Search:


AdWiki Webring Site

Last Viewed:


HitTail.com
...
SELECT YOUR LANGUAGE:
ar | id | bg | ca | ceb | cs | da | de | et | en / / | es | eo | fr | gr | he | hr | it | ko | lt | hu | nl | ja | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | sk | sl | sr | fi | sv | te | tr | uk | zh

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:RSN
WP:RS/N
WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Contents


[edit] Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

[edit] Plaques at historical sights

I am using a plaque that I have taken a photo of and uploaded to the commons as a source for an article. I have submitted this article for GA review and the reviewer says such a source is unreliable. I disagree, why is a plaque less reliable than any other published source, especially since it is at the site itself. The plaque is not making an outstanding claims, rather it is simply describing the construction date of the hall and its contents. What is everyone else's opinion? Zeus1234 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The Shanxi Colourful group donated the money to get the plaques put up. They are not a charitable organization, therefore we don't know who is responsible for the information. Zeus1234 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see why the GA review questioned it. The issue comes down to whether there is fact checking and editorial oversite for the source... The plaque states that it is presented by the "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". So, do we know anything about this group? Is it a historical society who are likely to get the facts right, or is it a tourist board who is likely to be less reliable. Do we know what sort of research they conducted before creating the plaque? Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly a notable or primary source, so saying "according to a plaque at the temple, ...." would certainly be OK. If something on the plaque is disputed by RS's, one should either not mention the contentious fact or include and cite the opposing view.John Z (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see this challenged. The information is "published", it's "checked" (world experts and numbers of English-speaking visitors see it and we can presume they don't object) and most of it is in no way "surprising". The only part that could be debatable is "best artistic work of Ming Dynasty", but we needn't suppose our readers were born yesterday. Is there a danger of the standards of the project slipping? No, not that I can see. Is there a danger of people offering faked holiday photographs? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. PRtalk 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As a GA reviewer I questioned it because i am not sure about "Sha'anxi Colorful Group". The reliability of the plaque depends on the reliability of Sha'anxi Colorful Group. I searched for the group on the net, but did not find any reference to it's nature. Answer to the simple question: What is "Sha'anxi Colorful Group" ?, determines the reliability of the plaque. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
They appear to run some sort of business, but I am not quite sure what. They are not a historical group. I suspect that they donate money to charitable causes. Their webpage says that they have donated money to the Sichuan Earthquake. Here is the link (only in Chinese) to the Colorful Group. It may say 'Wonderful Enterprises Group' on the webpage, but has been translated differently on the plaque.Zeus1234 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The link is translated by Google translate reads:

Can not find the page You are the search page may have been deleted, renamed or is temporarily unavailable. Please try the following: * Ensure that the browser's address bar of the Web site address and format of the spelling is correct. * If you arrive by clicking on the link and the page, please contact the site administrator, informing them of the link format is incorrect. * Click the Back button to try another link. HTTP Error 404 - file or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS) Information technology (for the provision of technical support staff) * Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and search, including "HTTP" and "404" title. * Open the "IIS Help" (in IIS Manager (inetmgr) access), and then search for the title of the "Web site set up," "conventional management" and "on the custom error message". Chinese

Need a better link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It works fine for me, but is a bit slow. Perhaps that is because I am in China. Interesting. They appear to sell clothes. Zeus1234 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a translation. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The name of the group in Chinese (which you can confirm by looking at the large picture of the hall on the commons to see the Chinese plaque) is 陕西多彩集团 which literally translates to 'Shaanxi colorful group'. The web address literally means 'Shaanxi Colorful'. Zeus1234 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider this is a primary source and as wikipedia is based on second and third party sources, it's use should be avoided. --neon white talk 15:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Neon's point on primary sources... primary sources do not need to be avoided quite as strenuously as he/she indicates. For example, if the plaque had been erected by a notable historical society I would consider it quite reliable. However, I do agree that since it was not erected by such, but instead erected by what appears to be a clothing company, we can not consider it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Policy dictates that wikipedia is based on secondary sources and synthesis of primary sources is not permissable. The issue here is whether it is in fact a primary source or a reliable secondary source as you suggest (if it had been erected by a notable historical society, it would be a secondary source). My first instinct was that it was primary but it could be considered secondary too. However there is no indication that the publisher is verifiable so i'd avoid it's use. --neon white talk 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Policy dictates its mainly based on those, not completely, policy also states To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. As long as the primary source isn't doing those things its fine. An article shouldn't contain that much info from primary sources, however some descriptive things, and certain histories can only be drawn from primary sources (not just these articles, but other articles)--Crossmr (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Marilyn Manson#Church of Satan

