BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
::::::::::We also run into real problems when, against our better judgement, we use sources like Barrett because of some "ends justify the means" type of reasoning. IMHO that is part of what is going on in this situation. There is too much leeway given to "critics" and "skeptics" when people think their arguments are doing us a service somehow. We need to be particularly cautious of sources that have as their MO advocacy as opposed to accuracy, and Barrett fits that bill quite clearly. The details for people like Barrett aren't as important as the service they providing to society. I don't personally disagree with his approach in the sphere of internet advocacy against fringe science, but it is not what we're looking for here at an encyclopedia.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::::We also run into real problems when, against our better judgement, we use sources like Barrett because of some "ends justify the means" type of reasoning. IMHO that is part of what is going on in this situation. There is too much leeway given to "critics" and "skeptics" when people think their arguments are doing us a service somehow. We need to be particularly cautious of sources that have as their MO advocacy as opposed to accuracy, and Barrett fits that bill quite clearly. The details for people like Barrett aren't as important as the service they providing to society. I don't personally disagree with his approach in the sphere of internet advocacy against fringe science, but it is not what we're looking for here at an encyclopedia.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
(Remove indent)I agree. It is not like the situation in [[Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2]] where I was arguing for the views of Jon Taylor and Robert L. FitzPatrick to be included because those views, works, and even direct quotes had been used in third party peer reviewed publications like ''Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal'', ''Journal of Business Ethics'', ''Western Journal of Communication'', ''American Board of Sport Psychology'', ''McGeorge Law Review'', and ''Juta Academic''. Furthermore, if the online reports regarding the [http://www.foundationforhealthchoice.com/victory_barett.html Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc.], [http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm King Bio Pharmaceuticals] cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has '''serious''' credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a [[WP:RS]]. The [http://www.anh-europe.org/news/quackbuster-stephen-barrett-md-loses-appeal-and-leaves-home-town Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town] article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial. |
|||
What I would love to know is ''how'' do you present a case claiming homeopathy is quackery so poorly that you lose it? With stuff like [http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/Clinical%20Trials%20on%20Homeopathy%20Published%20from%202003%20to%202007.htm "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)"], "The laws of chemistry and physics, as we understand them, say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain." - Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited. Rapid response to BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118; Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". ''J Clin Epidemiol''. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. "Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. ''Lancet''. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study." ''J Psychosomatic Res'' 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" ''The Lancet'', Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005); J. D. Miller "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" ''Nature'' 434, 199-202 (10 March 2005) proving a key claim of homeopathy to be false; and many more ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U including James Randi]) to show homeopathy not only doesn't work but can't work just how in the name of sanity do you effectively blow it?--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
lose a case regarding the idea |
|||
--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== 19th century source == |
== 19th century source == |
Revision as of 21:36, 21 October 2010
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Register article on physicist's resignation from the American Physical Society
Physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society recently, in protest over what he calls the "appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change." The Register reported his resignation here, and I added this cite to Lewis's Wikibio diff, replacing an earlier cite to a blog. The originally posted copy of Lewis's letter appears to be here, and his protest resignation has received considerable notice, for example this blog lists six newspapers carrying the story online. The Register's story appears to me to be the best quality of the lot, and is written by the only reporter who apparently contacted Lewis for comments.
Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "happily, all that has to go - el rego isn't an RS". I asked him to specify his objections here and here, but he hasn't yet replied.
This diff is an accurate quote of Lewis's letter (though the selection could be improved), and this Register story is (to my eye) better-than-average journalism.
Can this Register article be considered a Reliable Source for Lewis's resignation? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please note archived discussion, which is on topic, but may not be conclusive enough.--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw it earlier, but thought it was old and inconclusive. (I probably should have referenced it, but I'm new at this; first RS/N ;-)) Since then, the Register has become more active in reporting & commenting on environmental news. What I've seen of that has been respectable. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just don't use it as a source on Wikipedia itself...--Daggerstab (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw it earlier, but thought it was old and inconclusive. (I probably should have referenced it, but I'm new at this; first RS/N ;-)) Since then, the Register has become more active in reporting & commenting on environmental news. What I've seen of that has been respectable. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Register is definitely an RS for computer security and privacy issues, and I'd support citing it alonside other sources if the Register went into the most detail on this resignation letter. But anyway, it looks like the editing has moved past that point, and the article now cites multiple secondary and primary sources for discussion of the letter. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct, though I may add the Register article back as a cite, if it still seems appropriate. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- just in the future always note that the Register as a source will almost always be reverted on sight mainly due to their articles attacking Wikipedia. Thus it is largely distrusted regardless of whether its relaible or not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which appears fairly ridiculous to those editors who had been reading The Register for professional reasons years before WP came along. It's true that they love to skewer sacred cows ( the iPhone is another ), but that, or having a picture of a buzzard on the cover doesn't make them non-RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- "'the Register as a source will almost always be reverted on sight mainly due to their articles attacking Wikipedia." I'd call that vandalism; being critical of Wikipedia is not a valid reason to discount a source, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
DIPAS and Sterling Hospitals
Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 .
Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. Please comment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- For context - there has been some concern at Talk:Prahlad_Jani#Reminders that the article is using self-published, non-peer-reviewed sources to support exceptional claims about a living person (namely that research at Sterling Hospitals showed that a mystic was able to live healthily for several weeks without food or water). That the press releases are "supervised by various entities" and "approved by multiple supervisors" may not be enough to prevent them from being considered questionable self-published sources, particularly in relation to a BLP article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks, McGeddon. The correct talk link would probably be Talk:Prahlad_Jani#DIPAS_and_Sterling_Hospitals. And we are speaking about 15 days under supervision in laboratory environment in 2010, if people are too lazy to read it all in the Reminders. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with McGeddon. I also replied on the Prahlad Jani talkpage [1]. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I do appreciate your input, guys, I think we need some more neutral opinions here. Both McGeddon and Dr.K. are actively engaged into the article related argument and represent one of its sides. Namely, the skeptic one. -- Nazar (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- A self-publishing hospital is clearly not reliable enough for that kind of WP:REDFLAG claim. Hans Adler 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- McGeddon and Hans Adler are correct here; it does not qualify as a WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Iranica
A new article on an academic journal called Iranshenasi was created today. The only source given is an article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Looking at the page About Iranica the source seems reputable enough. However, when I read the article about Iranshenasi, things get more problematic. The style and wording are such that this article would not survive for 5 minutes on WP... Lots of peacock and weasel words, nothing sourced. I put refimprove and notability tags on the article, but they have been removed twice now by the article's creator. If EI is accepted as an RS, then I guess Iranshenasi might squeak by our notability standards, but otherwise I think it should go to AfD. (I have looked for other sources -even a homepage of the journal- but have found none; however, that is immaterial to the discussion here). --Crusio (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment: The editor of the journal is 80+ old and from what I know, he is probably not computer literate. But i do recall seeing a website some years ago, however the website is in Persian. I would have to do a google search for it, except that the word Iranshenasi is very popular in Persian. So that argument is not really a good argument (Wikipedia does not require a website). The writer of the article in Iranica is Abbas Milani who is a Professot at Stanford [2]. I have provided more refences to the citation of the journal itself.
Also I am not sure why Crusio deleted: "The founding editor in chief was Jalal Matini. The journal is published in Persian (with a small English section) and covers Iranian history, Persian culture, and Persian literature.[1]. Among its board members (past and present) one can mention Peter Chelkowski[2], Roger Savory, Zabiollah Safa. Ehsan Yarshater, Heshamt Moayyad[3] and Djalal Khaleqi Motlaq[1]."
Also the journal is well counted in google books [3] despite being in Persian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see from the article history, I did not delete the first part of the statement that you cite ("The founding ... Persian literature"). I did delete the second part of that statement (editorial board members) according to long standing practice in articles about academic journals. As for the website, of course that is not a requirement for an article in WP. I was looking for it because it often provides helpful clues when looking for sources on a subject. I included the fact that I didn't find one here to stress the importance of the question whether the blurb-like article in Encyclopaedia Iranica constitutes an RS or not, as it currently is the only source available. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- If its claims of peer review and invatation only are true (as well as its other claims of accademic quality) then its RS, no matter how an article is writen. It can be assume sthat its writen (again assuming its claims are true) by an expert in the field and has been peer reiwed (unless tey invite non experts to write artciels).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@slatersteven:. The article is written by an expert [[4]] in the field. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@Crusio: The article is a not blurb. However, if you need other citations for the journal [5] [6]. Also the article is written by a Full Professor at Stanford [7]. "Important articles on the Shahnameh and related topics have been published in the periodical Iranshenasi in Persian, but with an English resume."[8].. and etc. Note also again the journal is in Persian, so you should not expect quadrlion citations but the amount is still impressive in google books. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Given this its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Several fringe science journals are peer-reviewed, too, so that is not the all and only (I'm not saying EI is a fringe thing, of course, just that referees are not the only thing). I just find the article on this journal in EI overly laudatory. The WP article is reflecting this, too. I'd appreciate some more opinions of other editors here. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This can be a problem. Even peer reviewed articles are not always RS, just as not every book by an established publisher is automatically a reliable source. I certainly don't think that it can be used for the claim about its authoritativeness. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see where the concept of "peer-review" cameup although the Encyclopaedia is peer-review. If you look at my response to slatersteven, it is about the number of citations and also the academic positions of the scholars (full professor of Norte Dame/Stanford and a full professor of Columbia). This is not a matter of opinion but simply following the definition of WP:RS. First Crusio is not stating what source he has a problem with? Iranica, Yarshater, Milani, Iranshenasi, Columbia University, Stanford and etc.? This is surely very vague. One is not using the concept of "peer-review" to establish WP:RS.
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [9]
Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [10]
For example WP:RS states: "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
Now google books has [11] a total of 20,000 citations. Google Scholars close to 1500-2000 [12]
If we follow guidelines, then I do not think normal users can decide if full Professors from Stanford and Columbia whose works are cited by hundreds of scholars in the same field and other fields are unreliable. If that was the case, then pretty soon the whole idea of Wikipedia would collapse since it would be if certain users "like a certain source". Crusio is saying he does not like the tone of an article, but that is not sufficient. This is not the way to challenge WP:RS. He needs to show where in WP:RS he has found a major problem. If it is the universities? Columbia and Stanford. If it is the publisher? Columbia university. Following guidelines and you will see hundreds of scholarly citations for Iranshenasi as well as Iranica. For Iranica it should not be suprising, but for Iranshenasi which is a Persian journal, that is still a very large number.
Note the Iranica article states about the journal Iranshenasi: "The new journal’s advisory board included an impressive array of scholars from around the world. Three members of Iran Nameh’s Advisory Board joined Iranshenasi: Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, and Zabihollah Safa. ". If you have a problem here, then I can tell you that the most important authors in Islamic studies, Near eastern history and Iranology write for Iranica. If you think its editor is unreliable than again do a google scholar check. Please do a google books and scholar search for each name. [13] [14] and etc.
