Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Before starting an RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed? Remember, context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Google Snippets

I have searched through the archives and found a couple of examples where Google Snippets was discussed. Several have focused on Google snippets, where their reliability has been discussed but in those cases editors did in fact have the source to hand. The consensus that I have seen thus far is that provided an editor has the source available then use of Google snippets is perfectly acceptable to illustrate a proposed edit. I've done so myself.

However, when Google snippets is the sole source used to support an edit and the editor does not possess the source, I do not believe this is a reliable or accurate way to source edits. Unless you have the ability to see the source and to discuss it in the whole I do not believe this is a reliable way to source an edit.

As an example:

This was given as justification of an edit to support a claim the British controlled Gibraltar in the period 1704-1713.

"And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55

The editor who made this claim searched for the name of the Governor who was appointed in 1707, Shrimpton. This is the Google snippet they used [1].

Unfortunately, the editor wasn't in posession of the source, that part of the book is dealing with the period 1713-1727 after Utrecht when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain.

My second concern is that of the potential for confirmation bias. Rather than reading sources and composing a neutral point of view edit, the editor decides the content they wish to write, then looks for sources to justify the text and can all too easily mislead themselves that they've reliably sourced an edit. As shown above, it is far from reliable.

My question for this board, is are Google Snippets, alone suitable for sourcing edits? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Google Snippets give just a sentence or two of material and , as in the example you described, are too easily misunderstood or taken out of context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We all use snippet view from time to time. It's good for identifying texts that may be of interest, and sometimes you can use it to rule out a source as irrelevant (if you find no mention of the search string at all). In theory, you should read the whole of a work before citing it at all, so that you are certain not to cherry-pick or pull items out of context. But for non-contentious material, the Google Books preview may be sufficient, or if using a paper book copy, it may be OK to read only the introduction, conclusion and one chapter. Some people will have a stricter view than that. You can always ask another editor if he/she has read the whole text, rather than making an assumption. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. First of all we are talking google snippets here, where at most you can see a few sentences and that is all. Sometimes less. I have no problem with using Google Books preview at all. Secondly, I am not making a presumption, the editor in question has stated he has not read the source and is using snippets only. This is what I consider is an unreliable method for sourcing. Finally, we are not talking about non-contentious material, rather material relevant to particular national narratives. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the best thing to do is to delay discussion until editors have been able to access the source. And it is only worth everyone accessing the source if it appears to be relevant and high quality. That can usually be judged by the title, date of publication, author, publisher, but snippet searches can also yield some information. If another editor told me he had the whole text, and I only had snippet view, then I might take it on trust that he was using the book properly, but if no-one editing has access to the whole text, then the book shouldn't be used at all. It can go into Further reading if it seems to be relevant and of quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Things like Google snippets and Google Books are a great tools for finding potential sources... but they should never be used as a source themselves. We always need to read the actual source material and cite that. We need to make sure that we are not taking a snipped material out of context. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, just to avoid misunderstanding coming from your connecting of Google Books more generally into this discussion, in these days of e-books I take it that if someone reads a book properly online that is like reading in any other media. I presume you are referring to cases of people not reading properly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An e-book or scanned copy of a book hosted on a reliable website is fine... as long as the reader can view the entire book in question. My concern with Google books is that it sometimes limits the number of pages that can be viewed. Thus, we can not always be sure that we have been presented with enough material to fully understand the context in which a searched for term or phrase appears. The concern is certainly a lot less than it is with Google snippets, but it is there never the less. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, where sources are in the public domain and there is a complete copy available, it is no different to going down the library. To be precise, where snippets is the only material available it runs the risk of misleading and is unreliable as a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see both points here. In the case of the Weston Price article there was the claim that he had been called "Charles Darwin of Nutrition"; a search of google books produced this snippet [2] which was enough to show the actually statement was that he might as well be caused that and it was an option piece. That was enough to clarify a mammoth mistatment that at over 5,000 hits was all over the internet.

On the flip side snippets produce a lot of garbage mishits and unless you can see their context they are worse then useless.

Snippets are like any tool--they can be used or abused. --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There should be no hard-and-fast rule. A snippet may contain enough context to unambiguously establish or support a particular point in an article - or it may not. If it does, it should not be excluded from use merely because it was viewed in snippet form. I do not agree with any notion that an editor must have access to an entire book before it can be used as a source. Thparkth (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree with you there. It can appear to establish or support a particular point but unless you have the source you cannot know that for certain and therein lies the problem. Its like looking at a source through a straw, you see fragments of text, you cannot establish for certain you're reflecting the original intent of the author. As a means of research it is contrary to wikipedia's way of working, you start with the edit and look for sources to confirm it, it is therefore vulnerable to confirmation bias and will not reflect the weight of views in the literature. As an example, there is a famous literary review of Lawrence Olivier in the London Standard, which stated "Not one of Olivier's best performances". This was reported on the poster at the theatre as "...one of Olivier's best performances". You see the danger? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Thparkth; snippets may contain enough context or may not. If an editor thinks the material is mis-quoted/misinterpreted, he/she will have to produce compelling evidence as to why, rather than just saying "you saw it in a snippet, so it's out of context". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be a hard-and-fast rule. Snippets are OK when the content is perfectly clear, and not OK when it isn't. I guess we should be able to evaluate which is the case and, when it is disputed we can reach an agreement. For example, a snippet that states that "In modern medicine, antibiotics are the primary weapon for fighting bacterial infection. Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming."[3] clearly can be used to say that this source supports the idea that "Alexander Fleming was the first discoverer of penicillin", with no "buts" or "ifs", wouldn't it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you present text as clear and unambiguous even when it is not. The classic example being presented from Andrews above, when you, Imalbornoz, repeatedly claimed this supported your argument (at least 10 times). This was despite the fact that it was pointed out you were wrong, that this referred to a later period and having it shown to you where in the book Andrews dealt with the events of 1704. You didn't even have the book to verify the claim, you were working on a very flawed presumption that if it mentioned Shrimpton it must be about his governorship. And this is not an isolated example, you did the same with Hills and Jackson, both of whom directly contradict the claim you made and you continued to press the same claim when more than ample evidence from those sources were presented to refute them.

And the examples you have chosen are not clear and unambiguous, the text is cut off immediately before (leading to my example from the London Standard), or immediately after. Finally, you're not talking about events which are not contentious (like Fleming), you're taking quotes and applying them to a contentious area, ignoring the fact that there is a range of opinions and that the view among historians is that the debate is not yet closed. On the one hand you demand extraordinary levels of proof from other editors but you source your edits on some very flimsy pretexts.

So when is clear, unambiguous and there is no controversy, google snippets can be adequate to be used as part of a cite. But even there I'd disagree that it is a suitable argument they form a reliable source. There are plenty of examples where the full cite is available, so the use of google snippets in those cases is an arbitrary and capricious.

And the example given is in no way even remotely related to what you're doing. You start with a premise and use google snippets to find a cite to support the premise. NPOV requires we report what the balance of views in the mainstream literature are. Use of google snippets as the sole research tool can never do that, seeing as the results are predicated on the initial premise you started with. All it does is reinforces your initial presumption through confirmation bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"If an editor thinks the material is mis-quoted/misinterpreted, he/she will have to produce compelling evidence as to why Isn't that rather reversing the burden of proof, if a snippets isn't enough to be clear and unambiguous then it is up to the original editor to provide proof to a text that is challenged by further reference to the source? Again this illustrates why snippets are inherently unreliable and to be used sparingly and largely when the original source is available. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You can actually get a lot of text out of Google Snippet View through a combination of searching the book and searching the database. It's just tedious. I see no problem with assuming they're as reliable as any other book citation; contested citations can be dealt with on an individual basis. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the wrong question - the reliablity of a source does not depend on whether or not it can be retrieved on-line. However editors should not present sources unless they are able to read them, or at least enough of the source so that the context is clear. If an editor has only seen a snippet view then they should not use that book as a source. TFD (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

there's an interesting special case where the google summary linked to a snippet will contain information not present in the actual snippet, but rather from the surrounding text which is not available. I have avoided using these as references when I cannot access the full text. Nonetheless, when I do access the full text, I have so far consistently found that the summary is accurate. This is a difficult question: can a computer-based summary of an article be sufficiently reliable to be use as a proxy for the article? I'm not proposing we use them as authorities, but I am by no means sure that they will not do a better job of neutrally extracting the pertinent information than we are likely to do ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The example used by Imalbornoz to illustrate why snippets can be valid actually helps show why they are not. Imalbornoz said the snippet "Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming."^[4] "clearly can be used to say that this source supports the idea that "Alexander Fleming was the first discoverer of penicillin", with no "buts"" - yet the very next sentence in the book is a "But..."!

