reliable they can be cited as the ultimate authority on everything, and there are few publications so unreliable they can't be used at all. The whole purpose of RSN is to discuss whether a given source is RS for a particular area. I've listed a few situations where I feel WND would be appropriate to cite, and I haven't seen any convincing arguments to the contrary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC) No, WND is not a reliable source. Neither is the Weekly World News. Both interview people, and occasionally have an article which is actually accurate - but if either of these organs have covered something notable, there are dozens of reputable sources to use, and so there is no need to even discuss this. If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or not notable, and this is so close to 100% that it should be treated as an axiom. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) The Weekly World News is pretty much a satire source, like The Onion, so that comparison doesn't hold water. It's also absurd to say that "if only source X covers something we should leave it out"; one of the strengths of WP is to be able to use specialized sources to fill in what other sources leave out. That's like saying, in an article about a computer virus that was covered by the mainstream media but only in broad strokes, that we shouldn't cite The Register if it was the only source that discussed how the virus actually worked. Still haven't seen any arguments that demonstrate why WND shouldnt be cited for the three scenarios I put up. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC) If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or... Quite a remarkable assertion. If only WND covers it, how would would you know "it" is "not true"? Shouldn't the same WP:RS mandates for "Verifiability" be applied to an assertion of WND's failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability"? Can you cite an instance, other than a single, decade old occurence, where WND failed to demonstrate "factual reliability" or is this discussion merely an exercise in vote-counting ? If you can provide such a cite, you'll be the first in this either discussion, thus far, to do so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Digital spy

Is http://www.digitalspy.co.uk acceptable to add content? I have seen it both accepted and rejected, is there a list of not reliable online links? Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...the last couple times this came, it appears as if the majority of editors thought the site was reliable.[14] [15] They appear to have a professional editorial staff[16] and are run by the same company that makes ELLE and Premiere magazine which I would consider to be reliable sources. It's cited by dozens of our articles[17] which indicates that other editors thought the site was reliable. So my initial thoughts are yes, generally speaking, this is a reliable source. I should mention that in those previous WP:RSN discussions, there was some concern that some of its articles were gossipy so I would recommend special care be taken to make sure WP:BLP is addressed.

No, we do not keep a list of online sites that are known to be unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks for commenting and the links. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Marina Orlova

Is this archive link to utube http://web.archive.org/web/20070620161434/http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords a reliable enough link to create this redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marina_Rodina&action=history to this person Marina Orlova who has this utube channel http://www.youtube.com/hotforwords Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay for the redirect (but not for a mention in her BLP). Rules for redirects (Wikipedia:Redirect) are not as stringent as rules for article content; for example, redirects are exempt from NPOV policy.

There seems to be a reasonably widespread belief that she used to be called Marina Rodina, and this may well be true. [18][19] Anyone looking for "Marina Rodina" is likely looking for her, so the redirect does its job. --JN466 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources on inaccuracies in Angels & Demons

{{resolved}} I need opinions on two sources being used regarding mistakes in the book Angels & Demons: Is the content of Book Mistakes user-generated? Second, what is the reliability of CR Publications for that webpage's material on the same topic? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please answer my question? My above post got archived, and I had to restore it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The first one seems to based (according to it's FAQ) on user generated content and therefore is not a reliable source. The second one has a heavy bias for the catholic church and should only be used in a very limited way about it's own views on the subject. Having said that, since Angels and Demons is covering in multiple reliable sources, why would we want or need to use such a marginal source? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP editor did. Thanks, Cameron. Nightscream (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

state sponsored terrorism

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FRQQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rY0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5215,10559987&dq=al+zulfiqar+political+assassination&hl=en

ref>[20]</ref> are these links reliable sourcesMughalnz (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The first link appears to be an article from the Associated Press. Generally speaking, they're a reliable source, however the article appears to be almost 30 years old, so it's information might be out of date. Can you provide more context as to how this source is going to be used?

The second link appears to be a forum which is not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Per AQFK, the first is as reliable as any 30 year old AP news article, while the second is not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

pakdef.info

The following articles from pakdef.info are being used as source for the article PNS Ghazi

• lossofghazi
• forgottenfeat

Since pakdef.info has been cited in many other Pakistan related article as well I would like to verify the reliability of this source. Firstly I would like to point out the mission statement of this website pakdef.info/mission

• Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
• We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
• PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Does not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. Hardly the qualities WP requires of RS.

Also the site is based in UK making it obvious that it is not related to any of the Pakistans defence forces. It appears the site is not related to any news or defence/policy analyst groups either.

Another site I would like to verify is battleships-cruisers.co.uk also relating to PNS Ghazi article. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

the pakdef.info website looks more like a propaganda site whose mission is to highlight Pakistan's 'Glorious past' and 'loving present'. as such would not meet criteria at [[WP:RS}}. the website http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk is one of the largest naval history sites on the Internet and has extensive info about navies from around the world. dont see any major issues with it.Wikireader41 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

pakdef appears to be a self-published site. Can you give more information on its reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, PakDef can be proved to be a repository of information published by reputable sources. The articles hosted at the site come from various sources with "editorial oversights" such as international magazines and books. An example to prove my point:

• The "Aviation Articles" webpage (click here) contains citations for 14 articles on the Pakistan Air Force as well as the aviation wings of the Pakistan Army and Navy. 9 of the citations contain a link to a copy of the article. These articles were originally published by the following international publications:
  • Flight International magazine
  • Air Forces Monthly magazine
  • Air International magazine
  • Air Enthusiast magazine

Secondly, according UplinkAnsh's quote above, the PakDef mission statement states that the administrators "welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present,...". Yet UplinkAnsh mis-represents this by stating in his above post that "Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan". I believe this proves UplinkAnsh has an agenda here and his claims should be treated with caution.

--Hj108 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

just because a self published site links to articles from other reputed journals does not make it a reliable source for purposes of WP. anybody could make a website and link it to anything they want. there is no misrepresentation here and your reasoning is completely flawed and you have failed to provide any response to Jayjg request for 'more information on its reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight'. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement "We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website.*" on the site is qualified with the subtext "*PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation." The editorial policy of the self-published site is thus selective with clear potential for bias, since the editors have no policy or published guidelines on which material meets their standard of acceptance. This is an indicator of a propaganda site, and the site does not seem to meet the accepted criteria for reliability. Skcpublic (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

BlackJack's website

Following this discussion I've thought I should try this venue at reaching a decision on BlackJack's website [21]. BlackJack (talk · contribs) has cited his own website in 238 articles [22]. I was recently in a dispute on the Lamb's Conduit Field article when I replaced citations to his website which I believe to be unreliable, with citations to CricketArchive (a website considered to be reliable), my edits were reverted by BlackJack and the page was subsequently incorrectly protected by Someguy1221.

The most concerning part to me is that BlackJack has copied text virtually straight from his own website, see and compare his website's entry on Edward Stead [23] and the Wikipedia article. He is now using this as an argument that his citations can't be removed or else WP:COPYVIO would be breached. This seems completely wrong to me, if BlackJack has waived his copyright rights by uploading the information in the first place he then can't at a later date say I want my copyright back. --88.111.52.108 (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. When you edit an article you "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Theleftorium 11:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that in that case he has copied text virtually straight from Wikipedia to his own website. It was here in 2005. According to that external site, it was copyrighted there in 2007.

Two points. First, as Theleftorium says, if he authored the material both there and here, then he has released that content like every other contributor under our licensing terms. The attribution here is sufficient.

Second, if he published it there first, then the release on his website is insufficient, as it does not meet the licensing terms of Wikipedia. How do you know it's his website? Has he verified this through OTRS or somewhere on the site itself? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the petitioner is again using a dynamic IP address instead of his registered username but, nevertheless, he cannot deny that he is the same person discussed in this WP:ANI topic or that he was recently banned for disruptive editing and carrying on a campaign of invective: waging a war, if you like.

Unlike him, I have nothing to hide about what I do. I have already pointed out to him that my site is reliable because of my association with certain entities involved in cricket research and he already knows that CricketArchive which he again mentions above, got virtually all of its 18th century content from me using material that is on my site. Furthermore, as he also knows, none of the very knowledgeable members of WP:CRIC have ever challenged the use of my site as a source for 18th century cricket.

As it happens, I've already written to MRG on her talk page to ask some questions and will abide by her advice as I have complete respect for her in the matter of licensing. Unlike itinerant IP users, she is a subject expert who can be depended upon.

But, I digress. To clarify a couple of points raised above, my site (call it LTL) was first published in 2007 although the first draft was created in 2005 at the same time I was working for CricketArchive, hence it has the same information except that I don't include detailed scorecards in LTL (out of scope). It has frequently been updated and in fact I don't know when the Stead biography was last amended. However, it is true that I have sometimes written the same piece for both sites, especially with short articles like that one.