As per Iranica, here is the columbia university link on it [15]. Here is a news link on it [16], it is a no contest and anyone who knows anything about the field of Iranology or Near Eastern studies, references this source.[17] [18] (22,700 results in google books, written from scholars in many many fields).
QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS WORLDWIDE : A real tour de force. There is no project in the entire Middle Eastern field more worthy of support than the Encyclopædia Iranica. Prof. Richard N. Frye, Harvard University in Journal of the American Oriental Society
The Encyclopædia Iranica volumes are the most extensive and important contributions to the study of Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian history and culture that have been made in this century. Dr. Prudence Harper, Curator of Ancient Near Eastern Art at Metropolitan Museum of Art
The foremost reference work on Iran ever produced and one of the premier reference works in the humanities published in our time. Prof. Roy Mottahedeh, Harvard University in Middle East Journal
The Encyclopædia Iranica will be judged as the most significant contribution of our century to the advancement of Iranian studies as a scholarly enterprise. Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [19]
Une grande entreprise. Prof. Gilbert Lazard, Membre de l'Institut, in Journal Asiatique
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [20]
La première fois qu'une encyclopédie pluridisciplinaire sur l'Iran est mise en chantier. Prof. Jean Calmard, University of Paris, in Abstracta Iranica
This monument of scholarship in Iranian Studies is a mine of detailed information, with bibliographical references, on every aspect of Iranian history, thought, languages, and civilization. Dr. Farhad Daftary, Institute of Ismaili Studies, in Journal of the American Oriental Society
[Encyclopædia Iranica] is an invaluable aid not only to Iranian scholars but also to scholars of Assyrian history, ancient Greek and Roman history, and the history of Islam, as well as archaeologists and historians of culture and religion. Dr. N. I. Medvedskaya, Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, in Vestnik Drevnej Istorii (translated text)
Encyclopædia Iranica is indispensable for any scholarly work of specialists in the fields of Iranian and Islamic Studies. [It] deserves the highest praise and full support. Prof. Werner Ende, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität inZDMG(translated text)
Une grande entreprise qui fera certainement date dans l'histoire des études Iraniennes. The late Prof. Z. Telegdi, University of Budapest in Archiv Orientalni, Prague
Mit der vorliegenden Encyclopædia ist ein jahrhundertwerk in Angriff genommen worden. The late Professor Bertold Spuler, University of Hamburg, in Der Islam
By contrast [to the Encyclpædia of Islam] Islamic art and architecture play a far larger role in ... Encylopædia Iranica ... [It] includes many biographies of artists, including painters, calligraphers, potters, metalworkers, and woodcarvers, as well as entries on cities and media, such as ceramics, carpets, and calligraphy. Dr. Sheila Blair & Dr. Jonathan M. Bloom, inMiddle East Studies Association Bulletin
Encyclopædia Iranica is a real treasury of competent, up-to-date information, and an important research tool. Dr Rüdiger Schmitt, University Professor, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany
--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I consider the encyclopedia to be a RS. Unfortunately, even RSs contain portions that are not a totally reliable as their general contents--there is no such thing as a totally reliable source for all purposes. It is imaginable that the encyclopedia may be somewhat over-enthusiastic in covering other sources in its own field; it is imaginable that there may be a degree of COI. I'm not much happier with their article on this journal than Crusio is. But an edited sources like EI has the ability to make editorial pronouncements and judgements about the quality of people and things, such as an unedited source like Wikipedia does not--this is precisely the reason why we require opinion to come from such a source. I consider it good evidence for the notability of the journal in question and I would even include an attributed quote about the journal's importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Is a paper (possible blog) by a psychiatrist valid regarding old claims regarding dentistry?
Over on the Weston Price I have been trying to balance a claim made by Stephen Barrett (Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists) using a November 3. 1933 paper presented by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York called "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" which cites then contemporary article from Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association to show that Weston Price wasn't the one lone nut Barrett implies him to be.
I even added more modern sources (Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994) Foods & nutrition encyclopedia: Volume 1 CRC Press, Page 546; Chernoff, Ronni (2006) Geriatric nutrition: the health professional's handbook Jones & Bartlett Learning, Page 193) to show the ideas presented in this old paper are not entirely out of date and we have WP:NPOV and WP:OR tag being put on those claims rather than the Barrett claim. I have even found two reliable references that show that Barrett's claim "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" (citing a 1951 and a 1982 article) to be in error.
The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 136 states that the focal infection theory never really died and Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 states: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."
Now in the light of all this can Barrett be considered a reliable source?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to look into this, but you are not writing very clearly. Perhaps you can rework the description of the problem, taking in mind that the kind of readers you expect here have no prior knowledge of the conflict and can easily be confused by overly terse formulations or unclear sentence structure. (Feel free to remove this comment.) Hans Adler 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, BruceGrubb's concerns need to be made clearer.
- A review of similar RSN discussions would also be helpful: Search for "Stephen Barrett" at the top of this page. From what I see, Quackwatch and the related sites run by Barrett have been repeatedly found to be reliable sources for skeptical viewpoints on a range of alt-med and fringe-med topics. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with Barrett's article is it's main thrust is regarding Holistic and Biological Dentists with only three paragraphs on Price with only the one regarding focal infection theory having any references and as shown by the above even that statement is suspect. Furthermore I have found out via the link provided that Price's book was originally published via Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers so you would assume (or at least hope) some form of peer reviewing was going on there.
- Barrett's own Biographical Sketch page on quackwatch.com states despite having honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years that he is a "retired psychiatrist" so evidently even he doesn't consider himself a nutritionist.
- Furthermore right in Price's own book is a forward by Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard University which in part states "A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets." Now this totally flies in the face of Barrett's statement "he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities." Ok, how does that work?
- In short, in terms of Holistic and Biological Dentists Barrett's article as a whole is reasonably sound but the information on Price has major problems--most of the claims are not sourced and the one point that is appears to be in error likely because the source material used is so out of date.
- "This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33)--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Barrett is a good debunker and a useful pointer to the scientific standing of theories. But it should usually be possible to find better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- "This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33)--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should point out that WP:SPS is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources as Barrett: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable 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(sic).
- The biggest problem is the lack of reference to all of Barrett's nutritional claims regarding Price's research. If there is one thing I still remember from my research days is that is better to overcite claim then to undercite but in this section there is nothing. So where are these claims coming from?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Barrett & Co. are technically reliable sources (sometimes borderline cases when things are just published on the web), but generally not of a very high quality so far as scientific claims are concerned. Citing them in spite of the often relatively poor quality of their research and the mixing of fact and opinion is a necessary evil for some topics because they are often the only sources addressing a fringe topic from something remotely like a mainstream POV. But ultimately there is very little difference between something that Barrett publishes on his website and the climate change denial on a "conservative" blog. Both must be taken with some care and are automatically trumped by better sources, where available.
- One problem with Barrett is that apparently he lives in a world that only has black and white – no colours and no shades of grey: Holistic dentists are charlatans and cite Price as an authority, so Price must have been a charlatan. Price was a charlatan, so everything he did must have been wrong. Everything he did was wrong anyway, so it's OK to say so without any further research (which would of course be a waste of time). That's the problem with debunking: In contrast to scientific discourse it's all about the one and only true "scientific" belief rather than facts.
- Barrett may be an expert on modern fringe theories, but he is certainly not an expert on the history of dentistry. E.g. I doubt very strongly that when Barrett says "Price also performed poorly designed studies [...]" he means what a qualified scholar would mean by that: That Price, who died in 1948, performed studies that were poorly designed for his time. I am not even sure that Barrett checked whether the studies were up to modern standards. Much more likely "poorly designed" is just his way of saying he doesn't agree with the results. That's much more in line with Barrett's thoroughly unobjective writing style. Hans Adler 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To say it very clearly: An article about a leading dental researcher who died in 1945 is an article about dental/medical history, not a fringe article. Barrett (i.e. things self-published by him without any editorial overview) is to some extent a reliable source on fringe. He is not a reliable source on dental history. Barrett has an extreme POV that makes it necessary to be careful even about what he says in the field of fringe. This extreme POV obviously affects how he treats this historical topic: He is mistaking what appears to be a perfectly legitimate stage in the history of mainstream dentistry (whether it was an error or not) with fringe. Hans Adler 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Hans. The criticism section doesn't really belong in the entry. It isn't relevant to Price, but to contemporary holistic dentistry.Griswaldo (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I never heard of "holistic dentistry" (sounds very suspicious), but if it is sufficiently notable it may be appropriate to mention it in a "legacy" section of the Price article, without giving it undue appearance of validity. What is not appropriate is keeping it unmentioned but bashing Price as a proxy for something that came up after his death. Hans Adler 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Hans Adler. Your point is exactly what I mean though I need to correct you on one minor issue--Price died in 1948 not 1945. As I have shown with Charles F. Bodecker's paper there was a lot of articles published regarding a connection between nutrition and tooth decay in the 1920s and 1930s and the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service article "Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay" provides more references from that time including three by Price himself in the Journal American Dental Association. Even the focal infection theory is getting a second look.
- Very simply put holistic dentistry works from holistic medicine's idea that the body is one unit and that actions on one part can effect others ie a problem in the mouth can effect the body and vice versa. The problem is when other ideas like homeopathy or controversial issues like mercury fillings are involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is significant to note that Barrett has been involved in quite a bit of litigation over his writings. He has not lost all, but enough it appears to warrant caution regarding his credibility. Furthermore his lack of training and expertise in dentistry are a handicap to his ability to bring suitable analysis and historical perspective in the case of Weston Price's research. Apparently some don't feel the litigation against Barrett to be appropriate content to include in his biographical article, though it appear relevant to me given his profession. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that most of the sources that make comments regarding litigation against Barrett are iffy under normal WP:RS guidelines meaning that under the stricter WP:BLP requirements they are totally unusable hence that is why there isn't anything regarding these cases in his article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I should mention that of Barrett's claims only the focal infection theory one has any reference and those can be shown to be possibly out of date. In fact, searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.
Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."
Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)
"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)
"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)
"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)
The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is, especially when we can show via old source the claims are in error? There is something very wrong with that picture.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hans Adler's comments of 14 October are, I think, the most relevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also concur with Adler's statement. One answer may be to minimize the significance of Barrett by citing other critical sources, including any of those in Barrett's own bibliography that can be checked. I looked around in a newspaper archive and found many references to Price's once-fringe view that organic, unprocessed food is healthier for teeth and the whole body. But I also found this reference:
- Some of the more controversial ideas stem from the work of Dr. Weston Price, a dentist and author of the 1939 book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." Price, a harsh critic of modern civilization, said that both root canals and amalgam fillings should be avoided and advocated a diet of nutrient-dense whole foods. But many dentists who advocate holistic approaches are less extreme.
- Dentists adopt unconventional treatment options. Julie Deardorff. Chicago Tribune McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: May 9, 2008.
- Some of the more controversial ideas stem from the work of Dr. Weston Price, a dentist and author of the 1939 book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." Price, a harsh critic of modern civilization, said that both root canals and amalgam fillings should be avoided and advocated a diet of nutrient-dense whole foods. But many dentists who advocate holistic approaches are less extreme.
