Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

No mention of use of legal documents, or finding resources

A. What happened to them? B. Where are they now? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Law? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sidebox.

Are the Sidebox Genres on Allmusic reliable, surely not? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Ericdeaththe2nd

This sort of question should be asked at WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Steubenville Ohio

I am the proof that Personality John Clark is from Steubenville. I am John Clark Born and raised in Steubenville,Ohio. I now live in Tarentum, Pa., and in some circles I am a well personality. Contact if necessary at j-c4156@hotmail.com. By the way I grew up at 301 Henry Ave. Steubenville, Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.224.18 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal communication is never acceptable as a source. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Preventing citation loops

Following some occurences on other pages I am wondering if the following rule should be considered:

A source shall only be considered reliable if it reports primary research, or it was verifiably published before any statements sourced from it appeared for the first time on Wikipedia.

The aim is to prevent the case where a slacking newspaper editor or academic copies unsourced content from Wikipedia (which, although highly unprofessional, does happen fairly frequently), allowing the content on Wikipedia to be described as sourced and thus accepted as fact when it has never really been verified at all.

Publication and authorship dates for good sources should be quite easy to obtain and Wikipedia's own history pages document what existed on Wikipedia at any given moment, so this should not be difficult to implement. Hyphz (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. In general, I think this is not a good solution. Consider the effect on the science article: you would only be allowed to use textbooks that were from in 2005 or before, because much of the content was in the article by then. And that would be forever: if Wikipedia is still around 20 years from now, then you'd still be telling people not to use modern, up-to-date sources, because the basic information was in the article by 2005, and so the textbook might have copied it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's history database a valid source for contextualising published statements about Wikipedia?

Is it acceptable to cite previous revisions of a Wikipedia page - possibly the same page that creates the citation - in order to put other cited articles that refer to Wikipedia into context?

In the particular case, the author of a game (Braid (video game)) posted a statement on their blog [1] stating that the interpretation of the plot of that game that existed at that time on Wikipedia was wrong.

As this is "word of god" concerning a work of fiction, it seems that it should be a useful piece of information to include in the article, especially since the same interpretation of the plot still remains on Wikipedia. However, citing the blog alone would not suffice as it refers only to "the interpretation on Wikipedia" without saying what it is: without a citation of the historical Wikipedia page to provide context, it is unclear what the blog was referring to at the time it has written. However, two users challenged my usage of such, saying that it is "too meta" for an article to cite its own history.

Hyphz (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This kind of question is best answered at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Way too meta. Also, the fallacy of authorial intent is widely discredited in literary studies and other critical studies of texts. This is walking down the dark red path to ORsville. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What is Fact and reliable on IMDB, and what is not.

• I have read the section in "reliable Sources" because I used IMDB to reference an actor's credits. That section states that IMDB is not a reliable source because its content is "user material". Then the same section goes on to say that an exception for a user site that would give a particular News Site credibility, would be content from its Professional Editors who have researched a subject. My point here is this: When it comes to the subject of " Film Credits" on IMDB, it is directly from the Academy to the Editors, and not from any Users. You will rarely if EVER see an error on IMDB concerning what movies or TV shows a particular person was an Actor in, or part of the crew, or production company involved. User comments on IMDB are limited to the "Personal Bio" material in their Trivia or Bio Section; along with the user message boards. So why aren't the credits listed on IMDB a "Reliable Source"? This should truly be re-visited. No one can add a movie credit to the list of movie credits on IMDB but a Professional Editor after much research and conformation....I assure you that is a FACT.

Pocketthis (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need to cite them, rather than the actual film credits, as displayed in the film itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I wrote an article a year ago on a B Actress who did a lot of work in the 70s and 80s. I know her very well, and witnessed much of the work first hand. In the article I list her film credits (which can be found on a thousand sites), and used IMDB as the reference. The article has been flagged for a year, because, as I'm told, IMDB is not a reliable source. Yesterday I removed the flag and added TV Guide as another reference, and it was removed by a passing editor and re-flagged. I have no idea what Wiki wants me to use to verify credits if IMDB isn't considered worthy. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • I wrote a similar question below about IMDb. I also don't understand. The answer above that says "just cite the credits of the movie" might possibly seem a reasonable response for footnoting the actors, but what if you are referring to the movie in general? How can you cite the film as proof that the film exists? Isn't the IMDb pretty much the gold standard on films? ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)) Also I note that at least two articles, and I expect that all articles about a particular film, DO cite the IMDb, perfectly properly in my view. Here are two examples:

Empire, a film by Andy Warhol, and

Gone With the Wind.

New type of "reliable source"

There are some types of proof that are difficult or impossible to find a Reliable Source for. Examples are typically poor behaviour by corporate organisations or politicians/ governments. In some cases these are reported through mainstream newspapers that have "sources" that they're not required to divulge. These newspapers typically have an appropriate editorial process to ensure that they don't report on information is very likely to be true.

An example of this is Intel's statement that the Atom CPU is "64 bit". It appears as though either some Atoms are shipping without 64 bit support, or where the manufacturers such as Asus are disabling the 64 bit instructions in the BIOS. There's no particular reason that Asus or other's would switch this feature off - unless they're either pricing these at a lower price point or where there is a business agreement with Intel that the feature will be switched off in exchange for a lowered unit cost of the Atom CPU.

However - it is easy to verify that 64 bit is not able to be supported (eg is 'switched off' either on the chip or BIOS). The BIOS states that "EMT64" is "not available". Screenshots of this behaviour are available here:

• http://superuser.com/questions/433753/this-cpu-is-not-compatible-with-64-bit-mode-installing-windows-7-ultimate-6

Intel's statement regarding 64 bit is here: http://ark.intel.com/products/58916/ - there is a tiny fine print statement that the BIOS also needs to support 64 bit, however the main specifications statement simply states "64 bit".

This currently presents a quandary for Wikipedia. To simply show Intel's statement that Atom CPUs support 64 bit is (probably) accurate - but doesn't tell the full truth about these 64 bit instructions being disabled in the BIOS.

• Wikipedia is forced to tell the "corporate line" that Atom CPUs support 64 bit if only "Reliable Sources" can be used.
• Yet - the screenshots are clear evidence that while the CPU may support 64 bit, in some cases these are permanently switched off in the BIOS - leading to a 32 bit only capable computer.

Currently Wikipedia editors simply undo any "non-reliable source" information - regardless of whether this information is actually useful, and regardless of whether clear - but informal validation of the information can be provided (such as the screenshots).

Perhaps what is needed is a new type of source - one that is visually clearly marked as such. This is still "reliable" - but not distributed by corporate organisations that have no interest in confirming negative facts about their products.

This "Reliable Source" is at the lower end of the "reliability" scale - where the upper end would be photographs, video, etc - verified by mainstream news media coverage. It is still highly verifiable however - in the sense that simple independent inspection(such as visual inspection of the screenshot) can be done rapidly.

Note that this reliability conversation has been generated by this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a technical review industry dealing with computer parts. If they do not address this concern, then it bears no WEIGHT and should not be sourced. Producing original research based on your interpretation of a computer screen is not reliable sourcing. I suggest you contact technical industry journalists with your findings. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a wider problem than just 'computer parts'. It relates to any area where a corporation / govt has negative information that it knows is true - but doesn't want to confirm this to the public. In my case (for a $200 Atom powered laptop) I doubt that any tech journalist would be interested as the readership for such an article is simply too small. This presents a quandary : how to find a "reliable source" for negative information. In the Intel Atom case there is no Google-able information that 'proves' that the Atom is limited to 32 bit, and while I have requested information from both Intel and Asus - it's likely that they will supply hazy information. However - I can see (with my own pair of eyes) the inability to enable 64 bit within the BIOS, and 64 bit operating systems simply refusing to install. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia accept all general statements of "I saw this so it must be true" facts - but I do believe that the current "reliable source" requirements fail in the circumstances above to provide an easy mechanism to support correct statements. I am open to suggestions as to how this particular RS problem can be solved. Noasshats (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true, that would amount to fraud by the manufacturers and sellers, which would be a good news story, which would be something trade magazines should want to print.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not report, it only summarizes what has been written about reports. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not IMDb?

Why is a reference to the IMDb not a reasonable or allowed thing, to demonstrate that a film exists, when it was made, and what it is about? This question arises from the article on Hydrofracking, where a good deal of the information and controversy comes from documentaries made about the practice. It also seems odd to have a statement in this guideline that is against user generated sites, when wikipedia is a user generated site. Thanks. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC))

It is precisely because people here understand the many challenges created by user-generated content that we do not use such sources.

