text:
of issues with using an unreliable source. The source may have fabricated part of the quote, omitted important qualifying information, or simply misunderstood Khomeini. In Islamic jurisprudence, clerics are asked if a certain action is forbidden. If they can't find a prohibition against the action in texts (Quran etc) they say "no". That doesn't mean they "approve" the action. Saying "Khomeini could not find any scriptural prohibition against sex with babies" is a lot different than "Khomeini approved of sex with babies." Yet another possibility could be that Khomeini was quoting opinions of more conservative clerics and not endorsing the position as his own (see this). A reliable source could be trusted to present Khomeini's objectively and accurately.
 * We keep making this discussion about Khomeini, when really it is about whether Darwish is a reliable source, at least on Islamic jurisprudence. You said earlier that your main reason for considering Darwish is a reliable source is because of the publisher Thomas Nelson (publisher). In light of this comment above, do you still think Thomas Nelson is a reliable source in the field of Islamic jurisprudence? VR talk 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In case any Iranian is present here, there is a video with (I presume) Khomeini's speech (, it starts at minute 3' 20  )., all your comments seem aimed at raising suspicion that Darwish might be'' an unreliable source, but you constantly avoid to convince that she is. --Grufo (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just came across this discussion, and at first glance, thought my eyes were either playing tricks on me or I developed dyslexia because I could've sworn the title read User:Darwinbish. 🐲  A few drops of Systane Ultra fixed me right up. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just came across this discussion, and at first glance, thought my eyes were either playing tricks on me or I developed dyslexia because I could've sworn the title read User:Darwinbish. 🐲  A few drops of Systane Ultra fixed me right up. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Note: there is a discussion at Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini, where I went through a reference of Darwish and found that it wasn't saying what she claimed it was saying. Darwish either misquoted the text or made part of it up. I did a google search and found that text to be in random forums and anti-Islam websites, but not in any reliable sources. The possibility that she "copies and pastes randomly from the internet" was raised.VR talk 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The claim of Khomeini permitting sex with babies is promoted by anti-Islam/Iran sources. A simple search in Farsi would bring multiple explanations as to who and why these false accusations are spread against him. For clarification, I will list some of the points being discussed in this discussion (sorry if my translations are not so good):
 * Regarding the marriage of a young girl, Khomeini regards 'satisfaction' of the two sides of the marriage as a pre-condition. Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text:"عقد ازدواج بین دو نفر باید با رضایت هر دو باشد، بنابراین اگر یک طرف را مجبور کنند و یا بدون رضایت او عقد ازدواج را جاری کنند، صحیح نمی باشد."

 * Translation by me: "The marriage between two should be accompanied by the satisfaction of the two sides. So, if one is enforced to marriage or the marriage is done without seeking the satisfaction them, the marriage is not correct."
 * Khomeini further clarifies the marriage. He explains that for a girl (or boy) to grant permission for marriage, they 1) should have reached 'puberty', 2) should be 'Rashid' - (This means, besides being matured, he/she should grown enough so that he/she recognizes good and bad). Again, Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text as such:"برای انجام رضایت به ازدواج، باید دو طرف عقد (مرد و زن) بالغ و رشید باشند، بنابراین اگر دختر دارای رشد نیست نمی توان او را به عقد دیگری درآورد"

