This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Classical CD liner notes

Hi

I'm interested in expanding the article on the conductor Jascha Horenstein as my first foray into a non-trivial addition to Wikipedia. Would liner notes from CDs in the BBC Legends series be considered reliable sources ? They are often written by people who knew the subjects of the CDs, for example Joel Lazar, who was Horenstein's assistant in the last years of his life. On a related note, I'd like to add examples of different schools of critical thought regarding his Mahler recordings. Would quotes from a website such as http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index be appropriate ?

Thanks

MuppetLabTech (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I see some of the other notes are written by people such as Jeremy Siepmann and Graham Melville-Mason. I'd say they are impeccable as sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). Can someone confirm that for the above usage books[1][2] and recorded sayings by Prabhupada will act as a WP:RS reliable sources for the related topics to the views of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. (for example ISBN 0912776668 ISBN 0892132647) I appreciate you comments and views from other editors and the admin. Wikidās ॐ 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would see those as RS for articles on related topics; in the same way that books published by the Catholic Church can be used as RS for topics related to Catholicism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed by some of the admin? Wikidās ॐ 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends. Religious documents are often primary sources. If e.g. the Bible had one obvious meaning, we wouldn't have had the persecution of the Cathars, no Thirty Years War, no Auto-Da-Fe, no Spanish Armada (or at least one under different pretext), no Mormons (or a much larger group ;-), and probably not even Roe vs. Wade. Secondary sources published by a religious organization can be reliable sources about this organization's public position. But selective quotes can be misleading - try to justify the Crusades with the Sermon on the Mount ;-). Also note that the Catholic Church does not speak for Christianity, and that e.g. Scientology has dissembling about the "truth" as a religious tenet, as mundanes are considered to be not ready for the truths. I would be very careful about proper attribution here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: And please note that admins have no special role in questions of content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does one see if one publication is RS and the other is not RS, as the case be is with secondary sources or commentaries on primary that are the basis of a certain religion? Thanks - clarity will be very much appreciated. Wikidās ॐ 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own religious mysteries. I'd say the appropriate chapters and verses are WP:Bold and if another editor objects WP:AGF. Smallbones (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This questions has come up a number of times on this board, on WT:RS, WT:V etc, and I think there is a general consensus on the use of religious sources, and I'll try to summarize my understanding of it. There are basically two types of religious sources:

1. Primary religious works, such as the Bible, Koran, Vedas etc. These should never be used alone to support a statement of fact or, particularly, analysis. However if a secondary source makes reference to a specific passage in these texts, it is fine (and perhaps even a good idea) to add an additional reference to the exact text. Even then, one should take care of the translation and edition that one picks for the primary religious sources. Certain religious texts have significantly different redactions, translations, attached commentaries or are of unknown provenance; in such cases even greater care is required in quoting them.
2. Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers such as some Baptist pastor (Daniel Taylor), Shia Ayatullah (Muhammad Hussain Najafi), or ISKCON author (Bhakti Tirtha Swami). These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed, and the sectarian authors views on what Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in general are not stated as facts (such as, "Christians believe that grace is the only path to salvation"). Finally, academic writings (by neutral scholars) that summarize or analyze such leaders' view should be preferred, whenever they are available.

Of course, particular applications of these "guidelines" may require discussion on the article talk page. Any comments on the summary and my understanding are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare hits the nail on the head. This is a fairly accurate description of good practice on-wiki regarding these matters. A red flag for religion articles is heavy reference to and/or quoting of primary religious texts, especially when dealing with a particular sect of a religion. His second point is equally valid. It's very important to note when views presented are those of a particular leader within the faith or of the organization itself. It's very good practice to rely heavily on reputable academic descriptions and analysis of sects and faiths. Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources tend to have big problems in seeing their own religious beliefs, practices, rituals, texts in contexts. For example, often they do not know the basiscs, let alone mention, that their religous movement was an off shoot or influence by another organization decades ago. Andries (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the uncritical use of religious souorces to desribe beliegs and practicies tend to yield very bad articles. For an example see Word of faith. Uncritical self-descriptions should have no place in this or any encyclopedia. Andries (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Abecedare's first point 101%.Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Abecedare on this one - I share that view. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse

Hi. I'm having a bit of a dispute with an editor, and would like some advice about a source, as I'd really like to keep things civil. The source is Saylor, Jane. "The Road You've Traveled", AuthorHouse, 2006. I think both of us have agreed that it is not a reliable secondary source, as it is self-published. The dispute revolves around whether or not it is a primary source in regard to whether or not AuthorHouse should be described as a vanity press. The other editor argues that the book is published by AuthorHouse, and is therefore a primary source on this issue. My argument is that it would be a primary source in regard to "claims made by Jane Saylor", but not as it is being used. Currently the sentence reads "AuthorHouse, formerly known as 1stBooks, is a vanity press that provides print on demand services". Any help to clarify this either way would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse has published a book, "The Road You've Traveled," which states on page 63 that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Since this information is coming from the publisher itself, this qualifies as a primary source for the fact that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that above, I thought, but perhaps not clearly enough. I guess I have two concerns. The first is that just because it was published through AuthorHouse does not mean that it is a primary source for AuthorHouse. AuthorHouse do not hold themselves responsible for the content of works published through them, and do not edit the books - a point that has been main elsewhere in regard to this type of publisher, very often by you. Second, even if it is a primary source, it is still not a reliable source, and cannot be used to support the line as it stands. I can reasonably see "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", or maybe even "An author published through AuthorHouse has described them as a vanity press". If it was accepted as a primary source I could even see "AuthorHouse have described themselves as a vanity press" (but for that we would have to consider the times when AuthorHouse stated that they are not a vanity press), but not "AuthorHouse is a vanity press". Either way, I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A book published by AuthorHouse is not generally a reliable source. But it is an acceptable source for statements about the publisher itself, in the same way that the website of a political advocacy group is an acceptable source for statements about the stance of the group. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet a website by a political advocacy group is written by the political advocacy group, and therefore can be said to be represent their views. A book that a publisher prints is not written by them and does not necessarily represent their views, especially when that publisher does not have editorial control. Perhaps a better comparison would be with a forum, where the comments made by users do not represent the views of the owners, even if though the owners are providing them with the means to speak? - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/