OK, that specific fact might stand. But what if the snippet had chopped out something else, for example Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming. Or so it was believed, until new evidence was found...?  Chzz  ►  18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of google snippets should be discouraged as a rule. We expect that when people add references to entries they have fully verified the contents of the sources. This simply cannot be done from a snippet view because the full context is not there. It is much better to have a citation needed tag in the entry than to have a possibly erroneous citation coming from someone's google snippet view of a book. At least then we know that it hasn't yet been fully verified. There is another bad side-effect of snippet view entry writing. During content disputes and AfDs editors who are hoping to find their view supported in the available literature, or hoping to prove that something is notable often search google books and quickly return with out of context quotes. These quotes might be quite misleading and might not actually support the claims being made, but that can only be determined in full context. We should never allow such out of context quotes to be satisfactory. Allowing snippet views in some contexts would be a slippery slope into the wrong end of that scenario. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that topic is, that it is somewhat outside our control. Since the reference that should be cited is of course not the link to the google snippet but a proper the proper citation of the books or journal the snippet belongs to. The snippet merely might be offered as a convenience link. Now when looking at a proper citation, there is no way to tell whether the editor has read the whole book, a few pages of it, whether he read it at home or in a library, via a digitized copy or maybe just a snippet. We can of course explicitly recommend that an editor should know more than 2 lines of the source he's referencing, but on the other hand imho that follows from common sense alone. The fact that occasionally editors will do nonsensical things, is something we have to live with anyhow and it is not a good idea to formulate guidelines against various conceivable nonsensical things (see WP:CREEP).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also Google snippets may provide enough context, or they may not -it depends on what they say, and how they're used. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Google snippet view is NOT enough for verification. To see why, read through the sordid details at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park) where snippet view was being used by editors to insert contentious epitaphs into an article on a Soviet war memorial. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Law article on possible fringe viewpoint in psychology article

An editor has added this source to the article Sex and psychology to suggest that Stereotype threat may be controversial. I believe that the scientific consensus is that stereotype threat is an established phenomenon and there isn't any scientific controversy on its existence (see sources such as:). I'm not aware of any scientific criticism and a quick Google Scholar search shows how much research already exists on it. The critical article above is by law professor Amy Wax and published in a law journal, so I think it's particularly inappropriate in an article about psychological research. According to her bio, she doesn't have any expertise or experience evaluating psychological studies, so I think she is a completely unreliable source for this topic and does not represent notable scientific criticism of stereotype threat. Per wp:undue, I think it should only be mentioned briefly in the article that's actually about Stereotype threat (Amy Wax is already mentioned there), or possibly not included in Wikipedia as a source at all. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in my position on this source. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this is a major paper. It seems to be a student law journal? We had a discussion about those a while ago, and it seems that practice in law studies is quite different from the social sciences, in that the student law journals can be of high status. But even if that is unequivocally the case, it would only apply to law topics. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is odd -- a research review in a law journal. The standard for credibility in science is peer review. This article hasn't met that standard: review by experts in this field. It shouldn't be used to counter books from academic presses or research reviews that establish this phenomenon based on a review of the literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All law reviews initiating from law schools are run by the students with faculty supervision, and many are quite prestigious publications. The signed articles such as this one are written by law professors or recognized authorities in the field. Law review articles are in fact peer reviewed by faculty. If an article contains assertions pertaining to fields other than law, it would be common sense to reach out to faculty in other areas of the university to have a look, though I can't say for sure this is always done. Law professors had crossed an interdisciplinary line by the time I went to law school in 1976 and were already engaging in studies of sociological, economic, game theory aspects of law, etc. Amy Wax's credentials are unusual and impressive, as she is one of those rare people who is both a doctor and a lawyer, with a 1981 MD from Harvard and a 1986 JD from Columbia. She practiced as a neurologist. Her official bio says, "Current work in progress includes articles on law and evolutionary psychology, the political psychology of Social Security reform, and economic models of the family-friendly workplace." My opinion is that her article is a reliable source worthy of mention in the "Stereotype threat" article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was peer reviewed. But I would think that an article reviewing research by scientists should be peer reviewed by scientists. We don't know that that's the case here, and because it's a law journal, I don't know that we can assume that it was peer reviewed by specialists in that field of science. It seems like this should be a consideration, especially if the scientific consensus is, as the original poster claimed, that the stereotype threat is an established phenomenon. It would be very interesting to check with the journal's editor to see if they routinely send such an article to specialists in the particular field. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jonathanwallace has said, Amy Wax has an impressive biography and is a well established and respected academic figure. "the scientific consensus is, as the original poster claimed, that the stereotype threat is an established phenomenon." In the Wax article, there is no disagreement with the peer reviewed articles. Stereotype threat is a real phenomenon and Amy wax discusses that. She agrees that it is real. The statement I add also makes clear that is what she said. The point of the wax article is that it discusses the overall impact of stereotype threat, which is not being discussed in the other two articles currently provided. She is saying that while it exists, it is likely that it has a small overall impact. This is an important consideration that is worth addressing in the wiki article. If there were conflict between these sources I would agree with you, but in fact they are not in disagreement. The wax article is peer reviewed, written by an established academic, and adds relevant and useful information that can be used to understand stereotype threat.Phoenixlanding (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and sent an email to professor wax asking her for more details regarding her article. If you give me some time I am sure I will be able to provide her imput on the quality of her work. I also asked her to detail the peer review process.Phoenixlanding (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wax responded very quickly to my email. It seems she does not appreciate the accusations that her work is not valid. She said:

The notion that I am not credentialed and the article is not “peer reviewed” is ludicrous. Anyone with scientific and mathematical training can read these pieces and point out their flaws and faults. I am not doing original research, but rather critiquing research that has been done – and that does not require expertise beyond a brain and an ability to read a research paper.

I notice that people like Malcolm Gladwell and David Brooks, who have no scientific training, spout on about IQ, human capital, and cognitive neuroscience. Because what they say is politically correct, everyone loves it. There is clearly a double standard.

If it helps, I have an article on stereotype threat that makes the same points with more elaboration in a volume entitled “The Science on Women in Science” published by American Enterprise Institute. It is from a conference they held on women in science.

As you can see there are reasons to think this article is being singled out for political reasons. Please check Aronoel's user page and consider her political identifications.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (apparently some company uses phoenixlanding and they asked me to change my name)

This article is definitely reliable. A school like that would not publish this without having it peer reviewed by experts in the area, and the author is qualified to write on the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could people comment on the email from Amy Wax? "Anyone with scientific and mathematical training can read these pieces and point out their flaws and faults." Does that mean that it wasn't peer reviewed by scientists before publication? --Aronoel (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Her email does explicitly state:

"The notion that ... the article is not “peer reviewed” is ludicrous."

Works are frequently used in our articles that are peer-reviewed by no one, not written experts, and aren't published by legitimate academic publications. At the very least we know that the professors and other members of their editorial staff either peer reviewed it themselves because they viewed it within their capabilities, or that they sought outside reviewers for aide. In either case we should be assured that this publication's quality control ensure the legitimacy of this content.AerobicFox (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is doubtful that a law journal would be able to properly peer-review the scientific merits of a psychology review article. The author, while having impressive personal achievements, does not appear to be a practicing physician or psychologist, nor a published author on the subject in the medical literature (her bio page on UPenn website did not show any medical papers, and a quick PubMed search did not show any publications that I can find; I should note that neurology and psychology are very different fields and training in one a quarter century ago doesn't make one an expert in the other). Certainly an article in a law journal would be a reliable source for the legal side of issues, but I would be hard pressed to say it would be reliable for information of the status of medical facts, especially if contradicted by peer reviewed secondary sources in medical journals (which I have not gone into detail to confirm is the case). Yobol (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

