Talk:Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Questionability of the site

It appears some people call OCRT biased: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/o00.html#ocrt

If someone wishes to use OCRT as a source, this would be wise to take note of. --olya 01:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. If there is quotable criticism of the OCRT, it should be added to the article. dab (ᛏ) 11:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of Scientology, OCRT is biased since most, if not all, the articles are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor who is the Director of Special Affairs (sometimes called Public Affairs) of the Toronto Org (which is the "continental" office for all of Canada)[1]. There seems to be no fact checking, and where a reference is given, it's either to a Church of Scientology site, a Scientology front like the "New CAN" or misleading. For example: [2] where the reference is to an academic neutral site religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu, but the page actually pointed at is nothing but a reprint of a press release from the Church of Scientology.[3] AndroidCat 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the Scientology pages were indeed authored by Scientologists. That's fine, no proof is required because you've stated your point. But I'm confused about something. What exactly is the issue? Is there an exact error that needs addressing? Were the articles inaccurate in any way? So what if it points to Scientology pages, or is authored by a Scientologist? In the Islam and Christian pages, the author references Islamic and Christian sites. At [4], a Pagan page, the author is a Pagan. Are you going to say he's being biased about Islam and Christianity and Paganism too, because he references sites devoted to those faiths and features pages authored by adherents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DelanoC (talk contribs) .

The real problem is that the Scientology pages are being updated by Scientology. That's a massive conflict of interest. If the Microsoft page was written by Head of Marketing at Microsoft, and the Wikipolicies of citing sources and OR were not in use, you'd have a problem with the accuracy and bias of the Microsoft page. That's EXACTLY what OCRT are allowing to happen with their Scientology information. As I said - massive conflict of interest. Dave420 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also being retro-edited. A claimed 2005 reference[5] was added to point to a Scientology front-site that didn't exist until 2006-09-20.[6] Here's that page in 2004 before the make-over started [7] and it seems quite different from the new viewpoint. (The Religioustolerance.org site blocks Wayback, but they left the Religioustolerance.com backdoor open.) They're also citing Wiki, and I had to drop two circular references recently. AndroidCat 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to a pagan page referenced above is a dead link. After going through about 50 pages that reference Pagan I find that they are all written by the owner of the site B.A. Robinson. He is the author of all the informational pages on the different religions as far as I can tell and I have gone through hundreds of articles. Concerning the explanation of paganism he has written the vast majority by himself but there a few that he credits B.A. Robinson and others. No way to tell if they are Pagan. The 2 articles concerning paganism that I found written by others are An essay for school teachers about Paganism It is instructions for teachers on how to deal with Pagan students. It was not written for religioustolerance.org but reprinted with permission. The other is A Pledge to Pagan Spirituality by Selena Fox. It was written in 1960 and is not informational but what it says, a Pledge. At the bottom Mr. Robinsion names himself editor of this page.--Robbow123 22:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the accuracy of the non-Scientology material on the site, but the Scientology pages contain a large number of errors of fact, and .. unlikely .. claims by the Church of Scientology. Note that Al Buttnor isn't just a Scientologist, but an official of the church and a lot of the text is cribbed straight from their sites. AndroidCat 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Can you list any specific errors? Anything that the site says about Scientology which is an untruth or inaccurate? They will be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DelanoC (talk • contribs) .