- So the implication is that Price had views that are still considered controversial and extreme by some. We should neither hide this view nor rely on Barrett as the only source for it, but we shouldn't overstate it either. Will Beback talk 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Hans and Will (and others). Barrett is a not-always-reliable source for a generic skeptical POV, and giving him his own one-line section seems to over-weight the skeptical POV significantly. I'd suggest that we rename the 'Foundations related to Price' section to something like 'Modern day usage', and put the Barrett bit there with respect to his dispute with the Price foundation. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is "The Great Divide" in the August 6, 2008 Washington Post paints a slightly different portrait of Price's views:
- "She advocates butter on bread "so thick you can see teeth marks in it," plenty of meat and unpasteurized, or raw, milk.
- Those are foods recommended by Price, a Cleveland dentist who traveled the world studying primitive diets. His 1939 book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," concluded that a diet high in the vitamins found in animal fats and untouched by "modern" innovations such as refined flour, sugar and chemically preserved foods was the key to preventing chronic disease and tooth decay."
- This give a little less radical view of Price.
- As I see it we have two issues regarding Price--how radical were his ideas for his time and how radical are they for now?
- "Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay" by the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 19, 2009 states
A recent authoritative review showed a clear association between cavities and heart diseases [5]. More importantly, this same study showed that people with poor oral health, on average, lead shorter lives. The association between cavities and diabetes is also a subject of active, ongoing research [6-8]. Connections between heart disease, diabetes, and dental decay have been suspected for decades. Many of the scientists who called attention to this have proposed that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates were the common cause of these diseases [9-15] Dental diseases, mental diseases, heart disease, infectious respiratory diseases, and heart disease are all at least partially caused by common failures in metabolism. Such failures are inevitable when there is a deficiency of essential nutrients, particularly vitamins D, C, and niacin.
There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930's and 1940's [16-27]. More than 90% of the studies concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities. Particularly impressive was a study published in 1941 demonstrated the preventative affect of "massive" doses of vitamin D [28]. And yet no subsequent studies in the scientific literature suggested a need to follow up and repeat this work.(sic)
- Those numbers are references that go with those claims. The 1930's to 1940's stuff reads like a who's who of reliable publications: New York Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Nutrition, American Journal of Public Health, British Dental Journal, Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease, Journal of the American Dental Association, Medical Research Council, British Medical Journal, and American Journal of Diseases of Children
- While a little more of a mixed bag the modern stuff has Institute of Dentistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA; Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia, Mexico City, Mex. Archives of Medical Research; Caries Research (2002); Diabetes Care (1981), Oregon State University Press (1986-revised 2006) rounding out its roster.
- So with all those supporter of some of Price's ideas past and present you have to ask just how fringe are they?
- Finally, Price wrote this in a 1923 book called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic: "since 1870 the average length of life has been increased by fifteen years, that marked reduction has occurred during this period in infant mortality and in mortality due to tuberculosis, typhoid, smallpox and many other diseases."
- Short life expectancy, high rates of infant mortality, and endemic diseases being eliminated by modern culture were addressed by Price years before and more over Price uses this very book as a reference in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (Chapters 2 and 18). But according to Barrett claims Price ignored the very things Price himself noted in 1923 even while referencing said work. Does this make a lick of sense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The more I find on Price, the more I realize he wasn't even close to being the crackpot that Barrett would like us to believe. I'd say he was quite progressive and had a profound effect on dentistry. I've added some relevant material that illustrates this. I also realize that the article has been emphasizing his work on nutrition and ignoring his research in general dentistry. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this instance Barrett seems to have gotten into the mindset that since Price's ideas are used to promote questionable theories Price himself was proposing a questionable theory. Barrett annoys me because like him I am a skeptic but when he mixes genuine issues with poorly (if at all) researched claims that are easily disproved (as with Price) he puts not only that article but everything else he says in doubt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The more I find on Price, the more I realize he wasn't even close to being the crackpot that Barrett would like us to believe. I'd say he was quite progressive and had a profound effect on dentistry. I've added some relevant material that illustrates this. I also realize that the article has been emphasizing his work on nutrition and ignoring his research in general dentistry. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bruce the most frustrating part of this mess is that when people go out of their way to defend Barrett, in this instance, they do damage to his overall reputation. I think at this point it is clear that Barrett does not meet the criteria to be considered an exception to WP:SPS on this issue. See my last response to ScienceApologist here, for instance. Barrett's critique is based upon information that he does not have the relevant expertise to be spouting off without very good citations. He is not an expert on the nutritional history and consumption behaviors of the natives that Price did fieldwork with. People really need to stop pushing this issue in my view.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remember that when Barrett started his website he was trying to hold back a tide of internet misinformation about health. So he produced a listing, as comprehensive as one person's could be, of pseudoscientific areas where buyers ought to beware. It has its biases and has been - or ought to be - superseded for most purposes now. It certainly will never match up to the best standards in history of medicine. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bruce the most frustrating part of this mess is that when people go out of their way to defend Barrett, in this instance, they do damage to his overall reputation. I think at this point it is clear that Barrett does not meet the criteria to be considered an exception to WP:SPS on this issue. See my last response to ScienceApologist here, for instance. Barrett's critique is based upon information that he does not have the relevant expertise to be spouting off without very good citations. He is not an expert on the nutritional history and consumption behaviors of the natives that Price did fieldwork with. People really need to stop pushing this issue in my view.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- We also run into real problems when, against our better judgement, we use sources like Barrett because of some "ends justify the means" type of reasoning. IMHO that is part of what is going on in this situation. There is too much leeway given to "critics" and "skeptics" when people think their arguments are doing us a service somehow. We need to be particularly cautious of sources that have as their MO advocacy as opposed to accuracy, and Barrett fits that bill quite clearly. The details for people like Barrett aren't as important as the service they providing to society. I don't personally disagree with his approach in the sphere of internet advocacy against fringe science, but it is not what we're looking for here at an encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(Remove indent)I agree. It is not like the situation in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 where I was arguing for the views of Jon Taylor and Robert L. FitzPatrick to be included because those views, works, and even direct quotes had been used in third party peer reviewed publications like Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, McGeorge Law Review, and Juta Academic. Furthermore, if the online reports regarding the Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc., King Bio Pharmaceuticals cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a WP:RS. The Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial.
What I would love to know is how do you present a case claiming homeopathy is quackery so poorly that you lose it? With stuff like "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)", "The laws of chemistry and physics, as we understand them, say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain." - Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited. Rapid response to BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118; Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. "Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study." J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005); J. D. Miller "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" Nature 434, 199-202 (10 March 2005) proving a key claim of homeopathy to be false; and many more (including James Randi) to show homeopathy not only doesn't work but can't work just how in the name of sanity do you effectively blow it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
lose a case regarding the idea
--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
19th century source
User:Sulmues is bent on using a 19th century source (from 1872) to "prove" that the town of Konitsa was "Albanian" [21]. The source is John Murray, one of those 19th century British travellers who roamed the Balkans. It is of course heavily outdated, and the author is not a historian or scholar of any sort, yet this user simply cannot see what is wrong with the source. Can someone please explain to him that 19th century sources are heavily outdated and should not be used? God knows I tried. Ditto here, where he is using a source from 1920 [22] and (of course) can't see anything wrong with that. This user has a very hard time understanding that anything older than ~50 years is deprecated and should only be used with extreme caution. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing it here, Athenean. In the current version written by me, I clearly describe how "John Murray, a British book travel writer" sees the city in the 19th century [23]. What I have a hard time understanding is why we would remove old sources, when we have no new ones on how a town looked in the 19th century. My opinion is that we would of course replace an old source as soon as a new one becomes available. Wikipedia works like that: it's the best world possible. As of today. If you or anyone else tomorrow bring a more contemporary source that will, of course, be more reliable and will strike the reader as such, please feel free to remove my source and to enter the better and newer one. But why remove immediately old sources, when they can give us some information on the town's articles, when they can give us the flair of the past? Especially when the source is in English and clearly researcheable from the reader. Thank you for your attention.--Sulmues (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- When will you understand that 19th century travelers are not reliable sources? First because they are outdated and second because they aren't accredited scholars or academics, or any such thing, but just travelers. As such, they fail WP:RS. It's no different than using a travel blog as a source. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see a lot of contemporary travel books entered in Wikipedia as references. "Bradt travel" for example is everywhere. The Murrays travelbooks have been classics in the 19th century like Bradt is today. The point is that you will deny me every 19th century source, just on the ground that they are old, even if I bring you the censuses from that century. You will just tell me that they are too old. Censuses in the 19th century can't be done a posteriori though. --Sulmues (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! That and that only will be said. Unfortunately I'm being edit-warred there [24]. --Sulmues (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should add that the source uses language to describe the town such as "the filthy streets, comfortless houses, and wild-looking population proclaim the Albanian town" [25]. That is just soooooo 19th century. I mean, come on. Is this the kind of source we should be using here? Athenean (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You need to read 19th century language with some caution. "Wild" simply means "non-civilized by 19th century British standards". The wording that we use in Wikipedia today can be slightly different. Good Articles such as Teuta of Illyria which use sources such as Polybius don't use Polybius language either, but still successfully source from him.--Sulmues (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- All he says is "the Albanian town", he doesn't say anywhere that it is populated by ethnic Albanians. He could just mean "Albanian" in a strictly geographical sense, i.e. that it is in what they referred to in the 19th century as "Albania". Many older sources refer to Epirus (region) as "Albania". And that's the problem with 19th century sources. The terminology has changed dramatically since then (e.g. consider the case of how they used "Greeks" to describe ethnically Albanian Orthodox Christians, and "Moslems" and "Turks" instead of Muslim Albanians. Also "Turkalbanians", which is no longer used.). That is the essence of WP:PSTS: Because older sources are outdated, and use outdated terminology, we should not interpret them on our own, but rely on interpretations by contemporary, secondary sources. Generally speaking, anything older than 1960 should be treated with caution, and avoided if possible. Athenean (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not know if it should be used, all I am saying is that it may be used. I am aware of no guidance on age of sources; clearly you try for the most recent possible reputable sources, but I've used even 18th century sources in FA's, simply because you take what you can get. Whether the source should be used is a matter to be discussed among the editors who work on that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that we have plenty of contemporary works I really don't see a reason why a 19th century traveler should be preffered, especially when the terminology was diferrent that time.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alexikoua we could add Mann's contemporary source that still says predominantly Albanian speaking, so you can't avoid that issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why not use that source then (either on its own or in addition to the other one if absolutely necessary)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alexikoua we could add Mann's contemporary source that still says predominantly Albanian speaking, so you can't avoid that issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that we have plenty of contemporary works I really don't see a reason why a 19th century traveler should be preffered, especially when the terminology was diferrent that time.