Why not cite the film, using {{cite video}} if the article uses citation templates? You'd cite a book to show that someone had written a book, wouldn't you? The film itself is a non-independent, primary source, but you are permitted to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, and there could be no more authoritative source for the fact that something exists than the thing itself. (An independent secondary source is a better source for proving that the film matters, but not better at proving that the film exists.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I added "(IMDB)" to the text so that if a reader attempts to find that rule, he can locate it by that string. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

What does "professional" mean?

The article currently states:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write....

How should the term "professional" be defined? If a person sells advertisement-space on his blog, and thereby profits from his blog, does that make him a professional? 150.135.161.68 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Paid by the publisher/news outlet, almost always as a regular employee whose blog is just one part of his or her duties. Ad revenue or other profits from your own website doesn't count, because they're not hosted by a regular news outlet.

What's the definition of "regular news outlet"? --150.135.161.183 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Any news outlet that would be recognized as a normal news outlet by other news outlets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a circular definition. --150.135.161.183 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A circular definition is adequate in this instance, because we assume that our editors have good judgment and some basic domain knowledge (e.g., enough to decide whether their local newspaper is "a news outlet"). And if they don't have a basic background and decent judgment, then no amount of definition is going to be adequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This policy allows Wikipedia's administrators to make arbitrary content-decisions. Great for any administrator with an agenda, but too bad for all the readers looking for a neutral encyclopedia. 144.90.59.167 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All editorial judgements are arbitrary and need to be done in good faith as part of an encyclopaedic project. This is how we work, see assume good faith for more details. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Insofar as that's how we work, the encyclopedia's quality is limited by the "goodness" of the "faith" of its administrators. Only a foolhardy reader would rely on such an encyclopedia. 128.196.20.23 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins have no special role in content decisions. Their abilities involve things like being able to block spammers and delete pages, not decide what a good source is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What we're looking for is some reason to believe that the human who wrote the blog posting is not the only human who had any say about whether it was posted (or at least, that it remained posted once the newspaper's editor saw it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What about a blog operated by a husband and wife, and one of them could call him or herself the 'editor'? --150.135.161.183 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That the journalist is recognised as a journalist (member of appropriate professional or trade union associations); that the journalist primarily subsist off income from journalism; that the journalist primarily publish their journalism with reputable newspapers or equivalent news outlets. See professional. In relation to other professions publishing in newspapers, determining appropriate field experience is a similar exercise in looking at an EXPERT status. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A journalist who wins both the Pulitzer Prize and the State lottery will not fall within the definition of "professional journalist", if you require "that the journalist primarily subsist off income from journalism". --150.135.161.183 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Most people who win a big lottery run out of money quickly.

Is there a particular blog that you're concerned about? There is no mechanical, mindless substitute for using your best judgment after considering all the facts and circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You ask "Is there a particular blog that you're concerned about?" Not at this time. I know I'm asking difficult questions, and I'm sorry that I'm not proposing a constructive solution to the problem I'm raising. My interest here is in evoking discussion, so that we collaboratively might refine these guidelines. That would add integrity to the process of selecting which sources are to be deemed "reliable". --150.135.161.183 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what problem you're trying to solve. Perhaps you are concerned about the "problem" of everything not being spelled out in so much detail, so that even an idiot could figure out whether some particular edge case is "a news outlet"? I have no interest in turning this guideline into a judgment-free zone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to solve the problem of a policy which invites editors to inject their personal biases and agendas into Wikipedia. (It's a problem for the readers, not for the editors.) 144.90.59.167 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you seem to be tendentiously arguing that editors need to operate in a machine like fashion because you're incapable of assuming good faith exists. We are not a project that dictates finely grained "execute without interpretation" rules onto unwilling automatons, see Ignore all rules for the purpose of rules in wikipedia, they exist to guide the natural good faith of editors in producing an encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your arguing seems more tendentious than anyone else's. Since we're not "machines" or "automatons", why don't we simply replace all the policies and guidelines with "just use common sense"? If any reader wishes to verify claims made in Wikipedia, why don't we simply point out that he is simply "incapable of assuming good faith"? 128.196.20.23 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Professional means that you should have enough common sense to know the difference between an amatuer and a professional. When you have a case of someone specifically that you're not sure about, bring it to the RS noticeboard. But generally, you should be able to tell the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, then, the entirety of this article should be replaced with "just use common sense". 128.196.20.23 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be, but over the years, we've found that providing slightly more detail is helpful overall. Editors are still enjoined to WP:Use common sense though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UN Reports

UN reports (or World Bank reports) are typically not externally peer-reviewed. Where do they lie on the scale of reliability? How would they compare with an academic journal article or a textbook or monograph published by an academic press? Fowler&fowler«Talk»

It depends on the expertise of the rapporteur and the committee members, the process and nature of the committee and authorship process of the report, the nature of the claims, and the nature of the article. For example, the use of the UN report into the events in Hungary in 1956 in the Hungarian revolution of 1956 article is an illegitimate use of a primary source (and a pretty bad stain on that FAC). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What do I do when a cited source is just plain wrong?

This source has been cited for the notion that a Roman official called Gallio drank waters that caused illness. Here is the writer's statement:

Pliny 'describes and recommends the remedy of Gallio who, after drinking waters that caused illness took a boat ride on the ocean. He writes: "for those attacked by consumption, as I have said, and for Haemoptysis, such as quite recently within our memory was taken by Annaeus Gallio after his consulship.' (Italics added)

The writer's stated primary source is Pliny's Natural History 31.33, yet Pliny never states what is claimed by the writer. As evidence of Pliny here is the full section:

CHAP. 33.—THE USES OF SEA-WATER. THE ADVANTAGES OF A SEA-VOYAGE.

Sea-water also is employed in a similar manner for the cure of diseases. It is used, made hot, for the cure of pains in the sinews, for reuniting fractured bones, and for its desiccative action upon the body: for which last purpose, it is also used cold. There are numerous other medicinal resources derived from the sea; the benefit of a sea-voyage, more particularly, in cases of phthisis, as already mentioned, and where patients are suffering from hæmoptosis, as lately experienced, in our own memory, by Annaeus Gallio, at the close of his consulship: for it is not for the purpose of visiting the country, that people so often travel to Egypt, but in order to secure the beneficial results arising from a long sea-voyage. (source) (Bolding added)

This doesn't talk of Gallio drinking water that made him ill. How does one handle the issue of a source shown to be wrong? The editor has a source for the information. Is that sufficient? -- spin^control 03:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is not a suicide pact. Any source can be determined by consensus to be simply inappropriate to use in an article. This is probably the best way to deal with things if the erroneous fact is reported in just one source, which could make it insignificant even if true. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can use WP:Editorial discretion to omit errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Has that essay really been around for five and half years? For a long time I used to make links to WP:IAR as [[WP:IAR|editorial discretion]]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't seem to be an option, as there are only two editors involved and we've been in a tango for over three weeks regarding the content of the particular article (so you can imagine I'd like to get out of it). The article has gone from faulty Basic to bloatware in that time and a percentage of the sources (published books) contain similar problems. I'm at a loss at this stage. -- spin^control 05:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Inaccuracy is a related essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tripe biblical reference series are not acceptable sources for the history of medicine. The source is simply unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic is connected with biblical studies, Suetonius on Christians, which involves an analysis of a statement by Suetonius ("The Jews in continual tumult at the instigation of Chrestus he (Claudius) expelled them"). It is generally assumed in biblical studies circles to be a reference to Christ. The article says "most scholars assume..." and "most scholars believe...", meaning most biblical scholars, so there is a clear majority view (at least of biblical scholars) in the literature. I'm shocked by the unreliability of the sources, at the level of speculation, inexactness and outright error in the publications of this majority (such as the example above). That makes things complicated because of WP guidelines.