On [8], Hubbard was never a "captain of corvettes", never did "the first mineralogical survey of Puerto Rico". The ever-expanding claim of 10,000,000 members isn't credible, and 4,200 Scientology groups, missions and churches mainly exist on paper. On [9], the court case list is suspect since XS4ALL finally won after Church of Spiritual Technology and Religious Technology Center appealed to the highest court in the Netherlands. Those are just the things that pop out in a short scan. Going through the pages line by line, citing my references, would take a while and eventually duplicate much of the material on the wiki Scientology pages here on this Talk page. In the end, I wouldn't be rebuting any kind of neutral personal web site, but the Church of Scientology who wrote the material. AndroidCat 10:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The suspicion about the Scientology material is that while all the informational articles about every other religion were written by the sites founder B.A. Robinson (except fr the aforementioned and others) The information articles about Scientology are either written by Al Buttnor and Robinson or solely written by Al Buttnor. There is no precendent that I can find for letting a member of a religion write the article themselves. Their statement of beliefs state We will attempt to overcome our biases on each topic that we describe, by explaining each point of view carefully, respectfully and objectively. Having a official representative of the Scientologists negates any pretence of objectivity. Since Mr. Robinson has such close ties to Mr. Buttnor he could have interviewed him and contrasted his statements with other references. It's like having Cardinal Law of Boston write about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church.--Robbow123 22:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of the site

A lot of people seem a little bit confused on this issue, so I will address it.

• This article is merely reporting on OCRT, which is an Internet phenomenon.
• Thus, it is not the purpose of this article to determine the site's validity. That is non-Encyclopedic.
• I have already tried to address the more common issues about the site, such as objections by groups and bannings by countries, the apologetics link and censorship services.
• The site has raised a LOT of objections by people, which I did not include in the article, such as the use of the B.C.E/C.E. dating system. The reason for this is because there are simply too many objections raised. Listing each and every single one would make this article as long as a book.

In future, feel free to discuss any problem you might have with the site here. But please keep it out of the article. Also see the archive of the discussion for deletion on the top of this page. It is lengthy, but contains a lot of good arguments, on both sides, as to the validity of the site. Thank you. Delano 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing this paean to the site doesn't say is that it is the best thing since slice bread! I thought wikipedia was meant to be unbiased!

Tell that to everyone who keeps trying to discredit the article by calling it "pro-cult" or by implying the authors are incompetent. That's not unbiased. The article mentions common objections and praises and includes notable references by the mainstream media. And also included are links to two sites, one with a positive and one with a negative opinion. I fail to see how it's a "paean", but it seems that a lot of people have an axe to grind with the site for some odd reason.

I have a bias toward the site because the site is in many ways biased. While it references negative things about something it makes excuses for it or mentions the "religion" is the victim of persecution. The site sometimes acts as an apologist in subtle ways for some organizations. The only line that can be crossed is if a fringe religion is convicted of a violent crime or deals in suicide. An organization doesn't have to get into gunfights to be a danger to it's adherents or society at large.

Here's my question. Can one expand on the article using in context excerpts from the site and comparing them to other in context excerpts that contradict? all references to be be backed up with links back to the original of course. I think juxtoposing information from the same source is objective, even if the end result makes the subject look bad. That's what good journalism does.

I would also include the positive elements of the site like it's unmoderated message board where all opinions and discussions are tolerated as long as they remain civil. Thanks--Robbow123 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not journalists. We do not conduct original research here. We report what other reliable sources have already said about an organization. FCYTravis 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

700+ religioustolerance dot org links in Wikipedia

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

My concern here is purely with external linking, not the pros and cons of this organization.

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On Rick Ross

The link to Rick Ross has appeared before numerous times and has been deleted, but it terds to reappear. The link should not be included, for the following reasons.

1) Rick Ross's site claims OCRT calls itself "scholarly", which is untrue. 2) The article's only source for OCRT's questionability is the fact that www.countercog.com links to it. 3) The article quotes OCRT's founder as saying that none of them are theologists, which is already mentioned (and quoted verbatim) in this Wikipedia article.

