Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 110

←

Archive 114

→

Mohamed Al-Fayed

Last July, I rewrote the Mohamed Al-Fayed article, and it was reverted in October, a discussion followed on the BLP [1]

Over half of the 141 references I found were from a single source, a 1998 biography of Fayed by Tom Bower (Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography, Macmillan, 1998, ISBN 9780333745540), I also referenced Maureen Orth's 1995 profile of Fayed for Vanity Fair [2] more than twenty times.

I would like to know if these two sources could be considred reliable for a BLP. Due to the large number of references, is it actually expident for me to list everything I would like to reference by these two sources to see if they could be considered reliable? Here is a link to a revious version of the article, which used these two sources [3] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Books by journalists meet rs. Academic writing is preferable if available. The fact that a source is not neutral is no bar from using it. RS relates to the reliablity of facts not the neutrality of the source. TFD (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding more/better sources might be a better way of improving article than trying to question these ones?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main biographical research on his life was conducted by these two writers. Bower's book is still the only book written on the subject. I am not questioning the reliability of these two sources, but seeking input as the sources were so needlessly attacked in a BLP discussion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Heinz Neumeyer

Recently an author named as Heinz Neumeyer was given as source to debated issue from German-Polish relations. Since the author was unknown to me, I checked what are his credentials. It appears that this author is very extremist:

This publication "Friedrich II. von Preussen: Leistungen und Leben eines grossen Königs, by Gerd Heinrich (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2009

mentions him: and includes works by historians such as Heinz Neumeyer, which follow the well-trodden paths of German inter-war and Nazi Ostforschung.

East European Quarterly / Fall, 1996 20th century AD by Edmund Spevack has this to say about Heinz Neumeyer

"Some historians formally or loosely associated with the West German Bund der Vertriebenen (League of Expellees) organization, such as Heinz Neumeyer in his recent work on West Prussia, still claim that Polish responsibility for the origins of World War ll was much greater than that of Nazi Germany. Despite Neumeyer's claim to objectivity in the introduction, his work on West Prussia is filled with exclamation marks, heavily biased in its selection of facts, and highly combative in tone. Neumeyer argues that the Polish threat before 1939 was so great that the Germans were bound to counter it militarily" furthermore

"he and his peers seem more like Heimatforscher who are driven by anger and frustration than serious scholars aiming at an objective stance. They represent a continuity of German nationalist writing from the early 1900s into the 1990s, and do not clearly reject the highly aggressive tone of the 1930s described in the sections above. Neumeyer is also arguing very much on the fringes of scholarly German historiography"

"In La recherche dix-huitiémiste: raison universelle et culture nationale au siècle des Lumières"

by David Avrom Bell, Ludmila Pimenova, Stéphane Pujol, International Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies H. Champion, 1999 We find statement that "This is the simplistic argument of authors like Hans Neumeyer (op. cit.), who relies on outdated and ideological works by Ostforschung-historians such as Paul Simson and Erich Keyser"

Keyser by the way was connected to Nazi movement, a member of NSDAP since 1st May 1933(:German scholars and ethnic cleansing, 1919-1945" by Ingo Haar,Michael Fahlbusch and Neumeyer writes "he actively propagated nationalist ideas within the public sphere") Neumeyer graduated in 1941 under him, he relies heavily on his works.

Karin Friedrich in book edited by Matthias Weber called "Preußen in Ostmitteleuropa

Geschehensgeschichte und Verstehensgeschichte" names Neumeyer publication as belonging to outdated "Ostforschung" against any source sense reality, with vocabulary influenced by volkisch ideology and "politically motivated" creation of legends(I can provide the quote upon request).

Zapiski historyczne: : Volume 62 Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu. Wydział Nauk Historycznych - 1997 (Historical briefings, Science Society in Toruń, Historical Sciences Department)-names Neumeyer as known for anti-Polish stance.

The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772 Karin Friedrich - 2006 writes following: "for an unscholarly, anti-Polish and anti-Catholic view, see Heinz Neumeyer"

There are more examples, which I could give(such as calling Poles barbaric, or Polish culture non existent etc). But I believe these to be enough.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist

Since Neumeyer is widely accepted as presenting extremist views, using outdated terminology and bases his work on Nazi Erich Keyser, I believe that he is not a reliable source for history of Polish-German relations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The same author cited by Molobo (Karin Friedrich) pointed out in her review (The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 158-161) on Handbuch der Geschichte Ost- und Westpreußens. Von der Teilung bis zum Schwedisch Polnischen Krieg, 1466-1655 that Heinz Neumeyer, one of the book's authors, demonstrated "more emotional involvement than is healthy for a scholar to be taken seriously". She also noted that "apart from many inaccuracies and factual mistakes (for example, contrary to Neumeyer's assertion, the cities of Royal Prussia rejected diplomatic advances from Lutheran Sweden in the two Polish-Swedish wars, p. I63), the language of national prejudice and anachronistic references to 'German Volkstum' do nothing but disservice to the project of Polish-German historical co-operation."

Therefore, although this author is hardly an extremist sensu stricto, he should be treated as fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The review in a highly credible journal for Central and Eastern European history amounts to a demolishment of the purported historian's credibility in any sense. FRINGE beyond any need to address. So tainted that it should not be used. See WP:HISTRS for how to locate appropriate sources, and why FRINGE works of this nature should be excluded. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Neumeyer is off course an outdated source and one might call his theories FRINGE, however Teutonic takeover of Danzig (the origin of this dispute) in its current state uses e.g Jędrzej Giertych, a right-wing politician who was "expelled from the emigre National Party because of his extremism and antisemitism" while living in his London exile. Giertych also believed the "Solidarity to be a disguised communist movement dominated by Jewish Trotskyites". Similarly out of date is Raphael Lemkin's book (Axis rule in Occupied Europe), published in 1944, which deals with WWII not with the medieval history of Gdansk. If we use nationalists like Giertych we should also portray "the other side" in a neutral (clearly attributed) way and which views are modern and which are not. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.:I won't be able to respond until Sunday and I think the discussion should take place at "Teutonic takeover" talk.

Ummm, the way I recall it, I actually tried to remove Giertych from the article because he IS in fact an unreliable source, but the removal was reverted by another editor who seemed to want to keep the extremist Giertych in there just to discredit a particular view by associating it with extremism (i.e. because extremist person said something similar, the fact that a lot of non-extremist people said it as well, casts doubt on it). By all means, let's dump the Giertych source! (Lemkin on the other hand is fine) Anyway, this is classic WP:OTHERSTUFF.VolunteerMarek 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I am the one who introduced Neumeyer as a source to the Teutonic takeover of Danzig article, I want to clarify a few things:

Neumeyer is used there exclusively in a section of attributed, recently published views on how the knights took control of the town. There is no mainstream view on this, so instead of having a synthesis of the recently published sources (impossible due to widely diverging views) I decided to represent the views published during the last 20 years, under the header "Controversies," and one of these recently published views is Neumeyer (1993).
Neumeyer's views on certain issues in the Polish-German relations are imho out of line. However, Neumeyer is a much-cited historian, many authors rely on (parts of) his works and reference them in their own books. It's not like he is only known for some strange theses - he has done a lot of solid, scientific work, too.
Hans Georg Siegler, another author whose works on Danzig are often cited has published a similar account of the take-over, Neumeyer's views on this particular event do not stand isolated (not a WP:FRINGE issue).

As I said in the respective discussion: As much as I would be opposed to representing Neumeyer's version as "the sole truth," I think it is alright to include it, attributed, as one of the many differing views of what happened which were recently published. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated Neumeyer is not a reliable source to source anything, besides outdated Ostforschung research or his views in separate article. If you don't see other authors used in the article as reliable than start a suitable thread on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As to " much-cited historian" thats completely false as your link leads to simple search for his name, including books by himself or simple rejection of him as author for example: Man könnte das Buch von Heinz Neumeyer als ein Mißverständnis, als Anachronismus ansehen, enthielte es nicht die zitierten, tatsächlich skandalösen Stellen. Jahrbücher für Geschichte OsteuropasOsteuropa-Institut München "One could see the Book from Hein Neumeyer as misunderstanding, anachronism, if it didn't contain scandalous cites". So your claim is entirely out of place as the so called cites could be cites showing noreliable, unscholarly research. Which is understandable since Neumeyer uses in his book publications by Nazis from Nazi Germany-which have no place on Wikipedia besides specific articles dedicated to this. "Hans Georg Siegler, another author whose works on Danzig are often cited" that's a poet born in 1920 Gdańsk, who studied in 1942 "Reichsuniversität Posen" established by Nazis, not a historian or historic scholar. Besides, if you have reliable sources, use them, not ones using Nazi publications and attached to Ostforschung. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in keep in mind that even fringe authors can be used as sources for their own opinions if those opinions are notable and well-known. If this person is frequently cited as being an example of a well-known but extreme position then he could potentially be cited in that way - but obviously not as if he was mainstream. The point is that reliability is context-sensitive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way that Neumeyer could be used in this particular article is if the readers are also given information about the nature of his work - that it is extremist, full of inaccuracies and uses the language of national prejudice, etc. So yes, we could say something like "according to the extremist nationalist German historian Neumeyer, whose work has been criticized for its inaccuracies and emotional use of prejudicial language etc. etc. etc...". But that's about it. Otherwise we'd be purposefully misleading the reader but presenting fringe works as mainstream.VolunteerMarek 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with describing fringe views of Neumeyer in article about Ostforschung, Nazi Keyser who influenced him, or him himself. However it is clear that a un-scholarly publication using Nazi sources can't be used as reliable source for events in Polish-German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see specific claims that were attributed to the author in question. It seems he is likely biased on issues of Polish-German history. If no other sources provide certain facts, it is possible he may be of some use, as long as all parties agree those facts are neutral (say, for example, a specific date, or the name of a military commander, or such). But overall, I'd strongly advise against using him. Further, for reference and reader-beware, we should likely have an article on Heinz Neumeyer, he may not be reliable, but he seems notable (like any reasonably published author). I'll see if I can stub something. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can re-state my point in a more extreme way in order to avoid misunderstanding: even Hitler can be quoted in Wikipedia. To cite him as mainstream would be another question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, citing Hitler's opinions for history would be an abomination against the concept of an appropriate source for an appropriate claim. Discredited historians do not get to have an opinion worth noting, even as FRINGE, in an article on the object of history. Perhaps in "Conspiracy theories regarding object," where we can use the reviews demolishing such a person's claim to make historical claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That is correct for the extreme example I used. I am not sure if this case is quite so extreme. It seems from the quotes given that this person does get some comments about him as if he at least needs to be addressed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that I removed the sentence about Neumeyer from the article in the afternoon [4] to not waste any more time on this. However, I am concerned that creating an article with the prose consisting only of the worst criticism he received is not the way to go, even if I endorse the criticism. Afaik Neumeyer is still alive and WP:BLP and WP:BLPSTYLE need to be observed so it does not turn into an attack page. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to expand the article. He is notable, but sadly it appears that most of the mentions of his work I am finding are quite critical. Perhaps German language sources are more forgiving of his works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is unknownmisandry.blogspot.com a reliable source?

There is a dispute over whether Vera Renczi was a real person. Recently an IP and an account have been addeding [5] to the article. Another editor and I have reverted but the blog has been reinserted. A very similar IP has also been adding it, but that might be just the same person with a dynamic IP. I can't see how this is a reliable source and in any case how does it source 'dubious' and "No local newspapers featured the case, which is probably because the story was made up.". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. WP does not need non-RS sources for any articles. Collect (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Monachos.net by M.C. Steenberg

Could I please get some opinions on the suitability of the above-mentioned website as a source for Eastern Orthodox history? I notice it is used in some of our articles such as Fifth Council of Constantinople, and I was thinking it could be useful for improving the theological section of Potentiality and actuality which is an article I was working on - theology not being something I know heaps about, but I did want to get that section more up to standards. I have already conducted some basic googles and this author seems to be qualified to some extent and fairly often mentioned by others, but I would like others to comment if possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't explored enough of the site to comment fully, but Irenaeus (M. C.) Steenberg, who runs it, is a published and accredited scholar in Patristics (brief bio here; book Irenaeus on creation, 2008; article in Vigiliae Christianae (see JSTOR) 2004 which was reviewed in Gnomon). So I guess his own online work would pass our test. It looks a very useful site. Andrew Dalby 10:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another primary source question

I've been challenged on this text by Amadascientist:

Adbuster's July 13 blog post was titled with the hashtag "#OccupyWallStreet"^[1] The tag slowly started seeing use on social networks, beginning with Twitter.^[2]

^ #OCCUPYWALLSTREET A shift in revolutionary tactics Original 13 Jul 2011 Adbusters blog post which started Occupy Wall Street
^ "From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world". Brisbanetimes.com.au. 2011-10-19. Retrieved 2011-11-24.

What's being challenged is the use of the Original 13 Jul 2011 Adbusters blog post which started Occupy Wall Street to reference the claim that said blog post was titled with the hashtag. The secondary source points to the primary source, and says it is in fact the original blog post. B^e——C_ritical 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you asking if you can use the original blog post instead of the secondary source? If that's the case the answer is no, because the claim is about the hashtag and the primary source doesn't make any claim about the hashtag. If you are asking if you can include the primary source along with the secondary source, then I think that should be ok provided the secondary source clearly identifies the primary source. Betty Logan (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the situation this: look at the primary source [[6]. Note the headline. Look at the two words in the article text "titled with." Those two words are sourced only to the primary source. Amadascientist's challenge is actually that no secondary source says it was included in the title. I am using the primary source to say titled with. B^e——C_ritical 05:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The secondary source doesn't explicitly make the claim that the post was actually titled #OccupyWallStreet, even though the primary source indicates it was. It clearly has that title now but at the same time there is nothing to say the original post wasn't edited at a later point, so technically you shouldn't use the post as it is now as a primary for what it was then. Why not just emulate the secondary source you currently have and state Adbuster's July 13 blog post carried the hashtag "#OccupyWallStreet"? Betty Logan (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're saying they might have changed it and not changed the date? Then this is actually about the medium, not whether or not it's a primary source. I would understand the need in that case. B^e——C_ritical 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Book source

I made an article for the book Reason in the Balance, but the sources were not considered reliable or not enough to justify an article.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Portillo (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there isn't currently an article on the book, how are we supposed to comment on whether the sources are reliable for whatever they are being cited for? Judging by past history, [7] and without going into the details, it seems that there was a consensus (back in December last year) to redirect 'Reason in the Balance' to the author's biography - and nothing seems to have changed since. To justify an independent article, we'd have to establish notability for the book - and as was pointed out on Talk:Phillip E. Johnson, you don't seem to have done so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see the original article by going here and checking the history. Portillo (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We can. Looking at this, I can see no reason whatsoever to suggest that a merge wasn't appropriate. The sources cited show that (a) the book exists, and (b) that Christianity Today liked it. This appears to me not to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books), by any reasonable interpretation. Can you explain why you think it does? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to get someone elses opinion. Thank you for your help. Portillo (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. There is scant information on this book in reliable sources except that it exists and that Christianity Today likes it. Not very much here to build an article on, nevermind establish notability. The merge to the author's bio is well justified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Coasterpedia, also known as Roller Coaster Wiki as reliable source?

KoopaTroop and I both think that Coasterpedia should be a reliable source. He and I both work there, and know that all information is carefully found and written. Also with several users, the content is constantly being checked. Ruler of Coasters Talk 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki wouldn't be used as a source (in-article citations), so this is probably the wrong place to bring this up. KoopaTroop (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is an open wiki then I do not see how it can meet WP:RS. But why use a wiki? There are no shortage of sources for roller coasters[8] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:COI Roger (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikis and other user-generated content are never RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikis can't be used as reliable sources. Instead, use published sources to describe roller coasters. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag Institute && Template:Flag Institute

It appears some editors are using these above organisations as arbiters of what is or is not the valid flag of counties. However as The conditions for inclusion in the Institute's UK Flag Registry are as follows: ""In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area"[4], thus excluding the Metropolitan Counties, and that the Registry includes several flags for historic counties, which were nominated after they ceased to exist and have no official status" shows it to be more akin to the Association of British Counties than anything else. The institute is being used to give credence to the the flag of Westmorland, despite the fact that Westmorland no longer exists and the group proposing it is a pressure group. While at the same time the non appearance of Merseyside in the registry is uses as justification for removing a flag which, which is used in several places in the real world, from the article Merseyside. Some of the people supporting this use have previously been involved in try to alter Wikipedia to reflect the views of the Association of British Counties as fact, within the county articles. That the Flag Institute has no legal status and actively discriminates against some extant counties, while creating flags for Counties that have long ceased to be makes it an inappropriate reference and to use it is just to swallow it's propaganda and lend it undue support.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Britons in Hong Kong

The question here is whether the British government (specifically, a footnote in a British parliamentary paper) is a reliable source for the claim that there are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong. The problem is that the source gives no explanation of how it came to this number. It's reasonably easy to see (though of course this is WP:OR) that the only way they can get this number is by including British National (Overseas) status-holders in their estimate. Only a few tens of thousands of Hong Kong people were born in Britain or otherwise have British citizenship. Which leads to two questions:

4 million people in Hong Kong's population were born in Hong Kong [9]. Many of them are BN(O)s, but they are well outside of any reasonable definition of "expatriate". It seems difficult to consider as source as "reliable" if it so grossly abuses the word "expatriate" that it would apply it to a man living in his native city. (Of the remaining 3 million of Hong Kong's population, 2.5 million were born in China. You might, in a fit of POV, describe them as "Chinese expatriates", but certainly not "British expatriates".).
The source in question, the British Parliament, has a clear incentive to present a slanted view of the issue in order to avoid criticism over human rights issues. These people whom they call "British expatriates" do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, precisely due to the vote of that same Parliament in 1981. The United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights precisely in order to avoid giving BN(O)s the right of abode in the United Kingdom [10]. The UNHCHR has criticised the British government on precisely this point, describing British nationality law as "reveal[ing] elements of racial discrimination" [11]. Again, in my view this shows that the source, whether deliberately or otherwise, is trying to be misleading, by describing Hong Kong people as "expatriates" of a country (Britain) in which they have no right of freedom of movement.