She does not contradict any facts, and is writing about the statistical and scientific techniques for handling data in various ST experiments. This paper seeks to propose additional guidelines for how to more accurately and precisely gauge the extent that stereotype threat plays on the achievement gap by reviewing previous studies, their advantages and shortcomings, and proposing techniques to better handle the data and maintain internal consistently within the current researh on stereotype threat. The accusation that this is some type of fringe article that dismisses the existence of stereotype threat is misleading and incorrect.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What you are describing is someone trying to advance scientific arguments in a law article. Why was it published in a law journal? Red flags are thrown up for me when articles are published outside their sub-specialty in medicine (say, an ENT article published in a dermatology journal); an article published completely outside the discipline (psychology) and by an author who is by all accounts not a published expert/researcher in that discipline (psychology) throws up about 100 red flags. Bottom line: law journals are reliable for law related material; medical/scientific journals for medical/scientific material. This does not appear to be reliable as material for medical claims on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wax is very qualified to read, understand, and evaluate scientific literature. She has significant experience in medical fields and is qualified to evaluate scientific papers in medicine. Attacking her credentials is ridiculous.Penn state is also one of the oldest and most prestigious schools in the country. It also makes little sense to attack the scholarly excellence of work that appears there. This paper is available from the social science research network. Here is the description of that site:

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) is a world wide collaborative of over 800 leading scholars that is devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social science research. It is composed of a number of specialized research networks in each of the social sciences. Each of SSRN's networks encourages the early distribution of research results by reviewing and distributing submitted abstracts and by soliciting abstracts of top quality research papers around the world. The Networks encourage readers to communicate directly with other subscribers concerning their own and other's research. Through our email abstracting eJournals we currently reach over 400,000 people in approximately 140 different countries.

Would a collaborative of over 800 leading scholars make this article available if it didn't make adequate standards? No they wouldn't. On this site it is also in the top 17% of most downloaded papers. If it was bad, scholars wouldn't want to read it. Like she said, people with absolutely no scientific background are often listened to on this subject so long as what they said was deemed politically correct, which is at the heart of the problem and why Aronoel is singling out this article vs. other less credible sources in this article (the Gilligan book is terrible, but we will start on that later). It is not politically correct to question anything about stereotype threat because of feminist pressure. I can't help but notice at no point has any of the critics here bothered to address the work directly. Instead of attacking Dr. Wax's credentials, which are unique and impressive, or making the ridiculous assertion that Penn Law does not have excellent scholarship, why don't you read through the article, it is fully available online, and explain to us what about the article does not meet scientific standards.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1123499 PhoenisMeanis (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this paper is not published in a peer-reviewed form (the SSRN appears to be a clearinghouse for already published research papers, they do not appear to vet or peer-review them individually) where the peer-review is from qualified experts in the field. Whether others are "listened to" or not is not relevant, as other non-peer reviewed sources would likewise not be reliable to be used as sources for medical information. Framing this discussion as an "attack" on Wax or the University of Pennsylvania (not Penn State) is frankly unhelpful and bordering on disruptive. Saying she is not an expert or a published researcher in the field is not an attack, it is a statement of fact. Yobol (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)She published this in a law journal because she is currently working at said law school. She has also published a similar article in another volume that was on women and science. You state that this is not peer reviewed, but I see no evidence to support that. Penn State does review all of the material they publish. The claim that anything they have published is not peer reviewed had better have very good evidence to support it. If they felt they were unable to review it they would have got outside opinions. If you feel that they are incapable of reviewing it, but they feel that they are capable of reviewing it, then I am afraid your view is not going to be given much weight compared with the editorial staff of a prestigious publication which is much more qualified to make such a judgment call.AerobicFox (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

She has not been peer-reviewed by experts in the area she is publishing about (in this case psychologist), or at least as far as I can tell. Feel free to correct me by showing me which research psychologists are on the editorial staff of the law journal or which "outside opinions" they got. That you personally assume (as far as I can tell without any evidence) that this publication got adequate scientific peer review does not inspire any confidence. Yobol (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The SSRN link is just a convenience link. The actual citation appear to be Wax, Amy L., Stereotype Threat: A Case of Overclaim Syndrome?. THE SCIENCE ON WOMEN AND SCIENCE, Christina Hoff Sommers, ed., American Enterprise Institute, 2009; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-14 We all assumed that it came from U. Penn law review but it appears to be from a book published by American Enterprise and possibly also issued separately as a research paper by the law school. My .02c: she clearly is reliable for an assertion along the lines "Law professor and neurologist Amy Wax states...." The people trying to exclude this are attempting to hold it to an impossibly high standard. Even if we treated it as falling under WP:SPS, she has been previously published by reliable third parties on issues at the intersection of law, psychology and sociology. So if this were an opinionated blog post, we would let it in but people are arguing for the exclusion of a research paper? Doesn't make sense. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. While of course I agree that she's a reliable source on her own opinions, I think because of the scientific consensus on this issue, using her source to introduce controversy about stereotype threat in an article besides Stereotype threat is undue weight. --Aronoel (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, you are not qualified to make the judgment that her views are controversial and have not pointed out any sources which have even suggested that her opinion is not reliable or well informed. As far as I am seeing she is suggesting nothing in direct contradiction with "scientific consensus", and the portrayal of her argument as being that stereotype threat doesn't exist, and that she is drumming up controversy with scientific consensus, seems an inaccurate and highly misleading representation of her views. If editors are using her article to support such a view then that needs to be changed; however at present times if quoted accurately she is perfectly reliable to comment on the body of research that she has studied concerning stereotype threat.AerobicFox (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think we can all agree she is a reliable source for her own opinions - but of course, she's not an expert in the field of psychology, so playing the SPS card doesn't mean much. I guess I'm an old-fashioned type of guy, but I don't think expecting scientific/medical claims to be sourced to peer-reviewed scientific/medical literature is an "impossibly high standard" - that's just the usual academic standard in the medical field! If she is such a well considered researcher in the medical field as some are saying, where are the secondary review in the medical literature which have analyzed her work, or her published work in psychology journals? Yobol (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do my best as a Wikipedia editor and to contribute positively, I hope people will focus on the content of my comments and not how they feel about my personal character or qualifications. The sentence that has been added based on the Wax source is "However, in a review of stereotype threat studies, law professor Amy Wax argues that while literature supports the existence of stereotype threat during study conditions, the literature also suggests the impact of stereotype threat in tests is small in magnitude. In addition she criticizes most of the studies for having improper controls, small sample sizes, and suggests that stereotype threat is unsatisfactory in explaining the over-representation of males in the top 99th percentile." I feel that this contradicts what is in the sources I linked to in my original post. --Aronoel (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if anything I said came across as personal. I suggest we close this discussion out. I think the consensus is the source is reliable for her opinion. Any further discussion goes to WP:WEIGHT and is not for this noticeboard. Its probably a good time to move this discussion to the article talk page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

From their website

Penn Law professors are leaders in cross-disciplinary scholarship and practice. Seventy percent of our standing faculty hold advanced degrees beyond the JD, with nearly half having PhDs or the equivalent.

Here is some of the psychology qualifications of one of their faculty:

Stephen J. Morse

"educated in law and psychology at Harvard, Morse has written for law reviews, journals of psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy; and he has edited collections."

Psychology degrees = Ph.D. - Harvard - '73 Ed.M. - Harvard - '70

Positions he has served related to psychology

Penn State = Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry (1991-);

USC = Professor of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences (1979-88); Professor of Psychology (1982-88); Associate Professor of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences (1977-79)

Trustee, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1995-2004

Do you have any reason to assume that a prestigious academic journal would not just contact one of their professors of psychology and ask them to review something? All academic journals like this peer review what they publish, there is no reason to assume this work was not peer reviewed before being published by them; that would be highly unusual for a publication like them to do.AerobicFox (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this person on the editorial board of the journal in question and/or actively peer reviews for this journal? You are assuming that this journal properly peer-reviewed this article; I only point out that it would be highly unusual that a law journal could properly peer-review a psychology review article. You have placed the burden on people to show that it wasn't peer-reviewed properly, which is frankly backwards in this situation where it would not be expected that the usual peer-review for a journal could peer-review the article properly. Yobol (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They have psychology experts as faculty at that school, if they needed them in order to review the work they would have given it to them to review. All academic publications like this one do this; I am not even sure why you would question that.AerobicFox (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most scientific publications publish articles in their area of expertise. Everything else you assume about what might or might not have happened in peer-review is just that - an assumption. I fear we're going around in circles, and my point has been made. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Things published by academic publications are assumed to have been adequately peer reviewed by the publications, assuming otherwise about a well established and prestigious publication doesn't provide them the trust they have earned.AerobicFox (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We are debating a non-issue, as the assertion in question begins, "Law professor Amy Fox says...." An assertion "X is true" needs to be peer reviewed, an assertion "Amy Fox believes X" does not. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that far from being a fringe opinion there are a number of pyschologists who agree with Proffessor Wax's review. Including a prominent psychologist Paul Sackett. In racial issues he made criticisms of stereotype threat that are equally applicable to gender and are in complete agreement with what wax is saying. ^ Sackett PR, Hardison CM, Cullen MJ (January 2004). "On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests" (PDF). Am Psychol 59 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.7. PMID 14736315. http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, DO NOT IGNORE THIS. I am talking to you aronoel and Yobol. You have failed to address this very vital point and it should be at the heart of your argument. It is in fact the single most important aspect of whether or not to include the article. If you cannot provide a single reason or study to refute what she is saying then it is hard to imagine what the foundation of your argument is based on. Character attacks simply are not sufficient.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