In short, the link to Rick Ross offers nothing new to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DelanoC (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Wayback exclusion dropped

I can confirm that the OCRT site dropped its robots.txt exclusion of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine sometime before 2007-05-22. This now allows the archived copies of the pages to be viewed, but nothing new has been archived since April 2006 due to the block.[10] I still think this is notable, but I don't see any way of citing sources for it without access to a meta-Wayback archive of Wayback. AndroidCat 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of the Wayback Machine: "The Internet Archive Wayback Machine does not return any results for ReligiousTolerance.org after September 2006 [1]"
Doesn't the Wayback Machine have a limit of 6 months before showing ANY page? --Raijinili 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the complete robots.txt exclusion is back. AndroidCat 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncredited use of Church of Scientology text

The text on this page[11] down to the section "Attacks by the anti-cult movement" appear to be word-for-word from this page of the Church of Scientology[12]. The credits at the bottom of the page list only B.A. Robinson as the author. AndroidCat 00:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit to the Controversy section and removal of some cites therein

I think that this needs more explanation than I can give in an edit summary, so I'll explain it here.

This concerns three cites in the Controversy section supporting the assertion, "Buttnor is the Director of Special Affairs for the Church of Scientology Toronto."

1. The Church of Scientology International European Public Affairs and Human Rights Office lists Al Buttnor on its contacts page
2. The Buffalo News: Being In, Breaking Out
3. Church of Scientology International Announces World-wide Human Rights Hero Contest

The first cite does say what it is described as saying, but that does nothing to support the assertion. This cite is superfluous, and I am removing it for that reason.

The second site points to a page which apparently requotes a copyrighted article in full, in violation of the article's copyright. The article is available (for a fee) from its original publisher here. Including this second cite in the article appears to be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see this). Also, this source does nothing to support the assertion and is as superfluous as the first source.

The third source is a Church of Scientology web page which contains the snippet, "... Al Buttnor, event coordinator and Director of Public Affairs and Human Rights of the Church of Scientology of Toronto." This snippet is from a reliable source on the point at issue, but it contradicts the assertion rather than supporting it. I have edited the assertion in the article identify Buttnor as "Director of Public Affairs and Human Rights" rather than as "Director of Special Affairs". -- Boracay Bill 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Their page on scientology and the internet is outdated as well. The XS4ALL/Spaink case is still listed as a scientology victory, while a higher court overthrew that decision for ages. And the OCRT knows this. 24.132.188.247 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed References

I moved these here from the article:

• "Web Site of the Week: www.religioustolerance.org". The Dallas Morning News. September 15, 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Religions Tolerance (review of website)". School Library Journal. 1 April 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• "Paganism growing fast in U.S., Canada". UPI. June 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Draper, Electa (June 26, 2008). "NEO-PAGANS-ART-DEN". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I do not see how these serve to verify the article content. The first two require payment, so I could not check them. The last two are mere passing mentions. They are not articles about the subject of the article. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the first two, the previews ought to be sufficient to confirm that the website was reviewed by reliable sources. AccessMyLibrary.com pages can be accessed free of charge if you have a library card from a participating library. The paganism articles both quote OCRT, indicating that two newspapers regard OCRT as a reliable source of information. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but being a reliable source of information does not make the subject notable. For instance, I occasionally write columns for a professional publication and speak at conferences. As such, I am a reliable source (if I self-publish) on topics within my field; however, I certainly do not consider myself notable.Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of notability, academic reception

Re notability, the following info is copied from the current WP:RS/N discussion:

• Looking at google scholar: [13], [14], their site appears to have entered academic discourse, and has been cited by numerous reputable and reliable sources (examples include The Lancet, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Religion and Society, Nova Religio and others).

Examples of citations in academic books:

• [15] (Apologies to Thucydides by Marshall David Sahlins, University of Chicago Press, p. 312: B. A. Robinson essay included in bibliography)
• [16] (Ethical Studies textbook by Robert Bowie quoting Robinson, p. 187)
• [17] (Freedom's Distant Shores by R. Drew Smith, Baylor University Press, cites religioustolerance.org as a corroborating source [note 19])
• [18] (Wrestling with God and Men by Steven Greenberg, University of Wisconsin Press, p. 293, cites Robinson article on religioustolerance.org)
• [19] (Theological Librarians and the Internet by Mark Stover, p. 145: academic review of theological web resources, berates undergraduates for dismissing the site in a course assignment, because it carried advertising; describes the site's content as a "massive education program")
• [20] [21] (Teaching New Religious Movements by David G. Bromley, Oxford University Press, pp. 296, 307: lists religioustolerance.org among recommended secondary research sources, along with peer-reviewed journals and academic websites)

