Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:RSN
WP:RS/N
WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Contents


[edit] Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

[edit] Bible as a reliable source

Could anyone explain why the Bible is permitted to be used as a reliable source? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Like most questions here, the answer is it depends. It's a reliable source on what it says. If it's "the bible says Adam and Eve..." then it's fine. If it's "the bible says the earth was created in 0" it's not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's wrong. "The bible says the earth was created in 0" is actually OK. What would be wrong is "the earth was created in 0". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor example, because the Bible doesn't say that earth was created in any numeral. Some people claim that their interpretation of the Bible means that the earth was created in such and such a year. You'd source the person making the claim, not the Bible in that case. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why you assert the Bible "is a reliable source on what it says"? From reading WP:RS the Bible is exactly the opposite of a reliable source. It is not credible, the authors were not notable, no facts were checked and no independent third parties have ever reviewed the content. Why is all the scrutiny given to the other sources on this page questioned and in some cases rejected, because of the minor possibility of bias but then not applied to references from the Bible? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that WP:RS says that sources are reliable in relation to the subject at hand. What matters is the context in which the Bible is being used as a source. For example, Bible would be an appropriate source when it comes to describe the Life and teachings of Jesus, as told in the Gospels or when used by an expert to give a certain religious interpretation within the Cristian world. On the other hand, the Bible becomes less of a reliable source, for example, when it comes to science historic analysis. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would think the Bible is an "appropriate source" when it clearly fails to meet the standards for a reliable source. I thought this that is what matters, regardless of context. If a source is unreliable, such as the Bible, why do you think it is appropriate to use it in Wikipedia in any context? This is what I have been trying to find out. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As usual editors must use good judgement. For example the Bible is not always consistent - a striking case is Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him" and Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." So even "the Bible says that ..." needs to be used with care. --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, when using the Bible as a source, we need to check various translations, to make sure that they all say the same thing (If they do not say the same thing, we have to note which version we are citing). Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a problem here in that the Bible is as much a subject as a source. Considered as a subject, it is of course the most obvious source (the only question then being the version to be cited). Considered as a source on particular topics, its reliability should, naturally, be called into question. Pingku (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary source. It's often cited in articles about biblical subjects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
If so, one has to bear in mind that manuscript and translation can vary. So "the Bible says" is only applicable if you're quoting Greek or Hebrew (and even then, you should speak of ms, not "the Bible"). Other than that, you should cite specific translations, but scholarly works should be considered superior sources. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Some time way back in my youth I heard Garner Ted Armstrong read from the Bible and rather correctly per its wording describe the ancient creation of same-as-Christmas trees: chop a tree down, decorate it, worship it. Even then I was a skeptic. I pulled out my other Bible in Latvian (fewer translations removed from the original), and it was clear and unambiguous that what was meant--in present-day terms--was not "Christmas trees" but "totem poles." I would agree that which Bible is quoted is as significant as which passage. PetersV       TALK 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that might help is ceasing to view it as "the Bible" and to begin viewing it as a compilation of primary sources. This is especially useful in the case of the New Testament, where the authors are mostly known. Writing "Paul says" or "John says" makes a lot more sense than "the Bible says". In addition, talking about the Bible as if it were a "reliable source" gives the impression that it is somehow a secondary source of research. It's not. It's a primary source document, and should be used with as much skepticism as any other primary source. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call what went into the Bible as "primary sources". With the noted exception of Paul's letters the Bible consists of almost entirely of secondary sources. Even the Gospels were written years after the events the describe and there is a large debate on who and even when they were written--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC).
They are as much a "primary source" as Herodotus or Homer, both of whom we refer to by that label. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Articles, Commentaries, etc. that appear in a Scientific Journal.

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
Within one hour this page will be placed on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.) This is a redux of a conversation all of the above editors had a long time ago and archived here. (Scroll down to see it)

Agreed upon facts

Arguments for including peer commentaries

  • Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
  • Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the article.
  • The article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.

There are basically three options:

  • In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

--Hfarmer (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is a question that was in the first instance and it is still the best way to ask the question now. was negotiated by all of the editors then involved. It is my opinion that for the sake of not having to do this crapola a third time we take account of the archived discussion in reaching consensus. Not all of those people are active now, it's like their taking a break for the holidays or something. They will be back and they will demand that we redo this if we ignore their really good arguments on both sides.
In the previous discussion it was established after agonizing debate that the peer commentaries are self published sources. Ok I agree with and stipulate that unless anyone disagrees and wants to go over that again. The argument for them being self published came from the fact that these commentaries were not fact checked or reviewed before being published. In my analysis of WP:RS and WP:SPS self published sources are useable as a source for thier own opinion if that person is an expert. In the last debate many editors agreed with that.
The last debate also turned on the definition of just who is an expert? What defines an expert? It was argued and most uninvolved editors at that time agreed that for our purposes a expert is someone who has published on the topic at hand in a peer reviewed journal. I think this is a horrible definition of expertise. Only in a very small part of human experience can expertise be gained by writing and publishing. In most things expertise is gained by doing. Using that standard for "expert" an astronaut that has been in space a dozen times but never published a paper in a journal is not an expert on space flight. However a engineer who writes a paper about it but has never been near an actual rocket is an expert. Clearly that does not make sense. I do recognize that the engineer may know technical aspects and formal engineering aspects that are invisible to the astronaught who is immersed in the experience of being launched into space then reentering. Thus if anything both sources should be used.
For the case at hand simply replace astronaut with transsexual and engineer with sexologist and you get what I am saying. The issue at had is are transsexuals expert enough to have their opinions expressed in an article which is all about transsexuality. I would say of course we can use some sample of those commentaries for their opinions but nothing more. While similar commentaries which are by authors who have published in peer reviewed journals about the topic could be used for technical aspects of the theory. (The astronaut should not tell the engineer how to do his/her job either.) Both of those perspectives would be a valuable part of making the article at hand more complete and true to the state of the situation we are writing about.
I am sorry for all of the reading involved in this request. To those of you who actually do this you have my deepest gratitude.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What an interesting a case! I've had a look at The Man Who Would Be Queen (our article, not the book) and at the earlier discussion that led you to raise the issue. These make it plain that the whole issue was more like a war than a normal academic debate. So I'd consider it very unwise to make policy on the basis of this case.
WP:RS is not a guarantee of reliability, it sets out to define minimum requirements (IMO they are OK for physics, chemistry, biology, etc., but I don't know about academic articles on the arts or sociology, etc.) - for example many science articles are consigned to the rubbish within 5 years after publication, sometimes because the authors made mistakes but more often (in my experience) because of subsequent progress. So it's always up to editors to use good judgement.
I also know of cases where "technical comments" on an article are worth citing, and the original authors' responses to these comments. Very often how you cite them is the most important point, "X commented that ..." and "Y responded that ..." is often OK and warns readers that there is an on-going debate.
Re "the peer commentaries are self published sources", I think the facts you present contradict that, as the editor of ASB went over them in detail.
Re "for our purposes a expert is someone who has published on the topic at hand in a peer reviewed journal", I agree that it's far too broadbrush and your astronaut / engineer example is right on target. I also think the statement contains too many ambiguities. For example:
  • In some of WP's scientific topics some content is so well-accepted in scientific circles that peer-reviewed articles are no longer published on it, especially if the topic has a very wide scope, e.g. a phylum such as Arthropod, and you need an undergraduate-level textbook by reputable authors. The authors of good textbooks do not have time to be active researchers in all of a field, in this example invertebrate zoology. so you have to trust that they are using their sources sensibly. If necessary you can always back that up with book review in peer-reviewed journals, although AFAIK book reviews are not themselves peer-reviewed.
While the seological theory of transsexualism due to Dr. Blanchard is part of this discussion it is not the main part. (it has it's own article which is not the subject of this discussion). While compared to Physics and Chemistry most "_ologies" are pseudosciences. The ologies still do have standards by which theories are judged. Those are the standards one must apply when talking about the scientific qualities of a sexological theory.(i.e. a physics theory can be confirmed by predicting values to some high degree of precision. What could any psychological theory do that would be equivalent to that?)
  • It depends on who "our" refers to:
That basically refer's to the editors who wanted to exclude the peer commentaries of many critics of Derger's article. While many of the critcs are academics they haven't published in scientific fields related to psychiatry, psychology, or sexology. It is my personal postion that we should not use their comments for whatever they have to say about psychology. However we should still be able to use them for their opinions of Dreger's article. It depends on what we want to take.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If you mean WP editors working on normal scientific topics, peer-reviewed articles and top-of-the-range books are the preferred sources. However it may be necessary to supplement their material with "official" sources (government or similar) on matters of public policy, e.g. public health or conservation - Platyhelminthes uses a few of these because some flatworms are very damaging parasites.
Nope see my above two replies.
    • If you mean editors working on scientific topics that are so controversial that there's a lot of dirty politicking, like this one, the safest course is to treat it like any political controversy that is still active (e.g. The Middle East situation): assume all sources have a POV; aim for balanced coverage rather than attempting to identify a consensus; if any doubt at all, attribute statements as the views of particular person or groups.
Wikipedia has precidents for things like this. Any article relating to human evolution, creationism, biblical arhaeology or what not will likely generate allot of heat. Though As I said in my first comment this really is not about sexology or science. This is more about A book which cited Blanchard's theory, then the reaction to that book, and a journal article written about that reaction. This is more about the controversy surrounding the book than whatever science or lack thereof in the book.
    • I have no experience of working on academic topics outside the traditional sciences, i.e. where hypotheses are not empirically falsifiable. If I got involved in such a topic, I'd treat as controversial (balanced coverage, attributed statements, etc.) until proven otherwise. Other editors with more experience in thse fields may take a different view.
By traditional do you mean the physical science, Physics and Chemistry? Just wondering.
    • For most other topics on Wikipedia, WP:RS already takes an excessively academic point of view, and I would hate to see that reinforced. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I could not agree more about that. The definition of expertise should extend to people who have done things but not necssarily journal published about them. It is excessively hard to publish anything in a peer reviewed journal. What get's published is more a reflection of the bias'es of the people who are on the editorial board. This is called a paradigm. This concept is part of the discussion at hand. It is alleged that the people at "Archives of Sexual Behavior" are totally comitted to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory as if it were the scientific paradigm accepted by all or almost all. Which it isn't. Though neither is it fringe kooky science that only a few other psychologist take seriously. Just for the record what the widely accepted paradigm in this field is would have to be what the DSM IV calls "Gender Identity Disorder". --Hfarmer (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take my not responding to your comments as snub. First, I'm no sexologist, my main concern is to prevent over-enthusiastic attempts at legislation from doing harm in other areas. Second, I think we need to hear from more people. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider asking at WP:RFC? This area is really for short discussions on what passes the minimum of a reliable source. Its already been established that the disputed citations have been published, the question is whether it makes sense to use them in the article. A request for comment should help with that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, but since I already wrote my comments and got an edit conflict, I'll go ahead and put them here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The interlinear comments of Hfarmer among Philcha's points above is getting too confusing, and makes it hard to follow. Let just go sequentially, OK? Also, Hfarmer, now that you've framed it and made a dozen edits on the topic today, slow down and let others get a word in. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem that Philcha quickly recognized is that these topics are controversial, with active ongoing nasty politic fighting going on between the academic sexologists and the transsexuals that they seek to put into two categories that are found offensive. Bailey's book was one step in their campaign, Dreger's analysis of the backlash was another, and now, in the person of User:James Cantor, a prominent principal in the arguments, they've brought their campaign to Wikipedia, seeking to leverage Wikipedia's tendency to give the upper hand to academics; they've been joined by User:ProudAGP, apparently wearing his POV on his handle as a proud autogynephiliac, in support of the controversial theory; and User:WhatamIdoing is always on their side, too. When Cantor (first as an anon and then as User:MarionTheLibrarian) started with nasty attacks on the biography of my friend Lynn Conway, I noticed and got involved in defending against such biased editing by such committed partisans in the fight. So OK, I have that bias myself, but I'm basically a long-time active Wikipedian working on technical topics, and I don't like to Wikipedia used in such a POV way by academics trying to push their controversial ideas.

