Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?

China doesn't have freedom of the press. I would say that Chinese sources about topics prone to government interference are sort of like self-published sources published by the Chinese government, because nobody other than the Chinese government has editorial control. Such self-published sources are unreliable for most purposes. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence".
2. Article. Safari Club
3. Content.

a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."

b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not rs. The main determinant of rs is the publication, whether or not it has a record of fact-checking. If it does not then it then the articles it publishes should generally not be used. It is best anyway to avoid claims that only appear in obscure or non-mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Censoring_any_criticism appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is generally considered a questionable or unreliable source, especially when it comes to claims about living persons. The publication is also not known for its opinions regarding art criticism. It would not be appropriate to source claims about a living person to a non-expert questionable/unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is about as unreliable a source as it is possible to be. Per WP:RS a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for fabrication and defamation; and should never, ever, be used to source what seems to be criticism of a living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source as the above users have already stated. It is especially not reliable when it comes to BLP's. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we can't rely on Breitbart to reliably report their own opinion despite WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author")? Second Quantization (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean we must include them, especially when the sources aren't experts. In addition, claims regarding living persons require a higher standard for sourcing, fact versus mere opinion. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not a statement by Breitbart about its own opinion but by Mytheos Holt about his own opinion. Not that that changes the arguments above greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sources are generally usable for opinions cited as opinions. Those who think that a source can not be used for its own opinions are mistaken. For material about celebrities in any nation on earth, it is hard to find any truly reliable source for contentious facts or claims of fact. Mao was a reliable source for the opinions of Mao - yet I would not use him for claims of fact about his reign (yes - I know he is dead, but I am referring to written opinions here). If the issue is "what is art criticism?", then we may consider whether the person (apparently Mytheos Holt) holding the opinion is notable enough for his or her opinions about what is or is not art criticism (in the case at hand whether the person holding an opinion can state that the material is not construed by him as art criticism), but that has nothing to do with whether the opinion is printed by the NYT or the Daily Mail - the opinion at issue belongs to the person voicing it, not to the publisher. One might note this is exactly the same position I cite for all such matters and sources from RT onwards. Collect (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of ink was spilled on pretty much the same question last year.[1][2][3][4][5] Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an FAQ section, we really need an FAQ section --ℕ ℱ 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even bothering to mention somebody's opinion of somebody else's art criticism as posted on breitbart.com is a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. A reputable art critic, published in a reputable, reliable source: that might be relevant to the article. But breitbart.com is not known for discussion of artistic issues any more than Juggs is known for tofu recipes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being reliable for its own opinion does not justify injecting it into every article it has an opinion about. You would need to show that the opinion was signficant. Similarly, you can post your opinions on your Facebook page, and that will be a reliable source for your opinions, but that does not give you licence to then post those opinions to articles about every subject on which you hold an opinion. TFD (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable for its own opinion? Yes. On its own article. On other articles you have to ask not if it's reliable but if it's notable, which is different. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently multiply removed from Toilet-related injuries and deaths:

[[Elvis Presley]] was found dead on his bathroom floor on August 16, 1977. According to the medical investigator, Presley had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died"; he had been using the toilet at the time. Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes, "It was certainly possible that he had died while 'straining at stool.' "<ref>Peter Guralnick, ''Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley'' (1999), p.651-652.</ref> Elvis' personal physician, Dr. George Nicopolous, wrote in his 2009 book, ''The King and Dr. Nick'' that "We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called 'Valsalva Maneuver.' This ... caused the heart to stop when the body strained. When Elvis compressed his abdominal aorta by straining, his heart, in response, went into arrhythmia and quit working suddenly." According to Guralnick, "the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested ... that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death ..."

Is this use of Guralnick and/or Nicopolous proper? (I ask here rather than on the article's talk page because there have recently been similar removals and replacements elsewhere.)

Pinging @Excelse, Onefortyone, and 182.77.82.62:. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems here:

• Onefortyone is misquoting the medical examiner, who merely conjectured that Elvis was using the toilet at the start of the ordeal based on the location of the vomit. The source then reads "it looked to the medical examiner as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'". We're definitively writing that Elvis was on the toilet and did stumble and crawl based on the conjecture of the medical examiner. That's a misinterpretation and misuse of Guralnick.
• It's Guralnick's own conjecture that Elvis died "straining at the stool" and is actually counter to the opinion of the medical examiner. Guralnick isn't an expert, and he's merely spreading a rumor based on zero scientific evidence. His opinion shouldn't be taken seriously or used to source text in an encyclopedia.
• Nicopolous seems to be OK to back up the claim that Elvis had a bowel condition, but it's not cited properly (I had to go searching for the page number) and it's being improperly mixed with Guralnick in violation of WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Elvis died on the toilet.

In conclusion, Guralnick needs to be thrown out completely in this context and the bowel condition sections belongs elsewhere. This passage does not belong in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Guralnick and Nicopolous, several other independent sources say that Elvis died on the toilet, among them studies published by university presses. See [6]. Do you really think that these sources are not reliable enough? Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that you're misinterpreting them or cherry-picking because you want to write that Elvis died on the toilet. The preponderance of what you've provided indicate that he was on the toilet (again, this is popular extrapolation from the medical examiner's conjecture and repeated across sources) and that he stumbled or crawled several feet before dying. So, he didn't "die on the toilet" and there is no scientific evidence to that effect. --Laser brain (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much about the source, I even failed to find many of these quotes if they exist or not. It is more about the information which is indeed unreliable. When we give such undue weight to these theories, we must also give similar weight to theories that the singer died from bone cancer, but that is clearly not going to take place. Excelse (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Excelse: I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem, although I've come across a couple of page number mismatched. This may be attributable to different versions of the book. The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not). --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Laser brain, I couldn't find the quote at google books though.[7] Information is being incorrectly used. That's what we can say. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream biographers are of the opinion that "Elvis died on the toilet". See Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991), p.154. If you have a problem with the fact that Elvis had a heart attack while straining at stool (a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver) and, after suddenly having risen from his wallhung ceramic toilet, stumbled or crawled several feet before he died, his pyjamas still being around his ankles (as is common when using the toilet), what about this version:

Elvis Presley presumably died while using the toilet in his bathroom. "Most sources indicate that Elvis was likely sitting in the toilet area, partially nude, and reading when he collapsed." See Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (Springer Science 2010), p.211. One plausible cause is "a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." See Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.247.