People aren't trying to refute the article because our personal analysis isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I'm just replying because you asked me specifically to comment, but I'm fine with Jonathanwallace's suggestion to close this discussion. It appears that you've found a better source for critical views of stereotype threat anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating that your "personal analysis isn't relevant to the discussion" seems to suggest that you have a reliable source that has said Wax's review is controversial. Do you have a reliable source stating her review is controversial, or is that your own analysis?AerobicFox (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Journal of Cosmology is a fringe/vanity journal which publishes weird/fringe ideas in several fields of science. Particularly on quantum consciousness, panspermia/origins of life, steady state theory, and on the colonization of Mars.

These articles use Journal of Cosmology as a references (based on the January 15 database dump). The claims should be checked against better sources, or simply removed from the article per WP:RS.

3

I've notified WP:AST, WP:BIOL and WP:PHYS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a read of the Wikipedia entry says everything. Anyway, not only do some articles have statements that use JoC as a source but plenty more articles make reference to work "published" on the Journal of Cosmology site including Space colonization, Extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology etc. Given its fringe status/potentially unreliable nature I imagine this is giving these studies undue weight and should be reviewed too? ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove the references using this journal as a source. I wouldn't trust material published in it any more than papers in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Definitely not reliable sources. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Its existence on the List of astronomy journals is fine, because it is after all a journal which covers astronomy (albeit unreliably). But it is not a reliable source, so claims sourced to it should be removed. Similar articles and theories also appear in the Open Astronomy Journal, so I wouldn't trust that either; fortunately the search tool doesn't show up any uses of that as a source. Modest Genius ^talk 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Journal of Cosmology article was written by the OP himself and is unfortunately not very neutral. It seems that at least the article by Richard B. Hoover is a WP:RS - it has been widely covered and discussed in mainstream and scientific media. Other articles published by the journal may well be rubbish, but as this example shows, a case-by-case investigation may be needed. Nanobear (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I created the article on this journal because the recent brouhaha (typical science by press conference) unfortunately puts the journal on the map. The article is neutral with regards to its status as seen by the scientific community. The article by Hoover is most certainly not a WP:RS, its coverage in mainstream/scientific media are trivial press releases of the "Someone has recently claimed that X, which would be interesting if true" kind, or a total destruction of its claims and vitriolic criticism of the authors and of the journal. The journal lacks DOIs, indexing in selective databases, not covered in Journal Citation Reports, etc... cHeadbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly now plenty of references to the Hoover paper in reliable sources, so we can use those to discuss Hoover's claims. But I wouldn't rely upon that paper for any actual facts. Modest Genius ^talk 04:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This source appears to fall under Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite the article for a statement that the claims have been made where required by WP:PROMINENCE, but this journal should not by itself be used to back up bare statements of fact or the general state of the astrophysics community. The JPandS comparison above is apt. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with others that this doesn't appear to be a reliable journal.[5][6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Their reaction to the recent controversy on their own website [7] entitled "Have the terrorists won?" is all the confirmation we should need that they are indeed a fringe publication. We should avoid citing them in science articles in the future. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Money multiplier (again)

I am bringing up this issue again because there are now more quality and quantity of sources as evidence:

There has been a raging debate on the fractional reserve banking page on the issue of whether or not the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply in practice. The *textbooks* state that the reserve requirements *does* place a limit on the money supply but it appears that in the world of peer-reviewed-journal-papers the consensus is that the money supply does *not* place a limit on the money supply. For example “Understanding the Remarkable Survival of Multiplier Models of Money Stock Determination” by Raymond E. Lombra. and “Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?” by by Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp. One of the papers is even published on the Fed's own website.

As supporting evidence (not taken from a peer reviewed paper) Prof. Steve Keen said "Basil [Moore] is the venerable father of the proposition that the money supply is endogenously determined, rather than set exogenously by the Central Bank, as is still taught (in wild conflict with both the empirical data and actual Central Bank knowledge and practice) in almost all macroeconomics courses"

As I understand it, wikipedia policy is that peer-reviewed-journal papers trump textbooks and so unless someone can find a peer reviewed paper that defends the money-multiplier-as-limit theory, then I suggest that the wikipedia page on fractional reserve banking should state that the money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit is now the currently accepted mainstream view.

I have been begging the editors of the page to find a peer-reviewed-paper defending the money-multiplier-as-limit theory for many months now and they appear not to be able to find a single one. I have even offered a $250 reward if they can find one - still nothing. I even posted on a variety of popular economics forums that I was offering the prize, several hundred people have read the postings - and still nothing.

In conclusion - if there are several unchallenged peer-reviewed journal papers suggesting that money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit then that is what wikipedia should report as the current expert view.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Alternative_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_multiplier_second_break Reissgo (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see here for the so called 'raging' debate at the Fractional-reserve banking talk page. It is mainly a bunch of different editors telling Ressigo that he has no reliable sources to back up his conspiracy theory. Note that this same issue has been posted on this noticeboard before. See here and here. LK (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid judging whether it is the case or not, but in principle yes, I believe that peer reviewed articles which appear to be unchallenged are higher in rank than text books. Text books are handy sometimes in some fields, but they are not the best sources. Peer reviewed articles can be questioned if they are clearly one off articles. Ideal would be to find a peer reviewed literature review article. I believe these exist in economics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

LK's characterization of the situation is extremely disingenuous. The "bunch of different editors" consists almost exclusively of "BigK Hex" and LK, whilst I have had enthusiastic support from several editors. I should point out the BigK Hex and LK put up huge resistance over a long period to my efforts to modify the full reserve banking page so that it was made clear that loans could be made by banks in such a system. They eventually had to concede that I had been right all along (see "This would allow banks to continue to act as an intermediary between investors and borrowers" in the intro). If I had not been so patient and tenacious then the full reserve banking page would have remained inaccurate to this day. Reissgo (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why both views can't be accommodated, per WP:NPOV. Perhaps characterize one as the consensus textbook view, and the other as a view articulated in journals such as x and x, giving the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to both views being on the page either. The question is which one is presented as the "current thinking amongst experts" and which is presented as the "alternative view". Currently the treatment is that the "textbook" view is the established expert view and the "journal" view is supported by a tiny group of weirdos. Reissgo (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoid those labels. Just say that one is the textbook view and one has been articulated in specific journals, and give the dates. If the dates are recent, then the reader may infer that there's an established view that is being challenged by more recent articles. Let the reader himself decide which is the current thinking among experts. It's not the role of Wikipedia to designate which is the expert view. Of course, if there are sources discrediting one view and identifying why a particular view is the consensus view, then that would give more weight to that view. And those sources could be cited. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently the section describing the textbook process is listed first under the titles "Example of deposit multiplication"&"Money multiplier" and contains about 1,200 words, two pictures and one table. The journal view is listed later under the title "Alternative views" and contains 87 words and just to emphasize the alternative-ness of the views the wording also points out that the views are "outside of the mainstream". Do you think this treatment represents NPOV? Reissgo (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to. And "outside the mainstream" sounds like a violation of WP:NOR. Of course, all of this depends on the quality of the venues where these articles were published. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy's approach sounds like a good one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions so far. With regard to "all of this depends on the quality of the venues where these articles were published" - the Carpenter paper is from "Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C." May 2010 and the Lombra paper comes from the "Eastern Economic Journal (Summer 1992), pp. 305-314." - please could someone other than me comment on the quality of these two sources. Reissgo (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion as to how to proceed which I think is in the spirit of what TimidGuy suggests and Andrew Lancaster concurred with. First of all there could be a paragraph that appears before the presentation of either of the two rival theories clearly explaining that the theory described in the textbooks appears to be at odds with those published in academic journals. Then say something like "for the sake of neutrality we shall present both views". Then have the textbook view (which should be labelled as such) and then have the academic journal view. The journal view should have a proper authoritative title which is not demeaning. I suggest "the view from academic journals" or some such. The journal view could also be considerably expanded so that it is given something approaching equal weight. Finally the use of terms like "alternative" and "outside of the mainstream" should be removed when referring to the two papers listed here. Reissgo (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please post links here to the (Carpenter & Demiralp) and Lombra papers? CRETOG8(t/c) 16:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp) http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/index.html