(The google book links given to the actual pages may decay over time.) --Jayen466 00:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Press mentions: [22], [23] Jayen466 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Most of the article is analysis of primary sources. The article needs to be completely rewritten, based on WP:RS. Jayen466 04:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The book by Hadden and Cowan reviewed here seems to have a chapter devoted to the site and its history: [24] --Jayen466 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OR

• On almost all the site's articles on Scientology Al Buttnor is listed as author or co-author. Buttnor is the Director of Public Affairs and Human Rights for the Church of Scientology Toronto. On one page where Robinson is listed as the author, most of the text is identical with an official Church of Scientology site.'

AndroidCat, please stop reinserting the OR that Crotalus horridus has deleted. It is OR, as, indeed, is much of the rest of the article. I indicated a few suitable sources above that could be used to expand the article, or, rather, replace the present substandard content. Jayen466 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it OR to list the relevant credentials or affiliations of an author. Would it be OR to say that an author is a professor at McGill Univesity, or that another is a bishop in the Anglican Church? I don't think so. It's context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The OR may come in by saying "almost all" of the articles on Scientology are writtn by one person. It'd be better to say something more precise, like "5 out of 6 articles" or even something more vague like "some of the articles". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be charitable. The last time I looked, all but one article on Scientology was credited to Al Buttnor, and the exception was uncredited use (plagiarism?) of a Church of Scientology article. 100% by the Church of Scientology then?AndroidCat (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not aware of any published sources making a point of mentioning this. There is a lot of material available in published sources about the OCRT (see above). If we want to develop this article, I suggest we start by summarising the existing sources, rather than doing original research. Jayen466 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning what? The affiliations of the writer? I've never seen any complaint in another article that mentioning he affiliations of a mentioned person is original research. Can you find an example of that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Will, in this case the arguments are quite valid. I don't think I've ever been accused of being a supporter of Scientology, but here the editors are basically constructing a criticism of material on the OCRT website based on their investigative work regarding its materials and authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending the exact wording, and making a section out of it is overkill. But I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the context of people and events, and it's not original research to say that the author of a work is also associated with a relevant organization. It's no different from saying that "John Smith" is a professor at "Jones U.", or that "Mary Black" is VP of Marketing at "UniCo", or that "Peter Brown" is a "Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church". So long as there's no reasonable doubt that the people are one in the same then this isn't original research. No original conclusion is being drawn from facts available in reliable sources. The way this should probably be handled is with a single line, saying something like "The website includes articles about Scientology either written by church officials or copied from official websites." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's still crossing the line into original research and poisoning the well (a violation of WP:NPOV), but that would certainly be less objectionable than the current mess. Ideally no synthesized claims in this article should be sourced to the website itself, though I admit that in practice few Wikipedia articles on websites actually achieve WP:NOR in this regard. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that listing someone's primary position is either "poisoning the well" or engaging in original research. In this case, the fact that this website carries religion-related materials written by an official of that religion is relevant information. Likewise, if we had an article on a toy-safety website that carried articles written by an executive of Mattel it'd be logical and relevant to mention that association. It isn't poisoning the well because such an executive could be considered an expert on the topic, just like a cardinal is an expert on Catholic theology and a Church of Scientology executive is an expert on that organization. Note that we already quote the site on the affiliations for the main contributors: They identify themselves as "two Unitarians (one agnostic and the other an atheist), one Wiccan, one liberal but unaffiliated Christian, and a Zen Buddhist."[2] We're just extending that to list the affiliation of a minor (but still significant) contributor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue here (and it extends to all parts of the article) is "why is that notable in any way"? The only reasonable answer, from a Wikipedia policy point of view, is "because a reliable source noted it". In this instance that doesn't appear to be the case - thus, the WP:NOR concern. That said, given the poor state of the article as whole, as a preliminary compromise I wouldn't object to a single sentence along the lines of the one you've suggested. If someone were to actually re-write this article properly, using reliable secondary sources, then that sentence would likely disappear. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Scientology website is a reliable source for the names of their executives. Here it is here.[25] There are certainly many problems with this article, and I agree that this probably isn't the largest. I suggest that we drop the part about the copied article, and just add a sentence to the "members" section saying that some of the Scientology articles are written by an executive of that organization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Scientology website is a reliable source for anything. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's the problem, I have non-Scientology references for Al Buttnor. We could list him as one of the contributors to the site, even without affiliation. (Although, I'd like to see justification why the self-claim of "two Unitarian Universalists (one agnostic and one atheist), one Wiccan, one progressive but unaffiliated Christian, and a Zen Buddhist" is acceptable for the other contributors.) AndroidCat (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a published RS that makes your point in direct relation to the ReligiousTolerance.org website. It's probably true that it is the same Buttnor, but without a good source pointing that out it remains unverifiable OR. Jayen466 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, you reverted with "um, no, not every original research concern has to be raised at a noticeboard. Most are simply discussed on article talk pages", after I pointed to the discussion ongoing discussion at WP:No original research/noticeboard#Concerns about WP:SYNTH in Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, opened by Crotalus horridus. I'd rather not argue this is two places. AndroidCat (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the discussion here covered the issue too, and there's no need for OR to remain in an article just because it's being discussed in two places. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 is there really any detail in those Google book ref hits and NRM uses? Anything relevant that actually discusses the site rather than just citing them to buttress a weak work? AndroidCat (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The book by Hadden and Cowan, published by Elsevier, has a whole chapter by Robinson on how the site came into being. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that book. This is said to be an early draft of the text, but being on the website, it is self-published and, I would suggest, no good to us. We'd need the published book. A couple of the scholars linked above give an assessment of the site, recommending it as a research source for students and professionals in the field. That is worth reporting. The press mentions I haven't looked through yet. Cheers, Jayen466 07:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