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am getting the impression this is one of those Balkan ethnic things that sensible editors run away from screaming. Either way, I have no opinion as to whether it should be used, I merely opine that it can be used, as set forth above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with this. In other words Athenean is not quite right to question this IF the ONLY problem is that it is "old". However, I see Athenean does indeed have other concerns such as whether the author concerned was really talking about Albanian in the same way it would be understood today. Indeed such ethnic terms are not always clear, rarely stable, and never have been. That would be a content discussion best left to those who know the subject though I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- PRIMARY by non expert not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not necessarily disagree, but I prefer Wehwalt's wording. The question for me, which I believe is a content question, is whether knowing what an Albanian town is would be a subject requiring expertise or not. Obviously for example, if an article needs to mention whether a building was standing in the 19th century, a 19th century travel writer would be fine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you need to be a specialist to conduct ethnodemography? Yes, yes you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think I understand your point and I tend to agree with it. The reason your remark might not be obvious to all is because it assumes that calling a town Albanian requires "conducting ethnography". I do agree that this is probably correct, but then this agreement requires an opinion about this particular content. The content argument is (I think) that this ethnic term in that period is not a simple and clear terminology, like some ethnic or national terms are in some periods. Do you agree with that summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ethnic identity as a phenomena and as an object of social study is sufficiently complex that it requires expertise to untangle. This is more so in the Balkans. This is more so in the 19th Century. This is doubly more so in the Balkans in the 19th Century. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ethnic identity as a phenomena and as an object of social study is sufficiently complex that it requires expertise to untangle. This is more so in the Balkans. This is more so in the 19th Century. This is doubly more so in the Balkans in the 19th Century. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think I understand your point and I tend to agree with it. The reason your remark might not be obvious to all is because it assumes that calling a town Albanian requires "conducting ethnography". I do agree that this is probably correct, but then this agreement requires an opinion about this particular content. The content argument is (I think) that this ethnic term in that period is not a simple and clear terminology, like some ethnic or national terms are in some periods. Do you agree with that summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you need to be a specialist to conduct ethnodemography? Yes, yes you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not necessarily disagree, but I prefer Wehwalt's wording. The question for me, which I believe is a content question, is whether knowing what an Albanian town is would be a subject requiring expertise or not. Obviously for example, if an article needs to mention whether a building was standing in the 19th century, a 19th century travel writer would be fine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not RS. Also, if the book is used to proved that the town was Albanian it is original research. TFD (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- TFD, just on terminology, "original research" is not a problem when we are talking about sources. What WP does not want is original research by Wikipedians publishing for the first time on Wikipedia. Perhaps what you mean is that this would be a "primary source" which means more or less original research outside Wikipedia. Primary sources can be used, but that does not mean Athenean is wrong to question the source. I think the explanations most relevant are those of Wehwalt and Fifelfoo above and I think you probably are saying the same thing as Fifelfoo? See WP:PRIMARY. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to point out that any 19th century source must be used with caution even if it by an accredited scholar or academic. The reason is simple-the theories they used have since been disproved or replaced and some studies were as much for propaganda as they were for science. Sensationalism, tabloid like articles, and finally Yellow journalism were common in many papers of the day. As the Spring Heeled Jack scare shows even now reputable papers like The Times were not immune. The quality by our standards just wasn't there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think this is a valid generalization. It depends on the subject. 19th century sources are often very good, and need to be used for some subjects. Not all of them were sensationalist journalism. Having said that I can sympathize with the other concerns being raised above by Alexikoua and Fifelfoo, which revolve around this being a subject requiring some expertise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remember when we say "19th century" we are talking about 1801 to 1900. Much of the good quality stuff came near the end of that period. Phrenology (1810-1840) is a prime example of the quality of the science being done in the early part of that century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean but I think it depends what field you are working in. For some fields what you are saying is right. Just for example there have been a few questions about things like British genealogy and parish histories lately. The old art of antiquarian document collecting was already going strong in the early 1800s, and some (not all of course) of the better sources from the 1700s are still important sources today because old documents and stories sometimes disappear, and also sometimes fields of study go out of fashion leaving few people or publishing houses to work on even secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remember when we say "19th century" we are talking about 1801 to 1900. Much of the good quality stuff came near the end of that period. Phrenology (1810-1840) is a prime example of the quality of the science being done in the early part of that century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The source is dubious at best. It's a non-expert writing in the 19th century, so two major strikes against it being a WP:RS. I supposed it could be used for the opinions of John Murray, but the issue would then be WP:UNDUE - why would Wikipedia care what his opinions were on this topic? Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Social Networking source
There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- "It's agreed that the video is authentic." So cite the original work. My photocopies of a journal article are "authentic". I don't cite the Kyocera copier. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss the part where it's agreed by all that it's not available anywhere else? Hence the discussion. It's only available on the "social networking site" MySpace. Using your example, the video is stored in the memory of the Kyocera copier, not anywhere else. Santamoly (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who agreed that the video is "authentic"? Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- As an involved editor, I've seen nothing to indicate that the video is fake or altered, but I myself can't vouch for its authenticity since I'm not familiar with the source. WP:VIDEOLINK requires that "Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established", so it would seem the burden of proof is on the presenter ThatSaved (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- not so sure about that... see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works; So cite the samizdat / bootleg, but don't link to it. In that case it would be OriginalAuthor, (copydate) [Originaldate] "OriginalTitle" [electronic copy of a video.] Original Publisher Location/Broadcast channel, Digitally copied and distributed via Current Host or Samizdat. For example, Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit London: Presslypress, 1991; versus Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit originally as London: Presslypress, 1991; reprinted in samizdat EbilBookPirateDistro, [?2009] as an .ePub file. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- [?American Suzuki Motor Corporation] / [?Gladstone International] (2007-07-02) [?undated] "Suzuki v. Consumers Union." [electronic copy of a video.] Originally: Video B-Roll; In bootleg/samizdat: "caleb cannon"[pseud.] "possumassaliant"[pseud.].
- It is hard to see what makes this a reliable source for opinion, given that ASMC/Gladstone don't explicitly take responsibility for the work, similarly Video B-Roll. The source lacks an internal distribution date, or indication of a distributor other than Video B-Roll. About the only thing certain about the work is that it is an electronic copy of a video and that it has a clear title. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- As above, there's no indication that the video meets the requirements of WP:RS. And you can't cite unreliable sources; WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to Reliable Sources only, since one does not cite unreliable ones. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who agreed that the video is "authentic"? Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss the part where it's agreed by all that it's not available anywhere else? Hence the discussion. It's only available on the "social networking site" MySpace. Using your example, the video is stored in the memory of the Kyocera copier, not anywhere else. Santamoly (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Major John Potter - is he a reliable source?
I am doing some editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and another chap there has called into question the reliability of a book I am using to verify some of the material. Can someone please tell me if the book "A Testimony to Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment) is a reliable source to use? The ISBN is: 0 85052 819-4
Thank you in advance.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Curious which chap called it unrelaible? Mo ainm~Talk 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the book in question is considered to be not a whitewash but definitely a favorable portrait, as the title should have tipped you off; he is probably reliable, though, on such topics as infiltration of the UDR by the Protestant paramilitaries and their maltreatment of Catholic UDR members. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) (a Prod and a republican)
I am absolutely taken aback that a genuine request for assistance yields such an awful sectarian comment. I had hoped that people of position on Wikipedia would be above such behaviour. Can anyone genuinely help please without using such bitter language.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- ? I'm puzzled; I thought my language was quite moderate, and indeed in harmony with Major Potter's own reports on the topic! I'm sorry if I somehow gave offence inadvertently. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who claimed it wasn't a reliable source? And what is sectarian about the comment made by Orange Mike? Please be aware the wikipedia doesn't allow personal attacks Mo ainm~Talk 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You should not ask whether an individual is a reliable source but whether a book is. This book was published by "Pen and Sword Books" as one of their "regimental history books".[26] But reliability refers to the facts in the book, and the history of this regiment is controversial. You need to determine how historians view the regiment and this book may not address that. TFD (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, Deuces. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply want to know if Potter's book can be taken as a true source of facts (facts only - not opinion, unless supported by other sources) and if Potter can be referred to in the article as the "Regimental Historian". I don't want to enter into speculation on the Ulster Defence Regiment or accusations about it. The Wikipedia article already explores that in great depth. I will use what I'm told here as absolute. With regards to what historians feel about the regiment this is the only history currently available so it's all I have to work with as a Regimental History, apart from a book written by a journalist in 1991 and some smaller histories produced by former members of lesser rank.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It states in the book that the MOD have not endorsed any part of the book, nor the unofficial sources refered to and Potter himself states that "I must also emphasize the the opinions expressed, were they are not attributed, are my own." Having said that I would say that Potter in general is reliable but being a former UDR member anything contentious would need attribution to him. I'm also at a loss as to why a "new" editor would come here when their was no question of the reliability of the book on the talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the first few pages of the book there is a disclaimer that reads ". . . this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book". I will also add that the so-called journalist Chris Ryder is a respected author on The Troubles, which Potter does not seem to be despite the claims he is a "historian". Former soldier turned writer yes, but not a historian. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would consider it to be a reliable source. TFD (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a particular case of a general phenomenon - organisations commissioning their own histories. These are usually reliable as to facts although you must avoid anything that is obviously self-serving. Also, especially in sensitive areas like this, be aware that the history will be slanted towards the organisation's own perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Itsmejudith is correct. Generally reliable about uncontentious facts, caution must be taken to avoid self-serving material, and particular care must be taken in contentious or disputed areas. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Should the concerns expressed above on the book be sufficient to require that attribution of the authors opinions be agreed? As the editor has stated that they wouldn't for a minute suggest that "A Testament to Courage" is the official UDR history, that they also agree then that Potter is not the official "Regimental Historian" and should not be referred to as such in the article? Could the editor possibly indicate who in this discussion called into question reliability of the book? --Domer48'fenian' 22:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Potter states that he was "invited by the Colonels Commandant" to compile the history of the regiment. That suggests it is official. That and the fact that the finished work is kept safe and unpublished by the British Ministry of Defence.
I don't see why there's such a fuss about it. I asked a question and expected to get the sensible answers I've had from some people. I suppose I should have realised that anything to do with Ireland is going to get some people on a soap box. I think that's my point really. I'd rather have the "soap boxing" done here than see it happen on the article discussion page.