Please see the background discussion at Talk:Britons in Hong Kong. Thank you 61.18.190.15 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

we shouldn't be using primary sources here, and we certainly can't use 'webcache.googleusercontent.com' as a source at all. Having said that though, the rest of your arguments are WP:OR. And instead of asking us to trawl through an article talk page, can you please let us know what is being cited for what? Agreeing that "the British Parliament has a clear incentive to present a slanted view" over something is hardly grounds for asserting that anyone else's view is less slanted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My question is very simple. The article contains a statement "There are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong". This is the statement at issue. I do not consider the British Parliament to be a reliable source for this statement, and I would like to know other people's opinions on whether it is a reliable source. The rest of my comments are my reasons why I think the British Parliament not a reliable source for this assertion: because they are not independent of the issue they are presenting. I already admitted that my comments are WP:OR --- but these comments are not in the article anyway, I am just making these comments in a discussion page in the context of trying to evaluate the reliability of a source. The webcache.googleusercontent.com --- it's just Google's auto-generated HTML version of an Excel file published by a Hong Kong government department [12]. Most people don't like downloading XLS files and firing up Microsoft Excel so I gave a web-viewable link for your convenience. It's not cited in the article anyway. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

UK government is reliable for statements like this. Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths. Consider also, though, that the UK government did not carry out the actual research, that this is something of a throwaway or aside. What to do next is to search for other sources, probably to present alongside this one, not instead of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths." An "incentive to slant information" means that no, it is not a reliable source. That it will not "publish outright untruths" does not make it reliable. - Sudo Ghost 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Most sources have a POV, but this does not make them unreliable. We can not forbid the uses of sources with a likely POV. We should use all sources with judgement. POV statements from organizations talking about their position are normally used with words like "according to".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly all sources have a point of view. But here we're not merely dealing with a POV, we're dealing with a self-published POV which is not accepted by any peer-reviewed sources. Journalists can pick and choose which government figures to believe and republish, and which to disbelieve, ridicule, or ignore. British newspapers are happy to quote the Hong Kong government's figure for the number of Britons in Hong Kong [13]. In contrast, no journalist even mentions the British Parliament's "3 million Britons in Hong Kong" figure. And for good reason: the claim that BN(O)s are Britons is "pure sophistry" (as Jack Straw put it). 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the skepticism of a source that doesn't disclose its methodology, we need (good) reliable sources if we're going to contest demographic data provided by the British Parliament. The distrust of one (or more) Wikipedia editors is not sufficient to discard this source. ElKevbo (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The government which actually runs Hong Kong conducts a census every five years. The last one (2006) found a total of 24,000 Britons, less than 1% of the British Parliament's nonsensical figure [14]. The greatest population of Britons ever recorded in Hong Kong was about 160,000 right before the handover. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing inscriptions

Hi, I was wondering whether inscriptions can be used as a source (like in Kavšek Bridge - ref no. 3; added by me) and how to properly format the reference in this case. There seems to be no mention of inscriptions in the main Wikipedia guidelines and in the Manual of Style. There was a story in the Wikipedia Signpost some time ago, but nobody has added a summary to the Wikipedia namespace. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your citation is reasonable. You need to include more information though (even if obvious from the article), about the location of the bridge. Additionally, you need to indicate the author (even if "corporate" or "institutional") of the inscription if known. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me too. There is a problem like this with things like gravestones, signs in museums, birth certificates and other places which don't fall in the usual categories easily. Just try to be fairly complete. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is using WP:Citation templates, then you can use {{Cite sign}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this source self-published?

Someone is trying to introduce extended discussion of this source into the Soviet offensive plans controversy. Does this source fit a reliable secondary sources criteria, or it is self-published?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Self-published ("Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage." & "Personal site of historian").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In looking at the article, though, the citation is really to Solonin's book and to the website. If the main source of the data is the book and the book is not self-published, then the cite would not be self-published. I have no comment on the merits otherwise of inclusion of the material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. Particularly the request for a full citation of the works under question. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published" is completely unrelated to whether a source is primary or secondary. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:Secondary does not mean independent for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we use a source that tells us 'in effect' what a newspaper said?

Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've reverted "London Times described Khadilkar as a most dangerous extremist, and his play Keechak-Wadh (??????) a cleverly veiled incitement to murder European officials" but has been replaced with: [15] "The Encyclopaedia mentions that "the London Times, in an eloquent outburst against this play, said in effect, Khadilkar is a most dangerous extremist, and Kichak Vadha is a cleverly veiled incitement to murder the European officials. It agrees with this description of the play admitting that "the article had correctly judged the obvious message of the play". The play was subsequently banned." from [16]. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got the The Times article, but the two views could be compatible. I'm guessing that the review in The Times said that the play was well written and of high quality, but also highly seditious. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which did you read? The Times or the Encyclopaedia? Cite and summarise the one that you read. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My public library subscribes to the Times archive, so I have been able to find and read the original article from 18 January 1910. The Times does not use the language and phrases ascribed to it in the comments above. The correspondent describes the play as a "pernicious influence", and outlines the plot in detail. Noting that it is an allegory, s/he explains how the play supports the "Extremists", who believe that "violent methods" will be necessary when the constitutional measures favoured by the "Moderates" have been shown to be ineffective. The correspondent regrets that the authorities cannot prohibit or prosecute the play, since this would "multiply a thousandfold" sales of the text, and concludes that "a theory evolved in the West may not fit in with the facts in the East, and it is more important to protect the lives of the officials than to give unfettered license to Extremist publicists". Unless the Times published another article attacking the play, then it did not use the language cited, though such an assessment could be read between the lines of the article. If anyone else wants to read the article, I have posted a copy online.[17] RolandR (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite the Encyclopaedia, characterise the Encyclopaedia's analysis of the meaning of the Times against the Encyclopaedia article author's name. Those quotes appear to be an indicator of voice, but not of verbatim, summary of the Times article. It may be worth citing and quoting elements of the Times article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

no, I would use only the actual article, unless you want to add the Encyclopedia one as its comment on the article. "Read between the lines" and "in effect" mean, "this is not what was said, but what I think was meant". It is an interpretation of the Times, and of no authority as against the original. The London Times said what the London Times said. It did not say he was a dangerous extremist, and he cannot be described as such on the Times's authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. As I note above (twice), the Times does not say what was claimed. Since we know that the source cited misrepresents the Times, we should not regard it as reliable, and should omit it and its interpretation. RolandR (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(od)The key is "in effect", the Encyclopaedia is summarising the article, the article is quoted by Chirol[18], what everyone here seem to be doing is wp:OR, from a primary source. The Times article claims that there is evidence of incitement in form of assassinations, the article calls the playwright an "extremist publicist". My quote reads "the London Times, in an eloquent outburst against this play, said in effect, Khadilkar is a most dangerous extremist, and Kichak Vadha is a cleverly veiled incitement to murder the European officials." It says that there should be one set of laws in Britain and another in India... Gosh are we going to look at original sources to judge whether a source is reliable? Especially when we are dealing with interpretation and not objective facts such as dates etc. Update: The Encyclopaedic Dictionary(2007) is not cited as it has been flagged, it is the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature (1987) which has been cited by me. Note: Looks like Dossal et al[19] have made a factual error in that they inform that the article's by-line is "A political correspondence", the image provided seems to show that the by-line is "From a correspondent", would you declare Dossal an unreliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not "original research" to quote an archived newspaper article. In this case, we can see that the encyclopaedia misquotes the Times, and tendentiously interprets the article. We should therefore not use it as reliable a source for the content or meaning of the Times article which, I repeat, did not state what it is alleged to have stated. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"You see", it is you against a multi-volume work. Do you "see" my point? We can only edit using reliable sources. What is the basis to call The Encyclopaedia tendentious? Interpreting primary sources is bad practice. Do you mean The Encyclopaedia is a fringe source, what is your evidence? You should cite a reliable source that says The Encyclopaedia depicts a fringe view. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I quote wp:rs "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves..." (emphasis mine) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've established here that the Encyclopaedia here has established for itself a reputation for inaccuracy! Gad, this has turned into another case for why "verifiability, not truth" is a bad way to state the matter. We don't have to use the Encyclopaedia text when it is patently incorrect, and it's particularly a problem to use it in order to misrepresent what the Times said. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A few get together and trash an encyclopaedia? Kangaroo court? Apart from a clear violation of a well-established Wikipedia policy. No interpretation of primary sources", See {{primary sources}}, primary sources = original research Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But I am not interpreting what the Times said, I am reading and quoting it. The Encyclopaedia quotes it as stating something it does not state, and ascribes words to it that it does not use. It is emphatically not original research to state that the Encyclopaedia is wrong here, and thus unreliable. It would indeed be original research for me to interpret the Times article as bearing a meaning beyond the actual words it uses; but I am not doing this. If an ancyclopaedia states that the sun is green, it is not original research to say "No it's not, go out and look at it". Similarly here, it is perfectly correct, and indeed required by Wikipedia's rules, to point out that the Times does not say what has been ascribed to it. It would be a breach of policy to use the encyclopaedia as a source for the Times own words and views, when we can see that this is incorrect. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What WP:NOR actually says is that we cannot put our own research into the text, not that we cannot evaluate sources rationally. There is never an obligation to put manifest error into the text. Period. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(od)The Encyclopaedia is not quoting Times verbatim, it is summarising the Times article, why is this so difficult to understand, the Encyclopaedia states and I quote "...Times said in effect...", so it is your opinion against an encyclopaedia's summary? Take your pick. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually for the play the London Times is a secondary source and quite quotable, whereas the London Times for itself is a primary source. IMO the London Times article can be used in writing about the play. It is a good source. Please go ahead, I can safely say that there isn't anything in the article that would contradict the summary. In the mean time please help find reliable sources so that the fact refimprove tag can be removed.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. See this summary of when newspaper stories are likely to be secondary. For Wikipedia's purposes, a 100-year-old review of a play is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a mixed source that contains both primary and secondary material, or perhaps a largely primary source. (It is also an WP:Independent source and a non-self-published source, but those characteristics have nothing to do with whether it's a primary or secondary source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas2186 possibly falsifying references

Original thread now archived at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references.
Ongoing workpage at User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. Editors are invited to help with sourcing and article text. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider

What do you think about this as a source? It's by Henry Blodget, co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief of Business Insider. It's this Henry Blodget, who is "a frequent contributor to the magazines Slate, Newsweek and New York." Others are better at evaluating such things. It has a lot of valuable information. B^e——C_ritical 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why Henry wouldn't be a reliable source. And those graphs are rather disheartening. Silver seren^C 17:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's got some things going for it, but I'm not sure how strong Business Insider will be if challenged... You think it is strong? There is a lot of info there which I could use in an article. I can't easily get it somewhere else because to avoid OR I need a source specifically connecting the statistics to the Occupy movement. But I don't want to write it up and have it torn down because of the source. B^e——C_ritical 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern in regards to the sort of oversight for accuracy this publication might have. I was unable to find references to an editorial board. The articles are interesting, they seem seriously researched, but I could not find a fay to determine whether they are checked for factual accuracy. They carry a very strong point of view: this is not damming, but because of it, they should also be accurate. If this source is used, I would recommend following WP:RSOPINION and using what it says as a statement of opinion, rather than fact. Then, whenever possible, look for additional reliable sources that support the same statements. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't require an "editorial board", but you'll find their editors named on their masthead, exactly like you'd expect for any periodical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a library catalog page proof of a PhD?

This discussion appears to have run its course, and is starting to run madly off course. Unless there are additional sources on this issue which require discussion, there's no need to continue this thread. At this point, no reliable source has been presented which identifies Pellegrino as holding a PhD degree from VUW. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

This is both a BLP issue and a sources issue, and I apologise for raising it at BLPN and then here, but I was sidetracked by the editor's accusations of violating BLP and hadn't focussed on the sourcing. This relates to the biography of Charles R. Pellegrino who does not claim to have a PhD but who evidently claims to have been awarded one and had it stripped from him. Recent sources which appear to be reliable have the University vice-chancellor denying that it was ever awarded, but these have been removed from the article on the basis of a library catalog page about his PhD thesis (which nobody denies was submitted). The catalog page is at [catalog entry ] and if you look at Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino you will see a detailed argument by the editor (who I think has just been editing logged out, I'm sure inadvertently). The editor is using this to remove the university's statement that Pellegrino was never awarded a PhD, saying that the sources used are not reliable. See the revert at [20] to see those sources. The editor went to WP:DRN where xe got no support. Ze added a claim that Pellegrino has a PhD but didn't source this, saying that it doesn't need a source because the articles for Carl Sagan and Isaac Azimov (neither BLPs nor cases where their PhD was disputed) don't have sources. I think before we can settle whether there are BLP violations (and the editor is making very bitter accusations against other editors) we need to settle the RS question. I'll mention this at WP:BLPN where I'd started a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be a very good source. The library I worked in took great care to distinguish the dissertations that had been awarded a Ph.D. from the ones that hadn't; I'd imagine that all university libraries would take that trouble. The only point of doubt in my mind is, did the designer of the database form (which is what we see when we go to that page) understand that this precise question would be asked?

Can someone else go to the catalogue page and open the dissertation itself? It won't open for me. Did you try that, Doug? I'd expect it to begin with a dated statement that the degree was awarded. If that doesn't help, then I suppose, for absolute certainty, one would do the old-fashioned thing and ask the library. Andrew Dalby 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, from your remark, I take it that you also have gained some respect for how libraries handle such documents. Research Archives are even more careful, by some order of magnitude. But I have also seen the other part of the process, the one that gives you hesitation over the design of the database form. My experience, actually sitting in on meetings of graduate affairs committees about the form of the records and the design of the databases, was incredibly boring - it went on and on, through many meetings (for years, though I only attended a few). Every detail, of hardware, software, output, forms, which item preceded which item, ad nauseum...was hashed and rehashed. IT people were there. Library specialists were there in many flavors. Everything from the ethics of shelving (should a dissertation on homemaking and the role of women as family support members, go next to a volume on empowering women, even if the catalog order put them there?), to the font variants on the title covers got the third-degree. Sleeeeeepy time, I tell you. So I think we can put that aside, unless NZ is some how very sloppy. But I see no reason to think so. Redslider (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not a library catalog is an adequate source, it certainly lacks the authority to trump inclusion of a flat statement from the school; the discussion of the matter in the NYT is notable, reliably sourced, and worthy of inclusion. The fault I see here with the catalog citation is that it's a primary source which requires interpretation, thus constituting original research and the synthesis of all these sources into a conclusion about whether the degree is awarded. It seems to me that WP:NOR was constituted to forbid the kind of second-guessing which is taking place here. we are not investigative reporters. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, first place, the catalog, technically, is a secondary source. It can be put together from a dozen or more primary sources (slips of paper with signatures, approvals, signoffs...etc.) that are then put into final form as catalog descriptions by the archivists. More important, is that the secondary source here is the research library archivist (the co-ordinator of that department, in fact) who confirmed that the record indicates "all degrees conferred." And he is the one in the room (not the VC or even the Chancellor) that has the expert credentials to do just that. It's what allows us to employ sourcing at all, that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy providers of accurate information. The archivist is the real source here, and a much better one than the NYT or even tertiary quotes from VC's by reporters who specialize in business economics reporting and Home&Garden features. Contrary to some popular opinions the NYT, AP and other so-called "reliable media" do not vet or fact-check all of their articles, and then they may do so only in pro forma fashion (have we forgotten the 'WMD goose chase' that got us into a war, and the "fact-checking" media that didn't much fact-check anything?). It is always better to keep in mind what a good source really is, than to blindly apply some formula and simply declare something a "reliable source" because it fits into some predefined category. I think some of these discussions tend to forget that. Redslider (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Opened ok for me. It's very short, 24 pages not including references, and all it says is "Submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Zoology at the Victoria University of wellington. 22 September 1983". And according to the New York Times (but before this catalog entry perhaps) "He submitted a thesis which in the unanimous opinion of the examiners was not of a sufficient standard for a Ph.D. to be awarded,” Mr. Walsh said. “Following complaints from Pellegrino, an investigation was carried out by the University. In 1986, Pellegrino appealed to Her Majesty the Queen. The case was then considered by the Governor-General who disallowed the appeal. Accordingly, Pellegrino was never awarded a Ph.D. from Victoria and therefore could not have had it stripped from him or reinstated at a later date." Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict -- sorry, Mangoe and Doug, I haven't read your latest yet:] Continuing to think about this ... The conflicting sources -- the library catalogue and the NYT report -- are very high grade reliable sources on this, by our definition. The fact that they disagree is notable, and therefore an editor who wants to delete all evidence of the disagreement would be mistaken. In whatever way the issue of fact may eventually be resolved, there's surely no reason why we shouldn't refer both to the catalogue and to reliable newspaper reports.

But the NYT report is only reliable for the fact that the University claims he doesn't have their Ph.D. It isn't reliable for the story of the appeals etc. That's just stuff in quote marks. Andrew Dalby 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just emailed the library, but they've gone to bed and won't get up till Monday. I'll say if I get an answer. What I'm doing is OR, Mangoe, you're quite right, but I'm not going to report it on a Wikipedia page! Actually the library catalogue page is a secondary source: the primary source would be an announcement by the University registry. Andrew Dalby 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that Redslider had already done this, and been assured that the database details should be "taken at face value", so I may merely have wasted their time by asking again ... Ah well. Librarians are nice people. Andrew Dalby 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A librarian replied at WP:BLPN - must have missed my request to post here. I've asked them to copy it here but you might want to take a look. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A library catalog page is proof that a book (or other medium) has been cataloged at the library at one time. It's not proof of much more. This is a bit like asking "is the telephone directory of Beverly Hills proof that XXX is a millionaire". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless, of course, there is a specific item in the record that says a degree was conferred (not merely that a "thesis was shelved"); and, a reliable and trustworthy second source verifies that, indeed, "all degrees are conferred". And that is what we seem to have. Certainly that is sufficient to immediately remove all material in the BLP that would infer that the person did not have their degree, and to indicate, without qualification, that a degree was conferred. Certainly, you don't believe we should continue to malign Pellegrino by suggesting otherwise in his BLP? Redslider (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments from BLPN:

Librarian here. I don't think this catalog record should be taken as evidence of anything other than that he wrote a doctoral thesis called The Role of Desiccation Pressures. Catalog errors are quite alarmingly frequent and I find it difficult to imagine a cataloger would ever check graduation records or call registrars to verify a student's degree status. All they know is they got a doctoral thesis, so they put it on the shelf. The only exception to using catalog records as sources would be from archives/special collections where they do extensive research on the items they are preserving that are of historical or other value. (Some library special collections also house copies of theses, but that doesn't mean they do this kind of research.) Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: so I shouldn't have taken the TL;DR approach because there's quite a bit more to this than I assumed initially. The New York Times quotes the university as saying there is no doctorate, so there is no doctorate for our purposes, period. A catalog record can not be used to override a gold-standard secondary source getting its information from the best possible primary source. A big "doctoral degree controversy" section like this one is inappropriate, but this can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything Gamaliel says but not with the conclusion :) The controversy "can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion". Andrew Dalby 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

No, a published thesis is not evidence PhD was awarded.