Gallio comes into the discussion when trying to date the expulsion. He was a proconsul in Achaea in Greece at a moment partially datable from a letter written by Claudius mentioning Gallio and he was mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles in Corinth (Achaea) at the time when Paul was reported to be staying there with people who had come from Italy after Claudius had expelled all the Jews. The majority of biblical scholars are fairly specific as to the dating of events they want. My fellow editor has taken to slapping all sorts of accusatory tags on the article regarding things he disagrees with and the talk page is like southern Lebanon with the cluster bombs. -- spin^control 15:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Editorial discretion and WP:Inaccuracy are both essays and not usable as policy. Regarding the Evans quote on Pliny I have no problem in getting rid of it altogether in fact. It was Doktor spin who said: 'I doubt that Evans can "mess" up a simple citation'. Given that he said that Evans could not mess it up, this discussion is somewhat funny actually. So to cut to the chase, I have no objection to the deletion of Evans' comment about Pliny anyway - provided all of his Pliny comments are deleted, not just some of them. But on the dating of Paul (a biblical issue), Evans is of course an expert. The proper venue for asking this would have been WP:RSN, of course, but now that no objection exists to deleting Evans on Pliny altogether, it is over anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If the pair of you eventually get tired of lobbing accusations at each other and want to try actual constructive editing, let us know. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually my catapult has been in the shop for a while and I have not been lobbing as such... History2007 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is about a particular problem in Suetonius on Christians, then you can ask for a WP:Third opinion or go to WP:Christianity noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for opinions on the project noticeboard and discussion about the issues is taking place there. So that would be the place to continue the discussion, given the specific issues being addressed there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case there is a conflict between two sources - a primary source and a secondary source reporting what is in the primary source. It often happens that two sources conflict and we must determine which one is best. I note that the disputed reason for the illness appears to be irrelevant to the article. TFD (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "reason for the illness" is peripheral as you correctly noted. Alas the rest is somewhat more involved, but not really complicated, in that there are other secondary sources (there are more Pandora's boxes yet to open, say Perkins) that say different things. Some think there were two trips, some say there was just one and some only mention one trip and do not mention Pliny. Yet we have seen no single source that says "the only sea cure took place in the mid 50s". That statement is a composite of different sources, and disputed by other sources that state there were two separate trips, or that there was only one trip in the early 50s. So the Evans reference to Pliny is peripheral, hence my lack of objection to its removal. Yet, the existence of "just one trip in the mid 50s" has no single source yet that mentions the mid 50s, while there are sources that say otherwise. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How many sources beside Bruce specifically supply the conjecture that there were two sea cures? Not one.

Most sources mention Pliny stating that the one sea cure he knew of happened after Gallio's consulship—a consulship which I have cited numerous scholars dating, mainly to 55, but one gives 54 and another gives 56, so I use the one which says the mid 50s. There is a lot of work on consuls in Latin studies. -- spin^control 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hemer (ISBN 3161454510 page 169) also says there were two trips. Yes, he has a footnote, but that is what he says. And you have produced no single source that says "the only sea trip was in the mid 50s". If you have provide the book name and the page number. That statement is yet a composite of multiple sources. History2007 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Hemer does not say that there were two trips. That is your OR. He merely says, "The health-cruise of Gallio to which Pliny refers followed his subsequent consulship." This supports one of the things you are objecting to. -- spin^control 23:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Hemer directly refers to Bruce. But that is an article content issue, not a guideline issue and should be discussed on the article or project talk page, not spill over to the guideline page, of course. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More OR. In fact Hemer refers to a Bruce Festschrift and that on a different matter. This is typical of the content you have placed in the article. -- spin^control 23:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Hemer refers to the book Pauline studies (in honor of Bruce) that on page 17 states: "Gallio's trip to Alexandria was evidently a different, later occasion, starting from Italy (Pliny NH 31.33 62)" read the book if you like it has ISBN 0802835317. And Hemer directly supports an early 50s date. Read Hemer if you like. And by the way, neither Bruce's statement or Hemer's are in the article yet. I had not gotten around to adding those yet. But again, this is an article relate issue which has no place on a "guideline talk page". Please discuss on the article talk page. I will not respond to this issue here any more, for it needs to be on the article talk page, not a guideline talk page. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a festschrift is in honor of someone. And you admit here that the use of the material that you placed in the article was OR. -- spin^control 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The someone was Bruce, of course as the ISBN indicates. And I have placed no WP:OR in the article, of course. But again, that is an issue for the article talk page, not a guideline talk page. History2007 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The factual error from the book I cited above is reflective of the capacity of the writer to give informed speculation. On the talk page I pointed out a number of similar errors from such sources, all of whose speculation has been mustered to fill the article with "most scholars assume..." and "most scholars believe..." Popular books by biblical scholars are not reliable sources in the field of Roman history. You'll find that the only classicists in the article I've introduced along with the only peer-reviewed journal material. Sources that are not by specialists in the field (or at least gone through the peer review process), that are by people who cannot get their facts straight--one writer doesn't know that Gallio is Seneca's older brother, not younger--, whose greatest contribution to the article at hand is speculation, are not to be trusted. -- spin^control 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Most scholars assume was a direct quote from Louis Feldman - a respected scholar and used per WP:RS/AC, of course. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is indicative of the assumptions in the article. Most biblical scholars assume the conclusion. -- spin^control 23:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Louis Feldman provided the Academic consensus. As you may recall, you asked on WP:RSN a week or two ago and Andrew Dalby specifically advised you that Feldman is an "expert in the field", his publisher is reliable and his statement satisfies WP:RS/AC. Move on, he said - I seem to remember. Look it up in the WP:RSN archives if you like. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no dispute with Feldman's assessment. Most biblical scholars work on that assumption. They have no evidence. As R.T. France said, the notion of a misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake." Classical scholars seem to be far more reticent than the more numerous non-specialists from biblical studies, if we can judge by those whose comments I have placed in the article. -- spin^control 23:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Feldman said scholars. And "they have no evidence" runs against WP:V and you were advised of those issues here exactly a month ago. But this discussion is really diverging from the topic of this "guideline talk page" which is about a guideline, not a specific article. Discussions need to be kept focused, hence I will not discuss article details here, but on the article and project talk pages, not the "guideline page". History2007 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Feldman specifically says that they "assume". Is he reliable or not? You cannot have it both ways. Is Keener reliable when he gives his personal assessment that most scholars "believe..."? What about Dunn, "most infer..."? Are facts so thin on the ground that we have to build the article on a web of conjecture? -- spin^control 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/AC, Feldman's quote is a statement about "Academic consensus", as you acknowledged just above here by saying: "I have no dispute with Feldman's assessment". Is that right? And when Keener says "most scholars believe", that is also a statement on "Academic consensus". Now, in this post Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_34#On_WP:DUE about two weeks ago you had already acknowledged what the "majority view" is and that is what Keener says. So you already know what the majority view is and what the contrary (i.e. minority) view is. So something... about the majority view may be in play now... History2007 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, folks, this is degrading into the sort of minefield found on the talk page of the article. I came here looking for disinvolved opinions, not for more of the same arguing that I was seeking an exit from. -- spin^control 00:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think the discussion about article content should be on the article or project talk page, not on a "guideline talk page" as stated before. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think overall that History's right: You don't get to label an author "a biblical scholar" and then say that therefore their publications are completely unreliable because they're the wrong kind of scholar or they have the wrong POV. Reliability—this is important, so please pay attention—is about supporting particular statements, not about being infallible and warranted for all purposes. An absolutely appalling source can be reliable for supporting certain statements. A truly lovely source can be unreliable for supporting certain statements. We're not in the business of endorsing pro- or anti-religious viewpoints or pro- or anti-religious areas of scholarship. If Western "classicists" and "biblical scholars" want to pretend that they're not out of exactly the same scholarly tradition, so that only people with the "right" approach can make accurate statements about specific scholarly territory, then that's their business, not ours. We're in the business of figuring out whether Source X is sufficiently strong to support specifically Statement Y. Whether the author would be classified as "secular" or "religious" doesn't come into it.