This wording, including direct quotes from some reliable sources, should cover the opinion of most medical examiners. Interestingly, the people around Elvis tried to hide the real cause of his death. Here is a statement by Billy Smith, Elvis' first cousin, cited in Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995): "we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down. His colon was bothering him. And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet. So this was not an instantaneous death. Or a painless one. They know that from all these little hemorrhages he had from the waist up, where the blood vessels had burst after he fell. That goes along with a drug death." (p.719) Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream is not actually buying this theory. You need to have a source for it, one source saying that it might be "plausible theory" is not authentic. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my view. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans who don't like the circumstances of Elvis's death. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was another user who added some additional details to the article on 'Toilet-related injuries and deaths', quoting Elvis's personal physician, as the history of the article shows. See [8] and [9] These passages were also deleted by Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're making headway here. My main issue is that we not repeat various non-medical opinions or misquote sources. I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts. --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina are medical doctors. Nicopolous, Elvis's personal physician, wrote in his 2009 book, The King and Dr. Nick that he and another physician believe that Elvis died from a physiological event called "Valsalva Maneuver" while sitting on the toilet. Guralnick, one of the most important Elvis biographers, has studied all official medical reports about the death of Elvis before drawing his own conclusions. Therefore, his conclusions are of much importance. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments"... You have been asking this same question on three different forums. If you are going to count how many "added" similar content as you, I would say that number is effectively very low compared to those who have removed these few opinions claimed to be facts by you. Not to mention that your sources/information are so unpopular and fringe that they are not recognized by anybody else other than you. Billy Smith was also pointing to Lamar Flike, "Lamar means well, and we never really"... especially when quote ends with "And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet." Not that it seems to be any authentic. Lamar Flike says on the same book that "Elvis had that reading chair in the bathroom" and "From what I understand he was sitting there and the load hit him, and he fell forward. Some people say he was on the commode, not in a chair. If he'd fallen forward from the commode, he would have been directly in front of it. But he was in the middle of the room." Now debunked? Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it is understandable that the people around Elvis, for instance, Lamar Fike (not Flike) from the Memphis Mafia, tried to hide the real circumstances of Elvis's death. Therefore, the opinion of the singer's first cousin, Billy Smith, is of much importance, as he says, "Lamar means well, and we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down." And most Elvis biographers are buying his version, as the many reliable sources I have cited show. I am aware that these sources are "unpopular" among Elvis fans. However, what counts on Wikipedia is what is written in the mainstream biographies, not the view of a fan like Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How you know that Lamar is unreliable if you take other individual to be reliable but not him? Some reliable source said it? Excelse 06:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an eyewitness account by Ginger Alden, the first person who found Elvis slumped over on the bathroom floor: "Elvis looked as if his entire body had completely frozen in a seated position while using the commode and then had fallen forward, in that fixed position, directly in front of it. ... It was clear that, from the time whatever hit him to the moment he had landed on the floor, Elvis hadn't moved." See Ginger Alden, Elvis & Ginger: Elvis Presley's Fiancée and Last Love Finally Tells her Story (New York: The Berkeley Publishing Group 2014). Onefortyone (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how that would fulfill the criteria of reliable source? She was not the only witness and she is contradicting the actual investigation report, thus unreliable like other sources of yours. You realize that these few are not enough compared to nearly every source that contradicts your theory? Excelse (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are questioning the reliability of the only eyewitness who found Elvis in exactly the position in which he died and before his dead body was removed by others who in vain attempted to restore him to life. Very interesting. Concerning the official investigation report, it has not yet been published in its entirety, as the autopsy report belongs to Elvis's estate, not to the state. At Vernon Presley's request, the results will remain sealed until the year 2027. In his recent study, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life (2014), Joel Williamson has shown that it was only Dr Francisco who told the news people that Elvis apparently died of heart failure. However, when this was said the pathologists were still working on the body. "They knew that he did not die of the usual causes, and they knew that addiction to drugs was the probable cause, but they could say nothing with confidence until they got the results back from the laboratories, if then. That would be a matter of weeks." "Dr Muirhead thought that Francisco would say that they would need to study the lab results before they could complete the autopsy and offer their judgment. Instead, Francisco opened with the flat statement that 'the results of the autopsy are that the cause of death is cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat.' Muirhead could not believe his ears. Francisco had not only presumed to speak for the hospital's team of pathologists, he had announced a conclusion that they had not reached." "Early on, a meticulous dissection of the body revealed what Elvis did not die from. It was not heart failure, stroke, cancer, or lung disease— the usual killers. It also confirmed what his doctors already knew: Elvis was chronically ill with diabetes, glaucoma, and constipation. As they proceeded, the doctors saw evidence that his body had been wracked over a span of years by a large and constant stream of drugs. They had also studied his hospital records, which included two admissions for drug detoxification and methadone treatments. Over time, Elvis had, in effect, been poisoned. The bloated body, the puffy eyelids, and the constipation reflected the slow death." So Frank Coffey has written in his Elvis biography "that Elvis died from polypharmacy — multiple drug ingestion. Other examinations of the evidence have yielded other plausible causes of Elvis' death, including: a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." Onefortyone (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in question

[2] Hornberger, Jacob (April 1995). "Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070811230525/http://www.fff.org:80/freedom/0495a.asp

[3]Skousen, Joel. "Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul". World Affairs Brief. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-04

https://web.archive.org/web/20130215214414/http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

Article

Operation Keelhaul

Content

The term [Operation Keelhaul] has been later applied – specifically after the publication of Julius Epstein's eponymous book – to other Allied acts of often forced repatriation of former residents of the USSR after the ending of World War II that sealed the fate of millions[2] unwilling to return to the Soviet Union.[3]

I would like to remove these two sources as fringey - for example, the article Future of Freedom Foundation refers to the forced repatriation as "one of the worst holocausts in history" and "Allied holocaust." The word holocaust appears 7 times on this page.

Instead, I'd like to use a reference from Nikolai Tolstoy (1977). The Secret Betrayal. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-15635-0., along the lines of what's used in the Victims of Yalta Wikipedia entry:

Tolstoy estimates that overall two or more millions Soviet nationals were repatriated.