To answer MRG's last question, it is my site but I think I have only said so in posts with CRIC members. I certainly haven't officially declared it as such. Let me know if you need to ask anything else. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

'he already knows that CricketArchive which he again mentions above, got virtually all of its 18th century content from me using material that is on my site' Do I? I may have been told it before by you but there's no evidence to support your claim apart from you appearing on a list of 70 odd CricketArchive contributors. 'No members have ever challenged the use of my site' Well apart from SGGH who did last year and your response included the line: "Where the author puts forward his own views, he is probably talking out of his hat, our knowledge of 18th century cricket being so limited, but you can't write a history without expressing a few honest opinions." In case you don't know the phrase 'talking out of his hat' means speaking about a subject as if you know a lot about it when in fact you know very little, that hardly inspires confidence in reliability and seems a perfect defintion of WP:OR. --88.111.47.144 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk about putting a spin on things. Are you in New Labour? SGGH on 6 October 2009 asked WT:CRIC a question about the reliability of a site he had not then seen before. A very fair question. I answered him and humorously poked a bit of fun at myself in the process. You do not mention SGGH in a recent post on the same page when he had this to say about the same subject. Consensus is the basis of Wikipedia decision-making, not that you would ever accept a consensus.

If you have an issue about the reliability of the site, log on with your username and raise the issue at WT:CRIC. And if you want evidence of my involvement at CA, write to Peter Griffiths at the site and ask him about all the 18th century material including the scorecards that I provided. You might also ask the ACS about the Early Cricket Project on their site as the same person seems to have been their major contributor also.

I am sorting out the licensing question with MRG. I suggest you stop playing politics and move on.

By the way, if you want something useful to do, Arthur Booth needs more content. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the copyright and licensing issue (being discussed elsewhere), this comes down to a simple question... is BlackJack to be considered an "acknowledged expert" or not? If so, then his website is reliable and can be used. If not, then his website is not reliable and it is OR for him to include material that is only available on his website. I suggest that the best place to find an answer to that question is at the related wikiproject. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but if he wants to raise the issue there he must do so under his username and not with a rotating IP (he was blocked recently for disruptive editing in this fashion). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Cricket Wikiproject is sick and tired of BlackJack and all the disputes he continues to provoke but if that's the only chance of getting this matter resolved then so be it. What rules dictate that I must have a username before I can post at a wikiproject? --88.111.47.144 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So that people know who they are dealing with, perhaps? And I didn't notice anyone sick and tired of me in the diff I added above. I'll tell you what they are sick of and that is trolls coming into their talk page to cause trouble. If you post on there as an IP address it will be deleted immediately and I won't need to do it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the above response, can I request that one of the neutral users who have posted in this section could raise Blueboar's question at WT:CRIC. --88.111.47.144 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that at all. But it just shows what we are dealing with here. May one ask why you can't log on and do it yourself under your own username? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing why your site would qualify as a WP:RS. Are you a recognized expert in the field? Please explain in terms of WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Are rankings appropriate sources for Wikipedia?

I have seen many quotes to rankings such as Alexa (for websites) and Forbes (for company size and wealthy individuals) in Wikipedia. Is this in compliance with Wikipedia policy? Are rankings secondary sources Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources? Some rankings like Alexa seem to rely heavily on estimates. Some rankings like Forbes use a limited data set to make their list: Forbes e.g. uses only publicly quoted companies to make their list of largest companies in the world; they leave all privately owned companies out. What determines that a ranking (such as these) is fit (enough) for use as a source on Wikipedia? All input is welcome. --BalderV (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Short answer... Yes, rankings from reliable sources such as Forbes are appropriate. Longer answer... rankings from reliable sources are appropriate, but they should be attributed so readers know who made the ranking. If some other reliable source has published a different ranking (presumably using a different data set) that should be noted (and attributed) in the article or list as well (per WP:NPOV). What determines whether a ranking is fit enough for us to use as a source is the reputation and reliability of the publication that created the ranking. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

UUBahai.com

Hello. I would like an opinion on http://www.uubahai.com. The editorial policy is here and I'm interested in using articles written by "admin" like this one. Thanks! - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog. It's not a reliable source except for its own views. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I need clarification on this. Views on UU Bahaism? The website? What about information regarding the modern UU Bahai movement? - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. In general, it's not a reliable source. However, it might be acceptable on a limited basis in an article about or related to the website. Read WP:SPS. Or if you want, provide more context. If you go to the top of this page, there are 4 numbered items that we ask editors to fill in when posting here. But the short answer to your question is that no, it's not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As AQFK says, it's a blog, a WP:SPS, and therefore should be avoided except under very restricted circumstances. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham

Is this gossip column from the Washington Post a reliable source for the article on Laura Ingraham? The content being added is "In July 2009 she adopted a 13 months old boy, Michael Dmitri, from Russia." I'm of the opinion that no gossip column is a reliable source for facts, but another editor disagrees. I'm asking here first, but I can take it to WP:BLPN if that seems more appropriate. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is okay, especially as it is the Washington Post and there's a picture of the happy couple, apparently supplied by Ingraham herself. There's a bunch more on her website too, giving his name etc [24]. The kid is pretty cute, don't you think! --Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All kids are cute. But this isn't a question of whether the story is true; it's about whether a gossip column is a reliable source for a BLP. Would you take it as an RS if it was the only source? Celestra (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's the Washington Post. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you are right that all kids are cute. To look at. Sometimes their behaviour, on the other hand....!! It's a good question. Editors here at this page tend to be cautious about answering general questions, since very often things are not black and white. On the whole, I agree that WP is and should be very cautious about using gossip columns as a source. Partly because they are often of dubious relability and partly because we are enjoined not to repeat gossip per BLP. So, very often, I would say no. What sways me here is that it is the Washington Post, which would have very high levels of editorial oversight, partly because Ingraham appears to have collaborated with the story since she supplied a photo, and partly because similar photos and information are available from her own website. So in this case I would say, yes, it's okay. But for other information, e.g. X has broken up from Y, sourced from a gossip column from a less trusted newspaper, I would say no. Hope that helps! --Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington Post is a reliable source. Yes this particular citation is fine. Sources aren't disqualified simply for using the word 'gossip', which appears to be the only objection. Dlabtot (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp1, that's closer to what I was thinking. And you're right, there doesn't seem to be any harm. Celestra (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd editions

When a book is published, and then published again in a second edition a few years later, which publication date should appear in the reference when an article cites the second edition? Eugene (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite the edition you looked at to get the information (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)... noting which edition the information came from in is important, because different editions may say different things.

Thanks, should the reference to the 2nd edition include the date the 1st edition was published as well, or is this superfluous? Eugene (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as you note that you are using the second Edition, I don't see a need to note the date of the first edition (but it is not "wrong" to do so.) I would format the citation along the lines of: "Smith, John, A Study of Stuff, Reliable Pub., New York, 2nd Ed, 2008, p.4, ISBN"

If the publisher has changed (such as might happen with an old book that is reprinted), then I would definitely note both... "Jones, John, Stuff and More Stuff, Respected Publishing LTD. Cambridge, 1875, pp 22-23 (as reprinted by Modern Publishers, London, 2010, ISBN)" Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene has cited your response, Blueboar, to prevent me from adding that the first publication date was 1989 (scroll to the end of the diff, in the References section, and see the edit summary). The reason I want to add the first publication date is that it has a direct bearing on what the source says; he says "currently no one believes X," and it's not clear whether he meant currently in 1989 or currently in 2002. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know he said it in 2002, because that's the edition consulted, and since it's a pretty important point I think we have to assume he also meant it in 2002 (i.e. it wasn't something from the previous edition he meant to change but forgot about). But if we haven't seen the 1989 edition, we don't know for sure that he said it in 1989 at all. So the honest thing to do is to simply attribute the statement to the 2002 second edition and not distract the reader with mention of 1989. Alternatively, find a copy of the 1989 edition and clear up the question that way. Barnabypage (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If it really is a 2nd edition, not just a 2nd printing, then I think you have to assume that the author has read & approved everything they didn't change. That's a legal fiction, of course, but so is the whole verifiability thing.

Sometimes a book can change publisher even without a new edition, if it's taken over, for example. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-published Youtube video

An apparent former pupil of the Mace-Kingsley Ranch School made a youtube video about her rather unpleasant time at the school, which someone has uploaded to Commons. It's got an OTRS ticket and everything. Is that video file okay to use as an illustration in our article on the school? --JN466 18:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A self published u tube video kept and copied to wikipedia, no way, it is not a reliable source at all. Why do we need it? Are there no independent third party reports? The whole thing is completely unverifiable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This video in no way satisfies WP:RS, and I can see no reason for it to be kept on the Commons either. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people on Commons agree with you. However, those raising such issues over there end up in a morass here. It makes interesting reading.

Given that there have recently been acrimonious discussions around these videos, a Wikiversity resource has been created to justify the presence of all these self-published youtube videos on Commons. --JN466 09:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed this thread earlier, as I was not notified by the individual that started it. This issue is misfiled at this board - the file was never being used as a source. It is covered by the external linking policy instead. It was removed from the article by Off2riorob (talk · contribs), and I stated on the article's talk page that I have no objection to its removal. The user that had removed it replied, and the matter is now resolved. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Geist

I'm trying to cite http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4690/125/ in Wind Mobile. You can read up on him here but I believe, as a respected and frequently consulted legal academic on telecom issues that his blog meets the WP:RS guidelines. Thoughts? BordenRhodes (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended discussion on the Geist blog entry.