We have considered addressing the issue of biased sources before, and perhaps we should consider it again. "Biased" is not a synonym for "unreliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely per WhatamIdoing. Assuming that both traditions are speaking of a suitable object of analysis and making appropriate claims (ie: not using a classicist of greek literature for roman medical history, etc.) If two scholarly traditions claim explanatory power over a domain, and they're obviously scholarly (as attested by standard publications by the disciplines in the world standard scholarly presses, or by substantive normal competitive appointments at recognised research universities, etc.) then we should write articles with reference to what both traditions say. It is just like a single scholarly discipline that is internally divided over a point—until those scholars work out what truth is for themselves, we report all substantive opinions that are not FRINGE. Classics and ancient history is a scholarly discipline. Biblical interpretation is a scholarly discipline. One problem with Classics and ancient history is that it attracts FRINGE publications in non-reviewed media—so we rely upon scholarly opinions published in scholarly apparatus such as peer reviewed journals or monographs from research presses. One problem with biblical interpretation is that it has a professional, para-professional and FRINGE penumbra. We discount the fringe, rarely countenance the para-professional (local pastors) unless they're part of a socially significant narrative (as recognisable in, for example, reviews by scholars of common popular narratives), we occasionally esteem professional opinions (non-scholarly theologians of significance), and prefer the scholars (scholarly theologians, as demonstrable by the press of their publication, substantive appointment, etc.). It really is that easy, and we don't discount one system of knowledge production and publication, or elevate it above another, so long as both knowledge systems produce EXPERTs. In the case of classics versus biblical interpretation, both fields do produce scholars who work in universities and publish peer reviewed research. Moreover, because we know classics and biblical interpretation may have differing views, we particularly look for cases where scholars in one field review both their own field and the other field—and use these to improve our articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC) ("What happens when "scholars" aren't, and are rejected as FRINGE?" Young Earth Creationism, for example, is discounted as FRINGE in relation to the science of the formation and nature of the Earth and its contents. YEC are recognised for talking about the nature and beliefs of YEC. Biblical interpretation is widely recognised by other scholars as a valid pursuit, not as a FRINGE or unacceptable pursuit.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that biblical interpretation is a valid pursuit and I cite biblical scholars for biblical interpretation in the article, but you don't get the brain surgeon to do your taxes, unless s/he's also qualified to do that. Peer review in our circumstance acts as that qualification. Historians do history. They have qualifications in history, not biblical interpretation—well they could have as well. You expect those scholars whose field of study is Roman history to be reliable sources in the field of Roman dating and chronology, in interpreting Suetonius in his cultural context and most of the other sources in the discussion. You don't expect classicists to go to print with mistakes such as the following:

• Birge who makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome.

This is what Seneca actually said: "I kept saying the same thing my dominus Gallio said when he began to feel feverish in Achaia; straightway he went on board ship, insisting that the sickness lay in the place, not in his body." Does Seneca say that Gallio returned to Rome?

• In a lovely little infobox Cosby (p.76) makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!

This error is made clear here though I can supply numerous other examples.

• Thiselton (p.30) makes the false claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.

Checking the Seneca citation in the first point one can see that this claim is false.

• Murphy-O'Connor makes the unsupportable claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny notes that Gallio discharged blood in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption.

And the example at the beginning of this discussion, where a scholar misrepresents a source. With the exception of Murphy-O'Connor, these are not just potential inaccuracies as per wp:inaccuracy, but are demonstrable inaccuracies in the background knowledge of the writers concerning this Gallio who is in an important crux. Scholars who prove to be untrustworthy in facts are not reliable sources for their speculations—and it is speculation and number fudging that we are trading in.

In the article, Louis Feldman points out with regard to Suetonius Claudius 25.4 that "most scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome." A consensus of assumption. They are free to make unfalsifiable statements and because they form a majority view of outsiders to the field of Roman history these unfalsifiable statements have currency. As stated by a scholar I placed in the article 'misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess"', but that is beside the point as "most scholars assume" the conclusion given in the article. Basic scholarly procedure is overlooked in favor of guesswork, unfalsifiability is accepted and the classicist is forgotten. Another scholar "states that most scholars believe that the Delphi inscription 'pinpoints' Gallio's term": not just assumption, but now belief. Yet the only scholar who has published several peer-reviewed papers on this chronology doesn't agree. Belief trumps peer-review. This is only to be expected when non-reliable sources are given credibilty. -- spin^control 06:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think both WhatamIdoing and Fifelfoo are right and I specifically agree with their two observations that "You don't get to label an author "a biblical scholar" and then say that therefore their publications are completely unreliable because they're the wrong kind of scholar" as WhatamIdoing said and that "we don't discount one system of knowledge production and publication, or elevate it above another" as Fifelfoo said. And in fact in his sense of scholars who review fields, Feldman exactly fits the bill, and you had just accepted Feldman's assessment a few paragraphs just above here a few hours ago. Please just look above here and note that you directly stated that you had no dispute with Feldman's assessment.

In any case, I think you know what the majority view is, yet seem to wish that the "only scholar who has published several peer-reviewed papers on this chronology" (D. H. Slingerland I guess) would somehow convince the scholarly world to change their views. But the scholarly world has not been convinced by Slingerland, and that is what Wikipedia must reflect: the general scholarly views. And I think you know that Slingerland is a minority view, and you had previously said something to the effect that he has the "temerity" to go against the general scholarly views.

As for trumping peer-reviews, the very journal that published Slingerland's view, also published this harsh criticism of it by Murphy-O'Connor afterwards, as you know, pointing out a number of deficiencies (say winter storms, etc.) in Slingerland's analysis. But then you have already seen the link to that paper before. And the date range 51-52 in the second paragraph of the section on Gallio is supported by the majority of scholars - and you had directly acknowledged it as the majority view in this post about two weeks ago. That date range is against the wider date range that Slingerland has the "temerity" to propose against the majority of scholars, as you know.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the views of the scholarly world at large, but a vehicle for reflecting it and summarizing it as is. History2007 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances you don't get to cite biblical scholars as though they were historians, unless they are in fact historians as well. Nobody has necessarily ruled out the accuracy of many of the sources you have cited, but some of them have certainly failed the accuracy test and should not be considered reliable, if they get basic facts about who they give opinions about wrong, such as most of those who you are selling for the speculation about Gallio.

Murphy-O'Connor can muse about winter storms all he wants, but that works only on the assumption that the speculation about Gallio abandoning his office must be correct. Speculation is not criticism. He's already shown that he is prepared to give unfalsifiable conjecture when he claims that Gallio was a hypochondriac, when in fact Gallio like his brother Seneca was predisposed to consumption. -- spin^control 07:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, these scholars are referring to a specific episode in the Book of Acts, as you know. That is the subject of their study, as stated before.

And again, Murphy-O'Connor's criticism appeared in the same journal that Slingerland published in. Hence his criticism can not be labelled as "musing" given that it appeared in the same journal as the Slingerlan published his views. One set of views published in a journal by a scholar can not be labelled musings by a Wikipedia editor while another set of views in the same journal by another scholar are exalted. That is not how Wikipedia works. Given that Murphy-O'Connor started his criticism with the words "In a recent article in this journal..." his views are fully relevant to what Slingerland had stated there and can not be discounted by a Wiki-editor as musings and speculations.

Hence your statement about Murphy-O'Connor's criticism that "speculation is not criticism" does not work in Wikipedia. The journal published it as a criticism of Slingerland's article which had appeared there two years earlier. A Wiki-editor cannot discard an article in one issue of a journal as containing speculation, and exalt an article from two years earlier.

But I have a feeling that this discussion is getting to be circular now. History2007 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Gallio's sickness has nothing directly to do with Acts. And to be repetitive, Acts is only important here for its implication of uniting Paul and Gallio to the same moment in time. Beyond that Acts provides no help for dating the expulsion except through relative chronology. The expulsion happened some time before Paul arrived in Corinth. These scholars are moonlighting in Roman history to attempt to construct some solidity to Pauline chronology. The purpose is tendentious, but I wouldn't put that in an article. -- spin^control 07:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But to be precise about facts.

Does Birge wrongly claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome?

Does Thiselton wrongly claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office?

Does Cosby wrongly claim that Gallio was Seneca's younger brother?

Or will you refuse to respond, hiding behind the "but they are professors and they do no wrong" defense? -- spin^control 07:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not hiding behind anything. Per WP:V Wiki-editors cite reliable sources, not debate their contents based on their personal views. I could discuss 30 things in 20 books and articles with you, but that would be a discussion between us. Wikipedia does not work that way. And this discussion of the details of the subject should really be on the article talk page, rather than the "guideline talk page". But in any case, given that you have acknowledged what the majority view is, and that the view you prefer is the minority view, labeling the majority view as "speculation" via your own reasoning and repeating the minority view is not going to go far in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You cite reliable sources when that reliability has been ascertained. You don't assume reliability when the contrary evidence does not permit you to assume.

• Does Birge wrongly claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome?
• Does Thiselton wrongly claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office?
• Does Cosby wrongly claim that Gallio was Seneca's younger brother?

Refusing again? -- spin^control 07:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting tired of this. The moment we start to discuss one journal the discussion changes to another book, etc. I could pick 20 things and ask you to pass judgement on them, etc. asking does Sligerland state this? Does he state that? etc. But we have discussed those before. I will refer you to the statement by Pseudo-Richard on the issue on the project talk page. I will stop for a while now. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to get you to commit on this issue for quite a while. You've been presented with the evidence numerous times and you go off on a tangent about who am I to doubt these stalwart professors. Now you're getting tired again. Yes, remember the vitamins? I told you you'd need them. OK, ready?