From what I can tell https://www.zeroto60times.com (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/zeroto60times.com, search results) is just another scraper site. They appear to use bots or crawlers to scrape data from any websites they can find and put it together on easily-referenced tables, which generate traffic, which is for the ads. The ads and offsite links look sketchy to me, if not malware. Their About page claims they're better than other similar sites, but I don't see how. There's nothing naming the authors of the content. They say they average data from different "credible" sources to produce a "unique" result, but they don't cite their sources, or explain what their criteria for credibility is. Anyone know of a reason we should keep citations to this site? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site Fails WP:RS They refer to using reliable sources, but mention none. I can only conclude that they are at best a secondary source and therefore there is a better source available. There is nothing particularly credible about the site and therefore I can only conclude that it is not a reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above user, not a reliable source. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address editor added a 2014 British Psychological study found here http://www.bps.org.uk/news/women-more-aggressive-partners-men to the domestic violence article, some months ago now and was recently removed with no real explanation or logic? The study conducted by the British Psychological Society examined intimate partner violence and concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men. I'm neutral on the topic, and realise this is a primary source, but it appears the British Psychological Society is a reputable organization. Can some neutral editors have a look at the source and make a neutral, objective judgement. I'd rather post the question here, than get anywhere near the chance of an edit war. Thanks ahead of time.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been sorted at the article talk page. No need for comments. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Mary (mother of Jesus) I removed a statement linking the two because I thought Merlini to fail WP:RS - partially because I think that the version of "archaeomythology" he represents and the journal is fringe, but he mainly because he has no qualifications for such a statement. An IP hopper has twice replaced it. As it read now, it says:

"The continuing association of Mary and Artemis is shown in a paper by Dr. Marco Merlini <ref>http://www.archaeomythology.org/about-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/governance-of-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/marco-merlini/</ref> "A Post-Byzantine fresco of the XVI century from the most important monastery, the Great Lavra, depicts a very unusual Annunciation. Not a Christian saint or martyr but a pagan goddess, Artemis, attends at the fatal encounter between the archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary"<ref>The Journal of Archaeomythology Volume 7 2011 "The Pagan Artemis in the Virgin Mary Salutation at Great Lavra, Mount Athos" by Marco Merlini</ref>"

The link to the Institute of Archaeomythology, established by a student of Marija Gimbutas, seems to be there to establish Merlini's credentials. These are:

2008 Doctorate cum laude, ” Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, Romania.
1976Masters Degree in Political Science, University of Turin, Italy.
Degr ee of Csi (Centro studi informatici):“Statistica e programmazione.”
1974 Degree cum Laude and Honorable Mention in Political Sciences, University of Turin.

More detail is at this site which states that his PhD was in “NeoEneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script”. Nothing to do with art history or classical mythology.

It's hard to deal with an IP hopper for obvious reasons, but instead of reverting again I'm bringing this here.Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment as the IP has taken it to the talk page but I'd still like comments here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merlini's cv says this about him: "Marco Merlini, Ph.D., is a cultural manager, journalist and archaeo-semiologist. He is Executive Director of the InnovaNet and EURO INNOVANET research institutes and is General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project in Rome, Italy. He is the Coordinator of M.U.S.E.U.M. — the network of the archaeological, historical and prehistoric museums of European capital cities — and the “Virtual Museum of European Roots.” He is also Director of Communications of the Institute of Archaeomythology and is the author of La scrittura è nata in Europa (2004) and numerous articles on the Danube script." I don't think that Dr Merlini is making a relationship between Mary and Artemis, this is purely factual both goddesses are in the painting the relationship was put there by the artist. Ephesis was the major centre of Artemis worship, it became a centre of Mary worship and mythology. Merlini's paper is about a fresco at a prominent Orthodox monastery and the quotation made merely establishes the fact that such a fresco exists and that it contained both Mary and Artemis. (The article can be downloaded here http://www.academia.edu/3035438/The_Pagan_Artemis_in_the_Virgin_Mary_Salutation_part_I or here http://www.archaeomythology.org/publications/the-journal-of-archaeomythology/2011-volume-7/2011-volume-7-article-9/) As to the rest of Merlini's article, that has not been incorporated. I used the factual quote not his conclusions (good or bad). There are photos in his article which show that the facts are accurate. I'm sorry I wasn't able to read the link for the suggested alternative reference as Google wouldn't give it to me. The Wikipedia Mary article contains mostly Hagiography and quotes from the Bible as though it is a factual document. Here and there extra information is in the article such as the fact that Jesus was estranged from his family and rejected them and they him. The Mary of popular worship is a myth. To be even more blunt, a "virgin story" was created in order to fulfil a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Personally I find Artemis a far more interesting figure but that's a POV I haven't put in the article. This article is at least twice as long as it should be and the last person to try to do an overall edit was Editor2020 and that was only partial. I'm not a Wikipedia habitue but have attempted to add a little salt here and there. Hopefully against a tide of irrationality, and without being offensive, people can draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.71.17 (talk • contribs)

I don't particularly disagree with a lot of the comments made by the IP. However, the only mentions of an "archaeo-semiologist" relate to Merlini, so I'd say that's a label he's invented or someone's invented for him. Maybe someone else can find "M.U.S.E.U.M.", I can only find it mentioned alongside his name. The link the IP can't reach, probably due to geography, is[10] I'm puzzled that I can't find any mention of this fresco elsewhere. If we can't, I am even more dubious about using the source. Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, the source is not as good as I had thought. I didn't see any wild theories, I scanned over it rather than reading it in detail as it is fairly long. There was some interesting material about Hittite beliefs that preceded Artemis in Ephesus when it was a Hittite town. In the ancient world there was no universal culture, so even national gods were modified by local traditions. The Universities that he cites in his museum project are apparently minor Italian Serbian Bulgarian and Romanian ones. http://www.archaeomythology.org/about-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/fellows-honorary-members-associate/ http://europeanvirtualmuseum.net/evm/documenti/research_1.pdf The article he wrote reads like a popular Archaeology magazine, perhaps a little higher standard. I'm happy to have it replaced with the source that you provided but in the meantime someone else has protected it. My purpose was to bring in some intellectual material to this article, looking at it from different perspectives than blind belief. As you provided the reference perhaps you would like to make the edit. "Gordon Laing argues convincingly that the worship of Artemis as both virgin and mother at the grand Ephesian temple contributed to the veneration of Mary." seems adequate.

Done. Thanks for being so cooperative. I think that the protecting Admin may have looked at earlier real vandalism as well, he might unprotect if you ask. Otherwise just use the talk page. I noted in my edit summary that we'd worked this out together. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and sorry about being an "edit warrior", having observed previous vandalism I thought it more of the same.