That is more accurately along the lines of a microblog post, which simply mentions that he had heard "criticism" from three (also) unreliable sources. If he were providing actual analysis within his areas of expertise, I would certainly consider investing more time to ascertain the reliability of his personal blog. Instead, this is more akin to someone tweeting that there's some criticism somewhere of something online. Simply not reliable for our purposes and definitely not up to par for encyclopedic content (and I would bet you that Mr. Geist would agree). Wikipedia is not a place for consumer complaints, and using a microblog entry (of an admittedly notable and interesting person) to try to get around our sourcing requirements is not appropriate. jæs (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The statement I make in the article is Wind drew criticism for port blocking. I cite this using Geist's site in which he criticises Wind. So I'm not saying anything unverifiable there. I then say which prevented users of their advertised "unlimited" data plans from using services on the Internet. Here, Dr Geist cites http://www.windmobile.ca/community/WIND-news/detail/data-ports-fix/ which was written by a Wind employee and in which he admits to what I wrote. Am I to understand that, for the purposes of proving that Wind is blocking ports, that the company's own employees cannot be trusted?! Please don't assume whose side Dr. Geist would take. If you must know, you may e-mail him at [redacted].BordenRhodes (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Let me try to be clearer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a collection of online microblog entries and forum posts. We are not a collection of consumer complaints. We love academic journals as reliable sources. Do you see the comparison I'm trying to help you make? In five years time, it's highly unlikely a temporary port blocking scenario will be relevant to Wind Mobile's history. If it is, at that point, reliable sources will have covered it and we will then be able to mention it here. In the meantime, it is not reliably sourced and does not appear to be encyclopedic. I've done my best to try to explain my interpretation of our policy. Whether my view of it is right or wrong, I'm going to step back and let others take a whack at it (if they're so inclined). jæs (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see your angle now. You may very well be correct in that, in Wind's broader history, this may not be significant. Unfortunately, Wind doesn't seem be be getting enough high-profile media attention to verify consumer issues on a broader level. I think (hence, opinion, which I too shall leave to the community to evaluate), that in business profiles it is relevant to mention customer satisfaction, in much the same way that articles on politicians will mention approval ratings or significant complaints. Obviously, things change, which is why wikipedia is editable, so there's no reason not to include at least net neutrality issues now and remove them as circumstances change. BordenRhodes (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you're beginning to see my "angle" now, but you're clearly not there yet. If it's not encyclopedic today, and it's not likely going to be encyclopedic five years from now, then it's not encyclopedic. When (or if) The Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, or other reliable sources dedicate some articles to consumer complaints about Wind, then we'll have something to talk about. See Walmart, for example: every time somebody has a negative experience, we don't go on about it. When there are serious environmental, labour, or consumer issues that receive widespread coverage, we cover it. Some folks posting on online forums who want their torrents unblocked or who are complaining about launch issues simply are not, and are unlikely to become, encyclopedic issues. jæs (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned our back and forth may have hindered outside opinions on the reliability of the Geist blog entry, so I'm collapsing the discussion above. Please take a look at the entry and feel free to share your thoughts. jæs (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• No - Clearly a self-published source that fails WP:RS. If there are obvious secondary sources that cite his blog then they can be used as sources, but this is a primary and self-published source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think I agree with Jaes, but not for Blaxthos' reasons. Geist seems like an expert source, and he's not primary, he's not complaining, he's citing complainers. However, the issue isn't so much that Geist's blog is not a reliable source, it's more that this is a trivial incident. Three bloggers complained about several days of port blocking, and the company responded. There isn't a single large service company that you can't find three bloggers complaining about service occasionally. If Geist had written about a continuous trend, or a firestorm of criticism, maybe, but this isn't that, it's a few lines of criticism over a few days. Unless you can show some kind of larger impact or comprehensive coverage, it's undue weight. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hmm I like GRuban's take but I'm not sure I agree it's a completely trivial matter, particularly since it appears some applications remain blocked (is there another source on that?). However, I think it could be rolled up into a blanket statement saying something like "WIND experienced teething problems, including service disruptions initial blocking of certain common data applications etc". TastyCakes (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel it important to note that my comments are based solely on the evaluation of the reliability of the blog itself -- neither the credentials of the author, nor the content of his statements, were considered. It is still my position that blogs need be cited by secondary sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS. If we can demonstrate that either (1) the blog is regularly cited by secondary sources, or (2) that this specific tidbit is cited in any other reliable source, I'm amenable to it qualifying WP:RS; in that case, deference to proper weight is important (as noted by the other editors above). Hope this helps clear things up.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is still my position that blogs need be cited by secondary sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS." It may be your position, but it is directly contrary to our WP:SPS policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ChapatiMystery.com

ChapatiMystery is a group blog founded several years ago and maintained by Manan Ahmed, a recent Ph.D in History from Chicago, now teaching at the Freie Universität Berlin. The blog is mostly concerned with South Asian history, culture and politics, and has a fairly decent reputation (especially for its coverage of Pakistan). It has plenty of hits at Google, and is not unknown to either Google Books or Google Scholar. Given tbis background, what is the status of the following two "guest posts", by authors commenting on threads at the site discussing their work:

• William Dalrymple, here
• Wendy Doniger, here.

In particular,

• Is it credible that these posts are by Dalrymple and Doniger respectively?
• If so - i.e. if there is no reasonable doubt regarding authenticity - can these posts be cited under the rules of WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB for materials pertaining to their own work? In other words, can these posts be considered statements "on the record", so to speak?
• Are they good enough for the WP:SPS rules but not good enough for the WP:BLPSPS rules?

And, should this be followed up anyway on the WP:BLPN board for the BLP articles? The point being, since they are in a sense "defending" their own work, these posts can hardly be considered derogatory, so BLP issues aren't likely once credibility is established. rudra (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudrasharman "forgot" to mention how he is using Doniger's alleged post. He is using to say that Doniger is "on record" (Rudrasharman's words) as responding to Witzel's critique, which was contained an an email, thus strengthening the stauts of Witzel's email "critique". The whole idea is to circumvent WP:RS. Doniger's enemies haven't been able to dig up any reliable criticism of Doniger's forty years of Sanskrit translation which is harsh enough to help them draft a reputation-damaging biographical article on Doniger. Rudrasharman has deleted text from the article which was sourced to academic journals, including the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, when it didn't suit his vision of Doniger.[25] The text that his side "needs" for the article is contained in blogs and emails. His side thinks that those sources are more reliable than academic journals. There is a plethora of reliable material available. It just doesn't suit Rudrasharman's agenda. Thus there is no need for the article to resort to the use of a weblog as a source. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the troll's diversion. Nothing has been "forgotten". The Witzel critique referred to is WP:RS by the WP:SPS rules - we could start a separate thread on such a no-brainer, but there's no real need. rudra (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In which article is the source being used?

What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?

Where is the relevant talk page discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material here. Discussion here, starting with Rurasharman's comment at 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — goethean ॐ 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, in this case, is Wendy Doniger (a BLP). Here is the diff where the reference was introduced (there were some tweaks and then eventually the ref was removed.) It is supporting the assertion that the BLP subject has responded to a critique of some of her work by a world-class expert in the field. This section in the talk page has relevant materials. This section may also be relevant, as may some other threads, such as this one. Please ask if more clarification is needed. rudra (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, I should mention that I was thinking of adding the Dalrymple reference to the page for one his books, The Last Mughal. Common to the two cases is the issue of authenticity, which depends, in exactly the same way for both, on the credibility of the ChapatiMystery site. rudra (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The listserv is definitely not RS, and it's also not a self-published source. Likewise the post by Doniger on chapatimystery.com. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the listserv is RS is not an issue. The issue would be WP:SPS applied to posts on this list by notable scholars, such as Michael Witzel. This mailing list is very well-known: it is the premier Indological mailing list on the internet, nearly 20 years old. Its membership is a veritable who's who of indological scholars, and its archives are mirrored on other sites. A Google search for the word "indology" returns the site as the very first hit (and has done so for a long time now, for obvious reasons). It doesn't get any more mainstream and established than that. As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.

But all that was a digression. This thread is about the Dalrymple and Doniger posts to the ChapatiMystery site. Which of the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB criteria are being questioned? The only one that I think could be open to question is #4: that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity. I'd appreciate further feedback on this from the regulars here. rudra (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.

...except that they aren't actually published — they are posted to a list-serv. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: this editor has been blocked. His attempts to derail this thread should be ignored. rudra (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To be a reliable source, it has to be published. A listserv, or the emails sent to it, does not meet this requirement. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, the issue is not RS (a guideline), it is SPS (part of a policy). Please review the WP:SPS section for the relevant definition, viz. "...self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., ...". The intent of this ostensive definition is clear: so, e.g., if "forum postings" qualify as self-published, then mailing list posts do too, as there is no difference of consequence between them. The major issue with these forms of self-published media is authenticity: is the instance by the person claimed? (Other issues can be topicality - is it relevant - and finally notability, of either the person or the content; but these details are already covered in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB and shouldn't need elaboration here.)

Once again, on this thread, the issue is the credibility of the ChapatiMystery.com site and thus the authenticity of the Dalrymple and Doniger posts. I'm willing to accept reasonable doubts, but so far no one has articulated any such concerns. rudra (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been articulated, even though you didn't like the answer you got. Dlabtot (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

However, it would be helpful for someone besides myself to weigh in. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable enough to be used - we have no guarantee these posts are by the claimed individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Would this be considered reliable?