• Does Birge wrongly claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome?
• Does Thiselton wrongly claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office?
• Does Cosby wrongly claim that Gallio was Seneca's younger brother?

The main reason you refuse to answer is because you don't want to incriminate your sullied sources. And ask away about Slingerland. Give it your best shot. -- spin^control 11:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While waiting for a response about the errors of those sources from History2007, I should note that one of the questions an editor is recommended to ask in WP:Reliable sources/Flaws is "Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know." It is an editor's duty to interrogate sources. An editor is not a slave. Sources need to be able to stand up to such interrogation. -- spin^control 12:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look:

• First, please stop this ongoing reference to my need for vitamins. It is a tired joke and if it implies that you intended to debate for ever, that is not how Wikipedia works. After a point, specific policies click in to avoid that type of behavior once opinions have been obtained here and on the project page and the debate has becomes circular.

• Now, I will, of course, 'never' start a debate here with you on the details of Stringerland's paper. Never. That would run against WP:V and in any case Murphy-O'Connor has already provided a detailed criticism of that work in the same journal Stringerland published in. Yet you have called Murphy-O'Connor's criticism "speculation". So if you label views that have been published in the same journal "speculation not criticism" then you will view anything I say as speculation not criticism as well. So what is the point in discussing it with you when label attachment can take place at will.

• Now, briefly, of course Birge says that Gallio left for Rome because her interpretation is that Gallio would return to Rome so that he would not get stuck in Corinth for the winter. Immediately after the Rome comment she clarifies it: "Gallio would have left for Rome by late Octber since all travel on the Mediteranean was closed later than that." I see no problem there, because she is discussing the overall structure of the departure of Gallio, and the destination would have been Rome in her view. And what she says about the dates, the travel, the trial, etc. is pretty much the same as all other scholars quoted who support those dates. And of course, Thiselton states that Gallio did not complete his term in office according to Seneca because Seneca said that Gallio left Corinth in a hurry and took ship at once. But he is not the only one who interprets the departure of Gallio from Corinth as an early end to his term in office. As you well know many scholars indicate that, and use that as a method for narrowing the date range for his presence in Corinth. Both Birge and Thiselton say the same things by and large about the early departure of Gallio from Corinth as the other scholars who support the years 51-52 mentioned in that section, and those are the dates supported by the majority of scholars as you well know. And of course there is some type of minor error in the box in Cosby's book and he should have said older brother instead of younger brother, but that does not change his overall analysis which coincides with what the other scholars state as well. That minor issue does not invalidate his entire book, given that his statements about the dates are consistent with what other scholars who support the majority view of the years 51-52 state, as discussed in that section. His overall views are pretty much the same as all the scholars using that approach, including Murphy-O'Conner, Reisner, etc.

But again, this is really getting into endless details of a specific article on a guideline talk page. And again if your reference to my need for vitamins is that "you intend to debate for ever" rest assured that I will not be participating in endless circular debate here. The key points have already been made, other users have expressed their opinions, and most items seem to have been clarified.

It is time to stop. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You have yet again evaded some specific questions. Birge specifically says Seneca stated something that he certainly did not. Is Birge's claim that Seneca stated when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome? This has nothing to do with Birge's interpretation. It is falsely claiming something to be a fact that is not. Maybe Birge was distracted, but please acknowledge this false claim. Thiselton makes a similar false claim putting words into Seneca's mouth that Seneca did not say, ie Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office. Please acknowledge this false claim. And thank you for acknowledging Cosby's error. We apparently have three authors who have made false statements. One cannot quite claim that Murphy-O'Connor's claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac is false. It is, however, not based on any tangible evidence. The fact is that both Gallio and Seneca have been flagged as consumptive. That is certainly contrary to Murphy-O'Connor's foundationless claim of hypochondria. Evans makes a false claim about Pliny saying that on drinking water Gallio becoming sick from doing so. That's four confirmable errors and an unfalsifiable and baseless conjecture all concerning Gallio by these scholars of biblical studies. "Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?" No. They are demonstrably not reliable. -- spin^control 13:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do no agree, I did not avoid the issues, but see no point in responding further here given that this is turning into a marathon of words. I have said what I have to say. Leave it at that. Enough is enough. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You shifted from what Birge claimed Seneca said to a discussion of what Birge said, ie her interpretation. We aren't interested here in her interpretation. We are interested in her reliability when she makes the false claim about what Seneca said. You did the same with Thiselton, shifting from the false claim about what Seneca said to Thiselton's interpretation. We are attempting to identify reliable sources, not discussing their interpretations. These writers, having demonstrated their untrustworthiness, should be removed from discussing Gallio, in whose context they all erred, Birge, Cosby, Thiselton and Evans. Murphy-O'Connor's blunder is of a slightly different nature. Unfounded, but not in itself able to be checked. He has succeeded in talking through his hat, but we can't quite say that he is false, by a technicality: it's unfalsifiable, thus functionally meaningless. -- spin^control 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If a scholars you do not agree with is labelled as "talking through his hat" whatever I say will be labelled as such. No need for me to respond on this. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a typical debating tactic to turn an opponent's specific statement into a generic one then repudiate it as an inappropriate generalization. There is no logic to it, but it can be rhetorically successful. There is no need for you to respond because once again you don't deal with the specific issue but resort to misrepresentation. Enough said. -- spin^control 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

When there is not a conflict, editors will try to look for other sources and tend to enter two more factors into the equation:

• expertise of the source with respect to the item which cited it
• objectivity of the source with respect to the item which cited it

And decide which source(s) to leave out. When there IS a conflict, the weaknesses in our policies (notably the lack of the above two metrics, and the unworkable and unusable "preponderance in sources" (non)"soluton" in wp:npov) cause the above process to break down / get excluded. And then you have the endless grief shown above and at every contested article. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the majority and minority views have been accepted by both sides. The question is that he thinks 3 out of 10-15 sources (I do not even remember how many there are now) that cite the majority view have stated things that are wrong in his view. But in the end that will make no difference given that he had accepted the majority view before. This is a pointless debate now given that the majority view has been directly accepted in this post Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_34#On_WP:DUE about two weeks ago and is present in the article. This issue will make no difference the overall picture presented by the article. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You've admitted one error of fact. I'm waiting on three others. I haven't looked at any of the rest other than Murphy-O'Connor. It's proving difficult for you to admit those already indicated as factual errors. -- spin^control 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can wait if you like. I do not agree as stated in detail in the responses above. End of story. I do not need to retype what I have stated above. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who'da guessed that you would eventually beat a retreat on the issue of reliability of sources you use? Perhaps then independent editors might find the opportunity to comment on what we should do with sources that contain factual errors, when an editor wants to depend on opinions from such sources as Birge, Thiselton, Cosby and Evans. -- spin^control 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made no retreat whatsoever. I am just tired of the circular nature of his discussion, given that you label scholars as speculators who 'talk through their hat'. You may apply the same label to my comments. I have stated my views above. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is called "covering smoke" for the retreat. You refused to answer the specific questions because answering them had fairly obvious results. You would need to question the reliability of your own sources. -- spin^control 01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is lost why the alleged "errors of fact" matter? Even were there error of fact, it does not in general exclude the entire source. Moreover, the demonstration of "factual error" must almost always be identified as just so, in another RS, otherwise the presentation must be 'source X says A but source Z says B.' And this only after the fact is deemed relevant, so you could agree not to add it at all, and avoid the discussion altogether. For matters of opinion, they are usually in text ascribed to RS, unless the opinion is almost universal in RS then just cite will do. RS Minority and Majority, also need to be ascribed and cited just so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If a writer cannot report facts reliably, how can we use the opinions (supposedly based on facts) they give? (See WP:Reliable sources/Flaws esp. "Issues to look out for". -- spin^control 14:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The item you link to is an inactive essay and has no use as policy. Now, again, as stated above, the majority/minority views have been directly accepted in this post about two weeks ago and are present in the article. And the claimed factual errors are claimed based on "editor opinion" here, and are really peripheral to the entire discussion as Alan observed. And note that Alan's comment on the issue coincides with what Pseudo-Richard said on the project page. They are both right. History2007 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time stop misrepresenting reality. If you refuse to look at the exact errors then of course you will misrepresent them and waste everyone's time talking past issues rather than to them. These are not "claimed" errors, nor are they based on "editor opinion". Birge says that Seneca said something that he did not say. Thiselton does the same. Evans makes a similar false claim about what Pliny was supposed to have said. Three simply verifiable false claims of scholars. So once again:

• Does Birge wrongly claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome?
• Does Thiselton wrongly claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office?
• Does Evans wrongly claim that Pliny (NH 31.33) said that Gallio drank waters that made him ill? (See the beginning of this discussion here for details.)