 * Translation by me: "For satisfaction of the marriage parties to be sought for doing marriage, the two sides should have reached puberty and should be Rashid. Thus, if the girl is not grown enough, she can't be married to a man."
 * I am ready for further keeping on this discussion, if its need. Finally, I suggest avoid basing this discussion on such a bogus source -just see the title- when we have access to more reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your intervention! At these two links #1 and #2 this post appeared:
 * Could you tell us what you think? --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grufo: See your response- it is available in three languages. Not all what you find on the net is reliable. -- M h hossein   talk 11:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only use Google Translate for that. It seems to neither confirm nor deny the controversial passages, since the text seems to be a summarization of Khomeini's words. In my opinion it actually seems to go towards the direction of confirming the controversial passages, since it quotes at least some parts of them. Is there a way to have the original whole Khomeini quote instead of a summarization? --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only use Google Translate for that. It seems to neither confirm nor deny the controversial passages, since the text seems to be a summarization of Khomeini's words. In my opinion it actually seems to go towards the direction of confirming the controversial passages, since it quotes at least some parts of them. Is there a way to have the original whole Khomeini quote instead of a summarization? --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Note: commented that Darwish is not a reliable source for this kind of statement. I'm only pointing it out cause the comment is buried deep in the discussion.VR talk 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no proof that Nonie Darwish is reliable, let alone objective, and the publisher doesn't even pretend to be neutral in these matters. They are "dedicated to acquiring, developing and promoting authors whose content inspires, informs, and transforms the lives of readers", which is fine--but not when you are using these books to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DND
Is dnd.com.pk reliable? The way it wrote this bio, it looked quite amateurish, like many of those unreliable sources like CelebsWiki, StarUnfolded, etc. However its About Us page claims to be an " international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan..". Kindly help. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well this [] makes it clear the (anonymous) online editor also writes stories. Thus thre is no clear delineation between writing and editing. Thus is (to a very large extent) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This provides a bit more information on the people writing and editing that website. They claim they are "international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."VR talk 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They can claim all they like, its does not make it true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried googling this claim but could not find any mention of it in reliable sources.VR talk 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly the the fact they do not list what they are was enough to tell me its either an outright lie or (at the very least) an exaggeration. Certainly not enough to overcome my doubts about their "editorial policy".Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments guys. I'm going to remove it from the article. Looks unreliable enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Poker publications
We have many articles on poker players, but only a handful of the most famous ones have coverage in mainstream media (i.e. major newspapers). The rest are sourced exclusively to poker publications, which is fine as long as they are reliable. The following are sources I see being used most frequently: I'd like to ascertain the reliability of these and other sources so we can create a subpage of WikiProject Poker and add it under Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Note that this is solely an evaluation of whether the site is reliable, not whether it can be used to demonstrate notability; it's very possible for a website to be usable for a listing of facts such as tournament winnings but perhaps it doesn't include significant coverage of anyone. Feel free to add other common poker-related sources (whether reliable or unreliable) so we can evaluate them together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bluff
 * CardsChat News
 * CardPlayer
 * HighstakesDB
 * Online Poker News
 * PartTimePoker
 * PocketFives
 * Pokerfuse
 * PokerNews
 * Poker News Daily
 * PokerTube
 * The Hendon Mob
 * WSOP player profiles
 * Could we simply edit WP:NSPORTS so that it covers Poker players? If Snooker is a sport, then Poker certainly is. King of Hearts, could you please look over the criteria for other sport on that page and give us you opinion about what criteria we should use for poker? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is orthogonal to the issue being discussed here; WP:NSPORTS is mostly a set of requirements that athletes need to meet to be presumed notable. Personally I am not in favor of adding yet another sports-related SNG. Instead, poker players should just be evaluated against the GNG, but perhaps with sources which are not mainstream but nonetheless reliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't place RfC tags on things that are not properly formatted RfCs. You are supposed to discuss the issue first and only post an RfC if editors cannot agree. See WP:RFCBEFORE.
 * Starting to look at your list of sources, is Bluff a printed magazine or something that looks like a magazine but is actually an app? It's a little concerning what happens when you click on "contact us". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Bluff is now defunct, but it used to be available in print (this looks like a cover, they wouldn't put a fake barcode on a virtual-only publication). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can say that Bluff is reliable for poker information, then. Moving on, CardsChat News has an editorial policy that makes me inclined to say that they are reliable for poker information. More later, must sleep now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Highstakesdb is reliable for most things. It appears to be a 3-person blog. I would consider it reliable for tournament results. Any website that got that sort of thing wrong wouldn't say in business very long. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems OK so far. Note that Hendon Mob has been discussed before without a conclusive result. I would say that it and the WSOP site are reliable for citing statistics. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to go through every source on the above list, but I have too much to do on a project that actually pays the bills. I am going to leave it at this: In my opinion, pretty much every poker source is reliable for statistics and tournament results unless a web search turns up dozens of people complaining about them making stuff up. If the stats/results are on a couple of site, even better. Simply put, if they didn't get that right they would have no customers. None of them are reliable for determining whether a person is notable for poker playing. For that you need at least one non-poker site that talks about that person. Finally, I think that King of Hearts is well-qualified to make these determinations and has no obvious bias, so unless someone complains just go with what he says. Sometimes you just need a poker fan who keeps up with the sport and also understands how Wikipedia works. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that requirement would kill 80-90% of poker player articles. When you say that they are not reliable, do you not trust the quality of their reporting, or do you just think that the coverage is too "in-universe"? What you're saying is similar to WP:AUD, which exists so that a small-town business can't become notable just by being covered in the local news.
 * There are two aspects of notability: whether there is sufficient well-sourced content to write about the topic, and whether the topic is subjectively "important" enough for Wikipedia. The first aspect is obviously the most prominent one, and underlies WP:GNG, while the second has its roots in WP:NOT (especially WP:IINFO) and exists to cull topics that would otherwise overwhelm us because they pass GNG too easily, like small-town businesses (WP:AUD), small-town politicians (WP:NPOL), and events (WP:NOTNEWS). I don't think we have such a problem with poker players, so I would consider one notable as long as we have something to write about them. For that, determining which publications are reliable for sourced prose will determine which publications are reliable for establishing notability. IMO a poker player who has received coverage in widely read national or international poker publications is of greater encyclopedic interest than a small-town business that hasn't been written about outside its town.
 * Also, I wouldn't blindly trust a site that publishes statistics just because "if they didn't get that right they would have no customers". Famous Birthdays is a deprecated source on WP:RSP, yet they're still in business. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By "not reliable for notability" what I mean is that any article about a poker player or poker-related topic that is only discussed on specialist poker websites isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:GNG Once an article has passed that bar, there is no problem with using specialist poker websites as sources for content.
 * Let's look at one example: Blind (poker). Clearly that page need work; zero citations. But is it notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? certainly. [ https://www.google.com/search?q=poker+blind&tbm=bks ] shows that a bunch of books talk about the topic. They just haven't been added to the article as citations.
 * OK, once we have determined that there should be an article on poker blinds, it is perfectly OK to use poker websites as sources about the topic. It would then be up to the person editing the article to decide which sources are good. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that your concern is more about the indepencence of the publications rather than the reliability. Much like we deprecate articles about companies or executives in many niche "trade magazines" as they tend to simply write what they are told (advertorials) instead of applying much editorial discretion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not prohibit using specialized publications. Being involved in the same field does not mean that the publication is not independent; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use, say, Politico or The Hill (newspaper) to establish notability for a politician because both are "involved" in politics. Therefore it is important to determine which poker publications have sufficient editorial oversight and fact-checking. Once that is met, I see no reason to disqualify such sources from satisfying GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is The Media Fund a reliable source?
Note: not the california organization described in The Media Fund. This one is in the UK.