I would like to know if An Phoblacht ("AN") or its American cousin, The Irish People, are considered reliable reflinks, as certain editors, @Gob Lofa at the moment comes to mind, continue to use or maintain such links. "AN" is an Irish republican propaganda mill, edited by the IRA Army Council. I will add more as it becomes available. Quis separabit? 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim Pat Coogan, an expert on the IRA, wrote in his The IRA ("Green Book" section) that SF and the IRA (the Provisional IRA after the split) are "inextricably linked".
• Judge Haight (U.S. Justice Department) ordered NORAID to register as an agent of the Irish Republican Army and demanded in court that the group issue more detailed reports of where its money comes from and how it is disbursed. NORAID's chief at the time was Martin Galvin^[1], publisher of The Irish People, the American version of An Poblacht. Noraid claimed it [had] channeled $1 million to Irish charity [sic] since 1972.^[2] In court papers submitted before Haight, the government said it could not figure where the money went. The Justice Department also noted that Noraid had listed the Northern Aid Committee of Belfast as its 'foreign principal', but had never bothered to give a street address for it. ... No one in Belfast ever saw or heard of it", a Justice Department spokesman in Washington said. The [U.S.] government said a search of Noraid documents failed to come up with any correspondence to or from the Belfast committee. No canceled checks were found indicating money had been sent to the Belfast committee, the Justice Department said, and there was no proof the money had even left the country."^[2]
• "Along the way, Noraid officers Daniel Cahalane and Neil Byrne were convicted of illegal transportation of arms. Michael Flannery, a Noraid director, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to ship arms to the IRA. A document submitted as coming from Noraid's Rochester, N.Y., chapter said, 'This is an authentic committee chartered by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (and the only one) to collect money for their cause. We guarantee that all monies collected will be used for that purpose.'^[2]
• Charles J. Haughey [former Taioseach] of Ireland, said in 1980, "There is clear and conclusive evidence available to the government here from security and other sources that Noraid has provided support for the campaign of violence and indeed direct assistance in its pursuit ... On the basis of these activities, it stands condemned and I appeal to all in America who have the interests of Ireland at heart not to give this body any support financial or moral."
• Sinn Féin is closely associated with the Provisional IRA,^[3] with the Irish Government alleging that senior members of Sinn Féin such as Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris, have held posts on the IRA Army Council.^[4][5] The US Government alleged that Sinn Féin and the IRA were linked (see Sinn Fein says IRA may cease to exist, Kennedy tells Sinn Féin to end links to IRA).

Quis separabit? 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that in virtually all contexts, An Plobacht is not a reliable source. An exception could be for the position of Sinn Féin. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the above bulleted points, which seem to be about Sinn Fein and the IRA, not An Poblacht or The Irish People. Both magazines are clearly reliable sources, in the sense that they have a clear editorial structure, carry serious journalism and are accountable for their news articles. All news sources have a bias and that does not make them "unreliable" per se. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: RE: "All news sources have a bias and that does not make them 'unreliable' per se." -- well, that is your OR, but even if true, that is not what I am questioning/contesting. Sinn Fėin is the political wing of the Provisional Irish Republican Army -- according to The IRA ("Green Book" section) by Coogan, one of the most exhaustive 20th-century researchers of the IRA -- and who has his own increasingly blatant POV, an increasingly triumphalist support for the PIRA and vicious contempt for anyone, almost always "crypto-unionist" "colonial"s, according to the comments he made, commissioned by publisher Niall O'Dowd to mark the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising-- who take issue with anything he writes. Hence the lawsuit against him by Ruth Dudley Edwards, but I digress -- and it is a house organ of Sinn Féin, which is the political wing of the PIRA, to repeat myself. That is not unique -- Granma (in Cuba) and Pravda (in the USSR) were the house organs of the Communist Party (among many others, doubtless). Are/were they reliable? It is not even so much what they report as what they do not report, which is anything that would (have) redound(ed) negatively on the party or the PIRA. The sole exception was of the Poppy Day Massacre at Enniskillen, which the editors criticised tactically as "a disaster for the IRA". These are AP/RN mirror sites: cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com, longkesh.info, derrysinnfein.ie, republican-news.org, issuu.com, among others. How can a publication that always identified PIRA volunteers anonymously, was the beneficiary of information regarding PIRA activities, and published information (sometimes from stolen British military intelligence), putting certain individuals (Kevin Fulton) at risk of harm or death, possibly be seen as anything other than what it is? I don't object to the An Poblacht page's own almost exclusively self-referencing reflinks in its Wikipedia article. I get that, and without them there would be almost no reflinks anyway, which kind of tells you something. Quis separabit? 02:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sionk. I could not disagree with you more. Your answer is not based in policy found at WP:RS. An Poblacht (sic.) is the official publication of Sinn Féin. Could you clarify a)how and whom are the accountable for their news articles to b) in what contexts do you believe the publication to be reliable and c)how you define "serious journalism'? AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their views generally represent those of Sinn Féin, and will in some contexts be useful for that. They should generally be identified in the text, and quotations may be best in many cases. They don't pretend to be a neutral news source, and are the publication of a political party. Nuff said. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @Johnbod but not the snarky, dismissive "Nuff said". I think we have time to hear some more opinions. Quis separabit? 03:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, but not for the paranoid misreading of tone. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, John, thank you for your contributions, but not the flawed psychiatric analysis. Quis separabit? 03:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In effect it is a primary source for the views of the Sinn Fėin so use needs to take that into account. It would not be a reliable source for anything controversial relating to the politics of that organisation. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree it is a reliable source for the views of Sinn Fėin, however some editors such as User:Sionk had suggested it was completely reliable. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understood Snowded's point to be that it is a reliable source except where the views of SF are concerned. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And black is white Gog Lofa? What I said is very clear and AusLondonder and I are in agreement. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I find Gob Lofa to be very disruptive, disagreeable and non-constructive regarding Northern Ireland issues. He disputes absolute basic facts as he is doing right now. He disputed the European Parliament source about Northern Ireland MEPs. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I understood "it is a primary source for the views of the Sinn Fėin so use needs to take that into account. It would not be a reliable source for anything controversial relating to the politics of that organisation" to mean that AP would not be a reliable source on this issue. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying it is not reliable now? AusLondonder (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing silly games Gob Lofa. It's is childish (and that is a pattern on multiple editors from you). The meaning is clear and I'm not wasting any more time on explaining the obvious to an editor who really doesn't want to engage with other editors or the normal use of language ----Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, in some instances, it's a primary source. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying above is that the two newspapers represent a world view (Irish republicanism) which is one amongst many (and a popular one in many parts of Ireland). Simply because you may disagree with Irish republicanism (I'm guessing that you - AusLondonder and Quis separabit? - clearly do) doesn't make the view unreliable, or irrelevant. Of course their views have to be taken in context with other views from other commentators and publications. When I say the publications are reliable, I'm saying they have editorial oversight, employ journalists and are fully accountable for their views/articles - as the overview of WP:RS says "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians".