Having edit warred about this for too long, I'm belatedly asking for an opinion on whether this counts as a WP:RS for Theodor Landscheidt. I assert that http://bourabai.narod.ru/ is clearly one bods personal webpage, dressed up as his personal institution. User:I Write Stuff contends that because the FAO has used text by the sites owner [3] (on the entirely unrelated subject of forest fires in Kazakhstan), therefore the site itself is reliable, apparently on any subject it covers, and in particular on the subject of Landscheidt. Your views are sought William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why I have to repeatedly correct you, however it is the institutes page, Bourabai Research Institute. They are located in Kazakhstan, perhaps which accounts for the bad design, however as pointed out above, the United Nations used a report issued by the research institute. I have asked William to state why its not reliable, it seems he has had a personal issue with Lanscheidt since they are in the same field, and recently filed a failing AfD on the subject. The institute further states they had specific permission from the family of Lanscheidt to publish the information. The subject of their research is a red herring as they have information about scientists in various fields which they feel made significant contributions. I have asked William to show something that would prove the information is false, fabricated, or something other then personal opinion which seems to be gauged in their web design ability, he has either refused, or is unwilling. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the non subdomain page is: [4]. The Narod.Ru page should not be the one pointed to. William has also stated "is likely a reliable source for forest fires; thats what the FAO used him for. But not for L" L being Landscheidt, so apparently we can trust them about stuff, just not about stuff William does not want to see on Wikipedia. The site, which William admits is reliable in some form, states they received the information from Landscheidt's family as well. The information is not particularly gratifying either, just a mention of an award from an institute he is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[this originally posted to the RS talk page; I've moved it here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)]

Basically a "Private research institute", which in Central Asia-speak means that it isn't recognised by the government or the local academy of sciences. In this case, the hobby horse of Karim Khaidarov, so exactly as reliable as he is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, on the very home page they push Aether theory, they disprove the Theory of Relativity (and show that the vacuum speed of light is not constant), they claim that much of Southeast Asia was created during a 2.5 hour cometary bombardment (and, interestingly, apparently little to no continental drift has happened since then - the maps show India snuggly against Asia all the time), they show that Quasars are near and red-shift is an illusion, and so on. Sorry, that is an international collection of kookery. If they conned the FAO into citing a report, good for them and bad for the FAO. They are not a reliable source on anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal opinion on their work does not decide if its RS or not. Its also not appropriate to state they conned the FAO into anything, as you obviously have no proof, however if you do have proof of some perpetuated fraud, please post it here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By posting here, you ask for my personal opinion. And I'll take a bet that almost anybody with even a marginal scientific education who spends five minutes looking at their home page agrees. This is a collection of not even convincingly masked pseudo-science. It's the kook side of talk.origins ca. 1992, with images added. Ted Holden would be proud of it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping more for policy based arguments, not "I don't like what they study", but it has been resolved none-the-less. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found better source, thanks for all who participated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

Is this brief mention in the San Francisco Chronicle sufficient to attach the epithet "left-wing" to the Israel peace organisation Gush Shalom? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a few books sources identifying Gush Shalom as 'left-wing'. But the question is, why does one have to label invariably a movement that is not clearly politically alligned as 'left wing', particularly when 'left' and 'right' wing parties in Israel tend, much as in the US, to share policies that peace activists oppose? It is rather anglocentric to do this. Live on another continent, and you find this far more complex. The Catholic Church in Italy, in political terms, tends to support the right wing in politics. In matters of international politics and issues of war, many of its activists and even political representatives, can be found on what might be called the 'left'. In the dumbdown word this kind of language passes muster. It's hardly good descriptive language for a gloabl encyclopedia Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle is quite reliable. Of course, I fail to see how "left-wing" is in any way necessary in an article about it, which would presumably discuss its views in more detail rather than as a brief caricature; and if a modifier for the times they are mentioned in other articles is required, surely "Israeli peace activists" or "vile traitor peaceniks" or whatever is more appropriate, as that is their defining characteristic? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both former comments. I would point out that :

1. In Israel, left and right doesn't mean anything.

2. on wikipedia, we should avoid writing : this group, who is ..., claims that.

Whatever are the 3 dots, it is completely pov and tends to say something that is not needed.

Personally, when I feel it is important for the reader to understand who claims something, I just put this between brakets : [[ ... ]] assuming the reader is "adult" enough to click to go and read if he likes.