Hi, is this a reliable source? If not can anyone suggest an alternative? ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think it could be considered a reliable source. It appears to be a message board post, which in turn is quoting from a web site, which in turn appears to be quoting from several different interviews in several different sources. The underlying interviews themselves are identified only as to publication, but not as to date, etc. If the underlying interviews could be located and cited, those might be reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Thanks Metropolitan, ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] odishatoday.com

Regarding this edit. Can anyone comment on odishatoday.com? Is it a reliable source? --Googlean Results 10:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any other articles expect one linking to the site ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com) . -- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
SO you concluded that it was unreliable.See http://www.odishatoday.com/About_us.html .It does not have any political affiliations. -Bharatveer (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone know Kariali TV ( in Kerala) is CPM ( community party ) funded , does their site say http://www.kairalitv.in/tv/AboutUs.htm say so ? Do you except websites to declare their political or social baises ? , lol. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles [1] [2] undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that they don't just report news, but add their own comments with no primary source to it. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments are not good enough to make it NON-WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
May be not good enough reasons for you, but not for Wikipedia. May be you should wait for third parties to comment on. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that you want to? Isn't there no other third party news sites that report what Odishatoday does? You probably don't realise that for the high claims you are trying to make, you need high quality references. You really think its worth your time trying to resurrect a dead horse? Think about it, is all I can say. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. WP is not you or tinu either. Let WP community decide. Till that time, those refs should stay in the article.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Lets do a small RS test.
  • Is it an Academic source ?
  • Does it have third party scrutiny ?
  • Is it a respected mainstream publication - (unless you have sources who call it as such)
  • It is not a wiki ?
  • Is it a Questionable source ?
  • Is it self published by an expert ? -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields- we see no names given)
Does it pass? You decide. How come you have not answered why is Odishatoday only reports anti-Christian articles and also that you can't find anyother news agencies for the news you quote? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Odishatoday doesn't only report anti-Christian articles. It certainly meets WP:RS, of which being academic is not a requirement but a recommendation (Al-Jazeera for instance is not academic). The journalists on the staff include Anurjay Dhal of the Pioneer (a newspaper par excellence in India), Sai Prasan of the financial express, Kautuk Mitra (who graduated from one of Orissa's best communications schools) and others. This would entail the scrutiny, as the board from the site does consist of journalists. What seems to be occurring is that editors are using its views to disqualify it from WP:RS which is certainly not an acceptable method of critique.Pectoretalk 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I stopped reading when I got as far as "the Pioneer is a newspaper par excellence". In actual fact I understand the Pioneer's a very sad party rag, the owner-editor of which is actually an MP for the party that uses his paper as a mouthpiece. I imagine that this Odishatoday thing is similarly doubtful. Almost certainly funded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh paramilitaries. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly your "understanding" is flawed, as reliable sources merely call it right-of-center. Interestingly, Chandan Mitra (editor of the pioneer) is an accomplished journalist, not the Khaki shorts wearing, lathi-charging maniac you make him out to be.Pectoretalk 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh an Wikiality, Bharatveer through viewing any Gujarati or Hindi news source would find news from reliable sources backing up his views. Its a matter of convenience, why go to Hindi and translate when you have English?Pectoretalk 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea, Wiki San Roze has raised some points and I see that Pectore and Bharathveer have not reached a perfectly satisfactory justification to him. First of all, I want to say that by using Odishatoday, the sock of banned user jobxavier (evidence) started pushing his pov’s all along with other vandalism into those Anti-X articles, which was later supported by other pov editors. Additionally, I could not see odishatoday have published any credible materials (as pointed by Tinu cherian [1]) or reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and therefore undoubtedly failing WP:RS and WP:V. --Googlean Results 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Many times I wonder why people try this hard to push a POV when it is common sense that they are just wasting their's and other's time on it. The issue discussed here is similar to TamilNET, which is pro Tamil rebel website and Asian tribune which is pro Sinhala. Using those sources are OK as long as it is not shown as neutral parties. So Pectore, you are telling me that in spite of so much coverage of English media (both Indian and others) on Orissa violence, no other English media reports the news you want other than odishatoday? O please, stop wasting everyone's time here. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your edits Wikiality, one might assume the same action on your part, citing the AICC as a "gospel source" on pages. On top of these peculiarities are your fallacious appeals to common sense (which judging by the way other members of this discussion edit, is hardly "common") considering that English language dailies have a scant fraction of the circulation that Hindi language dailies have, which would generally report in a manner friendlier to Bharatveer's point of view in a reliable manner. Sorry if I am wasting your time by speaking coherently, intelligently, and logically, but I don't speak the tongue of ideologues.Pectoretalk 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What is wasting other's time is, not to have read what they said. If you pan a bit up, you will see me pointing out, you need high quality references for stating that there are evidence that a aleged rape which made headlines throughout the world did not occur at all. So no other English daily or new site is reporting forensic findings? This argument is cohenrent, intelligent and logical? Brilliant!!! Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, can you reveal who is the MP related to dailypioneer? Apparently an IP editor added lots of stuff , all referenced to pioneer . I am suspecting it is another POV pushing -- Tinu Cherian - 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments do not make any sense. However I am trying to get "ownership" details of this particular org, which would establish its "independent" status.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess some haven't gotten the point that Mitra is an accomplished journalist who went into politics, not a politician who dabbles in journalism. He doesn't just write for the Pioneer, he writed for outlook India and other sources.Pectoretalk 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of self-published sources in Rick Ross (consultant)#Branch Davidians