Would this be considered reliable? Given that it is sponsored by George Washington University. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quest asks an important question... we can not know if it is reliable without knowing how it is being used (or how you wish to use it). Could you give us more details? Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As used in this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That source is used twice in Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008#Early stages and currently is reference [1]. I think the problem should be made clearer since the claims in the two paragraphs do not seem unlikely, although it could be argued that they tend towards waffle, while the article should stick to the facts. Is there something unreliable about George Washington University? Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A GA reviewer said that the source was not reliable, but I disputed his claim. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More pertinently, exactly what kind of page is it? Its hosted on the GWU website but is it a personal user page, linked to something academic, a mirror of something? The actual page says Copyright © 2005, 2006 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action so I'm presuming that it was by Appleman. Is he someone who we would normally accept as a reliable source if it weren't hosted on the GWU site? In politics there is lots of mud slinging as well so if you can't find multiple reliable sources for something is the reference sufficiently mainstream to be worth mentioning and are there issues with Undue. Really, without answers to all this its very hard to say whether or not this source is permissible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully read the second link I provided above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but is this the only source for the material you want to add? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable, and asking whether it would be "if it weren't hosted on the GWU site" is like asking if an article published in the NY Times would be reliable if it weren't published in the NY Times... in other words, it is a meaningless, nonsense question. Additionally, the material that these citations support is in no way controversial or extraordinary, so I fail to grasp why there is an objection. Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

University websites host all sorts of things, of varying provenance and reliability. For that matter, so does The New York Times. An advertisement published by the Times is not as reliable as a straight news story, and the reliability of a guest editorial published by the Times depends mostly on the reliability of the author, not the publisher. This material appears to be self-published by Eric M. Appleman, with the GWU acting as little more than a web-hosting service. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement or an editorial, it's a compilation of campaign activities that has been judged to be reliable by all the individuals listed in the second link provided above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GWU isn't a web-hosting service and it's not self-published, not an advertisement, and not an editorial. Dlabtot (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All the students at almost any university today gets a personal website. Websites made with no editorial oversight by ordinary students who have not published articles in their respective fields in well-regarded publications are not considered reliable. Nothing has been presented to indicate this is anything more than a student website. And William S. Saturn, if you wish to provide a link to demonstrate otherwise, provide it. Don't send us on a wild goose chase "above". Jc3s5h (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case GWU appears to be providing a web-hosting service, and the site itself appears to be entirely self-published. As the site itself points out, "DEMOCRACY IN ACTION is not an official project of the George Washington University and any errors and interpretations are the responsibility of the author, Eric M. Appleman." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. So I agree with you now. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, the link has already been provided above. It's not a "wild goose chase" if you read and follow instructions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've wasted all the time I intend to on your link. As far as I'm concerned, you have not provided a link and I will not bother reading anything further from you. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It was your choice to get involved. If your time is so valuable, why are you using wikipedia?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Kirtanananda Swami article

Hello, I have a problem with the way that certain material has been removed from an article about the controversial Kirtanananda Swami. This matter is discussed at Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. Basically, someone (User:Wikidas) has removed material that is referenced in a documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority). The documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. This is not the only source of this information either, but nearly every other source is denounced by this individual as "not being up to Wikipedia's standards." I disagree, and I think the evidence that I brought up on this talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). Also, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee(s). So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You must comply with not just policies of WP:BLP but also with basic policy WP:V. The documentary film by Jacob Young (1996), is not a verifiable source, not is it suitable as the main source for a BLP. Just because a number of people cite claims on camera, it does not make it reliable source. I have already brough up the discussion on this board for this source and nobody ever suggested that Holy Cow Swami movies you want to include is a reliable source. Don't waste time, use other good sources to support your claims. I have no objections to even primary sources you cite, provided there is support and they are being cited by good secondary sources. The claims are contentious and it's a BLP, while the guy is clearly a criminal. Wikid^as© 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is the documentary not verifiable? --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Electronic media is not accessable. No evidence of checking or analyzing facts, legal issues etc provided. No transcript, and nothing in reviews that can be used was produced. The only "sources" are some self published books and court records (which can be used anyway and are cited). I have put a notice at the time of tagging it (almost a year ago) on BLP notice board as well. Wikid^as© 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when is electronic media not accessible? Simply because it is not instantly available on the Internet does not mean it is not accessible. The documentary is available for purchase from Amazon [26] and other sources as well and may be available in libraries. Self-published books have some limitations, but they are not categorically prohibited. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The documentary does not seem to be self published, the publisher seems to be Moviefish, which seems to publish all sorts of films.[27] The director seems to be a reputable source, having made numerous directories for many years, which were aired widely, and having won an Emmy. Unless I'm wrong about any of these facts, this looks to meet reliable secondary source standards. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. Geneisner (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

One edit speaks thousand words.

I am afraid it is obligation of the editor who adds information to the article to provide complete verifiable record and defend the sources. I have tagged the sources including the documentary in August 2009. The tag is still there.

I probably will be the least sympatic person towards him, thus censorship claims are quite rediculous. However lets us first read what Wikipedia requires us to do about it in all three cases:

Court Records inclusion:

You insist that we should use the court records, however when challenged you can not show a source that accurately citing them. Again the policy: Do not use public records that include personal details—.. trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. (Suggestion -- find reliables sources that can be confirmed to have mentioned the documents.)

Self published books or a personal dairy:

You have suggested use of such in your accusations please read wikipedia policy: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

Inclusion of the tv documentary:

I have tagged and after almost a year removed it as per wikipedia policy (I did leave a tag on it for rather longer than the requirement, to give you and other editors chance to fix it, I could not find any reviews or any transcripts or mentions in good sources of the film) Again please read the policy: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. See other arguments on the RS board.

I suggest you actually read the policy and it is on you to provide sufficient evidence that it complies with BLP, this evidence should be available to all editors who dispute the source and should be able to verify it. I have tagged it in August 09, and removed it April 10, you confimred youself that this documentary "relies on self-published sources", if you seen the documentary you will know that sources in it do not comply with the standard of the Wikipedia for BLPs. I have seen it a number of years back, and only small portions of it are any good for current BLP standard. Please note that standard for BLP has changed since the sources were added to the article.

It is with regret I must note that you refuse to consider good sources I have already added to the article and in the talk page itself as a suggestion and refuse to look for other sources. Wikid^as© 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you are the one that is misinterpreting the policy. The TV documentary is a published source, distributed by a reliable organization. It is available for verification and there is nothing in WP policy that precludes use as a source. Similarly, the Brijibais Spirit was an official publication of the New Vrndaban community and is acceptable as source for the positions of the community and its leadership. It may be more difficult to locate an archive of the publication, but that again does not preclude its use as a source. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to 'interpret' the policy - the policy is rather clear. About Brijbasis Spirit: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The question about documentary was already raised on this board at the time of tagging it in August 2009. Onus on the person who adds material to ensure it is verifiable, plan and simple. If he demonstrates how it is and how it satisfies the above critera, "that relies on self-published sources". Maybe areas of the documentary that do not rely on self-published sources can be used, however we need to know which areas they are. I continue giving good faith to all editors involved and will not proceed with RFC or anything like that if that add something unsourced, but I will have to bring up such sources on WP:BLPN. Thanks. Wikid^as© 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that Brijabasi Spirit is a SPS in the sense that you are intending. It was a real publication. [28] It's content is verifiable (though not perhaps as easily as you might like). Just because you might have to expend some effort does not make the content unverifiable. And by what basis can you possibly discriminate between portions of a documentary? You can't cherry pick some portions and dismiss others. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started the discussion here and tagged the article disputed until consensus is reached. Please comment if you wish folks, including Henry himself. I would appreciate if expert in BLPs made comments in order to get the consensus that actually reflects the guideline and the policy. Wikid^as© 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg

As per the "About"[[29]] page from the site,

Award-winning STOMP, or Straits Times Online Mobile Print, is Asia's leading citizen-journalism website with user-generated material fuelling its success.

However, there's a editor who claims that the content within carry the same weight as an actual news site [[30]] as per his comments justifying its reliability. A sample of the post (which is the same as the one used by the editor is this one [[31]]. As can be seen from the talk page [[32]], BLP issues have been raised about the article so whether this site meets WP:RS affects how the article is being edited.DanS76 (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, user contributed is an issue, no way to see the identity of the person blogging either. No clear indication of whether there is any kind of editorial process or retractions mechanism. We don't allow According to an anonymous blogger on .... Unomi (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1989 Dewsbury race riot

Does the following passage from Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131

‘In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990'.