(this being said, I would say Gush Shalom is far-left :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see these type of questions, it always raises a red flag for me. Use the best sources available, look for consensus of sources (or lack thereof), avoid WP:UNDUE, and always use good editorial judgment and look for consensus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wise advice. I think we're all being careful here. There is a great deal of room for improvement in this and related articles. Israeli peace camp is dire by any account, and has been tagged for a long time. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they are cited in the lead as describing themselves as a 'national camp', presumably a calque on a Hebrew term. But 'camp' in the sense being used here in the title, in English, meant primarily 'a body of adherents of a militant doctrine, or theory'. It was common during the cold war, predominantly to describe the left. Perhaps editors should reflect on its appropriateness (to my ear it jars in slightly POVing things) to describe a 'peace movement'. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch There is a dispute between me and Loodog (talk · contribs). The question at the center of this is whether or not random, editor-selected images need sources when they are meant to serve as illustrations of the article topic. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:23, April 28, 2008

The general principle is no, you do not need a source to justify the inclusion of a picture. Of course you need to ensure that you do not create a WP:copyvio and you should also be careful not to introduce bias in your captions. You should use the talk page to try and reach consensus about the criteria on which pictures should be selected. I would say that the article could do with a greater variety of pictures. A Rubens painting would be nice because his work is often cited as an example of changing standards of beauty throughout time. Also, you should really have at least one dark-skinned person. And what about someone who is ageing beautifully - with or without surgery? Itsmejudith (talk)

The problem is that in this particular article, images are automatically statements on what beauty is. Including an image of e.g. Michele Merkin in this article, is for all practial purposes identical to including a statement like "Michele Merkin is beautful". Dorftrottel (complain) 17:15, April 28, 2008

In this case, I would fully expect the relevance of an image to be cited to reliable sources. Michele Merkin may indeed be physically attractive, but an illustration here should be encyclopaedic as well as - er- pretty. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be on safe ground with Marilyn Monroe.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all so far. I think I'm requesting an RfC at the article talk page. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:00, April 28, 2008

dredg references

I am currently attempting to improve the dredg article. As the band is sub-mainstream and only recently gaining media acclaim, I am having trouble finding sources that Wikipedia might consider "reliable". The following are sources that I have used that I would like comment on:

• traversing.net - This is a fan website that, within the dredg fanbase, is regarded as a trustworthy source. I host and administrate the associated message board, so there may be some conflict there, but I have provided none of the information on the page. At least one member of the band visits and posts on the message board.
• Numerous interviews from websites such as absolutepunk.net and thepunksite.com, where the band provides much of their background.

Any input one can provide on where to search for better sources or how to resolve any current problems would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Ars Sycro (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Five word source

Can this source be reliable for squeeeezing out info?

All it gives is five words: "Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" (which isn't even a full sentence), no explanation, no rationale, not even references to published works. While Freedom House is generally a good source, are we obliged to quote it in such cases?

I think the very fact that users have to resort to five word sources shows that this view is not covered by better sources, and thus should not be in wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it supposed to be a reliable source FOR? It seems to be the title of an image that was hosted at Freedom House. If the claim was that "There was an image labeled 'Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia'", perhaps. Otherwise, I wouldn't think it would meet WP:RS. DigitalC (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is to be used to say that there is "religious apartheid in Mecca". I too would agree that this source can be used to describe the webpages of Freedom House (though how notable it is to the organizations reputation I don't know) . But the question is, can this source be used at Mecca to accuse the city of practicing "religious apartheid", when there are no explanations, rationales, references. There isn't even an author, i.e. this is an anonymous composition.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia. This is fully attributed in all articles where the source is used. In that sense, it can be used. And the author is, obviously, Freedom House. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia." No it is being used in the Mecca article. Thus Mecca is being accused. Last I checked "Freedom House" isn't a person. All works are written by a person. This personis called an author.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used in the Mecca article, to state that Freedom House believes that the law forbidding muslims to enter Mecca is apartheid. Freedom House is an organization of many people conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights. Sounds quite reliable to me. Show me the policy that requires a "one person author" for reliability. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Yahel, this is not a WP:RS source. This is just a comment !
Bless sins, you perfectly know there are strict religious laws in SA and that they could be linked to some sort of segregation or apartheid, so, as a wikipedia's editor, you are assumed to look for RS sources and add all relevant informations related to the topic. If you don't bear critics toward Islam, you should avoid editing this topic on wikipedia -> here are dozens of references, you (both) can just try pick up more relevant ones to give a fair picture of the matter, without political agenda.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing credits on Children of Men

An RfC has recently been opened in relation to this topic. Another request regarding the issue of WP:OR has been opened on the OR noticeboard. Please read it if you are interested in the background. This message will be brief as the RfC and noticeboard requests explain most of the problem.

Presently, there is no reliable source available to describe a particular sound effect that appears in the closing credits of Children of Men. In order to help the editor who keeps adding this trivia to the article, I recently devised a solution where we would create a new section, "closing credits", and describe all notable aspects using the {{cite video}} tag to source it, complete with the time the sound effect appears. When i did this, the editor removed the primary source citation, claiming that it wasn't neeeded. This deletion appears to be contrary to WP:V, as the importance of this particular sound effect has been challenged and debated for a year, as the talk archives (and current talk page) show.

The question: can the film be used as a reliable, primary source (a self-reference) to describe a trivial sound effect that appears in the credits, and if so, should the time parameter in the cite video template be used to note its appearance? We can support the trivial sound effect with the film as a primary source using the cite video template, but the editor continues to remove it.