...So, what I mean by all this is that excluding half of a special issue on a controversial topic, on the basis that the editor Kenneth Zucker, himself clearly on the side of the academic sexologists that he works with, used the words "peer reviewed" on one side not on the other, is unbelievably bold and offensive to me as a Wikipedian. Anyone else think this is over the top? Can't we report BOTH sides of the controversy as published in this journal? Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have an informed discussion about this topic without knowing its context: There exists great conflict at the moment between the ideas expressed predominantly in high-end scientific journals and the beliefs expressed predominantly by transsexual activists. (There are some exceptions on both sides; I simplify just to show the general lay of the land.) The extent to which editors want to lower WP’s criteria for “expert” is precisely the extent to which editors want to have the attention to the activists’ side increased.
Both sides accuse the other of acting out of self-interest: Activists will argue that the extent to which editors want to maintain the current WP definition of expert is the extent to which one wants the attention to the activists’ side minimized. The only solution, to my mind, is to edit the articles to fit WP policy, not to edit WP policy to fit how one wants the articles to read.
For editors to who believe that WP is “too” academic (as if there is such a thing as a non-academic encyclopedia), I recommend explicitly starting a conversation about expertise on the relevant policy pages, not fighting on the transsexual-topic pages and then backwards-engineering WP definitions of expertise to suit it.
There is a reason that so few of the statements of extreme activists appear in RS’s (including journals devoted to transsexual issues), and there is a reason that WP limits itself to what is said in RS’s and not to what appears on various blogs and other non-RS’s. I have no opposition to the views of activists being included the moment they appear in an RS; I oppose only changing the rules to suit activists’ (or anyone’s) efforts to use WP as a soapbox and battleground.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Request for clarity Hfarmer, could you explain what you want to do with the comments in that journal? No source is universally reliable for every possible statement. It's not a bright line, "This {is|isn't} a reliable source, so you {can use it for anything|can't use it ever}." It's not just the source, it's how you use it. What Wikipedia considers to be a self-published source is a reliable source for its contents, and can be used according to policy to support a statement such as "John Smith said that X is Y." They just can't be used to support statements of fact (i.e., "X is Y (Smith 2008).)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A number of journals in the social sciences make a practice of publishing these commentaries (e.g. Behavioral and Brain Sciences), not just for articles that are particularly controversial, but in some cases for all or for the major articles, This is actually an extremely valuable feature, for it provides for a comprehensive collection of alternative views. Most journals who employ this method select the commentators carefully, and in some cases I have seen what amounts to truly significant publication take place in this manner, as the commentators discuss additional examples. Normally, the author of the principal article publishes a reply and evaluation of the the commentaries--sometimes the other commentaries also refer to each other. So long as they are under the control of the editor, i consider them as published. They are not quite the same as the primary article in the journal, but, depending on the journal, they can be close to it. (Letters to the editor also can be under various degrees of editorial control--they are often selected, and are not in responsible journals published as a matter of course.) They can be taken to represent the views of their authors presented in a recognized forum. In the case where they are expressions of opinion they need to be quoted as such. But this is also true for the opinions expressed by the author of the primary article: they are none of them expressions of scholarly consensus. Indeed, if there were such cosensus thee would be no point in the whole procedure. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


DGG as James _Cantor will soon tell you these commentaries were not from a select invited group of experts. Anyone could have published a commentary you and I could have published a commentary. That is why an argument for their full inclusion as expert sources does not work. However I think I have a pretty good arguement for their limited inclusion below.
  • Clarification What I would Ideally like to see done with these commentaries is to take a small sample of quotes from them. To give due weight to both sides. The critical commentaries were more numerous so naturally they should be represented by more quotes. The comments supportive of Dreger should also be represented in proportion to their number. Also information from the other commentaries should be allowed in this and other articles. Though their use should be sparing. The, as you put it, anti-sexology crowd, would like to treat these with equal weight as Dreger's article and fill the article with critical remarks. This would not be good either. For example comments in the commentaries about the scientific merit or lack there of of Dr. Blanchard's theory, unless they are by other sexologist or psychologist would not be appropriate. In short limited use of these commentaries mainly just to provide a characterizeation of the commentaries themselves.
Dick sorry if the way I responded to that first comment confused you. In an attempt to avoid that I made sure to indent by a large ammount. This was in hope of avoiding that confusion. I also wanted it to be totally clear just what in the first commentors comments I was responding to.
Reponse to James_Cantor What you write is why I would advocate for a limited use of these commentaries. There is a policy that can back this up. WP:SPS says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.
  • The material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources;