Support the text

"The riot has been viewed as the beginning of the BNP's more active approach to British politics. John Tyndall called it 'The real watershed' adding that the BNP’s ’determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990"[33] diff in question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with One Night in Hackney on the article talk page that this is confusing. If the demonstration was in 1989, and all John Tyndall (politician) says is "around 1990", it's not at all clear that he was referring to this event specifically. If we're allowing him to be a year off, surely more than one race or immigration related event occurred within a year of 1990. Sykes is writing about the BNP, but not necessarily about this riot, in the second sentence. Also, as Hackney writes, it's not clear what "more active approach" means, more standing for election, more demonstrations, or more brickbats. You can cite Sykes that the riot had an effect on the BNP, he is saying that, but it would probably be more useful if we were sure what that effect was. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GLBTQ

Is http://www.glbtq.com/ a reliable source for listing whether someone is GLBT? Woogee (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say so - looking at the personnel involved, it seems to be essentially an academic publication. Having said that, be careful to avoid assuming that the mere existence of a glbtq.com article on an individual constitutes a definite assertion that they are G, L, B, T or indeed Q - the source still has to say explicitly "he was gay". See for example http://www.glbtq.com/literature/lawrence_te.html, a case where it would be wrong to deduce from the presence of the article a definite statement as to the person's sexuality. Barnabypage (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the first four contributers in the A catergary one is a PHD student. It seems to be something like a wiki, but with some editorial oversight. But to what level I cannot tell. From their own disclamer "WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE MATERIALS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE ON THE SITE ARE FREE FROM ERROR, THAT ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED EVEN IF WE KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW OF THEM, T" This may apply just to services (they appear to be a comercial (not an accademic) website). I would not rate this as RS without some kind of proof they are regared as reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Advocate and the American Library Association appear to rate it highly - see Glbtq.com. (Isn't it ironic that we so often forget to check whether there's a Wikipedia article on a source before debating its trustworthiness!). I agree not all the contributors appear to be as eminent as the higher-ups, but equally there seem to be quite a few authoritative figures there, plus being a PhD student isn't a disqualification if they're published in a reliable source. Perhaps it would add an extra level of reassurance to check the authors of the individual articles that Woogee wants to cite - can you tell us what these are? Oh, and I think the disclaimer is just a standard liability-ducking exercise - you'll find much the same on the BBC Website, for example (http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#6), and countless others. Barnabypage (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the BBC seem to be talking about bbc.co.uk functions, not material. Yoou might be right and its a standerd diclaimer, but I have never seen one that states that material might not be arcuate or corrected. The The Advocate link on the Glbtq.com does not work, nor the ALA one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven - The BBC disclaimer explicitly covers content - The BBC does not guarantee the timeliness, completeness or performance of the website or any of the content. While we try to ensure that all content provided by the BBC is correct at the time of publication no responsibility is accepted by or on behalf of the BBC for any errors, omissions or inaccurate content on the website. Disclaimers like this are all over the place, in one form or another - so I don't think the presence of one on GLBTQ really says anything about reliability. Barnabypage (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor do they say they will not correct such mistakes. Thats the point. Its not that they say that errors are not their fault, its that they may not correct them even if they are informed of them. Indead the BBC say they will try to ensure accuaracy. The GLBTQ disclaimer says they are not concearned how accurate material is, even if they know it to be inaccurate. They actualy say they will (or at least may) publish material they know to be inaccurate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they're not concerned, or that they will not correct mistakes, or deliberately publish incorrect material, it means they do not accept that knowledge of an inaccuracy makes them liable for any problems created by it. It's really no different from the BBC saying it will try to ensure (rather than will ensure). Anyway - it's a distraction! Barnabypage (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there even such a thing as a reliable source for listing whether someone is GLBT ? Doesn't it depend on what they have said on the matter per Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it also says that is RS say they are then we can say Rs has said they are. But I have been wondering why this source and not another source thats more reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the guidelines is that inclusion is conditional i.e. 'if they themselves identify as such'. An RS is a prerequisite but it's insufficient in itself without reliably sourced information where they have 'identified themselves as such'. In other words, even if www.glbtq.com were an RS it only gets you halfway there (unless that site's entry happens to contain reliable material where the person has identified themselves as GLBT). Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean is correct... self-identification is needed to categorize people as belonging to a potentially controversial group. We also have much higher sourcing standards when it comes to discussing living people (see WP:BLP), and this is especially true when it comes to applying potentially controversial labels. We must avoid rumor or speculation like a plague. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the criteria are obviously going to be different if the article is dealing with a historical figure (we're not going to ask, say, Michelangelo to self-identify from beyond the grave as GLBTQ). So we really need to know exactly what material Woogee's query concerns. Barnabypage (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True but he said 'is GLBT'. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'd overlooked that and kind of assumed he was enquiring about the historical entries. Well, looking at Woogee's recent contributions I'm guessing that he's got work on List of LGBT Jews in mind - and that page certainly does use GLBTQ.com for living people. So the LGBT and BLP guidelines and policies would kick in. Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK so lets ask who?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Living people must be treated with kid gloves and generally self-disclosure is probably the standard (bar noted controversies like Ted Haggard and even then it doesn't say "Haggard is a homosexual", it spends a lot of text tracing events). Michelangelo and T.E. Lawrence are both dead, so the biographies of living persons policy does not apply. Also, with famous dead people like those two, the articles should probably academic sources that discuss this at length rather than webpages (I personally like to mine pages like that for actual sources that could be used to verify the text). I would ask, where did GLBTQ get their information from? And once you find that out, why not use that source instead? Irrespective of the article, we should always use the best sources to substantiate text, which means primary sources when a person is self-disclosing, and highly reliable secondary sources when they're not.

I agree with Sean that the LGBT Guidelines are a good place to look for guidance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thier articels are not (or at least do not appear to be) sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At least some are, though the bibliographies are rather well-hidden - see http://www.glbtq.com/arts/mckellen_i,2.html#bibliography for example. Barnabypage (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, that argues against it being used as a source. If a sexual orientation can only be confirmed by rumour and innuendo rather than widespread consensus (or even widespread discussion as a controversy), I would be reluctant to make a point of mentioning it in the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Clarets Chronicles

Something a bit different here; this one's about a book, The Clarets Chronicles: The Definitive History of Burnley Football Club 1882–2007. Some information about the book, its authors and its contents can be found here. The problem is, this is a self-published book released by the football club. I have mainly been using it to add statistics and dates of birth for former Burnley players. However, the book also contains a section about the club's stadium, Turf Moor. At that article's recent FAC, User:Laser brain claimed that the book was not suitable as it is a primary source. I can understand this, for verifiability reasons, but inside the book (which the user could not have seen) there is a whole page listing the sources used by the authors. Most of these are secondary books, such as:

• The Breedon Book of Football League Records by Gordon Smailes ([34])
• Complete Book of Football Managers by Dennis Turner and Alex White ([35])
• The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records by Barry Hugman ([36])
• The Football League: the Official Illustrated History by Byron Butler ([37])
• The Football Grounds of Great Britain by Simon Inglis ([38])
• The Daily Telegraph Football Chronicle by Norman Barrett ([39])
• Guinness Football Fact Book by Jack Rollin ([40])
• The Cassell Soccer Companion by David Pickering ([41])

And there are many more. My point is that I can't see why this book, despite being self-published, cannot be accepted as a reliable source when it is so clear that verifiable research has been conducted in its creation. In all honesty, the Clarets Chronicles is just an updated version of Burnley A Complete Record, a book published in 1991 by Breedon Books and written by two of the same authors. However, because of the publisher's name this one would be accepted as an RS with no questions asked. Do other editors think that the Clarets Chronicles should be accepted as a reliable source or do they think the FAC reviewer was correct? Cheers, BigDom 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing FA review with RS standards. FA review is a higher bar, it's the highest bar we have at the Wikipedia, it means the article as a whole is the best it can be. The Clarets Chronicles is a sufficient reliable source for a specific fact, even though it's self published, since it's published by the club, who are surely experts on their own field, but the reviewer wasn't objecting to any use of it per se, he was objecting to the fact that you didn't have enough secondary and non-self-published sources total for your article. You can't claim the Clarets Chronicles is a secondary source just because it has a nice bibliography section, since you don't know which facts they took from where, and neither will any of our readers. For the FA, go find some of those nice secondary non-self-published sources from that bibliography, and use them. No one ever said writing one of the best 3 thousand articles out of the 3 million we have was supposed to be easy. (OK, Giano may have said something similar. But besides him!) --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Organic Center and Union of Concerned Scientists

Hola,

This question is inspired by this section of the soybean talk page. In essence, can an Organic Center report, funded in part by the Union of Concerned Scientists be used as a reliable source? The OC report contradicts and criticizes the USDA report on pesticide use but since it's gray literature from government and NGO agencies, the reliability is not clear (I would consider the USDA report clearly reliable, the OC/UCS report is more where my question is). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the USDA report is reliable. The Organic Center report actually seems to be written almost entirely by Charles Benbrook. Searching Google for him, he seems to be academically qualified to comment on GM foods. He's published in the peer-reviewed literature before on this topic. However, I'm a bit leery why this is published under the NGO and not reviewed. If you want to attribute something from the report to either him or the NGO, I think that would be okay ("Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center says that..."). I don't think I'd take anything from the report as fact. Also, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give the NGO report compared to the USDA report. My opinion would be somewhere between little and very little. -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's about what I'd give it as well - at most a single line and no substance ("Charles Benbrook has criticized the USDA report for..." without going into the criticisms themselves). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Science and Engineering Indicators 2006

Statement by Hans Adler

I have been very reluctant to come here with my question, because it is related to many subtleties w.r.t. sensible interpretation of sources – more than the average editor can deal with, apparently. The core question is whether accidental claims that are present in a source in an almost but not quite explicit form, and which are outside the main focus of the source, may be taken to the context of a Wikipedia article where they are in the focus, and presented in the lead of such an article as if they had high significance.

The claim in question is that belief in 10 subjects – including ghosts, haunted houses, clairvoyance, witchcraft and reincarnation – constitutes belief in pseudoscience. Even though deciding what exactly is a pseudoscience is known as a hard philosophical problem, e.g. scholars disagree whether psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, there is one thing that all serious definitions agree about: A pseudoscience must have superficial similarities with science; it is not enough to just make claims about physically observable (or rather not) phenomena. It seems obvious that in the large majority of cases, belief in ghosts, haunted houses, clairvoyance, witchcraft or reincarnation is in no way related to anything superficially similar to science. (Sometimes it may be related to such factors, e.g. when people believe in ghost hunting or "scientific" explanations of reincarnation. But typically the belief is just traditional and/or religious.) It follows that the claim itself is obviously wrong.

