Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

message: Jguk, please be reasonable - religious tolerance cites it's sources, everything's not made up. Don't make arbitrary edits like that. YOu don't have anything personal against them, do you? Izehar (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, all I know is that they have a section called references and they are citing sources. Jguk mush make a consensus to remove them as a reference - he can't do it on his own. Edit-warring will not get him anywhere. Izehar (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why in the world does it make sense to cite an editorial that in turn cites a primary or secondary source, rather than citing the primary or secondary source directly?  The characterization of these articles as weblog articles is, it seems to me, perfectly apposite.  The female genital cutting articles is a great example.  Are you seriously suggesting that we can't remove links that are redundant if they have a citation or two in them? Nandesuka 13:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense for the same reason that people might cite Wikipedia, rather than just citing its references, I presume. If a site has well written information drawn from a variety of sources, then that is something which would be lost merely by linking to the other sources. Mdwh 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: They claim to adhere to the same NPOV philosophy.  However, it is quite debatable whether they are actually achieving it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It seems fairly obvious to me that OCRT is far from unbiased.  I agree with those who have stated that it is totally unsuitable as a reference, but is fine as an external link so long as a note is preserved that the site probably reflects the authors' own opinions. -- uberpenguin 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Discussion

message: I can understand jguk's reluctance to have religioustolerance.org be cited directly as a source, though I disagree with his method of deleting all references to it without first discussing it. I have a different reason for objecting to the use of religioustolerance.org as a source: it has advertising. No source of information that relies on advertising for funding can ever be reliable. --Angr (t·c) 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't pretty much all newspapers rely on advertising for funding? TacoDeposit 14:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do. And they all have to be careful what they print for fear of alienating their advertisers. --Angr (t·c) 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: I particularly like the part of the proposal that reads:
:"if it is to be in Wikipedia, that information should be sourced from elsewhere"
This does not sound at all unreasonable to me.   Since the main contention here seems to be that this engineer and his few friends in Toronto are concocting stuff off the top of their heads, it only makes good sense to ask that you find at least one more reliable source that concurs with them... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a question of credibility, then, not knowing any of the individuals involved personally, I would choose to place OCRT's credibility over that of a convicted edit warrior on Wikipedia. Firebug 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensible 

message: Most of the entries at the website of the University of Virginia were written by students and so sometimes the quality is very poor including factual mistakes.   Sometimes the quality is good. Can we address this in a similar was as the religious tolerance website? Andries 15:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so. Personally a Wikipedia:Verifiability/University of Virginia discussion page seems sensible to me - as well as similar pages to discuss other possibly inappropriate sources that are cited in multiple articles. Unfortunately the way I've got us here to this serious discussion of the reliability of this website has meant some users are trying to kill this idea at birth. Referencing is fundamentally important if Wikipedia is to be taken more seriously - we should encourage good referencing using reliable sources throughout the encyclopaedia, jguk 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly why I want this damn page deleted. If this is allowed to stand, soon we'll have a dozen POV-forks by axe grinders claiming that whatever sources they don't agree with are unreliable. Firebug 15:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closely related issue in Wikipedia

message: I do not think we should have subpages of wp:v that blanket forbid certain references.  I believe it is acceptable - possibly even a good idea - to have a central place where comments and opinions about the reliability and usefulness of a certain source can be stated and discussed.  
However, the suitability of a particular reference should be a matter for each article that cites it.  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No blanket forbidding of sources, please. 

message: This whole proposal is bogus, for a thousand reasons that have been mentioned above. Just thought I too would chime in with my opinion.Tommstein 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is bogus 

message: This page should be moved from the wikipolicy namespace to a Talk:wikipolicy namespace --JimWae 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move article 

message: I've asked Jimbo about his opinion on this whole mess. Firebug 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a healthy dialogue about what is, at the very least, a controversial source.  I tend to side with those who are skeptical of such sources, particularly when perfectly good and more traditional sources are not hard to come by.  However, my own opinion is in this case just the opinion of one editor who is not very well informed about the matter, so don't take it as a very strong opinion.  What I do have a strong opinion about is that we should always have solid, thoughtful, co-operative, respectful discussions of just this sort.--Jimbo Wales 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

message: Whilst I probably wouldn't be in favour of citing religioustolerance.org as a reference (although even then, I don't see why we need a specific ban for this website, rather than a more general policy), part of the problem is that Jguk has been going around deleting any link to religioustolerance.org, even in External Links sections (eg, at Atheism). Surely it is reasonable to link to the site in an External Links section! Links aren't just about citing references, but also providing links to places the reader may find useful for further reading, or pointing to sites which provide interesting opinions or arguments (or at least, if that's not the point of External Links, then a vast number of External Links on Wikipedia should be removed). Things like the usage of the word "Atheist" are not factual things which you look up in scientific journals, but things where there are more likely to be various opinions; linking to a site which explains the terminology well seems an appropriate thing to do. Mdwh 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this just seems to be a continuation of an old dispute that jguk has been unable to win. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Sunray. Having failed to remove the religioustolerance link from Common Era, he's now seeking to push through a policy prohibiting the mention of the site. Sortan 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References versus External Links

message: ... let me put it this way: citing Religioustolerance.org is like citing The Two Babylons as a factual source in Roman Catholicism. In other words, pretty stupid. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do you say that? Comparison to some already disputed source without any sort of rationale for why the two should be mentioned in the same breath is not helpful at all. DreamGuy 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should really be a Wikipedia:Analogies don't prove anything.  Because they don't.  They can be illustrative in helping to clarify something that has already been proven, but on their own analogies are worthless.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is odd how some editors are fighting tooth and nail to get this policy heard.  Censoring religioustolerance.org is like banning religious tolerance in articles such as Christianity, or in religious related policies such as AD vs CE.  Sorry, I'm no good with analogies.--sansvoix 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree about that lack, yes.  There's very little overlap between banning an abstract principle, and deciding that a particular concrete group of people should not be used as a reference, even if they've given themselves a name deliberately evocative of that abstract principle.  You've been throwing some very heated, very serious allegations at your fellow editors in this discussion; if they were (for the sake of argument) to start writing essays at a website called WellBalancedAndWellResearched.org, would you argue that not treating those editors as a reliable source is akin to rejecting the principle that our articles should be well balanced and well researched?  And yet that is approximately the same as what you're arguing here, that declining to accept as a reference a group that named its website "Religious Tolerance" is in some way analogous to rejecting the principle they named themselves after. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I was bad at analogies.  I am not here to defend the website itself, if that is what you are thinking... No one should be forced to do that.  I am opposing the religious censorship.  I would have the same problem with, as the annonymous comment below points out, banning the Mormon Church as a reference, or any other religious site for that matter.--sansvoix 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Are there are several threads above outlining your religious agenda?  Of course I don't believe that you are doing this for  accuracy purposes.  I think I am dead on when I say you started this campaign simply because you are offended with what is stated on religioustolerance.org.  --sansvoix 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think you are dead wrong when you think that such attempts to change the subject from "is OCRT a reliable source?" to "does jguk have some sneaky ulterior motive up his sleeve, as I keep alleging?" are either a) within the bounds of acceptable civil behaviour on Wikipedia or b) going to successfully drag the discussion off-topic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't put words in my mouth, as a long-time contributor you must know that is an improper way to state your opinion!  I've said it several times that I am here to oppose religious censorship, of any kind.  It is not my responsibity to participate in this crusade, infact, I strongly protest its existance (I voted with the AfD), this page is singling out and devaluing a particuar website, simply due to its religious content that apparently offends a loud minority of conservative Christian editors.  Without a doubt this is a religious debate --look how much fundementalist trolling it has recieved (I can't believe it, but I'm getting death [threats] ) To paint this as a secular debate, would be to discuss this under flase pretenses.  Furthermore, those with a religious motive behind this are going to be far more dilligent in their battle to censor this site.  If this is allowed to be portrayed a simple "validitiy check,"... well you know as well as I do what it would look like.  I think we have to be careful, I posted a similar example below about relgious fundementalists "questioning the accuracy" if you will, of the theory of evolution, under false pretenses.--sansvoix 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once again, you can't have it both ways.  You can't complain about people putting words in your mouth when at the very same time, you're demanding that you be considered the authority on what jguk thinks and is motivated by.  For that matter, you can't declare that all the concerns raised by jguk must be presumed invalid and insincere because of his presumed religious orientation -- and then claim you're in favor of religious tolerance yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this is getting too personal, we both should now take a break. Thanks, sansvoix 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Since analogies seem to be in style, I'd like to compare this to a "real life" occurance I saw in the news yesterday.  Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.  The U.S. Judge repremanded the school board for implementing Intelligent Design (a kind of religious based pseudo-science) into the Grade 9 science curriculum.  The Christian Judge appointed by George Bush stated, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."  That is, these religious fundementalists would claim they were acting in the name of legitimate science and good faith, when in fact they were manipulating their religion into the classroom. Ring any bells?--sansvoix 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Christian Judge appointed by George Bush stated..." - that's almost too funny. Georgie knows how to pick 'em. Reminds me of David Souter and this comic. Nephron 21:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nothing like replying to a discussion comment 15 years after the fact...ha. Just thought it ought be noted that said judge in question was appointed by George W. Bush; not H.W. And to be fair to Dubya (from a conservative's perspective, which is not mine own, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it), he did not appoint any liberal justices to the high court..only one that is sometimes known to break ranks from the conservatives - still a conservative justice, however: just not a rank and file partisan one. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmmm... 

message: What is the difference between citing ReligiousTolerance.org to sources of the Mormon Church for example? Both are probably equally inaccurate for numerical purposes. It is widely known that the LDS Church inflates their numbers substantially. The Roman Catholic Church has done the same thing with Catholics in China according to the US State department. 144.35.254.12 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Religioustolerance.org is a better source than the Bible for factual information, yet I see people in Christian-related articles cite the Bible as if it were fact. The site is informative and well-researched, and it is worth citing given that it has international recognition and a great deal of acclaim from various other credible sources. Titanium Dragon 06:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can certainly cite their opinion on an issue as just that -- their opinion.  But I'm afraid Titanium Dragon's proposal above is "rediculous" -- if people are citing the Bible as if the Bible was fact, that is a problem we solve.  We don't take advantage of it by saying "oh, now I can claim anything as fact, as long as I claim the source is 'a better source than the Bible'."  Informative?  Well-researched?  Also highly problematic as has been demonstrated above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Which article is this? Also I don't think that the unreliability of other sources has any relevance to the issue of whether religioustolerance.org itself is reliable. If there are no reliable sources for your group, then it shouldn't have a Wiki article on it in the first place. WP:V and WP:NOR are fundamental policies, so I'm not sure what you mean with the rest of your statement, nor do I understand the relevance of us not being paid? But anyway, if you don't say what the article is, no one here can fix or look into it... Mdwh (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rather Rediculous

message: I have a simple question which I would like to ask the other editors on this page: is it more acceptable to cite a tertiary/secondary source, or a primary source, for any matter? Surely, one would pick the primary source. I think one thing we must all be able to agree on is that if we need to cite something, we would be better off using the sources that religioustolerance itself cites rather than the cite itself, if only because we are getting closer to the original source. I don't think there is any reasonable argument against this conclusion. Now, obviously, for noting that the site itself holds a particular opinion it should then be linked to - it would be a primary source for that use. --84.64.141.105 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teriary Sources 

message: On the subject of Scientology, OCRT is biased since most, if not all, the articles are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor who is the Director of Special Affairs (sometimes called Public Affairs) of the Toronto Org. A lot of the current text looks like it was cribbed straight from Church of Scientology web sites. There certainly hasn't been any fact-checking done, and most of the references are to Church of Scientology sites or fronts like the "new CAN". As well, the site now blocks the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive, which prevents comparing the current pages with previous versions. AndroidCat 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology material written by Scientology

message: The following info is for future reference, should this be required. It was copied from a 2008 WP:RS/N discussion:
*Looking at google scholar: ,  , the OCRT site appears to have entered academic discourse, and has been cited by numerous reputable and reliable sources (examples include The Lancet, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Religion and Society, Nova Religio and others). 
:::Examples of citations in academic books:
:::* (Apologies to Thucydides by Marshall David Sahlins, University of Chicago Press, p. 312: B. A. Robinson essay included in bibliography)
:::* (Ethical Studies textbook by Robert Bowie quoting Robinson, p. 187) 
:::* (Freedom's Distant Shores by R. Drew Smith, Baylor University Press, cites religioustolerance.org as a corroborating source [note 19])
:::* (Wrestling with God and Men by Steven Greenberg, University of Wisconsin Press, p. 293, cites Robinson article on religioustolerance.org)
:::* (Theological Librarians and the Internet by Mark Stover, p. 145: academic review of theological web resources, berates undergraduates for dismissing the site in a course assignment, because it carried advertising; describes the site's content as a "massive education program")
:::*  (Teaching New Religious Movements by David G. Bromley, Oxford University Press, pp. 296, 307: lists religioustolerance.org among recommended secondary research literature sources, along with peer-reviewed journals and academic websites)
(The google book links given to the actual pages may decay over time.)
*Press mentions: ,  Jayen466 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the second link you provided (this one) includes all mentions (14,000 results) of the phrase "Religious Tolerance" (with a space), and is not limited to citations of the religioustolerance.org website. For a more accurate representation (752 results), see . ←Spidern→ 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of OCRT as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] by news media and scholarly publications