WP:BLP states:Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Considering both of these policies I get the conclusion tht the b i o g r a p h i c a l fact of how a given commentator responded to TMWWBQ, and Dreger's article would be admissable. However comments about BBL theory, Blanchard, Bailey, the JSM affair any of that could not be admitted. Now some will argue that Dreger's article is basically an opinion pice and whatnot. However WP policy being what it is dreger's article get's more weight. All I can do is swear on my holy Qr'an that as soon as a simmilar paper appears by say Wyndzen who published under her own name I will gladly put it here, and eagerly cite this discussion to justify it's inclusion as it would have appeared in a peer reviewed journal. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above comment about WP:SPS is misapplied: That portion of SPS is so that people's statements about themselves are useable in articles about them. It is not for allowing their opinions to appear in articles about the topic of their opinion. That is, an editor may use a quotes from Andrea James to support statements such as "Andrea James believes X" in WP articles about Andrea James but not in the articles about X itself (unless Andrea James is a bone fide expert on topic X).
— James Cantor (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Why was the result of the last WP:RSN discussion not sufficient? I don't see any reason to deviate from:
  • Treat the published article as RS.
  • Treat the named "invited" comments as self-published material and include them per WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE (where I specifically mean that if they are experts their opinion and factual notes are included and where they are not experts no mention is made because the article isn't about them)
  • Exclude the anonymous and pseudonymous commentary entirely.
  • What happened to that? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, I believe that there were no "invited" comments, in the usual sense: they allowed anyone to comment. The previous RfC centered around the use of a (single) pseudonymous comment that discussed (for example) statistical issues and specifically its use to support facts (instead of supporting only the fact that it made such comments). That should continue to be excluded.
As for summarizing what the other 22 comments say, in a classic SPS-style "John Smith said this, and Mary Jones said that" style, I'd be surprised if anyone would actually object -- although, I suppose, since the "history" paper merited only a single sentence that says who wrote it, it might be disproportionate to provide details about the commentaries, when no details are given about the paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the single sentence was done in order to keep this from being a big deal. If I wrote a four sentence paragraph using dreger as the source. AJ, Dick, and others would complain that I was biased. Therefore I barely mentioned it. All of this over a paragraph of no more than ten sentences.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See, the problem is that Cantor and other "experts" only want the opinions of "experts" to be heard, even though the alternative views in the same journal represent the other side of the controversy. By calling them self-published, but seek to be able to cut off anything that's an opinion outside of their area of academic expertise. That's why the previous discussion that some people tried to conclude this way does not work. It gives all the editorial control to the self-proclaimed "experts", the academic sexologists. The alternative, of letting any opinion in the journal be cited (as an opinion), would be more sensible. Is there any precedent for slicing the "reliable source" thing between items in a single-topic journal? Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick do you admit that if you had your way the alternative views would be presented not only for their own opinions but treated as sources of facts and scientific consensus. When most of the people writing those comments know have no independent first hand knowledge of the subject, They are not trained psychologist or psychiatrist, or anything else. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I think all of the papers, including Dreger's, are about opinions. Or, to turn your question around, do you admit that you want to use Dreger as a source of "facts"? She certainly wants to be used that way. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, you ask an excellent question. I too believe that the prior recommendation was sufficient and, moreover, that the prior recommendation was exactly as you just summarized it here. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the other editors working on this topic did not heed that advice. Rather, they went ahead and "interpreted" the recommendation from you and the other non-involved editors to mean nearly the opposite of what was actually said; see here and surrounding discussion. — James Cantor (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my relisting this was in order to clarify once and for all just what the deal is with these commentaries. To make sure there is a real steady actual consensus which I can work under. Since DickLyon decided to make it out like I was mistreating him or showing bias by working under what I understood to be the last decision. I had to do this. Otherwise this would just be a conflict. Following the page on conflict resolution I am trying to find some kind of consensus position. My question is Who objects to the way Prontonk summarized the last consensus? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come now, I've never taken your edits as anything personal to do with me (except for your gratuitous personal attack of earlier today when you addressed me as TunnelVision). Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
In the above I typed resisting when I meant relisting. (My spell checker did not recognize it) Gratuitous personal attack? It's only a personal attack if it's not true. Consider DarlieB's edits that you thought were so good. Removing Dreger's affiliation and job title as a way of, I don't know, denigrating her perhaps. Making her paper sound less reliable. All the while removing information that could suggest to a reader her possible conflict of interest. By way of her working at the same place as Bailey. Not being able to see beyond the direct effect of that one edit was tunnel vision. Not being able to see that I am on your side in this issue is also tunnel vision. I am arguing FOR inclusion of information from those commentaries. Clearly not any and all information. However instead of working with me in this. All you do is argue against ME instead of FOR what you want and can get. That's tunnel vision and it's counter productive. That is a perfectly civil way of saying all of the above in one word.
Now please make a convincing argument for what you want. So far all you have done is express your opinion that Dreger's work is merely her opinion. Uninvolved editors did not buy that last time. They are who you must convince.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The commentaries published in response to Dreger make it clear that what she wrote is essentially just one opinion, even though it is woven around selected facts. Nobody needs me to make an argument to that effect. As to calling me "tunnel vision" because you don't like my edits, that's called a personal attack; it doesn't matter whether you think it's true; focus on my edits instead; most of what you attribute to me above I have not actually done, so use diffs if you have actual complaints. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of simply not liking your edits Dick. Sometimes you are so focused on simply looking for ways to smear the other side that you can't see the edit in it's full context. i.e. in the case of Dreger's affiliation with NU being removed, as well as her job title. You were so focused on that small piece of the picture that you could not see the forest for the trees. Not all criticism is an insult. Lord knows if I took every bit of criticism I have received on here as a supreme insult then I would be constantly offended. Take that for what it is.
Those commentaries because of TONS of WP policy cannot be used to speak to anything but the opinions of the person writing them. I say again Dick make a WP policy based argument for including those commentaries more fully. Back me up. I have argued for their inclusion and if you persist to only focus your spot of vision on me you won't achieve your goal in the big picture.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved commentary