References

What makes this group notable?

I am having difficulty determining from the article what makes this organization notable under Wikipedia's rules and guidelines (See: WP:ORG). From what I can tell by reading this article, it seems that the group consists of only a few people and a website... which is hardly notable, no matter how noble the cause. I assume there is more to this organization than that... but, if so, the article does not discuss it. The article needs to establish notability according to the WP:ORG guidelines.

I will give editors a reasonable amount of time to rectify this situation, but if notability is not established I will nominate the article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See the sections above and below. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've thrown out the old primary-sourced Reception section and added a new one based on available third-party sources. I think the "Members" and "Web Site" sections could well do with being trimmed further. It's not our job to repeat what it says on their website. Jayen466 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year! Jayen466 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete this

Six month ago I nominated this for deletion. We still have an article that completely lacks reliable sourcing. I recommend that this be nominated for deletion again. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is referenced in 234 books on Google books. It is referenced 179 times on Google scholar. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These Google hits need to be translated into references in the article. AndroidCat (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Being referenced does not mean much. Who published those books and what did they say about the organization? Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'm just pointing out that it's not a completely non-notable website, and those references do indicate that. Whether it fully satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines is a separate issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking better now. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Jayen466 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed a self-published source

PierLuigi Zoccatelli is the Deupty Director of CESNUR (see this). I have removed his book review (Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet Revisited. A Short Review of "Religion on the Internet: Research Prospects and Promises", edited by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Douglas E. Cowan) previously used as a source on this article. ←Spidern→ 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source was fine per WP:SPS, given that Zoccatelli is an established expert who has previously been published in this field, and the material quoted was a book review (rather than, say, a character assassination). But I agree the sentence can stand without a third-party source. Jayen466 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We've established that the text stands without a citation in this case, but I'd like to explore the matter of this source further. The relevant clause at WP:SPS reads:

“ Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ”

Can you point me to any such publications? ←Spidern→ 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The link you gave above listed the relevant publications. Jayen466 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would hope that character assassinations would be unacceptable in any case, WP:SPS or not. ←Spidern→ 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2x Citation needed

We had previously cited Robinson's professional history to their website ([26]). The website also provides info on how they fund themselves here. If editors are reluctant to use these potentially self-serving SPS, we could just drop this info; as I said before, it is not our job to repeat what they say on their site. Cheers, Jayen466 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception content

Moving parts of the "Reception" section into the "Website" section does not work for me. I think all the "Reception" content (i.e. which books comment on the group and its website, who has used or recommended the website as a source etc.) should be together, in one section, and separate from the description of the group and website per se. I preferred it the way it was here. Thoughts, anyone? Jayen466 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the aforementioned changes in those sections because the page is entitled "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance", referring to the organization itself. If you wish to talk about the reception of the website, either label the section as such or keep it under "Website". I'm open to hearing what others have to put on the table about this, though. To be honest, I have seen very little explaining the reception of the group itself outside the internet, and have instead mostly seen recommendations of their website. ←Spidern→ 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of the sources we bring up talk about both the group and their website. I don't think it would make sense to have two reception sections and split those quotes up. Given that the website is the group's main product, I think it's okay to have a Reception section that discusses both the group and their site. Jayen466 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the "reception" content consists primarily of information regarding the website. If you could accrue more content that talks about the reception of the organization itself, I'd be more inclined to include it under the broader "reception" section. ←Spidern→ 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Information on the group itself expanded and content reorganised accordingly. Jayen466 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Spidern, These two edits leave us with two problems: (1) the identification of Robinson as the agnostic of the group was cited to the primary source and is not backed up by the secondary source you left in place, (2) the description of the members is marked as a quote, but the wording is from the primary source you deleted, rather than the secondary source ref which you have left in place. There's two ways we can address this: Either deleting the identification of Robinson as the agnostic and rewording the member description to match the cited source (which is slightly less detailed), or reinserting the primary source. Thanks for the copy-edits, by the way, flows much better now. Cheers, Jayen466 14:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) I have removed the identification of Robinson as the agnostic of the group. (2) You are correct. At one point before we had the secondary source I had noted its necessity but it then slipped my mind later. Thanks for pointing it out. I have reworded to match the secondary source. ←Spidern→ 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I concur. As for the members, shall we stick them in with the website? I agree there is not enough now to make a section, but the lede isn't the best place either. Cheers, Jayen466 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. It is not entirely clear whether they are involved in any capacity with the website, however since that is their main means of publication it may be a safe assumption to make. ←Spidern→ 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've called the heading "The group and its website" now. Hope that's okay with you. Have also expanded the lede. There's still lots more press sources that could be mined: [27] [28] Should we mention the Alexa page rank in the text somewhere? The site is at #6800 or thereabouts in the US, and #18,000 roughly worldwide (link in infobox). Cheers, Jayen466 00:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning Alexa in the infobox will suffice. ←Spidern→ 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1995 foundation of the group

Spidern, I think it was correct to say that the group was founded in 1995, as per the Euthanasia book. While I don't have access to the Cowan/Hadden book right now, in the draft version of the chapter present on their website ([29]) Robinson clearly says "when we started our website in 1995", which implies that the group existed then. He says the group and site had informal beginnings, being nothing more than a hobby at first, so they only registered in 1996 (and then as a sole proprietorship, since that involved less bureaucratic effort). Is the chapter in the book substantially the same as the draft version that is online? Jayen466 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, it appears to be identical, save an intro before "initiating events". However, the final version did contain more references. At least the layout of the headings looks the same. I can confirm page numbers for you on request. ←Spidern→ 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the Euthanasia citation to a statement declaring the group's creation in 1995. ←Spidern→ 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, changes look good. Jayen466 15:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

The ReligiousTolerance.org website has been cited by journalists and scholars as a reference source on such topics as the practice of female genital mutilation, Satanism, euthanasia and the opposition to allowing women priests in the Church of England.