I would appreciate wider community input on the permissibility of using self-published sources in the Rick Ross (consultant) article, specificially the section covering Mr Ross's involvement as a BATF and FBI consultant in the Waco Branch Davidian standoff. The self-published sources concerned are (1) a letter Mr Ross states he wrote as a rebuttal of assertions in a Department of Justice report, and (2) a critique by Mr Ross of various websites and scholars that have published criticism about him.

I provide some background below, for those editors who are not familiar with the history.

The history below is far too detailed for someone not familiar with the subject matter to sift through. Could you please summarize what you think the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Short version: The old wording used to state that according to a Department of Justice report, Mr Ross was only interviewed by the FBI at his own request, and that his offers of assistance were politely declined. Some months later, a government-commissioned expert, who is critical of Mr Ross, suggested in her report that Mr Ross's role appears to have been somewhat more significant. The present wording no longer discusses the issue of how intensely Mr Ross was involved (partly because so far I haven't found any secondary sources discussing the question). Mr Ross has said on the article's talk page he liked the old wording much better. The old wording cited two self-published documents by Mr Ross:
(1) a letter by Mr Ross saying that the Department of Justice report was wrong (the main assertions of Mr Ross's letter were reproduced in the old wording, some without explicit citation);
(2) a self-published web page that suggested that the government-commissioned expert and various other scholars critical of Mr Ross were cult apologists and/or envious of the access he had to the press.
The question is, is it legitimate to use Mr Ross's self-published sources in this section, given WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST? Each source has a section to itself below, with link. Cheers, Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 failed to mention an edit he did. The original text read "Nancy Ammerman insisted the FBI relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." Out of 4 experts reporting to the Justice Department only Ammerman mentioned me as an issue. The others did not. She stood alone, 1 out of 4 experts, in her opinions about my role at Waco. None of the other 4 experts thought my involvement was noteworthy enough to even mention. Jayen466 knows this and he cut it out. This is an example of the way he has contrived to project his POV through editing.

Ammerman had her own political agenda regarding the issue of "cults," which she prefers to call "new religious movmentts." She and a relatively small group of academics attempted to use Waco as a means of discrediting those that disagreed with their opinions about cults and the potential dangers they often pose for society. These few academics tried to spin Waco to their ideological and professional advantage. But the facts about David Koresh and the Waco Davidians, as they were disclosed historically through two congressional investigations (one Republican and one by Democrats), the independent Danforth investigation, criminal trials, civil trials and the work of mental health professionals with Davidian children and others, discredited this group of academics. Ammerman and the other academics Jayen466 chose to quote would seemingly have us believe (1) David Koresh was not "a dangerous cult leader" (2) the Waco Davidians did not fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." These are neither credible conclusions or reliable opinions given the facts established repeatedly and objectively about Waco historically.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background

A 1993 Department of Justice report to the US Attorney General stated the following concerning Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco standoff:

The FBI did not solicit advice from any "cult experts" or "cult deprogrammers." The FBI did receive a number of unsolicited offers of assistance from former Branch Davidian member Marc Breault (who has since published a paperback book about Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) ... Ross contacted the FBI on March 4, 1993 and requested that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Ross said that he had been familiar with the Branch Davidians for several years, and had known several former Davidians. Ross provided information about Koresh to the Waco Tribune Herald for its series about the Branch Davidians. Ross also had been in contact with Steve Schneider's sister, who had asked him to help devise a strategy to "deprogram" Schneider. The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies. Ross suggested that the FBI attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe. The FBI did not "rely" on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff. The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly.

Following the Waco tragedy, the US government commissioned reports from four scholars tasked with writing critical appraisals of law enforcement actions in the Waco siege. All four of these scholars criticised the authorities for failing to consult religious experts familiar with the belief system of the Branch Davidians. Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion at Boston University, discussed Mr Ross's involvement specifically in her September 1993 report to the Treasury and Justice Departments:

Mr. Rick Ross, who often works in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on the group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from him was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It seems clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the Branch Davidians for attention. Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
[A week later, having received additional documentation, Ammerman provided an addendum in which she corrected some of the above suppositions:] The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact, closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in extricating members from the groups he hates.
Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds that took faith seriously.

As can be seen, Ammerman attributes a more significant role to Mr Ross than the official Department of Justice report to the Attorney General. To that extent, she is in agreement with Mr Ross, who claims in his letter that the FBI approached him for advice.

I have over the past few weeks significantly revised the Rick Ross (consultant) article. While the disputed question concerning the extent of Mr Ross's involvement was discussed in previous versions of this article section, the present version does not raise this issue. Here are the old and new versions, for comparison:

  • This is the status of the relevant section of the article as it was a month ago; it included a description of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]", sourced to an unpublished paper by Professor Catherine Wessinger, marked "Do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." I considered this to fail the requirements for a BLP and replaced this content with properly published equivalents. This old version of the section also contained a number of unsourced statements, including content evidently taken from the self-published documents with which we are here concerned.
  • This is the current status of the section, following extensive revision. It includes new material sourced to University Press-published scholars. It also does without some of the more colourful ad-hominems ("has a hatred for cults", as well as Wessinger's "spurious self-styled expert").

Mr Ross has posted on the talk page of the article, expressing disappointment with the changes, and has several times sought a return to the version of a month ago, including the statements from his self-published sources. In order to accommodate his wish to have content from these self-published sources reinstated, we have to look at whether their use would be in line with our policies and guidelines, which is where I would appreciate editors' input.

The self-published sources are located on Mr Ross's website, rickross.com. They are the following:

  1. Davidian Tragedy - Letters Re: Attorney General
  2. "Flaming Web Sites"

Given their status as self-published sources, their eligibility for use falls under WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST. WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST state, among other things:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Editors may well wish to assess each of the two sources differently. I suggest therefore that editors comment in the two separate Comments subsections available at the very end of this post, outlining their thoughts on each.

[edit] Source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

The first of these sources is a letter by Mr Ross to the Attorney General and various cc recipients. No one to date has asserted that it has been published by a third-party source, and as far as I know, it is only available on rickross.com. It asserts, among other things, that the FBI did contact Ross for advice.

The question is, if we reintroduce the issue of the extent of Mr Ross's involvement (which would add considerably to the length of the section), should we incorporate this letter as an encyclopedic source, and if so, should we quote from it, or describe its content, or should we just include a mention that it exists, with a link in the reference?

Initially, my feeling was that this self-published source should not be used, as we don't usually cite personal correspondence unless published by a RS. In the interest of fairness, given that the facts as presented in the Department of Justice report are contradicted by both Mr Ross and Ammerman, I removed both the FBI assertions as to Mr Ross's more marginal role, i.e. having offered only unsolicited advice, and the rebuttal asserting a more substantial involvement sourced to this letter by Mr Ross. However, I would be interested in other editors' views, in particular the applicability of WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST to the use of this letter.