(Lombra) http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume18/V18N3P305_314.pdf

(I just noticed I had the papers and their authors swapped in the intro - now fixed)

Reissgo (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I haven't been following the article discussion, and don't claim particular expertise on the matter, I'm just looking at the sources:

• The Lombra paper was published in 1992 in a fairly minor economics journal, and seems to have had 3 citations since according to Google scholar. So, yes, it's a peer-reviewed article, which according to WP rules is a reliable source, but I can't see it as a good source for anything which contradicts major recent textbooks. Remember that many of these textbooks are written by major scholars and policy makers, so the authors aren't outsiders unaware of the state of research and policy. For instance, I have a 2001 intermediate macroeconomics text by Andrew Abel and Ben Bernanke, both of whom were researchers and had ties to the Fed at the time. That's more recent than the Lombra paper, and appears much more authoritative. If the two disagreed, I'd go with the Abel & Bernanke textbook. (Checking out other source now...) CRETOG8(t/c) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• The Carpenter and Demiralp paper is recent, and may be high-quality (I haven't read it), but it's a discussion paper, not yet really complete, peer-reviewed, or formally published. It also explicitly says it doesn't represent the views of the Fed. So, as it stands, it's not a reliable source CRETOG8(t/c) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While peer-reviewed articles are reliable sources, the issue is actually one of notability. If the opinions presented in a paper have not received widespread attention, then they are safely ignored in articles. TFD (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reissgo seems to think that RS is the only criterion for material. Many of his sources have had RS problems, but more overiddingly, it has also been suggested to Reissgo on multiple occasions by multiple editors that his proposed material has a severe POV problem, specifically, that he has introduced evidence himself that the views are WP:FRINGE. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Carpenter & Demiralp wrote a related paper in 2009 "Money and the Transmission of Monetary Policy" which has 5 citations according to google scholar. http://www.ku.edu.tr/ku/images/EAF/eaf_wp0906.pdf Reissgo (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of versions of that paper online. The 2009 one you linked above, like the others I saw, is a working paper, not a published paper. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also "A simple approach to modelling endogenous money" by Steve Keen. Reissgo (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

...and if you want to argue that text from certain books can compete with papers then I'll put forward that in Moore (1979, p.539) he quotes a Fed economist who said "in the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later". Reissgo (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

...and in the book "Towards True Monetarism" by Geoffrey Gardiner it states on page 4: "conventional textbook theory needs a slight clarification. Popular textbooks even modern ones seem to imply that there can be shortages of funds in which the Bank of England can supply only by creating new money. There authors may have somewhat misinterpreted the practicalities of the situation through incomplete mastery of the principles of double entry book keeping. They failed to see that all money is debt and that if debt has been created by a bank the money for a balancing deposit has inevitably been created too. Any funds needed to eliminate a shortage must already be on there way to the bank of England because any surplus must show up in the books once the systems brief time-lag has been overcome a permanent creation of new money should therefore never be necessary judging by their private statements bank treasurers well understand this principle[1]" then he gives as the reference: "In a lecture the head of treasury operations of a large clearing bank was most emphatic: 'If we are short of funds we know they have to be around somewhere: it is just a question of finding where they are and then paying the price to get them'". Reissgo (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these additional sources. Since you're still in the process of discovering sources, I might suggest that you identify what you feel are the most reliable sources, then you and the other parties discuss this further based on these additional sources and the feedback you've received here. Then if this can't be resolved, bring additional issues regarding reliable sources here, and subsequently issues regarding undue weight to WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• Economics textbooks are a subject in themselves. Economics took off as a very popular undergraduate course in recent decades and the textbook business did also. Concerns that these textbooks often differ from what can be found in peer reviewed journals are frequently discussed as anyone with an economics background would know. So this is a discipline where textbooks are not highly respected for reliability on fine points. I believe the point being discussed here about monetary policy is itself one that is frequently discussed.
• In my experience, teachers of undergraduate economics tend to claim that the traditional presentations of subjects are just the best way to lead students to the more realistic models. In Wikipedia we have no such excuse, because we are not leading people through a curriculum.
• I think a few people have exaggerated a little above by seeming to imply that the most popularly published things are the most notable and most important for Wikipedia, while peer reviewed sources, if not often discussed, can be called fringe positions. That is not really how Wikipedia works. Popularity of an idea does not make it the leading idea, because Wikipedia's policy are not that simplistic. "Not well known" is not the same as "fringe".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew for your very interesting and useful comments. I shall take your advice. Indeed I have just discovered a swathe of new sources (Prof. Lombra just emailed me with four new papers to consider). So I shall end my comments on this noticeboard - select the papers I deem most reliable and then reconvene on WP:NPOVN at a later time. Reissgo (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Optimus Prime Trailers and add on kits!

I have one question:

1. How come there is no mentioning of optimus primes City Commander Upgrade Armor Set and G3 Trailer that was made by fansproject and the Mobile Command Center by BTS Toys on the profile of "Transformers Classics" & "Optimus Prime (Transformers)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.150 (talk • contribs)

Maybe because you haven't added it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Go ahead and add it. If someone removes it, then go to the discussion page and say why you think it should be in the articles. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citebook

Am i posting in the right place? Anyway, a book i am trying to cite has "in associaction with London's Transport Museum". Is there a field in {{citebook}} which would allow me to add this to the reference? Simply south...... 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not the right place. Template talk:Cite book would probably be a good start, along with the book's isbn. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

VOA video file

I need more comments on commons file:[8], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [9] and commented by user:Benlisquare:here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang ^talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly VOA represents the view of the U.S. and is biased, but in that sense, all of the mainstream media in the U.S. have the same bias. Since it's been posted on the VOA Channel in YouTube, I believe we generally view such videos from mainstream media as being reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the question is whether inclusion of a video file on the Wikipedia project is encyclopedic. If you take a look at my original argument, my main concern was not POV or reliability, but rather the file's inclusion being pointless. If Fox News was public domain, would we have video clips of Fox News reports on every single politics-related page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Toon Zone

I noticed that there have been at least three discussion pertain to this site. But I'm more leaning towards the idea that this site is unreliable due to the case of their announcement of the series Dragon Ball Z Kai finale in Japan. They state that their source was the fansite Kanzentai as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm increasingly getting the impression that WP policies are more tailored to mainstream topics, and that areas such as cartoons and gaming don't have the library of sources (mainstream media, scholarly articles, books) to support their content in Wikipedia. And that major web portals fill the gap. We seem to be more tolerant of such portals for these sorts of topics. That said, this site does seem to rely on user-contributed content, and there's no clear statement of editorial oversight. I'd hate to give a blanket ruling, though, for the aforementioned reason. If there's some information that's doubtful, then in that instance I'd advise against this source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this article a worthwhile source?

On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman.[10] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.

The text added to the article reads:

In 1978, LaRouche's newspaper the Campaigner carried the editorial Zionism is not Judaism:

"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.

Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax:

These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications[...] LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’.

Feldman also said that the notes which Jeremiah Duggan made at a 2003 Schiller Institute conference were evidence of the LaRouche movement's antisemitism.

There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.

This evil group is fomenting nuclear world war and bringing the world to the brink of destruction.

Below this, Jeremiah’s chart features Leo Strauss in the centre of a circle and an arrow with the words ‘Jewish’ pointing to Strauss’ name. It is annotated: ‘Jewish leads to Fascism—leads to Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld’.