A published thesis is evidence that someone completed a portion of a PhD program but is not evidence that a PhD was ever awarded. My PhD thesis clearly states "in partial fulfillment...." A PhD program requires a thesis and its defense; it also has other requirements such as course work, an area exam, and (in days past) foreign language proficiency. In the typical case, a PhD candidate completes all the other requirements and the last thing s/he does is the thesis. When only the thesis requirement remains, the candidate is often referred to as AbD -- all but dissertation; many leave grad school in that position. But there are people who do it differently. I know one famous PhD (he has an article on WP) who flew through his dissertation but had ignored some other hoops. He got millions in DARPA funding for his own company related to his thesis work and concentrated on that more interesting work. The university wouldn't give him his degree until he took a couple more courses. He eventually took the courses. So even a completed and successfully defended thesis is not evidence that a PhD was awarded.

The Chancellor's statements suggest that the candidate wrote his thesis but failed the thesis defense. Failing a defense happens.

A failed defense could be consistent with some sourced statements (I'm not happy about a source from "blogs.nytimes...") if "stripped" is viewed as "discarded" rather than "awarded and then revoked". We'd have the case of someone doing substantial work preparing a thesis, only to have that work discarded by the committee. But I'm not familiar with the details, so I won't take a stand on what actually happened.

There are some problems.

I would not expect a university library to publish a thesis that failed its defense, but it might happen. My PhD had to be signed by both my thesis advisor and the chairman of the department committee; I doubt the latter would sign on a failed defense, but I do not know what happens to failed defenses.

The catalog having a the statement "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis" is not a compelling statement. It's a schema type, so it may refer to a general pattern rather than this specific pattern. It does not say "Awarded Doctoral Degree". The library system is probably independent of the academic system, so it does not carry much authority.

There are some date issues in this case. Perhaps there was a successful appeal to the Crown (or some other action) after the NYT sources in early 2010 reported failure and before the library issue date in late 2011. We don't know until RSs say so.

Girx, If it were only a question of a "published thesis" and no other source of record, you might have a point (at least one to be investigated further). However, an RS more reliable than either the NYT article, or the tertiary VC source, says otherwise - One that the RS (research archivist) specifically stated with reference to the particulars provided him in this case that the record indicates that "all degrees are conferred". That plainly does not say anything about the "published thesis" (although its common sense that you have have that done to have the other state be true). According to the librarian's statement, the record indicates that the subject received their phd. (no matter what else it indicates about the thesis itself). So I think all of your conjecture (and it is only that) falls apart. The very reliable second source - the librarian in charge of the Research Archives collection says you are wrong. Your litany of other things besides a thesis which are required has no standing. Whatever the requirements at VUW, the documentary evidence, according to the librarian, says that all those matters are done, "all degrees conferred". I don't know why you seem to be having trouble with that or are second guessing the expertise of the librarian. Again, when you cite the catalog as not providing a "compelling statement", it is a reliable second source that is making the statement, not simply the document. The second source is telling us what the document means, and that is, "All degrees conferred". You may have a bunch of wild theories (someone broke into the archive and changed that particular record....) but that is of little value here, or anywhere else. We have the record, we have a good second source; one, I argue, that is better than any other we have. Your library, some other library may publish "failed thesis" (I don't know of any; well, one that shelves them in a completely different part of the library and doesn't specify them as 'published' or 'awarded'). But here, we have one in the Research Archives catalog, along with all the others that are there. The doubt rather lies on the side that its cataloging does not represent a true record, or that the subject does not have a "conferred degree".

But there is an issue in this that almost all detractors (save me, so far) have missed. I don't think anyone in these discussions, save someone with a completely different agenda than establishing the validity (or lack thereof) of Pellegrino's degree, would argue that there hasn't been serious doubt cast on the claims by those who suggest he doesn't have a degree. Given that, given even a modicum of doubt that the other sources are incorrect, would you find cause to infer or otherwise include assertions (sourced or not) that would impugn or discredit a man's personal and professional reputation? Would you find that consistent with either Wikipedia policy, or common decency? Even beyond that, I think the matter interesting in that it calls into question Wikipedia's various policies on the matter, regarding cases in which a person's character and reputation may be maligned and serious harm done to them. I know this is a topic for another venue (though I don't know where). I would argue, though, that when it involves such matters as discrediting someone personally and/or professionally, Wikipedia should require a much higher standard than simply RS from newspapers or unsourced claims by editors. An editor may find some unsourced conversation with some unspecified person at a university sufficient reason to broadcast the matter to the media and other places on their own, or to insert discrediting statements into the BLP, or undermine the subject reputation with statements such as "claims to have...". This, however, seems totally inconsistent with WP purposes and avowed interest in avoiding doing harm or maliciously injuring people. Rather, I suggest the standard ought to be, where material that might harm or impugn the character of the subject is concerned, a higher standard and degree of proof needs to be provided than simply conventional second sources; and, that this standard require an editor to consider any legitimate sources of doubt that the disparaging remarks are true, or even partially true. In all the discussions here, the assertion has been that the subject (or those in defense of him) must prove the validity of his degree. That is exactly backwards. Where then is any doubt at all (and the length of these discussions suggest there is considerable doubt) the standard should be that material should be omitted or removed immediately. I know, its an argument for another place. But that is the underlying issue in this case (along with, I suspect, some other one's as well). And, while we comfortably sit here, splitting hairs over source validity, a real person's (a living one at that) is having his personal and professional reputation defamed. I think we all should take a look up from our musty books and catalog entries for a moment, and consider what this whole matter means to the one really being subjected to it. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would examine the reliability of the earlier sources (the blog issue). I'd keep earlier statements if they were RS. If I kept the earlier statements, I would include a matter-of-fact statement about the PhD thesis existing at VUW and source it with the link, but I would not take a position whether that entry implied the grant of a PhD. If I didn't keep the earlier statements, I'd be silent on the whole issue.

Glrx (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Academic libraries make cataloguing errors all the time. Staff who perform such tasks are not necessarily highly trained professionals. Material will be transferred from written to digitised catalogues and then tranferred again to new systems. In the process nuances will get lost and simple errors made. If there were no argument about the matter the catalogue may have sufficed, but clearly there is, so it doesn't. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is one of the great shames, in my opinion, of librarianship that so many in the field view cataloging as unimportant drugework and pile it on low level employees who couldn't care less (nor do they get paid enough to care) and often have no knowledge or background in the field. So many library catalogs (including my own) are shoddy and nearly useless. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the New York Times source should be seen as a reliable source. Motojo Rich is a reporter for the Times[21], and I doubt very much that the Times doesn't exercise editorial control over its columns and blogs. And it is a fact that Pellegrino's website doesn't claim he has a PhD. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reliable, too. My point above is that the NYT doesn't say that Pellegrino went through all that appeal process. It says that the University spokesman asserted it. That's what the famed fact-checking will have checked, and we can certainly believe the NYT on that.

As to the thesis, as you and others have said above, we know it was submitted and no one denies it. So we could write and footnote all we need to, right now, and whether we can ever satisfy Redslider I doubt. Andrew Dalby 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked a little further, and I'd say that NYT does have control over Rich's blog. Furthermore, Rich wrote earlier about Pellegrino in a conventional NYT article; the blog is a follow up that would reasonably use the same standards; the article just wasn't significant enough for a conventional article.

There are some non-RS sources that have Pellegrino going into more detail about getting his PhD revoked. A fellow author, for example, published some letters from Pellegrino to her on her website. Such sources cannot be trusted.

At http://www.charlespellegrino.com/preface.htm (apparent The Last Train from Hiroshima preface for 2nd ed), Pellegrino (I presume it is his site and is therefore quotable) claims his PhD was restored in April, 2010. (Rich's NYT blog was March 5, 2010, so it would predate this restoration.) Pellegrino gives a lot of detail about the revocation (but does not source the lawsuits or his restoration).

Glrx (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. If it's true, it means there's no conflict between the NYT article (which, as you say, predates the award of the Ph.D.) and the library catalogue (which seems to have a recent date). Andrew Dalby 11:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read that piece now. Nice find, Glrx. I'd be interested to see a New Zealand Wikipedian comment on it, but I'd say, at first reading, it has the ring of truth about it. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The only real question here is whether a thesis submitted for PhD can appear on the library shelves even though it is not considered good enough for the PhD to be granted. This will depend on the local procedures in place at each location, as well as on the likelihood of administrative errors. From my experience (decades of handling PhD theses) it is perfectly possible. So to use the presence of the thesis in a catalogue as evidence for a degree being granted is an error. We might allow it in a case where where there is no contrary evidence or reason to doubt, but it certainly does not disprove explicit claims to the contrary in reliable sources. Zero^talk 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if one needs to carry out original research in the form of contacting the librarian, followed by synthesis to deduce the claimed assertion from this primary reference. I don't see that as verification by a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, Cusop and Zero, it is not the catalog entry itself that is the source - but the research archivist (in fact the person in charge of these particular archives) that is the source; a very reliable secondary source, given his expertise as a research librarian responsible for the records in question (who likely knows more than anyone else what the records are about and what they mean than anyone else, including the VC or the Chancellor, for that matter). Others are re-verifying his statement (see below) now, so we should wait for those results, too. For that matter, the catalog entry is also a secondary source as, in fact, it is the reflection of primary records (permission slips, faculty and advisor signoffs, and other primary sources from which the librarian creates the record.) You might also note, that this particular record is held in the Research Archives at VUW and the people who handle and are responsible for these documents are research archivists. Now research archives are a very special breed of librarian. You might say they are to library records, what basoonists are to symphonies - very finicky, very precise. When it comes to the written record, academics are best advised not to argue with research archivists. One is almost always certain to lose the argument. So too, with the archives themselves. These are special collections which preserve important historical information. Despite Gamiel's suggestion that the Phd catalogs are some how "less important" and subject to less care than other historical records, on the contrary, they are the repository of one of the most important parts of a universities collections. Those records underlie a university's reputation as well as its history. The Phd catalogs are the place where a university's record of success and achievement are reposited. I think it would also be a losing argument to try to call the handling of such records, let alone the regard for them, into question or suggest they are somehow handled with less care. I certainly wouldn't want to try. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the pdf copy available through the library's website lacks the signature plate. Now, granted, I don't know what the norms are in NZ, but in most US universities I'd expect to see the signed plate, especially if you're talking about a scanned version of a hardcopy (like this one is). Guettarda (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Copying to posts from BLPN here:Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I don't doubt your experiences with the matter of data entry errors. However, in the interpretation of the record in the VUW Research Archives, I directly asked the librarian in charge of processing those records if the entries (which I copied directly from Pellegrino's published record) indicated if the student had actually received their degree. Here is the part of the Talk discussion describing that communication:

the following communication from the Digital Initiatives Coordinator of Technological Services at the Wellington Library, should be helpful

In response to my question, "That is, given the follow catalog descriptors and information,

       "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis en_NZ
       thesis.degree.discipline Zoology en_NZ
       thesis.degree.grantor Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
       thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_NZ
       thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_NZ

       along with VUW publication designation, accession dates, etc.
       can one presume the student has gotten their degree?

The Co-ordinator replied with the following statement,

       In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded.
       All degrees are conferred. Some recent ones may be in before actual graduation, but they have
       all been passed. The process is that after a Thesis is passed the student must deposit a copy
       with the library before graduation.
       You can accept the Awarded Doctoral Thesis at face value."

       Michael Parry
       Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator
       Technology Services
       The Library
       Victoria University of Wellington
       PO Box 3438, Wellington, New Zealand"

I call your attention to Mr. Parry's statement: All degrees are conferred.

That's how it works at VUW. I think that is a rather unequivocal statement of the meaning of those entries from the person most in a position to know. I would also find it a bit of a stretch, while data entry errors do occur, that in the 30 years of records (from the copyright date of 1983 on Pellegrino's record) this particular one, and those particular descriptors were mis-entered. That's really playing the odds, yes? As for your accepting words quoted by a columnist of a VC on a phone call as more reliable than the written record itself seems less than prudent. Phd accession records as you know, are not like 3x5 cards in k-12 libraries. They are legal documents surrounded by a number of protection and compliance processes. It's like the difference between have the mortgage in your hand or the real estate broker telling you what the status of your home is, yes? That little catalog item is a record of a process, a completed process. (btw: i included the contact info on the librarian, so that anyone could also verify the same information (that is, I sourced it). Redslider (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR - this isn't a court of law. We go by sources, rather than by 'evidence' acquired through our own investigations. And an e-mailed answer by a 'Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator' to an abstract question isn't a 'legal document' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, AndytheGrump, it's just a direct communication from a reliable second source. And certainly more reliable than an NYT columnist, or a tertiary-sourced VC, who has no expertise in such matters and is not responsible for the management of student records, in any case, even if the VC may speak for the university on a variety of matters. On the other hand, The librarian is a solid second source, and his email is quite good for our purposes - we are trying to establish a credible fact, not creating an entry for the BLP. Btw, I notice that you are a stickler for being precise, but that you frequently use "We" in your posts as though speaking for everyone else (I'm presuming you don't intend to use the royal "We"). I think it much better to say "I go by sources" and such when referring to your own practices. Just observing. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that it doesn't appear that the librarian was told about the statement in the NYT. Any query to the library needs to be specific and to ask about the discrepancy. And my guess is that there must be someone at the University in a better position to confirm Pellegrino's status than anyone in the library. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In my query to the library yesterday (which I sent without realising that Redslider had already sent one -- apologies, but there's been a lot of discussion around here!) I did mention the report in the NYT and pointed out the contradiction. So, if someone at the Library replies to me, we may yet get a comment on that matter. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok Andrew, Doug sent a query too, and I sent a follow-up query as well. I hope others will hold off an not inundate the poor librarian with endless repeats of the same query! Let's see what the replies tell us. Btw. I would suggest that mentioning the NYT article or any other matter to a second source, tends to prejudice the matter some and make the second source a little less reliable. when the information you wish is simply a statement of fact within their expertise; not to apply that expertise to an extraneous element (which may be important to us, but not relevant to the request being made of the second source.) Purer if one just asks the source the question that is within their province to answer, and let that answer serve as it does. Otherwise, in effect, you are asking the second sources to do original research on a conflict that is outside their scope of practice. Still may be useful information, but less reliable. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I differ from you there, Redslider. Reference librarians often like to know why you're asking and it may help them to give a more useful answer. Anyway, we'll see. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I might disagree with in Doug's opening statement, but I think we're entirely on the same page about one thing; the issues involved cut across a lot of lines - sources, BLPs, and a bunch of others. Interesting, and instructive as source arguments can be, I'm electing to sit this dance out. Maybe later, I'll come back for the sheer fun of wrapping my head around the issues. But for now, I've elected to take this thing to mediation, which I've done, and see if their isn't a neutral position in this dog pile.

Like I say, source-fights are interesting. For those of you that wish to pursue this one, there's a lot of material to wade through. My take was to examine the sources given in the original BPL and ask, 1) what is the original source (and it's unsourced companion) from which all the secondary sources began? What was going on there, and why did the initiator take effort to do what they did (and describe it in the BPL as well? Then I looked at the secondary sources and asked how/why did this emerge from the initiator? How much were the secondary's contribution? I also looked at other inconsistencies and conflicts within the sources. It was an interesting tour, I hope you find it equally intriguing. Next, I went to the library record. And, of course, recognized that many entries applied to the thesis itself, true. But some others puzzled me (though, some I was familiar with from other universities). I knew what the initiator's unsourced source said (it was quoted in the BLP). And what the VC said. But there were other items in the record that didn't quite add up. So I got in touch with the librarian closest to the matter for an interpretation of the descriptors and keys (NZ being down-under, who knew for sure?). And there are other puzzles. No one has yet talked about the strange dates that appear - a 'copyright' of 1983 (that descriptor used to be called 'publication date' in the NZ catalog. I think they changed it). Then notice the accession and issue dates - a gap of 30 years. Now the VC says nothing happened "after 1986" - but something happened with that record and degree, didn't it? And then you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986 that we can guess the VC was excluding for some reason. Well, let me know if you find anything interesting. I'm sure there is, but very difficult to find. And you might wish to ask why that is so? That's about it, and I figure there are some source detectives and researchers here way better at sleuthing than I am. Have fun. Redslider (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986". Nope. We're too busy compiling an encyclopaedia based on published sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Venturing into OR, any dissertation that contains ~30 pages of typewritten text (i.e. at most half that if properly typeset) is a red flag in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, The subject of Pellegrino's thesis, its size or quality, is not at question here. Everybody seems to agree (I've seen no one disagreeing the thesis was officially accepted and filed by the university. Any questions regarding its quality or content are way off topic and not germane. For your own information, there are a plenty of Phd. dissertations much shorter than that (length has nothing to do with qualifying a dissertation). I suggest you google 'shortest Phd' or some such and see for yourself. In any case, it is not a matter for discussion here, nor relevant to his BLP. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen nobody agreeing, and the university itself seems to strongly disagree that the thesis was accepted. Indeed, PhD theses can be quite short. But at a reputable university, a thesis this length is very unusual, hence the red flag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Length is not a relevant issue (per WP:OR). But indeed no-one is agreeing that the thesis was officially accepted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN is not an appropriate venue for issues about sources and that discussion is closed (an attempt to reopen it was reverted). I've read his foreward to the second edition again (an edition apparently not published by his original publisher but as of August 2010 "will be published in four foreign countries as of this writing"[22] although I can't find evidence that happened. He says that certain publications of his had 'Dr.' restored but he doesn't seem to be saying that he officially has PhD, nor does he claim one elsewhere on his website so far as I can see. A bit odd. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, doug. I think, before this is all done, "A bit odd." will prove to be an understatement. But there's a ways to go yet. Meanwhile, the question remains, can we continue to malign the man's character in the BLP, given the degree of doubt and new material coming to light? That does real harm. Should I continue to be charged with "vandalism" or "edit war" for trying to correct the record in favor of avoiding an egregious error? Does it now seem like the prudent thing to do, consistent with WP policy, to protect the subject from harm, unless/until proof certain that he does not have is degree is offered? 71.193.56.126 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to Pellegrino's April 2010 "preface", linked (far above) by Glrx. Here's the link again. It doesn't answer all our questions, and since I'm still hoping the Library will respond to my enquiry, I would really rather not have commented yet. But, since Doug asks me to do so, I'll just say that with what's before us it seems possible that the following happened:

because of deep disputes with his examiners (and possible political ramifications) Pellegrino's thesis, although initially passed, was not awarded a Ph.D. (This has been known.)
His thesis was stored in the library, but not made accessible because it was a failed thesis. (Some libraries do exactly this, including the one where I used to work.)
he appealed and got nowhere. (This usually happens.)
his book published in the first weeks of 2010 claimed that he had gained a Victoria University Ph.D. (It was technically false, but ...)
the university, continuing to regard him as an alien species, denied his claim publicly and helped to kill his 2010 book. (This certainly did happen, on or about 2 March 2010; it's in the NYT and all over the web.)
Meanwhile, a very slow legal process of rehabilitating and compensating students who had been disadvantaged during the upheavals of the 80s was taking place. He, as an alien (a US citizen) would be the last to benefit. (This is from his preface: I don't have other evidence.)
He published his revised preface in April 2010. By this time some of those qualifications unfairly removed had been restored, but not yet his.
In November 2010, his qualification, last of all of them, was restored (as he would see it) or generously granted (as the University would see it). The University felt a bit silly and said nothing about it. (This is normal.)
The Library made his thesis available. (This seems to be true to judge by the Library catalogue, which definitely shows this date -- i.e. later than the NYT report.)