Could someone give me a view on the "official status" of Potter please - as regimental historian of the Ulster Defence Regiment? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have been given it by different editors, Potter is an ex UDR soldier and not a historian, he states himself that they are his opinions in the book, do I need to give you the quote again for the third time? Mo ainm~Talk 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for an informed, independent opinion. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like an opinion from an appointed person who isn't involved in Irish affairs. I'm not seeking an argument with anyone. I'll scout around and see if I can find some help elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's no rush, the article isn't going anywhere. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now referred this question to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Help_Required_With_Source and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source . SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reliability of the source is a question to be answered here. Balancing is for NPOVN. I probably count as an editor uninvolved with Irish affairs. It looks to me that the book, while not the official history of the regiment, was compiled with their consent. It's been cited in a few places. I suggest you treat it as a history text, not of the highest standard perhaps, but of adequate standard in the absence of other history texts. It may well be biased, and the solution to that is to balance any contentious points with views of other historians. Don't be tempted to reproduce any of its biases or to use points that are opinion rather than fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that it has. Much emphasis seems to be laid on Major Potter's opinion by several posters opposed to the use of his work. What is more relevant though is that he is named, but not explained, and it seems odd to me that the man who compiled the official history of the regiment cannot be called the "Official Regimental Historian". Even if his book is not the official version which as we know is unreleased.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you need any further comment from uninvolved editors? I agree with Blueboar that some attribution is necessary but at the moment the amount of attribution interferes with readability. Attribute anything that might be contentious, but not simple points of fact. You will probably have to discuss it line by line on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think one aspect of my request is completely satisifed - over attribution. I'd be very pleased if you could give me an opinion on the term "official historian" with regards to John Potter so that it can be explained to a reader that it was he who compiled the official history - even if his book isn't.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- He did not compile any official history, he compiled the archive. All this means is he is an archivist, or to put it more simply, a filing clerk, or to put it even more simply, he collected pieces of paper. He is not a historian, his book is not official, he has not compiled any official history, most of those facts are in black and white in the book. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- To answer your direct question, SonofSetanta, we do not usually attach descriptions to the authors of our sources. It isn't necessary, and doesn't add anything to the credibility of the sources. When you attribute to Potter, use Harvard style: "according to Potter (date), the regiment did this or that". That's my view, wait a bit to see what Blueboar says and if there are any other non-involved views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean Judith. I'll change what I've written about him as a result of your comment. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Two source query
I'd like some opinions please! Are www.filmsnobbery.com and www.ferntv.ca suitably reliable to show the notability of Emily Schooley? The links are to the specific pages, but I'm more interested in whether they are WP:RS - I'm not quite sure. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dlabtot, thanks for the reply (it seems I should have created more of a controversy in order to generate more debate!), but I would be grateful if you could also explain your reasoning, so I can steal your words to explain to others..! Of course, someone else could weigh-in, prizes available! Bigger digger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that indicates either of those sources meet our RS criteria. I'm not going to try to prove a negative. Dlabtot (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- To elaborate, per [WP:RS]], "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It is not immediately apparent that these websites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they are anythyng but normal blogs, which are presumed not to be reliable. Sandstein 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Sandstein, that's what I was after. Bigger digger (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- To elaborate, per [WP:RS]], "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It is not immediately apparent that these websites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they are anythyng but normal blogs, which are presumed not to be reliable. Sandstein 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that indicates either of those sources meet our RS criteria. I'm not going to try to prove a negative. Dlabtot (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dlabtot, thanks for the reply (it seems I should have created more of a controversy in order to generate more debate!), but I would be grateful if you could also explain your reasoning, so I can steal your words to explain to others..! Of course, someone else could weigh-in, prizes available! Bigger digger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded Primary Source PDF files as Reference
Primary sources are discouraged, but assuming there is a legitimate primary source, is there a rule that says that a primary source uploaded to a wikipedia page cannot be used as a reference? I'm told there is such a rule but I haven't seen it. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
To be more specific, the file is a signed court document. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Court documents are highly discouraged for a number of reasons. If the case is notable, one should be able to find a second party discussing it. Collect (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are limited situations where primary sources (such as court documents) are appropriate. However it is very easy to misuse them... a lot depends on specifically what you want to use one for. I suggest that you read and fully understand WP:No original research before attempting to use one. Court documents have a very limited range of situations where they can be used appropriately, and a huge range of situations where their use would be inappropriate. So... extreme caution is advised. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be a consensus in the matter that the court documents are necessary in this instance. I dloaded the document from an external website, uploaded them to a wikipedia page (so the reference would be there if the external site changed), and then used the wiki pdf page as the reference. I noted the original source on the wikipedia page. The question is whether that is improper, and I should only use the original source as the reference rather than the wiki pdf. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing on Wikipedia is a reliable source; we are firm on that. The question is whether the site from which this document is pulled, is itself a reliable source. And no, downloading and posting here to Wikipedia is not a viable solution to the perceived risk of a dead link; "so the reference would be there if the external site changed" does not trump our other practices. I also think you are underestimating the problems with court documents and original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- We could probably give you a more definitive answer if you were to tell us what the court document is, where you got it from, and how you intend to use it (in which article and in support of what statement). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Something else to consider... looking your edit history, I am guessing that you want to use this document in a BLP (Biography of Living People) article. Please read WP:BLP, as there are extra restrictions on what can and can not be used in BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- This question is potentially different from anything we have considered before. It all depends on what you mean by "signed". Our normal concern is that if a citation of a document points to a web site other than the organization that wrote or published the document, then the web site must be reliable, because otherwise the document might have been altered. However, we have never discussed documents with digital signatures (and where the certification authority is reliable and the class of digital certificate is intended for serious matters). In this case, the authenticity of the document would not be in question, no matter where it was hosted. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Something else to consider... looking your edit history, I am guessing that you want to use this document in a BLP (Biography of Living People) article. Please read WP:BLP, as there are extra restrictions on what can and can not be used in BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- We could probably give you a more definitive answer if you were to tell us what the court document is, where you got it from, and how you intend to use it (in which article and in support of what statement). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is the url of the source in question? http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf -- In other words, this blog: http://patterico.com
- In which article is the source being used? James_O'Keefe
- What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? "The government later confimed there was no evidence O'Keefe intended to commit any felony."[27]
- Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? [28] Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a PDF that you got from some blog and then uploaded to Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Duh. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, there are good reasons that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."—(from WP:PRIMARY) That court document is the result of a plea bargain and compromise hashed out by lawyers. What does that document really mean when it says that "further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses despite their initial statements to the staff..."? There really should be reliable secondary sources explaining this in the context of the plea bargain, and also showing that this really is a notable statement that should be given weight (and not just plea bargain legalese written so everyone can cover their backsides). First Light (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment about whether this source should be used if it were reliable. I agree with Dlabtot's conclusion that this source is not reliable, but disagree with his reasoning. It is not obvious that all PDFs found on blogs are unreliable, only that this PDF is unreliable. A PDF with a digital signature and a high-grade digital certificate from a recognized certificate authority would probably be reliable no matter where it is hosted. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- If this were obtained from a reliable venue like Lexis... or if someone hiked down to the court house and obtained a hard copy from the clerk... Would we then have to judge it as "reliable"? Yes, it would still have the other issues (high potential for OR, primary document used in a BLP, etc.) that would limit its use, but I think we would have to call it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- "A PDF with a digital signature and a high-grade digital certificate from a recognized certificate authority" - I agree that such a document, were it to exist, might be reliable, depending on the relevant criteria from WP:Identifying reliable sources. Also, if a pig existed with a 200 foot wingspan, it might be able to fly. Let's see which happens first. Dlabtot (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment about whether this source should be used if it were reliable. I agree with Dlabtot's conclusion that this source is not reliable, but disagree with his reasoning. It is not obvious that all PDFs found on blogs are unreliable, only that this PDF is unreliable. A PDF with a digital signature and a high-grade digital certificate from a recognized certificate authority would probably be reliable no matter where it is hosted. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, when I removed this from the James O'Keefe article, User:SpecialKCL66 reverted me, [29] [30], stating "this issue has already been discussed at length". Yes, it's been discussed, and the consensus is, it is not WP:RS, and even if it was, it probably couldn't be used in this manner. Dlabtot (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
reliable forum post?
BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) contends that this forum post is a reliable source for the article Corrupted Blood incident, as argued here. Can somebody please vet both the source, and the articular content that BruceGrubb is extrapolating? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Without looking or caring, a forum post is only reliable as to the opinion of the poster on that forum. ANY other use is as an 'unreliable' source. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bruce is arguing on Talk: Corrupted Blood incident that the post is an official one from the computer game manufacturer in order to lead off discussion, and not a post from a random forum member. That might be acceptable, any opinions from computer games articles people? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- how does the forum, and how do we evaluate that it is from the manufacturer and not some gamer Randy in Boise? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good question and in this case Blizzard itself provides the answer in Forum Flags. A post by an authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment must have three things: be in blue, have the Blizzard icon, and be identified as a "Blizzard Poster". Tigole's post is in blue, and he has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" is underneath his name. All three criteria are met so Tigole is indeed an authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. As I said on the talk page it is all a matter of understanding how the forums of Blizzard work regarding reliable source criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- how does the forum, and how do we evaluate that it is from the manufacturer and not some gamer Randy in Boise? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bruce is arguing on Talk: Corrupted Blood incident that the post is an official one from the computer game manufacturer in order to lead off discussion, and not a post from a random forum member. That might be acceptable, any opinions from computer games articles people? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not WP:RS.Strike that, looks good, per below. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Forum Flags: "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. Note: Individual Blizzard Employees can select their own special icon. Look for "Blizzard Poster" and a Blizzard icon to identify Blizzard Posters with custom icons."
Tigole has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" underneath his name ergo per Forum Flags he is "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment". Clearly a WP:RS as explained by Blizzard themselves.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Credible source?
I've been doing some required work with others on Razer (robot) that was suggested be done the last time I brought it up for Frequent Article Nomination. We're almost done bar one issue which was how could we source how Vincent Blood left the team and show there was a split. All I've managed to discover is this BBC source which was written after Robot Wars was finished which only lists the other team members as part of the team, ommiting Blood which both me and the major contributor wasn't sure if this would be suitable. In addition, I think there is a Youtube video that shows Razer being demonstrated without Blood being there which was done after Robot Wars. My question is, would either or both of them be suitible in sourcing a team split within FA requirements? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the BBC source is reliable, but I also think that if source A lists members x, y, and z, and source B lists members x and y, but not z, and thus you say there was a team split, you have fallen nicely into WP:SYNTH, but that's an issue for WP:ORN. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Including book page numbers on in-line citations
There is an article called Targeted killing. The content of the article are being discussed. The first two sentences of the article are:
Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention[tk 1]
...
- References
- ^ Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521870887. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
In the article this book is cited 27 times (a,b...aa) under one citation.