The essay can be found here[11]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor.[12]

I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a partially relevant comment but isn't holocaustresearchproject.net blacklisted ? I remember tripping a filter just a few weeks ago when I tried to link to an essay on their site and being completely baffled as to why. I found a discussion but I forget where...hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be an issue with the website that hosts the essay, but the author and the essay itself seem reliable. Was it ever published in another venue? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha...discussed here although that still left me somewhat baffled. I recall I was looking at something by Matthew Feldman too. Seemed perfectly fine to me as a source but I couldn't find it elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location.BillMasen (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and potentially good news. I tripped the filter on Feb 5th just over a month ago at Talk:Chetniks with this link. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No filter tripped this time. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my doubts about this site remain. It may not be blacklisted anymore, but that does not mean it can be used: So far, it seems that the site is nothing more than a blog and thus the article itself remains selfpublished under WP:SPS. If evidence is presented that the site provides any kind of editorial oversight, I'd gladly revise my doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk • contribs)

The claim is not being made by the site, but by Feldman. Surely it is him who should be considered the source. BillMasen (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Feldman has previously published articles in academic journals about LaRouche. BillMasen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've sent an email to the "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" asking about their editorial practices.

I agree with BillMasen that Feldman would qualify as an expert, however we can't use the self-published sources of experts for comments about living people. WP:BLPSPS. If it turns out to be self-published, then we could use it as a source for the movement, but not for LaRouche himself, if I understand correctly.  Will Beback  talk  23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, thanks Will. Feldman cites the Campaigner, and I've verified the quote; it is accurate. If there are other sources from within the movement writing about the Holocaust that accept the generally agreed figure of 6 million, then that might affect my views on how to handle this, but as it stands, Feldman's criticism seems fair to me. --JN466 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

JN, the "Views" article had, as a quick review of its history from 2005-2010 proves,always some paragraphs about different assessments of the Holocaust and featured LaRouches condemnation of Antisemitism. Those different views were deleted in 2010. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that worries me about the text that has been introduced is that Feldman is reported as saying, "Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax." That's a subtle misquote of Feldman, and a misrepresentation of what the Campaigner argues. The Campaigner doesn't argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. What the Campaigner describes as a hoax is the notion that Zionism is a justified and necessary response to the Holocaust. It argues, essentially, that Zionists have used the holocaust to their own nefarious ends. I would delete the reference to "Holocaust denial" from the section's heading, drop the sentence ""Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax," and instead just use the actual quote of what Feldman said (including, if you will, his reference to a "coded form of holocaust denial"). Just stick close to the source. --JN466 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the campaigner quote does say that only 1.5 million Jews did die, through 'labour policies' which weren't directed at them. This is very common holocaust denial, and Feldman calls it so. See [13] Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition,

I have no objection to your suggestion of using a direct quote from Feldman. Thanks! BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed it BillMasen (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The 1.5 million figure does not work in the Campaigner's favour. Other LaRouche publications are more mainstream, however; here is one clearly referring to "the murder of 6 million Jews", and here is an essay by LaRouche in which he says, "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews", extols Mendelssohn as the saviour of German classical music (of which he is definitely a fan) and argues that Jewish contributions made German culture and science what it is. I think it's possible that his beef is with Zionists and certain Jewish financiers rather than with Jews. --JN466 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net

I question the use of this website for its sources for Benedictum. A disclaimer on the website states that anything posted there is not checked for accuracy. Is this source usable?

I would say no, it's definitely not a reliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't say that at all, as far as I can see. Can you provide a link to this disclaimer? All I can see is a statement that Blabbermouth.net is independent of Roadrunner Records, who host the site, and that Roadrunner Records do not confirm or guarantee the accuracy of information on the site. Thats' a world away from Blabbermouth.net stating that they don't check anything for accuracy. Blabbermouth.net is in my view a reliable source with the caveat that some of their news items are (pretty obviously) based on press releases, but then that's true of many newspapers and other websites.--Michig (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked a couple of the refs using the Roadrunner Records website and that site actually pipes through to Blabbermouth for the stories, eg: [here. I cannot understand what Roadrunner mean by their disclaimer given that they seem clearly to be connected to Blabbermouth. I agree however that the disclaimer does not say what the OP suggested it does. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

INEAS

Is the "Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies" website (http://www.ineas.org/) a reliable source on the Near East and Africa? The website states it's

"an independent, tax-exempt, educational and cultural organization with the mission to educate the Arab, African, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities and offer them services, and to educate the American public and inform the media on issues related to Africa and Asia with a focus on the Arab and Islamic worlds and the non-Arab / non-Moslem Communities within the Arab world".

However, it appears to be mostly the work of Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and the people listed on the "About" page all have yahoo e-mail addresses. Her lengthy CV (linked from the website) lists a wide variety of accomplishments, including bachelor degrees in Civil Engineering and Political Science and a real estate license, along with an on-going interest in variety of Near Eastern and African topics, but doesn't seem to indicate any particular expertise in the latter. The Special Reports section provides a small number of brief descriptions of various vacations taken in different countries, mostly by Wafaa' herself. The Projects section lists an even smaller number of issues Wafaa' has been interested in (one of them, International Seed Day, is duplicated), and documentary she is working on, for which she solicits contributions. The Press section lists fairly brief descriptions of INEAS in three sources in 1998 and one in 2004. The Archives section lists 5 newsletters produced in 1997 and 1998, and 3 different performance pieces that have been done (and are still done?) for young people in classrooms, libraries, etc. The Events section lists "Tai Chi, Indian Martial Arts and Bollywood Dancing" classes INEAS gave on October 10, 2010. I could go on, but in summary everything I can find on the website tells me it's a part-time activity of one activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good analysis and, as such, the site falls under the constraint of WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What is it being used for on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was being used to support the claim that the articles written by FoxNews on the adoption of Ala'a Eddeen were propaganda and patronage. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was also used as it to compared the Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen to the 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy. Passionless -Talk 21:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its clear case of self publishing source and thus could not be used as WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

hardcoregaming101.net

hardcoregaming101.net - This site is used across many pages, but it doesn't seem very reliable. They get a lot of their information from babel-fish translated forums and other similar sources. A big problem is that they don't always say what their source is unless they are skeptical or are not sure how to interpret it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

These gaming portals are tough to deal with. In the short time I've been involved at RSN, we've been a bit more lenient, given that topic isn't covered in the sort of traditional sources such as scholarly articles, books, and mainstream media. There doesn't seem to be a clear way to judge editorial quality. This site has an editor and contributing editors, making it somewhat more than a personal website. I'd be inclined to judge it on a case-by-case basis. In the instance where their info comes from translated forums, I'd say that that probably shouldn't be used as a source. Can you point to a specific article? TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t have a personal view on the source but VP:VG considers it a situational source stating Only content by Hardcore Gaming 101 head editor and Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata is considered reliable. I don`t know the site remotely well enough to comment on that but I thought that should be pointed out. As I said I have no view on the source as a whole but I think at least it would be safe to remove any references to the site in question if the article being sourced is not written by Kurt Kalata.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, let's follow the consensus at WP:VG/RS, and restrict usage to this author. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

palestineremembered.com

The website http://palestineremembered.com/ does not indicate who runs or edits it, or what level/type of oversight it has. The "Contact Us" page leads to a Post Office Box, and the website itself apparently hasn't been updated since mid-2007. It's an advocacy site, and obviously has a very strong POV. As far as I can tell, though it has many "members", it is run by one individual, Salah Mansour. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You just named every read flag of what is not a RS The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LMFAO! Excellent example and worthy of being showcased as an instructional example, with each fault specified as Jayjg has done very nicely. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it is run by an editor banned for anti-semitic behaviour on wikipedia. I would imagine you'd remember the individual Jayjg, it doesn't take the skills of Hercule Poirot. Clearly not a WP:RS per WP:SPS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that palestineremembered should not be used as a source itself, what about it's use as a depository? I bring this up because in several articles on depopulated Palestinian villages we have used Sami Hadawi's 1945 population and land statistics (a clear RS) for the Arab and Jewish settlements in British Palestine as a source. The last census before this was in 1931 so obviously his census is very useful especially since we're talking about villages depopulated roughly 3-4 years after the collection of those stats. Although Walid Khalidi uses these stats in his book All That Remains, palestineremembered has provided photo copies of Hadawi's book. This has never been a problem (maybe because not many people paid attention or cared that the link leads to the palestineremembered website), but it has become a sticking point in the article on Dayr al-Shaykh which is currently being nominated for DYK. See Talk:Dayr al-Shaykh#Dispute. Basically, I want to know whether or not we could allow linkage to palestineremembered because they provide the physical (actually virtual) copies of the particular pages of Hadawi's book. It might be easier to understand if any of you take a look at Dayr al-Shaykh where the only places that link to palestineremembered are the following: p.57 and p.102. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The question about whether or not http://palestineremembered.com should be used as a source is really moot. It has not been used as a WP:RS for years; only some old references which were added years ago remain. And those old references are steadily being removed and changed to WP:RS sources.