If it is clear that the error you are checking is about what the secondary sources falsely claim the primary sources said, then we might get back to reality. Interpretations and opinions are not at issue here, but errors of fact and their implications. -- spin^control 14:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As above, no further comment on this, given the circular situation. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, stop making false claims that you refuse to investigate. This issue is the problem of interrogating sources which prove to be factually unreliable. -- spin^control 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, please respect WP:AGF. I have made no false claims whatsoever. I will stop for a good stretch of time now, given the circular nature of this. I would only be retyping what I had typed above. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your false claim was "the claimed factual errors are claimed based on 'editor opinion' here". Either the primary sources said what is claimed or they didn't. There is no editor opinion needed here. Your claim is patently false and ducking the questions just stimulates the perpetuation of the false claim. -- spin^control 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Either the primary sources said what is claimed or they didn't." We don't deal in truth. We don't evaluate people's quality as classicists or biblical interpreters by close text analysis of their products. We wait for scholars to do that and tear them a new arsehole in public for bad research methodology or tenuous interpretive leaps. Scholars have the freedom to be incorrect in our system, and the person to go to to see if they've been criticised for their claims is another scholar. (Generally people only make bullshit claims in bullshit publishers btw). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree we don't deal in truth per se, but we do deal in reliability. We even have an only partially implied scale of reliability. We don't have a generic category of experts, but a notion of experts in a field of study. Biblical scholars are not experts in the field of Roman history. Another indicator we use is whether the material has been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals or not. Another is the use of sources: if material doesn't provide footnotes for claims in a discussion they may be less reliable. If a writer makes factual errors they are less reliable. Reliability is not assumed, but interrogated. (And yes, depending on the field, writers or their research assistants do make bullshit claims in non-bullshit publications, including areas outside the writer's field of expertise.) -- spin^control 01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"If a writer cannot report facts reliably, how can we use the opinions" Because, it is possible they are right for the wrong reasons (or facts). Many times in scholarly debate you see agreement on opinion, even where there is disagreement on fact. It goes something like this: " In his Magnum Opus, Professor X said Y based on Z, subsequent research shows that Z is incorrect, nonetheless, Professor X's conclusion is correct because of . . . etc.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that they are right, but they are not reliable sources. You cannot rely on the off chance that they might be right. That subverts the notion of a reliable source. -- spin^control 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No. We can rely on what published experts have published; what we cannot rely on is what unpublished people say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good to see a nice piece of logic applied to policy. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we rely on peer reviewed materials before anything else. We rely on experts in the particular field of study before anyone else. An editor is responsible for interrogating sources to see if they are reliable. If you don't do that, then you are not doing your job fully. Not all published sources are equal. In Roman history one trusts classicists working in scholarly contexts. Anyone else has to demonstrate reliability. Peer reviewed articles in scholarly journals demonstrate reliability. Unfootnoted sources don't. Writers who make factual errors don't. -- spin^control 15:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, as both WhatamIdoing and Fifelfoo told you in the above, you can not at will exalt classicists over others. As Andrew Dalby told you elsewhere books by professors in the field are WP:RS. Both Psudo-Richard and Alan have told you the same thing as well on sources. I am sorry, but this is beginning to turn into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part it seems. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And you look, classicists are experts in a field of study. They are not experts in biblical studies, nor are biblical scholars experts in classical issues. Roman history is the competence of classicists, so in the field of Roman history they are "exalted" over others, just as biblical scholars are "exalted" over others regarding biblical interpretation. You don't get a brain surgeon to do your taxes. Your refusal to comprehend the way of scholarship is unexplainable. -- spin^control 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, now do you all have enough guidance to settle whatever needs to be settled for the text of an article, so that this discussion can be closed? And everyone can move on? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally support the closure of this long discussion, given that guidance and perspectives has been provided by a number of users, as you said. The issues have been discussed at length more than once and it is time to move on. Please feel free to just mark the discussion as closed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What consensus has been achieved for my question about what an editor should do when a prospective source is not reliable regarding its facts? History2007 apparently doesn't want the question discussed and refuses to deal with the specific examples of sources with factual errors I have used here. -- spin^control 16:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard and Alan advised on sources and effectively said the same thing. Please read those comments. Regarding the rest please see the others above about classisists etc. The discussion with you here is over for me. If you want to discuss with others here do. But I will not prolong it. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard didn't comment here. Alanscottwalker didn't hazard a way to validate sources as reliable after factual errors. I don't see a consensus here. -- spin^control 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, Pseudo-Richard commented on the project talk page, referred to from here. And there is no need for consensus here, given that it is a "talk page for a guideline" and editors provide guidance and clarification as they see fit. A consensus here would be needed for changing the guideline, not clarifying it for you. Users have clarified things, both here and on the project talk page, and what they say is consistent. This discussion has clearly run its course. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the place where we are talking about identifying reliable sources. You cannot say that the discussion has clearly run its course. You have the ability to stifle discussion by continuing to talk and talk, discouraging others from commenting. I tried a few times to signal a halt in our discussion but you kept pushing forward, so there was no point in you sounding off once you had stifled. And I tried to get you to acknowledge if the statements attributed to primary sources by certain secondary sources were factually correct, but you refused. So now please feel free to go on your way unhindered, but I would like to hear if others want to comment on the identification of reliable sources when sources are not factually reliable. -- spin^control 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said, I have said what I needed to say and advice has been provided. Now I will stop and see if there are other comments. If no one else comments, the discussion will end by itself. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- spin^control 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Alan: if you are discussing the reliability of a specific source for a specific claim in a specific article then go to WP:RS/N or your article talk page, if you are discussing the balance of use of sources (including the balance that includes not using a source) then the place to go is your article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is neither. I asked a question in its title: "What do I do when a cited source is just plain wrong?" The question regards reliability and I gave an example at length to show what I meant by "wrong". This is not a case of "potential inaccuracy" as per WP:Inaccuracy but an "inaccuracy", ie a factual error. In the RS background essay, WP:Reliable sources/Flaws, which talks of evaluating sources and issues to look out for, there are indicators for interrogating sources for reliability, including "Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?". Accuracy is a central concern for reliability.

My question in this thread relates to the accuracy issue. Is a source that is factually unreliable a reliable source for its opinions on the material that it is factually unreliable about? In the thread I've provided examples of factual error, mainly false claims about what primary sources said, related to the article I'm working on. They are examples where you can decide either that the primary source said something the secondary source claimed or it didn't. At the beginning of the discussion I gave the necessary information for one such factual error, as an indicator of the issue. Did Pliny say what was claimed? I'm not interested here though about Pliny, but reliability of a source. WP:Reliable sources/Flaws shows that it is a reliability issue. So what do I do when a cited source shows itself factually unreliable? -- spin^control 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the essays you point to have no application as policy, as stated a few times before. This is really circular now. And I think Alan and Fifelfoo have both correctly informed you of the issues just above. And a similar discussion on WP:RSN here has now expanded with the same material. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is, of course, nothing circular about asking what an editor should do when confronted with sources that contain errors. If a source is factually unreliable, how can it be considered a reliable source for opinions on what it is factually unreliable about? One doesn't expect such errors and misrepresentations in reliable sources. It is the editor's job to vet sources for reliability. The question is not about any specific source, though an example has been provided at the beginning of this discussion to show the sort of thing meant; it is about Wiki practice. -- spin^control 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this misplaced discussion, when you encounter an obvious error, then you either omit the erroneous information (simply don't say that the rowboat was four km long, when you've every reason to believe that it was four m long) or you attribute it, e.g., "JFK said he was a jelly doughnut". I'm not sure that these rise to the level of "obvious" though, since you'd have to read everything ever written by Pliny (or reportedly written by Pliny) to know whether or not Pliny said X. A single sentence doesn't prove that Pliny never made these claims.

And, again, you are not apparently asking for us to change the text of this guideline. The only purpose of this page is to talk about changes to the text of this guideline. We split off discussions about applying this guideline to specific situations years ago. That's why WP:RSN exists, and that's where you should take this kind of question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, right. And this issue has already been posted on WP:RSN. History2007 (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I tried to make it clear that I was not interested in the errors per se, but what they indicate. This is what I've asked a few times now:

"If a source is factually unreliable, how can it be considered a reliable source for opinions on what it is factually unreliable about?"