From the talk page:
You are citing a book you should include page numbers (See WP:Page numbers). Also my may not be aware of this but Google access to pages in a book vary depending on the location of the searcher. If the people Google think that copyright restricts access in a jurisdiction, they restrict to IP addresses in that jurisdiction. -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Normally". Especially for "non-indexed" books. The google search function is a handy indexing tool, in addition to the book's table of contents and index. If the page is not accessible, one still gets to see the page number.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche is the main contributor to the article and I believe the only contributor to the first two sentences. I need a third party who is not currently involved in the discussion to explain to myself and Epeefleche whether or not my request for page numbers is reasonable and normal, or if the refusal to add page numbers is reasonable and normal. PBS (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Opinion by uninvolved editor: Requesting a page number is not unreasonable or abnormal. If Epeefleche is using a Google books url for the book instead of actually having the book in his possession, you can help him/her out by trying to verify the page number yourself. If you can't find it, then I suggest deleting the citation and the text it supports. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) The argument for not including the page numbers makes some limited sense, but we generally require them for books. This seems particularly important in a politically contentious article like this one. If the real concern is a practical one about having lots of different footnotes all going to the same book, I recommend using either Harvard citation or {{rp}}, with which you can add page numbers after a footnote like this: : 27ff . Hans Adler 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
W
- The whole point of having citations is so that the material can beverified. So yes, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, including the page number. Dlabtot (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't even see why this is a question. Of course it's reasonable to ask for the page number. I have a hard time understanding why editors wouldn't include the page number in the citation in the first place. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- See above. I asked it because of the retort by Epeefleche to my request for page numbers, that Google searches use an index and therefore fulfil to the letter the requirement of WP:Page numbers and so make the need for page numbers unnecessary. -- PBS (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, require page numbers. Besides, the definition given above looks very POVish. I do not think one should draw such far-flung conclusions on the legality of targeted killings based on only one source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, require page numbers. It's the only way to verify anything, which should be expected on a controversial article like Targeted killing. Opinion by uninvolved editor First Light (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Page numbers shouild always be included (unless you are linking directly to the page in question).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are circumstances where page number references could be the second-best option, but this isn't one of them. Absent page numbers, these references are useless. Mind you, writing articles based on Google books excerpts is dangerous anyway. The only way to be sure of what a given source says about anything is to read all of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll second this one. Editors, if you want to use a book, especially for a controversial article, please get off your behind and get down to your library and borrow it, or else buy a new or used copy online. Used books online are usually fairly cheap, even including postage. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Page numbers should always be included wherever possible and especially if a specific reference book is used multiple times, in order to differentiate between the pages used and where the information came from. We can't expect our readers to look through an entire book to find the right section, that wouldn't be helpful at all. SilverserenC 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I find the mere notion of not requiring page numbers entirely preposterious. What if the book is 500 pages long? There is a culture of not including page numbers for journal articles because they're traditionally short, but for books it should be an absolute requirement. Use the shortened footnote format or {{Rp|pages=17–18}}: 17–18 notation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand using page numbers is convenient and helps people to verify and is nice for us to suggest and encourage, but when it comes to policy and REQUIRING and stating "if no page number is provided remove the statement and reference" that is preposterious. Removing a statement that is sourced but which the page number is missing is not acceptable and not supported by policy. Policy clearly states that verifiable does not mean that "you, right now, can, easily, without effort, look something up without getting off your ass away from the computer". If you have to read 500 pages to find something, I feel sorry for you, but oh well. As for Google books- page number for the actual book is provided as the books are nothing more than scanned pages from the physical book, usually they line up with Google's page number; as for limited viewing AGAIN- we dont care, policy is clear that verifiable does not mean verifiable for EVERYONE, just SOMEONE, find someone who can verify it, you dont have to be able to verify everything yourself and policy says we dont think that's reasonable. For this specific case make the source a general source to the article, you dont need to cite a source 22 times in one article. For FL status if something was being sourced that many times that is what we would do.Camelbinky (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and if its on Google books, there is a search parameter on the left side, put in a key word and search the book for it, it will give you all the pages that the words you put in show up on together. Really, its not that hard. If I source that Pakistan was created in 1948 to a 500 page book about India, do a search for Pakistan 1948 and maybe five pages show up, look at each one and you find it. Gee, 5 mins to verify something! Dont break a sweat.Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but if one is adding a ref, presumably one has read the referenced work, and knows the page number, and one should provide same. If I stumble across a source without a page number, I'll probably add it if I can find it. But in this particular case the question is whether it is appropriate to ask for page numbers in a reference added by another editor. It is, I think, perfect reasonable to ask for a page number. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Making a source verifiable doesn't imply "everyone" or even "someone", but enough information should be provided so ANYONE would be able to locate the source and check the claim. The guidelines stipulate that page numbers should be included for lengthy sources, so the general interpretation of that guideline on here indicates that by not including the page numbers the claims are not adequately sourced. It's up to the article editors how they handle content that is not properly sourced, but if they are not happy about it being added then there generally isn't a consensus for it to stay there unless the problem with references are addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The WP:BURDEN to verify sourcing is clearly on the editor who added the information, not on the poor reader (else we should add to the footnote in lieu of a page number: "look it up yourself"). This is from WP:VERIFY, including the bold letters:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
- The article under discussion is not only "likely to be challenged", it is being challenged. Pakistan being founded in 1948 is not ever likely to be challenged, so it's a poor comparison. Page numbers are more than "appropriate" in this case - they are essential for the editor to fulfill the "burden of evidence." First Light (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is setting a terrible precedent for removing sourced material based on incomplete references where the source is clearly stated, simply for lacking a page number. Terrible and scary and totally against our policies. Yes, it is fine to ASK, but if an editor says "Sorry, I'm too busy and frankly I dont want to", then ok, do it yourself then, but removing sourced information is terrible. I pointed out a very easy way to find the information yourself in Google books by searching for keywords within the text, its not that hard. This is one more instance of people wanting to tag and/or remove anything that doesnt meet their standards and put the burden of actually doing something on someone else. What is better? One source placed as a general source, or in this case placed 22 times but without page numbers, or losing that information altogether? Or sadly, if all of you get your way, that one source placed 22 separate times, gee that's so much better to clutter a reference section with the same source 22 different times, over and over and over and over and over (was going to do that 22 times but getting pointy) with only the page number different. I have seen reviewers at FA get snippy and not like the use of Ibid and abbreviated ref names and a separate bibliography section (using Waite, p. 187 and so on and then the full-length cite at the bibliography section; see: Albany, New York for good use of it, and as an article who's FA status was, partially, rejected for the editor's refusal to not use that style). It is one thing to "mandate" something at this noticeboard... but if FA reviewers have different ideas that make implementation difficult, you are only hurting the encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and if its on Google books, there is a search parameter on the left side, put in a key word and search the book for it, it will give you all the pages that the words you put in show up on together. Really, its not that hard. If I source that Pakistan was created in 1948 to a 500 page book about India, do a search for Pakistan 1948 and maybe five pages show up, look at each one and you find it. Gee, 5 mins to verify something! Dont break a sweat.Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand using page numbers is convenient and helps people to verify and is nice for us to suggest and encourage, but when it comes to policy and REQUIRING and stating "if no page number is provided remove the statement and reference" that is preposterious. Removing a statement that is sourced but which the page number is missing is not acceptable and not supported by policy. Policy clearly states that verifiable does not mean that "you, right now, can, easily, without effort, look something up without getting off your ass away from the computer". If you have to read 500 pages to find something, I feel sorry for you, but oh well. As for Google books- page number for the actual book is provided as the books are nothing more than scanned pages from the physical book, usually they line up with Google's page number; as for limited viewing AGAIN- we dont care, policy is clear that verifiable does not mean verifiable for EVERYONE, just SOMEONE, find someone who can verify it, you dont have to be able to verify everything yourself and policy says we dont think that's reasonable. For this specific case make the source a general source to the article, you dont need to cite a source 22 times in one article. For FL status if something was being sourced that many times that is what we would do.Camelbinky (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Should does not equal must. And I believe we'll have a huge argument if anyone even thinks about changing that now that I've mentioned it, so please take to the talk page before attempting to do so. Second- burden applies to unsourced material, this IS sourced. Removal is unacceptable. WP:V is clear- you do not have an absolute right to verify everything YOURSELF or easily. If a source is located only in a museum in Texas, and you live in England, get a plane or find someone in Texas (real example from WP:RS/N and what we told them).Camelbinky (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Must provide a page number. If challenged, and an editor who uses a source can't provide a page number, that's a red flag that they probably haven't read the source and don't have access to it. There is no good reason to avoid providing a page number (or numbers, i.e. pages 56-62 or whatever). Not really a debatable point. This is the basic level of scholarship one would expect in a first-year high school paper.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- e/c No, the burden is on the editor, and not the reader, to verify "clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate", "any material... that is likely to be challenged". First Light (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Although page numbers are required for book-length sources, the first response to a missing page number should be to request one (by adding the "page number needed" tag or otherwise). Immediate deletion is only warranted in the case of highly dubious, incendiary or potential WP:BLP violating sources. Otherwise it is an unfriendly action whether allowed by the rules or not. I'm not impressed by the argument about FA status; we are supposed to be here to write good articles not to win accolades. Zerotalk 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Let me point out that the comment I made above was in no way advocating the removal of text and sources that don't have a page number. I'm actually rather shocked that the discussion has turned that way. Like Camelbinky says, if a source is referencing something that is likely to be or is being challenged, then editors should look for the info in the reference and not just delete it all out of hand. That is definitely not helping the project. SilverserenC 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tagging is probably more appropriate if the material has become integrated into the article, but if this is new stuff being added to a perfectly good and well sourced article then editors are within their rights (and probably right to do so) to insist that the references should include page numbers. Including page numbers is the established norm (for good reason!) and if you relax that condition you are handing out a licence for editors to fabricate details and providing vague references that will be practically useless for verifying any claims. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Is it not the case that PBS is asking Epeefleche to provide page numbers for citations Epeefleche provided, numbering 27 instances? My thought is that Epeefleche should provide page numbers, since PBS is in effect challenging the source, and with 27 references to the same book, it's a bit much to expect PBS to track them down. It's not hard to provide page numbers while you're working with a source, and much harder to try to figure out what another editor was doing when they were adding citations. And Bali ultimate is correct, this is the bare minimum that would be required of students reaching adulthood. If the material is newly added, or the work of a single editor, asking for page numbers is perfectly reasonable. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Asking is fine, yes. What I meant is that you shouldn't just delete the sources without asking or even checking yourself if the user is busy. References should be checked for veracity before being removed. Otherwise, that just opens the door to making the project extremely shoddy in terms of sourcing. SilverserenC 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that just deleting the material without asking would be bad, but in what circumstance should an editor be considered "too busy" to add citations to any article multiple times without including page numbers? Not adding page numbers as you add book citations seems pretty shoddy to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's true. It is shoddy, but it still happens...a lot. And editors might be on a Wikibreak or something else might have come up. I just want to make sure that some users don't come to the conclusion that they're free to just remove information if the original editor isn't around and they don't feel like checking for themself. SilverserenC 02:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that just deleting the material without asking would be bad, but in what circumstance should an editor be considered "too busy" to add citations to any article multiple times without including page numbers? Not adding page numbers as you add book citations seems pretty shoddy to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Asking is fine, yes. What I meant is that you shouldn't just delete the sources without asking or even checking yourself if the user is busy. References should be checked for veracity before being removed. Otherwise, that just opens the door to making the project extremely shoddy in terms of sourcing. SilverserenC 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Is it not the case that PBS is asking Epeefleche to provide page numbers for citations Epeefleche provided, numbering 27 instances? My thought is that Epeefleche should provide page numbers, since PBS is in effect challenging the source, and with 27 references to the same book, it's a bit much to expect PBS to track them down. It's not hard to provide page numbers while you're working with a source, and much harder to try to figure out what another editor was doing when they were adding citations. And Bali ultimate is correct, this is the bare minimum that would be required of students reaching adulthood. If the material is newly added, or the work of a single editor, asking for page numbers is perfectly reasonable. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sources as much as possible are not removed. Dead links should not be removed automatically. General references are allowed. A challenge to be a legitimate challenge needs to have some rational basis or raise reasonable doubt, otherwise it can be ignored. Lambanog (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
•As some might suspect, there is some background to the above. There may, just possibly, be something driving the inquiry more than simply intellectual curiosity. And if not for AGF, the phrase "POINTy" might come to mind. Just to put this in perspective ...