However, as a depository, both for the photo-copied Hadawi-book, and for pictures users have uploaded, it is most useful. Besides own pictures, users often have uploaded pictures from the Mattson-collection to palestineremembered.com; these pictures can in turn be uploaded to wikipedia, as the copy-right has expired.

It also serves as a guest-book, where people associated with any special place (who today are often spread around the world) can get back into contact. For this reason alone, it is useful to have it linked under "External references". 109.67.119.30 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the people who use it feel they get some benefit from it, but since it's not a WP:RS, it cannot be trusted even for books it says it has photocopied. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hadawi has written considerable about the conflict and was very much involved and doubtless an RS for certain things. However, I would question this book published by the PLO and is the one used as a reference in the Dayh al-Shayk article. The PLO, which the Jewish Virtual Library refers to as "one of the best known terrorist organizations in the world", and is sworn to the destruction of Israel might be analogous to using reference material published by Al-Qaeda about the United States. If the JDL, found here, published reference material about the conflict, would we consider that neutral and reliable reference material? Also, I would say that material that can only be found on PalestineRemembered would perhaps be similar to using material that can only be found at the ZOA or CAMERA. At the very least, a LARGE grain of salt is in order. 172.190.40.223 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Israeli MFA is used as an RS, no? Yazan (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The official government ministry of a democratic, developed country is not comparable to the website of a single activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, the JVL should be equated with PalestineRememebered, but for the opposite POV. Second, it was published by the PLO not written by the PLO (although per NPOV we shouldn't deem whatever sources are affiliated with the PLO as unreliable just like we don't for the Israeli government. Remember, the PLO is the government of the Palestinians). Third, I respect your firm treatment of POV sources, however, I think it's cynical to think the website tampered with the photocopies. I stress that these statistics provided by Hadawi are significant (and I don't believe anyone is arguing against that) and reliable and the fact that we have to eradicate any linkage with palestineremembered from wikipedia would disable us from using Hadawi's population stats which were the most up-to-date figures available until the villages were depopulated. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Vahakn Dadrian

Vahakn Dadrian's books are widely used as sources in articles about Armenian Genocide. But I doubt whether he is a reliable source. We can see it from the article about him, which says that he was criticised by many historians and researchers because of his willful mistranslations, biased use of only selective sources and selective quotations, and many historians say that he should not be considered as a reliable source. At the moment, he is working at the Zoryan Institute. This institute was founded by Dr. Libaridian, who took the position of Director of the Department of Research and Analysis of the Presidium of the Parliament of Armenian. And the last thing which makes me doubt seriously about the reliability of his work is that he was given a medal (the highest medal of the Ministry) by the Ministry of Diaspora of Armenia. [14] Why is that? Because he has made "immense contribution over more than fifty years to the scholarly study of the Armenian Genocide, at the same time raising awareness of it in international circles as a prime example of the “ultimate crime.” The Minister particularly emphasized the invaluable nature of Dadrian’s legal studies on the Armenian Genocide." We can easily see that the Armenian government thinks just in the same the way Dadrian thinks, and that he is biased and writes from an Armenian POV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

About the Armenian Genocide as with the gassing of minorities in Europe under the Nazis, few of the scholars lack POV. The point of an encyclopedia editor is to sift through the mass, find the "generally agreed upon" facts, find the genuine controversies and report the multiple sides, and to leave out the speculation, the deliberate fabrications, and the unsubstantiated. If having a POV by scholars resulted in automatic exclusion as a possible source, we would have few sources left to cite. Recognize controversy, and cite Vahakn Dadrian as appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. This helped a bit. Even though I still have serious doubts about it, and I will do a more detailed research about this issue, unless there is a very serious POV problem, I will follow your advice. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippi

Philippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Philippi, an article on an ancient Greek city, contains a substantial section relating as historical fact certain biblical accounts, in particular that a demon was exorcised from a woman there, that the exorcist (Paul) was taken to jail, and that an earthquake then split the jail open, prompting the jailer to convert to being one of the first Christians in Europe. None of these claims are cited to any source other than the biblical account. I have asked on the article's talk page whether there is any independent and contemporaneous evidence of these events, and the only reply I have received is that the biblical account must be true. Do we have any policy for determining how and when an otherwise uncorroborated account of a biblical story should be reported in the history of the place where it is said to have occurred? bd2412 T 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the Bible is NOT a reliable source for historical assertions. (That was fun.) Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I reorganized the article to put the Bible stuff in its own (non-historical) section. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For some very old events we don't really have highly reliable sources and yet we certainly want to have articles on them, and so all the experts can do is study whatever tablets, myths, bibles, hieroglyphs, etc they can get. Do we do the same as the experts on WP? Maybe with clear attribution we can sometimes do it ("According to the Bible Cyrus was nice"), but better still is citing those experts, i.e. secondary sources, interpreting that old evidence for us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We should have it clearly stated as a policy that a scriptural account is not a reliable source upon which to base the assertion that an event reported only in that source actually occurred. No matter what an expert on the source text thinks of it, absent corroboration from sources unrelated to such a text, we should not be relying on accounts that, for example, a queen of Crete once had sex with a bull, became pregnant from it, and gave birth to a carnivorous half-man, half-bull. bd2412 T 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a step too far. I assume you are actually referring specifically to a scholar who states "Paul and Simon Magus contested in the marketplace" - all textual scholars do not have the same issues. I agree that "Paul and Simon Magus contested in the marketplace" should be "...referred to in Acts, where a contest between the apostle Paul and Simon Magus is described...." However, if a scholarly source on the text makes some relevant comments on it, that is potentially includable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is going too far. I see no problem with straightforward things in the Bible particularly if other people at the time could contest them, for example whether there as an earthquake. Probably it should be taken as a primary source with a very distinct lean. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bible, is at best, a primary source. I would not be surprised if there was not at least a book written on every single passage in the Bible. Just cite those if you want to mention the Biblical account of things. NW (Talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I wish to edit Donkey to add the "fact" that some donkeys can talk, and in support of this I wish to cite Numbers 22, which features a talking donkey. Would it be your position then that, the Bible being a primary source, I can just provide a citation to a Bible scholar's discussion of this story to support the fact that some donkeys can talk, and that on the specific occasion referenced, a donkey did talk? bd2412 T 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's where WP:UNDUE comes into play. Keep in mind that reliability is heavily dependent upon context. A source that might be acceptable in one article would be completely unacceptable in another. In this case, it's acceptable to cite the Bible in the article about the Bible. So you could say, "According to the Bible, some donkeys can talk." Or better yet, cite a secondary source as NW suggests. Also, you want to try to cite the most reliable sources available for each topic. Glamour (magazine) and Cosmopolitan (magazine) might be good sources for articles on women's fashion, but you wouldn't cite them for articles on astronomy as much more reliable sources are available. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Australians With Abducted Children Japan

Recently an IP editor added new content to the article International child abduction in Japan from the following website:

• http://awac.asn.au/Australians_With_Abducted_Children/About_Us.html

The source appears to be an advocacy group, so brings flags of WP:NPOV, but that is not what I am coming here for. My concern is that this source may fall under WP:SPS, but I would like to receive comments about the source first. If consensus finds that this is a reliable source the content will be reformatted as it has been added haphazardly, but if it fails, I will undo the change all together. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the website and can't find any content on that website. How can it be used as a source? (Am I missing something?) If it's being used to support a statement that such an organization has been created, is there an issue with that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. Would this source fall under WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, even if it falls under WP:SPS? And if so, would it be a sufficient reference to support the statement added in the edit linked in my initial posting? Or would that fall under WP:LINKSPAM? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes,it does seem like linkspam and not appropriate to the body of the article, especially since none of the other countries mention specific organizations. I support removal. If this organization becomes important to the issue, then it will be reported in the media, and its inclusion can be reconsidered at that time. Perhaps put in External Links? TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

I refer to the Wikipedia page Insite where another contributor has a number of times removed a paragraph of text [15] on the grounds that it is somehow in breach of Wikipedia:Third party sources, although he has not stated how it is in breach.

