Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. 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.

This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

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.

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them. I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Quackwatch and the numerous refs cited there. LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a concrete example with Lancet/JAMA disagreeing with QW? 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to either of those so I can't read the full articles, but I have come across some citations over the past few years that were pointed out as conflicting with QW in the articles that were written by Barrett... that was one of the first times I started looking at what QW was writing. I unfortunately didn't keep those citations or I would list them. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty serious accusation to make without any evidence. I am sure I can get access to both, so if you have examples, I can look through them. Until you do find an example, you might want to attenuate your rhetoric. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is right on their respective websites. I'm sorry I don't have instant recall to all the articles and research I've ever read, but I can look through some sources that I have seen some examples of in recently and see what I can find. It's been rather busy at work so it may be a while, but anyone in a solid position in an alternative medicine field (eg. supplements, chiropractic, Naturopath, etc) would be able to verify from their experience and research about QW's bias against their professions in general. I work in the supplement field and some of the articles he's written made me laugh because of how overly biased he was with twisting the facts to the way he wanted them.Burleigh2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do this now or on any timeline. What I am saying is this: before you next make time to attack them, please first make time to put together a cogent argument with some references. 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on Alternative medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be verifiable, and that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If an established publisher in the modern world starts publishing junk (about people, products or organizations), they will quickly be sued or fined out of existence. In the case of Quackwatch, when using them as a source, we should be sure to wiki-link the first instance, and use in-text attribution ("According to Quackwatch, ... "). If there are other reliable sources which contradict Quackwatch, they should be mentioned too, unless they represent a tiny minority. Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.

This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Wikipedia. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, just like every other reliable source we use. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a red flag for possible policy violations.

Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).

Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. stmrlbs|talk 09:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Wikipedia would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the WP:MEDRS guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.

As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.

While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to correct section The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (falsifiability, testability, the Peer Review Process, predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called medicine. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a logical fallacy called Argument by Authority.

As for unbiased, Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Wikipedia. Weakopedia (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of Stephen Barrett, and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

Burleigh mentioned studies published in Lancet, but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies survived Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in Lancet that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies have been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're no longer complementary or alternative medicine. They just medicine. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Wikipedia editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" Burleigh2 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on WP:NPOVN I had a look at the Quackery article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of Alternative Medicine" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. Nightscream (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the link wasn't biased, I said it points out how overly biased Barrett is. I also said it was just one example (of many I've read over the years). The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements... most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you, which does seem quite similar to Barrett's position. I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light. I have seen some of the studies first-hand that have reported certain supplements/herbs in a negative light and many of them were flawed (whether funded by a drug company or whether it was testing something completely different; I can give more information on that via E-mail as this would take too much space on an already crowded page), but those seem to be the only ones that Barrett uses to push his ideals against natural options and "alternative medicines". Oh, and please don't twist my words for your own purposes... that does seem to be one of the main attacks of the skeptics and it really doesn't show you in a positive light.Burleigh2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Burleigh, you can exclude a source by showing its publisher has a poor track record for fact checking and accuracy, and for that you'd have to provide reliable mainstream sources which have so concluded. Unless you can do that, your own personal knowledge and personal opinions of a source are not relevant for WP. Crum375 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's completely understandable, but there are two different sides to this... there's Quackwatch's valid and helpful information that points out fraudulent companies and false items (which is what's being praised on all those sites), but then there's Dr. Barrett's personal articles that are entirely his opinion and bias and many have nothing to do with what the rest of the research did. If Dictionary.com had an opinion section, would the opinions posted all be automatically reliable?

Yeah, it's really hard to separate them since they are on the same website and his name is on both of them, but that's what is so difficult about saying the site is completely RS. After going through this, I know it should be on a case-by-case basis and I totally agree that is the best compromise... but not everyone on Wiki (and most people who don't edit here) have no idea that it should only be used on a case-by-case basis and that not all of them are appropriately RS. I can't recall if I mentioned it yet in this, but in the Alternative Medicine article, Quackwatch is mentioned saying "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" and then gives a citation to their general website... in any other article/example, that would likely be seen as spam for the website (since it doesn't cite any specific article), but when I deleted it and said the citation had nothing to do with that statement, my edit was undone because "QuackWatch is a RS". If I went to the GOP (Republican party) article and referred to Fox News or another RS that is very Democratic and said this site disagreed with many Republican ideals, it would be removed within minutes as spam or defamation... how is this any different based on what we've already covered and agreed on?Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the old discussion had RS saying that QuackWatch was a reliable website: JAMA, Lancet and NEJM. And if you are going to use a review from the Village Voice, then you shouldn't forget using also the review from the Time magazine, which is very favorable. And also all the other stuff that I bothered to compile in the compressed text here. Otherwise you are picking only the negative reviews while leaving out the positive ones.

I also agree with Brangifer's compromise. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this was only one example that was listed on the last time this was brought up... there are many more examples I've come across that point out how biased against alternative medicines he is regardless of the available research he seems to ignore. This is not just my opinion, but has been verified in many places that I've read over the years. If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term).Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title..." I am not ignoring the article based on the Peter Chowka's title. I responded to your presentation of it (kinda hard to do if I'm "ignoring" it) by pointing out that the person who criticized Quackwatch promotes a/c medicine himself, thus illustrating that he, like any other promoter of it, does not follow scientific skepticism. This has nothing to do with "ignoring" or his "title". It is a response based on the same criteria I've maintained in this discussion: Proper adherence to scientific skepticism, the same criteria that properly informs all scientific knowledge, and critical examination of it.

If you had instead presented, as an example of criticism of Quackwatch, a person (Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park, James Randi) or organization (Center for Inquiry, Skeptics Society, American Medical Association) that found "incomplete data, obsolete data, [or] technical errors" in Quackwatch's work, as you alleged, that would've been different. But aside from merely cutting and pasting material from an old version of Wikipedia's Quackwatch article (or a site mirroring it) about Joel M. Kaufman, you did not do this. I tried looking through the Skeptic's Dictionary, randi.org and Google to see if Kaufman is regarded as an adherent of proper scientific methodologies, but could not find anything at a glance to this point. Kaufman, it should be pointed out, is a critic of mainstream medicine, and a promoter of low-carb diets, which doesn't say much about him regarding this point.

"would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements..." Wrong. As aforementioned, my response to your mentioning Chowka was based on whether he promotes ideas that are considered pseudoscience, which is a valid scientific criterion. By contrast, ignoring Barrett because he's a psychologist and not a nutritionist is an ad hominem argument, and therefore, a logical fallacy. Not the same thing.

"most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you" I have responded to each line of reasoning and evidence that you have presented, and have done so directly, in order to explain why they do not support the conclusion that you believe they do, which flies in the face of this assertion. But if I'm wrong, please name one of these facts or bits of information presented to me, and please explain, by pointing to my replies to them, how I "ignored" them. If you'd like, I'll provide an example of how you have done precisely this:

I pointed out, at least twice, that there is no form of alternative or complementary medicine that has been scientifically shown to work any better than a placebo, that such medicines that are found to work thus are no longer called "alternative" or "complementary", but simply "medicine", and that this is why skeptic organizations like Quackwatch conclude thus. As far as I can remember from reading this entire thread, you did not respond to this point. If this "herbal supplement" you mention has passed the Peer Review Process, clinical trials, etc., then how is it "alternative" or "complementary"? (If you did and I missed it, I apologize; can you please point it out to me?) If I'm right, then isn't this an example of you ignoring information presented to you?

"I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light." Yet you have consistently refused to link to any of them, making it impossible to discern whether any of these studies are scientifically reliable, or just criticizing Quackwatch because they themselves promote a/c medicine. If you did, and it showed this, then I'd be in greater agreement with you. But feel free to link to one that's been peer reviewed, and prove me wrong.

"If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term)." Which is a poor method to verify that Quackwatch is biased, since Google hits can be generated by those promoting the exact same pseudoscience that we're talking about. This is like pointing to a survey showing that half of Americans reject evolution or accept creationism in order to argue that evolution is scientifically questionable, or that creationism is scientifically valid. I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that Google hits indicate anything other than the popularity of an idea (as opposed to its being "verified" scientifically) obviously does not understand the proper standards by which scientific knowledge is properly examined. Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, it's been a busy week. I was saying that you were ignoring what he was saying and writing off because of his title... more appropriately because of his position and his views. You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it. You're dismissing every point he's making in the article regardless of how you want to say you're not. There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness... dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping. I'm also not talking about ALL of Quackwatch's information... I'm referring to the articles that are written by Barrett that are only of his opinion and not on any factual or cited basis. Again, you are twisting my words and choosing to use only the words you want... how are your arguments any more valid than mine or anyone else's if you contort the truth or what you perceive into what you want to perceive? That's just as bad if not worse than ignoring facts no matter how you want to read that. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is science and pseudoscience, the medicine and complementary medicine distinction is a false dichotomy. All treatments need the same degree of evidence. Physicians will use what makes sense and has been shown to work. Quackwatch exposes treatments that have a poor reference base. Often ones that are so poorly researched that nothing exists in the peer reviewed press. The evidence needs to show something works before claims of effectiveness can be made.

If quackwatch was to say no evidence exists for some treatment and you came up with a review of 10 RCTs published in the Lancet that showed effectiveness we would go with the review. However if nothing exists and quackwatch says so. And no one can show otherwise. Quackwatch is a good enough reference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it." No. Based on the fact that he promotes an idea that is pseudoscientific. Arguing that alternative or complementary medicine is not pseudoscience because some guy running an office promoting it says so is specious reasoning, and saying so if perfectly valid.

"There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness..." One more time: The empirical validity of an idea is not based reputation or authority. That's religion, not science. The empirical validity of an idea is based on whether it has survived the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. The fact that you continue to repeat this fallacy over and over---without responding to my repeated refutation of it---proves that you know I'm right, and are simply not able to admit it. In science, there are no sacred cows, no popes, no saints, no dogmas. Only evidence and repeat testing. None of these therapies have not exhibited proven effectiveness under these criteria, and the "folk wisdom" that you're insisting on is not a sufficient substitute. Saying "this doctor or this reputable hospital says it's been shown to work" is anecdotal, and anecdotes are not scientific, because they're too subjective, and impossible to measure objectively. If I'm wrong, then why not respond to this point by pointing out how?

"dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping." If they're talking about basketball or their favorite movie, then yeah, it is. But if they're promoting new medicines that do not follow the Scientific Method, are not submitted to Peer Review, are not testable, are not falsifiable, and/or have been shown in clinical trials with proper controls, such as randomization, double-blind procedures, etc to have nonexistent effects, then no, it's not. It's an adherence to the only methodology by which empirical knowledge can properly be examined. Is a planetary scientist "biased" for rejecting the views of a Flat Earth Theorist? A chemist for rejecting someone promoting alchemy? An astronomer for rejecting astrology? Is a virologist "biased" for concluding the ideas of AIDS denialists are wrong, and saying that they are not afforded more weight because a noted doctor promotes them? Is a historian prejudiced for rejecting Holocaust Denial, or conspiracies relating to the JFK assassination and the moon landing? The answer is no. These ideas are rejected because the proper methodologies by which the facts of the universe we live in can be discovered, tested, confirmed and revised show that they all lack merit, and includesaAlternative and complimentary medicine. That's not a "bias", unless you change the definition of the word "bias". Bias is when you form an opinion on irrelevant internal criteria instead of relevant external criteria. My statements clearly conform to the latter, not the former, and are therefore statements of fact. Not bias. If you really think that recognizing a proper standard for determining matters of fact, or pointing out when some people do not, constitutes a "bias", then you need to reexamine your dictionary.

You seem to think you can slide out of this problem by reframing or rewording my statements, which shows either your cognitive dissonance, or your deliberate dishonesty. I did not "dimiss his ideas because he uses alt medicine." I pointed out that if Quackwatch writes about how some ideas are non-scientific or pseudoscientific, and you want to refute his work, then you have to do so scientifically, using the scientific literature, and not by merely by pointing to someone who advises an office whose existence is predicated on promoting the very branch of non-scientific knowledge that was criticized in the first place. That is not a "bias", it's simply a question of having a proper standard for reliability. A peer review journal criticizing Quackwatch is reliable. Rebuttals by those who favor the ideas Quackwatch exmaines are not, and more than a judge in a criminal trial declaring a witness to be unreliable is "biased". Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really like to argue and twist words, don't you? This is tough enough to argue on this page because there's more than one topic that fights like this would be better suited to E-mail, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend the time arguing with you if you're going to keep twisting words (reminds me of a few bullies I've come across, but that's another story). I've already said my piece in regards to your first paragraph and you've already said your piece on it... we're never going to agree no matter how much either of us refutes the other and I think we both know that.

With your second paragraph, I could say the same thing about Barrett in his articles he writes without citation or reference... that's all based on his opinion and to follow it because of his opinion could be classified as religion. There have been double-blind studies done on various vitamins, herbs, supplements, etc, but the hard part is that supplement companies don't have the money to afford to pay for such expensive tests and to be able to reap all the benefits of it since any other company could sell the same product and cite the results. Also, some of them have been done by pharmaceutical companies and some were investigating other purposes (that gives misleading results that some glean from them) so there is a lot of conflicting information. For example, one study I read about Vitamin E was testing the results on terminal patients so the media showed the outcome was that Vitamin E could increase mortality (since some terminal patients died during the study... go figure). What it comes down to on that is the FDA requires documented proof of the claims that supplement companies make (or the companies risk having the product removed or the company shut down). Supplements and herbs are still considered CAM, but the FDA can verify that they are tested and verify the claims that they are listed for. I've seen some of the studies and I've discussed this fact with our compliance officers... it's verifiable and proven, but it's still CAM; that doesn't make it pseudoscience or unreliable, nor based on anyone's opinion. Burleigh2 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize this may seem like beating a dead horse, but outright lies should never go unchallenged. You are absolutely wrong that the supplement ocmpanies are required to prove efficacy and safety by the FDA. I am assuming you have been swindled by the quacks rather than being dishonest yourself, but the whole point of the US dietary supplement legislation in the early 1990s was to protect supplement sellers from having to meet the FDA requirements of safety and efficacy testing imposed on pharmaceuticals. All you have to do to see that this is true to is to review the websites of the quacks: we are in the renaissance of the 19th century patent medicine industry. They can suggest immune benefits, heart attack protection, diabetes reversal, and even cancer cures with their advertising as long as they do not actually print words like "this cures cancer"-- and you must have noticed that not even pharmaceutical companies make claims like that. The supplement companies are big corporations selling pills made in factories for people afraid of diseases or needing a cure; but as long as they call it a "supplement" they need not submit to the FDA any evidence of either safety or efficacy. The supplement industry is a many billion dollar industry that makes pills in factories that people buy to treat or avert diseases and hides behind the lies of being "natural" (the only consistent meaning of which is "can be sold without a prescription") and "we can't afford to pay for efficacy and safety studies". No intelligent person should have anything but contempt and derision for those claims. Educate yourself, Burleigh. alteripse (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not distorted a single one of your words, as I've quoted them exactly, and responded to them directly. By contrast, referring to a proper scientific standard by which empirical knowledge is properly examined, and pointing out when this standard is not upheld, as a "bias", is indeed a distortion.

As for organizations that can't afford proper scientific testing, well, that may be the case, but it doesn't change the need for it, nor does it mean that whatever lesser standard they're employing is just as reliable. The FDA is a government regulatory agency. It may rely on proper studies, but its stamp of approval, in and of itself, is not a substitute for one. But in any event, if the efficacy of a given medicine or substance has passed peer review, then it's no longer CAM, and the studies that have led to such a judgment should be publicly available. If you can name one of these vitamins or herbs whose efficacy has been shown in a published peer review study, and show that Quackwatch dismissed it without addressing said study, then please present it. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a lot like the early versions of many wikipedia articles: written by people who knew a lot more than most about the topic, not always completely polished or balanced, and mostly lacking scholarly documentation. Pretty damning, huh? Except that most of the wikipedia science and medicine articles have been fairly useful and pretty accurate right from the beginning. Inaccurate info gets challenged and corrected pretty quickly here, and perhaps eventually all will be cited. Since Barrett has no end of howling critics, the absence of any list of substantial errors anywhere is pretty strong evidence that his articles are pretty accurate. Even the crankish pretensions of much-touted Joel Kauffman are feeble if you read them: he leads off with an obviously false claim about his "methodology" in the first page, and gets no more honest thereafter. The amount of outrage expended on Barrett's acceptance of the cholesterol-atherosclerosis link gives you an idea of how "unbiased" Kauffman is and how hard it was for him to find any really crucial errors. There isn't much to add to this lengthy argument until Burleigh actually provides us with reliable sources to back up his claim. Which he wont't because there aren't. alteripse (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video on 9/11 Truth movement

An editor has used a YouTube video in the article 9/11 Truth movement. Is this a reliable, secondary, and independent source?  Cs32en  11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends what point it is being used to support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being used to introduce Noam Chomsky's viewpoint on the September 11 attacks and on 9/11 conspiracy theories into the article. It's not clear when or where Chomsky spoke, and Chomsky does not comment on the 9/11 Truth movement, but on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The findings of the 9/11 Commission and of NIST are already described in the article to provide context, so adding Chomsky's views on 9/11 there is coatracking. The uploader of the video apparently runs a blog here, and it's not clear whether that blog can be considered independent. It's certainly not a reliable source. No indication of any secondary source referring to Chomsky's comments has been given.  Cs32en  12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say you would need something more reliable to comment on a figure as prominent as Chomsky. But can you provide that exact quote it is used to support? Youtube is like Wikipedia. It is based on user added content. It is not peer reviewed. I am behind a firewall and cannot view the video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has added the following paragraph to the article, based on the YouTube video.  Cs32en  12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote sounds correct / true but it would be nice to have a better source. The quote is here in Salon [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion column, but it would be a secondary source that references what Chomsky said. Thank you for finding the text!  Cs32en  13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't view YouTube at work. The question is 1) where is the video from and 2) is it clear that the uploader had permission to upload it (ie. they are the copyright holder)? Because we don't link to copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is a red herring in that we can use a source even if it is a copyvio (just then not link to it). However, it seems clear that youtube videos of questionable provenance are not reliable sources. If this were from a channel of a known news organization or something like that it might be different. But as it stands this isn't reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As Joshua says, youtube videos are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, that was my point entirely. If, say, this were a link to an interview of Person X on CBS, we'd only link to the YouTube if it was uploaded by CBS. If it was uploaded by Joe6PackLOL, we wouldn't link it, but could cite the original airing on CBS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't cite it even then, if you've only seen it on Youtube. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the "Resolved" decision? On what finding of fact is the "Resolved" based? E.g. the video in question appears on Youtube in violation of the rights of the copyright holds, Chomsky is not a reliable source, etc.

Please forgive my pedantry on this topic but when the dust clears I am going to write up some proposed clarifications to YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, so I would like to understand this decision clearly. Note that the video in question is cited to verify the statements attributed to Chomsky in the article. Deicas (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The resolved was that we found an alternated source from Salon and that as youtube videos are self published they are rarely if ever appropriate sources. We discuss self published sources here. Youtube would be an example. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What has me confused here is that the video in question shows Chomsky, making the statements, that are attributed to him, in the Wikipedia article. In this instance, the video is no more and no less reliable than Chomsky himself. Contrast that to an identical video with some person off the street, e.g. me, making the same statements. In that case the video and the content therein would not be a reliable source on the topic because I am not a reliable source on the topic. Am I making sense? Deicas (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You assert that the video shows Chomsky. There is no verifiable and reliable source that gives the information that the Youtube video does in fact depict Chomsky. You may say that it is clearly showing Chomsky, beacsue you knwo what Chomsky looks like. However that would be original research on your part. Now if there were a relliable source that cited this particular Youtube clip in more than a paasing reference then that might help assert the reliability of the source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources again. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If any good secondary source, or Chomsky's own website cites or links to the video then the video would be authenticated. If so, Chomsky's own views are probably notable enough to include in the article. But please check and see if there's a transcript or a position paper; rich media such as video shouldn't be our first choice for a reference link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, Jezhotwells. It's best to stick to reliable secondary sources in any event, even if some sort of authentication could be provided that the video was what it was purported to be. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"The uploader of the video apparently runs a blog here..." Aside from the aforementioned point about blogs not being reliable (unless it belongs to someone noteworthy in a relevant field), it should be pointed out that one blog entry in that blog about the Science Channel refusing to dumb down science any further, reports that bit straight, without mentioning that the story it links to as its source is a piece in The Onion, a satirical fake news publication. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

everyhit.com

The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.

Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.

Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was

• Used by the BBC as a source for movie theme chart positions
• Used by the Telegraph for information about Eurovision chart positions
• Used by Reuters in an article about Thin Lizzy
• User by the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" in an article about the Beatles.

This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using WebCite; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of fully meeting every requirement of WP:RSN, no. In terms of literal accuracy, in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, WP:GOODCHARTS is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British charts excepted. WP:GOODCHARTS recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. Mister sparky (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or FLCs. Goodraise 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. Goodraise 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ChartsPlus, I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet WP:RS or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.

I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to WP:CONVENIENCE. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since WP:CONVENIENCE leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links, which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a link in the reference to the original source (in {{cite web}} this is done using |archiveurl=), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.
If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.
At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. Goodraise 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good link: BBC Radio One specifically recommends using everyhit.com to search British chart history.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to chime back into this discussion, this time for the correct reasons (and because I don't think this has been quite resolved yet). I just wanted to point out that looking through a lotta, lotta discographies - especially FLs - pretty much every one of them link to either ChartStats, or everyHit. So firstly, does the above link satisfy Goodraise (which I think ultimately could be considered a consensus on the subject), and secondly, if it doesn't, what should happen to the discogs? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

well i think general consensus has already been reached about chartstats and everyhit amongst the majority of editors and reviewers because throughout my months of working on discographies and taking part in flc discussions, so far User:Goodraise has been the only one to object to their usage. Mister sparky (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This still messes up once it gets to FLC's on discographies though, and I can see many of them taking the same course of action: Goodraise reviews, Goodraise doesn't like everyHit, Goodraise doesn't support, DaBomb fails it, end of discussion. I'm not slating his reviews, considering i can't argue against his judgement, I just think it would be good if this website ws established as good or bad. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no single link has changed my mind, nor did I expect that to happen. EveryHit.com is not only a self-published source, but also an anonymously published one. A handful of instances of usage by other sources and a one-line recommendation alleviate some of my concerns, but ultimately, they don't raise the website to the same level as the website of The Official Charts Company or, for example, a print magazine that publishes the figures. In your terms, the website will never be established as clearly "good or bad" (unless significantly more third-party usage/recommendation shows up). Consensus can change. Even though the Black Eyed Peas discography was promoted while using it, there is no guaranty that the next FLC using everyHit.com won't fail because of that. It's the risk of using less-than-premium sources. Personally, I probably won't oppose an FLC if my only concern is the usage of everyHit.com, but I won't support either. As for Chart Stats (previous RSN thread here), that is another matter. I see no reason to stop opposing its usage. Goodraise 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on ChartStats, I was never too sure about that website. So to conclude, you're fine with sources like this? As well as that, isn't it quite likely that most of the articles in Category:FL-Class Discography articles, now, shouldn't be? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com

In my experience reliable sources for UK Singles Charts are in order of quality:

1. The Official Chart Company (short term archive only)
2. Chart Plus (but this is WP:PAYWALL).
3. Chart Stats (Top100 only)
4. Music Week (not link friendly - subscription required. Top75 only, short term archive)
5. BBC (Top40 only, no archive)
6. Polyhex.com (not link friendly - have to search. Top75 only)

Other sites such as everyhit.com, aCharts and Zobbel are generally not as good quality and I wouldn't be adding them suggest instead using any of the six listed above to any FA type article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a WP:RS. If one is ever in any doubt then multple referenced could be used, and even more in the most unlikely event of there being a conflict(has this ever occured in UK chart data on wikipedia?) then an email to the OCC will soon give you a solution. SunCreator (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not as much solving a dispute; its more deciding what sources are reliable enough to be included in an article which passes FA or FL status. In the past, some of the above sources have failed these. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[2] Any ideas?

Source I used on Apache Ain't Shit

I used a website set up by Jared Taylor to illustrate that the track "Kill D'White People" is hate speech against whites. Whilst the source may or may not constitute a reliable source, I hope there's no one here who does not consider a black rapper saying "kill the white people" to be a form of hate speech.--HulolsIam (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think you'd be better off using a neutral source, than one racist bad-mouthing another. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless an RS calls it that we cannot, no matter what our views may be.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, absent a RS, hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. I am white and I am not offended by such rantings.--Jarhed (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say, in a Wikipedia article. that statement X by person Y is hate speech. You can possibly say that, in the opinion of person Z (which may be a persuasive authority, such as a high court judge), X was hate speech.

If your sole source is Jared Taylor, then you obviously don't have a reliable source on the subject. Seek a reliable source. --TS 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources?

Are amicus briefs from relevant experts reliable sources? Phoenix of9 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are designed to advance a particular POV. They exist solely to advance a particular position before a Court of law. Instead of relying upon Amicus briefs, one should link directly to the sources contained within the briefs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are reliable only in terms of stating what party X believes about a question of law. Stuff that is on point is reliable in terms of what party X believes. Beyond that, then no. Ngchen (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, are amicus briefs from American Psychological Association a reliable source with respect to LGBT parenting? Phoenix of9 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they would be fine in suggesting what the APA believes about a position. However, research within the brief should be linked directly. It is important to remember that an Amicus brief exists only to assert a particular POV. That's why they are created and filed. They are inherently biased towards a certain position. It is best to extract the scientific research directly. Science > advocacy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amici curiae briefs are perfectly acceptable as Wikipedia references as long as they are created by highly reliable sources such as "the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presenting the brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature". http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf#page=23 "Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx Encyclopedia and Wikipedia have to be based on the facts provided by the most reliable sources available, not to be based on the limited knowledge or unfounded beliefs of its editors only because they want so. And the Wikipedia policies and recommendations are pretty clear here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Respect secondary sources "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." You should be already familiar with those. Obviously, promoting primary sources where available secondary and terciary sources should and can be used is violating with Wikipedia policies and recommendations. --Destinero (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is the association of psychologists in the USA, therefore an official statement by the APA is a reliable source for facts about psychology. It should be regarded as a secondary source, whereas the individual scientific papers are more likely to fall into the category of primary sources. The only caveat that applies is that there may be more than one view among psychologists, in which case all major viewpoints should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An Amicus Brief is not an official statement. It's prepared by an attorney to assert a particular viewpoint before the court. This is part of the problem with Amici. Technically, it is an attorney who prepares the brief, not the organization itself. The brief in question here was authored in part by Natalie F.P. Gilfoyle, COUNSEL (an attorney) for the APA. It is not an official statement of the APA apart from what the organization wants to emphasize before a particular court. Hence, Amici are inherently POV, they are designed to emphasize a particular POV for a court. They are not reliable for factual assertions and in no case, should a majority of the factual assertions in an article be derived from two or three Amici. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would entirely disagree with Ghostmonkey57's characterization. An amicus brief states the position of the party, not of the attorney. Yes, a brief is POV, but that hardly makes them non-RS: it's a RS for the POV of the organization that presents the brief. That said, there would seem to be OR problems with quote-mining amicus briefs, unless one is relying on secondary sources that have noted the statements in the brief -- such as a court opinion or a newspaper article about the brief. THF (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree more than we disagree. I have said that I don't think there is anything wrong with including Amici as a RS as to what a particular party believes about a point of law. However, there is a serious problem with relying on Amici as a source for factual assertions, as Amici are inherently POV. Amici are not official statements in the same vein that a policy statement is. Instead they are the position of a party before a particular court. They are attempting to establish a particular POV for the Court. They are prepared by an attorney on behalf of a party. Thus, to rely on them for factual assertions is clearly problematic. No one is suggesting that they not be included, but only that they not be used for factual assertions when we should be using reliable secondary sources that summarize the positions. The one article in particular that is causing many problems includes numerous verbatim quotes from the Amici (few of which are set off on quotes) and makes the Amici seem as if they are authoritative statements of scientific facts. We should be relying on either peer reviewed studies, or news sources from mainstream organizations instead. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The amici curiae brief IS authoritative statements of scientific facts, http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/handbook/amicus.aspx "Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court. In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf --Destinero (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You simply cannot say things like leading (oldest, largest and most reputable) associations in the field are not reliable or competent to present facts to the Supreme Court of California. This is serious matter and you are unable to prove that presented facts are nonsense or POV. There is no such a thing like view in the science. This is not a way how science works. Science works because of scientific method and leading experts in the field. You cannot discredite it just because you dont base your opinions on the science or facts. Like it or not, the amici curiae brief here is highly reliable source, perhaps the best on the world. --Destinero (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can keep insisting that this is the case, but that does not make it so. Amicus Briefs serve a specific purpose. They are designed to present what one organization or a group of organizations wants to emphasize before a Court. Amicus Briefs will not include any information that the organization does not want to emphasize, unless there is an attempt to distinguish or paint that negative information in the best possible light. Suggesting that an Amicus brief is "perhaps the best on the world" is at best, facetious. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"In striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the state’s Supreme Court cited the amicus curiae brief APA jointly filed with the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter. The court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx This clearly illustrates how much credibility the amici curiae brief has. --Destinero (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Again, the point of the brief was to advocate before the Court. The fact that one Court accepted that information does not make it authoritative or relevant. Numerous other Courts have rejected very similar briefs from the APA. If whether or not a court accepts a piece of advocacy is the Standard, then we must take into account that the Supreme Court of New York, Washington, and Maryland rejected such contentions. Are you willing to do this? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "no'. First of all, an amicus brief is a piece of advocacy. It states a position of a person, not a party, in a case. Second, it is unpublished. Being available online in an e-docket is no different from being in a dusty court clerk's file drawer other than that it can be more conveniently accessed. It is a primary source. It fails as a reliable source on a number of levels. Fladrif (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"It states a position of a person, not a party, in a case. Second, it is unpublished." Then how you are able to explain this? "The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ra-ma.aspx That's clearly all parties position published in open manner! --Destinero (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Amici curiae are not parties in a case. It doesn't matter if the brief was jointly filed by a number of amici curiae. I was using the word "person" in the sense of a legal person. But, to the point: it does not matter who filed the brief. It is not a reliable source. First, it is unpublished. Would you argue that an unpublished letter could be used as a source on Wikipedia? It is a primary source. Primary sources can only be used in very limited circumstances, and only for describing what the author says about itself, and not for what it says about anyone or anything else. Third, it would appear that what you want to use this for is as support for positions on scientific and medical research. WP:MEDRS sets for the requirements for sources on such subjects. A legal brief describing the advocacy position of a number of professional associations in a case is not going to come close to meeting those standards, regardless of whether or not the court mentioned it in its opinion. This isn't even a close call. Fladrif (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are published all the time, and are, in any event, part of the public record in United States jurisdictions. Every amicus brief I've ever participated in, as an author or as a party, has been published. Your argument appears to be based on a false premise. THF (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief is no more "published" than is a letter that you send with multiple cc's. That may constitute "publication" in a very narrow and technical legal sense (eg in a libel suit) but it is not publication within the normal everyday use of that term. If regarded as "published" it is entirely self-published, and still cannot used in the way being advocated here WP:SPS. The organization filing the brief posting it on their website or in a newsletter does not take it outside teh scope of self-published sources. Being available as a public record is irrelevant. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have to concur on this as well. Rather than depending on the brief itself, go to the source that the opinion that the brief is intending to support uses. If the brief has no such source, the court will likely ignore it, and so should Wikipedia. Rapier1 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Dartmouth

Is The Dartmouth considered to be a reliable source for a BLP issue?

It's a college newspaper (Dartmouth College's official student newspaper), but it's 211 years old (the oldest student newspaper in the United States) and has interviewed substantial figures such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden; it's not tabloid-ish or exploitative.

The article I wish to use as a reference is this news article from 2008, discussing a speech given at the college by Deroy Murdock, a conservative columnist and fellow with the Hoover Institution. The article notes that Murdock is gay, a fact which had been in his Wikipedia bio (unsourced) but was removed, citing BLP concerns. While it shouldn't be a particularly controversial point (several of Murdock's columns are available at Independent Gay Forum, which explicitly identifies its contributors as gay or lesbian), Murdock doesn't discuss his personal life all that much, and finding a reliable citation without wandering into the realm of synthesis proved to be difficult.

There have been quite a few discussions about the reliability of student newspapers on this noticeboard, and there has never been a definitive statement one way or the other on the topic. Due to the sensitive nature of the material I intend to use the article to source, I'd like to see if there is a consensus that The Dartmouth is a reliable source on this issue. Horologium (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If his sexual orientation is so hard to verify that you need to refer to a (respectable) student newspaper interview, and to the fact that he has columns on a gay-oriented forum, then it looks to me as if his sexual orientation is not that important (for his article, his public figure: of course it is important in his private life): including this hard-to-verify but probably correct fact in his biography seems to be giving undue weight and invading his privacy, and should be left out of the article. Fram (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• This seems fine, and as you note it is uncontroversial. If he's writing articles in the Independent Gay Forum then he's obviously not in the closet. No definitive statement on college papers, but I'd say student newspapers are generally citeable. II | (t - c) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I would avoid citing a living person's sexual orientation to a college student newspaper, because such newspapers are subject not only to all the sources of error that a professional newspaper would have, plus others as well (such as being written and edited by amateur journalists). If the subject is "out" as being gay, then there ought to be better sources to verify that than a student newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the student newspaper is clearly RS, and the existence of his other columns shows that is hardly an extraordinary claim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rely on the fact that his articles are posted at Independent Gay Forum, that's one thing, but I don't think any student newspaper is "clearly" a reliable source for a contentious claim in a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want to rely on that; it borders on synthesis, since it requires multiple jumps to make the connection. It is certainly reasonable to make the conclusion, but due to the interaction between WP:BLP and WP:SYN, an explicit connection is required, rather than an inference. It's not a tremendously important facet of his work, but since he does not support expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include LGBT employees, it is somewhat notable. (That is also not noted in his bio, but the same article from The Dartmouth discusses it as well. If we include his sexual orientation, we can include his views on anti-discrimination and LGBT issues.) Horologium (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Q&A website

I ran across an artile using the site Islam Q&A [3] as a source. According to the site, "Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site." While the sheikh may (or may not) be all he claims, I'm not comfortable with the reliability of the site. Much of the site is devoted to issuing new fatwas. Would someone else mind taking a look at this site and seeing what kind of impression they get? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is definitely a pro-Islamic advocacy site as can be seen from this. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definately not NPOV. I just don't know enough about Islam to know if the guy is much of an authority. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No indication that the source is notable or reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a pro-Islamic advocacy site and not NPOV aren't relevant. Jayjg's criteria are the ones that count. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• And that's why I followed up with my comment wondering about his expertise.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a case for having more specific guidance about sources around Islam. It very much depends what flavour of Islam that one is discussing and what the source is talking about. There are many interpretations of Fiqh, and they can depend on the training of the Imam.

ALR (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's where I start having the problem. Does the site appear to be run by an "expert" who can be considered reliable. Or is this the opinion of a cleric who is really not any more of an expert than any other cleric? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Define expert, there are many Imams who can recite the Q'uran and Hadith by rote who would be considered expert by some traditions in Islam. They will tend to give a formulaic answer to a question. There are others who will a more nuanced and sophisticated response who would not be considered acceptable by those traditions. On the other hand the former wouldn't even be consulted. Normally reliability is in the eye of the beholder, more so when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence.

ALR (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I'm here. Personally, I look at this and see a Q&A site run by a guy who claims to be renowned, but I can't prove that. I tend to be skeptical of it. Trying to find out if I'm alone in that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd avoid anything about straightforward Sunni/ Shia that's not out of Cairo or Qom. Sufi teachers are a lot more difficult, but the reputable ones can demonstrate a lineage.

ALR (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is reliability and notability. I see no indication of either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that notability is not relevant here, it doesn't really matter how notable or otherwise the individual might be he's only reliable when talking about the interpretations of Islam from his own tradition, not Islam in general. Which is why I floated the idea of some specific guidance around Islam above.

ALR (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, notability is quite relevant here. If he's neither a notable expert in his own right, nor published in a reliable source, then he cannot be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about my point above. The reason I don't see notability as all that important is that the ability of any Imam to speak about Islamic jurisprudence in general is predicated on his training. So if an Imam trained in the Deobundi madrassa tradition can only reliably speak about that. Only once you've clarified that does notability come into play.

ALR (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No sources for Sectarianism

The sectarianism page claims that

Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.

There are absolutely no sources for this claim, and none of the dictionaries that I checked agreed with that definition. After mentioning this on the talk page and stating my intention to move the page to a more appropriate article name, and waiting nearly four months (!) without anyone objecting, I did so. Then Dr.enh, who apparently has developed a vendetta against me, reverted my edits without any reason. He also forged a comment by me at the bottom of the page. Then Nate showed up and threatened me with a block if I continued with my editing, citing absolutely no wikipedia policy. Seems to me that unilaterally telling other people what edits they are and are not allowed to make is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. When I rejected Nate's right to tell me what to do, Jauerback showed up, accused me of vandalism, and then blocked me for a week. This is completely unacceptable. Jauerback's accusation of vandalism is completely without foundation, and a blatant violation of civility.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Heqwm2 was blocked for edit warring, which they already have a track record for as their block log shows. No where did I mention "vandalism". I take this back, apparently, I used the wrong block template. Clicking the "abuse of editing privledges" is a link to WP:VANDAL. For that, I apologize, but not for the block itself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I presented a reason for my edits on the talk page, invited others to refute my position, and no one did so. How is that edit warring? I find your claim that I "have a track record for edit warring" to be inaccurate, but I do not think that this is the proper forum for discussing that. And, as I said, the proposition that I was engaging in edit warring was not advanced as a justification for me ceasing my editing of the article. Nate simply showed up and demanded that I not edit. As for the substance of the issue, why are admins using their power to keep an unsourced article?Heqwm2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a response on your talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Heqwm didn't leave me notice on my talk page on this issue at all. I was going through random articles, came upon this one which I expected to be long, and found it neutered down to a dictionary definition. I restored the previous version, warned Heqwm about page blanking and he took offense to that. Never did I say that he couldn't contribute, just that he had to work with the usual channels of consensus and that a slash and burn of content was not the appropriate manner to address to his concerns. However he then deleted my response, blanked the content again well past 3RR, and went off on another editor for the simple crime in his eyes of threading his talk replies as 'forging'. After another blanking I asked for action on AIV, and he was given a week-long block based on his actions. There was no ill will at all, just enforcing policy. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

Reliability of Virgin Media

I am trying to determine if the subject source is reliable for citations about criminal charges against celebrities: http://www.virginmedia.com. Specifically, I am trying to get the criminal charge in the following article properly sourced: Stedman Pearson. I couldn't find a previous discussion on this source in the archive.

The source appears to be primarily a broadband company and does news as a sideline. There is some questionable material such as the following (from the Virgin Media article), but I don't know how significant it is for RS purposes: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,40004190,00.htm

The Stedman article came up on the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stedman_Pearson. Considering the salaciousness of the charge, I am trying to get the entry as compliant to WP policies as possible.Jarhed (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Virgin Media does not do any journalism of their own: they simply republish news stories from elsewhere, so there is no way of knowing whether they do the fact-checking and so on expected of a reliable source.

When the issue at stake is as serious as a criminal charge, I would want the source to be from a reputable news-gathering outlet, not a news re-publisher who could have sourced the material from anywhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if Virgin Media were publishing news that was not from the wires (AP, Reuters) or already publishing elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Press Association Ltd. did in fact issue a release about Stedman's arrest on 8 October 1990 entitled "Pop Star's Indecency Shame". It appeared in a number of papers. The original may be accessed via LexisNexis. --Bejnar (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media are part of the Virgin Enterprises Group, who are one of the leading media corporations in the world. The group have held record companies, publishing houses, radio stations, shops, telecommunications, airlines, trains, and even television channels. Virgin Media's website is not just a broadband provider, it is a multimedia site with news, features, entertainment, TV listings - much like an online magazine or newspaper. With regards to their publishing house, Virgin have published a vast array of books including The Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music and its various forms and editions (Virgin Encyclopedia of Rock Music, 60's Music, 80's Music, Country Music, etc). Since the information you are referring to isn't exactly "news" (because it's 20 years old), it is likely Virgin have sourced the material from their own published archives. Fortunately, I have access to a few of these books and I have found the very detail you are referring to in the Virgin Encyclopedia of R&B and Soul, written by Colin Larkin and published in 1998. Larkin is a highly respected journalist and author who has written several books about music. There is even a sample of the entry from a digitised copy available on Google Books ( [49] ). Due to Virgin's longterm standing in the media industry, they would be considered experts in this field and know what they are talking about, which makes them a reliable source as per WP:RS. Furthermore, there are two other sources in the article in question (The Guardian, a highly respected UK broadsheet newspaper, and another published book about pop music history) that corroborate the material you are talking about - so the Virgin Media source is obviously reliable. Lastly, the link from zdnet.co.uk you have included in your posting above about Virgin's broadband service is absolutely nothing to do with the subject or article you are enquiring here about, so I am curious as to why you included it. MassassiUK 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is the use of Virgin Media as a reliable source for for citations about criminal charges against celebrities, nothing else. The link I included is to a news article about the source in question. I don't think the volume of publication is the issue here, it is the reliability of such. Nor is the "expertise" of the source an issue if the source is a celebrity scandal sheet.Jarhed (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The link you included is an article about Virgin Media's broadband service and their technical attempts to prevent illegal file sharing on their broadband network. It has absolutely nothing to do with entertainment news and features that Virgin may feature on one of their websites. You may as well have linked to an article about the quality of food on Virgin Airlines or the performance of the Virgin train service. I can only assume you were attempting some kind of smear campaign on the Virgin brand name, perhaps to obtain a desired outcome to this thread. And I see no evidence of "celebrity scandal sheets" connected to the topic in question either. Facts are simply facts. Perhaps, like your friend on the article itself, you need to let this one go now. MassassiUK 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I find your assumption of bad faith insulting. In my original post, I said that I don't know the relevance of that particular ref. If I knew about Virgin Media, I would be not asking here. As for my "friend", what are you talking about?--Jarhed (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you posted in good faith, Jarhed. I think the verdict is that Virgin Media's news service is a mainstream news outlet, though perhaps not quite at "the quality end of the market", and reliable for this purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you mean by "verdict", and I don't see where you came up with "mainstream news outlet" whatever that means. Once again, the question is: is the use of Virgin Media as a reliable source for for citations about criminal charges against celebrities. So far, the discussion has leaned toward the fact that Virgin Media is not a news source at all.Jarhed (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed, your involvement in this particular article is documented both on the article itself and especially on the BLP noticeboard discussion about it (both of which have now been resolved). However, your postings there and here clearly suggest that you are trying to gain a certain outcome on this noticeboard, so please don't attempt to cry "good faith" when you obviously have an agenda. You and a friend of yours were in favour of removing the details about Stedman Pearson's arrest from his article page, and not because it was poorly sourced. When you failed to do so, you then tried to pick apart one of the sources by starting this thread. The specific article on Virgin's website you are referring to is not "news", it is an entertainment article about pop stars from bygone days. The information contained in it about Stedman Pearson was only "news" 20 years ago, and would now be considered entertainment history rather than news. So the question of Virgin being a news source isn't really relevant. What is relevant is whether Virgin are a reliable source for this piece of historical information about the musician Stedman Pearson? Since Virgin have published a variety of music encyclopedias written by respected music journalists, one of which includes the details in question, I think you have your answer. Of course, if you want to keep posting here in an attempt to get a different outcome then you're welcome to do so, but even you must realise that you're wasting your time. MassassiUK 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I find your accusations of bad faith insulting. I had never heard of this person or group until I read this article, and my only interest in this is getting this salacious legal allegation properly sourced. So far as I am aware, there is no "outcome" other than in your own mind. Generally speaking, disputes of this nature are resolved through discussion at first. There has been no such from you. You have done to address my BLP concerns, and have done nothing but throw accusations of bad faith on every edit. Who is this "friend" you keep talking about, because I am at a loss.--Jarhed (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush on this issue. The Virgin Media source in question is clearly a tertiary source, and so are the encyclopedias. There is no question about the fact that none of them are valid for a citation of this type. None of them provide a date or location of the offense, which would be the basics of any report contained in a reliable source. I am not sure why any of the interested editors on this article are even bothering to argue otherwise.--Jarhed (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot article that was submitted by a Wikipedia editor

Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A search of the archives indicates it has generally been ill-favoured as a reliable source. –xeno^talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not reliable. It's user/member submitted material that doesn't show any inidcation of reliability or editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• No real editorial oversight and no peer review, plus the fact that this "article" was "published" within hours of its "submission" clearly make the case (in combination with Xeno's comment about the archives) that this is not a reliable source. UnitAnode 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot.org is a reasonable source, and generally meets WP:RS, although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although comments following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.

The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The New York Times or CNN, for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).

The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE×talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin^control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• An anonymous person can sign up and submit an article. That is not reliable by any means. The fact that the article references Wikipedia shows it's not that reliable. Even wikipedia prohibits using wikipedia as a source.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia indirectly, i.e. for more information, in which was never done in the original submission but as apart of the editing process by Slashdot, is vastly different from referencing Wikipedia as a primary source of information for said article/story. The primary source for the Slashdot article was the JWASM website and direct test cases against the tool. Please also note, that Slashdot does not allow for anonymous editors. Anyone can call up a news station/paper and submit a story, but whether they choose to verify and then publish it is an entirely different and controlled process. SpooK (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • They do allow anonymous submissions. They don't publish under real names. (Please spare me the odd example of a reliable source that uses an occasional psuedonym. How many RS's use nothing by handles?) There is no evidence of editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

When's the last time you refused to read a book or article because it was published under a pseudonym? Let's try to put things in perspective here. An attempt to correlate editors under pseudonym as unknown/unreliable people is not the same as an uncontrolled editorial process. Also, I supplied an example of editorial oversight, thus disproving such claim. The whole article doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten by an editor to be considered edited. Such assertions are merely examples of denying the antecedent. SpooK (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, you totally missed the point. I acknowledged that there are even psuedonyms in the media. (Yet you felt the need to point it out, as if I denied it). What I said was that it is more the exception than the rule for news sites to not use real names. Your example of editorial oversight is faulty. They take the anon submission, they add a few lines and publish. BTW, overlinking your responses doesn't make them more valid. Same term 3 times in as many sentences? Another one twice in 3? Bottom line, I say they don't meet RS. That is my contribution to the consensus process. Take note, I'm not the only one holding that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was in the middle of writing my response when you edited yours to include the psuedonym comment... and I didn't feel a need to change it :P Your assertion of the lack of editorial oversight lacks proof. Unless you have a statement by the editor that claims they did absolutely nothing to edit that article, then you have no proof and therefore no case to back up your claim. I respect your right to claim that this doesn't provide a WP:RS, but make sure to back up any further assertions with solid proof and not mere conjecture. Accountability is an important factor in this situation. SpooK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example of editing process seems to be a message board with such usefull comments as "I'm also a big YASM fan. YASM can generate object files for Windows, OS X, and Linux. That, combined with its macro features, let you write a single x86 file that can be used on all three platforms. I'll certainly take a look at JWASM, though!" Exactly how is that helping to improve the article? It’s a message board; one that does not appear to operates (for example) a non-soapbox policy. Moreover is there any indication that these posts are from experts likely to be able to pick up errors?Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the article (the top part) with the uncontrolled/edited responses. Think of the main article as a Wikipedia entry, and the replies to the article as the talk page of a Wikipedia entry. SpooK (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see so the example of edit process you gave was not an example of the process but of the end result. So we do not kn ow how they (or why they) added the new text just that they did. \forgive me but oyu use of the term editing process led me to assume that is what we were segin (a bit like seeing the edit history page on wiki). The main differance seems to be removal of text, why was it removed? I can't actualy see any alterations beyond this so it only an example of them editing text, not checking it.Slatersteven (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is weak-point in the Slashdot editing process, in that it is not as transparent as Wikipedia. I'll request the information about the process directly from the editor. I'll let you know what the response is, if there is any. SpooK (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a waste of time. A Wikipedia editor did not like the way an AFD was going, so he wrote a review for Slashdot, and then cited it as a potential "source." Sorry, but that is the definition of original research, saying nothing about the fact that Slashdot is not a reliable source. UnitAnode 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, I am not property of Wikipedia. I don't remember signing any contracts that state I cannot participate in other venues. Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD. Also, to assert yet again that my Slashdot review is only to "save" the JWASM Wikipedia page is false and I consider it a personal attack against my character... which I have informed you of multiple times, so please desist. Moreover, in this AfD process, Unitanode has failed to comply with WP:AGF. SpooK (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  You have admitted, both here and in the comments of your "article" that the main reason you wrote it was because of the AFD. That's simply not on, and it's not acceptable for use as a source. UnitAnode 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  And a link where he admits that he wrote it in response to the AFD. UnitAnode 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  "My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Wikipedia, yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest." (emphasis mine). That's a direct quote. This is simply not acceptable, and negates whatever shred of reliability Slashdot may have had, at least with regards to this issue. UnitAnode 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Main and only are two different contexts. This particular AfD motivated me to go ahead and do the Slashdot article, as a result it is undeniably my main motivation. However, and as stated previously, whether or not Wikipedia cares about the relevance of my review is not entirely relevant to me. Posting that review on Slashdot was sufficiently rewarding in itself despite any sway that it will make on Wikipedia. JWASM's notability will continue to increase over time, and if it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment, that's fine with me. With that being said, my latest responses have been to address faulty assumptions and hasty assertions by various people, including you Unit. Again, a healthy dose of WP:AGF can go a long way to a mutually understood and beneficial resolution. SpooK (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is obviously nowhere near a reliable source. If you even think it might be, you should not be giving opinions on whether sources are reliable. --TS 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see an experienced wikipedian drop by. Basically some folks were rules-lawyering whether JWASM was notable not not. So then some other folks figured heck, we can use slashdot as a reliable source, because if you ruleslawyer, it sort of does fit that description. ;-) Of course, if you just want to apply common sense, you can see how JWASM might be somewhat notable... ;-) (there's not many assemblers out there any more, I was surprised to discover) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to ruleslawyer; this isn't a unique situation. Slashdot is a secondary source like many other news organizations. However most articles are essentially letters to the editor, so they should be relied on very lightly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not WP:AGF of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other moderated publications concerning the same topic. Not for the New York Times, not for the Journal of Programming Languages, nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic. The fact is that Slashdot is really not the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it is an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed is relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various WP:RSs as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much hope that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. LotLE×talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. And my statement about AGF was only that once bad faith has been clearly demonstrated, there's no further need to assume good faith. And now a Slashdot vandal has shown his/her colors at my talkpage. The review itself was written in response and as a result of the AFD, and is not by a noted expert. It's by an anonymous username at an unreliable source. You're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse here, Lulu. UnitAnode 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if you want to be taken seriously it probably doesn't help to use adopted names on Wikipedia. Cunard, Spin, and whatnot are signs that you don't want anybody to care. Use your real name. Why not? Are you ashamed? --TS 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about a dozen reasons why people should use pen names on Wikipedia; in fact I'm of the opinion that they should have been mandated on WP from the beginning. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those people work for slashdot. When wikipedia wants to start giving me a check, I'll happily use my real name. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to use our real name, that's not a fair criticism. I only use mine because I want to! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - slashdot vandal here. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, and I won't resort to personal attacks again. I'd just like to say that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day 123.243.237.83 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a good thing to do/say. If all slashdot vandals are like you, they're welcome to drop by and chat too! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want more people that react like this to those with whom they disagree? "Hi! I've come here via slashdot, and read your control-freak-like attempts to maipulate people. This otherwise normal user (and occasional positive contributer, although I don't spend my life on wiki) just wants to say you're a dickhead. Thanks!" UnitAnode 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points about using a Slashdot article as a source:

• It does count as a secondary source, though a "weak" secondary source. They only print a very limited number of the articles submitted to them, showing that the opinions expressed are at least notable.
• Slashdot cites would really be RS to back up statements such as "has received praise from the open-source community", or in cases where the Slashdot article performs an analysis of other sources that would fall just outside our WP:NOR policy.
• The comments are not RS, though there is a ratings system for comments. When making a convenience link to a Slashdot article, consider raising the comment threshold a few notches to include mainly the productive comments.
• There's still a guideline about citing yourself. Even if you're published in Nature, you should ask for someone else to add the cite. Though if it's under time pressure in an AFD debate I would forgive this.
• Use of pen names is not a problem, and is pretty common in some areas in computing, especially in some aspects of computer security. People use pen names for decades and can conceivably earn expert reputations under their pen names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The slashdot article is an issue of appropriate expertise. It may offend a number of Wikipedia editors but SpooK in fact has the expertise to write the review and that expertise comes from outside Wikipedia. It is a case of attacking a detached person writing a review beyond the influence of Wikipedia editors who has nothing to do with the JWASM project and did not write the original stub for JWASM. Content of a review is a technical issue, not an internal issue subject to the opinions of Wikipedia editors who don't want a topic to remain in Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue expertise, there is a provison called WP:SPS that allows sources written either by topic experts, or subjects of a biography, to be cited as RS even in material that doesn't go through an editorial process, like a personal website. It sounds like there's some case to be made for either of those routes to RS, and I feel it is inappropriate to be removing sources in the middle of a AFD. That said, self-published material wouldn't count towards notability, and even if we decide Slashdot is a secodnary source, we really need several strong secondary sources for notability. I'd suggest merging to our article on WASM, especially if the syntax is very close. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• To address Unitanode's claim that the aforementioned Slashdot review/article is not written by a noted expert but instead someone anonymous, and further implying unreliability of said article source, please review the following facts. It can easily be seen that I am Odoital on Slashdot between my responses there to Unitanode and my alternate account here. A quick look at my Wikipedia user page and corresponding history page shows that my real name and personal website link have been posted at Wikipedia since 2007. My personal website lists the programming projects/endeavors that I am associated with. As a prime example, I fronted the initial/major effort in bringing 64-bit support to the Netwide Assembler, as well as implementing the 64-bit PE/COFF and Mach-O object formats. The operating system I have been working on, for nearly the last decade, has been and is currently developed entirely in x86 assembly language. The assembly language community and related forum, that I currently float the hosting bill for, requires more effort to maintain than someone with merely a inexpert/passing interest could offer. My previous and current jobs have employed me primarily as a professional software developer. I am currently pursuing a college degree in software development/programming to mach my current level of experience, i.e. the sheepskin that says I can do what I am already doing, full-time while holding a 3.9 GPA with a full-time job and full-time family. As one can see, I may not be a critically acclaimed "expert" in software development, nor do I think I am, but I am definitely not an "anonymous" or ill-informed person either; obviously enough of my peers (including ones that don't necessarily get along with me) agree that I am capable of producing a technically unbiased and objective review of JWASM in such a manner as I have. Again, accountability is an important factor in this situation. For those who may have made this slight factual oversight, please ensure that, in the future, you are presenting the facts and interpreting the rules... not the other way around. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• No, Slashdot does not meet our RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a news organization with an editorial process, and is well-respected in the software community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "news organization", as no "news organization" would post a "review" from a non-staffer within hours of its creation. It is not a reliable source, and this "review" was basically an attempt at an end-run around the RS and NOTE questions raised at the AFD. UnitAnode 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is well-respected, and people in the software community treat it as a news site. It does meet the standards of a secondary RS, as there is an editorial board that selects maybe five of the hundreds of submissions to run each day. There is an issue that what's under discussion is essentially a letter to the editor that has been published in an RS, and there is still a question of notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Being well-respected and treated as a news site in the software community does not a reliable source make. I was a bit more open-minded about this up to the point where they posted this review within hours of its submission. No respectable news agency does such a thing. UnitAnode 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is "hours" a problem? There's a handful of editors, if they're all together or online they can check facts (online as well) and make the call as to putting it in. The new media works quickly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Submit a story idea, book review, movie review, or a software review to the New York Times website. See how long it takes to get published. Yes, the very fact that Slashdot published this within hours speaks to its lack of reliability as a source. UnitAnode 16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the fact that the response you wrote to Squidfryerchef only took you 13 minutes speaks to its lack of reliability as to its content. -- spin^control 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be funny, if you weren't so serious. I'm a person, you know that, right? Slashdot is an organization, which posts various types of content. Comparing my response time to the time it took them to post a "review" is, well, frankly quite odd. Or simply a way of "spinning" (per your username) unrelated facts to fit your preferred conclusion. Either way, Slashdot isn't going to be considered a reliable source, and this article will be deleted soon. UnitAnode 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are merely carrying your partiality over from the JWASM AfD. It stops you from making reasoned comments on the issue at hand. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify, the article at AfD won't be deleted because of the lack of reliability from this site. It will be deleted because it's not notable. (Note that notable does not mean popular or useful). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about notability is irrelevant here. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So? It's still part of the reason this discussion is even taking place. All I did was clarify that the AfD issue unitode mentioned isn't really reliability, it's notability. Lessen the confusion. But I didn't realized you'd been appointed the owner of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin^control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So sorry for trying to clarify and make sure people didn't get those issues confused by the way unitode phrased it. But guess what? After 11,000 edits, I could have probably figured out where I needed to go on my own. Or maybe I just don't care to follow you orders. But you enjoy your ownership of the discussion my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the confusion lies in that Unitanode and others wish to maintain their assertions that Slashdot, and thus the review I submitted, is not considered a reliable resource for the purpose of denying it as a WP:RS and therefore cannot add weight to WP:Notability for JWASM... not WP:Verifiability in which is already covered. I don't think that anyone in the "for" camp is claiming that said Slashdot article in itself is sufficient to establish WP:Notability, but I, at least, was certainly under the impression that it would help as per Elen of the Roads' and Kim Bruning's advisement here. Acknowledging my Slashdot article/review obviously leads down a slippery slope from attempted absolutism of the rules to the more gray-scale world in which we live. In short, some people have reduced themselves down to attacking the good faith and position of others, including the reliability of Slashdot, by asserting unfounded personal opinions/attacks instead of stating the facts (in which requires research/investigation if you don't know them) and reasonably interpreting the rules. Once again, a mountain has been made out of a molehill by Wikipedia deletionists instead of figuring out how to improve the situation to benefit Wikipedia and interested parties. SpooK (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot has no significant editorial oversight, and no reputation for reliability. As Dlabtot says: "Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliability of Slashdot, they have a group of editors and an editorial process that's no different than what you would find at a print magazine. Except that yes they do work quickly, but that is the nature of the medium they work in. IEEE Spectrum did an article about a year ago on Slashdot which talked a bit about their editorial selectivity if we still want to pursue this. There is also the matter that most of these articles are essentially letters to the editor, which may make them a weaker source for some topics, but still meeting the bar for RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As this very thread has shown, Slashdot is little different than a WP:SPS. If someone want to insert a "fact" into a Wikipedia article, all they need do is throw it up on Slashdot, and then cite themselves. Again, no significant editorial oversight, no reputation for reliability, and not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not just anybody can throw up a fact on Slashdot and then come back and cite it as published. This is a case where somebody wrote an article about a software program, a group of people at Slashdot check through the article, try out the program, maybe make some calls, and decide to run the story the next day. It's similar to a letter to the editor published in an RS, or it's similar to an article a freelancer might send in to a print hobby magazine about computers. Slashdot is not Associated Content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? How do you know that's what happened in this case? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of Slashdot

Spook said:

Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD.

A look at the history confirms this [50]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an article on a product that is distributed for free could be considered "spam". There may be a problem with COI, but I'm going to assume these are new editors and aren't familiar with all the policies and politics of WP. More importantly, it seems like editors are trying to delete the material as "punishment" for a perceived breach of COI. If there's a COI problem, that can be discussed with the editors. But don't remove content that may be useful to the rest of WP's readership because of COI. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Free" is a red herring in this case. People spam charities on here, and we still remove it as spam. Secondly, this wasn't just COI, it was gaming the system. Finally, Slashdot is a blog. They post links to other sources, and post opinions & interviews with no editorial oversight. Get an actual tech journal/magazine to publish the article, then we can come back to this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point being that whether an editor was "gaming" the system or not is not reason in and of itself to delete an article. It's a reason to have a discussion with the editor. We don't remove parts of the encyclopedia simply to spite people who we perceive as breaking the rules. But as far as being a "blog", it may be published in the format of a blog but it is not a personal webpage or a community blog where any member can publish. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions about the editorial review process at Slashdot - are based on what? Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. This was a DRV discussion about avoiding deletion. Once it became clear that finding reliable sources was the problem, the user WP:GAMEed the system by trying to get an article published to support RS. And yes, Slashdot is a blog because its members have no editorial oversight. it doesn't matter if it's not open to the community in general... but it basically is anyway, given the "article" was published with no editorial process whatsoever. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not so. There's hundreds of thousands of members. You can become one tonight if you want. But they can't post a new article, only comments. For an article, whether a book or movie review, passing along a news tidbit, or a letter to "Ask Slashdot" to be posted, it has to be selected by the editorial staff. Slashdot has an editorial board, including some full-time staff, who select maybe ten twenty or so out of the hundreds and hundreds that come in every day. Perhaps the other day they felt that review of an assembler was important enough to run. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here's the article in Spectrum[51], with four or five paragraphs on the second page about editorial selection. Here's some snips: Every day, Slashdot receives anywhere from 200 to 500 story submissions from readers, but it runs only 20 to 30 of them... Malda and his team judiciously fish out only the best.... If the story meets their criteria to be ”stuff that matters,” it gets categorized and placed into an appropriate section of the Slashdot site, such as Linux, Supercomputing or Geeks in Space. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a guy ("Commander Taco") and a few of his buddies (including "Scuttlemonkey", "Soulskill", and "Samzenpus"), running a blog on steroids out of his home. There are some really interesting blogs out there, and this may be one, but they don't qualify as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and I think Jayjg has summed it up best. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Every news source has to start somewhere. If we looked at, for example, a small hobby magazine, it would be started by "some guy" and a few employees. They would comprise an editorial board, and decide which articles to accept from freelancers. Slashdot is no different, other than that it's distributed electronically. And it would be appropriate to select movie and software reviews from Slashdot as secondary sources, because Slashdot editors decided the review was notable enough to print. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my previous description of the website is the situation today, not ten years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In 1997, it was just a blog. But according to our own article about Slashdot, it was sold a couple years later to a software publishing company, which eventually became SourceForge, for several million dollars. There's people behind the pen names, too, some of which have their own entries on WP: "...run by its founder, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, working out of his home in Dexter, Michigan. He shares editorial responsibilities with several other editors, including Timothy Lord, Patrick "Scuttlemonkey" McGarry, Jeff "Soulskill" Boehm, Rob "Samzenpus" Rozeboom, and Keith Dawson." With an editorial board, corporate ownership, and 13 years of respect from the open-source community, it's definitely more of a media outlet than just someone's blog. The only caveat is that most articles are essentially letters to the editor, and there's certain things I would use them for ( sci-fi movie reviews, technical details about software ) and certain things Slashdot would not be an RS for ( history, religion, BLP other than interviews of figures in the open-source comunity ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

There is a dispute in Balkan Wars over the use of this [52] source. This is the Carnegie Report of 1914 on the Second Balkan War between Greece and Bulgaria. The source is from 1914, so it is primary, and it is written by a certain Pavel Miliukov, a Russian. At the time, Russia was pursuing an pan-slavist policy and Bulgaria was a Russian client. Consequently, Miliukov is as pro-Bulgarian as they come, and the source is far from neutral. A casual look at the source itself reveals that is very biased, saying nonsensical things like The main fact on which we must insist is that the Greek army inaugurated the second war by the deliberate burning of a Bulgarian town. (p. 99, paragraph 2). Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Bulgarian authors concede that the Second Balkan War was started by a Bulgaria that was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War. The consensus on this is universal, and this reveals the extremely biased nature of the source. The Carnegie Report has been panned in the literature:

• Frank Maloy Anderson, Amos Shartle Hershey, National Board for Historical Service -Handbook for the diplomatic history of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1870-1914‎ -"pro-Bulgarian bias" p 428
• Kemal H. Karpat -Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics‎ - "Some pro- Bulgarian sources (such as Carnegie Endowment)" p. 50
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos -Plundered loyalties: Axis occupation and civil strife in Greek West: "the fanatically pro-Bulgarian part of the report" - p. 12
• Alice Garnett -Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration‎ - "a full account written from a pro-Bulgarian standpoint" p. 140.
• The key role P. Miliukov played in that report was revealed by Prof. of university of Sofia Ivan Ilchev in his study "Karnegievata Anketa na Balkanite prez 1913" in Makedonija: Istorija i polititseska sadba (1912-1941), Sofia 1998, vol. 2, pp. 241-256.

I also note that the source is posted on an ultra-nationalist Bulgarian website, which should set further alarm bells ringing. Athenean (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Carnegie report was compiled by the American Carnegie foundation and included representatives from the major European countries and the US. Pavel Miliukov was just one member and User Athenean has not presented any evidence that he wrote that particular chapter.

Russia's position at the time is hardly relevant, but it must be noted that during this period Russia generally supported Serbia over Bulgaria and had recently had a falling out with the Bulgarian government, so the statement "Russian client state" is inaccurate.

Primary sources prohibits their usage for interpretations and they're not used in the article in this way - they are simply used for a citation of a fact. That the chapter was biased is Athenean's personal opinion. When one considers the anti-Bulgarian propaganda produced by Greece (before the war) such a conclusion doesn't seem so absurd.

Athenean falsely asserts that the Carnegie commission is universally considered biased. For example, in the recent work "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" which is used extensively as a source for this article, the report is referred as :"Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." [53]. Even in one of the sources which according to Athenean prove the bias of the report, actually states: ""Their work was accurately and carefully done, although the pro-Bulgarian bias of one member, M.Miliukov probably affected the report to some extent", which is very far from the condemnation Athenean seems to portray. About his other sources, Kemal Karpat and Giannēs Koliopoulos, being Turkish and Greek respectively are quite likely to be biased against the report which reported about war crimes committed by their nations' armies (are we going to have Bulgarian sources proving the neutrality of the report?).

The citation by Garnett doesn't even refer to Carnegie: [54]! I actually placed a note on the talk page of Balkan wars about this, so I don't know why it's reproduced here. I couldn't find the final source (by Ilchev) so I was unable to ascertain its authenticity though it's notable that it was posted by the same user (Factuarius) who also falsely cited Garnett's book and has been blocked for edit warring on this subject.

Kroraina.com can hardly be regarded as a Bulgarian ultra-nationalist site - it's mostly a collection of materials on Bulgarian history. Also, this is irrelevant as the site is only used for the deposition of the report- it's not as if they made it themselves.

As this source is probably the most extensive and neutral source available on the subject and is only used for direct citation, I do not see why it shouldn't be used. Kostja (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's dispense with the wikilawyering and nitpicking. The tone and content of the entire chapter is extremely biased and partisan. It is immediately apparent to anyone reading it. A source that claims Greece started the Second Balkan War so as to cleanse the Bulgarians of Kilkis is not even worth server space it takes up. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That source doesn't say anything like that. That Greece planned the war in advance and was just waiting for a pretext is obvious and well known. You don't start such a propaganda campaign if you're planning for peace. And no Athenean, you're not the source to decide what is obvious. Kostja (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any modern source(say post 1970) written in English(since this is English wikipedia) that supports the Carnegie Report of 1914? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. As I've mentioned above, it's called ""Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." in the 2002 "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" by Richard Hall, who is used as the main sources on this article: [55], page 138. The report is also mentioned as an "important historical document" in "Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans: nationalism and the destruction of tradition", 2002: [56]. It's also used a source in "Jews, Turks, Ottomans: a shared history, fifteenth through the twentieth century": [57] and "The Balkan wars: myth, reality, and the eternal conflict", 2001: [58]. According to another recent book: "An ounce of prevention: Macedonia and the UN experience in preventive diplomacy", the Carnegie report "gives an account of the developments and resolution of the two regional conflicts of 1912-1913": [59].

• Athenean indicated that he thought the Carnegie report was a primary source. I beg to differ. A primary source would be the battle plans, the dispatches, the dead counts, etc., of the war. This is a secondary source and reads like a second-hand account, at least one step removed from the events. Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. See Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the appendices to the Carnegie report do contain primary documents, letters, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference between primary and secondary source often blurs a bit with time. A "modern" secondary source would be strongly preferred to one from 1914. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shown that this source is used by many modern works regarded as secondary sources. Kostja (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the consensus among historians (including serious Bulgarian scholars) that the Second Balkan War was started by a Bulgaria that was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War. No serious historian of today contradicts this. A source that claims that Greece started the war goes against all consensus and simply cannot be taken seriously. That is precisely the problem with primary sources such as this: They are too close to the events to be able to reflect the consensus among historians. Athenean (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The report doesn't actually say that - the statement is about Greece's war aims. Kostja (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kostja, assuming those secondary sources that quote the Carnegie report are reliable, please cite them instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The secondary sources that quote the Carnegie report don't refer to exactly the passage that is needed for the article. Kostja (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The passage in question is not "needed" for the article. If you can't cite a secondary source on it, then it shouldn't be there in the first place. Athenean (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you would think that a destruction of a Bulgarian city by the Greek army was not needed. Unfortunately for you, Wukipedia has to observe NPOV. Kostja (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. That's exactly the mentality of a POV-pusher: "The destruction of one of their cities by us is mentioned, so we have to mention the destruction of one of our cities by them". That's tit-for-tat nationalism, not NPOV. The destruction of Serres is mentioned because there are reliable secondary sources to back it up. You were told to find a secondary source for Kilkis. You didn't. Out it goes. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A primary source can be used for a direct citation, which is the case here. Kostja (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there isn't a consensus on the issue, so my question is: Can the Carnegie report be used for the purposes permitted by WP:Primary as is the case here when it's regarded as a reliable sources by various secondary sources? Of course a secondary source would be preferable but when the particular passage needed can't be found in a secondary source perhaps a primary source could be permitted. Kostja (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be used. The secondary sources provide context for the report, and indicate which parts of the report are notable or otherwise meaningful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Kostja is now insisting on using a source from 1905, and a source (Hugh Poulton, "Who are the Macedonians") that doesn't even mention Kilkis [60]. This is getting ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1905 source is there for completely different reasons and Athenean is false about "Who are the Macedonians": [61]. Kostja (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the 1905 source is used for, it still is a primary source, and cannot be used for the very same reasons that the previous primary source. Athenean (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See the guidelines for primary sources: [62]. As far I can see the decision about the Carnegie report doesn't prohibit the usage of any primary sources in the article.Kostja (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to what I can see in the link by Kostja, primary sources might be used. The article for the Balkan wars is not based on primary sources so leaving one citation is not a problem.

The problem is, it seems, that certain Greek users want to deny any Greek atrocities to the Bulgarian population but to mention Bulgarians atrocities. It is not fair to mention the destruction of Serres and just omit the destruction of Kilkis because Athenean doesn't like it. Honestly speaking, even Athenean cannot deny that the destruction of Kilkis is a fact (I suppose), it happened; so I insist to be mentioned with a primary source since that is not against the rules. --Gligan (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the specific source creates a new parallel history of the second Balkan War, a clear a pov concert. Such kind of primaries (or semi-primaries) should be treated with heavy precaution. Since not a single secondary rs confirms the specific events, like the so-called Greek responsibility for the outbreak of the war, I don' t see a reason take it into account.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is so, it does not mean that everything there is nonsense and untrue. The destruction of Kukush is a fact that I suppose no one denies. Honestly speaking, to me it does not need a citation but if you insist to have one, what is the problem of using that source? We do not deal about who is responsible for the war but only about that particular event. --Gligan (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid primary sources, and please avoid very old sources, particularly for any contentious claims. Try to use reliable secondary sources written within, say, the past 40 years. What historians and other sources believed to be historically true 100 years ago may be very different from the historical consensus today. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DVD: "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)"

On Mountain Parkway Byway, a DVD named "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)" is being cited as a reference. It is listed as being produced by a company called Gauley Productions in 2005. I tried searching for both the DVD name (and some variations) as well as the production company name on Google and wasn't finding anything. I also tried searching on the West Virginia Secretary of State's website for the company name [63] and was getting no results. (As Gauley is the name of a major West Virginia river and the article is about a scenic byway in West Virginia, I assume the producer would be based in West Virginia.) At this point, I'm really questioning if this reference is a viable source to use in this article. With no Google results about its name, I'm not sure if it was even published or that any other editors would be able to obtain a copy to verify the material attributed to the DVD. Any input that could be provided here would be appreciated. Brian Powell (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They produced it ,but the idea for it came form the Northern Webster Co Improvement Council Inc. They can give you the inFo you need about the DVD.Gauley production is a subsidiary of Gauley Trading Post which is based in Webster Springs. The dvd in question was released in 2005 --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for verification purposes, it isn't listed in WorldCat, so finding a library that has a copy will be difficult. It is not listed in the catalog of the WV Library Commission/Archives & History Library, the Wheeling Public Library (Ohio County Public Library), nor the Louis Bennett Public Library (Lewis County). The Webster-Addison Public Library does not have an online public access catalog, so I could not check there. --Bejnar (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That beasue it was never released globaly. It was only relased in West Virginia. For the information you seek contact the Northern Webster Co improvement Council Inc.User:Bmpowell should have the contact information.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the West Virginia libraries checked by User:Bejnar looked at, I also checked West Virginia University Libraries, Kanawha County Public Library, and the Northern Library Network which includes both libraries in Webster County (where the Mountain Parkway Byway is located), 10 libraries in surrounding counties, plus Clarksburg, Morgantown, Glenville State College and others. No hits. If neither of the two libraries in the county even have a copy, I can't imagine that this DVD saw much distribution. Brian Powell (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that SchoolcraftT has been indefinitely blocked for, among other reasons, copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JURIST

Is there anything that precludes citing JURIST as a source (of course properly attributed)? Specifically, to use this opinion in the Goldstone report? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Using JURIST for a news source and using its op-ed pages are two different things. Op-ed columns are generally to be avoided wherever they occur. In the reactions section of the article under legal commentators, it might be cited for someone's expressed opinion as a primary source if no secondary source is available, and if the person whose opinion is being cited is either notable or is considered an expert in the field. Such opinions should not just be cited because they exist, there must be a substantial reason for citing an opinion. See, in general, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. --Bejnar (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bejnar, let's consider concrete example. The two behind this op-ed are "Laurie R. Blank is the Acting Director of Emory Law's International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Gregory S. Gordon is an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies". Seems like they are competent enough to produce valuable opinion for the legal commentators section of the Goldstone report, are they not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that JURIST is basically an academic journal, so it they published the "op-ed" piece, then the opinion is weighty enough to consider as an RS in Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

JURIST is not an academic journal, it is a newsletter produced by students under faculty supervision. It is considered reliable for its factual reporting. Some people think that being a law professor in and of its self provides adequate basis for expertise. This is not so. Also being an administrator does not make one an expert, one has to look at what the individuals have published, and how it has been received in the field. --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

no problem, but you still didn't answer my question. The two behind this specific op-ed are "Laurie R. Blank is the Acting Director of Emory Law's International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Gregory S. Gordon is an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies". Seems like they are competent enough to produce valuable opinion for the legal commentators section of the Goldstone report, are they not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See our own article about JURIST; its reputation seems pretty clear. Also scroll up and see the similar debate over the Gonzaga Journal of International Law. They said "pretty much all law journals are student-edited". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes

Is this Guido Fawkes blog post a wikipedia reliable citation for this comment? In December 2009, the political blogger Guido Fawkes claimed that Griffiths still has a so called super-injunction preventing full press coverage of the matter in the United Kingdom... Also is Guido a WP:RS for anything? Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for that statement; however, if the intent is to talk about the injunction rather than Guido's opinion, then it is not a reliable source. Normally one wouldn't assert an opinion of someone unless they were notable or an expert in the field. --Bejnar (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also and about the same situation..

Its related to this story , this is a News of the world exclusive so this is the only source, is it ok to use comments from this article? Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

These are the comments....In March 2009, The News of the World revealed Griffiths had sexual relations in the House of Commons with a female companion who was not his wife in November 2008. At least 27 pornographic images were taken on the House of Commons estate, and 44 images were taken at a second location on the same night.When initially asked, Griffiths denied the affair and claimed the evidence had been fabricated and applied to the courts to issue a gagging order censoring the affair. When the courts lifted the gagging order, Griffiths confessed to the matter and issued an apology.

Don't forget there's another path to inclusion as an RS; if reliable sources discuss the Guido Fawkes blog's role in handling a story, then the Fawkes opinions would be notable as an actor in the story, and the blog an RS for its own views. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Third-party blogs cannot be cited in WP:BLP articles, and particularly not for contentious information such as this. Any material regarding the blog must be taken from reliable secondary sources, not the blog itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Third-party SPS, even recognized experts, can't be quoted for information about BLPs. But a third-party blog may be citable for information about an action of the British courts, which is not exactly the same thing as information about a person. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it's not citable "for information about an action of the British courts", since this one has obvious BLP implications. It's a blog, and these are BLP claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you that. The Fawkes piece uses the word "apparently" in regard to this, and it's difficult to tell whether they are using understatement or whether they were guessing as to whether such an order had been issued. On the other hand, and this is an academic question at this point, if the Fawkes blog had been served with such an order, would the blog no longer be a third party? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello,

Since Osm agha's deleting content that he doesn't like, i suggest an admin check those sources, present in this article, to this date, to assess their validity, in order to protect the page in the future. [64] Now, sources include a lot of respected Arab newspaper, additionally to the Netherlands radio. Thank you.

• I think the problem there is that most Wikipedia users can't read arabic and personally I think that if the same source can be found in English translation (for the English Wikipedia) then it could be used, but i'll wait for some admin's suggestions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, policy makes clear that non English sources are acceptable if English language ones are not available. Deleting them solely because they aren't in English is therefore wrong. However if there is doubt over the source reliability or questions over whether it really says what it's claim it does then it may be acceptable to remove it until these issues are clarified, probably with the aide of people who can read the language. Now on the this discussion, I don't see much wrong doing by Osm agha in this specific case. Most of those are either sourced to the Arabic Wikipedia themselves, i.e. WP:OR or to Google knols i.e. clearly not WP:reliable sources. Only one looks like it could be a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Osm agha made a mistake by citing vandalism as the reason for the revert. However, النول edit is biased. "The Arabic Wikipedia is considered by many Arab journalists as the worst of all of the Wikipedias", that is an absurd claim. Those journalists did not check the wikipedias in all languages because they cannot read it. Sole Soul (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they can't read other languages? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I can read minds. Sole Soul (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sole, i just reported what was said in the Arabic news (it's the Worst). I had once, an israeli article written in English, lost it, but fine, i'm satisfied with the discussion here, hope Osm agha, won't change it! --النول (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After I read the source you've cited, it is clear that you had misrepresented what it says. The translation is roughly:

"The conclusion of the participants in the Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria is that the Arabic Wikipedia is the weakest of all Wikipedias. This conclusion is not surprising, after years of its establishment the number of articles does not exceed 65000 articles, which is low compared to the English language version (2.5 million), Or Polish (560 million), and even Esperanto"

Apart from the obvious mistake about the number of Polish articles, the context of comparison is clearly among major languages, because the reason cited is the number of articles and we have a lot of languages with less articles. Second, it says weakest, not worst. Third, the opinions is that of the participants of WM 2008 not journalists. Sole Soul (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So, this is a dispute over the translation then, not over the reliability of the source. Done. Take it to dispute resolution or open an WP:RFC and invite members of some Arabic-related WikiProjects to chip in. Mind, translations can sometimes run afoul of WP:OR in these situations, so take care with the translation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. The mistranslation by User:النول was made in purpose not by mistake. He was banned before in both arabic and english wikipedias (not this account). Since that time, he was trying to misrepresent the facts about Arabic wikipedia. This seems very childish but unfortunately it's the truth. I won't have any discussions with this user anymore because I have already done this before and it was a waste of time. To find out more about this issueو you can review the edits of his previous sock puppets (Retrospectiva 3, Riyadi.asmawi, Stayfi.Co2, Stayfi) and Talk:Arabic Wikipedia/Archive --Osm agha (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion/Editorial; Washington Times

Is it acceptable to reflect an editorial that indicates the opinion of The Washington Times? What I have in mind is this editorial for the Lloyd R. Woodson article. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are simply the opinion of the author, not necessarily those of the publication. Unless the editorial specifically says it is the opinion of the publication, treat it as just the author's personal opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. That editorial says "By THE WASHINGTON TIMES". Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editorials in a newspaper are actually the opinion of the publication itself/editorial board. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Food and Chemical Toxicology

What do you think about the reliability of "Food and Chemical Toxicology"? The journal describes itself as "The Journal's editorial policy reflects the need for high-quality science in support of health and safety decisions. FCT is willing to consider papers of a more regulatory nature,". Read: Lobby.

I can't find which association publishes but (the main editor, Joseph F. Borzelleca, is the president of a company "Toxicology & Pharmacology, Inc"[65] also/formely known as "ToxPro", whose email was "toxpro@aol.com" and used to provide consultancy to the Tobacco Industry, like in this email to Philip Morris. And others: [66]--Nutriveg (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about the reliability of this journal, but I find your argument to be mostly guilt-by-association. The list of editors seems to be widespread academics and medical school professors. Are they of questionable reliability? Also, it might be a good idea to determine whether the journal is peer-reviewed or not. I notice that you have already removed all references to this journal before anyone has even responded to your concerns. Wouldn't it be best to wait, rather than immediately removing them all? Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about, if the editor in chief used to help the publishing of articles favorable to Tobbaco companies, and that same company is still providing services. How can say that Journal review process is reliable?

The editor in chief is the one which ultimately decides which reviews, and consequently which articles, are pertinent (to publication).

I'm being WP:Bold and most of these citations have medical claims, so find a better source if you mind about them.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if the editor has a connection to tobacco companies, it's a huge stretch to say that anything ever published in a journal he edits (even research unconnected to tobacco) is automatically unreliable. Also, are you certain that he has always been the editor of this journal? What if the papers you are removing references to were published under a different editor? I just think it's prudent to have something more concrete than your suspicion before unilaterally deleting a whole bunch of referenced content. Deli nk (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

There's no half-reputable Journal, it's for sale or not. Find a better source and move along. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made no substantive argument whatsoever that the journal is for sale. Why do you want me to move on? You brought up this topic here, so you should at least allow for a response. Or was your mind made up before you came here? Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I provided enough references. But if you want more, what about it being published (same ISSN) by BIBRA International (formerly British Industrial Biological Research Association), a consulting company that says to be "one of the most experienced and successful hazard and risk assessment organisations in Europe, and the most effective one-stop shop in the field of desk-based toxicology in the world today. We believe, unequivocally, that we should be your partner of choice in addressing all your requirements in the field of chemical risk and hazard assessment"--Nutriveg (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That starts to look like useful information to help assess the neutrality of the journal. If Food and Chemical Toxicology is in fact published by a consulting company that is in the business of advising companies on regulatory hurdles, I think there would be a conflict of interest. I'm not sure that rules out use of the journal in terms of WP:RS, though. (I often use consumer advocacy websites as references, for example, and they clearly have a bias). Deli nk (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher of the work. All three can affect reliability." Publisher is not reliable, so the source isn't.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As a layman, there is no medical wisdom I can contribute here. I reverted Nutriveg's deletion from Migraine due to its lack of a good explanation, we often see such edits by those with an axe to grind, and perhaps I misread it. Looking at the state of the discussion here, it seems premature to be chopping references to that source from the whole of Wikipedia. What happened to consensus? --CliffC (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"When editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, the process of reaching consensus is furthered". I didn't edit a page more than twice. We have a guideline about being WP:BOLD not one of requesting authorization prior to editing. I remember it's the one adding or restoring content that carries WP:BURDEN so one better hold the reasoning to keep the information before restoring instead of just assuming bad faith.--