If this happens to be correct, it means that our two best sources (the NYT and the Library catalogue) are both true after all ... Anyway, if I get a reply from the Library, I'll report it. Andrew Dalby 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it actually undermines the NYT version where the VC denies the claim that Pellegrino was stripped of his degree. The secondary sources are getting considerably weaker in their contention. (Incidentally, you might wish to try to find out if/how the NYT article was actually vetted. That's very difficult to do. But I think there are some interesting things to be found there. Btw Rich's specialty is economics, and before that, Home&Garden. Not very specialized in the subject of the article.

And, thank you for this piece of work you did. I knew if some of you researchers kept digging you'd begin to find some interesting pieces in this puzzle. I can say, I've known these things (and somewhat more) for some time. Actually, from before I began questioning the Wikipedia article. But, for unrelated reasons, I have not been at liberty to use a good deal of material I have at hand. So, its been like fighting with one hand tied behind my back. Yes, the case about Charles Pellegrino's degree is "a bit odd" as Doug says. It's what happens when we become so lost in the intricacies of sourcing that we lose sight of why we source things in the first place. Maybe a lesson it that for all. Redslider (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it is possible you were right, I was thinking of that when I should have been sleeping. I will note that whatever we do, we can only cite his website, not a second edition of a book as there may never have been a second edition. His website dates the preface to April 2010 but we know that as of August it still had not been published.

But that does not leave us with usable evidence that he has a PhD. And as I've told Redslider, the article cannot claim he was a PhD without a reliable source. He is still ignoring this and deleting anything about the controversy and making the article state he has a PhD. Redslider, this is a BLP violation and your argument that some dead people whose PhDs aren't controversial prove you don't need a source is simply wrong.

Thus without a reliable source (the link to the library needs interpretation, so can't be used) we either leave the whole thing out (which is not a good ideas as it is relevant to his biography and in itself not a BLP violation) or we can perhaps mention briefly the NYT, his claim on his website, and perhaps just a link to the library after a statement such as "his submitted dissertation was filed in the library on date". But I still feel uneasy about this as I still can't find where he's claiming to have a PhD or using the title 'Dr.'. So I'm on the fence at the moment. I really hope we can find out the status of his PhD this coming week from someone at the University outside the library. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this is quite interesting -- but I assume that in the end we would not add to the article "he earned his PhD at ..." based on personal communication from the university. What would we put for a reference? It would be rather ironic for this result to come via WP:RSN, no less. If Andrew's speculations prove correct, I can see that they would throw doubt on the published sources (NYT, etc.) so that we might then leave out the section with claims and counterclaims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we can't give him a PhD in his article without something better than a link to the library page or personal communications. Without some firm evidence from a reliable source we can't do that which is why I'm annoyed at Redslider's insistence that his article can assert that he has a PhD. The issue then is whether this controversy should be in the article, and that's probably a BLP issue, not an RSN one. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My reason for setting out that possible history, and the reason why it was a good idea to bring the question to this board, is this. A university library catalogue that enumerates the Ph.D. dissertations of its own university is, in all university systems known to me, a top-class reliable source, and if this board rules otherwise on weak grounds, I think the less of this board. The NYT is worshipped as the God of reliable sources, and even I, an atheist, think it's a top-class reliable source too. So, in my view, we are going to be able to deal with this story properly on the Pellegrino page, in two/three sentences, citing two reliable sources, and get it right as well!

But, as we know, all sources make mistakes, and the apparent contradiction between sources is very striking, and that's why I've asked the Library if they've made a mistake here or if their interface is misleading. It's a reasonable question, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the contradiction is not, in the end, between the university's library catalogue and the NYT -- the contradiction is between the the university's library catalogue and the university's own VC (per statement reported in the NYT). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors here need to be aware of the thread I've started at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat by User:Redslider after Redslider posted on xe's talk page ", Wikipedia is protected by law from suits arising out of defamation or malicious intent to harm the reputation of a person, as I understand it, individuals are not so protected. It would, of course be up to the subject to decide if and how to pursue such matters. But I think some of your "several editors" ought to consider the matter. We're not just talking about "blocking" somebody from Wikipedia, anymore." Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably regret stepping into the middle of this, but as an academic with a PhD, I've looked at the relevant "thesis" and the library record and it's not a reliable source for claiming that Mr. Pelligrino has (or had) a PhD. 1) There is no signature page on the thesis. Signature pages are required for accepted theses and dissertations and are always bound up with the official copies. At every defense I've participated in, we had to sign at least two copies of the signature page--one for the official copy and one for the library copy. 2) At most universities, the official copy of a dissertation or thesis is not housed in the library, but in the Graduate School Office or other official archive of the central administration. The library copy is a circulating copy (and could be subject to loss), therefore the official copy is registered and archived in a safe, noncirculating place. 3) The central administration confers the degree after the successful defense of the dissertation. There are certainly occasions when the defense of the dissertation is not successful and a degree is not conferred, even though there may be an extant dissertation or thesis. This is why the signature page is critical, even on the library's copy. 4) The official records repository for any university is not the library, but the central administration. If we are interested in hiring a new faculty member, we do not contact the library to see if they have been conferred a degree, nor do we check the card catalog. We call the office of the central administration that confers graduate degrees. Their records are the final (and only) authority. 5) 24 pages? That in itself is highly suspicious. It looks more like a term paper. 6) Finally, the library card itself shows the history of this document. It was not submitted to the library until 2011, 28 years after the supposed conferral of the degree in 1983. Library copies are submitted at the same time as the official copy is submitted to the Graduate School office, and there is usually a 6-week deadline following the successful defense. In other words, the library card is by no means sufficient documentation to demonstrate the conferral of a PhD. on Mr. Pelligrino and the statement by the Vice Chancellor to the New York Times trumps it in spades. The Vice Chancellor, speaking for the central administration and its official records, is the definitive source here. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, I'm glad you did step in. Particularly since, as a holder of a doctorate, I think you appreciate how serious a matter it is when the validity of a persons degree is called into question. I think you might agree, where their is the slightest doubt the allegations are true, error should certainly fall on the side of the one whose personal and professional reputation is at stake. In fairness, I will say that there are some here who seem to feel that error should fall on the other side and that technical argument about WP's sourcing rules should entirely decide the matter (without saying their interpretations of those rules are correct). To your questions and thoughts:

1. On the thesis itself. I think the main point is that the thesis, its length, its format, attachments or lack thereof, etc. is of no relevance to the question we are examining, the presence or absence of a awarded degree. All you say may be true, but it is not for us to judge the thesis. That was for the University and the particular advisors and committees at VUW to do, which they apparently did. I will say that I notice the thesis was also published in "Crustaceana" Volume 47, Number 3, 1984 , pp. 251-268(18); which i understand is the leading, peer-reviewed journal in the field (though it is not in my discipline so you may wish to check on that). Yes, this is not the thesis itself, only a reprint in a journal, but its there, and of sufficient quality evidently to get such publication. Ok, hope that puts to rest your first concerns. I can speculatively account for your observations on the library copy, but its not germane, so let's put that aside;

2. On the physical location: The record we have been examining is the one in the Research Archives at VUW. If you drill down the VUW home site, you will notice there are a number of separate libraries and differently located libraries, of which the Research Archives are but one. I have seen records of Pellegrino's thesis in both the Main catalogs of the central library (likely the place where people can handle it, check it out, etc.) and, the one we are looking at in the Research Archives (and, I think, the one that would be most closely scrutinized, carefully handled and protected, given the functions and traditions of a research archive; as well as the specialization of research archivists). I think it is generally agreed by all that we are examining the record which is in the most dependable and reliable collection, so far as its accuracy and security is concerned;

3. I have no knowledge, precisely, what VUWs procedures are with respect to conferring degrees (do you?). Your observations are consistent with my own experience of universities here in the states. But for them, I just can't say. But, let us assume you are correct in the particulars. We can call the graduate registrar, or central administration and get a confirmation or denial from someone. And it is probably likely they got it from the catalog record as well. If they said they couldn't find it, and we said "are you sure? We've got good reason to believe this person was an alumnus and has their degree, could you please check again," they might well go to the special collection to double-check the matter (in this case, that might well be the Research Archive, where the more reliable record might be held, and one that is less disputable.) In the matter of sourcing, the statements of central administration are of little use (though some here have made an exception for statements quoted by a third-party in some newspaper). But the printed, published record is the source that most researches would tend to trust and use. And that appears to be the record we are looking at - the record we've seen in the Research Library catalog. Some have suggested the record is a "primary source" and, therefore, using it would constitute 'original research' or a lessor source by WP rules. Actually, the RA reccord is a secondary source as well. The primary source is actually the various documents from the School, the Department, the faculty, and various other offices of the university (perhaps the comptrollers signoff as well to insure the student had paid all fees and tuitions), which the archivist then examines to create the record (much the same as if some expert had published a book or journal article and we used that as a gold-standard second source.) So that "signature page" and other documents you speculate upon, are part of the primary source record and may not even need appear by VUW processes, and may not even be publicly accessible for all we know. Perhaps they value the signature page more, and tuck it away somewhere else. We have no way of knowing and, as I said, the format of the thesis is of no concern to our purposes;

4. Again, the primary sources may be in the central administration (or scattered in various departments and offices). They may be digitized (presumably they are, with the written documents stored somewhere else entirely). But it is still the secondary sources we are concerned with here, and those are more reliably found in the catalog (and in the Research Archive catalog in particular). When we call someone in central administration, we can't be sure if they are looking at the primary sources, secondary sources or whatever. We have know way of knowing even if they are a valid secondary source (do they really have the expertise to interpret the record and tell us what it means? Very doubtful that they do.) So here, I would disagree with your assessment that "Their [central administration's] records are the final (and only) authority." At least in so far as sourcing goes. In a dispute over the matter the written record is the final authority as provided by a reliable, trustworthy second source (at least by WPs standards). In that, I would also say that the library research archivist would trump all other second sources on the basis of expertise, professional obligation, stewardship of the record, itself, and any other measure we might apply to the reliability of the source. A university might have all kinds of reasons and motives for inaccurately reflecting the actual state of affairs (lack of expertise/training on the part of the person reporting, political or other matters of overriding concern, even distraction and other side issues might come into play). But, when the archivist in charge of the matter tells you the state of affairs, you can pretty much depend that that is the state of affairs. And that is what sourcing is about, is it not?

5. Again, the length or quality of the thesis itself is not at issues and is not relevant, no matter what it looks like to you are me (we're just doing original, speculative research ourselves in that case.) But, in addition, I've provided the source (above) of its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal of some repute. So I hardly think we have a term paper on our hands. As for length (a non-issue too) you may wish to google "shortest Phd" sometime.

6. The dates are, as I have said elsewhere, a puzzle. They concern the thesis itself and it's receipt. As I also stated before, they are not really of concern in the matter of whether the degree was awarded or not; though I will assume, safely I think, that the receipt and acceptance of the thesis had to precede the award of the degree; was a requirement. I will also note that I have viewed an older catalog of the same library in which the "date" descriptor was called "date published" and assume the research library has recently updated its descriptor nomenclature. The dates on both the old form and the new one were both 1983 in Pellegrino's record. The puzzle, of course, is why the discrepancy between that, and the accession and issue dates exists? A gap of thirty years! My first thought was to rule out the possibility that Pellegrino just happened to wander back onto the VUW campus thirty years after the fact and completed some missing requirement. As far as I can tell he left NZ not long after that period, came to the states and has resided here ever since. So, it's a mystery at the moment, but I don't think has any bearing on our sourcing questions. Well, one bearing. Presuming it made it to the library when he was still a student there, it kind of shoots a hole in the VC claim that "nothing happened after 1986" Something happened, sometime. Unless we are to believe the accession, degree award and everything else simply materialized in 2011. Some kind of Twilight Zone hypotheses, wouldn't you agree? So its a puzzle. But for another day. Outside of this discussion, certainly. I would add that the record, and its second-sourced verification, "all degrees conferred" of the archivist, entirely trumps the VC's statement. We don't know what the VC was up to and what his reasons for making the flat 'no-degree' statement he did. But that it conflicts with the record and a confirmation from a reliable second source is evident. I'll go with the second source (not to mention that the VC came to us as a tertiary source via a news report). So, double reason to exercise much caution in taking the VC's statement at face-value as reliable or trustworthy. The remainder of your observations in item 6 I believe are university-specific ones, and we have no idea of how VUW handles such things. It would take considerable original research to find out. I can't see where the answers would change anything about the question before us. I'll leave your first set of questions at that.

My conclusion, then, is that we have pretty good credibility on one side of the matter, and very weak or questionable credibility on all the sources of the other side (as well as some serious questions yet to be examined there.) The main question that remains is, do we wish to continue to risk ruining a man's personal and professional reputation on doubtful materials, especially when there is far less doubtful material, in the record and from a good second source, that the degree is perfectly valid? In that, I would maintain, that Pellegrino's degree should be accepted at face-value until/unless there is hard evidence otherwise, and that he should be treated as any other Phd on Wikipedia. Would you agree?

So, Dr. Tavio, I hope that I have successfully met and exceeded the challenge you presented. Thanks for your taking the time to think about the matter. I hope neither of us regret taking a look at it. Provided there is no thesis required, could I have my degree now? Redslider (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's so much discussion above that confusions of detail are bound to happen. This isn't the general library catalogue or [apparently] a circulating copy; it's the Ph.D. catalogue of the Research Archive. [Yes, we see it as part of the Library interface, but that would be the case at many other institutions too.] If the Vice-Chancellor spoke after the catalogue, she would probably trump it (though she would be a fool not to ensure that it agreed with her); but in this case the VC spoke earlier and the catalogue later, and that could be evidence that something changed (like the awarding of the Ph.D.) in between. The brevity is certainly very surprising, but I have seen scientific Ph.D. theses as brief as this. As you know, Taivo, we can't cite a call to the central administration on an encyclopedia page, but we can cite the catalogue, which is a secondary source.

I'm glad to see no legal threat now exists. Andrew Dalby 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

While a call to the central administration is not a reliable source, we do have two sources: 1) a library record and 2) a statement by the Vice Chancellor quoted in the New York Times. The library record, unless the university considers that to be the official repository of the central administration, is still not definitive, especially since the approval signatures are not affixed to the document, which is standard practice. It is certainly not "weighty" enough to overrule the Vice Chancellor. While it may be suggestive (as your above scenario outlines), it is simply not definitive evidence. If degrees were, indeed, being awarded 28 years after the fact in New Zealand, there should be some public record of that and a listing of the degrees thus awarded. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Unfortunately we don't have a date for the "awarded doctoral thesis". The "copyright" (formerly "publication") date, the accession and issue dates, all apply to the thesis itself. So what's the chance that the doctorate was awarded 28 years after the fact? Near zero, I'd say. And the record definitely contradicts the VCs statement as quoted in the press. I couldn't find any record concerning post-hoc awards of degrees; and a gap that long certainly should raise some flags. So the VC is shaky and the record? I'd go with that, and the archivist (don't forget them). In fact, since the VCs statement that "nothing happened after 1986" is so clearly wrong, I'd bet the degree was awarded at the same time the thesis was issued, 1983, which is the normal procedure, give or take the few days for record keeping and updates. I think one of the things we are missing here is the difference between 'authority' and 'fact'. The VC (I presume) has the authority to speak for the university. They can say anything they like, but that doesn't make what they say factual or trustworthy (though, as you point out, they'd be a fool to contradict their own records). But university presidents do that all the time (politically, its part of their job). So, while their authority may permit them the license to speak for the university, does conscientious sourcing permit us to ignore the potential unreliability of the source? Is sourcing to be attached to "authority", or to actual expertise, practice, peer-review, records fidelity and other indicators of the accuracy of the information, not simply the title and authority of the informant? What does 'trustworthy and reliable' mean?