- The editor who posed the question above (PBS) first redirected the 100K "targeted killing" article, with its 150 refs, three times[31][32][33] in 2+ hours (and also deleted its associated talk page, also three times)[34][35][36] --despite four warnings. With bare edit summaries, that failed to provide a reasonable basis therefor. The effect? The same as deleting the article (without an AfD). Oblivion. Nobody could see the article, as it was the only search term for the article. Some might consider that edit warring, and disruptive.
- He did this in the face of multiple entreaties to him to desist, explaining why his bare edit summaries to the extent that they even pretended to be substantive, were frivolous -- all to no avail.[37][38][39][40][41][42]
- He then, when another editor brought it the matter to ANI, took the occasion to threaten me--which other editors thankfully suggested to him might not be wise;
- He then, despite the fact that there had been talk page discussion for months, with a consensus to create the targeted killing article, said he saw no consensus. And started an RFC on the same precise question. And there, despite nearly a unanimous disagreement with his position that a targeted killing page should not exist (and comments to the effect that he was being tendentious), refused to agree that near-unanimity was consensus.
- He then tag-bombed the targeted killing article, and engaged in other tendentious behavior, for which he was warned.
- He was just blocked today for: "WP:Disruptive editing. Continuing pattern at Targeted killing and Assassination. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing."
Some might call it coming to court with "unclean hands".
Having said all that, PBS--you will note--never indicated that he couldn't see what the page numbers were. Simply by hitting the link that is provided. As I suggested he do. I have no reason to doubt that he can see the page numbers here, which clicking the link in the ref provides -- along with, for the bulk, the actual pages themselves.
Of course, even in the wake of all the above, it is an interesting question.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the numbers can be obtained by just clicking a link then it would take all of two minutes for you to do that and add the page numbers to the references. You could have fulfilled what was a natural and reasonable request given the very clear guidelines (whatever the history between the two of you) instead of wasting the time of everyone who contributed to the discussion. It's not someone else's job to improve your references when you are perfectly aware of the problem, the guidelines, and the request. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is obligated to do anything. We are all volunteers and under no contract. If the page is accessible, there is nothing stopping the editor with the complaint from doing it him/herself. Lambanog (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- By contributing to Wikipedia we are obliged to follow the guidelines for doing so. It's disappointing that we have an editor who is going against the spirit of the guidelines and playing language games to try and avoid adding page numbers when it would be a relatively simple task, and an imperative one if the links should ever stop functioning. It demonstrates to everyone in this discussion that he doesn't have the best interests of the article at heart. Although it may be simple for the other editor to add the page numbers I can understand his objection to picking up someone else's slack. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is obligated to do anything. We are all volunteers and under no contract. If the page is accessible, there is nothing stopping the editor with the complaint from doing it him/herself. Lambanog (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Betty -- Lambanog hit the nail on the head. I know you are a strict constructionist. But I had thought you were more given to following the guideline about AGF. The spirit of the guidelines, as well as the bald words of the phrase "normally" in the guideline -- which rules of construction would inform us has a meaning, and is not to be willy nilly ignored -- both militate in favor of the conclusion that where the editor can see the page number (as he can here), both the spirit and the language of the guideline are satisfied. The guideline is all about editors being able to see the page numbers. They can. And if you want to go beyond that, and explore issues of "spirit" and "disappointing", then guidelines about tendentious editing and wikilawyering come into play. And we still come out at the same place.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Many sentences on wikipedia, indeed -- all too many articles, lack even one ref. Of any sort. Refs of various sorts are allowed. We accept bare ones. Inlines are preferred. Every single sentence in the targeted killing article, which has attracted PBS's intense scrutiny, has one or more inline citations.
We don't go about deleting sentences with inline citations, without good reason. Here, PBS can (as far as we know) see not only all the relevant page numbers, and the index, and the table of contents, but also do independent searches in the book. And there is certainly nothing at all dubious, incendiary, or a BLP violation here. Except, of course, PBS did try to hide the entire article from all Wiki readers, so perhaps he does have a reason to wish to complain about the RS-supported language which he can plainly read, and the page numbers which he can plainly see.
WP:Page numbers does not require one to provide page numbers. It says "you should normally ... in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books ...".
There is a purpose for the word "normally" in the rule. It makes the rule other than an absolute one. This situation describes just such an instance where the "normal" rule is not necessary -- for reasons I describe. The reader can see the page number, and often even see the page itself. Some editors here would like to read the rule as though the word "normally" does not appear. They're construing a rule other than the one that we have before us.
This is not a "normal" situation. It is a book with an index. It is a book with an accessible index. It is a book where the page numbers can be seen by clicking on the link provided. It is a book where PBS would not appear to have any earth-shattering need to push this point other than to be POINTy, and seek to have people on this page say that while the rule is not an absolute rule -- well, let's ignore the clear language of the rule, here they should treat it as thought the word "normally" is not in the rule.
And with what result, if no page numbers are supplied? Will we delete all book refs now on wikipedia that lack page numbers?
If not, what other result would follow from such a requirement?
Cla68 suggested that PBS can help by verifying the page himself. I've not seen PBS accept that advice.
Dlabtot seemed not, by his response, to recognize from PBS's description that by clicking on the name of the book in the ref, he would see the relevant page numbers. In fact, many of the editors seemed not to understand that, from their above comments. So again -- the ref links directly to the pages in question, within the book, and identifies the page numbers in question. (And I've never seen a googlebooks link die -- though gnews links do, all the time.)--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The explanation for "normally" in the guideline can be explained quite simply. In the case of very short books (pamphlets) there may be no need for a page number (in the case of some older ones they did not have page numbers), secondly some ebooks (such as those from the Gutenberg press) may not have page numbers, and certain online references books (EG OED) do not return page. I think in those cases most editors would understand why page numbers are not provided (and hence the qualification normally).
- But in this case that is not so. The book is cited as Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521870887. Retrieved May 19, 2010. and the reason for not citing the page is "The google search function is a handy indexing tool, ..." I do not think that is a justification for not providing page numbers when they are easily available, and I think Epeefleche is being unhelpful for not providing them. (apart from anything else a not providing them is less than helpful on a print out). The URL in the citaion links to one page not many pages, (page number is 542) Epeefleche is that the only page of information used in all 27 instances of this citation? -- PBS (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- And I think you are being tendentious here, which is exactly what you were blocked for yesterday. Do you question something in that sentence? Have you not found the page numbers? Yes, I would refer to these numbers for this citation, as they would all as an editor above indicated bear on one another (the editor who suggested reading the entire book), and are a small fraction of the entire book. Have you already hit view all. You will see relevant parts of the table of contents and index as well, which may lead you to find even more interesting related material. But I imagine you know that, and have engaged in this as an extension of the above-described tendentious editing related to this very article that led to your block.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the archived ANI and my talk page). I have not edited the content of the article called Targeted killing I have simply asked you to cite the pages from a book and when you refused, justifing it with as quoted above, I asked here to see whether editors who lurk here agree with your interpretation of the guideline to date as far as I can tell not one has. It seems that consensus is that you should include the page numbers. What is the reason that you do not want to place page numbers on the citation in clear breach of the spirit of guideline? -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- And I think you are being tendentious here, which is exactly what you were blocked for yesterday. Do you question something in that sentence? Have you not found the page numbers? Yes, I would refer to these numbers for this citation, as they would all as an editor above indicated bear on one another (the editor who suggested reading the entire book), and are a small fraction of the entire book. Have you already hit view all. You will see relevant parts of the table of contents and index as well, which may lead you to find even more interesting related material. But I imagine you know that, and have engaged in this as an extension of the above-described tendentious editing related to this very article that led to your block.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
@Camelbinky. I think there are several different issues being mixed. The original question of Epeefleche could be answered clearly and unanimously. It is definitely better to have page numbers, and it is normal to request them. Epeefleche is also right to say that Google books does not even work for all users, depending on where they log on. However, that unanimous response might not resolve all disagreements, of course. Your point about whether not having a page number is cause for deletion in all cases is a finer point, and you certainly not wrong to point that out. I certainly think that it would not be nice for someone to delete things quickly or aggressively just because of page numbers. Still, as long as you are given time, I do not really see why page numbers would be a big problem in this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we should strive to preserve possible references when incomplete. I find it a bit disconcerting that the discussion here is drifting to editor behavior not relevant to this noticeboard. To me, it's very simple--if the reference is to a book with page numbers, and I added citations without page numbers, and someone else asks for the page numbers, regardless of whatever other disputes we may be involved in, I should provide the page numbers, especially if they are easy to find. By not putting in the page numbers, I was sloppy and should neaten the place up a bit. But if I'm working on an article and stumble across citations lacking page numbers, I should add them, especially if they are easy to find, because helping fix articles is why I am here. If the page numbers are easy to find, this kind of disagreement should not occur in the first place. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- This summary sounds correct to me. I would say that if the page numbers are easy to find then both involved editors do not have much reason to be in a dispute because either should be able to solve it right away, without stress. If that is the situation then this is not really an RS question, just a question of people needing to be constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- But suppose that one editor is not convinced that a book says what the other editor thinks it says, then the party who is of the opinion that the sentence is not a correct summary of the source, can not even begin to address the issue directly unless the text in source can be clearly identified. To take it to an absurd to level demonstrate a point, there are 29 volumes of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but if an editor (and in the past this has happened a lot) sticks an {{1911}} template into the references section of an article, (there is now a citation) it can be extremely difficult to know where to start look in 29 volumes to verify if the citation covers a specific fact summarised in the article. At the very least an article name is needed, preferably with a volume and page number. -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is that the case in this particular example? If the source is unclear, would it not make sense to bring up the question on the article's talk page, putting for the question about how the source is used, see if anyone else has an opinion, and perhaps asking the author of that particular citation for input? I think it is perfectly reasonably to ask for page numbers, but if none are forthcoming for whatever reason, it seems preferably to me to ask for additional input and give it some time to see if anyone can clarify. If that doesn't happen, being bold and recasting the text to fit the source makes sense, unless one cannot find a reference, in which case deletion is appropriate. It seems to me that we're well past the initial question here, but the underlying point should be I think that we assume and operate in good faith to improve the article. Whether or not a chunk of article text accurately represents a source is clearly a content question that should be raised on the article's talk page, but when I look there I see obviously contention that cannot be solved in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- @PBS. Not sure why it is relevant or practical to "take it to an absurd to level demonstrate a point"? And if there is a real reason for accusing someone of faking some information that goes well beyond questions of RS, and of course that would be a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- But suppose that one editor is not convinced that a book says what the other editor thinks it says, then the party who is of the opinion that the sentence is not a correct summary of the source, can not even begin to address the issue directly unless the text in source can be clearly identified. To take it to an absurd to level demonstrate a point, there are 29 volumes of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but if an editor (and in the past this has happened a lot) sticks an {{1911}} template into the references section of an article, (there is now a citation) it can be extremely difficult to know where to start look in 29 volumes to verify if the citation covers a specific fact summarised in the article. At the very least an article name is needed, preferably with a volume and page number. -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- This summary sounds correct to me. I would say that if the page numbers are easy to find then both involved editors do not have much reason to be in a dispute because either should be able to solve it right away, without stress. If that is the situation then this is not really an RS question, just a question of people needing to be constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst page numbers are good, be aware that different editions (including reprints in different countries) will have different numbers.--Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of course but the way that is handled is by providing additional information (such as publisher and year) see for example the article Evacuation of East Prussia and references to two edition of Antony Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945 or Battle of Berlin where there are also two editions of Beevor's book being cited. I would be the first to admit it is tricky to work out the page number in an English edition from the Rumainan translation, but it is better than having no page numbers at all. -- PBS (talk)
- This is just an edit dispute where PBS, who has long opposed the very existence of the ‘Targeted killing’ article has forum shopped to the ends of the Wikipedian earth to get rid of it. He’s been taken to ANI over it, RfCs he’s started have gone badly against his wishes, he edit warred to redirect the article to ‘Assassination’ (effectively wiping the ‘Targeted killing’ article out of articespace). He advocated merging the article to ‘Assassination’. He’s slapped {Biased} tags on it. And then he comes here right on the heels of being given a 48-hour block for his behavior over ‘Targeted killing’, which was lifted only after he pledged not to edit on that article or its talk page for the remainder of that RfC (the one that is not going per his wishes). That was the situation as of last night for me as I went to bed. This morning, I learned that he took his battle here with the above ‘War and Peace’ tome, which was clearly the product of a great deal of time and effort.