Include, with caveat Commentaries in peer review journals represent opinions of qualified specialists. Journals would not publish them if they did not represent important opinions. They are more than letters to the editor. They are an asterisk on the article they are commenting on. It is possible that if the journal had sent the paper to the commentator for review, the paper in question would not have seen the light of day without major changes. That's why commentary from credible researchers SHOULD be included. However, the author should be identified and the commentary prefaced with "In a commentary on ..." or other qualifier to properly source the given information. This can best be embeded in the reference. P.S. It would help if you stuck to discussing process instead of content. It would make for a more productive discussion and make all arguments easier to follow. --soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The commentaries in this case were not from what we would think of as "qualified specialist" per se. By which I mean. ASB being a psychology journal, that the commentaries were not from other psychologist. Nor were these from invited academic experts, the commentaries were solicited from the interested segment of the public in an open letter. The editor of the journal, Ken Zucker, has written that he published all but one of the submitted commentaries. While I want to include them I don't want to get that inclusion under false pretenses. I argue that depending on exatcly what we use from the commentaries academic expert status is totally irrelevant. (i.e. a persons comments regarding thier personal actions,reaction, opion, or feelings.) --Hfarmer (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hfarmer is correct: The commentaries were the result of an open call--the editor published all the commentaries that were sent in (except for one that was off-topic). Some of the commentaries were written by topic experts, some by laypeople. My own opinion is that WP allows for the inclusion of the commentaries written by people who previously published on the topic in an RS, but not for the inclusion of the others. However, there are editors here who say that that is a pro-scholar bias on my part or even on WP's part. Hence, we need the input of otherwise non-involved editors.
    — James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I see why this is complicated. In my field, we don't have open calls like this. Thanks for keeping content out of this because I have no way of judging that.
If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter.
Finally, there is a question of whether this is a point of scientific fact, or one of social relevance. If this is a discussion of the state of knowledge in this specific field, then there are probably relevant textbooks, review papers, classic papers etc. that would be more appropriate sources; it's obvious that a commentary does not offer the same authority. If, however, this article delves into political and social impacts or policy, then all significant viewpoints should be included. These two facets should be dealt with in separate sections, perhaps even separate articles and prominently linked to each other in a hat note.
That brings up the question of notability in the case of social relevance. Obviously, specialists in the field should have a say here: they can provide insight from their knowledge. If Barack Obama or George Bush had something to say on the subject, even though they are not experts, it would probably be notable as well. Is the author a notable figure who publishes op-ed pieces or articles in popular journals, a significant political leader, a representative of a significant interest group, or did the person's participation make the news elsewhere? These would weigh towards inclusion. Is this a private citizen? In that case, I would automatically reject inclusion.
Hope this helps. --soulscanner (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC
Pretty much nothing in the Dreger piece or the commentaries is about academic issues or science; it's all about who did what bad thing to whom, and who over-reacted to what, and stuff like that. Academic qualifications are just a smokescreen that Cantor raises so that he can exclude the opinions of the commentators who aren't in the sexologists' in crowd. It was stated as an agreed fact above that "Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including..." (including 10 with wikipedia articles about themselves). Although, as far as I can recall, the only author he has specifically objected to is the one who regularly writes under a pseudonym (Madeline H. Wyndzen) because it would be dangerous for her to reveal her true identity when writing about her transsexual past and opinions. She's well known as a self-published source, but non-existent otherwise
In truth, I don't recall what particular argument caused HFarmer to bring this up again here. When I look at what's attributed to the Dreger piece in The Man Who Would Be Queen, the only controversial part is the sentence The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech by Alice Dreger who wrote a "history" of the controversy. When I check the Dreger piece, only the commentaries talk about "freedom". Probably in this case the footnote is just misleading, meant to suggest what the "history" referred to was, rather than supporting the assertion of the sentence. The sentence that follows, sourced to a NYT interview, is the actual source of this section's content, I think. It's a very biased article, but it's in the NYT, so reliable enough.
Ah, right, it was this edit by HFarmer, to which I objected Your long string of edits started by taking out the word "alternatives". If you're going to do that, you should put instead some actual quotes from some of the commentaries. If you aren't willing to say there are alternatives, and treat Dreger's piece as more "reliable" than those alternatives, even though in your personal life as you say you are well aware of how slanted Dreger is, then how are we to interpret your intentions? HFarmer then said Dick we have been over this. There was a big long request for comments, allot of people from all sides participated. Our side, remember I was on your side in that debate, lost. That's done with. Looking again at the various policies related to reliable sources I don't see how we can treat those commentaries as reliable sources. Just so that you won't feel wronged. I am going to leave a message at WP:RS/N. Perhaps this time we can get uninvolved editors to agree to at least using the commentaries in some limited sense should be allowed. So, I've finally looked up the last RS/N on this, and sure enough she did support using all but the pseudonymous one. But she didn't object when James Cantor, the most biased person involved, wrote the biased summarization of the discussion, and she resummarized as "The Dreger article can be used as a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article. All the commentaries have to be treated as self published and vetted on a case by case basis." I still find this to be a bizarre and unacceptable position, treating Dreger as "on par with any other peer reivewed journal article" and the alternatives as "self published". Then Cantor followed up to push very high standards for being considered an "expert" to prevent people quoting any of the commentaries. It's nonsense. Why can't we just agree that the commentaries can be cited as needed to balance the Dreger opinions? Why did HFarmer herself start editing out even the mention that there exist "alternative" opinions about what happened???? Dicklyon (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a good idea to focus on principles rather than personalities. Is the commentary in question in a section reviewing the results of documented research, or is it intended to be about policy, social and political relevance, or possible applications of the research? --soulscanner (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] zionism-israel.com on Zionist history

I searched and this source is used a lot on wikipedia. While I'm sure I'd have problems with other assertions by this site, the one below, which has been challenged on Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom seems pretty reliable. Comments (esp. by neutral editors) welcome.