According to User:BullRangifer, and I can understand how he initially got this impression, the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 makes this claim. He also makes the somewhat bold assumption that the National Science Board (NSB) speaks for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and expresses scientific consensus – even casually when claiming something implicitly.

Here is an early form of what he put in articles:

The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. [42]]

Here is a later, more elaborate version:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They have included them in a list of ten items:

From Note 29: "[29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body." [43]

Later we also got the following:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. [44]

The absurd claim about "scientific consensus" was later removed, and by now we are mostly dealing with claims like the following:

The National Science Foundation considers belief in reincarnation to be pseudoscientific.

There were so many versions, spread over so many articles, that I can't list them all here. See User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption for details up to 22 March.

The Science and Engineering Indicators is a biennial report with science-related statistics, prepared for US politicians by the NSB, an NSF-related body consisting mostly of statisticians. Editions since 1996 are available on the NSF website. In the 2000 edition, there was a section about Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience. (There was no such section in the 1996 or 1998 edition.) This was one of five sections of Chapter 8, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding". In the next three reports the word "paranormal" was removed from the section title:

• 2002: Science Fiction and Pseudoscience – uses belief in astrology as primary indicator for belief in pseudoscience
• 2004: Belief in pseudoscience (subsection of section Public Knowledge About S&T) – uses astrology as the main indicator, but also mentions belief in paranormal as if it was a direct indication of belief in pseudoscience
• 2006: Belief in Pseudoscience – freely uses belief in paranormal instead of belief in pseudoscience, but this is not explained, and the word "paranormal" does not even appear.

In the 2008 and 2010 editions the section no longer exists. Moreover, in the 2010 edition the NSB (controversially) removed a section about belief in creationism and the Big Bang from the draft, "because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs". [45] In other words: Someone who believes religiously that God created the universe and life on Earth, but also knows scientifically that this is not literally true, may decide to answer in such a way as to demonstrate their faith, rather than their scientific knowledge. The pseudoscience section, which relies mostly on paranormal beliefs strongly related to some religions, may well have been pulled for similar reasons.

The claim that belief in the 10 survey items in question is pseudoscientific belief is not made explicitly in the SEI 2006, but appears in the following form:

Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005 (figure 7-8 figure.). The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] In addition, 22% believed in five or more of the items, 32% believed in four, and 57% believed in two. However, only 1% believed in all 10 (Moore 2005b).

---

[29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.

Thus the claim that belief in the 10 items is pseudoscientific belief does not even appear explicitly: One needs to combine the main text with a footnote. This is important, because the SEI 2006 (and to some degree the SEI 2002 and SEI 2004) is the only respectable source we know that makes this claim. It is not a claim made by any notable sceptics, because they generally use a correct definition of pseudoscience. (And in fact the SEI 2006 even quotes the following definition by notable sceptic Michael Shermer, without once addressing the obvious contradiction with their tacit assumption that all paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs: "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility".)

To get an idea of what the SEI is actually about, and how peripheral classifying a topic as pseudoscience is to it, see User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators.

Finally I need to mention several related RfCs:

• Talk:Ghost#RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts – This RfC asked in general terms whether the NSF is a reliable source for stating that certain beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs. Predictably, the consensus said yes it is. According to BullRangifer the RfC was about whether the specific source (SEI 2006), and whether that is good enough for making this claim. I dispute that.
• WT:NPOV – Here BullRangifer tried to add the list of 10 items to the policy as a footnote and asked in an RfC whether "the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy". The RfC was closed as "NSF is a reliable source", and a subsequent RfC made it clear that in spite of BullRangifer's protestations that this supported his footnote, there was no consensus for including it.
• Talk:Ghost#Is this a pseudoscience topic? – There seems to be a (weak) consensus that Ghost is not primarily a pseudoscience article.

I apologise for this long post and the even longer discussion that is likely to ensue. But so far the disruption has been spread over many pages, with the same questions coming up over and over again from different editors, and as it is not dying down we need to centralise it somewhere. This seems to be the best place. Hans Adler 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A few responses to BullRangifer

1. The author of Chapter 7 (the relevant chapter) was Melissa F. Pollak of the Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). (Most authors of other chapters and the chief editor were also SRS members. The SEI 2006 is a primary source for the claim that the 10 items are pseudoscientific beliefs, because the source they use only says they are paranormal beliefs. I can see no indication of relevant (i.e. philosophy of science) qualifications or interests in any of the "illustrious" NSB board members who according to BullRangifer can be expected to have micro-managed the report down to a level of irrelevant detail where they would have noticed the discrepancy between Gallup's calling the 10 items paranormal and the report calling them pseudoscientific. Academic peer-review often misses problematic details, especially when they are irrelevant to a document's main focus.

   We have no reason to believe that any of the "outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers" felt responsible for checking that the report uses the term "pseudoscience" to encyclopedic, rather than sloppy common language, standards of accuracy. This was in no way relevant to the report, and there is no indication that any of these experts had an independent interest in pseudoscience or philosophy of science. In fact, that the obvious problem in the report was not fixed is a good indication that nobody noticed the problem, or if someone noticed it it was not found sufficiently relevant to warrant fixing.

2. It is standard practice, and in fact required, for Wikipedia editors to evaluate the credibility of our sources. See e.g. WP:REDFLAG, which seems to be relevant in this case. This often involves original research, which is perfectly proper. The only thing we can't do is write down our assessment of the sources in article space. I am not aware that anybody proposed this – except perhaps BullRangifer with his initial claims about the SEI 2006 expressing scientific consensus, which he has dropped after being instructed about WP:RS#Academic consensus.
3. An exact quotation can be misleading, and even a lie, if it is taken to a different context where it will be interpreted in a way substantially different from its original context. E.g. if a casual remark that a supreme court judge made to his hairdresser was published in a law review journal. This is basically the kind of stunt that BullRangifer is trying to pull here.
4. "Verifiability, not truth" does not mean that it is OK to let articles say absurd things just because they are formally "verifiable". Verifiability is "the threshold". (See WP:V.) Many things pass this threshold, but are not published in Wikipedia because doing so would break NPOV or BLP constraints, or simply because they are outdated or false.
5. "Editorially we should not allow our private opinions about the 'truthiness' of a notable and verifiable statement to trump our sourcing policies." – The word truthiness makes no sense here, so I assume BullRangifer means "truth" and is just trying to be sarcastic. The "verifiable statement" is hidden in one of three subsections of one of three sections of one of eight chapters of a report for politicians. By spreading it over the main text and a footnote, the authors did not exactly go out of their way to draw attention to it. That's not what I would call a "notable statement". For me a notable statement is one that is worth mentioning for having been made and for the public reactions it received, as opposed to those statements which we include to represent a significant POV. Nobody remotely relevant seems to represent the POV that belief in ghosts, reincarnation etc. is pseudoscientific belief – except of course in certain special cases where science is imitated.
6. "I ask editors to not allow this discussion to be sidetracked by OR speculations about the "truthiness" of the statement. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Force the objectors to only discuss policy. Don't allow their OR to muddy the waters." – This sounds to me like a request not to evaluate the reliability of the source for the specific statement that BullRangifer thinks it supports. Per WP:REDFLAG exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that beliefs that have nothing to do with anything remotely like science are "pseudoscientific" is clearly surprising, it is out of character for the NSF/NSB (especially as it comes immediately after a definition of pseudoscience that stresses the "like science" aspect), and it contradicts the prevailing view within the relevant community (sceptics, philosophers of science). Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. The SEI 2006 is not a high-quality source for this statement because by all standards it is peripheral to the document.
7. Contrary to BullRangifer's continued assertions, the suitability of the source for the purpose of the controversial statement has not been evaluated in the previous RfCs. I am not sure why he is asking this board not to do the evaluation right after he thanked me for taking the question here and mentioned he had considered doing the same thing. [46] Hans Adler 20:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by BullRangifer

Statement added later to explain my objection to this whole thread.

Firstly, this matter has already been dealt with in two RfCs which Hans Adler resoundingly "lost", so this is a form of forum shopping. The concluding remarks by Gwen Gale sum up the consensus nicely:

• "I'm closing this RfC as National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." (All emphasis original.)

Secondly, my disagreement with Hans Adler's manner of using the RS/N is that he's using it in an edit war against any use of this source (he refuses to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs). If the RS/N is part of DR, then it's normally proper to use it, but his approach is still very problematic.

Thirdly, even as part of DR, he's misusing the board to discuss the truthfulness of a statement (in violation of "verifiability, not truth"), not to determine whether the National Science Foundation website is a RS, a question already settled in the two RfCs. That's what RS and the RS/N deals with, not the truthfulness of a statement. He can claim that the National Science Board members made a wrong statement all he wants, but his manner of doing so is disruptive. This thread should be closed, but not without strong admonitions for him to drop this matter completely. He's been beating this dead horse for nearly two months and a topic ban on this subject may be the only way to get him to stop.