This is just more forum shopping and wikidrama that is (*sigh*), yet another example of WP:Tendentious editing—a form of disruption—by an editor whose views are not shared by the rest of the community and he won’t let it go. Much of this is documented with links here on Talk:Targeted killing. It is just that simple. PBS is one of our early admins and knows better than to do this. He is clearly angry.
I suggest that the community here simply point out to the shepherding editor of the ‘Targeted killing’ article how best to address the legitimate needs for citing the article. I have to go to work but I’ll check back and see if PBS is continuing to fan flames here (or elsewhere). I will advise him here and now that he would be exceedingly wise to let the volunteer wikipedians who are experienced in citation matters to take this matter from hereon with no more badgering over the ‘Targeted killing’ article—here or anywhere else on the project. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers... however... we must accept that a citation without page numbers is a flawed citation... and per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor who wants to add or keep the material to provide an unflawed citation.
- That said... when there is more to the challenge than just lack of page numbers (such as when an editor questions whether the citation actually supports the material) that is a different issue. We are no longer talking about deleting purely and simply because of the lack of page numbers. We are deleting "for cause". Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think most of us would agree with policy, that the burden is on the editor to provide page numbers, and should be given some time to do it—rather than simply deleting the content. That's also the only way it can be reasonably determined if there are other causes for deleting the material. That's why editors should provide page numbers, from the start, for any material that is likely to be challenged. The forum shopping by PBS is arguably a legitimate issue, but for another forum. First Light (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Citations to books absolutely require page numbers in order to fulfil the verifiability requirement. Google Books is not a substitute, because that service may stop working at any time. The request to provide page numbers is entirely reasonable, whatever the past history of the article or the involved editors may be, and should be complied with speedily. Sandstein 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me this discussion is shifting too far into hypothetical situations. If you come across an article where the references aren't up to scratch, it is of course detrimental to just delete the information. The original contributor could be more than happy to provide extra referencing information. This isn't what this is about. There is virtually full consensus that references are better with page numbers, so that isn't under dispute either. The editor who has added the material has participated in this discussion and is aware of how people feel on the subject of page numbers. The issue isn't about what to do when we come across poorly sourced content, it's about what to do when an editor is point blank refusing to improve references that we all agree are deficient when it would be relatively simple for him to do so. If an editor point blank refuses to improve references to the standard we generally see in books and college papers, then is it really unreasonable to prevent the material from being added until he gets the references up to scratch? Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that begs the question of whether Epeefleche does in fact refuse to provide page numbers. Epeefleche, would you be willing to add page numbers to the citations in the near future, given what appears to be general consensus here that page numbers are a Good Thing? And if you are not so willing, could you explain why that would not be possible (or desirable, if that is the case)? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, we've covered extensively the hypothetical (and with the exception of Sandstein) tend to all agree that you need to provide page numbers, however if someone doesnt because they are busy, that is NOT a reason in itself to speedily remove a reference, if it is easily done to fine the pages yourself do so, if not ask nicely, and give the person a reasonable amount of time, if they dont respond (they retired without saying anything, on wiki-vacation, died, car accident, real-life more important, etc must be taken into consideration), then tag, and as a last resort- remove; this takes time, if you dont have the time to do this, then why assume others have the time to move so quickly and respond to your request? This noticeboard should in fact Betty be about the hypothetical more than the specific. This is no longer a content dispute, this is a personal dispute and dispute resolution should be taken, this was a step and it pretty much failed, the particulars of this specific case really need to be taken elsewhere, as it is unlikely to reach any conclusion here. We've dealt with what should happen should this case occur again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Camelbinky, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not asking Epeefleche to rush, nor will I take it amiss if they are too busy, or just don't feel like it (which is a possibility and I think a reasonable reaction given the dispute between them and PBS). I'm just asking for clarification as to whether Epeefleche is willing to add the page numbers in the near future. If they demur from answering or providing the numbers, I figure I'll take a crack at adding them. I don't regard this conversation here as a personal dispute, there may well be some who view it as such, but I think the majority of editors participating do not see it as such. At least that is my hope. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, we've covered extensively the hypothetical (and with the exception of Sandstein) tend to all agree that you need to provide page numbers, however if someone doesnt because they are busy, that is NOT a reason in itself to speedily remove a reference, if it is easily done to fine the pages yourself do so, if not ask nicely, and give the person a reasonable amount of time, if they dont respond (they retired without saying anything, on wiki-vacation, died, car accident, real-life more important, etc must be taken into consideration), then tag, and as a last resort- remove; this takes time, if you dont have the time to do this, then why assume others have the time to move so quickly and respond to your request? This noticeboard should in fact Betty be about the hypothetical more than the specific. This is no longer a content dispute, this is a personal dispute and dispute resolution should be taken, this was a step and it pretty much failed, the particulars of this specific case really need to be taken elsewhere, as it is unlikely to reach any conclusion here. We've dealt with what should happen should this case occur again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Epeefleeche, to complain about PBS's perceived motive for requesting page numbers reflects poorly on you. I don't think I've ever seen stronger consensus on this noticeboard that someone is wrong as we have for you declining to provide a page number upon request. Just add the page numbers. If you don't, I'll remove the content and source myself. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- To spare the community further wasted time on this, I've added the page numbers (538-47; the chapter, as all who have clicked through are aware, on targeted killing). I appreciate the points made by the editors. I agree with some, disagree with others (and note that many were made under a misapprehension, as discussed above), and stand by what I said above. Unlike PBS, who has been blocked for tendentious behavior w/regard to his continued disruptive editing in regard to the article, I choose (even though I feel my comments are correct) to spare the community further wheel-spinning here. Thanks to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Better late than never. Too bad you didn't just include them in the first place as recommended or once challenged as required. That would have saved everyone a lot of wasted time. Links can go bad, so your 'explanation' of why you chose to ignore policy carries no weight. And your gratuitous personal attack reflects badly on yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleeche why the ad hominem parting shot? To repeat what I said earlier: the consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the archived ANI and my talk page).
In the article War of 1812 there was (and is) a clause "(Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks.)" which was supported by this citation: Theodore Roosevelt, multi volume The Naval War of 1812 Or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with the United Kingdom to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans.
Care to make a guess as to which sentence in that citation supported the clause (A serach/grep will not find it). See the discussion on the article's talk page page it is actually in Part II page 47 "Ross took Washington and burned the public buildings; and the panic-struck Americans foolishly burned the Columbia, 44, and Argus, 18, which were nearly ready for service." that was worked out via another source that is not cited but which is more likely to have been the origin of the clause. "Rushing down to the river, they set fire to a new Frigate, Columbia, caulked but still in the stocks and nearly ready for launch; and to the new Sloop of War Argus, which lay along side the wharf virtually ready for sea" (Ian W. Toll six frigates. p.435) This is why page numbers are usually essential to verify summaries of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles.
Epeefleeche do you now see that the Citation guideline's use of the qualification "normally" is to cover exceptions of the sort that I mentioned above such as no page numbers in an e-book or a citations of an online edition of a physical book such as the Oxford English Dictionary where page numbers are not available. It is not meant to be read that generally any book with a physical index or one that is indexed through third party search engines do not require page numbers? -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- PBS -- As I indicated above, to spare the community further wasted time on this, I'm not going to feed your tendentious behavior here. If you are curious as to what my response would have been had I chosen otherwise, you can divine it from what I have already said. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Important comment regarding page numbers on in-line citations
Comment: I agree page numbers should be included if available but and here is the kicker sometimes such numbers are not available. One such example is in the Weston A Price article where one reference reads ""Weston A Price" New York Times Jan 24, 1948" because when you order from the New York Times article archive they give just the article rather the article in context so often you don't have a page number! Electronic versions of printed articles (such as USAToday and Times also don't have page numbers of the printed version either. USAToday is particularly annoying because stories often have different titles between the electronic and paper versions meaning if for what ever reason the link ever breaks you are going to majorly SOL at ever finding the printed version of that article.
This is why I get so annoyed when in talk people just link to an article rather than telling us what they are linking to (the dreaded [44] or "This has the needed information" nonsense) Years later that link may not work so if Internet archive didn't make a back up how is anyone going to know what you linked to?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
quote-oriented RS question
I recently reverted an IP on to be, or not to be, but now I feel bad about it. Apparently the problem is that there are a handful of slightly different versions of the soliloquy available (differences in punctuation, small wording changes such as using "despised love" or "depriz'd love". I assume these come from different folios and are in fact all reliably sourced, and the differences are too minor to include all of them. so in a case like that which version do we use? There's about half a million academic sources available on the internet to choose from (and more non-academic sources then there are stars in the known universe).
It's not really a major issue, except that I'd like to forestall mistaken reverts like the one I made. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- In a way, this is similar to arguments over UK vs US English. Neither is "wrong". ... I think you are correct in saying that there are multiple variations that are reliable, and so which to use isn't really a policy issue. It is really something that can be determined by consensus of editors (I would suggest letting the editors at the Shakespeare WikiProject decide). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Love's Philosophy has a similar problem. I think it is best to go with the most common version, and perhaps mention the others if appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds like a plan - I'll drop a notice over at the wikiproject and leave it in their capable hands.
- And Dlabtot, thanks: I haven't read Shelley in ages, and I'd forgotten how much I enjoy it. There are just some things that shouldn't be neglected in life... --Ludwigs2 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)