Another problem emerges. The editor who keeps adding the sound effect to the article and removing the reference, has a history of trying to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effect in the credits and the appearance of the closing title credits, claiming in many discussions that it has special meaning and importance. But, there is no reliable source that supports this relationship. To support this relationship, the editor removed all elements in the closing credits section except the sound effect in question (which can only be sourced to the DVD) and the mention of the closing title credit, which has RS, but does not discuss the sound effect in any of those publications. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that a sound effect happens could reasonably be sourced to the video. But everything beyond that is OR, and while a little latitude might be granted in uncontroversial cases, this isn't uncontroversial. Now, I'm not going to pass judgement on an editor without hearing his say, but... have you considered WP:ANI? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

I have never once mentioned your name above, so I have no idea how you could have been "painted" in any light. Every single claim I've made can be substantiated by dozens of diffs, past RfC's, third opinions, discussion by the film project, etc. You have not pointed out how anything I have stated above is "skewed" in any way, and I look forward to your evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Arcayne's pet theory about how the audience draws some kind of conclusion from the sound effects in the credits, belongs to him and him alone. Not a single film critic, author, journalist, or reliable source has commented on this pet theory except Arcayne, and he's been talking about it for a year in the talk page archives, edit warring and trying to push his POV, which is essentially classically-defined as original research. This has been explained to Arcayne by at least a dozen different editors with absolutely no change in his editing behavior. What's even more bizarre, is that he claims to have raised the issue previously on the noticeboard, where he said, we cannot list an observable phenomena...the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation. So, he's arguing the exact opposite of what he argued here before. I think the facts are really clear on this issue. Arcayne has engaged in a repeated pattern of OR and using unreliable sources to support his POV for over a year, including edit warring and gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

This is not true. The trival sound effects have been contested on the talk page for a year, because you've consistently been trying to include them to support your OR. You've never done the slightest bit of research on the article. That is what is required to find reliable sources. Erik found the RS for Shantih for you and you still have not used them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

This is not true. You added the material to the plot section against the consensus of the active editors. Recently, you returned to your old ways and you added it to the themes section. No reliable source could be found to support the inclusion of the sound effects in the theme section. As a compromise in good faith, I moved your material to an "end credits" section (later changed to closing credits). Your disagreement with using a cite video template to show when the sound appears is completely spurious. WP:V is pretty clear on sourcing controversial statements, which is exactly what this is in your own words. You claim that the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout, however there are at least three songs that break those sound effects up, two of which only appear in the credits and are just as important to the closing credits as the sound effects of children laughing. You claim you are not aware of any FA-Class articles that use the cite video template, and that is one of the most absurd argument I've ever heard. The cite video template wasn't even used until 28 July 2005, which is why older FA's might not have it. All you would have to do is visit what links here to see how incredibly silly your statement reads. Many FA-Class articles cite films as primary sources, with or without the cite video template. The FA-Class article Chaco Culture National Historical Park cites the film The Mystery of Chaco Canyon three times, and it was added before the article became FA. FA-Class article Final Fantasy uses the cite video template and it was added to the article years before it passed FA. Same with J. R. R. Tolkien and many other FA-Class articles. So we see that contrary to what you say, the cite video template is used by many FA-Class articles. After having this discussion with you again and again for over a year, I'm getting the strong sense that you just make stuff up without thinking that people will actually take the time to look into what you are saying. How many times have I checked up on you, Arcayne, only to find that you had invented and manufactured claims out of thin air? What's going on here? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

There are no citations "speaking to the plot-worthy weight" of the sound effects of "laughing children", so why is it in the article? The fact is, there are citations in multiple sources discussing the three songs used in the credits and their relationship to the film, even in the current article (for example: Crust, Kevin. "Unconventional soundscape in `Children of Men'", Chicago Tribune, 2007-01-17). These sources discuss the songs you removed: John Lennon, Jarvis Cocker, and John Taverner. So again, we see the opposite of what Arcayne claims to be true. What the heck is "non-notable bloat"? The songs you removed from the credits have been discussed in multiple sources. The "sound of laughing children" has not been mentioned in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example).

The entire section on "closing credits" is trivial. Since I have been following your edits to the article for the last year, I am aware of what you are trying to do. You removed the songs from the closing credits section to bolster your pet theory of some kind of relationship between the sound effects of laughing children and the use of the closing credit that reads, "Shantih". You've discussed your personal beliefs and pet theories at length in at least five separate talk archives. There is no reliable source on the planet that supports your original research. Read what Shoemaker's Holiday wrote. Sound effects can reasonably be sourced to the video, but everything beyond that is OR. And a quick look at the cite video tag shows that multiple FA-Class articles use it, as well as many other citation styles. The songs that you removed can be sourced to critical commentary in multiple reviews, one of which already appears in the article. Your reason for removing them doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given for removing an accepted method of citation are flimsy and it does appear that there is an attempt to push some original research. "I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, ..." is either Clintonesque wording (not aware?) or just an uninformed statement. Many FAs use cite video: just access Template:Cite video, click on what links here, and scan down the list to take your pick: there are quite a few and they aren't hard to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the long list, Sandy. Are you aware that many of those do not use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think its used? Let's take Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. No real cite video template to be found. Odd, that. Not in Batman, either. A few others garnered the same result. Now, I am not saying that cite video is never used, or that it cannot be used to specifically note time-stamps of important events (especially when they would be otherwise hard to find), but I am not going to comb through the 500+ article list to find an FA article that just as likely doesn't use the template in the way being suggested. Perhaps 'Clintonesque' is an unfair characterization of my roundabout asking for examples of when cite video is used; I imagine characterizing your claim that than I "can scan down the the list to take (my) pick: there are quite a few" as McCarthy-esque would be received the same way. Maybe you do me the favor of pointing out a few Featured Articles that use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think is appropriate.

The main point here is that are observable phenomena are exempt from NOR rules; they are from the film itself, much like the plot, which requires no citation whatsoever. The only reason it is exempt is that editorial consensus agrees the shape that the plot summary takes, so as to remove any speculation or incorrect events. When no one disagrees as to the plot summary, then its reasonable to believe that the plot summary is accurate. By the same token, any observable part of the film, from nuts to soup, falls under this same exemption. So long as there is no meaning prescribed to these events without secondary citation, noting the existence of the event is not OR, and is verifiable by anyone who sees the film, which is the primary source. As everyone (even Viriditas) agrees that the laughter and shouting of children does indeed occur in the film, it is not a contentious point.