This passage is synthetic because it strings together multiple sources to justify a conclusion not explicitly reached in any present secondary sources. ←Spidern→ 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you say is the conclusion? Jayen466 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement in question is "The ReligiousTolerance.org website has been cited by journalists and scholars as a reference source". None of the sources cited state that information outright. Therefore, it can be considered synthesis, a form of original research. ←Spidern→ 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a not a new conclusion that is not present in the source. The sources themselves make it clear that they are citing the website, by naming it and referring to it. Summary statements of this type are also common practice in other articles. In Operation_Clambake#Scholarly_perception, for example, we state that "Operation Clambake is cited as an archival resource by scholars in academic works." and give three works that do so. I find that unobjectionable; it is descriptive, verifiable, and reflects a weight attached to the site by third-party sources. In this present case we could say, "The LA Times recommended the site as a source of information on the winter solstice. Scholar A in paper Y cited the site as a reference on female genital mutilation. Scholar B in paper Z cited it as such too. The Metro Times quoted information X from the site. Would you prefer that? Jayen466 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that format is much more preferable because it is absolutely verifiable, with no doubts left. We do know that X source reported Y because that is trivial to verify. We can't allow the reader to have to assess the credentials of the sources cited. Most cases that require the reader to draw on any knowledge which isn't cited are not permissible. One exception would be mathematical or simple logical statements.←Spidern→ 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that it would be so tedious to list all these mentions. Nearly all of them (and there are hundreds of them) are, taken individually, almost trivial; yet taken together they seem to amount to something. Jayen466 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but being verifiable is among our foremost concerns. If the individual sources are significant enough to find their way into a reliable secondary source which makes such conclusions, then we use them as such. Otherwise, they are less significant and possibly not qualified for encyclopedic mention in the first place. ←Spidern→ 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if we find substantial newspaper mentions – at least as long as the one in Metro Times or longer – let's look at using them; if it's just a use as a scholarly or journalistic reference or a half-sentence mention, let's not bother. Okay? Jayen466 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just leave it then, unless we find something where someone has written about their being cited; the selection of which article or paper to mention here would be entirely arbitrary, and made by us rather than a reliable source. Jayen466 23:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On third (!) thoughts, perhaps you have a point. It is not so much a WP:SYNTH issue, as a potential WP:UNDUE issue (both are topics that I have been thinking about and discussing a lot lately, at the relevant talk pages). It certainly would be nicer to have a source directly pointing these things out. Do you have access to these news articles? They might have a bit more relevant detail. Cheers, Jayen466 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I see it as a synthesis issue is because it requires the reader to go to each of the cites and conclude that they are in fact written by a journalist or academic. Once they've decided that, they have to verify that each of the cited sources did, in fact, cite OCRT. As a rule, every statement of fact should be backed up by a single source at minimum, rather than a single fact requiring multiple sources to stand. The Operation Clambake statement is equally problematic because it once again requires the reader to verify that each of those sources are in fact academic--this should not be the case. It is for this reason that we rely on a fact-checked news article or an academic paper to verify a fact. Conclusions that are not cited are non-encyclopedic. ←Spidern→ 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of those paid news links. ←Spidern→ 22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I bought the Dallas Morning News one, but it does not contain much more than what I've put in now. There's a bit on 9/11 (the article came out the week after) with a statement by Robinson, and one more sentence, saying that "The site's mission isn't an easy one, and some visitors may readily find fault with some things they read." Jayen466 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Lede section