There is an interesting discussion here where we both participate:

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The meaning of "verifiability, not truth"

He's trying to change the wording in a manner that would make Wikipedia an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth". BlueBoar and I have countered his arguments there. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the exact quote at the center of this controversy "... about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] ..... [29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. Source

Note that the quote under discussion is about "pseudoscientific beliefs" (a broad concept related to faulty thinking), not "pseudo-science" (a more narrowly defined concept related to claims). They're related, but not exactly the same. The source page quotes arch skeptic Michael Shermer's definition favorably. It's an excellent definition with which I fully agree. The page also liberally discusses pseudoscientific "beliefs" and expresses deep concern for the causes of such beliefs: lack of scientific insight, lack of critical thinking, in short just plain muddled thinking. This is discussed at length. The use of the term "pseudoscientific beliefs" is no accident, and it isn't in conflict with the definition of "pseudoscience" since it's a slightly different concept.

The quote is an exact quote (with the necessary added attribution) published on the National Science Foundation website in the 2006 SEI Report prepared biennially by the National Science Board, whose membership is rather illustrious. While statisticians help, that's a far cry from the deceptively worded "consisting mostly of statisticians" mentioned above. (Such misleading comments are characteristic traits in all of Hans Adler's and Ludwigs2's objections.) The depth of the NSB member's involvement isn't "casual" (as falsely claimed above) and is described thus:

• "The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report." [47]

• "SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) on behalf of the National Science Board. It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance." [48]

My contention all along has not primarily been about the "truthiness" of the NSF/NSB statement, but about its obvious verifiability.

Editorially we should not allow our private opinions about the "truthiness" of a notable and verifiable statement to trump our sourcing policies. Certain editors have indulged in massive and repetitive OR speculations, claimed that the statement did not say what it said, tagged the statement with a "failed verification" tag, claimed that the NSF/NSB made a mistake and are wrong in their 2006 statement, and even speculated about the motives of the NSF/NSB for writing their content. Since we are totally lacking any verifiable sources from the NSF/NSB to the contrary, what the NSF/NSB said should be taken as what they said, regardless of editorial disagreements about the "truthiness" of the statement. Such disagreements are explicitly addressed in the very start of the verifiability policy. OR doesn't trump policy.

Their exact quote is actually their exact quote (!), contrary to what has been explicitly and implicitly stated by the two editors (User:Hans Adler and User:Ludwigs2) who refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus in two RfCs (see below), and which was confirmed by the closing admin:

I'm closing this RfC as National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." Editors should keep in mind that the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific. ... en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (All emphasis original.)

In contrast to Gwen Gale's clearly favorable statement above ("the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific"), Hans Adler had the audacity to call the NSF/NSB statement a piece of "non-notable misinformation." [49]

The vast majority of editors in the two RfCs and the closing comments by Gwen Gale all disagree with Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 and side with the National Science Board and our verifiability policy:

• Talk:Ghost#RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

• Talk:NPOV#RfC: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference

I ask editors to not allow this discussion to be sidetracked by OR speculations about the "truthiness" of the statement. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Force the objectors to only discuss policy. Don't allow their OR to muddy the waters.

We are to follow our policies and guidelines, and this is about the statement's verifiability, which has been resoundingly affirmed by the majority of editors in two RfCs and by the closing admin, who wisely chose to stick to policy and not back up such speculations. We all stand firm against the concerted efforts of two well-known defenders of fringe POV, one of whom actually wishes to "dispose of the word pseudoscience entirely" in our editing at Wikipedia! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A few responses to Hans Adler

1. The NSB members claimed responsibility for the report (see the two quotes above), regardless of who aided them. This fallacious OR objection just doesn't cut it. For example, just because I typed my father's doctoral dissertation and did research for it doesn't make it mine or any less his. He took and deserved the full and ultimate responsibility. The same applies to any secretary and the same applies in this case. The NSB members are just fortunate they have an expert statistician to help them.

   In this type of situation there is no descrepancy in the switching between Gallup's "paranormal" and SEI's "pseudoscience", but rather an obviously deliberate choice of wording by the NSB. It is common practice for skeptics to consider paranormal beliefs to be pseudoscientific beliefs. That section of the report constantly refers to and quotes skeptical sources very favorably, thus elevating their status. It is so much an assumed fact that it happens in a "the earth isn't flat" casual manner all the time. That's what happens in the real world, and Wikipedia's job is to document it, not judge it. The SEI report does the same thing numerous times. The 2000 version does quite a bit of this type of "switching", even in the title: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience (2000). They could just as well used an equals sign, rather than "or". To really see it with colors is rather interesting and aids the understanding. Use the free Google Toolbar and search the page with these words and phrases at the same time: paranormal pseudoscience belief believe. They are generally used rather synonymously. This practice was followed in some later editions of the SEI report. No doubt much to Hans Adler's dismay, this complaint actually points out that the NSF/NSB report equates paranormal with pseudoscience, that there was no "obvious problem" in need of fixing, and that skeptical sources are excellent sources approved by the NSB. The SEI report undermines his arguments in several ways.

2. I'd say this is a misapplication of WP:REDFLAG. The only reason the statement might seem "surprising", "exceptional", or "out of character" to Hans Adler is his lack of understandng of the depth and breadth of this subject. On my talk page I started a section to discuss this, and Ludwigs2 had very little to say, and what he says is rather uninformative. Take a look. What else can one expect from defenders of fringe POV? As a scientific skeptic I'm very familiar with this subject and the way these terms are commonly used. There is nothing exceptional about them. In fact, it is impossible for Hans Adler to find RS from the NSF to back up his purely OR assertion since the SEI reports are the only known places on their website where they discuss this! Therefore what they say here is the totality of what they say on the matter and should therefore (per FRINGE and the Fringe ArbCom) be taken seriously, not deprecated. You will notice that everything about Hans Adler's argumentation is designed to deprecate the NSF and to elevate his personal OR opinion about the "truthiness" of the matter as his purely editorial reason for excluding the NPOV use of the statement. I'll take their opinion over his any day.

   The reason I used the words "scientific consensus" was because (as a national scientific body) (1) their opinions are expected to reflect such a consensus and because (2) the majority of editors in both RfCs confirmed that they considered the statement to reflect the scientific consensus. I acted in good faith when I wrote that and don't deserve the vicious wikihounding and personal attacks I've had to endure from these two editors.

   Also, I didn't drop the statement "after being instructed about WP:RS#Academic consensus." That's not true at all since that part of the RS policy doesn't even deal with this type of situation. Whatever the case might be, I have no burden to argue over this point. Just using the NSF/NSB statement to document that the NSF/NSB wrote what they wrote is my main concern. That's about as NPOV a manner to use the statement as I can think of, and Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 won't even allow that NPOV usage.

3. That's about as misleading a straw man diversionary argument as can be imagined. There is only so much "straw" in a straw man, and the nature of this twisted argument reveals that Hans is grasping at "straws" that aren't there anymore because he's used them up! How can using the NSF/NSB statement to document that the NSF/NSB wrote what they wrote be such a problem? That's a very NPOV way to use the quote. It only serves the cause of fringe POV promoters to keep this out of Wikipedia. (Whether the actual quote is true or not is an entirely different matter best left to other wikis without our policies. Wikipedia doesn't sit in judgment on the truthiness of a statement, it just reports what V & RS say.)
4. "Verifiability, not truth" is a very fundamental policy. If you want to change that wording, thus allowing editors like yourself to incessantly argue with editors who hold opposing opinions about the truthiness of a statement, and letting the majority determine what's allowed here, then change the policy. That would create a nightmarish situation of POV articles where the opposing POV, even if published in V & RS, would not be allowed any mention because a cabal of editors on one side determine a source should be eliminated because it doesn't jibe with their version of "truth".

   Your version of Wikipedia would be "an Orwellian ministry of truth....That is a pass to which we ought not to come again." (From the British Chiropractic Association vs. Simon Singh appeal case.) BTW, there is nothing "absurd", "outdated or false" about the NSF/NSB statement. It's just as relevant today as it was in 2006. That pseudoscientific nonsense hasn't become scientific since then.

5. More later.

Discussion

• SEI is a major reputable source for many purposes. I would accept its statistics as definitive. I would not necessary accept any incidental comments as being of any special reliability, This includes lists of selected examples in a general discussion , which are no more authoritative than many other sources. Experts speaking outsidetheir area have no particular authority. Among the things the NSF is not an authority for is pseudoscience. Fortunately. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• It is nearly impossible to follow the above. What is the source (link or reference), what is the claim (quote or diff) and what is the article (link). Hipocrite (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry that it is all so convoluted. I would appreciate any help to make the description easier to digest.

Source: Section "Public Knowledge About S&T" of Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (SEI 2006). But note: (1) To some degree this is also about other editions of the SEI - a section about belief in pseudoscience was first introduced with SEI 2002, revised and turned into a subsection with SEI 2004, and abandoned with SEI 2008. (2) Some parts of SEI 2006 are now missing on the NSF website, but still available on archive.org. See [50] for my presentation of the SEI 2006, with links to the missing parts.

Additional source for evaluating whether the NSB/NSF seriously meant to make the claim in question/continues to support it: [51]

Contested edits: Numerous, spreading over more than a dozen articles, including several edit wars. The text went through many editions. Here is the worst current example, from the lead of pseudoscience. I removed all references except the relevant one:

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. [...]

[...]
Professor Paul DeHart Hurd argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition". As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. The National Science Foundation, in reporting on "Belief in Pseudoscience" reports ten examples of paranormal beliefs they consider pseudoscientific: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling.

The main issues in this case are: (1) "beliefs they consider pseudoscientific" in a context that clearly defines "pseudoscience" rigorously as something that is similar to science, (but worthless); (2) taking "houses can be haunted", "ghosts", "clairvoyance", "witches", "reincarnation" from the original context to this context (note the parts in green), made worse by misleading wikilinks that lead to (appropriately) primarily culture/religion-related articles.