My source regarding criticism of the Vancouver Insite Supervised Injection Facility is the online 'Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice' [16] which is funded by the US Department of Justice. The importance of this journal article is that the Canadian Health Minister, Tony Clement, cites the article's critique of journal studies commissioned by Insite as a major impetus for their ongoing efforts to close the facility - thus the importance of the Mangham article, which has influenced government. This source verifies the Tony Clement's reliance on Mangham's critique, although it incorrectly states that the online journal is not peer-reviewed. I have posted in Talk a verbatim e-mailed reply directly from the editor of that journal where she confirms that it is indeed peer-reviewed.

The contributor also cites WP:UNDUE but that is another matter unrelated to this forum. Interested in views on this one.Minphie (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The author's guidelines clearly show that it's peer reviewed.[17]. The editorial board looks well credentialed. It seems like a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a string of qoutes from third-party sources on the journal:

• "When asked to clarify what evidence Mr Clement was referring to, Mr Waddell confirmed it was a commentary published in January 2007 in a non-peer-reviewed journal called The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which receives funding from the US Department of Justice." [18]
• "Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example [is The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice]." [19]
• "Even if a journal has a website, though, it doesn’t mean the publication is credible. Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors. [...] By way of example, Ufholz points to the lack of submission instructions on the website for The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice". [20]
• Additionally, the journal is not listed in MEDLINE. A search for "drug policy" in NLM Catalog [21] only returns The International Journal on Drug Policy, a different journal.

In the light of this, Minphie insists on censoring that sourced fact that the journal lack proper peer-review and choses to give equal validity to the findings it presents. Obviously breaking WP:3PARTY as well as WP:VALID/WP:UNDUE. Steinberger (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a normal academic journal because it isn't published by one of the publishing houses that handle journals, e.g. Harvard journals, Oxford journals, Cambridge, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Brill .... It seems that the boundaries of the once clear category "peer-reviewed journal" are becoming blurred. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I obviously concur with the above speaker. I have a strong memory that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory lists it as lacking peer-review. Although I do not have access to that site. If someone else have, we could settle this decisively. Steinberger (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from above: "Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors." As I linked above, this journal does this. It's funded by the US Department of Justice, has an impressive editorial board, and has articles authored by credentialed individuals. I don't see why this source couldn't be used in WP. It doesn't seem necessary that a journal be published by a major academic press. Weight is another matter, and an issue for WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?

I'm having problems with an editor at two articles. In particular, at Pepi II Neferkare the editor insists on a section saying "It is thought that Ipuwer the sage served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare's reign.[14][15]. Archaeological evidence from Syrian button seals supports this interpretation.[16] The Ipuwer Papyrus describes the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the dark age known as the First Intermediate Period.[17]"

Source 14 is the Britannica which says 'perhaps'. Source 15 says " "Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). " Source 16 is discussing opinions in the first part of the 20th century. The article "The Dark Ages in Ancient History. I. The First Dark Age in Egypt" says " Although van Seters (1964, JEA 50) presents arguments for assigning the work to the Second Intermediate Period, most Egyptologists consider it more probably belongs to the First." Van Seters is [[ John Van Seters. The IP also deleted from the Ipuwer Papyrus article a reputable and reliable source that calls the papyrus ""romanticised historical fiction" of theMiddle Kingdom." [22], a view that isn't incorporated in the paragraph. Basically, the dating and purpose of this document are disputed and this seems to be a misuse and cherry-picking of sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just qualify the statements and let the readers decide? Can't the text be altered to reflect the fact that the sources contain weasely terms such as "...is thought that...", "...had been understood by earlier scholars...", "...still confidently maintained in an article...", by adding to the article's content something like "...based upon .... it is possible that....due to poorly maintained manuscript..." "...J. Spiegel contends that..." etc.

Inclusion of the content might draw clarifying/corrective edits. Exclusion might keep the matter in the dark.

I can't comment on cherry picking without taking a weekend workshop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked in JSTOR and there is a 1981 article by Williams that spells out pretty much that this idea that Ipuwer was directing the admonitions at Pepi II is an old idea.

Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). A fresh and stimulating approach was made by E. Otto in a published lecture (Otto, 1951). He argued that the composition was not a denunciation of a human ruler, but a reproach directed at the creatorgod Atum for the lamentable state of the land. Otto was the first to see the relevance of the contemporary literature of the First Intermediate Period for an understanding of the work.

The Pepi connection looks to me like an old idea that is not generally accepted. There is more in the Williams article, and it seems that even by the 1980s the idea of the admonitions being a letter to Pepi was no longer seen as the correct interpretation. The Ipuwer document is dated to the 13th dynasty and the interpretation Williams mentions is one where The first part of the papyrus actually originally dates to the reign of King Khety, and the second part is a discussion Ipuwer has with a god (not a king). This is from The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, by R. J. Williams; Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 1, Oriental Wisdom (Jan. -Mar., 1981), pp. 1-19. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

www.globalsecurity.org

In this edit this edit another contributor excised a reference to a page on http://www.globalsecurity.org. In their edit they called the reference an "unreliable primary source".

There are almost 10,000 references to this site on the project. It is my belief this wide use of globalsecurity reflects confidence in the reliability of the site, and that those responsible for the site exercise meaningful editorial control. This particular article seems to be a reprint of an article written by the American Forces Press Service. In general I believe that the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source. In this specific case those responsible for globalsecurity felt confident enough to reprint material from the AFPS, which I suggest would show this reference is reliable even if the AFPS was not trusted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Afghan Forces Inflict Losses, Detain Local Taliban Leader". American Forces Press Service. 2008-03-05.

If it's a reprint of primary source material, and is not secondary, it is a primary source, and is therefore not reliable. Reliable sources "report" on these documents, they do not act as an intermediary to overcome primary source objections when they link to the original primary source material. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are all pages on the www.nytimes.com server secondary reliable sources WP:RS because we have tens of thousand of links to that server? Of course not.

As per Yachtsman1, in our context this information is a copy and past of an unreliable primary source and because some website copy and paste it on their server neither makes the information secondary nor reliable WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. It's been cited as a source by Factcheck.org[23] and Time magazine.[24] It was named as Forbes Best of the Web[25] and Space.com calls it "highly regarded"[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan: The first link you give is not actually to the edit in question, which it would be useful to see. The question isn't really whether globalsecurity.org is a reliable source, but whether a press release from the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source, which it probably is except for where the information may be unduly self-serving. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct -- I did supply the wrong url. I fixed that. The diff is here. My apologies everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I only use globalsecurity.org when no other sources are available. It often has outdated info, ripped off from various sources. Often, who exactly is the author and what is the level of his expertise, is unclear. For example, this article currently on their main page, is cutpasted from a blog which is definitely not an RS. It is much, much better to rely on real security and military journals and articles by established military analysts published in the news media. That Forbes has mentioned globalsecurity.or in some list of "best" websites (would be interesting to know how many sites do they have this "list"; if it's 10,000, then I won't be impressed) really says nothing about the site's reliability as a source on military and security issues. I think it would be definitely wrong to regard globalsecurity.org as a true RS (meaning that everything they publish can be used), but some of their articles can certainly be used when better sources are not available. It all comes down to the article author or original publisher and their level of expertise. Nanobear (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I believe that globalsecurity.org makes a very good reliable source; as for AFPS, I am of an opinion that it is a reliable source. Although it is an organ of the Department of Defense, very often it isn't a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as the organ itself is often not

...very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

— WP:PRIMARY

However, at the same time, they aren't exactly WP:SECONDARY due to their organizational relationship between certain units that maybe involved in the event, but that does not necessarily exclude them from being reliable sources. Furthermore, even primary sources, can be reliable sources per WP:PRIMARY, with the caveats included there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When I went to this site, it opened two browser windows with ads. When I tried to close one of them, it popped up an annoying message rather than closing. I have reservations about this site. Regarding the use of this press release, I'd say it depends on what it's being used for. (The army has been known to inflate casualty figures, for example.) As FormerIP noted, the link to the edit in question doesn't actually go to that edit, so it's not clear how the source is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, the correct diff is here. Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)