Spidern, as per WP:LEDE and commonly applied GA criteria, we shouldn't place material in the lede that is not in the article proper. Let's please make sure the lede is a summary of the article content. Jayen466 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. ←Spidern→ 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for discussion

Other sources we can look at using:

• American Library Association review from when they were still called the "Ontario Centre ...": http://www.bowdoin.edu/~samato/IRA/reviews/issues/jun96/ocrt.html Jayen466 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tangential mention -- the site was one of various sites wrongly blocked once: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001102_hansen.html (trivial, I think) Jayen466 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Librarians' Internet Index: Brief review of the site as a whole and reviews of a few individual pages http://lii.org/cs/lii/query/q/45?publisher=Ontario%20Consultants%20on%20Religious%20Tolerance Jayen466 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with using this source for German and Swedish articles on "Blood Libel"

The information on this site for Blood Libel clashes with the best source for Blood Libel - the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. On the Swedish site, an article started up on Blood Libel kicks off with the Ontario Consultants definition, which is briefly that Blood Libel is done by any group to any other group; whereas the common understanding is that it is primarily and mostly and anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic pheonomenon where Christians were the perpetrators and Jews the victims most of the time including the canonization of saints forming cults that relived the feelings of hurt sensibilities found in the Gospel of St John and wreaking vengance on Jews.

In particular, Blood Libel through the centuries is broken down in a table where the headings "group doing it" to "group being done to" lists various perpetrators and victims, but missing out the Jews as victims through periods when repeated cause celèbres surfaced.

Swedish editors who know nothing about Jewish history, and are keen to write the Jews out of the Holocaust and play down Jewish victim status appear to be encouraged by this.

Grateful for info where to go about this. RPSM (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't follow the non-english wikipedias at all, but the Swedish Wikipedia article here describes that as "the Swedish language edition of Wikipedia" and links to http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida -- I couldn't find "blood libel" or "Ontario Consultants" there, but then I don't speak Swedish.

A search on the OC website[30], returned among its results one page page containing what appears to be the definition you describe[31]. That page links to another which appears to contain the table you describe[32]. Other OC pages in the search results describe "blood libel" specifically as an anti-semitic myth[33], or fable[34], or in some other way which specifically associates the term with antisemitism.

Re differences between assertions found on the OC website, in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, and in other sources, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the lead for the Swedish article on Blood libel:

Blodsförtal, ritualmordsanklagelser, ritualmordslegender, blodanklagelser, eller blodrykten (engelska: blood libel) är falska anklagelser som går ut på att den anklagade parten mördat någon i syfte att använda deras blod i olika typer av ritualer. Flera olika grupper har råkat ut för denna typ av anklagelser, framför allt judar[1] men även exempelvis frimurare och satanister[2].

Blood libels, accusations of ritual murder, ritual murder legends, blood accusations or blood rumours (english: "blood libels" ar false accusations which are based on the accused party having murdered someone with the intention of using their blood in various types of rituals. Various groups have been subjected to this type of accusation, most of all Jews, but even, for example freemasons and satanists. Just wondering if this is balanced. RPSM (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I see that the web site has been challenged as a WP:RS. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#religioustolerance._org_revisited and resolved with "It is an RS because Robinson is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources and religioustolerance.org is used as a source for fact by reliable sources. However, it is still a self-published source and BLP restrictions for self-published sources apply. Care should also be taken not to add the site indiscriminately as as an external link; this has led to problems in the past."Sjö (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexa data needs updating

Concerning: "Alexa rank negative increase 166,850 (April 2014)[2]"

As of 2014-OCT, the rating has improved and is in the low 90,000s.

I don't see any mechanism to alter this number. Can someone more familiar with Wikipedia do this?

Bruce Robinson, Coordinator Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. ocrtfeedback@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.176.124 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Web site no longer related to the topic

The URL https://www.religioustolerance.org/ appears to point to some sort of casino site in Indonesia. Dianne Skoll (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)