That Viriditas continually calls the addition of this info my "pet theory", I think it notable that I did not add the info into the article recently - Viriditas did that. I have not in three days, three weeks or three months added any theory as to what the laughter means into the article, and without citation, I am not likely to do so.

The argument of triviality has been raised and is, in my estimation, the only real issue here. Yes, we can note the laughter of children without citation, as it is observed phenomena. Yes, we can note the instance of the 'shantih' phrase, as it has multiple citations speaking to it. What remains is whether these are trivial or not. Personally, I don't think they are, but I have admitted bias in the matter, and Viriditas has made it clear over a year and a half that he feels they interfere with what direction he feels the film article should take. I'd long since settled in to await citation about the meaning of the laughter. I don't intend to add any theory ("pet" or otherwise) about what it means without a solid citation. In fact I haven't in recent memory, which is why the instances being recalled by Viriditas are over a year old.

Honestly, I think the laughter and the shantih are worth noting, as the reader can make up their own minds as to the value of them. I don't think we need to time-stamp pointing to where it occurs, since the section named 'Closing Credits' is the only place it happens, and happens throughout. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments from the NOR noticeboard... stating the blunt statement "the laughter of childred can be heard during the closing credits" is not OR. We can cite the film itself (a reliable primary source) for this fact. However, I really do not understand why this fact needs to be mentioned at all. The reader is left with the question: "Why was this mentioned? Why is it significant?" The problem is that any explanation of the significance would be original research unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source. It would be best to leave this information out until such a source can be provided. As a blunt statement of fact, it really does not add anything to the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR - it's an interpretation of a primary source. If it's true, and significant, some reliable secondary source will have written about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI...some of the proponents are treating the credits section as a "plot section", citing WP:MOSFILMS which says that citations are not needed for general information about the plot. However, to be consistent with WP:V, the films guideline allows for exceptions where citations should be used, especially for ambiguous material. Arcayne has argued for a year that there is a connection between the sound effects of laughing children and the conclusion, but in fact, there is none; on the other hand, there is self-referential evidence (from scene 12 in the film) that the sound effects are used in the credits to remind the audience of the missing sound of children throughout the film. The question becomes, is this important to the viewer? It could or could not be, we really don't know, which is why I have asked for secondary RS. To date, there are none. Arcayne wants to leave it in using the citation-less standard of the films guideline for plots. But this still doesn't override WP:V, as the guideline makes clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any edit I've done within recent memory has added any interpretation (or "connection") of the laughter of children to the outcome of the movie. Sure I did such over a year ago, but who here can say they are the same editor they were a year ago? Lol.

As the question has shifted from whether it can be noted to whether its trivial or not, maybe the RS noticeboard is the wrong place to discuss this matter. Since it is an observational part of the film, it fulfills the same criteria as does the plot, which is kept reliable via consensus. And consensus in this case agrees as to the existence of the laughter. So long as (uncited) interpretation is not added along with the observation, it seems appropriate to present the full picture of the film to the reader. We don't chew the food for them by providing out own interpretation, but we do in fact give them the actual food to chew themselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, Arcayne. The three songs you removed from the credits are supported by a RS. (Crust, Kevin. 2007-01-07. "Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times) The trivial sound effects of "children laughing" that you find so important, are not. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your citation doesn't say the laughter sounds are trivial. but please, feel free to actually post a link that can verify that statement. If they are instead citations about the music, they might be better off in a section about music - which there already is in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. The content you added about "laughing children" is not found or supported by any reliable source. Because it is unsourced trivia that you are using to push a POV about the conclusion of the film (in the words of User:80.192.175.116: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again) we can't use it. If you can find a RS, great, but until then, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what do the words of an anon active since 2006 have to do with this conversation? You keep bringing anonymous users who add the laughter of the children - I am quite sure what you are saying, aside from pointing out that the casual editor has added in observable info. If you are suggesting that the anon is a sock-puppet of mine, could I trouble you to present a SSP or RfCU report to back up that accusation? The anon appears to still be active - you could file one today. I could accept your apology as soon as it's complete. :)

For the nth time, could you point to a recent occurrence within the last year when I have advocated adding an unreferenced evaluation of the children laughing in the article? If not, then might I suggest that you stop introducing it?

In regards to the songs I "removed", you might want to examine the edit a bit closer. They were moved, not removed - to the section called "Music" - which, oddly enough would seem to be the place where the reader would go to find information about the music from the movie. Information about the different themes is found in the section that they fit under, be they hope, religion or other contemporary references - no matter where they appear in the film. Same thing about "Production". We don't move around the bits disruptively to make a point, treating the article like a battleground.

I have provided the burden of proof, despite your misinterpretation of the phrase. I have shown you policy and guidelines, discussions that you began on two noticeboards (here and NOR) clearly indicate how your opinion is in the minority, despite your attempts to mislead them. It is not unsourced trivia - name other movies that have children laughing during the end credits or have the words 'shantih, shantih shantih'. You can't? Guess what, that's notable, not triivial. You are allowed to disagree with that assertion, but consensus has formed. You have already agreed to cite the instance of the laughter using cite video. It is supported by the primary source of the film, and I advocate using cite video to time-stamp it (which is what you did in the first edit before engaging in this distraction).