This is a question about the reliability of sources, not about removing errors. Any comments? -- spin^control 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The general and somewhat obvious answer is "you don't". However this sort of self reference you describe doesn't practically not exist to begin with. As far as your (general) original question is concerned, just don't cite it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Spin, I answered your question, but let me spell it out for you:

JFK was factually unreliable when he claimed that he was a jelly doughnut. So you don't say "JFK is a jelly doughnut"; you say "JFK said that he is a jelly doughnut." You may, and we frequently do, cite a source for their opinion on a subject even when you personally know that their opinion is completely, totally, without any doubt, wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your example seems to be stuck at the factually unreliable premise of my question. However, it is not the erroneous facts that are the issue (and they are not usually what has made it into the article I'm working on). Factual unreliability is an index for general reliability of a source. Sources are often cited for their opinions, but what value are those opinions when the writers cannot get the facts straight?

In the specific case I mention five writers, each of whom are giving opinions about a historical figure called Gallio, each trying to sell an opinion that Gallio abandoned his post, one not knowing that Gallio was Seneca's older brother, two confused about Gallio's illness and two misrepresenting a primary source on the matter. Not one of them is operating within their own competence, all being biblical scholars, while the issue is Roman history, ie a Roman official's activities based on Roman sources. I've dealt with each earlier in this discussion, though the fullest treatment of these five can be found here. Can people who make such errors on a subject be held as reliable for their opinions on the subject? It's not the factual error, but that the error maker is treated as reliable to opine. You get a bunch giving the same speculation and you want to give it credibility because of the numbers, yet are we doing our job to provide reliable information? -- spin^control 02:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this really so difficult? Ask yourself: "Why would we ever want to cite JFK's opinion about himself? After all, he once said that he was a jelly doughnut, and that's a factually inaccurate claim about himself."

Or: yes, people who make occasional mistakes on subject X can be used as reliable sources for their opinions about subject X. See, e.g., every article that cites any political pundit or politician, every article that cites any manufacturer of homeopathic, herbal, or alternative cancer remedies, every article that cites any proponent of any weight-loss diet, etc. Any source who writes enough is going to publish a handful of factual errors. Being human does not make the source unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know why you are wedded to this JFK analogy. We are not dealing with someone talking about themselves. JFK would be a primary source, but we are dealing with secondary use of primary sources. You would have: Bilk states that JFK said of himself that he was a jelly donut. If JFK did say of himself that he was a jelly donut, then we don't have a problem. However if JFK didn't say such a thing then we have a problem with Bilk.

We are not dealing with anything as fluid as contemporary history, but a topic contained in the few works of ancient writers or literally written in stone. You can find all ancient literary references to Gallio in the Prosopographia Imperii Romani: Saec. I. II. III, Part 2 §494. This is a situation unlike any of your other analogies. We are dealing with secondary sources misrepresenting the evidence or just plain blundering. And I've checked five such sources, all operating outside their competence, that are in their individual ways factually unreliable about the same topic. -- spin|^control 03:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And as to this: "I'm not sure that these rise to the level of "obvious" though, since you'd have to read everything ever written by Pliny (or reportedly written by Pliny) to know whether or not Pliny said X." The exact source for the Pliny the Elder reference was stated in the secondary source. (Besides, you can do a text search on all of Pliny's writings for "Gallio", if you don't trust the secondary source. The several Loeb electronic volumes might take a few minutes.) If you read the primary source, which I supplied, you are eminently capable of deciding whether Pliny said what was claimed or not. The same applies to the reference in Seneca's letter 104.1, which I also quoted. You can see exactly what Seneca said. This is purely a matter of false attribution. One can see neither Pliny nor Seneca said what was claimed of them. -- spin^control 03:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You have assumed that the cited source is the only source consulted by this author. I have not. For all I know, he ought to have cited a second source, or he ought to have said that he took this material from an intermediary source (and thus cited "Alice Expert, who said that Pliny said..."). But it's immaterial: the fact that you found one (1) factual error in this source does not make the entire source unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I accept half of this. Not your assumption about me assuming anything, nor your final non sequitur, but the secondary source didn't get the information from where he claimed and if he got it somewhere else he doesn't say where, though he specifically attributes the material to Pliny, citing only NH 31.33. Both demonstrate the unreliability of the writer, who is operating outside his competence. -- spin|^control 02:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for you to accept the other half too, for the explanation provided was both logical, and based on a thorough understanding of Wikipedia procedures. History2007 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to consider that you are just trying to justify unreliable sources. Remember the rubbish about storms on the Mediterranean?? Sailing out of Corinth west, you never touch the Mediterranean, but sail through the safe waters of the Gulf of Corinth, up the coast past Corfu to Aulon and across the Adriatic (then take the Via Appia to Rome). Paul, of course, not sailing from Corinth, went via the dangerous Cape Malea. You've been peddling incompetence. -- spin|^control 04:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, WhatamIdoing's analysis was both logical and well informed. Your personal views of sailing (which have just been introduced here for the first time) have no relevance to policy or this discussion. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You can say whatever you like, but neither dealt with the issue. And you can pretend to talk about my personal views of sailing, but you're selling nonsense. When Agrippina the Elder returned with the ashes of Germanicus, landing in Corcyra off the west coast of Greece in winter she paused for a few days and according to Anthony Barrett (Caligula London: Batsford, 1989, p.16) she did so "presumably to ensure that news of her imminent arrival would precede her to Italy and ensure a lively reception." How would the news precede her? Carrier pigeons? If Gallio had wanted to cross the Adriatic badly enough, there would be no stopping such a high official. -- spin|^control 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The introduction of yet new personal views on sailing and ashes of Germanicus are really off topic for a talk page about a guideline. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your refusal to face simple evidence that your sources are blowing smoke and the desire to cover up those problematic sources. -- spin|^control 15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, as stated before, I asked on WP:RSN and was told that the group of scholarly sources used are reliable for the statements on the topic. And the newly introduced discussion on the ashes of Germanicus is WP:OR by you to reason about the subject and ask "how else". Whose ashes will we hear about next? The ashes of the guideline? This is circular now. History2007 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You misrepresented the topic on WP:RSN, just as you are misrepresenting another one by talking about the ashes of Germanicus as they were somehow central to any discussion. The weather on the Mediterranean is just apologetic nonsense. -- spin|^control 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid breaching WP:AGF in every post. You typed/copied your long dissertation on the topic on WP:RSN as well, everyone could clearly see it, and no one agreed with you. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're still confusing misrepresentation with bad faith. -- spin|^control 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No scholar is perfect. If scholars agreed, there would be no need for scholarship. History and biblical criticism are fields which rely on interpretation, and where the controversies normally are about apparently incompatible sources. The NT is a document of many uses, but as a document produced in time in is of relevance for the history of the period, and the history of the period is relevant to the understanding of it. Historians use whatever information they can find, and have the specific professional skill of dealing with erroneous sources. Obviously, when there is contradiction and error there is unlikely to be definitive conclusions. Biblical scholarship deals with a document with many parts which have proven difficult to understand for various reasons, including our lack of knowledge of the world that the authors assumed, and their unstated and and stated divergent motivations. It is different from theology, in that it relies to a good part on literary and historical evidence. Classicists dealing with the history of the Roman entire could hardly avoid having considerable knowledge of Christianity and skill in the use of Christian documents, and those biblicists dealing with the NT must necessarily know about the general history of their period in the region. The manners of interpretation are not identical, but have certain similarities, and both in the modern period and earlier, they are considerably affected by each others' methods. (In textual criticism, the Bible is the most studied of all texts, but the development of the field relied to a large part on the methods developed for use on secular texts where the study was freer from the constraints of dogma. In the current phrase, they inform each other.