Here is the original version [52]. (It is interesting to note that even if we don't count the footnote, the originally added text was longer than the relevant source passage itself, half of which is a footnote in the source.)

For further similar edits to more than a dozen other articles see my overview. Hans Adler 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only instance I'm familiar with where SEI was used as a source—or the National Science Board or National Science Foundation; I'm confused about the link between them—was in Ghost to say that belief in ghosts and lucky numbers is pseudoscience, which is clearly false. Irrational, yes, but it's unrelated to science. But this was a webpage with no byline and looked as though it had been written up as a press release to justify the organization's existence, so it's not the kind of source we should be using anyway. I think we need to stop doing Google searches for sources who call things pseudo-this and pseudo-that, so we can disparage people or ideas. A Google search will return just about anything these days. It's not how we should be writing articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The relation between NSF, NSB and SEI is as follows: The NSF consists of the NSB and a director. [53] The SEI is a bi-annual statistical report by the NSB for US politicians: "The Board shall render to the President and the Congress no later than January 15 of each even numbered year, a report on indicators of the state of science and engineering in the United States." [54]
  • The webpage with no byline is Section 2 of Chapter 7 of the HTML version of SEI 2006, which is also available printed and as a number of PDF files. Hans Adler 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

It is disingenuous to present the 2006 SEI in a vacuum. The NSF has made a similar presentation in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions of the SEI. I personally am not willing to present their ideas as 'clearly false' or judge if their ideas are internally consistant. I feel that would be injecting my personal opinions where they don't belong.
Each of the following of the Science and Engineering Indicators refers to belief in ghosts, as well as several other topics as pseuoscientific beliefs.
"SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) under the guidance of the National Science Board (Board). It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, Board members, and NSF internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance."
2002 Chart from 2002 2004 2006 Chart from 2006

Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic sub thread.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do the NSF think that belief in Jesus is pseudoscientific too? DigitalC (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I don't see his name in the list of ten beliefs. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I think it was Mitsube who remarked in one of these discussions that this source only picks on non-Christian religions to attack. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Which makes sense, because the purpose of the pseudoscience discussion was probably an attempt to get money out of US politicians for fighting pseudoscience, and more specifically creationism. But of course in that country it would never do to say that openly, and so they listed only things that fundamentalist Christians also reject. Hans Adler 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Where did it pick on any religions? I know this statement doesn't do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is disingenuous to present the SEI 2006 in a vacuum." – Guyonthesubway, I couldn't agree more. I apologise for the length of my initial statement, but proving that a misquotation is a misquotation is harder than quote-mining and takes a lot more space. As I already mentioned above the SEI 2002 had a section "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience", and the SEI 2004&2006 had subsections "Pseudoscience". As I also mentioned above, the discussion of pseudoscience was not yet present in SEI 2000, and with SEI 2008&2010 it was abandoned for an unknown reason. I also linked to an article about a last-minute change in SEI 2010 that makes it appear likely that the pseudoscience section was quietly abandoned because of its inaccuracy.

I hope you realise that it impacts your credibility if you complain that something is being swept under the table if it actually takes up two full paragraphs plus one list with three items (roughly 15-20 % of my presentation). Hans Adler 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans, it is very misleading for you to write:

• "I also linked to an article about a last-minute change in SEI 2010 that makes it appear likely that the pseudoscience section was quietly abandoned because of its inaccuracy." [My emphasis.]

when you know it has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all. That's your own pure speculation without a shred of evidence. Please don't do that. It lessens your credibility. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a paragraph concerning belief in creationism being pulled from SEI 2010 because in the opinion of the NSB it wasn't entirely accurate. And you claim that (1) this "has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all", and (2) this cannot inform our evaluation of why the pseudoscience section no longer appears in SEI 2008 and SEI 2010? Are you serious? Hans Adler 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bull, the following religious beliefs are included in the wording you appear to be insisting on:

1 hindu & Buddhist belief in reincarnation

2 Buddhist (not sure about Hindu) belief in ghosts

3 Protestant fundamentalist belief in the reality of witchcraft

Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that have to do with the source? If you have issues with that, take it up with the NSF. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Bull's remark since relegated to the "Off Topic Subthread".

As I said earlier (not necessarily in this particular discussion), I'm not going to waste time arguing about whether Wikipedia policy requires conformity to common sense. I leave that to others. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article you link to also includes the redacted text which has no changes to the Psueodscience section. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the pseudoscience section that was dropped for unknown reasons from the SEI in 2008 and was still absent from the SEI 2010 draft did not undergo a last-minute change? How amazing. Hans Adler 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A quickie (I hope)

I have just become aware that the leads of five articles still contain language that starts with: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation".

Quotations from mediumship, Seth Material, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, astrology condensed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lead of mediumship The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Seth Material The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including channelling, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Extrasensory perception The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including extrasensory perception, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Clairvoyance The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including clairvoyance, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Astrology The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, is that astrology is one of ten subjects considered to be pseudoscientific beliefs.

All these nearly identical passages were added by BullRangifer. I thought once it was pointed out to him [55] he would accept that this kind of thing is simply impossible according to WP:RS#Academic consensus. But SlimVirgin has recently removed a sentence of the same type from the lead of Jane Roberts, citing a WP:SYN violation, and it appears that BullRangifer is trying to defend this material [56]. I suspect he is under the misapprehension that one of the RfCs he started (I am sure he will tell us which one) supports him.

I should clarify that the problems I see have in many cases (most notably astrology) nothing to do with calling these fields pseudoscientific, but only with the following:

1. Claiming that things that appear marginally in the statistical report SEI 2006 (or SEI 2004) express the scientific consensus, merely because the document is authored by the NSF, but with no regard to the prominence of the claims in the documents, or their relevance to them. Violation of WP:RS#Academic consensus.

2. Claiming that the NSF has "identified and described" ten subjects, when they have done nothing more than copy them from a Gallup poll.

3. Claiming there is a specific list of ten items about which there is scientific consensus that belief in them is pseudoscientific belief. This is particularly absurd in the case of astrology, which is made to appear much less pseudoscientific than it is by putting it in a series with haunted houses, ghosts and reincarnation. And of course it strongly suggests that there is no scientific consensus on highly notable subjects not on the least, such as creation science.

Question

Do the five (condensed) examples above constitute misquotations? Hans Adler 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: It occurs to me that this question perhaps more properly belongs to WP:NOR/N, but I would prefer not to spread this discussion to yet another place. Hans Adler 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Regarding your misapplication of WP:RS#Academic consensus, I've already dealt with it in my response number 2 above. That aspect of the RS policy doesn't even remotely deal with this type of situation, and I created that wording because it was confirmed in the two RfCs, where editorial consensus determines the proper application of policy. I acted in abundantly good faith.

2. The "identified and described" wording wasn't the best choice of wording and has been dropped later. I'm willing to revise it. Just give me some time to get it done after this. (Done.)

3. I only mentioned the list of ten because there was a list of ten. That doesn't offer any form of opinion about scientific creationism, which I suspect the NSF, you and I would all agree is pseudoscience. Since it wasn't in that particular source I couldn't mention it or use the source on that article. It's lack of mention doesn't "strongly suggest" anything at all. That's a logical fallacy.

Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Whether I am misapplying WP:RS#Academic consensus is for neutral editors to decide. I am not aware that you have "dealt with it" above in any meaningful way. "[t]he two RfCs" is not a pointer that a neutral editor interested in verifying your claim can use to make sure that you are not misrepresenting the RfCs in question. Are you afraid of that? You have reason to be, since (assuming I got the right RfCs) one of them doesn't deal with academic consensus at all, and the other deals with academic consensus in the sense of our internal processes (where original research is OK), not with your OR claim that an academic consensus that no reliable source ever mentioned exists.
2. Thanks.
3. I see you have also dropped mention of the list in the leads themselves. Thanks. Of course it doesn't matter whether argument from silence is classically considered as a fallacy, when people actually use it in examples like the following, hypothetical one: "The NSF has identified a list of five heavenly bodies which according to academic consensus rotate around the sun: Pluto, Neptune, Halley's comet, Venus and Saturn." (The odd omission of Earth clearly indicates that it's not clear whether there is academic consensus regarding that.) Hans Adler 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If only the unvierse of supernatrual topics were so limited. Your comments would lead us to determine from "The New York Post has identified the following people as being involved in organized crime" that there were no other people involved in organized crime. Nobody is contending that the NSF list is complete or even partially complete, only that the NSF sees these topics as pseduoscientific. If you allow random specualtion (and I know you do) I'd guess the Gallup poll hasn't been conducted in a while, so NSF didnt have the data to cite outside of Astrology. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see how presenting essentially random incomplete lists as if they had some huge authority creates the problem I described, then I just can't help you. I am not qualified for discussing with people who have the level of intelligence / reading comprehension.

Your last sentence actually makes a valid point. It does appear that Gallup did not publish paranormal belief poll results after 2005. But the fact remains that three SEI editions are the only reliable sources we know of that make the sloppy claim, and they only make it casually. Under these circumstances it's enough to have a plausible argument that they don't stand behind the quotation you are ascribing to them to make it unusable for our purposes. Hans Adler 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My close of the RfC

...has been way over-extrapolated. I have lengthened it. See:

• Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)