See [ https://themediafund.org/about-us/how-the-coop-works/ ].

Paragraph in Daily Mail where [ https://themediafund.org/news/daily-mail-most-unreliable-paper/ ] is used as a source:

 * The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,   and for copyright violations. The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable enough to call the Daily Mail unreliable? Interesting meta question. This refers to a blog article referring to IPSO but without a specific link. Maybe we can find it at the source and use that? Here are yearly reports but I'm unsure how to read them. We have four others there that are without doubt reliable sources, if there is nothing better as alternative we can just remove it. --mfb (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * When this type of source is raised at RSN it is usually because editors want an article to say something but cannot find a good source. In this case the Daily Mail had more complaints upheld against it that any other paper but no media (except the Media Fund) chose to mention this because its record was only slightly worse than The Times and most of the other major newspapers aren't even included in the complaints system. To answer the question, I don't see any evidence of fact checking or other standards that would make the source reliable. I find it ironic to throw out Wikipedia's policies for content inclusion in order to say that the Daily Mail has a poor record for accuracy. But then I don't think this has ever been about the Daily Mail's reliability. TFD (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Canadaland
is used 54 times as a source. Canadaland is a partly crowdfunded news site and podcast.

 * In 2015, Simon Houpt of the The Globe and Mail wrote a long article about the site and said that its editor has a track record of playing fast and loose with facts.
 * This article also cites some other evaluations such as Montreal Gazette blogger Steve Faguy stating that Canadaland has a habit of sensationalizing and editorializing.
 * Head of the CBC News Jennifer McGuire wrote an editor's blog about Canadaland. She wrote that Canadaland had deliberately made false assumptions and left out important facts.
 * In 2017, Canadaland published a fake obituary of Conrad Black. Christie Blatchford's National Post article detailed the incident: The problem is, it wasn’t a story or a column; it was a pretend obituary, fake news in the current lexicon. She concluded that It was, in short, a cruel and juvenile piece that no newspaper would ever publish, let alone with such relish. It shames the profession.