If you really want to debate the links between Sinn Fein and the IRA I'm sure there are many better, more suitable forums for this. Sionk (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how a view can be unreliable; it is sources which count. If An Poblacht picks up stories from reliable sources then I have no problem with that, because the original reliable source is the one that should be used as it would be unnecessary to use a derivative source. Most of AP's stories are self-generated or derive from other republican propaganda mills or mirror sites (such as those mentioned above), or quotes from individuals (often anonymous, at least as concerned with anything related to the actual violence of the Troubles), and I know because I used to read it back in the day (as you wee ones put it) before it went digital. Quis separabit? 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If you really want to debate the links between Sinn Fein and the IRA I'm sure there are many better, more suitable forums for this" -- That would be correct but that is not really what this is about, and it is kind of dismissive of you to ignore the question of the reliability of AP/RN (or just AP) as a source into some kind of a litmus test. Quis separabit? 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I'm sure you wouldn't mind removing all of the bulletted points at the start of the discussion, which are all about the well-documented links between Sinn Fein and the IRA. They seem to be a distraction and nothing to do with the discussion of WP:RS. On your first response you have completely lost me. What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?! The main news article on their site at the moment, just for example, is a report of a white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans. Did they make this up? You can find similar stories about wreath-laying events (and quotes from veterans) in every major British and Irish news publication at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bulleted points were basically designed to point out the history of AP/RN, which was a focus of attention by the US Department of Juctice, which regarded the paper as being a PIRA owned and operated entity. I may not have gotten that message across the right way, but that's what it is. Quis separabit? 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never expressed a view about republicanism in Australia, the UK or Ireland so it is presumptuous and uncivil of you to suggest you know my position Sionk. In fact, I obviously support the right of all people to self-determination. I seek to edit according to WP:NPOV. Given that I have no associations with the matter I feel that I have a more neutral view on this than certain editors. Again, I ask you who are they accountable to? Are they a member of a press regulator? Do they publish a wide range of opinions? How many full-time members of a journalists union do they employ? AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How many full-time members of a journalists union do they employ?" Good point, AusLondonder. Not once I would have ever thought of so I must give credit, regardless of how this whole thing plays out, for your perspicacity. Quis separabit? 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have answered Sionk's questions. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did, to the best of my ability; see comment dated 22:43, 11 November 2015. Quis separabit? 00:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sionk's questions were "What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?! The main news article on their site at the moment, just for example, is a report of a white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans. Did they make this up?" Gob Lofa (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh........... OK.

Q:"What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?!"

A: Many of the articles that appeared in The Irish People were traditionally credited to AP/RN, which in turn rarely provided bylines from reputable news organs or sometimes didn't even have columnists' or authors' names. And as far as making things up, let's just say that I have made it clear that AP/RN has traditionally been an Irish republican propaganda mill. That, by 2015, AP has expanded its coverage somewhat (i.e. the "white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans", which is very nice, thanks for telling me about it, although I thought the Remembrance Day poppy is red) and/or been able to take advantage of declassified information, is not saying much. AP is what it is, no matter how you try to enhance it. Quis separabit? 00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the articles on the front page of An Phoblacht's website; all have the columnists' names. I'm not disputing they turn out propaganda (they're pretty open about that); I am disputing that this somehow sets them apart from bigger Irish papers like the Independent, and that this is the same as making things up. You're right, it is what it is. And so are the rest. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is 2015. That they now feature all their columnists' names and even have advertisers would hardly be a monumental accomplishment for a normal reputable publication. I can't speak to the Irish Independent and don't know what kind of propaganda you claim they are pushing. Quis separabit? 01:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's 2015, so why are you objecting to its use as a source? As for the Independent, it's all ahead of you. You could start here: Sunday_Independent_(Ireland)#Content. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying two contradictory things about AnP; that we can't trust it, and that we don't need it anyways because we can reference other papers instead for the same events. What's worse, neither is true. For example, I haven't seen that story about the laying of the white poppy (distinct from the militarist red one) wreath by the anti-war veterans in any other paper. And please don't refer to Independent News and Media papers as reputable again. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read the Irish Independent as far as I know and your disdain for it for whatever reason(s) is your own business. As far as AP/RN or AP go -- you're right I don't trust it. Given its sordid history and bias I don't think it should be used if other references exist. If there is a story which is encyclopedic, unbiased, and which only AP has covered then I guess it would be a valid source but that remains hypothetical as far as I can discern. (I will check out the poppy story.) As to "And please don't refer to Independent News and Media papers as reputable again" -- please don't dictate terms to other editors, especially when they have no idea what you are talking about. If you contend that the Irish Independent is NOT a reputable or reliable news organ then open an action and get a majority to agree with you (I don't care one way or the other) and extirpate its links by bot from this encyclopedia. Quis separabit? 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeking such extirpation; I bring it up to show you that, despite its sordid history and continued lapses into bias, I recognise the Independent's value as a source of journalism. It may try to spin things to make its friends look good and its enemies look bad, but it can only go so far; it's still a newspaper. So it's generally reliable, if not quite reputable. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does a Dale Carnegie "Training Center" source meet the criteria of a reliable source i.e. either (1) academic, (2) journalistic or (3) experts in their field. Dale Carnegie Training "serves the business community worldwide" and according to their website "The franchisees around the world use their training and consulting services with companies of all sizes in all business segments". They are not experts in defining generational boundaries.

They have a "clients" page which suggests they're not academic or journalistic nor experts in this particular area. See http://www.dalecarnegie.com/about-us/clients/

There are experts such as Strauss and Howe who have written over 10 books on the subject, including a New York Times bestseller. We can't include anybody who decides to write a white paper on generations. This source doesn't meet the criteria and they are in business to make money on consulting. It's not a University it is by their own words a business "franchise".

The source is self-published and doesn't qualify. Here's the policy on self-published sources. The policy states self-published sources must be "expert(s) whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications".

See the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:8547:5b6e:711:e5e2 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 November 2015‎