I would urge you to make an argument that doesn't constitute accusing me of sock-puppetry or using my fourteen month old newbie edits to reinforce your arguments. It has grown rather tendentious. Do not mistake my deference in not filing a complaint for unwillingness to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. A consensus has formed. MovieMadness, MPerel, Blueboar, and others agree that the music can appear in the credits section and that sources are acceptable. In other words, you are not following consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am, and your 'refusal to understand' is growing tedious, Viriditas. The consensus formed (of a great many more than you seemed to have noted - hmm, odd that) noting that the only issue here - I repeat, the only issue - is about whether the laughter of the children should be cited, or does it fulfill the criteria of exception afforded to the plot. I am compromising as to the usage of the cite video template (which I had previously opposed). You might recall that this is the same edit you offered less than a week ago yourself. This compromise does not include placing a musical section in the closing credits. It is cited, and doesn't fall under the aegis of this discussion. It has since been moved to the music section, re-written and citation work was tightened up by yourself. It's fine there. Are you of the misconception that I think the music should be removed? If not, I think we are done here. Go ahead and add the cite video template to the laughter. Nothing else, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Not sure why Viriditas was quoting an anon IP whose comments do not appear in the article, but I guess its immaterial. As mentioned preciously, discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if we wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS, we have to address the following:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.

Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.

Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.

Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia

"Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."

and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."

This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.

It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. That's a wonderful example of wikilawyering and gaming the system. In reality, the "observable phenomena" of what you describe as "children's laughter" is your interpretation of a sound effect. To me, it sounds like children talking and playing on a playground, and it was apparently not significant for any reviewer or critic to make note of it. Please place your interpretations of trivial sound effects aside, and focus on finding reliable sources for your claims. Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. All challenged material. There are no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am exasperated by your behavior, Viriditas. You have asked me to provide policy and guideline reasons why the info should be included, and when I do, you accuse me of wiki-lawyering and gaming the system. I have made all the point I really need to here. Your misinterpreting phrases from those guidelines aside, I feel I am on more solid ground here. You of course are free to disagree. I would suggest that you pursue DR or mediation, as you have yet tointroduce a single shred of policy that refutes mine. In the interest of staying cool, this will likely be my last post on the matter. If you should rebut with an uncivil remark, I will take that as an indication that further administrative action will be necessary, as you will not be wishing to dial down the incivility an personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suite101.com?

I wrote the following, then was told that it included a blacklisted link. Is there any info as to why it was blacklisted?

Would w-w-w.suite101.com be considered a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know their level of scrutiny for the things that are written. (Specifically--someone wants to use http:// preschool-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_caillou_controversy (commented out the link) to illustrate the existence of a controversy re: whether the cartoon character of Caillou is "too whiny".)Gladys J Cortez 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Austria

I know this isn't the proper place, but I can't navigate; The article for Austria has been replaced with the article for Australia, with all instances of the country name being changed. I know nothing about Austria, so I can't fix the article, but it is compromised to a severe degree. Mods, please erase this entry as needed, but please do try to fix the Austria article

It's been fixed. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly Review reliable source on facts or opinions?

• Note I beefed up the Monthly Review article recently myself including 3rd party info and refs and removed POV wording, to make it clear it is an independent (not organizationally tied) Marxist socialist publication with notable contributors.
• User:Zeq wrote: My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Is this generally a distinction one can draw? i.e. OK to cite more political publications like these if just on opinions?
• Would this be considered an "extremist" publication? Ie more so than Frontpage.org or Antiwar.com or Political Research Assoc?