For the purposes of WP, we too use what evidence we have, and recognize its limits. The place for the learned discussion above is on the talk p,; the place for a short summary of the evidence from all sources is in the article DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the NT and Christian documents? Because I mentioned that the writers were outside their competence? You are just making excuses for why several writers each made gaffs on the same narrow subject. -- spin|^control 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: User:DGG is a very experienced Wikipedian (close to 100K edits) who is known to be both knowledgeable and impartial. He has no stake in this debate and is not "making excuses" - he does not have to. You came to this page "looking for advice". Multiple other users (e.g. Alan and WhatamIdoing) have provided you with informed advice - and by and large told you similar things. This was also on WP:RSN for 10 days and was then archived. But you do not seem to like the advice you have received. When you ask for advice accept it - not fight it. It will be advice, not necessarily a confirmation of your existing views. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? You're giving me advice? The subject is not about the errors per se, as I have attempted to make clear, but about what they say to the reliability of the sources giving opinions on what they make their errors about. Five writers make mistakes about the same issue. That's certainly collective reliability. Not. Your position is to protect the error-makers who you were responsible for using in the article. -- spin|^control 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Other users have given you advice here. Presumably, your purpose for posing a question here in the first place was to obtain advice from other users who would be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My advice to you is to listen to them and respect their advice. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My advice to you is to clean up your own house and stop using unreliable sources. Then I wouldn't need to try to clarify the issue for you. -- spin|^control 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The place to ask about the reliability of those sources (the 5 professors you call "error makers") was/is WP:RSN, as you have been told. I did ask there (as you saw) and I was told (discussion was archived a few days ago) that the sources are reliable for the statements on the topic. History2007 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We are running two different discussions at the same time and you are participating in both when it suits. You did not represent the use of that material at WP:RSN clearly, labeling the specific context as Acts, which is just plain not true. You were using them for another purpose, ie regarding the health of Gallio and the sources were Roman. A bad survey won't reflect reality. -- spin|^control 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid breaching WP:AGF in every post. You typed/copied your long dissertation on the topic on WP:RSN as well, everyone could clearly see it, there was a link to here on WP:RSN and no one agreed with you. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this line of false accusation. You can misrepresent something in good faith. False accusations can be in good faith as well. I have no problem with your faith. -- spin|^control 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I find myself ensnared in a slinging match with History2007. For that you all have my apologies. The obvious conclusion to me is that sources that are factually not reliable are not reliable sources for opinions on what they are factually unreliable about. What do we do? I'm inclined to believe Kmhkmh, who said, "just don't cite it." But I have a stake in this as well. -- spin|^control 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No slinging match really. You asked and received responses. As for Kmhkmh's advice, that was not necessarily that you should throw the baby out with the bath water (as other users have clearly told you). The answers provided to you by several users were clear. And again, this was discussed at WP:RSN which was the correct location for it and you did present your detailed statements on WP:RSN as well. This is getting circular. You have been given answers, and still asking "what do I do?" I now suggest that this discussion should close to save several years from everyone's life. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, you can't even accept the fact that you have been engaging in a slinging match. Just look up. -- spin|^control 17:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been a multi-party discussion, questions were asked by you, advice was provided by multiple users, and there was a post on WP:RSN that pointed to this. End of story, really. I am getting tired of this, and my guess is that everyone else has too. It is time to respect the advice that was provided, and move on. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tired? Try vitamins! But what can I offer for your persistent misrepresentations? -- spin|^control 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not physically tired, just tired of reading the same set of sentences. I have made no misrepresentations whatsoever. Zero. You are just spinning your wheels repeating that one. As for a remedy.... Silence is Golden... Time to accept the advice you have been given by other users and move on. History2007 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1. You misrepresented the topic in which you used the texts that you asked about at WP:RSN, claiming that the topic was Acts 18:1-18, when in fact they all related to the health of Gallio.
2. You misrepresented the basic complaint I made here.
3. You misrepresented the problem I raised to you about the irrelevant comments on storms in winter on the Mediterranean.
4. You misrepresented my complaint against three of the writers, who put words into Seneca's and Pliny's mouths.

But this is not unusual. You misrepresented what Schnelle said, turning "possible" into "likely". You misrepresented Bruce turning a "perhaps" into a "likely". You've frequently misrepresented my views on the talk page of Suetonius on Christians. You even misrepresent the fact that you've misrepresented things. "Zero", you said. A misrepresentation. Your own advice is worth following here: silence is golden. The less you say, the less you are likely to misrepresent. And I assume that you do so in good faith. -- spin|^control 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made no misrepresentations, whatsoever. Zero. Your mantra is wearing out here. Per WP:TPG you are getting totally off topic on this "guideline talk page", and need to stop now. This talk page is for improving the guideline, not declarations of self-omniscience on how multiple professors are "error makers" (same claimed error by the way!), due to their ignorance and the need for them to be corrected by you, based on your superior knowledge of the currents of European waters, or the status of the ashes of Germanicus, etc. Please stop using the talk page for the guideline for off topic issues. I suggest that this very long and off topic discussion should close now before we all die of old age. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You will believe what you want. The more I talk with you the more off topic you take the conversation, allowing you to come back claiming that we are off topic! The basic issue here involves the errors, two of which you have acknowledged, that point to unreliability of the sources. That is the only issue here. Unreliable sources which you won't vet. -- spin|^control 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen only one very minor error in one book about older/younger brother which does not in any way affect the statement used in the source - the statement being the "acknowledged majority view" about the years 51-52. The other error you claim is open to debate yet, and again does not affect the acknowledged majority view which is what the source was used for. So by and large, total nitpicking given that many other sources state the 51-52 majority view date. And as other users have told you, you can not throw the sources by professors out with the bath water based on your own analysis. Yet the underlying theme here is your view that "you know better" than what the professors state in books by highly respected publishers given your knowledge of currents, etc. Anyway, unless someone else has something to add, I will not respond further for I see this as a cyclic discussion now. You asked a question, you received advice, and it is time to respect the advice and move on. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You also admitted the error which started this discussion from Evans about drinking water made Gallio ill. I won't be drawn into your attempts at censorship or defense of errors. -- spin|^control 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that this be closed? North8000 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as an uninvolved party, you can just close it. It is totally cyclic and off topic now and can continue for 12 years, unless closed. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Quæstio

Is Encyclopæedia Britannica a reliable source for Wikipedia? ★ Nacho ★ (Contact me) ★ 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See the /FAQ. No source is always reliable for everything, and no source is always unreliable for everything. You need to consider exactly what sentence(s) you're trying to support. EB will be reliable for supporting some sentences and unreliable for supporting others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider also the age of the material. Material in the older editions of the EB represent the state of knowledge at the time, as expressed through the sometimes unconscious biases and prejudices of the time. Normally historical facts there are still valid, but century old opinion , even over historical facts, is likely to be of importance only in showing the development of knowledge. And, almost always, even for ancient history, there is newer information. A lot has been uncovered since 1907 or 1913. The current editions also give more interpretation they we would , but they do represent mainstream interpretation, though not definitive, and not preferred over more specialized sources. Just like WP, they're a good starting point. And they are presumably a little more reliable in some ways, being edited and prepared by experts. They make mistakes, but different ones than we are likely to do--mainly outdated information from not being revised frequently. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) .

Is this a RS? It is used in over 50 articles

I am currently online searching for an album review of an article I am working on. I came across this review and wanted to know if it is a reliable source, I then search to see if there are other articles who used this website as a source and found over 50 articles that have. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks will do. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says,"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". What does reliable source mean in this context? Sources that would not be considered reliable for facts, may be reliable sources for the opinions of their authors. TFD (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability means the same thing that it always does. Importantly, it means that a source is reliable (or not) for a given statement, not as a general quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your formulation seems to be, of course, correct; namely, that whether a source is considered reliable or not depends on what the assertion is that the source is being used to establish the truth of. However, I find that the RS stick is wielded far more broadly than that formulation indicates. Some editors take the guidance -written on the article page- that IMDb is not a Reliable Source to mean that none of the information on the IMDb site can reasonably be used to support any assertion about anything. This seems to me to be an indiscriminate waste of a valuable and online pool of accurate data about films. The talk page of hydraulic fracturing contains examples the divergent opinions on how the RS guide should be applied, as regards IMDb. Another site, YouTube, is similarly not allowed to be used, although the wiki article on YouTube DOES contain a reference to a YouTube video, and quite properly. Would it be proper to add your text to the text of RS, or how would that be done formally?( Martin | talk • contribs 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Possibly I am reacting to the reversions that I am experiencing rather than the written policy of RS, but whatever my frustration at the moment, I do feel that IMDb is good for the non user-generated data that it contains, and that aspect of the RS policy should be altered or clarified. The suggestion to "just cite the film" is less advantageous, because some "films" that are cited (eg FrackNation) do not even exist, yet are referred to as though they do. Allowing the use of IMDb would help to alert one to that fact - that the film is not generally available for viewing. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Well, as a place to start in the discussions you mention, you might consider the relevant item in the /FAQ about whether it is possible for a source to be "always unreliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)