[11] Here is the source in question. I quote from it 'Over the course of two years, Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research....' MSW Research seems to be a legit market research company [12]. The source, as it is a primary source, should be used with care, as I think it is in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "legit market research company" is a business. We don't use self-published sources "with care". We use sources published by reliable third-party publications". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's only partly correct. What WP:SPS says is: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", so self-published sources can be used under some conditions. Do these conditions apply here? Well, Dale Carnegie Training was certainly published by reputable third parties before, see for instance this book published by Simon & Schuster (but Google Books suggests there are many more). So I don't see a problem here. LjL (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we use say political polls done by market research companies all of the time. We don't analyze them though, we just present the numbers. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LjL you are confusing a book written by the man Dale Carnegie with a marketing company. The two are not the same. The marketing company is not a University. It's a franchise. The Wikipedia policy says we are not supposed to use self-published sources. The rule is clear even if others are breaking it with "political polls done by market research companies" on Wikipedia. The standard and language is VERY clear. The marketing company is NOT an expert in generational studies. It does not meet either standard of (1) being experts on generations and (2) it's white paper wasn't published by a reliable third party. You are wasting alot of time over a simple rule. 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing anything. The book isn't written by Dale Carnegie, but it is a book by Dale Carnegie Training, the entity in question. It is published by a reliable third party. The Wikipedia policy says we can use self-published sources under certain circumstances, as I pointed out above, so stop saying it simply "doesn't", thanks. This particular paper is self-published but the same entity has a number of non-self-published books about related topics. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have "simple rules". LjL (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book you cited is not about generations. What is the connection? How does that show the white paper isn't self-published? Can you show me one book, course or anything else from the Training Center that discusses generations? How are they experts on the subject? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Generations" isn't a self-standing field of study, as much as you'd like to believe the contrary. Your favorite Strauss-Howe source is almost the only one that seems to consider "generational studies" an independent subject; that doesn't automatically make it one, rather, it makes them the odd one out. It has already been argued elsewhere that the Dale Carnegie Training source is adequate within the broader, much better established field of demographics. LjL (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not shown that The Training Center meets the expert standard in the field, area, or subject matter. You've offered zero proof of that. People like Emile Littré, Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Karl Mannheim are though. Strauss and Howe have more credibility because they wrote 10 books about it. Yet you removed them from the generation page by reverting an edit. The Training Center is self-published so it should be removed UNTIL a reliable third party like reports on it. If that happens then we can restore it. That would be following what Wikipedia wants on it's site 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse separate matters: I didn't revert your edit to remove that source, I reverted your edit because you were aggressively edit warring against other editors (as shown by the fact that admins had to semi-protect the page) as you had done on various related articles (as shown by the fact that admins had to semi-protect more than one). LjL (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made that point numerous times on different pages. What about answering the above proposal: let's remove that source UNTILL a reliable third party reports on it -- what do you think? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I keep having to make that point because you keep ignoring it or acting as if it didn't matter every time on every different page. What about not bringing it up continuously given you were clearly in the wrong with edit warring? As to removing it, as I've told you on my talk page: since the article(s) is/are protected, first gain consensus on the relevant talk pages (and here), then make an WP:Edit request. That's the proper procedure, and I'm not going to skip getting consensus from other editors (who generally supported keeping the source, see article talk pages) just to side-step page protection for you. LjL (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get other opinions from more experienced editors. When did consensus start trumping the clearly written rules for reliable sources? What's the point of the rule if a small group of editors can override anything with their "consensus". 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus doesn't trump global consensus, and you are, as a matter of fact, free to wait for other opinions from the wider community (here is a good place), but that's almost exactly my point: I'm not going to single-handedly do what you request without you going through the process and getting other opinions, since so far, the opinions we have are against you. LjL (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four opinions (including you) trump the clearly written reliable source rule? I thought the rule is central to the entire Wikipedia site, one of it's core principles? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four editors seem to think that the source is reliable, and have given reasons for why they think it. Now, other editors can provide their own opinions here. Nothing is trumped. Just wait and stop asking me to trump current consensus by doing your edits while the page is semi-protected. I won't do it. LjL (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the Kevin Folta article, content was added that misrepresented the Union of Concerned Scientists as having made a statement against the FOIA requests against Kevin Folta, implying this source which doesn't mention Folta or these specific FOIA requests at all. When i questioned this misrepresentation of the UCS source, an editor introduced an Wired article that claims that a blog post by a UCS member is a UCS organizational position statement. The Wired article says:

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, decried the FOIA requests in one of the first comments made on the issue by an independent organization. “These requests to the genetic engineering researchers, just like other overly broad open records requests that seek excessive access to scientists’ inboxes, are inappropriate,” reads a February 20 statement.

(In the above quote in the original, "February 20 statement" links to this blog post.)

In general, i respect Wired magazine as a reliable source, but here, in this one point, it's clearly mistaken in representing this blog entry as a UCS "statement" which implies an approved organization position statement.

So, the question at hand is this: Wired is generally a reliable source, but does this mean that Wikipedia editors can force content based on an obvious misrepresentation in a Wired article into Wikivoice on a controversial article, and then demand that other editors provide another reliable source to contradict this mistake, in order to remove it? That is where the dialogue on the talk page went. I pointed out this distortion of reality in the article, and the response by other editors was to demand that i provide a reliable source saying that this blog post is actually not an organizational UCS position statement. Is that good Wikipedia editing practice, or is it onerous? Is there a guideline that speaks to this?

The full discussion on the Kevin Folta article's talk page is here.

My reason for posting here is to ask about guidelines and policy in how we treat generally reliable sources in which there are apparently an error. Are we as editors obliged to find opposing reliable sources to point out the error, in order to prevent another editor from including the error if they insist on it? Or can we simply not use the claim that's disputed?

Thanks for any comment. SageRad (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One approach would be to tag it with ^{[dubious – discuss]}.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source says something doesn't mean our hands are tied. You'd need a reliable source to say in the article that Wired is wrong. Other editors should be willing to consider any kind of evidence that a source is mistaken. Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate here, how do we know this isn't their positional statement? There does not appear to be a disclaimer on this blog post saying these are her personal views. Does the website clearly distinguish between personal blogs and positional statements? That said, this blog/statement does not mention Kevin Folta and should not be used in that article. The Wired piece appears to link to additional USC material so those materials should be used instead. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's part of the nuance where the "bloggers" in this case are in the same ballpark as editorial staff at a newspaper to represent the organization as they were selected to write rather than just open opinion pieces. It's different than the organization putting out an official position statement, but not to the point they aren't representing the organization. Other sources often refer to these articles listed under the blog as a response from the UCS specifically, so this is not the only source using that language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the author, Gretchen Goldman, is not just any member, but a lead analyst with the UCS's "Center for Science and Democracy". It's a relevant blog post, but it's still not a statement by UCS in general. Looking at the UCS articles tagged with "FOIA" gives some idea of the nuanced position of UCS which was misrepresented when the article followed the Wired article's lead saying "UCS decried the FOIA requests" whereas the reality was that an opinion piece by one of their lead analysts called the request "overly broad". This got twisted in the article into the following

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."

That content mixed a UCS statement that was unrelated to the FOIA requests in question with a blog post that didn't say what was said, and then a previously uncited Wired article was used by an editor to justify this. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. petrarchan47คุก 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the original edit used the Wired source as a reference, which had previously been used in other parts of the article (Wired). If this was a misunderstanding as to what source was being used for the information, I hope this clears it up. Adrian^[232] 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