Carol Moore 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nothing about this publication says "extremist". It takes a strong political stance and if it is cited great care should be taken to ensure balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marxist views are extreme, and this is no exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that? Passe perhaps, but Marxism considered "extreme" in this day and age? Try to tell a political economist, a conflict sociologist or a literary critic that Marxism is "extreme." Marxist isn't just some synonym for being a "pinko" you know, Marxist thought has made a pretty substantial impact across the social sciences and the humanities.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article where Jayjg doesn't want me to use it, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist pubs this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers. FYI. Carol Moore 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think its up to Jayjg to do more than just resort to "Marxism is defacto extremist," because that's not necessarily true. Like all such statements this one needs to be substantiated. From what I can see this publication is far from "extreme."PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has quite high academic standards, and an impressive legacy of influential authors who have written there over the years. People like Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Harry Braverman, etc. have made significant impacts on their fields.BernardL (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Monthly Review is an academic journal. The fact that its contributors employ Marxian analytical methods, many of them quite notable thinkers on the left within their field of specialty, is not relevant to its high academic standards. Those who call it "extremist" simply reveal their own political bias, and quite frankly, ignorance on the influence of Marxist thought within the mainstream in this day and age. In many fields its like saying someone who accepts and applies "Einstien's"theories, an extremist. Historical materialism, in its non-crude form, is quite accepted among the mainstream. Nothing extreme about that. Its political views are well within the mainstream of the anti-capitalist left, and come in various schools of thought. In my view those who call this publication "extremists" are in fact the real extremistGiovanni33 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theories weren't political (or politically motivated). That's a particularly weak analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not just political class struggle, its also economics, philosphy, a theory of history, and sociology. Marx's influence is quite wide. To reduce it to one crude dimension is not to fully apreciate the real mainstream influences that are accepted by all reasonable mainstream academics in various disiplines. Therefore to cast Marxism as extremist does it a diservice that no informed person of this day and age would make. By your logical you might as well call all mainstream sociologists, even if they is not of the "conflict school" extremists! Likewise for historians, who can not be considered modern historians without resting on quite a lot of Marxism (historical materialism).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Monthly Review may be small-m marxist, but that doesn't mean that it is "extremist" in terms of academic work. Just another way in which dastardly pinkos continue to close the American mind. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you characterize Marxism? Centrist? Right-wing? Left-wing? Extreme right? Extreme left? I'm voting for extreme left. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with Marxism. Maybe then you'll understand that it is not only some hyperbolic vestige of the extreme political left but also a highly influential orientation in the social sciences and humanities. Marx's theories were not all simply "political" either in the fashion that you are utilizing the term, and this is exactly the problem with your claims. Bring something substantive to the table here to back the idea that Marxism is de facto extremist. It would be much more appreciated than these empty statements.PelleSmith (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. Maybe then you'll understand that is the purpose of this board is to discuss sources, not editors. Now, where on the political spectrum would you place Marxism? Towards the center, or towards the extreme ends? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you call it when someone comes back to a discussion over and over repeating the same empty point without substantiating it? What do you make of the various answers you've gotten above about the very mainstream nature of fundamental Marxist theories within academia? Coming back as if this hasn't been clarified already, and/or as if you're not capable of reading up on the breadth of Marxism outside of the narrow idea of Marxism as a political orientation synonymous with communism, is rather astounding. We're all big kids here, there is no need to invoke WP:CIVIL just because someone isn't dressing their retorts up with sugar and spice and everything nice. The basic point remains a valid one.PelleSmith (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, the fact that you claim someone else is making "empty points" doesn't make it so, and the "various answers" and "clarifications" I have gotten have been, in fact, unsourced claims, nothing more. It's ironic, and rather amusing, that you accuse me of the exact things you are doing yourself, but in any event, Marxist publications have a specific and strong polemical orientation, and Marxism is on the far left of the political spectrum - a point which you rather tellingly fail to acknowledge or address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing extremist about many Marxist contributions. Please see "Ideology," "Historical materialism," and "Political economy" for a start. Also take a look at his foundational work in furthering the concept of socio-economic class. When you are done feel free to take a look at the various different Marxist schools of thought. You may wish to pay particular attention to some rather seminal thinkers listed here like Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre and Louis Althusser. You will also see mention of movements like the Frankfurt school's "critical theory." But the list of social and cultural theorists whose theorizing has been significantly influenced to varying degrees by strands of Marxism is much longer and includes names like Jürgen Habermas, Raymond Williams, and Pierre Bourdieu. The point, Jay, is that seminal ideas from Marxist philosophy are now entirely mainstream in academic disciplines that deal with social and cultural theory (feel free to look up Karl Marx in any current general sociology text book), not to mention even broader cultural arenas (where no one denies the workings of economy in determining class and distributing power--even if the scale of determination is contested). It may be important to note a basic distinction made in the entry Marxism, between "Marxist school of thought," and "Marxism as a political practice. You could have discovered most if not all of this had you simply gone to Marxism to do some good faith reading, as I suggested. Within the political cultures of the United States and Europe, Marxism, as a political practice may be considered as existing on the extreme left end of the political spectrum. Americans equating any Marxist political practice with Communism, will clearly call Marxism "extremist," again as a political practice they know only through our own anti-communist ideologues. These people have no grasp of differentiating between Soviet Era "communism" and various contemporary strands of political Marxism. In Europe, especially on the continent in former "Western" Europe, this isn't even true. While Marxism may occupy the left end of the spectrum it certainly is not considered "extremist," even as a political practice. As a school of thought, influential throughout the academy and to varying degrees other social institutions and cultural spheres, Marxism is not remotely extremist. As a political practice it is at best, in certain contexts, "extreme." Either way, the Monthly review is an academic journal, and it includes writers from across the spectrum of Marxist thought. If the contributers are respected academics in their fields, then their factual statements should be considered just as reliable as any other. By the way, other than the insinuation we may infer about your equation of all Marxist thought with the anti-communist tunnel vision of Western citizens (to varying degrees) you have yet to produce any semblance of a substantiation that Marxism is de facto "extremist." PelleSmith (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you imagine I need to read about these things, as if you are somehow vastly more informed on the subject, and that my reading them will somehow miraculously shift Marxism to the political center. The popularity of Marxism among academics, and your continued protestations regarding Marxism and Marxist thought are all very well, but it hardly changes where one finds Marxist thought on the political spectrum. And, rest assured, it is not in the center - nowhere close, in fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not "popular" amongst academics as a political affiliation (this isn't the 1960's). On the other hand aspects of Marxist thought have been highly influential in the development of social theory, which is what everyone here has been telling you. I very naively imagined that you would want to get up to speed about these things instead of wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary. Please feel free to read all the other commentary here concerning you extremism claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population. And if you are "naively imagining" anything, it is that I need to "get up to speed" on these matters. I do note, however, the irony of you claiming I am "wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary"; a neat bit of psychological projection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you're turning into one of those people whining about how all academics are biased and don't reflect the sturdy, commonsensical view of the American population, and so reliable sources that don't reflect that view are POV, you need to take a step back, perhaps. NPOV doesn't care what the "general population" thinks. It cares what the best sources think, or 80% of our evolution article would be about how its a vicious atheist hoax. You really need to stop beating this horse, which died some time ago. Monthly Review is fine. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, RR, we've talked before about straw man arguments and civility. This board is about sources, not about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, Jay, and it breaks my heart to see you learnt nothing at that time. To recap: if you believe that all academia is biased, blah, blah, blah, this entire discussion ceases to be about sources and becomes about you, as you're the one with the problem, not the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm quite serious. I've made no such claim, your straw man arguments are not mine, and discuss sources, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population." What is that, precisely? Again. NPOV does not reflect what the "general population" feels. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that? A statement of obvious fact, I would think. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, Relata. Jay has always had an idiosyncratic notion of what a strawman argument is; it includes any paraphrase, extrapolation, etc. of his stated position, no matter how warranted, no matter how responsibly and transparently performed, if it's part of an attempt to discredit that position. In other words, just about any attempt to argue with Jay will result in what he calls a "strawman argument," insofar as it will involve, as all intelligent disputes do, reframing your opponent's position in order to reveal its weakness. If Jay were a senator introducing a "tax relief" bill that dramatically reduced government revenue, and you criticized it as "a proposal for increased deficit spending precisely when we can least afford it," Senator Jayjg would call that a strawman argument, because he didn't say "deficit spending," he said "tax relief." Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you.--G-Dett (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How astonishing, G-Dett. You've followed me to a third page. Do you imagine that by claiming I abuse the concept of a straw man argument, you have suddenly become "immunized", and can now present them on my behalf with impunity? Rest assured that is not the case. Jayjg^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've accused someone of breaching policy again instead of addressing any of their points. Astonishing.PelleSmith (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've completely ignored a lengthy personal attack directed at me, and instead complained that I had not addressed "any of their points". Which "point" did you mean, the "Senator Jayjg" point, or the "Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you" point? Astonishing. And in the future please don't modify my comments and break my signature. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, marxist theories are central to much mainstream academic work. There is absolutely no way that well-known, academic, peer-reviewed journals that are known to have marxist theories in their makeup can be ruled out as unreliable; it is a misreading of "extremist". Relata refero (disp.) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that most editors agree with me. I'm a libertarian but I'm still able to differentiate between mainstream/RS and extremist marxist pubs, just like I can do with libertarian ones.