According to the Zionism & Israel Information Center Russian Zionist Chaim Weizmann moved to England in 1904 and met Arthur James Balfour, a British Lord, whom he convinced that Palestine should be the Jewish national home. The “British Zionist movement began actively lobbying the British government.” The British Palestine Committee in Manchester also “lobbied for the mandate and Jewish rights in Palestine.” REF:The Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917, Zionism-Israel.com. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if the website is an RS, wouldn't basic facts like this be in a history book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I recommend doing a Google Books search to confirm these statements instead. Pretty much everything here can be confirmed by multiple books via limited previews in Google Books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue is the actual use of the word lobby since it is alleged that material cannot be used unless every single WP:RS mentions the word lobby or lobbying - even if it is preceded by material saying lobbying happened in the incident/area mentioned and describes to a "T" every kind of activity known as lobbying. (Discussion on this at WP:No original research/noticeboard. I tried google books and got some things that did mention "lobby" but a tad indirect so immediately shot down. I would prefer a better source and will keep trying, but obviously if this source is frequently considered WP:RS I'd want to go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Carol, you say "I searched and this source is used a lot on wikipedia." I was only able to find it used in 5 articles on Wikipedia; are there more than that? Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, is that what this is about? I thought we were looking for sources on who met with Balfour and so on. We're still zoned on that magic word, "lobbying"? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's any help... the site you mention is run by Dr Ami Isseroff [1] He is an expert in the area, I've worked with him. As to the use the word lobby... I don't think you've actually proven anything. The fact that people lobbied for something doesn't mean much at all. I think it is common knowledge and common sense that those advocating something would be lobbying for it. The purpose of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish homeland in the location of the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The Jewish community in the UK was deeply divided over the issue and lobbied both ways. The executive of the board of deputies was originally against it, fearing it would cause problems for Jewish in the UK and not wanting to risk that. When the next election came around, the executive were I believe voted out of office (or at least there was a threat of this happening) and the boards position was reversed. I don't recall all the details but I read it "History of the Jews in England" by Cecil Roth Oboler (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I did search google books and tried to use Endelman's Jews of Britain which mentioned lobbying twice, twice about other types of lobbying, once regarding Zionism but both were shot down. I must have seen something of Cecil Roth's since the name sounded so familiar but doing as you advised found several interesting leads with word Lobby which shall puruse. Thanks! (Also, you have the common sense position on describing lobbying that I think most wikipedians would use - of course a good percentage of the sources should use the phrase lobbying in regards to the topic under consideration; but some material, especially contextual and transitional, might only describe efforts which everyone knows are in fact lobbying. This is an encyclopedia for the benefit of educating readers NOT a wikilawyering exercise in deleting anything negative about your favorite subject! CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
See A History of Israel by Ahron Bregman: "In a brilliant exercise of sustained persuasion, lobbying, and influence, a small group of Zionists, in England, induced the British government, in the winter of 1917, to publish a declaration supporting a "natinal home" for the Jews in Palestine. ... The prime mover and architect behind the Balfour Declaration was a Zionist by the name of Chaim Weitzman, later the first President of the State of Israel." Is that good enough? --John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to learn to read more slowly and carefully. Didn't see the "l" word in first reading. Yeah! Another ref! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 70 articles use Zionism-Israel.com as WP:RS before I stopped counting

Here's the search. I guess Jayjg is even a worse counter than me cause I thought I found only 7 or 8. I thought I'd alert a few pages using it but after I finished seeing it used on so many articles from every imaginable perspective, I realized that it would be absurd for this board or any article to question this as a source unless other WP:RS conflict with it, which is true in any case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It later occurred to me that maybe for some reasons all those other returns originally didn't come up in search and someone noticed the discussion here and did whatever needs to be done to get them picked up. Possible?? Just curious, for future reference on other sources that might not be adequately represented in search returns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] academic sources at Jesus myth hypothesis

At Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Remsberg, again I bring up three academic sources which define the "Christ-myth theory": William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975); Alan H. Jones, Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983); and William Horbury, "The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003). In response, an editor characterizes them as "Christian writers", implying that their definitions are good for nothing.