[edit] Source 2: Flaming Web Sites

The "Flaming Web Sites" page (it also has a section on Wikipedia) has in the past been used to source the following content in the article, included after Wessinger's characterisation of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]":

This rather long-winded "scholarly" review regarding media coverage of the Waco Davidian Standoff was written by cult apologist Catherine Wessinger. [...]. Ms. Wessinger snipes about "spurious self-styled experts" [...] getting too much media attention. The professor then stuffs her footnotes with what looks like a Scientologist's historical guide concerning my past. Could it be that she is angry that the press doesn't quote her more?

As I said, the reference to Wessinger's paper has been deleted (although a brief mention of a published book by her is still included), making this quote somewhat superfluous. However, apart from calling Catherine Wessinger a cult apologist, the Flaming Web Sites page also applies this label to the above-cited Nancy Ammerman, who was one of the government-appointed experts, as well as to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. (For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers.)

In my estimation, the use of this self-published source to cast aspersions against these scholars is inappropriate as per WP:SPS ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources"), and inappropriate as per WP:SELFQUEST, specifically points 2 (contentious), 3 (unduly self-serving), 4 (involving claims about third parties), and possibly 5 (claims about events not directly related to the subject). It also fails WP:TONE.

[edit] Related pages

  • WP:COIN
  • AfD
  • Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) – Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) has various times alleged on the talk page that I edit in bad faith, and accused me of conflicts of interest on several talk pages. Editors may wish to verify the accusation of bad-faith editing for themselves. The current version of the article is here. The version of a month ago, prior to my edits, is here. I have removed the most strident criticisms (in fact I deleted the entire criticism section, much of which was poorly sourced and an ungainly to and fro of name-calling); I have included praise of Mr Ross where I found it; and I have cooperated with him on the talk page to address concerns he had, and looked for sources making his point where he was unable to provide such sources. However, he is a notable and controversial person, and such significant criticism as there has been of his work by notable scholars is represented in the article as it stands.

Jayen has a conflict of interest as follows; (1) He is a devotee of a notorious guru, often called a "cult leader," by the name of Osho/Rajneesh. (2) Despite this bias he has become a primary editor at Wikipedia's Osho entry. His edits can be seen as essentially promoting the guru and subsequently the entry reads at times like an infomercial. (3) The Ross Institute Internet Archives, which is a nonprofit educational effort and an institutional member of the New Jersey Library Association, has an archive subsection about Osho/Rajaneesh that includes news reports from independent reliable media outlets that correctly reflects the guru's deeply troubled history. (4) Jayen466 has begun editing the entry about me in an apparent attempt to discredit online sources of critical information about Osho. If Jayen466 has in fact no association, personal interest or history with Osho/Rajneesh in any way, shape or form, perhaps he should make that clear right now, but that is my understanding. This represents a conflict of interest in my opinion.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Waco Branch Davidian subsection my comments appear below. Also, regarding the Jason Scott case. Admittedly Jayen466 is at times clever in parsing words and playing with edits, he knows how to play the political game here at Wikipedia. On the other hand I am not a Wikipedian. I am here as an individual because a bio about me that I didn't initiate or request has seemingly become a place for people angry at me and/or the Ross Institute to grind their ax. I am not included in any paper and ink encyclopedia that I am aware of anywhere and have requested that my bio be deleted from Wikipedia. It is sad that Wikipedia can be used this way by almost anyone anonymously editing an entry for the purpose of revenge or retaliation. The open source model has the potential to be both good and bad. In the interest of maintaining a reliable source of information with objective historical facts and accuracy, someone should reign in people like Jayen466.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions on use of source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