← Even by the standards of incessant squabbling that prevail on GMO articles, this seems like a silly dispute. The fix is as simple as adding two or three words to the text: "An analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA request..." Come on. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that is not how secondary sources characterize it. Another source (retractionwatch.com) uses the same language, "The Union of Concerned Scientists posted its own response August 14 . . ."[13] indicating that secondary sources are attributing these posts to the UCS. If the primary sources were being focused on the attribution would have more consideration, but that's not what's being used here contrary to some synthesis comments above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, i think the argument that one other source linking to a UCS blog and saying "UCS says" isn't a strong enough argument that blog posts by UCS staffers are official UCS statements. SageRad (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @MastCell, the article does not mention Folta. To add it is SYNTH. The article would, however, be useful for an addition to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, since it mentions BP's intimidation of Woods Hole researchers. Is my interpretation of SYNTH mistaken? petrarchan47คุก 20:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this article is being referenced here at all. The source has always been the Wired article at here which does in fact talk about Folta, and the UCS is clearly talking about a case that involves Folta. Adrian^[232] 21:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, here i must admit to a mistake in my framing of this issue. The original source does appear to be the Wired article. I think that i was fooled because the text' of the content said "in a February 2015 statement" and then i looked up their 2015 statement on FOIA requests, and noticed that it said nothing about Folta or the other USRTK requests at all. Sorry for that mistake, Adrian. I swear it was an honest one. However, i remain concerned about misrepresentation of a general UCS position or "statement" when the source that Wired refers to is a blog post among by one of their lead analysts, and basically says the requests were "inappropriate" because they were "overly wide" and in other blog posts on the same topic by UCS staffers, similar nuanced expressions about the FOIA requests are echoed. I don't know if "decried" is an accurate verb. SageRad (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should keep the UCS contributor statement in some form. Writing for the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)s' blog, Gretchen Goldman decried the FOIA requests made by USRTK against researcher Kevin Folta. Goldman is a regular author of UCS reports, Folta is a professor of food and agriculture science, and the USRTK is an anti-GMO advocacy group. Wired attributed Goldman's statement to UCS overall. @SageRad: you removed Goldman's comment on Folta's page, but the appropriate action in my view would be to attribute the statement to Goldman, who regularly authors reports for UCS. Relevant to this issue is the fact that Goldman has a close relationship with UCS, and the content on Folta's page effectively comes to his defense and explains his position, surely important for a WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WIRED was clearly wrong to attribute a blog post to the entire organization. The content on our WP page was:

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science.

Sage was right to take issue with this framing, even though one WIRED article made the same mistake. I support the addition if the reader is told the actual source, as Darouet argues. Although a blog post is still just a blog post, and her standing within the UCS doesn't make it a broad statement, otherwise they would have posted it more prominently.

It's important, however, to look at weigh here. Scientists have a good reason to be defensive and to "decry", when you've got Kevin Folta literally saying stuff like "I'll sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like" to Monsanto reps. (pg 144 This is part of a series of emails uncovered by through the FOIA request.) petrarchan47คุก 00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks petrarchan47 for the NYTimes link. As someone who strongly supports GMO technology (but not necessarily GMO companies - a totally different thing) I believe that Folta's well documented links to the agriculture and GMO industry should be documented here. -Darouet (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind people of WP:BLPSTYLE's advice to beware of accusations of guilt by association. The NYT did not use that quote in their article, but that quote is frequently being cherry-picked by people pushing a particular POV, leading to the harassment of the subject of the BLP. And this is the precise reason why so many scientists are jumping out in support of Folta and against the use of FOIA in this manner, particularly by activists who are funded by industry advocacy groups as is the case here. Adrian^[232] 07:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Moments ago, as a result of this, I went searching and found this, an Op-ed in the LATimes where scientists defend transparency:

Besides, sometimes the bullies have a point. A few months back, the Union of Concerned Scientists called out a small nonprofit funded by organic food growers for sending FOIA requests to several dozen pro-GMO scientists; it claimed that the requests were inappropriate and implied that they constituted harassment. But these emails revealed that at least one of the scientists, Kevin Folta, had some of his expenses picked up by Monsanto, despite claiming that he had "nothing to do" with the company.

And this, in PLOS.

Last week, Nature reported that the University of Florida had provided them with emails that U.S. Right to Know had FOIA’d on one of their researchers. Written by the same journalist who had reported on the FOIA request previously for Science, the story noted that the researcher has received money from Monsanto to fund expenses incurred while giving educational talks on GMOs. The article also noted that the PR Firm Ketchum had provided the scientist with canned answers to respond to GMO critics, although it is unclear if he used them.

The article does not report that the scientist has repeatedly denied having a financial relationship with Monsanto. The article also does not report on an email titled “CONFIDENTIAL: Coalition Update” from the researcher to Monsanto in which the scientist advised Monsanto on ways to defeat a political campaign in California to require labeling of GMO products. petrarchan47คุก 07:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adrian232: you're absolutely right that we should be careful not to imply "guilt by association," or anything rashly. But if it can be documented carefully, Folta's associations at least (not necessarily guilt), should be noted. I'm not sure exactly what that will mean in the context of appropriate weight, reliable sources, and the fact that this is a BLP. -Darouet (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding weight given to Folta's association with Monsanto, know that this wouldn't be a BLP, there would be no reason for this scientist to have a WP page, were it not for the controversy he finds himself in. Here is the WP page as it first appeared, just prior to Folta editing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&oldid=679773826 Other BLPs, for instance Joseph Mercola and G. Edward Griffin, that have wide approval in the community, do not shirk from displaying controversies front and center. I am afraid Folta is getting special treatment and that editors pushing for NPOV and a factual article are being denigrated unfairly. petrarchan47คุก 09:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One has to wonder if this article shouldn't, in fact, be deleted altogether. Does one single controversy merit a WP page? Maybe, but does this one? petrarchan47คุก 09:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above a reliable source? See [14] and [15]. 32.218.47.132 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia can't be reliable (circular reasoning), let alone a fork of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are not reliable sources. See WP:CIRC - "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources." Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment as much as a anything, but I invited responses. Although newspapers are generally reliable for news, and sometimes contain articles written by subject experts, they also contain a lot of "background" material appearing as article filler which is not at all reliable. One thing that people don't want to believe, but is true nevertheless, is that journalists often use Wikipedia for background without citing it. Even the best newspapers in the world do it, as the following example from The Guardian shows. In red is a text from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as it was before today] and in blue is text from this article in the Guardian yesterday.

• It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century.
  Protocols of the Elders of Zion was supposed to have been first published in Russia in the 1900s, translated into various languages and disseminated internationally in the early 20th century.
• The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies.
  It claimed to be the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders, in which they discussed their goal of a global plan to subvert the morals of gentiles and control the press and the global economy.
• It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933, despite having been exposed as fraudulent by The Times of London in 1921.
  Journalists and historians exposed it as a fraud in the 1920s, showing it to contain chunks of text lifted from other books. It was nonetheless studied in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933.