So, I'd like to ask the editors of this board: are these works reliable sources? Should we use their definitions or Wikipedia editors' interpretations of primary sources? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They certainly seem reliable. Whether they are reliable for a given statement really depends on how you are using them (ie what the statement is). But, being "Christian writers" is not a legitimate challenge to reliability in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Blueboar here. However Remsburg, Holding, Doherty, and Price all show how the term "Christ-myth" is used and defined varies with the author and even when it is used. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1982) defines it very broadly as does History and the Gospel C. H. Dodd Manchester University Press (1938) (who even goes as far as saying "They seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." pg 17 under the title "Christ-myth Theory"). So even a university press don't agree with the limited definition you trying to use.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Additionally as I said on the talk page "Christ-myth theory" and "Jesus-myth theory" are NOT interchangeable though they tend to be used that way and there in is the real problem with this article. Strictly speaking a literally reading of "Christ-myth theory" would say that you are arguing about Christ being a myth; it doesn't make any evaluation regarding the person of Jesus as a myth which the "Jesus-myth theory" does. Take for example Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Now no one can claim Thompson holds to the idea there was non-historical Jesus but that there are enough questions to wonder how much we have is accurate (if any of it). The removed Joseph Campbell quote ("It is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles.") is not too different to what outer edge JMH are saying only they push it a little further and say Jesus was totally made up. The range is large and is is clear from the Van Voorst and Wells contradiction that just what "Jesus-myth theory" means tends to vary from scholar to scholar. Once you have shown that then you can cite quotes till cows come home but all the quotes show is that is that how that individual scholar defines "Jesus-myth theory".
Finally Farmer, Jones, and Horbury all define the "Christ-myth theory" as saying Jesus having NEVER existed which put their definition at odds with such Christ-myth theorists as Mead, Ellegard, Thompson, and now Wells who all hold that there was a historical person ranging from c200 BC to contemporary to the period the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived behind the Gospel Jesus. Akhilleus himself has considered the based on a previous historical person part of the "Christ-myth theory" and yet he chooses sources that throw this part of the definition out the windows as NEVER means NEVER. People who have gone for the historical Robin Hood have found him in times other than the classic Richard I-John Lackland (c1190) period but they say Robin Hood DID exist. Trying to use authors who say "Christ-myth theory" mean saying Jesus NEVER existed when you can cite four Christ-myth theorists who say Jesus DID EXIST but not as the Gospels describe him and you have previously supported this "soft" position IMHO indicates a desperate POV pushing agenda.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Brill and OUP are two of the best known academic publishers in the field, and any work they publish can be presumed to be reliable. I am not previously familiar with Mohr Siebeck, but examining WorldCat I see that they publish very notable authors, copublish with well-known presses, and have books well represented in the major libraries in the subject. However, almost any source on this field is likely to represent a view which is not universally shared. I would not be so bold as to claim there is anything like a universal consensus. A scholar, even of high repute, who says "my opponents view has been totally rejected in the literature" is not necessarily accurate--such is the nature of academic scholarship-- and human beings. And need I say that I doubt anyone has ever been interested in working on this subject who did not already have some decided views on the Christian religion, one way or another. I agree with BruceGrubb's cautions above. DGG (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sources for Witchcraft

Recently, I re-added a reference which was removed because it allegedly doesn't meet WP:RS: (Gibbons, Jenny (1998) "Recent Developments in the Study of the Great European Witch Hunt" in The Pomegranate #5, Lammas 1998); I had also included a link to an archive.org mirror of a copy of it.

Here's what Pomegranate has to say about itself:

The Pomegranate is the first International, peer-reviewed journal of Pagan studies. It provides a forum for papers, essays and symposia on both ancient and contemporary Pagan religious practices. The Pomegranate also publishes timely reviews of scholarly books in this growing field. The editors seek both new interpretations and re-examinations of those traditions marked both by an emphasis on nature as a source of sacred value (e.g., Wicca, modern Goddess religions) as well as those emphasizing continuity with a polytheistic past (e.g., Ásátru and other forms of 'reconstructionist' Paganism). The editors also seek papers on the interplay between Pagan religious traditions, popular culture, literature, psychology and the arts. [2]

Now, the other point about my linking is correct, that we shouldn't link to a copyrighted article, as an archived image, that was used without any express permission noted on the archived page. However - there's no need to even link to the article, it can be cited just fine, not every reference needs to link to an online copy of the cited work. But the reference is a good cite, and a reliable source.--Vidkun (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the probem is that modern paganism in general and Witchcraft in particular are both considered a fairly fringy topic to begin with (You have to admit that they are outside of the mainstream in terms of modern religion)... so a peer reviewed journal dealing purely with Paganism is going be suspect. I think the key here is to determine who is actually doing the peer reviewing... if the "reviewers" consist of a small group of adherants, who essentially just review each others work, and are unlikely to be very critical, then I don't think it can really be called reliable. If, on the other hand, the reviewers are people who are considered religious studies scholars (who happen to be specialists in paganism and so have started a new journal for their speciality), then we can call it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Main editor is an author on Wicca and NeoPaganism, and not an author of twee books, Chas Clifton, lecturer at Colorado State-Pueblo, member - Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE); member - American Academy of Religion (AAR); letters and review editor is Nikki Bado-Fralick, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies & Women's Studies at Iowa State University.--Vidkun (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed on on the talk page of the article in question, this is not good source for a variety of reasons. Primarily it's just an essay written by someone with no known credentials on the topic making claims about what "new research" made by historians outside of Neopaganism have allegedly discovered. The source itself doesn't present itself as being an expert on such topics but merely repurposing information from elsewhere. If this info is correct, then we should be citing those historians on their own findings instead of crediting the info to this pagan writer who takes certain liberties, tries to interpret it, etc. And anyone actually reading it can tell it's not academic, as the tone is all wrong and it's in a "what we pagans should do about this" instead of presenting the information in a scholarly way. The insistence upon using this particular essay as a source for information that, if true, should be readily available in sources which no one could possibly question, strikes me as quit peculiar. In fact the info that the essay was being used as a cite for was rather trivial in one case and in the other already had a reliable source. I'm not sure why this editor is so determined that it has to be this particular one. DreamGuy (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out by more than just me, it is NOT an article by someone with no known credentials, and the journal from whence it came is not just some newsletter. I'm not sure why this editor is so adamantly against this particular article for this citation.--Vidkun (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a reasonable source for the claim to me. The essay gives references to primary sources that can be used for verification. The question of whether it was peer reviewed or written by an acknowledged expert is a red herring. The weight of the claim it supports is exceptionally light and certainly doesn't require extraordinary levels of reliability. --TS 17:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Wanted to know if these two sources could be considered viable.

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/reviews.aspx?p_id=9951
http://www.ozzfest.com/profile/staticx

Why is everyone ignoring this thread? This user's edits are on hold until he gets some feedback on whether those sources are reliable or not. It would be helpful if some of you that frequent this page would respond. Thanks in advance. Landon1980 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Maxim is a published secondary source and Ozzfest is an official primary source about the event. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Various Road Sites

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources) We at WikiProject U.S. Roads have run into a small problem determining how reliable a few sites are. Ahead I have written an explanation of all 4 sites and what we believe of them. They are the following:

Alpsroads.net's NJ route log

Located here, this is a log of all highways that existed in New Jersey since 1927. The problem is, this is mainly written by a former Wikipedia editor and is also not citing any of his sources. What is the case here? (It should be noted that the log has been partially verified and/or updated with field evidence remaining in the state of New Jersey.)

NYCroads.com and such sites

Located here (NYC), here (Philadelphia), here (Washington DC), here (Boston), and here (Montreal), Steven Anderson has compiled pages about highways in the metro areas of different cities. He does cite his sources, but does not cite which fact goes to which source. Is it possible this is a reliable source? (It should be noted that errors have been found on these pages, but contrarily many facts are found here and nowhere else.)

Jimmy and Sharon Williams NJ routes

Located here, Jimmy and Sharon Williams have compiled information on the original 1920s routes in New Jersey before the 1927 renumbering of highways. They source laws and such, and use the evidence of existing remnants of the original routings (i.e., highway bridges). The problem is, one of their sources is a former Wikipedia user. Can we have some detail into the reliability of this one?

Pennsylvania Highways by Jeff Kitsko

Located here,this one is ultimately the biggest that should be a reliable source. Jeff Kitsko has used Pennsylvania Department of Highways and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation maps to source lots of his information. He also uses newspapers. His site is often used by cops, lawyers, newspapers and ultimately PennDOT and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. He has been in many news stories. This news story says a lot about the site.

Kurumi's Connecticut Roads

Located here, a person named Scott Oglesby or Kurumi has compiled information on all of Connecticut's highways. He sources all his information in the logs, but there are no access to the original sources. I do believe that this is a reliable source, but I want to check it out.

Can I have replies about each of these? It will help us in our article work. Thank you.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 03:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not reliable, except where they reproduce primary sources (such as the 1920s New Jersey laws). --NE2 05:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably reliable as expert SPS. Seems to me that if we're doubting sites like these for something as uncontroversial as state highways, we've veered well into "academic standards disease" Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
They're "experts" in the way that USRD members are - they have an interest in writing about the topic, and do personal research into it. --NE2 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
being a WP editor is less than fully conclusive proof that someone is not an authority. If a particular editor had in fact a bad (or good) reputation for accuracy here, and edited under his wn name so it can be shown, that might be relevant. We in fact advise eds. who want to insert their OR to get it published first. But in any case: I think the Kurumi reference is suitable, as for any other secondary source based on archival records. I am sure the Kitso one is, if you can show such use; authoritative use of the material is enough to validate web sites and blogs as sources. Williams would be usable, unless one of them is known unreliable. The ones that do not cite specific sources are another matter. DGG (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undercover.com.au

The following article is under dispute [3], and causing disruption to multiple pages it mentions i.e Butterfly (Mariah Carey album), Rainbow (Mariah Carey album). I consider this a non verified article from a non SME on the subject. They do not cite where they obtained their details. However it is easy to find references from official souces that contradict the figures - and other editors arguements is that these are old.

From article, "Butterfly did 15.5 million". From Sony Annual Report 1998 [4] pg.30, says 8 million. Sales are minimal after it has peaked for any given album. From the article "MusicBox sold 32 million". From Universal Music Group (Korea)[5] 25 million. From Press Release (Entertainment wire)[6] 24 million. From the article "'Charmbracelet' sold 5 million", but from the artist herself in an interview [7] - 3 million. CBS News [8] 3 million. Please can this be discussed. In the end, the best possible approach is to delete any reference to sales. Eight88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any takers? I have added multiple verified sources to Talk:Music Box (album) as an example of the inconsistancy of the source being used. I cannot progress in correcting the data (if my assumption is correct on this not being a reliable source). I repeat my arguement that this article is from an unknown reporter from a relatively unknown website whose figures are non stated as to where they were origininating from (therefore is secondary at best), and match no known figures reported anywhere else. I also would like to make the comment that a small town reporter would not have the resources or funds to correlate this information, so the sources already used from published publications, press releases, and record company annual reports are a better source that this one. As these figures were disputed, I removed them until this request was sorted out via this media, but again deemed to be a vandal by the editors. Any assistance appreciated. Eight88 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rap-Up.com

I am planning to create a page for this magazine, but though it would be better to check if it's reliable enough to warrant a page. I'm pretty sure it can be considered a reliable source, mainly because it is published as a magazine. If you check the About Us segment on their website, it says: "Rap-Up has appeared on CNN, ABC News, BET, VH1, E!, The CW, EXTRA, and mtvU. The publication has been featured in newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, USA WEEKEND, OK! , GRAMMY Magazine, Entrepreneur, Folio, Fast Company, The Daily News of Los Angeles, and more." The page also links to several pages where it has been used by reliable sources. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

when it comes to creating an article about a web magazine (or anything else), the issue isn't how reliable it is ... the issue is how notable it is (see WP:NOTE). To establish notability you need to be able to cite independant third party reliable sources that discuss Rap-Up.com.
Reliability comes in to play if you want to use Rap-Up.com as a source in other articles. Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I intend to use Rap-Up.com as a source in other articles, which is why I want to create an article for it. If it is reliable, then I will make one. If not, then I don't really care for the notable part. Why make an article for a page website that cannot be cited? So, I guess I'm looking for reliability and notability, although I'm sure it has the latter. I hope I better phrased my question. :S Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's notable and reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How many errors does it take for a source to stop being reliable??

I guess books by Roland Perry count as being reliable, as it's from a proper printing press and so forth, per the traditional standards. But this author is very careless and makes a lot of errors, even though some people think he is an expert and gave him awards, but a lot of other cricket historians think he is poor. I counted 18 errors in one span of 32 pages in one book,