What do reliable independent sources say about it? If the content is written from primary sources - DoJ or Ross - then we may be violating multiple policies (V, BLP, UNDUE etc.) so I would step back and describe how the issue is presented in independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same could be said to apply to Ammerman's report then, as it was also government-commissioned. Would it be best to cover this only to the extent its content is described in secondary literature? Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That is precisely what is meant by WP:NOR - we should not synthesise material from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Y Done -- reduced to the extent to which she is cited by Tabor. The citation reference to the online verison of her report is still there; should we keep it or drop it? Jayen466 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented below regarding the bias and unreliable nature of the scholars Jayen466 has chosen to construct his POV in the Waco Davidian subsection, which isn't supported by the historical facts as gathered from multiple independent historical sources. Based upon the conflict of interest Jayen466 has as an editor concerning this entry he is not a reliable editor.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While they have their weaknesses, publications, particularly peer reviewed publications, by acknowledged academics in an area of interest are generally considered some of the most reliable sources. Newspapers and self-published websites would be considered a deal removed from them. As I believe has been asked, if you have scholarly sources refuting Jayen466's sources, then please share them and they quite obviously should be given equal weight. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have done this repeatedly, but essentially been dismissed and/or ignored. The scholarly sources are not objective or reliable. Please see my comments below under General Comments. There is a controversy within academia about these sources and their objectivity. The entry should reflect the historical facts not the POV as edited by someone with a conflict of interest.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to cover all significant views on the article topic (or any subtopic covered in an individual article section) published by reliable sources. Contrary to your assertion above, I have been unable to find a single dissenting scholarly view discussing events at Waco. If you have other scholarly sources commenting on this topic (i.e. your involvement in Waco) that express a different view, please present them here.
Looking through google books, I have found one source which discusses the alleged errors in the FBI report concerning your involvement, and has pertinent criticism of Ammermann that is directly related to the article topic. This is the book Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, by Conway and Siegelman. However, this too appears to be self-published, at least according to our article on it, so its status as a WP:RS is questionable. Jayen466 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 your conflict of interest and POV will always be the same. You are not an objective editor. My disputes with your edits are detailed on this page and the Discussion page of my Wikipedia bio. The opinions of Ammerman and the others, which you have decided upon and tailored for the subsection about Waco don't reflect historical reality. It's not a matter of whose book was published by whom, but rather how does history objectively record David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. He wasn't "a dangerous cult leader"? The Davidians didn't fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult"? A few academics eager to spin their opinions don't change that and the Waco entry now reads like a fantasy not like objective serious content. I understand that it reads like you want to read, but it doesn't provide meaningful information as a reliable source to the public. Religious Studies professors are not the definitive perspective on Waco, but based upon the quotes you have used a fairly bizarre one. I don't think that Wikipedia wants to be seen as a source for fringe and/or conspiracy theories.Rick A. Ross (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) To the extent other sources discuss Mr. Ross, he is entitled to rebut them with his own self-published sources, particularly in an article on him. This is the essential purpose of WP:SELFQUEST, which is there to enlarge the universe of sources, to modify the two sections above it that restrict the usage of selfpublished or questionable sources. ( I note this section is being modified and actively discussed at WP:V and has changed from the version above. ). This is in the spirit of, indeed essentially enjoined by WP:BLP. A person is a notable, usable source on himself. The question of reliability is not even appropriate. Reliability of Ross as a source begins to come up when he starts making claims about other persons or things which are distinguishable from "they are wrong about what they said about me, about what I said, did, where I was born, etc. This is what (I say) really happened." Ross calling someone an apologist is arguably a fact about him, not the other person. But his reasoning and facts that he bases such statements on probably does fall under illegitimate self-publication / questionability / reliability prohibitions; for even if his SPS were deemed reliable, it would not be good enough for BLP (of these other people)..John Z (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Entitled to rebut them? Please provide quotes from the applicable policy. WP:SELFQUEST comes with seven conditions and two are directly applicable here: 2) it is not unduly self-serving; and 7) the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source. I'm not sure Mr. Ross' SPS meets those criteria. Also, it should be noted, that the disputed content regarding Waco, is not only about Mr. Ross. It is in fact more significantly about a very notable federal law enforcement agency and the extent to which this law enforcement agency relied on Mr. Ross' advice. Mr. Ross has no special rights, under WP:BLP or WP:SELFQUEST to refute reliable sources on this issue simply because it is in part about him. Lastly I would like to note that it is not in the spirit of any Wikipidia policy to allow individuals to write their own biographies here on Wikipedia, particularly when it comes to notable events in which said individuals were involved and which may in the end be less than flattering to them. Revisionism in these cases, by these individuals, is clearly "unduly self-serving".PelleSmith (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The last condition, #7, is a very recent addition, and can only be understood by looking at the talk page, where the people discussing it note the grammar needs fixing. It can be interpreted to say something ridiculous, that only selfpub sources mentioned in an RS are usable. So a person's website telling us his date of birth is unusable unless the website has been mentioned in an RS. Absurd. The proper reading here is that Rick Ross has been mentioned in RS's in relation to the article's subject - Rick Ross, which is always satisfied by notable sources/individuals. The meaning of #7 is that it clarifies the expansion of usage of selfpub sources to other articles, not necessarily those about the person or entity itself.
I agree that I wrote ("entitled to rebut") in a manner more direct than usual. I should have written that selfpublished sources are usable when blah blah blah. But any person (in good standing) is entitled to edit a wikipedia article, even one about themselves. Ross has no special rights, but neither is he especially prohibited. The unduly self-serving part can be taken care of simply by having neutral editors neutralizing whatever self-published version presented by the subject which is different from that presented in RS's. Of course, Ross's SPS site should not be used for statements about something other than Rick Ross, but neither should RS's be used to say things about a "something other" in an article on Rick Ross.
I think it is worth noting again that WP:SPS and WP:Q are essentially prohibitions (with qualifications) while WP:SELFPUB is an expansion of usable sources, opposing the above two sections (and with a numbered list of qualifications which then amount to prohibitions). People sometimes write as if WP:SELFPUB is only a prohibition, which reverses things.
Here are a couple of things from WT:V that SlimVirgin wrote that explain it well IMHO  : "For example, someone has accused X of something bad, and it's widely accepted that X did it. X responds on his website saying he didn't do it, and offers a convoluted, unconvincing defense that no other source has bothered to publish. We might want to cite that defense, even though we know it's contentious." "As for unduly self-serving, I've always liked that qualification. It's there to stop self-published sources from adding a lot of vanity stuff to their websites then adding it to their WP bio. It means we can consider using it, but have a good reason to turn it down if it's over the top." Regards, John Z (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
So are saying that Mr. Ross' SPS can be used if attributed to him as his version/rebuttal/opinion? If that is the case I agree wholeheartedly. But we can't use his source unless we're explicitly asserting that "Rick Ross claims ..." Reliable third party sources, produced by respected scholars of religion from a variety of methodological backgrounds, exist here. The fact that Mr. Ross' exact version is not replicated by theirs is a strong indicator that his version is ... well simply his self serving version. It is notable that he maintains whatever he maintains, but it must remain explicitly simply what he maintains unless other reliable sources back him up.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Then we are pretty much in agreement. Since there is a dispute, in-text attribution should be done anyway to produce understandable, non-self-contradictory text. The clause in WP:SELFPUB about not using sps's for contentious points was just removed - with general agreement, because we might want to use them in precisely such cases, like here. It might be a good idea to say something in WP:SELFPUB like "contentious material should be attributed in the text to the SPS" - a lot of policy is just explaining what a good writer would do without thinking. John Z (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What about the part of WP:SELFQUEST concerning statements about third parties? Anyone can publish a website and smear his critics. Should we really consider that an encyclopedic source? Then WP will be just a mouthpiece, rather than a summary of significant views published in reliable sources. Jayen466 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering your own bias and agenda as a "cult" devotee (Osho/Rajneesh) are you not using WP as your "mouthpiece" to smear me?Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions on use of source 2: Flaming Web Sites