Incidentally, the newspaper copied one of our errors (the Protocols don't identify themselves as the minutes of a meeting, that was done by its publishers) and added one error by not reading Wikipedia carefully enough (there aren't chunks of text copied, but there is a lot of close paraphrase). Zero^talk 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspapers just don't check facts. Sad, but true. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citogenesis is a severe issue in modern journalism as they are forced to compete with blogs and more crowd-sourced information systems; journalists of today have to work faster and they have to appeal to more readers, making research a lower priority than crafting the article's narrative for the most page hits. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's "good sense". A journalist is not an historian. Whether he reported carefully what (an) historian(s) wrote and therefore the information could be found and should be sourced from this/these historian(s), or he didn't report properly and in that case, the journalist is not reliable. In both case, he should not be used as a source. Newspapers are acceptable sources for recent events (not yet studied by scholars) or as primary sources to illustrate information reported by reliable secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you illustrate is a great example of WP:CIRCULAR. It pertains not only to newspapers but also to books, even university press books. I rooted out a circular fallacy in regard to the hoe article, of all things. There was a false fact that had been in the article in Wikipedia, then picked up in a book about garden tools, then deleted from Wikipedia but then re-added using that source which had copied Wikipedia to begin with. I wrote to the book's author and thereby solved the mystery and corrected this small fact about hoes. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here is the discussion on that.

I think that newspaper articles can be useful sources for history, but like any other source, they need to be used carefully and if possible, triangulated against other sources. SageRad (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A source used on Killing of Cecil the Lion, Johnny Rodrigues, was challenged based on the ground that he had apparently contradicted himself. A response (from an administrator) has been that it's not allowed to "bad-mouth living persons", and at my objection that this interpretation would mean the inability to challenge the reliability of any living source, the editor confirmed that this is policy.

Can you confirm that too? Is "scaring an editor away" from challenging a source because the source is a living person acceptable and part of policy? LjL (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to discuss the reliability of a source provided that we do not engage in personal invective or use the talk page as a platform to repeatedly complain about the source outside of the context of the discussion. It is acceptable to raise concerns about facts or sources known to be unreliable, but generally I don't think it's acceptable to "disqualify" an RS based on personal conjecture or your own internet detective work , but that's an RS matter, not a BLP matter. Gamaliel (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got you about the main WP:BLP point.

I'm not too sure about detective work... I certainly know about WP:NOR, but that doesn't apply to talk pages; that, to me, means by extension that it's acceptable to make "original reasonings" there, including about why sources might be (for example) internally inconsistent; plus, at some point, what other recourse is there to determine whether a source is or is not reliable other than doing some actual research about the source? Note that a given source may be reliable/unreliable in general, but unreliable/reliable to source a specific fact (I'm pretty sure there is a piece of policy about this but can't recall which right now), so it's not always enough to gauge whether a source is in turn "considered" reliable by other sources. LjL (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say where the line is. In Gamergate, I saw a lot of editors try to "disqualify" RSes because of connections or conjectures they made based on Tweets from the author of a particular article. That is inappropriate, but what would be appropriate would be to point out than an RS has a reputation for reliability or unreliability based on other RS reporting. In between, in gets a bit murky. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This has become a long-standing issue, and is once again bleeding into too many venues (there's currently an unanswered RFPP ticket for the article and a thread at BLPN). DHeyward has extensively used the talk page to attack that source, and has made some claims about the source that do not appear in RS. The source has been picked up by virtually all reporting on the topic, and is therefore at this point impossible to avoid for us who can only rely on RS. DHeyward has complained about WP:BLP and COATRACKs in other contexts in the past, but is now using an article about Cecil to attack that source. It's gotten to the point where the problem clearly goes beyond individual edits. Samsara 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this particular request for discussion, I'd like to focus on the particular point raised of whether WP:BLP is valid grounds on which to silence discussion about reliability of sources who are living. LjL (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the discussion is inappropriate, it is perfectly valid grounds. The question should be instead "is the discussion about living individuals being conducted in an appropriate manner?" Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a blanket ban on discussing their reliability. But fair enough: is it? What is your opinion? (Please focus on the talk page though, as I'm definitely not going to defend the actual addition of some unsourced material about the "incorrectness" of the source within the article itself, which did happen). LjL (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note this passage in WP:BLP#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

I interpret this passage to mean that any source that fails the Verifiability standards should not be relied upon, and the the instances spelled out in the first part of the sentence are specific examples of sources that fail Verifiability. But the Verifiability policy only applies to the article, not the talk page. So, by extension, WP:BLP only applies to the article, not the talk page. Of course, there are laws about defamation, and the practices one would expect from encyclopedia editors, so there are limits on what can go in the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP does apply everywhere, including on article Talk pages, but, as Gamaliel points out, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss reliability of sources. My own opinion is that I do not see an egregious violation in this edit; one might request that sourcing be provided for the claims he's said the cubs would be killed by Jericho, then said Jericho was Cecil's brother, then said Jericho was killed too. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote is In addition, he stated that Jericho was Cecil's brother and that Jericho was killed by poachers. None of those statements were correct., which reveals this to be a case of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. The examples given there are directly comparable. Samsara 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR most definitely does not apply to talk pages, though (it says so right there in the first paragraph), and even if it were, WP:SYNTH is definitively not about simple adjoining of material. Of course, the "None of those statements were correct" part would need sourcing, within an article. LjL (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is not from the talk page, it was inserted into the article, and it was not sourced. Maybe you should follow what is going on before starting board threads. Samsara 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to why this moved from the article talk page to this noticeboard: Talk page comments like "Sourcing anything to Johnny Rodrigues should be viewed with extreme caution" in no way violates the BLP policy. Saying a living person's opinions fail our reliability standards is not "bad-mouthing living persons", as Samsara erroneously asserted. The fact is that very nearly everyone fails our standards for reliable sources on almost every subject. It is a relatively minuscule fraction of people, on a small set of topics, who meet Wikipedia's RS standard, and so can be cited on a narrow range of topics. Asserting a person is not a member of that tiny club is not a personal attack and it's obnoxious that an Admin would misuse the BLP policy this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, with all due respect, before you comment on the case in the manner you just did you should probably study the entire history of that talk page w.r.t. previous comments by DHeyward. There is a lot of history to this. Regards, Samsara 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that quote is not from the talk page", "maybe you should follow what is going on", I will quote myself from just above: "Please focus on the talk page though, as I'm definitely not going to defend the actual addition of some unsourced material about the "incorrectness" of the source within the article itself". So given no one here is defending that material that was added to the article, who are you even arguing against? Maybe you had a lapse in following what was going on.

Re: "history", there ight be "a lot" of it with that particular user, but that doesn't prevent me (and others) from taking issue with some specific edits/statements you made, about sources and challenging them per BLP, which make me very uneasy. That is what this section on this noticeboard was started about, not DHeyward's potential history. LjL (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: the Killing of Cecil the lion article has now been protected such that only administrators are allowed to edit it. It may be relevant to mention that User:Samsara is an administrator. been semi-protected. LjL (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]