Second question - also does any author published in the publication automatically become a RS? Or more specifically: Allen Ruff described in the article in question as: "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Or do I have to research and find out how many academic degrees he has. Thanks. Carol Moore 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What the answers above point to is that the publication should not be considered extremist, and that it can be a reliable source for facts. This does not mean that anything included therein is a reliable source for any and/or all types of facts. I don't think the author you mention has any degrees of note, and by the looks of his myspace page he's more of a novelist than a "historian." That's not to say he's incapable of writing accurate historical essays or books. Could you tell us what piece from the Monthly Review you want to use, and what content you are using it to cite. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some looking around and I suspect this is the link in question, which is a book review. It is being used for the following statement: What sets Petras' work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms "Jewish lobby," "Israel lobby," and "Zionist lobby" are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction in the article titled "Jewish lobby". I don't see any prima facie reason why he isn't quotable here. I note that Chip Berlet has quoted Ruff in the past on the subject of antisemitism in extremist political movements, so I would think he seems to be a reliable source. Wikipedia certainly does trust Berlet extensively on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that quote of Ruff from Berlet was removed, on the basis that he was "non-notable" or "unknown" or something. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? That's pretty disappointing Jay, I'd expect more than that, and for the record, as concerns that edit, there is nothing in this thread that suggests Emmanuel Branch is notable.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing? How so? As for that edit, Branch doesn't have to be, as long as Ruff is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing because it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your concern is not with the reliability of a particular source but only with pushing a POV, however you can slice it. That is disappointing in general, but even more so here, on the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard."PelleSmith (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, that's utter nonsense, however you slice it. The fact that someone decided to remove Ruff from that article a week and a half after this discussion started was an unexpected bit of luck really: I didn't even realize he had been cited there, but it certainly showed beyond a reasonable doubt that people here (including you) want to have it both ways, so they can push whatever POV they prefer. Ruff is reliable and notable when it suits them (and you), and not so when it suits them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "People here"? Do you mind being a little more direct instead of insinuating things in this unpleasant, indirect manner? Who, for example, is arguing in favour of retaining Ruff in one article and removing him from another similar one, apparently on the basis of POV? It sounds like its just you. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? When does it "suit me" Jay? Please do enlighten. My problem was with your claim that a particular publication was de facto extremist because it is Marxist, and not with its particular contributors. You have not raised any concerns with my other later commentary, about the actual use of Ruff in Carol's case (see below). You may infer what so ever you wish about my hypothetical opinion regarding the validity of using Ruff in other instances when it suits you, but the fact remains that I have yet to offer such an opinion. So let the record be unequivocally straight that I do not in fact wish to use Ruff for anything, nor have I offered any guidance on using him for anything with the exception of what you see below. Mindboggling I know, but I think if you pay attention it might turn out pretty clear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pay attention to everything worth paying attention to. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down quote in question - amusing response. If more specific is better here, will do :-) Carol Moore 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah I can't see a reliability issue here at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but Ruff's review problematizes the way that Petras actually uses the term in his book. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the we are having this discussion since the publication in question is quite clearly not extremist, but how was this ever an issue of RS?PelleSmith (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaining editor wrote: "Ruff's claim to be a historian rests on his book about "Charles H. Kerr & Company", a socialist publisher, not about the topic of this article." Carol Moore 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

For the purposes at hand in the entry I don't think Ruff's status as a "historian" actually matters, and I don't think it relates to reliability either. From a notable Marxist publication, that publishes notable Marxist academics and intellectuals, we have the critical review of a book in which the critic takes issue with (as part of a larger argument) the author's use of the term at hand, "Jewish lobby." The fact that the critic is an essayist published by this journal is absolutely fine for this purpose unless I'm missing something. I could see Ruff's status (or alleged status) as a historian, and his known area of expertise, brought up in regards to reliability only if he is being cited on factual historical claims. This is simply a critical opinion published in a journal.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelle is correct, both about this final point and about the distinction between Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics, a distinction the complaining editor – who would presumably argue that Eric Hobsbawm is not a reliable source – is ignorant of.--G-Dett (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's really best not to presume about "the complaining editor", or even discuss him, per WP:CIVIL. Discuss the sources. Now, regarding your argument, I wasn't aware that Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics w