Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, as it's a proposed policy. It will either pass or fail, and as it's not in the main namespace it really shouldn't be here. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

An attempt to argue that Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org) is not a valid reference in Wikipedia articles. User:Jguk, who created this (and is its only editor), is already quoting it as if it were policy. This belongs in talk or user pages, not the primary Wikipedia namespace, where its presence might confuse people. Firebug 12:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Jguk has gone on a spree through Wikipedia deleting all cites to this website. It should be noted that religioustolerance.org has been on the Internet for 10 years and gets many millions of hits per week. [1] Furthermore, it gets ranked quite highly by most search engines and by many review sites. Next to all that, frankly, jguk's opinion doesn't count for much. Firebug 12:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is useful, though needs to make clear it's not policy. — Dunc|☺ 12:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Firebug is right - because references to this website do not belong in a serious encyclopaedia. It is not an academic site, it is just a collection of essays by a man who quite freely admits he has no academic training whatsoever in the subject-matter he writes about. None of his essays is peer-reviewed (and a lot are of very poor quality). His "group", as his website freely states, consists of only five people. We're here to write a serious encyclopaedia sourced from proper academic sources. This website has all the reliability of a blog, and we don't allow my mates' blogs as a reference (or as a link) on Wikipedia. How many visits a website is immaterial here - it is a question of reliably sourcing information on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page outlines some of the problems with this website. It also makes clear that although Religioustolerance.org should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia (because it is unreliable), that does not mean that information on that website is necessarily wrong - it means that it should just be referenced from elsewhere, jguk 12:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, this vote is out of order, as creators aren't allowed to vote keep on their own articles, only to comment. Secondly, what matters is that OCRT's articles are sourced, well-written, popular, and generally respect NPOV - they are not polemics for one side, nor unsourced rants, which makes your comparison to blogs wholly inappropriate. All you have said is that one of the OCRT authors doesn't have certain academic credentials, but so what? Would you disqualify citing microsoft.com for a computing issue since Bill Gates dropped out of college? (Admittedly a reducio ad absurdum, of course.) If you limit cites to peer-reviewed journals, 90% of the external links on Wikipedia would be off-limits. Your statement that the essays are of "poor quality" is just your own opinion, and apparently a lot of other Internet users don't share it, or the site wouldn't be as popular as it is. Firebug 13:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This should not have been sectioned off of WP:V; it gives the appearence that it is policy (!). El_C 12:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By all means label it as a place for centralised discussion. It seems far better to discuss any points arising in one place (ie the Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page) rather than on three dozen different talk pages, jguk 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your references to it in your mass reverts falsely imply that it is policy. Firebug 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Why three dozen? Just section it off off jguk; same thing, but not in the project namespace. El_C 12:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • jguk, please wait before reverting en mass (and calling the reverts "restore edit", which I found confusing). I'm undoing these until this issue can be discussed. Let's avoid a revert war and come up with a formula. El_C 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Then they will never get discussed. Stop edit-warring and discuss the issue, if you want is resolved. Merely reverting all the time and refusing to discuss an issue that affects a fair number of our articles isn't what WP is about, jguk 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
            • If you want to mass delete links, it is your responsibility to get consensus first. You are trying to strong-arm people into discussing the issue on your terms. Firebug 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Jguk, I didn't edit war. I would have undone your changes, but someone else beat me to it while writing the above. El_C 13:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A conversation is ongoing on the talk page; basically, it is a proposal of a specific example of WP:V. Deleting it at this point would be premature. I agree that it should be appropriately labeled to avoid confusion. Nandesuka 13:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added the {{proposed}} tag to the page to avoid confusion. Given that, I'd like to ask firebug to withdraw this MFD until the conversation reaches consensus. Nandesuka 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, deletion was premature, but this should'nt have been sectioned off of WP:V, to begin with. El_C 13:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the issue needs to be discussed. And since when aren't creators allowed to vote to keep their own pages? --Angr (t·c) 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding that question, Firebug's changes made it appear as if Jguk added the strike out. Let me expand my caution to Firebug: if s/he ever feels the need to modify the comments of other editors, s/he must do so with a diff as per clear attribution of comment text. Something along these lines will do: X's comment was modified by Y diff. 14:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC) El_C 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) El_C 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- this page is freaking pointless, it's just a personal attack on a website by a person with proven extreme bias. Any discussion about the topic can and should be done elsewhere, this is not the place for it, and leaving it here gives extra assumed weight to something that deserves none at all. DreamGuy 14:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, This is an attempt to calumniate and dismiss a reputable, useful resource, authored by a group of earnest, knowledgeable laypeople who attempt to remain in a neutral point of view. Sound familiar? Carolynparrishfan 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete page and save discussion there is nothing wrong with religioustolerance.org - if you check any of their articles they have a references section with clearly cited sources. Or are those sources biased as well? IMO if we can use www.omniglot.com as a source (and we do), then we can also use religioustolerance.org. Izehar (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No--more than that: if Wikipedia can exist, then we can use religioustolerance.org. Carolynparrishfan 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• As a number of different contributors to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org have already pointed out the sources (1) are often misquoted; (2) are ignored in coming to the articles conclusion; and (3) are, if anything, more likely to be better references for Wikipedia (as they will be secondary sources), than this tertiary source. I don't understand why you are trying to use this mechanism to delete this discussion. Anyone's welcome to join it, jguk 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• But are the parallels to criticisms we as Wikipedians receive not disturbing? Carolynparrishfan 14:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are many other problems we have with unreferenced or poorly referenced information with Wikipedia - and we should seek to improve the situation. The comment above about omniglot.com is worrying. I don't know that website and haven't come across it here as yet on WP - but if it's not a good source, we should stop using it too, not use its continued use as a justification for using other poor sources. Maybe we need a Wikipedia:Verifiability/Omniglot.com if it's a problem. Anyway, reliability of sources is a serious issue - this is a proposal dealing with one problem of many. If you wish to comment on the specifics, please come along and discuss them, but it's not appropriate to try to silence these discussions by deleting (and thereby banning) them, jguk 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, Omniglot is a website that tries to show the alphabets used in every country and language in the world... They're a good site, I've been using them as a source myself lately, but I don't take every single statement on there as the gospel. The same should go for any website. Some should get an A, some should get a D or a F... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- this is a valid proposed policy, it is in the right place, I was under no illusions that it was an existing policy, owing to the clearly marked 'prosed policy' template at the top, and I think the policy ought to be voted on in a proper vote as to whether it should be made wikipedia policy. Trying to kill off the procedure without giving people a chance to discuss the real issue here is staring to resemble partisan polticking. (And if I write the word strong, can my opinion count some more? :o)) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "proposed" tag was not there when I posted the deletion notice. Firebug 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, "Strong" is simply a qualitative notation. It has no bearing on the tabulation of votes Carolynparrishfan 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- the user is simply pushing his anti-religioustolerance.org agenda. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The religioustolerance.org website is suspected by many, including Skeptic Tank, to be a front or a shill for Scientology. True or not, their coverage of the Scientology hostile takeover of Cult Awareness Network is completely whitewashed in their reporting, [2] and their comments about Scientology are so warm, glowing, and non-critical that Scientologists themselves link frequently to the site. Whether they're controlled by the CoS or not, their kissy-face relationship with them and direct connections to them disqualify religioustolerance.org, in my view, as being a serious and impartial resource. wikipediatrix 15:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What?! I've never even heard such allegations! And Skeptic Tank looks to me to be a far nuttier/fringier site than religioustolerance.org. OCRT are very transparent about their religious leanings. (Most of them are agnostic.) Carolynparrishfan 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare religioustolerance.org's page about Scientology to Wikipedia's Scientology article. Religioustolerance.org completely glosses over and ignores the major controversies regarding Scientology and dismisses their opponents as "Attacks by the anti-cult movement". No mention of Operation Clambake. No mention of Lisa McPherson. Their 'overview' of the CoS reads like a press release and even regurgitates, unquestioningly, the church's inflated statistics about themselves. The idea that religioustolerance.org is slanted with a pro-Scientology bias is also discussed here. wikipediatrix 19:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is certainly legitimate to discuss the use of a certain website as a reference. It should be done more often in more cases. u p p l a n d 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have found religioustolerance.org to be a useful and informative site, and it cites its references. If we're going to criticise them for not being experts, then firstly a vast number of cited links on Wikipedia will have to be deleted, and secondly, this is the same criticism people make of Wikipedia. I also dislike the way Jguk is reverting edits, insisting that these links be removed until decided otherwise, as if this policy was official, even though it turns out to only be a proposed policy. Mdwh 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any source is subject to question, regardless of whether it is in hard copy or on the Web, and regardless of how many academic degrees its author has or lacks. The religioustolerance.org website is frequently referred to mostly because it is a handy compilation of material about religious beliefs and practices, not because it is infallible. We don't need a verifiability policy that makes it as a specific target; that in itself smells of POV axegrinding. Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userify One individual's opinion of the biases of site belongs in his userspace, not wikispace, where it has the appearence of authority. Xoloz 17:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org you will find a number of editors who share my concerns, and even a request to have a similar sort of discussion about other websites that are used to source multiple articles on WP. Reliability of sources is an important issue - I'm not surprised that a number of editors in different fields, including those who I disagree with on a number of other issues, are equally concerned about this, jguk 18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, terrific. Every source, ideally, should be investigated. Why not userspace? I'm sure you have colleagues who share your concerns, and others who disagree. Namespace carries a certain formal weight that shouldn't be applied to disputed content, whether it's a source evalution of the Nation, or National Review; of this site, or of Anti-Flouridationists of America. My opinion here is nonpartisan - source evaluation is admirable, but it's messy, so move it to userspace, unless there is a consensus on a source. Xoloz 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Religioustolerance.org has valuable information, but it shouldn't be used as an authority. Having this wiki page reminds editors that it's not a great reference in case of disputes. I also don't appreciate jguk coming to one of my pages and deleting the link. Cuñado - Talk 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice as regards recreation in userspace. Much disapproval here over jguk's attempt to create a seeming policy page and then use it as justification for massive reference removal without first going through a process of gaining consensus. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Revised opinion: Move to a more general title and let's start a central place to talk about quality of specific sources. I don't think we should be just talking about religioustolerance.org, and I don't think a page making a blanket ban on any specific source is appropriate. However, it would be useful to have discussion about specific commonly cited sources centralised. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's now a proposed policy/guideline, and as such should be discussed in the Wikipedia namespace. In retrospect, I realise I should have just created this proposal page and then dropped notes on the relevant talkpages (which I've now done), rather than to edit articles in the first place. But that should not detract from the need to analyse sources that are cited in multiple articles to see whether they are appropriate - and that needs centralised discussion. I'm sure others will wish to discuss other sources in due course (one editor on the proposal talk page has already mentioned a website that also deserves centralised discussion). If we're to improve the quality of our references, we need central discussion pages. You're free, of course, to add your own comments on the proposal - but why eliminate it? jguk 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • See my revised opinion above. I let my annoyance at the way you had handled this color my opinion a little too far. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify. Little more than a POV rant, and it is highly inappropriate to piggyback this page under official policy, and doubly misleading when you go about removing references with an edit summary of remove inappropriate link - see Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org (at the time he went about removing references, this page did not have a "proposed" tag, and was masquerading as official policy). It is perfectly fine to discuss the suitability of references, but consensus should be established before making such widespread changes. I would also think something like this cannot be decided on a global basis, but on an article by article basis as some pages from this site may make for good references while others may not (as any other reference site). Sortan 19:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify. I agree this should be decided on an article by article basis. There should not be a global wiki policy on the appropriateness of a single website. Lyrl 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Insanely strong keep. Good grief, give the guy a chance to breathe! Let's all join the WikiMafia: if we don't like someone, let's delete all of their proposals before they have the chance to try and organize themselves to form a consensus! Yay! ...
  Alright, that's me being facetious, but do you get the point? The issue, not the defender of the issue, is the debate at hand, and this is clearly undeserving of deletion. (Note: If you don't like a proposed policy, try voting against it when the vote comes up. Deletion on ongoing issues shouldn't be used lightly.) Matt Yeager 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we are voting to delete it from it's current location. We are voting to undo an arbitrary unilateral move, not supress free speech as an organised cabal. The discussion is free to resume elsewhere, perhaps on the talk pages of the articles in question (what a roaringly good idea!). This discussion has no place at its current location though - it sends out the wrong message. Izehar (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an issue which currently effects at least three dozen articles and will come up again. I have already been surprised by the numbers of editors who have come to the proposal talk page who have already come across arguments on this website before. It's a single issue - surely you're not really suggesting that we should have exactly the same discussion on the talk pages of three dozen (or more) different articles? It needs to be centralised - and surely the Wikipedia namespace is the most appropriate place for it? Incidentally, Izehar, at present your vote is "delete" - if you really believe the discussion should be on another page you might want to go back and change it to "move", jguk 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to - it'll crop up anyway. Izehar (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep hi Izehar, εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't support the page's move to make a written guideline on the subject - if editorial judgement isn't enough we're fucked already, we have enough guidelinecruft that NO-ONE could read even a fraction of them, and their main use is to hit people over the head with - but I know OCRT to be a remarkably dodgy source that is nevertheless quoted extremely often by those it writes about because it makes a point of sympathetic point of view. As such, its quality as a source is seriously dubious and worthy of discussion - David Gerard 21:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if we keep this then please take into account that similar pages will appear. I personally want to create one. Andries 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Immediately Delete This page is an attempt to manipulate opposing views (in this case tolerance!?) out of wikipedia. If we can't use sites such as this, then we can't use the many legitimate, factually based arguments they put forward. There should be no wikipedia policies controlling the availiability of information. I can't believe this is being discussed.. why don't we go out and ban marxists.org as well, or any of the many other academic sites that don't fit into mainstream America. Ridiculous. --sansvoix 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if there should be any policy, there should be one keeping prostelizing fundementalists (of anytype) out of wikipedia. Sure these people all mean well, but there is an "ends justify the means" approach (think personal attacks, edit wars, crafty personal commentary) they use that drive the rest of us insane.

• Strong Keep. Listing this for deletion is an attempt to circumvent discussion; it is no more in good faith than listing an AfD page itself for deletion is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious, speedy keep This is a current discussion. If it needs to be moved, because it's falsely implying that it's policy, fine. But deleting it is obviously wrong. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I think at least part of the proposed guideline is absurd (forbidding the site to be linked to or mandating a scary warning), the proposal should be discussed instead of summarily deleted. --cesarb 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't understand why so many people think this is an issue of free speech. This poll is asking you if the proposal should be considerd for policy, or if it should be removed. Not if opinions should be silenced, of course they shouldn't be silienced, but that is what user pages are for. Freedom and choice are sexy things, but we need to put our foot down on what is appropriate, and what is not when changing wikipedia policy.--sansvoix 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And what IS inappropriate when changing Wikipedia policy? I would argue that nothing is. (Excepting illegal copyright vios, etc.) This is a wiki, after all. Matt Yeager 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Move out of policy namespace and into discussion of policy namespace--JimWae 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but if kept extremely strong move to either userspace or anywhere that's not a subpage of our important policy WP:V. Radiant_>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid discussion about a website that should almost certainly not be used as a citable source. It's a good source to look at to begin your research, just as Wikipedia is, but it shouldn't be used as a source that is cited in an article, because it's little more than a personal website. They say of themselves: "The OCRT began as little more than a hobby. It has grown to be a full-time assignment for one of our volunteers, and a part-time task for the others. We hope that it will expand further to become a sustainable agency that will endure into the future." And perhaps it will, but for now, it's just an activity that the writers don't get paid for, they have no relevant qualifications, there is no peer-review or fact-checking process, it's not clear who they are exactly, and they've been used to prop up suspect claims in Wikipedia articles, such as the persecution of Wiccans by the Canadian government. ;-) If the website starts to be cited as a trusted source by credible newspapers, then perhaps it could be regarded as a citable source for Wikipedia, but not before then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposed policy has often gone in this namespace, and it's a worthwhile discussion to have. --Improv 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a proposed policy. I'm going to close this one early. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.