but I am really more concerned with the other matter. And I am puzzled why no one in any of the lengthy discussions has mentioned it except me, not even when I ask directly as I have. Where sources leave serious questions, or even a modicum of doubt, is it permissible to permit those sources to be used to continue to ruin a person's reputation? Do we permit sources to be used in such fashion, under such circumstances as this? That is a fair sourcing question, too. But so far no one seems to want to address it. Some kind of hot-potato? A taboo subject? Because if that is true, that we sit on our hands and wrestle over the minutiae of sourcing evidence, and leave someone to suffer the consequences in the light of serious doubt (our own discussion is proof enough that there is considerable doubt), then I'm out of this discussion. I am only concerned with preventing what appears to be unjustifiable harm to someone. That's why I took this matter up in the first place. If we're not moving on to that, to what ought not be permissible in the application of reasonably doubted sources, I'm out of here. Redslider (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point [I add, to retain clarity in this complex conversation, that I was responding to Taivo here!]. Why the scandalous non-existence of the Ph.D. is the last relevant incident in the New Zealand press, if in fact the Ph.D. was granted soon afterwards, I can't suggest. Andrew Dalby 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that the copy that's catalogued is a circulating copy; however, the pdf that we can download would not have the signature page or record of approval that several of us were hoping to see. This page explains. Andrew Dalby 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Andrew. Apparently this New Zealand university only requires the submission of one copy, unlike most American universities, which require the submission of (at least) two copies. I would still have to stress, however, that the records of the central administration will always trump the library collection, as Mangoe noted below. --Taivo (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks too. Although I think it's of limited value. It was updated last December and I expect these processes undergo revisions frequently, perhaps several times a year. No idea what their handbook specified in 1983. Nothing like this one, I expect. We're still left with conjecture. Redslider (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did find an xls data sheet that appears to be his research summary (no personal identifier but I'm fairly certain it's his.) dates are interesting - research project seems to start 20 years before, in the '60s with latest dates in 1983 at wellington. call letters AS741 VUW PhD TZ 81 1983 . OOPS - the link seems to come up on the "WP Blacklisted sites list" don't see why, came up for me fine, xls file, no viruses. google the call letters and you should find it. Its the MarineBioblitz site. I pulled up the copy. I'm not to swift on these technical things. There seems to be a copy of the thesis in the biological science library, too. Redslider (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You waste your time thinking that people will actually read all that stuff that you post. It's repetitive and isn't convincing. It's very simple, Redslider--the central administration of every university is the repository of official student records. The only statement that has been published by the central administration of that university is the statement by the Vice Chancellor in the New York Times, a reliable source quoting the only official source of university information. That's the end of the story until the central administration publishes further information. A library card catalogue entry is not definitive--only a statement from central administration is definitive. When the two sources have conflicting information, the central administration always trumps the library. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And, Redslider, your whole notion that Wikipedia will "ruin a man's career" is completely laughable. In order to be on Wikipedia in the first place, a person must have a reputable, established career to begin with. He or she must already be notable outside Wikipedia or else we need to delete their entry. The notion that Wikipedia will somehow have an effect on their reputation is completely and totally wrong. If Wikipedia might have that affect on a person's career, then they should not be listed here. Mr. Pellegrino needs to fix the public record himself if it is that important to his career and reputation. It is not our job at Wikipedia to do the work. There is a single reliable published source concerning his PhD--it is the statement in the New York Times by the Vice Chancellor. Indeed, the card catalog entry in New Zealand is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. It is a primary source only and making assumptions from it is original research. Primary sources never override secondary sources in Wikipedia. All that primary source says is that there exists a document that at one time was submitted for a PhD; it does not verify that the PhD was ever conferred. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, do you even realize what you are saying? Do you know, for instance, that one of Pellegrino's books was pulled from the shelves after publication by a major publisher? (there were some minor errors of fact, which he immediately admitted and corrected, but a substantial reason was the doubt cast on his degree begun and sourced to an editor on his BLP and first repeated there). there is other serious damage that has been done. I'm not going to research it for you, go do your own. But the fact is, such charges, brought up here or elsewhere, can do serious damage to person's personal and professional reputation. That is why there are any number of polices and pages here on Wikipedia warning everyone to stay away from doing harm or injury in a BLP, (again, do your own research). Its why a BLP is distinguished from a BDP. The single "reliable published source" you refer to is actually a tertiary source - a quote from an unvetted article in the NYT, by a non-expert source, from another, now tertiary, source (the VC) who is not expert in such matters, may have political and other motives for making the statements he does and, in any case, is unreliable despite the fact that he may legally speak "for the university". Add to, that that there is internal contradiction (check other's statements in these discussions) in the quote from the VC, and you get a source - the one you claim "reliable" - that is virtually worthless. Nearly trash, in fact. On the other hand, you have the written record (a secondary source, actually - the primaries are the documents from which it was created by research archivists, very reliable sources), and confirmed by a gold-standard secondary source, the research librarian in charge of those records. You can't get much better than that. And, it is the research archivist who confirmed that the record shows that "All degrees are conferred" not simply that "some thesis was shelved". And you wish to prattle on that the doubtful source trumps the sterling one? I tell you, the thing that seems to be getting more questionable all the time are your remarks. They are beginning to verge on nonsense. You made some good points before; and I took pains to answer each of them with great care. But you have rebutted none of mine. You are simply parroting your original statements, plus adding a new one, equally silly. Your certainly losing your credibility with me. I haven't time to waste with such unsupportable statements. As I suggested, do your own research. Redslider (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resdidler, there is now one single, solitary source for any information concerning an alleged PhD for Mr. Pellegrino and it is the NY Times article. There is no longer an erroneous library catalogue entry for a "PhD". It doesn't exist, therefore, there is zero evidence for him having a PhD. Your "sterling source" simply no longer exists; it was only fool's gold and not 24ct as you had hoped. And Mr. Pellegrino's problems are not the result of Wikipedia. Get over it. You have convinced no one. --Taivo (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Tavio, I see your now down to complete conjectural fantasy. The original campaign of Dbrennan and his unsource is trash; the unvetted NYT (your sterling lean-to) is trash, the VC's remarks are self-contradictory, tertiary and trash; The degree is there in 1983 and disappears; 30 years later it pops up and is confirmed by the archivist (solid 2nd source); then there's a flurry of inquiries from here to the library and lo&behold, it disappears again (only it doesn't; we're just locked out of accessing now - suspicious?) and then what; oh its ad hominem attacks on me. Great, Tavio, that should convince someone. Wikipedia not involved? What do you think would have happened if Mr. Brennan hadn't run his unsourced campaign against Pellegrino in the first place? I'll tell you, Tavio, we wouldn't even be here, and their would be no trumped up invalidate Pellegrino cmapaign either. Why don't you do a little research on Brennan and find out who he pals around with - its public knowledge all over the internet - he sourced some of it right here. Then ask yourself, what kind of stake do they have in nailing Pellegrino? Check his conversations with Pellegrino, for that matter. No, that would be too obvious, wouldn't it? But your own theories are pretty much trash now. What's next, some new conjecture? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.Redslider (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider, this is getting disruptive. And your comments on Brennan & the VC are BLP violations - why don't you care as much about them as you do Pellegrino? Our BLP policies apply to every living person on every Wikipedia page. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

at this point, I can see no point whatsoever in doing anything other than telling Redslider to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. This is either pure trolling, or a total lack of clue. Either way, Redslider has proven utterly incapable of doing anything other than wasting our time over questions we shouldn't be involved in in the first place. If Pellegrino has a dispute with VUW over whether they ever awarded him a doctorate, he should argue it with them. It is none of our business to try to figure this out for ourselves. The university Vice Chancellor says it didn't, and that is good enough for us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please! can someone with the necessary WikiMojo shut down this bloody topic. I'm getting really tired of this shit cluttering up my watchlist. Thanks. Roger (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Belaboring the matter

This discussion seems to me to have passed beyond any reasonable response to the original question. The university says flatly, No, he doesn't get a degree from us. No other source could trump that; even presentation of a diploma, under the circumstances, would lead to the suspicion that the latter was faked. The only thing an entry in a library catalog can ever be strong evidence for is that the work in question once did exist. Realistically, if you got the head librarian and the registrar in the same room and presented them with these facts, nobody can seriously doubt that the former would defer to the latter. This is exactly the kind of eccentric conclusion-drawing that WP:NOR is supposed to block. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe. "belaboring" matters is exactly how questions on sourcing should be handled. You would certainly want a source you were using to have belabored the material you were using, over and over again. The more times, the more valuable the source. So too with discussions on sourcing itself. It's a very finicky subject and needs to be handled meticulously. If you get tired of the discussion, you are welcome to leave it. Nothing stopping you from doing that.

Actually, your little thought experiment has it backwards. In a matter concerning the records, the Registrar would defer to the librarian, especially if they were a research archivist, more especially if they were the person in charge of the particular records collection in question. It is the archivist who has the expertise in the matter, not the Registrar. The Registrar might head out to the front-desk to inform the person asking the question, but it is the archivist who had the information and could properly interpret it and relay it. But, let me put another thought-experiment back at you. If you were at a meeting of the graduate committee in charge of overseeing matters of procedures and records and you were discussing matters concerning the handling of those records, their forms, the meanings the processes of creating them and so forth, who do you think would be more likely to be at that meeting, the archivist from the research library, or the Registrar or Vice Chancellor of the university? Actually this isn't a thought-experiment, its an actuality. I've been at such meetings. Regestrars and VCs weren't there, nor were their representatives. But a whole lot of specialized librarians were. Very boring meetings, too. Belabored? You ain't seen nothing. Redslider (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Redslider, you are wrong. The central administration is the only official source for official records and the librarian would always defer to the central administration. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with trying to figure out the details. Some of the discussion above is admittedly "merely academic", but it's still interesting to us academics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One person at the university, albeit the VC, said "No.", (the other university 'spokesperson', the one that initiated all the other sources, was unsourced and tertiary. There may also be a conflict of interest in the person who sourced them and was referenced in the BLP), and that source is both tertiary and has been called into question by several others here. A gold-standard source, on the other hand, expert in the matters, trustworthy and reliable and with senior responsibility for handling the records in question, has said, "In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded. All degrees are conferred." - M. Parry, Co-ordinator of VUW Research Archives Digital Initiatives - (that's "all degrees conferred", not just a thesis). If you wish to argue about the source as an email communication or something else, that's a separate issue. For now, it should be more than enough reliable and trustworthy source to stop ruining a man's reputation. Redslider (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia uses published sources - which the e-mail isn't. And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times already, this isn't a source for a statement about whether a particular doctorate was awarded or not, since the question wasn't asked. As for the rest, your opinion on which source is more reliable is just that - opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I promised I'd report back. I got the following answer:

Hi there Andrew,

The Research Archive url in your e-mail doesn’t work for me: however, I’ve searched the Research Archive, and our library catalogue, and there’s no record of a PhD for Charles Pellegrino.

[signed]

So there we go, and if I ever said I thought this library catalogue was reliable, I now deny it and eat (h)umble pie (I like game pie, actually.) It was a good thing the librarian couldn't access the catalogue entry I sent him, because he has done an independent search instead. I now agree with all those who say we would need to cite an independent source (e.g. issued by the University Registry) before claiming Pellegrino has a Ph.D. Without that, our presumption must be that the NYT report is still the latest news, he still hasn't; and we should certainly mention the controversy on the Pellegrino page because (a) it was very notable at the time, (b) it affected the republication of his major book. I consider that we should give a link to his revised preface under external links, but I never thought we could treat it as a reliable source until it's reliably published, and, so far as we know, it isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the thesis was in the collection and had been since 1983, however it should never have been accepted. The catalogue entry and the research archive entry have been removed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.179.116 (talk • contribs) , 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the entry appears to now be inaccessible. I've previously been able to access the record and examine the pdf of the thesis, but now it appears to be inaccessible. If the record no longer exists, then this whole discussion becomes moot and the only reliable source is the Vice Chancellor's comment in the New York Times that Mr. Pellegrino never received a PhD. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Though it has no bearing on how to edit the article, I'm now curious to know how the PDF copy of the document ended up on their system -- this being a file format that did not exist in 1983. I suppose the library was probably just scanning old dissertations -- which might explain how a catalogue record was created late last year (thus a misimpression leading to the comment "all degrees are awarded"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it may well have happened that way. And it looks as though our enquiries (Redslider's or mine or the mere fact that there was so much interest all at once) led them to revise their rules on access to the catalogue or to this bit of it. The result I now get is "the item is restricted" -- login required. An odd instance of the power of Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that this type of issue can be so problematic on WP. Such cases were discussed a few times during recent long discussions about the wording of WP:V. A lot of people commented. I believe I am right in saying that there was broad consensus that common sense and reasonable doubts, if there is some reasonable consensus about them, even if they come from synthesis and original thinking, CAN BE a valid basis for raising doubts about what NOT to include in an article, especially if that article is about a living person. So for example by my understanding the letter can be discussed as relevant, but only in the negative sense that it might perhaps raise enough doubts to suggest that Wikipedia should not try to explain too much due to lack of sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Catalog entry withdrawn

According to a post today on this talk page, the VUW media contact has said " The University library catalogue was incorrect and the references have been removed. Sorry for any confusion." Which of course explains why it is no longer accessible. Which explains it all. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry—which talk page did that statement appear on? It's not that I doubt the veracity of the statements (yours or the other poster's) or the plausibility of the explanation, but I can't find the message to which you refer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino - I copied the email I received, in full.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We might look at what was said in Sarek's post of the email:

Just received the following email from the media contact at VUW:

Hi Garrett,

Please excuse the delay in responding to your email. The University library catalogue was incorrect and the references have been removed. Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks

Maria

I believe that should settle the issue. (P.S. - Madeleine Setchell is the contact listed on the webpage, but she's on parental leave, which is why the email above is signed "Maria".)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, this is evidence that the university is engaged in a cover up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So, we have further reason to question any reliability on university spokespeople, no matter how high up on the food chain they are. And, with Gamaliel (the librarian) questioning what's going on, it appears the consensus claimed on this might be beginning to falter. Meanwhile, a person's professional and personal reputation is being maligned in a BLP. Redslider (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What someone might want to do now is go back to the original BLP (the one Sparthorse reverted from my attempt to correct the record) and ask, "What was in the text of the material sent to the media in the first place? And what, if anything, did that do to condition how the reporter posed their question (what was their question?) to the VC?" To paraphrase Deep Throat, "Follow the Source." Redslider (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that, given Gamaliel's earlier comments, his suggestion of 'a cover up' was intended as irony. I'll notify him of this thread, so he can clarify this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider, you have failed to convince a single person on any of the venues to which you have posted that the article should be edited in the way you prefer. The consensus here is entirely against you: no one thinks that Pellegrino has a PhD -- certainly not after hearing from the university that the catalogue record was an error and has now been removed. I don't suppose a simple "give it up, already" will do the trick? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider, it is pretty obvious that Gamaliel wasn't serious. And we are not going to try to investigate the media report. That isn't our role, and I hope you aren't going to start reverting because we haven't found out all the background to every report you don't like. I'm not sure what you mean by 'BLP', if you mean BLP violation then please say so, but don't attack Sparthorse for removing "Controversy regarding the validity of Pellegrino proved to be baseless. Questions regarding the validity of his degree were circulated around the internet and in the news media based upon false and unauthenticated information propagated by some of his detractors, including editors of recent prior editions of this Wikipedia biography" (see the rest at [23] which was clearly an attack on other editors and a BLP violation in itself. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Andy for notifying me of this sillyness. My comment was obviously a joke and should not be taken in any way seriously. I think we've given this issue far more time than it deserves. We have gold-standard secondary sources, the only primary source (and calling it that is a stretch) that could be remotely considered as contradicting the secondary sources has been corrected, so we are done, finished, the issue is dead, pushing up daisies, joined the choir invisible. To insist this go on any further without new evidence or reasoning would be in my opinion just trolling, and for us to indulge this any further would be to reward this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I really hope that Redslider will understand this. I see he still insists on his talk page that the subject is 'Dr. Pellegrino'. Perhaps some uninvolved editor can close this to make it formal. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Although we might speculate about what happened and the various motives, that is not our function here. As was pointed out earlier, there are two BLPs at issue - Pellegrino's and the Vice Chancellor's. We must tread carefully in either direction. We need reliable sources to make statements in the article. We cannot indulge in WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS (such as concluding a library record implies Pellegrino's version is correct). Emails from the University staff (no matter which side they support) are not reliable sources. (BTW, I consider the library record a primary source; it is not an independent source that weighs in on the degree controversy.) If one wants to get another RS, then an email to the NYT would be better as it might trigger a new article about the University's claims and the claims by Pellegrino (such as of a subsequent restoration). Note that the existence of a thesis by Pellegrino has never been in doubt by either side, so the existence of that thesis is not compelling evidence either way. Glrx (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all we have for reliable sources is the NYT article stating that he doesn't have a PhD from VUW. We have no source, including the library catalog now, that states he _does_ have a PhD. Therefore, the contents of the email are irrelevant, except to explain to us what's going on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been following this for the past few days, articles on Wikipedia ultimately must rely on what the reliable sources say. There's an interesting backstory to all of this, but for the article itself, that story doesn't matter. We can (must!) go with what we can reference. If the NYT or some other source wants to report in more detail on this then perhaps it can be added. There have been claims about harm to article subjects, but that should only offer any weight in extreme cases. This isn't such a case. Harm is also done by NOT reporting what is available by giving false weight to unsupported claims that may lead readers to a different view of the subject than they would otherwise. Presenting a correct view is NPOV, not presenting a white-washed, only positive view. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I do not see Pellegrino claiming a PhD has been restored, what he says was restored was that the initials 'Dr.' were restored to his name on a subset of his published papers. He doesn't say he has a PhD. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Baylor paper

A paper, published by Baylor University, called "Dissecting Darwinism" appears to be disputed at the Irreducible complexity article. I think the paper is a reliable source for its author's, Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn's, opinion, but would like other opinions to be sure. I will notify the other editors at that article's talk page, and I'm sure they will feel free to give their opinions in this discussion, but I'm more interested in the opinions of the regulars at this board. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It might well be a reliable source for Kuhn's opinions, but that's hardly the only thing we would want to know about a scientific issue -- it's odd to think in terms of an "opinion" in this context. If it's only a matter of his opinion, it might be "undue" to include it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the publication it was published in, the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is apparently a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal. Does this give the doctor's opinion any credibility for using in that article? Cla68 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

At issue isn't whether the source is usable, but rather how Cla wants to use it. Kuhn simply reiterates what Behe and others have said before, but Cla chose to dedicate an entire section to it. No one said it's not a reliable source for Kuhn's view. It's an editorial question of why one would want to add an entire section on Kuhn's view.

(As an aside, it's also worth noting that the author of the article sits on the journal's editorial board and is a former editor of the journal, and that it's an article about evolutionary theory in a medical journal. Oh, and the journal published not one, but two replies to Kuhn's article. All of which suggest that this should be taken with a slightly larger-than-average grain of salt). Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that (the relationship with the journal & and the rebuttals) reinforces the notion that "opinion" is the right word, then; I'm still stuck on the notion that one would want an opinion in an encyclopedia article on this sort of issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a non-expert in a journal with no competence in the area of evolutionary biology. The journal does publish peer reviewed medical papers, but this is not one of them (there is nothing to peer review, as it is not a research paper or review). There is no reason to believe that Dr. Kuhn's opinion had made any impact outside of the creationist community. Even as a creationist, Kuhn appears to be not notable except for this very paper. In short, Dr. Kuhn's opinion is not significant. Mentioning it would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to echo the concerns above: while it would be reliable for Kuhn's opinion, there are numerous red flags about why we shouldn't give this any weight: 1) author is not an expert in the field 2) article topic is completely outside the stated scope of the journal, namely "The journal offers a mix of articles and features for a general medical audience, including original research, reviews, and historical, ethical, and editorial pieces. Regular features focus on oncology, electrocardiography, radiology, pharmacology, and medicolegal issues." (emphasis mine) 3) even among medical journals, the journal appears to be a minor publication (of a smaller medical center - can't even find an impact factor - never a good sign) 4) author sits on the editorial board of the journal 5) Google scholar shows exactly zero citations in the scientific literature to this article (therefore it's being ignored by the scientific community). Taken together, it's pretty clear that we shouldn't be giving this source any weight. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of Yobol's points, and I fully endorse his conclusion regarding the amount of weight we ought to grant it in our coverage of evolutionary biology. That said, I will note that the article has a 2012 publication date and appears in the most-recent issue of the journal, so the absence of citations of this paper should not be considered particularly surprising or troubling; there isn't any comment on this paper because there hasn't been any time for comment to take place, not (necessarily) because it has been ignored. The short time since publication raises a different problem, however, in that there has been no time for the scholarly community to comment on or evaluate the relevance and importance of this paper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer Cla68's question above, the fact that it was published in a medical journal that also publishes peer-reviewed medical papers adds nothing to the credibility or significance of Kuhn's opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This case underlines the fact that many academic journals publish material other than peer-reviewed research papers. Any decent journal will make it very clear what is and isn't peer-reviewed, and we need to respect that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication in this case of whether the paper is peer-reviewed? Prioryman (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the review process is a tad opaque. I had a quick look at some of the other articles from the current issue, and it does not appear that BUMC Proc follows the common practice of printing Received on, Received with revisions on, or Accepted for publication on dates on its articles. There's no obvious way to determine how extensively papers were reviewed or which required revision prior to acceptance. The description of the journal's review process on their website is minimal. It tells us that "All manuscripts are subject to peer review by editorial board members or other selected reviewers; however, the final decision as to which articles are published will be made by the editor in chief.", which may be somewhat problematic given Kuhn's role as current editorial board member and (recently) past editor-in-chief of the journal. (Individuals with the ability to fast-track certain papers or hand-pick sympathetic reviewers have affected much better known journals than BUMC Proc; one of the worst papers I've ever encountered in a mainstream journal – this disaster in PNAS – was published in that way.)