As above. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be replaced with a scholarly reference, such as this:
in regards to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. AndroidCat (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
None of whom are cited or mentioned within this section. Jayen466 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you listed them above: "For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers." as seemingly unimpeachable sources, which seems not to be completely true. AndroidCat (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The notion that these scholars are part of some financially beneficial conspiracy masterminded by influential NRMs to whitewash history and distort public perception of "dangerous cults" is absolute rubbish and a clear fringe position. I'm sorry but I am growing increasingly tired of this nonsense. We are talking about the experts in the study of new religious movements, or so says the academy. There are a handful of scholars, with real academic credentials and some recognition, who sit on the other side of the fence of the establishment. Even less of them have written articles like Beit-Hallahmi. It is an irrevocable fact that they are in the minority. To claim otherwise is simply false. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll ignore your conspiracy strawman, but: New CAN professional referrals Oh, and please cite that the American Academy of Religion considers these people to the undisputed experts on NRM and legalist topics, and the other people to be the fringe element. AndroidCat (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"So says the academy," was not a reference to the AAR or any other formal institution. It certainly wasn't a claim that there exists a formal statement of any kind by any such institution. It was a turn of phrase denoting the fact that in academia, across methodological disciplines, this fact is established through the reputations of these scholars and their work. It can be gleaned very easily by even a quick survey of the field--who is publishing in peer-reviewed publications and academic presses, who is receiving accolades for their work, who's work is being cited by other scholars, and so on. In this regard you are citing one source that questions the ethics of the establishment--people who are acknowledged experts in the field, or so one can easily deduce by actually informing oneself of the state of scholarly research on NRMs and "cults".PelleSmith (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's still worth noting that Eugene V. Gallagher, one of those cited in the article who is being accused here of being a venal Scientology POV pusher, is on the board of the AAR. Syllabus materials on the AAR website cite Bromley, Tabor, Gallagher and Chryssides as Required Reading. Those are the authors that are cited in our article. (And yes, Barker and Melton are in the syllabus list as well.) Jayen466 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Read the entries on Barker, Beit-Hallahmi, Bromley and others here for example (link leads to Encyclopedia of Religion and Society). Jayen466 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The arguments brought forward here are not unlike those of various other pseudoscience fans in Wikipedia claiming that the entire scientific establishment is involved in a great conspiracy to suppress the truth. I am sorry, there is a mainstream view and there is a minority view, and policy is clear on how to present them. Jayen466 12:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Entire scientific establishment" (egads!) isn't the issue here. That some dozen people are the mainstream is easily open to dispute, nor are all of them involved in the three articles (Rick Ross, Jason Scott case, Cult Awareness Network) where you have recently added the same reference some 60 times, based on five pages of a book which, judging by its availability in Canadian public and university library systems, either wasn't taken very seriously or had a print-run in the high dozens, by an academic writing outside his specialty and who gets the outcome of the Ross criminal trial wildly wrong? (I realize that legal cases aren't Shupe's focus, but that's really hard to get wrong.) Let's return to the unclosed and too-soon archived WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Anson_Shupe_and_sources_with_known_inaccuracies. AndroidCat (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You say the mainstream is "easily disputed" by a piece from an International Cultic Studies Association(ISCA) newsletter? The ISCA is the closest thing to an institution representing the minority perspective and their journal often publishes writers without academic credentials and/or expertise. Note that, "cultic studies" is not a field of study recognized by the AAR or the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. In fact I don't know of any respected academic society focused on religion that would use the term "cultic studies". Some presenters at their meetings or writers publishing in various publications associated with these societies may use the term "cult" now and then, but not cultic studies. On top of this, scholars publishing on NRMs and/or "cults" in mainstream peer reviewed publications in the social sciences and/or the study of religion rarely include references to ISCA publications.PelleSmith (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The "scholars" used by Jayen466 have been publicly exposed as apologists. Lewis was paid to go to Japan courtesy of Aum and he subsequently publicly pronounced the cult innocent of any wrongdoing, which discredits him and his "scholarship." Melton has been paid off by a number of "cults" to do "research," e.g. Children of God and Ramtha. Tabor was once associated both personally and professionally with the Worldwide Church of God, often called a "cult." And the list goes on.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I said your claims that these people are the mainstream, while others are the fringe, are easily disputed. There's a significant difference there. If you don't like the ICSA site then:
As you know, Introvigne also points out that the "critics of the anticult position still enjoy a comfortable majority in NRM studies (a fact both acknowledged and lamented by Zablocki and Beit-Hallahmi)." But even if we were to assume that both sides had equal strength, does this make University Press-published authors of the "other" side unreliable sources?
Imagine an article on a Democrat politician. If his or her views on a particular aspect of economic policy have been criticised by several notable, and highly respected (at least by their fellows) Republicans published in top-class sources, would anyone argue that the views of these Republicans should not be represented in the article because they are Republicans and therefore hostile and prejudiced towards Democrats? Or would anyone argue that each comment by such a notable Republican commentator should be flanked by a statement from the Democrat's self-published webpage that seeks to discredit their reputation, by alleging affiliations to, say, the tobacco industry, the arms industry, state-sponsored terrorism or some other issue not directly related to the issue at hand? No, you wikilink the critic, and if there is controversy surrounding him, it will be covered in their article, unless this particular controversy has been brought up in reliable sources in direct relation to his criticism of the Democrat's thoughts on economic policy.
I did as thorough a search as I could on this topic, and the views that are in the article are the only ones I found, and I did not cite the most outspoken criticism. And given a reliable source, I would be very pleased to include a dissenting opinion on this specific topic – but not one that talks about some scholar having attended a Unification Church-sponsored conference in 1998, and alleges that therefore his views on Waco should be discounted, along with those of his co-author, and all other scholars working in the same academic discipline. If the article or this section needs fixing, it wants reliable on-topic sources presenting other viewpoints on the issues discussed. Jayen466 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)