Not all papers are sent out for peer review by BUMC Proc, either. Their guidelines further state "If a manuscript was previously reviewed by another journal, authors should submit those reviews and indicate any revisions that have been made. Such manuscripts will receive expedited processing, since they will not be sent out for re-review." The BUMC Proc editors would in most cases not know the identity of the reviewers, and would therefore be unable to follow up with them, even if they wanted to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments made. Based on the comments by the regulars here, I'm not really seeing a consensus either way, for or against the source. Looks like me and the other editors in the ID articles will need to hash it out on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the consensus here, at WP:FTN, and at Talk:Irreducible complexity, is that you shouldn't be using this source in the way that you're trying to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the right way to use the source. In my own searches in academic databases, it is rare to find an independent source on ID or theistic science in general. Most sources are either openly against religious-based metaphysical philosophies, or openly engaging in advocacy on behalf of an organization like the Discovery Institute. The fact that a medical faculty member of a major university just published an argument on it in an academic journal (and I'm not claiming that his article is peer-reviewed) is interesting. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a rather bizarre definition of "independent source", which is probably at the root of your difficulties here. This particular source presents innumerable red flags which any moderately sophisticated reader should pick up on, as others have outlined. Why should we be interested in what a surgeon has to say about evolution? Would you highlight an evolutionary biologist's beliefs about how to perform a splenectomy? MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Cla68 is having trouble finding sources that support his fringe views. It seems clear to me that Cla68 is still being an "activist" in pushing fringe scientific theories. It is the same behavior that helped to get him into hot water in the Climate Change area. Bill Huffman (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments by the regulars and uninvolved editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures in Jamaica.

At the moment the article Metrication in Jamaica says: ‘’ In 2007, Jamaica still employed the Fahrenheit scale.^[1]’’

This information is based on this passage from Ian Whitelaw’s book, ‘’ A Measure of All Things’’ “ It [Fahrenheit] was to remain the temperature standard in most English-speaking countries until the 1960s, when the Celsius scale was phased in as part of the process of metrication. The Fahrenheit system is still in use in the U.S. and Jamaica.”

I believe that the information about Jamaica is incomplete at best and could fairly be described as misleading.

Meterological Service, Jamaica gives temperatures just in Celsius. See [24]
The Facts and Figures page of the Visit Jamaica gives first place to Imperial measures, except for temperatures, which are only in Celsius. [25]
A report from Lennox Salmon from the Metrication Department of the Jamaica Bureau of Standards, published by the US Metric Association [26] points out that in 1977-8, ‘’The Office of the Metrication Board’’ had introduced metric units in the reporting of weather information.
A veteran reporter, Dennie Quill, in ‘’The Gleaner’’ [27] says: ‘’ Although there is growing compliance, truth is many of us continue to talk and think in the traditional way. For example, even though the meteorologist tells us that the temperature is going to be 30 plus Celsius today, don't we continue to say: Man what a heat? Today was in the 90s!’’
The web pages of ‘’The Gleaner’’ give the weather forecast with Fahrenheit first and Celsius second. [28] The weather forecast appears in the masthead of the paper, and this is reproduced on subsidiary pages. For example: [29] [30]
The web pages of ‘’The Jamaica Observer’’ gives the weather forecast just in Celsius. [31] As with the Gleaner, The weather forecast appears in the masthead of the paper, and this is reproduced on subsidiary pages. For example: [32] [33]

I believe that it is not safe to rely only on Ian Whitelaw’s book alone, as its statement that Fahrenheit system is still in use in Jamaica understates the use of Celsius. I seek guidance as to what would be reliable sources for revising the present wording. The matter has not been resolved on the article's talk page [34] Michael Glass (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not use WP:PRIMARY sources like this to carry out original research and try to work it out for ourselves: we go by independent reliable sources. What do they say about the system used in Jamaica? If such sources cannot be found then we don't say anything. Cusop Dingle (talk)

How about [35]? That seems to make it clear that Jamaica is on the metric system. The CIA World Factbook says only 3 countries aren't metric (and they aren't Jamaica)[36]. The Jamaica Met services doesn't even define Fahrenheit. I take your point, Cusop, but why should we use Whitelaw? Fahrenheit is 'used' in a lot of countries that are officially metric. You could say it's 'used' in the UK, but it isn't official and our Met Office doesn't use it. It's misleading at best to use Whitelaw that way as it implies that Fahrenheit is official when clearly it isn't. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that an official Jamaican government source is reliable for what ought to be used. It might not be for what is actually used, which is what the OP seems to be asking for. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I Like Dougweller's source and I believe it to be reliable. However, it is a governmental ministry discussing the mandate of an agency which is part of that ministry itself. This would make it an insider account, thus a primary source. Since WP:PRIMARY states that ... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts I think it can be used for what it says, but to prove what is actually going on in Jamaica, a secondary source would be preferable per Wikipedia policies. The primary vs secondary source debate is an interesting one, personally I believe under the proper circumstances certain primary sources may be more accurate and reliable that some secondary ones, but the policy does favor finding an interpretation from a secondary source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think, however, that we should keep the statement "In 2007, Jamaica still employed the Fahrenheit scale." Among other things, it's not 2007. As in the UK, some unofficial sources use Fahrenheit, but what's the point of saying that? The official source, the met office, uses centigrade. But our article makes it look as though that's not the case. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a question for RS, more for POV. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is curious that Michael, the OP, has not actually asked the question that I suggested be brought here. Indeed, Michael's question does not actually ask anything that is particularly disputed. The dispute here has hinged on a few specific points:

Several of the above sources make no reference to use of units or metrication at all. They just happen to measure stuff. Is it OR to use such sources to make points - explicitly or implicitly - about metrication or use of units?
If so, is it relevant to the article to list individual instances of usage on given web pages, without using this to make any form of point?
It is argued that Whitelaw makes errors when discussing metrication in other countries. Is Whitelaw reliable?
It is argued that the USMA source makes errors when discussing metrication in other countries. Is the USMA source reliable?
It is argued that Quill's article is an editorial. Is it reliable?

Pfainuk talk 20:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to recast the questions above and add a couple:

Is the present text (based on Whitelaw) satisfactory?
Several of the above sources make no reference to the use of units or to metrication. However, they use either Celsius or both Fahrenheit and Celsius to record temperatures. is it OR to use information from these sources to illustrate the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica?
When two newspapers put the weather forecasts into their mastheads and this data appears in multiple web pages, should this be regarded as random instances of usage or be taken as reflecting newspaper practice?
It is argued that Whitelaw makes errors when discussing the use of Celsius in both Jamaica and other countries. Is Whitelaw a reliable source of information on the use of Celsius?
It has been alleged that the USMA web page made errors when discussing metrication in other countries, though no errors were pointed out, and the section on Jamaica, written by Lennox Salmon from the Metrication Department of the Jamaica Bureau of Standards was not criticised. Should the test of reliability be applied to the website as a whole, or to individual writers such as Lennox Salmon?
It has been alleged that Quill's article may be an editorial. Is it reliable as the opinion of a veteran reporter? Can it be regarded as reliable when it refers to facts about the usage of Fahrenheit and Celsius in Jamaica?

I am interested in finding and using reliable information for the article. Michael Glass (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that the "error" in Whitelaw is the claim that most English-speaking countries switched from Fahrenheit in the 1960s. This is claimed to be false on the basis that Australia and Canada switched in the 1970s. Evidently, as there are more than three English-speaking countries, the two points are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's accurate or misleading with respect to Jamaica is the point of our discussion. The reason I suggested this be brought here was because I was unconvinced by the reliability of the USMA source and of Quill's editorial and wanted an outside view. The suggestion that the editorial be used to cite Quill's opinion as opposed to fact has not been raised, but I'd question its relevance in this case. Naturally, I do not give any value to sources that do not discuss metrication due to WP:NOR.

But the relevant questions were not asked, and I do wonder whether we have already shot our bolt on getting answers here. Pfainuk talk 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are answers to be gleaned from the discussion:

Dougweller has criticised the present wording: "The official source, the met office, uses centigrade. But our article makes it look as though that's not the case." That is damning criticism of the present wording.
Cusop Dingle wrote: "If such sources [independent reliable sources] cannot be found then we don't say anything." This seems to imply that the sources I supplied were not independent reliable sources, and in the absence of such sources the article should say nothing. That implies removing the contentious wording. However, later, this editor said that this was a POV question rather than a RS question.

As the present wording has been criticised, the safest option is to remove the statement based on Whitelaw, and that is what I propose. Michael Glass (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Whitelaw's statement is irrelevant here, as it does not address official usage not is it sourced. His statement is consistent with the fact that although Celsius is official, the Fahrenheit scale is still used for some purposes by some segment of the population. This is essentially a trivial statement. Our article should address official usage, which can be verified, and not popular usage, which is difficult to verify without conducting OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been searching online travel guides, books and articles about this. So far all I could find is the AAA site, which says Jamaica uses Imperial measures. I am not sure if this would be considered reliable or original research. The hard copy tour guide for Jamaica would presumably say the same thing and would be a referenced work. Anyhow, just a thought.Coaster92 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Viewspaper

The Viewspaper is an Indian publication that claims to be a platform for youth, written by youth - see this about page. It has some big-name supporters - NDTV, World Bank, IMF etc - but when I see writing such as this I really do wonder about the editorial oversight. Phrases such as "He worked sidewise" (apparently meaning that he supported himself with a part-time job) and "His coach, Jagdish Singh, was always hopeful of Vijender making the cut at the Olympics against all oddity" are distinctly, erm, oddity even with my experience of Indian English. That particular article has been used in a GA - is this source of decent enough quality? - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm far less familiar with Indian English than Sitush; but, I'm fairly familiar with shamefully promotional advertorials, such as "Vijender Singh from Bhiwani to Beijing". Treat like a gutter tabloid from the UK? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Per Supernova Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Viewspaper is an open publishing platform, a user-generated site and should never be considered a reliable source. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought it might be but wasn't sure. Thanks very much for the info. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How Can I Cite a Federal Lawsuit as a Source?

What if a source is a federal lawsuit?

What exactly do you want to cite? The court record, the judge's ruling, or a document that was used as evidence in the case? Roger (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid court documents in general ... if a lawsuit is worth mentioning in an article, there will be secondary sources (such as newspaper reports) that discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, secondary sources sometimes misunderstand a judge's ruling and the news reports end up inaccurate and incorrect. Roger's question is important. For what purpose do you want to cite the lawsuit? For example, the judge's ruling, as a statement of the ruling, could be the best source of that. So the purpose is very important.Coaster92 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting a judge is original research in terms of wikipedia. Don't do it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are sourcing to a lawsuit to add negative content because the lawsuit is not cited anywhere in news sources, that's generally a bad idea. To verify facts in a notable case or quote a ruling i think is ok. But purpose examples would help.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually when people want to cite a lawsuit, they mean the complaint that starts the suit. That is a very bad idea because the complaint consists of allegations that are unproven. Anybody with $350 and a typewriter can file a federal lawsuit. The complaint is like a blog - the plaintiff's view of events. Neither is it a good idea to note the existence of a lawsuit based on the court file. There is no notion of notability. With the support of reliable secondary sources for the major details and notability, you might be able to add details to an article from documents that were filed in the lawsuit, but that requires some technical sophistication that most editors do not have, so most editors should not use the lawsuit. Things that I think may be sourced would be (1) specific allegations in the complaint that were admitted by the defendant in the answer or (2) specific findings in a judgment or court order. Anything cited should be crystal clear in the original documents. For example, in the Streisand effect article, I quoted a state judge's finding that Streisand's image had only been downloaded six times, and that two of those times were by her attorneys. Also remember that an editor must keep a neutral point of view. Executive summary: since you asked the question, then the answer is no, you should not cite a federal lawsuit as a source. Glrx (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To actually answer the question, we have templates for formatting citations to court cases. The generic one is {{cite court}}, and a number of more specialized ones can be found at Category:Law citation templates. Dragons flight (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Glrx for his/her answer. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WHO

How neutral and reliable can the World Health Organization be when it is not an association of doctors? It is an endless source of papers promoting circumcision. The WHO's chief expert on circumcision is Dr. David Tomlinson. He has just been awarded his 4th patent for a circumcision device. http://targetednews.com/disp_story.php?s_id=1076768 "21 -- David R. Tomlinson, Wakefield, RI, has developed a patent (8114096) for an "atraumatic circumcision apparatus and method of using same." The abstract of the patent published by the US Patent and Trademark Office states: "A disposable neonatal ..."

Here Dr. Tomlinson is quoted in the advertising brochure for the Accu-circ. http://todayshospitalist.com/index.php?b=articles_read&cnt=647 and an ad: http://www.kentecmedical.com/media/document/AccuCircWorkshopBrochure.pdf

As the Dutch Royal Medical Society (KNMG) states: The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications. http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm As the Swedish doctors assert: "We consider it to be an assault on these boys," Staffan Janson, chairman of BLF's committee for ethical issues and childrens' rights, said to newspaper Göteborgs-Posten (GP).

http://www.thelocal.se/39200/20120219/

Why would an association which is not an actual medical society comprised of doctors, contradict the advice of actual medical societies comprised of doctors? Why would wikipedia consider them an unimpeachable resource, when the WHO has such a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tftobin (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't generally treat the WHO as a reliable source for content in the encyclopedic tone but their opinions might hold some due weight when it is clear in the article that it is a statement by the WHO. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The World Health Organisation are regarded as reliable by WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations. Jakew (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.. The example WHO statement shown doesn't seem to be reliable due to the conflict of interest of the person involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No example WHO statement was given, and it is not our role to construct silly conspiracy theories about reputable medical organisations. Jakew (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "unimpeachable source". Every source's reliability is judged in the context of a specific citation. No source is ever "delared" to be reliable for any and all purposes for all time. Every time a source is cited its reliability is subject to scrutiny, evaluation and judgement. Roger (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

1) The WHO, in general, is clearly a reliable source for medical claims, as it is specifically mentioned as such by WP:MEDRS, our guideline for what is a reliable source for medical claims.

2) Tftobin clearly did not read the instructions for this noticeboard before posting this; we have some vague hand-waving about the WHO without an actual citation or link to the actual WHO source, nor the material that it is supposed to be supporting. Without such details, it is impossible to know for sure whether it is reliable or not.

3) How much WP:WEIGHT we should be giving the WHO, as opposed to the medical society of a small European country like KNMG is not a matter for this board, please take it to WP:NPOVN.

4) I would like to see what source and material Tftobin has a problem with, but saying the WHO in general is not a reliable source because one person in this multinational organization has a possible financial COI is much, much too extreme. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In particular it would be necessary to come up with criticism of Tomlinson's writings/position in order to disparage his reliability here. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I disparage Dr. Tomlinson or his writings? Did I put forth a conspiracy theory, silly or otherwise? I pointed out that Dr. Tomlinson invented 4 circumcision clamps, and is the chief expert at the WHO. Might this have some bearing on decisions made there? Here is a listing of papers available from the WHO on the topic of circumcision. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/

If one cared to take note of it, every article has the same viewpoint...how to scale up, not whether or not it is actually efficacious, or monitoring to see that the benefits actually accrue as projected. Is it just the KNMG, or did I cite the Swedish Paediatric Society? There is a Danish study as well, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753060 which was published in the International Joural of Epidemiology.

The WHO is "is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health". It is not a medical association comprised of only doctors. The KNMG and the Swedish Paediatric Society are made up of doctors. Perhaps WP:MEDRS should be in less of a hurry to give the WHO a free pass. Tftobin (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You, again, are ignoring the point of this noticeboard. Reliability of a source is context specific. Please provide a specific source which you are concerned about, the specific text which the source is supporting, and the specific article this is on, and specific sources to show why Tomlinson is not reliable. We do not conduct thought-experiments on the reliability of entire organizations based on vague insinuations, and if we go down this road further, I fear we're headed into WP:BLP territory with respect to Tomlinson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 February 2012‎

The question is not whether you, Tftobin, have a problem with this. It's whether the medical community has a problem with Tomlinson. If the apparent COI doesn't bother them, I don't see why it should be bothering us. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Tftobin (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BANG Showbiz

1) It is obviously reliable for the very limited self-identification; but, attribute it and quote it
2) Much of this conduct is inappropriate for RS/N—this is closed largely because of the conduct in this thread and that the conduct is reducing the possibility of outside comment due to the levels of hostility present here; feel free not to reopen this thread, and feel free to display superior collegial conduct next time you bring an issue to RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

At Talk:Demi Moore , there is discussion about whether to cite something from the gossip website BANG Showbiz.

This site ran an anonymous "interview" with Demi Moore here in December 2010, which included "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up." However, a portion of this "interview" ("I obsess and look in ... is falling and I can't get up'") appears to be taken without attribution from an earlier, April 2010 Hello interview that is not online and is referenced here. That appears to be plagiarism, or at the very least questionable and unethical behavior. We already have Moore saying something similar in two tweets from her verified Twitter page. Do we additionally need to cite a gossip site that copies without attribution from a tabloid gossip magazine? What are other editors' thoughts on using this BANG Showbiz cite, and about this gossip site in general? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Posted this on the talkpage before realising there was a thread here: Three days before that issue of Hello hit the stands,[37] BangShowbiz ran a press release reporting other quotations from Demi from the same interview [38] By the following day this press release was being attributed to contactMusic [39] and to National Enquirer [40]. Bang Showbiz are Press Agency like Associated Press (who also keep their interviewers anonymous and who have been found to be reliable on this noticeboard in the past.) In the Leveson Inquiry Hello was been proven to be buying interviews from agencies such as BangShowbiz and publishing them as interviews they had conducted themselves - this raises significant doubt as to hello being the original source of this interview and the quotes given by Bangshowbiz appear to have been widely disseminated amongst other reliable sources who Bang's newswire service. This doesn't answer the question of the reliability of Bang but certainly raises questions as to the claims of plagiarism and/or at questionable and unethical behaviour on the part of Bang. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the Associated Press with a gossip site / syndicator with questionable sourcing seems absolutely remarkable to me. The fact that it's used by a marginally credible tabloid like the National Enquirer and websites like ContractMusic (which as far I know does no original reporting and in that respect can hardly be considered a journalistic entity) doesn't make BANG Showbiz the AP, or Reuters or Agence France-Presse.

And in fact, the particular quote I cited ("I obsess and look in ... is falling and I can't get up'") that appears in the April 2010 Hello does not appear in the April 2010 BANG story. It appears, without attribution, in the December 2010 BANG story. So my point remains: BANG printed something in December without attribution that appeared in Hello in April. On top of a questionable practice, passing off an old quote as something new is also not ethical journalism. That speaks to the credibility of BANG Showbiz. Who knows where its other quotes come from?

And that speaks to the fact while small AP reports sometimes go out without a byline, most interviews do not — and unlike BANG Showbiz, which gives no indication of where or when an interview took place, the AP does its interviews, tells you the circumstances, and doesn't try to pass off old quotes as new. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on the relative merits of Bang and AP are irrelevant here. The only question is whether it can be cited as a source for the relevant material: A quote from Demi Moore regarding her own name. I can see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't treat it as RS for that, given that multiple sources then used it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First, Stuart brought up AP, so speak to him about that. Second, the fact that the National Enquirer or non-journalistic websites posted questionably originated material from a gossip syndicator does not give BANG SHowbiz credibility. When a gossip site doesn't indicate where its quotes come from, doesn't reveal if it did the interview itself, and passes off old quotes as new, those are not the signs of a reputable journalistic organization. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that BANG 'passes off old quotes as new', or is this more of your WP:OR/opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've already explained, BANG Showbiz took quotes that appeared in Hello in April 2010 and passed them off as new in December 2010. That is not opinion. If you read my earlier posts where I said this, you'll see the pertinent links. And in all honesty, this would not even be a debate at The New York Times or Time magazine or The Wall Street Journal, whether some copy-paste gossip site would be considered a reliable and authoritative news source. It just wouldn't. And an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism.

But OK, you know what? I'd like to see some disinterested editors who have not been part of the Talk:Demi Moore debate come and weigh in here. So if you and Stuart want to state your opinions about the topic rather than just attacking me personally again, and factually misrepresenting me as in the post above, I'll back off and let you have the last word, in the hopes that others will want to respond. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the ridiculous amount of unverifiable spin you put into your original post here ('plagiarism', 'Gossip', 'Twitter' etc, etc...) I think the facts actually speak for themselves. You aren't here to ask whether a source is reliable, you are here to trash it because it happens to state things contrary to your preconceived opinion. Demi Moore doesn't get the opportunity to write for the New York Times - but so what? We aren't asking for her opinion on string theory, or on the origins of pre-Raphaelite art - we have a published quote from her where she states that her name was never 'Demetria' - and there is no reason whatsoever to assume anyone made this up. Why would anyone bother? Ms Moore says she quite likes the name - but that it isn't hers. I can see no logical reason not to take her word for it. We aren't here to determine some abstract 'truth' anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"...if you and Stuart want to state your opinions about the topic rather than just attacking me personally again..." - Wait, where did I attack you personally? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On the rest - Andy says more than enough - despite BangShowbiz being aware of the content of the interview days before Hello hit the presses, and despite Hello having clearly been buying copy and paste interviews like this, and despite you taking the word of a blog without actually checking the copy of Hello to see what they say about the origin of the interview, you still wish to label Bang Showbiz as a "copy-paste gossip site". As for your claim "passing off an old quote as something new is also not ethical journalism." firstly they don't pass the quote off as new they make no mention of how old the quote is, they do present their analysis of old primary source material as new - which it is - so good for them in engaging in journalism. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Necrometrics.com

Is the website Necrometrics.com a reliable source for statements of fact or even the opinion of it's author? He is a librarian and not an expert in the field. It is currently being used in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) to support the low end estimates of those killed in the Bangladesh Liberation War ^[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Personal websites are not reliable sources for historical facts - especially not for information that is likely to be contested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, I'm afraid to say that Darkness Shines (DS) has mischaracterized the website and its author. It is considered an authoritative reference in the field, as explained in my discussions with DS here [41]. To summarise: Necrometrics' author [42], Matthew White has been referenced, as linked within the previous link, in 92 scholarly journals, and hence qualifies as an important and reliable source on all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" deemed necessary in self-published sources [43]. Hence I feel it should be deemed a reliable source for this page. I would truly appreciate your assessment of the matter in the light of this information. Best wishes, Aminul802 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, may I ask how I may seek arbitration from administrators for our rather interminable disagreements with this Wikipedia user? We seem not to be able to agree, and he constantly threatens to undo my changes despite my detailed justifications. Our can be found here: [44] and here: [45]. Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can try WP:ANI, I am curious as to how telling you once that I would revert your changes has turned into "constantly" Perhaps if you had not removed academic sources and used a blog I would not have had to tell you that I would have to revert you. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable for history. Scholars can make a bad source good, encyclopaedists can't. For your disputes see WP:DRN I believe, or WP:WQA if it is about personal conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI would be the wrong choice, because there is no administrative action that needs to be taken (even if Aminul802 were right). But, honestly, going anywhere is basically a waste of time, because DS has already cited the unbreakable policy here: SPS cannot be used for biographical information about 3rd parties. That is, we can cite someone's blog for information about themselves, but we cannot cite someone's blog for information about a 3rd person. Even if the blogger is a known expert in the field. There's nothing to "arbitrate" here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How is David Bergman's blog [46] being used for biographical information? It's being used to describe a tribunal on which he is an expert and has written extensively on in published outlets [47]. Aminul802 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the fact that he thinks there were only 25000 rapes would be a good starting point. Given the person he is quoting that from say that is how many were impregnated and her estimate is actually 200,000 raped. There are also living people sitting on the tribunal, and those being tried are also alive. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The case with this site is similar to that with Adherents.com. Adherents.com is cited by many books and scholars, but still the site itself is not reliable in Wikipedia due to lack of editorial board and fact-checking mechanism. Necrometrics.com is a personal website written by a non-expert. So there is no evidence of accuracy in this site. Per WP:USERGENERATED, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic". Since Matthew White is a librarian, his personal site is not reliable in this topic. Had he self-published a site on library science, that could have been a marginally reliable source in a library-related article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This seems to be NPOV/N's job already

A paragraph in the Israel-Palestine conflict reads: In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step".^[3]^[4]^[5] Having examined the cited sources and several others, it is only the Al Jazeera article that states that the settlement activity was described by "all regional groups as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". This is not quoting from any of the envoy criticisms but appears to be loosely based on the statement issued on behalf of the non-aligned bloc that states settlement activity is "the main impediment to the two-state solution". As such, that "all the regional and political groupings... named continued settlement construction... as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" appears to represent only the opinion of Al Jazeera. Is it permissible to use the Wiki voice in asserting this, or is source attribution required. Is using the wiki voice giving this lone view undue weight and providing disproportionate prominence to this viewpoint?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/

Is currently being used for statements of fact in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) Is this a reliable source for statements of fact? He is a freelance journalist currently working with the New Age newspaper[48] and has just returned to journalism after a ten year breakAccording to this site although a search of the New Age online site shows no articles for him. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

no, unedited blog. Unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages for a discussion on whether Leigh Rayment's Peer Page is a reliable source. So that the conversation is not split over several pages, if you want to comment please do so there. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is HealthAffairs.org a RS?

healthaffairs.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is healthaffairs.org considered an RS - especially in light of how many of the 264+ links are to its blog? I am not sure if we have a massive case of refspam, or a valid publication with valid references. (copied from WP:WPSPAM because probably should confirm if anyone thinks this blog is an RS first...) 7 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a refereed journal. Do bother to read the journal's website next time About journal

"Health Affairs is the leading journal of health policy thought and research. The peer-reviewed journal was founded in 1981..."
"Health Affairs is indexed and/or abstracted in PUBMED, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Lexis-Nexis; ISI's Current Contents/Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences."

Ulrich's Global Periodicals Directory confirms the refereed status. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Do bother to..."??? I did read the about page, and I read multiple pages that our articles referred to (but in reviewing WP:MEDSCI I'm no expert in whether or not they were biased), but I can't rely on a website to honestly self declare whether or not they are reliable... especially one with blog in the URL, and especially when I discovered it by blocking a user with a spamname promoting the site. Thank you for confirming with Ulrich's Global Periodicals Directory that this one is okay. 7 08:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also read the top of this page where it pretty clearly suggests that we deal in specific sources in use on specific articles for specific claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Health Affairs is an indexed journal with a reputable editorial board, and is RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly and helpful reply Supernova Exlposion. 7 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As Fifelfoo says, the reliability of a particular source depends on the way the source is being used; a blanket pronouncement is often not appropriate. Health Affairs reports a journal impact factor of 3.0, which is not bad (not stunningly good, but not particularly poor). They have a peer review process and a reasonably-constituted editorial board, and they are MEDLINE indexed. Speaking generally, I don't see red flags that would prompt me to declare it inherently unreliable.

That said, the journal does carry some commentary, news, and opinion pieces which presumably are subject to different levels and types of review than the articles. Its emphasis is on health policy, so it should be used only with caution as a secondary source on purely scientific questions. Going back to 7's original request, I note that we make use of the Health Affairs blog site in a dozen or so articles; HA blog posts are vetted by their internal editors, but are not subject to external peer review. (That isn't to say that such uses are inherently worrying; one such perfectly reasonable use is in our article on John K. Iglehart, where Iglehart's retirement as HA's editor in chief was announced.)

Do you have any examples in mind that might demonstrate a pattern of problematic (over)reliance on this source? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly and helpful reply TenOfAllTrades. Nothing overly problematic... I see 5 links straight to the homepage of the website (when I believe the only one which should go straight to the homepage is the Health Affairs page). I also see 14 links which contain "keytype=ref&siteid=healthaff" which to me reads like an affiliate / referral link, however given the siteid name it entirely possible that's just a self referral. However it sounds like it's an okay site from an RS perspective so I'll drop it. Thanks 7 00:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can a forum be a reliable source

If a forum includes images proving what someone is stating is correct then can it be considered a reliable source (if it provides images backing up anything said) Guyb123321 (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Get a WP:RS publisher to publish it. For some odd reason, images are not always what they seem. Collect (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Images are rarely considered reliable sources ... they are too easy to manipulate, and thus can't really be said to "prove" anything except the fact that the image exists. The purpose of images in Wikipedia is to illustrate what is stated in an article, not to "prove" what is stated. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There are circumstances in which photos on a forum are reliable, but the most important questions here are "what forum?" and "what images?". --FormerIP (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to answer sourcing questions in the abstract, but in general images not reliable no matter where they appear, in that they require editorial interpretation to assess what they show, how authentic they are, if they're relevant to the subject, etc. Image captions are often reliable if published in a reputable publication because they're subject to editorial oversight, accountability, and so on (though the captions are often written and inserted by editors who know less about the subject than the author). Totally uncontroversial claims can often be made about an image content... for example, in articles about food we often have pictures found from commons or taken by a Wikipedia article making the claim "a dish of plosh ravot, showing all of the traditional accompaniments". It would be silly to ask for a reliable source to confirm that the picture was in fact the right dish. On the other hand, images shouldn't be used to make claims that could reasonably be questioned, e.g. "a picture of Barak Obama's alleged birth certificate, clearly showing evidence of photomanipulation (see the layering effect in the lower left)". - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual terminology

I was sent here from Talk:Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and I want to know what the most reliable sources for transsexual terminology are. Georgia guy (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

those that fufill WP:MEDRS possibly? i.e see what the medical literature calls it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you reveal the most reliable source?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you present us with two or more sources, we can tell you if either are reliable, or if both are reliable which is superior. Broadly, the most reliable sources here are:

Academically published books, chapters in collection, journal articles in scholarly journals and conference papers in sociology of gender, sexuality, queer theory and sexology; especially ones that review the state of the field rather than proposing novel conclusions.
Academically published books of medical reference and medical reviews.

However, given that transexuality is a human practice, this means that there are people involved in the practice. Given the past history of legal and medical abuse of people who are transexual, much of the sociological type literature will probably esteem individual and community self-definitions, particularly of identity. So, where the sociologists and medical practitioners cite activists or community concepts, you should especially read community based literature there. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no easy way to decide which sources are reliable. For Disney movies, http://disneypictures.com is a reliable source because it's Disney's official web site. For transsexuals, there's no official web site that I know. Georgia guy (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Judith Butler's (2004) Undoing Gender New York: Routledge appears to be very highly respected by gender theorists, and has a chapter dedicated to transexuality. After reading that chapter, you could follow up Butler's footnotes, and the citations of Butler in more recent literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule in 1833"

Is this [49] RS for the claim that Britain re-established its rule if teh Falkland Islands in 1833?Slatersteven (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at the top of this page, particularly about providing a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is self-published, so no. It is likely not too difficult to find alternative sources for the same info though. eg [50] --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is BET a reliable source?

Various artist's sales are based on confirmations by either VH1 or MTV, so I was wondering if BET, short for Black Entertainment Television, is regarded reliable as well? Thanks for your replies. Malcolmo (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Black Entertainment Television, "90 million homes ... launched 1980... mainstream rap and R&B music videos" can generally be considered similarly reliable for artist's sales. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't view BET as similarly reliable, especially for sales figures. For example, BET claims here that R. Kelly has sold 150 million records, in fact, R. Kelly's available certified sales from those music markets covering 90% of the global sales are only 50 million, which translates into some 70 million in actual sales. The 150 million claim is clearly an inflated figure for R. Kelly and that alone suggests that BET doesn't use enough resources to get their information correct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable as MTV or VH1 for example, neither of which has a history of publishing such outrageously inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a verifiable published source. I can't seem to download that compressed file from that other link you're pointing to, so I don't know what it is supposed to be. Can you summarize what it says and who it's published by? --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The figure within must be verifiable, and the 150 million as claimed by BET, doesn't agree with R. Kelly's available certified sales. The file that I've put together and uploaded are the certified sales of R. Kelly which I've retrieved from the certification-databases of the certifying bodies such as RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie etc.. I just tried to view it, and it seems to work for me.--Harout72 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, the doc downloads for me now too. You've searched a number of databases for sales of multiple individual albums, added the numbers together, written the results in a Word doc, and uploaded it to a file sharing site. I'm afraid that is pretty clear Wikipedia:original research. It is not a routine, obvious, and correct calculation that anyone could be expected to trivially perform. Do we know that the databases are in each case correct? Do we know that you copied the numbers correctly? (There aren't one or two figures to add up, there are lots.) Do we know that you got all the albums? Did you miss any? Did you confuse any with any others? (In several cases, your own doc says you had to look it up under another performer's name... are you sure you got the right one each time and every time? Can we be sure you did?) I'm afraid that doc is not close to being a Wikipedia:reliable source. It may be the truth (or even The Truth!) or it may not; since it's not a trivial judgment, we go with with the reliable sources; in this case, that's Black Entertainment Television. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The databases are of those associations which issue certifications in each market, yes they are correct. These are routine and trivial calculations at the List of best-selling music artists where Malcolmo intends to use BET as a source. Nothing is copied from the databases, the certification-awards are converted into figures by following the corresponding award-levels provided directly on the sites of the certifying bodies, criteria for RIAA, criteria for BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustie, the sources are listed on the uploaded doc.. Every Platinum/Gold/Silver award is converted, nothing is missed. And no, it's not an original research as the certifying bodies do provide the levels for certification-awards. All one has to do is follow the release date and apply the levels provided on the same sites. The document is not provided on here to pass as a reliable sources, the sources the certifications are taken from are reliable. WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context; and BET in our case is not reliable. --Harout72 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're pretty clearly matching the results of your own research against that conducted by a national cable TV channel. If some other reliable source came up with a different number for R. Kelly's sales, we could cite them. Until then, though, BET seems to be what we have. --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Time Mazazine claims 50 million records for R. Kelly which immediately agrees with his available certified sales. There should never be such a gap between artists' certified sales and their actual sales as it is with BET's claim.--Harout72 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be better, except it's from 2007, so can't be compared to the 2012 BET article. Kelly just might have sold a few records in the last 5 years. In fact, if he had sold 50 million by 2007, I'm even more wary of your figures from that Word doc that say he had still only sold 50 million by 2012.--GRuban (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Times' article can't be compared to BET's, not because it's from 2007, but because BET is rather lousy when it comes to getting its facts right. R. Kelly's sales have been quite poor since 2007 (see R. Kelly discography), so a few millions on the top of the 50 million wouldn't make BET a better source and it most definitely doesn't make his available certified sales which I've put together on one sheet questionable. As I explained above, the Certified Sales are often less than the Actual Sales, because not all albums/singles/videos reach the required levels to be certified. Artists like R. Kelly whose popularity is mainly concentrated on the U.S. market, could not have sold 150 million records that easily. That figure is only possible when artists experience widespread popularity all over the world. BET could perhaps be an OKAY source when supporting statements about music events, but sales figures do take a lot of research and require careful calculations which I doubt BET has the right staff for.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we need a third (or rather fourth) opinion. Anyone? --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of sourcing anything to basic cable infotainment channels, as opposed to legitimate news organizations. I am skeptical of their level of editorial control, reliability or reputation for fact checking, beyond doing just barely enough to avoid successful libel suits. I would not source things to E!, MTV, Spike, TruTV, BET...etc. That does not appear to be a universally-held view here, however. Fladrif (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so unreliable about this source. I reckon Harout72 just thinks he's right about everything and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions. --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but if MTV.com or other similar network websites are considered reliable. BET must be too. Malcolmo (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the majority tends to say yes. Malcolmo (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the majority that counts, what counts is why editors think the source in question is reliable. The comment made by Jamcad01 above is not an explanation as to why the source is reliable, he/she is simply another upset editor whose sources at the List of best-selling music artists have been turned down due to their questionable reliability.--Harout72 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But in this particular case, the claim is not even far fetched. R. Kelly has certified sales of OVER 50 million. It is moreso highly unlikely his sales would be only fifty million, since he started in 1991. BET is not some blog. It is one the country's biggest network, especially in relation to African Americans, and African American music. 92.230.237.186 (Malcolmo) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, to GRuban, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles. There is nothing wrong with using original research and a little common sense to determine what should be removed from articles. Regardless, one bad report doesn't mean the publisher as a whole is unreliable. Everyone messes up sometimes. If it were demonstrated that BET regularly screws up like this, that would be another thing. But in the other direction, demonstrating the reliability of BET's numbers is as simple as showing that they are cited by sources whose reliability is not in dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There'd be nothing wrong with using common sense. But as you can see from the argument, the sense here is not at all common. Have you looked at Harout's work? Have you considered reproducing it? It's not trivial. It requires quite a bit of adding, querying, and educated guessing. Is it transparent to you that it's without error? Because if it is, you're smarter than I am. And this is the work we're supposed to use to "common sense" convince that a major cable network is wrong? --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GRuban, this is not guessing whatsoever, in fact, it's not even difficult. If one has a hard time converting, for example, R. Kelly's U.S. Platinum for Double Up into the figure it represents using RIAA's criteria, then that person might have problems with other simple calculations also. The same thing is with all other music markets, no educated guessing is required.--Harout72 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there are claims that the RIAA has been engaging in creative accounting and itself violating copyright law (Major Labels Accused Of $6 Billion Worth Of Copyright Infringement In Canada). This makes any numbers from them suspect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention anything about the certifying bodies such as RIAA, Music Canada, BPI etc.. It speaks of record companies involved in selling records and not reporting the sales. The RIAA and Music Canada certify those records the sales of which are legitimately reported. Record labels must submit proof of sales to certifying associations in order to get the albums/singles/videos certified. And that article is about the sales of those records (albums/singles/videos), from which record labels profit but do not report.--Harout72 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you missed the part about the CRIA (the Canadian version of the RIAA) and as up amite it talks about "not reporting the sale" which was my point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian Music Industry Association individually (present Music Canada) is a non-profit organization which hasn't immediately been involved in the lawsuit. It's the members of CRIA who were involved in the lawsuit, Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada. They are represented by the Canadian Music Industry Association but operate on their own. As I mentioned above, the purpose of CRIA (Music Canada) among other things, is to certify legitimately reported record-sales.I'm afraid I fail to see why this was brought up.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary/secondary source questions

When a medical/health/science-related study is done and it is available in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, is PLoS ONE considered a secondary source? Also, when the EPA gets a request from a pesticide manufacturer to make a new product available the manufacturer must present studies re its safety to the EPA. The EPA then evaluates the studies to make a decision re the safety of the new chemical. When one quotes the EPA, are they considered a secondary source? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The primary source is the source that produces the research and the findings. If a study presents tests and results in a journal then it is a primary source. However, another study in the same journal could discuss the results presented in another paper (published in a previous volume of the journal) and that would then be a secondary source. In the second example, the EPA study would be a secondary source for the results they are reviewing, but a primary source for their own conclusions regarding the safety of the chemical. I think that's roughly right; if it isn't someone will be along to correct me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is far from clear. Wikipedia uses somewhat non-standard and none-too-clear definitions of primary and secondary sources. If a source is primary or secondary also depends on its use. In standard terminology, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies would be a primary source on Einstein, but a secondary source on physics. Lab notes, experimental recordings, and direct observations would be primary sources on physics, but a properly written and reviewed paper is a secondary source. Wikipedia does not universally agree with this, so caveat emptor. That said, PLoS ONE is a non-standard journal that - intentionally and publicly - employs somewhat different review criteria than conventional journals. In particular, a PLoS ONE publication should not be taken as evidence of noteworthiness, as "importance" is one thing PLoS ONE does not assess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks so far but I still don't understand the situation with the EPA. If I would use a Cochrane Collaboration reveiew to back a claim I made here, that would be a secondary source, correct? In the same situation would the EPA be considered a secondary source, or would they be a primary source? Also, many medical and chemical articles, for instance the phthalates article, have a large number of studies that have not been reviewed that are used as sources in the article. I understand that Wikipedia has guidelines that urge editors to try to use reviews rather than studies since small studies may produce outlandish claims that may greatly differ from the majority of outcomes of most studies, and thus be out of place here. However, when a large two-year study done by university scientists and funded by the FDA is released, would it be considered to be appropriate to include here? I'm speaking of this study [51] Also, would this university news release be considered a secondary source of the study itself? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are considered secondary sources about the topic in question. If the EPA reviews multiple studies, then their analysis is a secondary source; if the EPA conducts and publishes original research, then it is primary. All content regarding medical claims are governed by the guideline WP:MEDRS which encourages secondary sources, however most people are not aware of this, and many, many articles are littered with primary studies that go against this guideline. In general, we should use secondary reviews, unlike the primary study you suggest, as we don't know how much weight to give it until it is reviewed in the scientific literature. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If all of the chemical articles toxicity sections are to be wiped clean of all primary research, much, perhaps most, of the untoward effects of chemicals would need to be removed. For example, see this section from the Bisphenol A article from the "Health effects" section:

In 2011, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency commented on a study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA performed by the EPA,^[6] saying, "This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern."^[7] In the study 20 subjects were tested for BPA every hour for twenty-four hours while consuming three meals consisting of canned food.^[6]

In 2012 a paper was written in response to this study, however, criticizing the study as lacking data and having flawed assumptions.^[8]

In this example perhaps the EPA primary study could be included because it was mentioned by the Food Standards Agency, but the primary study which criticized the EPA study and published in PubMed could not be included, correct? Since, unlike medical studies, there are not numerous journals that comment on studies, or reviews such as Cochrane's reviews, the numerous suggestions that many chemicals may have dangers not yet acknowledged by government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, or EPA, will go unreported by Wikipedia under present policy rules, is that correct?

Would this study [52] published in an on-line journal still be considered a primary source (I'm guessing the answer is "yes").

Thank you all so much for your help - it means a lot to me and my continuing editing at Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Vom Saal, Prins, & Welshons paper is analyzing another paper, rather than conducting new laboratory or clinical experiments, wouldn't it be secondary? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though they do review another study, it seems to me that it falls short from what WP:MEDRS gives as examples of secondary sources. However, I do remain unconvinced that it was the intention of Wikipedia to use WP:MEDRS as a strict guide for references in chemical articles, but I doubt that we can settle that question here. But to move back to the study I referred to in my initial question, a study I used because it represents dozens of other studies in the pesticide articles. The study in question here [53] has to do with honey bee health, not human health. So it seems to me that this Wikipedia advise would apply for proper sourcing:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] (The concern is that they not be used to present fringe theories.)

As I said, this was a university two-year study funded by the USDA and it seems to me that there should be no argument for not including it in an article that discusses Colony collapse disorder. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You will find more information about this at WP:USEPRIMARY. You may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Perfect and so appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, and even more interesting to see how only a very limited number of the "policy guidelines" discussed here made it over to the clothianidin talk page, where Gandydancer et al have been using primary research articles that fit their belief systems to try and debunk established scientific consensus expressed by global authorities regarding the as-yet unresolved effect of pesticides on pollinator health. (for a brief synopsis see Topic III: Research to Identify Factors Affecting Honey Bee Health, Including Attempts to Recreate CCD Symptomology at USDA's 2010 Colony Collapse Disorder Report to Congress) You see this same approach employed on many chemical articles, such as Neonicotinoids and imidacloprid, but also colony collapse disorder, which makes it look as if Wikipedia editors are themselves qualified secondary reviewers.

The typical pattern goes something like this "Uncertainties still exist for chemical X (cite globally recognized authorities' secondary source or sources), but here are 10 studies that focus on potential hazards, including THIS ONE THAT JUST WENT VIRAL AFTER IT HIT THE HEADLINE NEWS." Clearly, the intended message is that that there cannot possibly be uncertainties no matter what the globally recognized authorities say. Of course, this ignores the fact that when recognized authorities identify hazards and uncertainties, they're typically summarizing the weight of evidence involving somewhere between dozens and hundreds of studies. It would be a very rare thing, indeed, if a couple of new studies that are hyped in the news actually flipped scientific consensus on its ear. I'll admit that highlighting new primary research is titillating and makes for great marketing of advocates' favorite hypotheses, but I feel it harms Wikipedia's credibility. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, this abuse of primary research also misleads the public discourse on the extremely complex (and widely misunderstood) topic of regulatory risk assessments for pesticide chemicals, for which potential hazards are but one of many factors that must be taken into account.

I invite anyone who is interested in reliable sources to comment on a proposal to amend the WikiProject Chemistry's Manual of Style, which in its current form encourages the use of primary research almost without restriction. For NPOV editors who are simply trying to improve access to neutral information about chemicals, this openness is essential. Unfortunately, it also creates opportunities for exploitation. USEPA James (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Offline newspapers

Hi, can we use offline non-English local newspapers as sources providing their scans? --S Q 15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you need to provide a scan? ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to provide a scan - no real mechanism to do so anyway. Can't upload to Wikipedia - it would be a copyvio. However, if the source is quoted in translation, I have seen the practise of inserting the quote in the original language as part of the citation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Such scans are very often a copyvio. Unless the scanned image is hosted on the newspaper's own website it's probably safest to presume it is a copyvio. Just use the standard {{citenews}} template - with, as suggested by User:Elen of the Roads, an optional quote. Roger (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't automatically use {{citenews}}; use the citation format already established in the article, which might or might not be the {{cite xxx}} family of templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

S_Q, see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there is no requirement that a source be available on-line. However, if the source is not in English, then please comply with WP:NOENG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia should implement a verification mechanism that will verify whether the information given in an article is really present in the offline reference. How will we know if an offline source is misrepresented or misquoted? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect that a "non-online" source has been misrepresented or misquoted, you have two options: 1) attempt to check it yourself by locating a copy of the source (not always easy, but a major library is usually a good place to start), 2) see if some other Wikipedian is willing to do so for you. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Any editor who is caught fabricating stuff and attempting to hide it by citing to difficult-to-access sources should be ~~taken out and shot~~ blocked for a very long time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I've come across with this is in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT faults with secondary usage. I had a case of this where a local Catholic newspaper in Colorado was claimed as a source for a highly questionable claim about George Washington. I did manage to get someone who had access to old issues to take a look, and she found that the citation was spurious; it had been copied from secondary sources without verification. As a rule, I would reject such citations if the information ought to be something that is more widely or prominently recorded and especially so if the matter is a secondary reference for a controversial claim. It's a common mechanism used by fringe theorists to fabricate support for their assertions. Now, for more routine information which would tend to be recorded only in a local source, I would be more inclined to assume good faith. It would be reasonable to expect, however, that the editor could tell us where they got access to the material. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the burden sits on the editor presenting this evidence to show it's real; they could email the scan to other editors if it's disputed (if not disputed no need to scan). Common sense should apply. If people are questioning your citation for good reason, one should supply it for scrutiny, rather than forcing people to run around and scrape up the original source. Just my two rupees. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have access to a source and someone else doesn't, then it would be courteous and collegial for you to supply scans or quotations to the editors without access, assuming you can do so without violating copyrights, no matter who originally added the material. But it is not required. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ addresses the issue of source access. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Adherents.com

What's the verdict on Adherents.com? User:124.181.25.139 has been using it as a source in various bios, but the site doesn't really strike me as the kind of source we'd normally accept. Zagalejo^^^ 23:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it lies on the "reliable" side of the line... but I agree it isn't the best. Certainly, if some other reliable source says something that conflicts with what is said at adherents.com, I would defer to the other source as being more reliable.Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it is probably not a reliable source, by our standards. There is no real indication of who is responsible for the content, and what checks and controls there are. On the other hand, it does seem to cite sources for at least some of its data - and may thus be useful as a resource to find such sources, which may themselves be cited provided the person citing them checks the cited material, and doesn't just copy the cite blindly from Adherents.com. What is it being cited for, though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is using it to say that various athletes are Christians. I think that the claims most likely are true, but I'm a little wary of seeing that particular site used as a reference. Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not RS for that. WP:BLP policy requires particularly good sourcing over religious affiliations and the like - and we shouldn't normally be going into such details at all if it has no bearing on the notability of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See also a previous discussion on this website: [54]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, SPS, unsigned tertiary aimed at a general public, no editorial policy, Preston Hunter has no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of your objections are not valid, policy-based reasons for rejecting a source. Most health-related government websites, for example, are "unsigned tertiaries aimed at a general public". Almost no sites publish their editorial policy (you, of course, don't actually know whether they have an editorial policy, only that you couldn't find one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very wary of using it. We used to rely on it very heavily for Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States (and I see there are still some links left) but for instance this page on Eisenhower refers back to us, and has some very questionable "research" from JW sources. I would certainly avoid reference to it where is gives no citations. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is adding religious-related categories - BLP policy states "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." so these should all be removed unless they conform to our policy. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This site, hosted by anonymous individual(s), is a populist site and its only goal seems to become famous, increase page rank, and generate money through ads. Lack of editorial board, fact-checking mechanism. It's not RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube clip

Is this you tube clip uploaded by persons unknown [55] OK to be used in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) to support the following "According to the defense layer of Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, the trial has only targeted figures of the previous government, and present opposition parties" Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no guarantee of veracity to the original recording, or that the content was uploaded intact. Secondarily to that, the original video (even if uploaded by a reputable group with editorial control) would itself need to be reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Darkness Shines has mischaracterised the uploaders. They are a respected international law firm based in London. In any case, I have replaced the reference with that of the original venue for the event that they uploaded the clip of. The clip was provided by the the prestigious American Society of International Law [56]. Aminul802 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Law chambers are not reliable publishers; 9 Bedford Row (Chambers) are not the American Society of International Law; and Luncheons are not acceptable methods of reporting legal or historical information. It is unreliable as the Youtube video is unreliable (9 Bedford Row (Chambers) are not a media company, nor the originator of this Luncheon), and it is unreliable as the Luncheon itself is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the lawyers comments not admissible when they are characterised as the lawyer's statements in a way that clarifies biases? The line says, "defence layers state that the targeted figures are the previous govt and present opposition." Aminul802 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? All 1,597 people named and to be tried are in opposition? Sounds a little implausible to me.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, Fifelfoo, do you want to point us at the policy or guideline that says recordings of speeches are not reliable sources? I'm not finding it, and I am finding WP:RS saying that videos that have been distributed (e.g., on YouTube) may be just as reliable as equivalent text publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

DJ Booth

I am currently doing a GA review of "Cockiness (Love It)" and I am concerned that one of the reviews used is from a non-RS. The editor used this review from DJ Booth, which he has said is not reliable enough for FA but good enough for GA. Any feedback as to this review should be included? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about CultureBlues, which is also used for a single review? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What text are the two reviews being used for? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Album reviews / editor opinions. Personally, I don't think either is big enough to warrant inclusion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So the issue is not of reliability but due weight. In terms of size DJ Booth appears quite large based on its website's traffic ranking (~9000th which is pretty decent): [57] so I wouldn't rule it out based on that. cultureblues, is a minor website and doesn't appear to have a lot of due weight attached to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, we want to ensure the critic quoted is qualified as well. Are they qualified? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What qualification is expected from someone who reviews music? I think DJ Booth is fine for the one line or so I saw it being used for. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

Can you folks weigh in on whether the Behind the Voice Actors website is a reliable source or not? The question comes up in the context of a date of death for Margie Hines. A number of people have attempted to add a date of death in the past, but always without a supporting citation. While it's likely that she is dead (she'd be 103 years old now), I've done some searching and have never been able to find anything to support a specific date. (For instance, although she supposedly died in Albany, NY, the Albany Times Union doesn't have an obit for her.) If BTVA is an RS, then problem solved, if not, it's back to the drawing board.

BTW, FWIW, February 4, 2011 is the same date that those numerous editors -- mostly IPs -- attempted to add in the past. One even had what looked like a source, but it didn't pan out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On their FAQ page [58], they say they require actual proof of the truthfulness of the information they receive, which would point to reliability, but they also say they rely on resumes, among other things, as valid sources, in which case they would simply be re posting an SPS. So, the reliability of such information would have to be determined on a case by case basis, and you'd need to know the original source of that information. I looked for alternative sources, but nothing thus far. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked again, using some different search schemes, and still nothing. I'm wondering about calling SAG to see if they'll give out that kind of information. I know that my own union will only give it out to members. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

^ Ian Whitelaw (2007). A Measure of All Things. Macmillan. p. 83. ISBN 9780312370268.
^ White, Matthew. "Necrometrics". About Me. Matthew White. Day job: Librarian
^ "Security Council members line up to criticize Israel". Jerusalem Post. 12/20/2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Israel condemned at UN over settlements". Al jazeera. 22 Dec 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
^ "UN groupings criticise Israeli settlement activities". BBC. 12/20/2011. Retrieved December 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b Teeguarden JG, Calafat AM, Ye X, Doerge DR, Churchwell MI, Gunawan R, Graham MK.. Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol a during high-dietary exposure. Toxicological Sciences - an official journal of the Society for Toxicology. 2011;125:318-20. PMID 21705716.
^ FSA. Small pond, same big issues; 27 July 2011 [Retrieved 3 August 2011].
^ Vom Saal FS, Prins GS, Welshons WV (2012). "Report of very low real-world exposure to bisphenol A is unwarranted based on a lack of data and flawed assumptions. Toxicol Sci. 2012 Jan;125(1):318-20". Toxicological Sciences - an official journal of the Society for Toxicology. 125: 321–5. PMID 22020768.

[1] #OCCUPYWALLSTREET A shift in revolutionary tactics Original 13 Jul 2011 Adbusters blog post which started Occupy Wall Street

[brisbanetimes-2] "From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world". Brisbanetimes.com.au. 2011-10-19. Retrieved 2011-11-24.

[3] Ian Whitelaw (2007). A Measure of All Things. Macmillan. p. 83. ISBN 9780312370268.

[White-4] White, Matthew. "Necrometrics". About Me. Matthew White. Day job: Librarian

[5] "Security Council members line up to criticize Israel". Jerusalem Post. 12/20/2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[6] "Israel condemned at UN over settlements". Al jazeera. 22 Dec 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.

[7] "UN groupings criticise Israeli settlement activities". BBC. 12/20/2011. Retrieved December 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Teeguarden-8] Teeguarden JG, Calafat AM, Ye X, Doerge DR, Churchwell MI, Gunawan R, Graham MK.. Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol a during high-dietary exposure. Toxicological Sciences - an official journal of the Society for Toxicology. 2011;125:318-20. PMID 21705716.

[9] FSA. Small pond, same big issues; 27 July 2011 [Retrieved 3 August 2011].

[10] Vom Saal FS, Prins GS, Welshons WV (2012). "Report of very low real-world exposure to bisphenol A is unwarranted based on a lack of data and flawed assumptions. Toxicol Sci. 2012 Jan;125(1):318-20". Toxicological Sciences - an official journal of the Society for Toxicology. 125: 321–5. PMID 22020768.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]