I'm a bit concerned that this is used as source about politics and other media outlets. Do you reckon that despite these controversies this is now a generally reliable source? --Pudeo (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned too. That concern would lead me to not rely on this source for fact. I'd be cautious using it if at all which might be too generous Littleolive oil (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use it either. (t · c)  buidhe  09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. — Newslinger  talk   19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and have never heard of Canadaland until today. It certainly doesn't have the track record to be considered as a generally reliable source.  PK T (alk)  20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Contrary to PKT's view, I'd say Canadaland is reasonably well known in Canada as a podcast producer; among media people in Canada its news website is also well known. Canadaland's Thunder Bay podcast was praised by NPR's All Things Considered, IndieWire, CBC , and NOW . At player.fm, Canadaland currently has two podcasts listed in the top 10 English-language Canadian podcasts by popularity . As for its news reporting, my own impression is that Canadaland has high journalistic standards; for example, it publishes corrections/clarifications when any of its reporting is shown to be inaccurate. Opinion is distinguished from news reporting; for example the "obituary" of Conrad Black mentioned above is headlined "For Future Use: An Obituary For Conrad Black" and labelled "OPINION", and makes clear that Conrad Black is not actually dead. The piece may be in poor taste but it is in no way fake news (defined as deliberate disinformation). Canadaland first became well known for its reporting on the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and has broken numerous stories relating to Canadian media . News reporting by Canadaland does meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some more information indicating Canadaland is considered a reliable source:
 * 2018 Toronto Star news article: "... Canadaland, an independent news website known for its coverage of the media."
 * 2018 CP news article: "The statement was first published Saturday by the website Canadaland."
 * 2020 CP news article: "Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer pointed Monday to a report by Canadaland that red flags were raised in 2018 by auditors..."
 * 2020 National Post news article: "... information first revealed by the news site CANADALAND."
 * 2017 Toronto Star column: "As Ashley Csanady, host of the political podcast Canadaland Commons, put it on the air this week..."
 * 2020 CTV News story: "... shortly after Canadaland, which has reported extensively on WE, first broke the story on Twitter."
 * 2020 CBC News story: "The website Canadaland reported on Morneau's familial ties to the WE Charity on Friday morning."
 * 2014 Columbia Journalism Review: "... the freelancer who helped break the scandal, Canadaland's Jesse Brown ..."
 * 2015 National Post news story: "... in an interview with the media watchdog website Canadaland on Wednesday."
 * 2020 National Post news story: "In early 2018 she began a column for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, but was dropped at some point later the same year, according to CanadaLand."
 * 2017 Montreal Gazette arts interview: "This is familiar territory for the podcast [i.e. Canadaland], which has been looking to tell Canada’s unheard stories since 2013, and has since expanded into a mini-media empire of free content primarily funded by voluntary donations with four weekly programs – which form Canada’s most popular podcast network – six full-time employees, a stable of paid freelancers and a news website known for breaking its own stories."
 * Mathew5000 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given Mathew5000's demonstration of UBO, editorial control, and positive comments from other outlets, I'm is at worst a weakly reliable source. I've come across it on a couple occasions myself where it seemed like it might be useful, well-sourced, and balanced for those purposes (though I don't believe I wound up using it). Those cases when I considered using it involved discussion of other local Canadian media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 * As a rule, we should almost never be sourcing any content in Wikipedia articles to any podcasts; I can, in theory, imagine that special cases may occasionally exist where we have to use a podcast for reasons unique to a particular situation, but we should be minimizing that as much as possible. Just because a podcast is popular and well-known is not, in and of itself, evidence of whether its content is reliable or not — I'll grant that Canadaland has occasionally scooped the media on real stories, but there are at least as many examples of it messing stories up as there are of it getting stories right. Most of Mathew5000's links certainly offer verification that Canadaland exists — but almost none of them actually speak all that strongly to whether its content is reliable or not, which is not the same thing as existing. I'd be on the side of no, Canadaland should not be accepted as an RS. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about information in Wikipedia being sourced to a Canadaland podcast, but rather to a news article on Canadaland's website. That's my understanding, anyway, based on the mention at the top of this thread of canadalandshow.com having been used 54 times as a source . Have a look, for example, at how the Canadaland news story "Toronto Star Suspending Internship Programs Indefinitely" is used as a source at Toronto Star. The links I posted above, to Canadaland being cited by the National Post and various other Canadian media, do more than verify that Canadaland exists. They show that other Canadian media treat Canadaland with some respect, for example reporting information that was first reported in Canadaland, or specifically describing Canadaland as "an independent news website known for its coverage of the news media" (which connotes that its reporting has a favourable reputation, not just that the website exists). Mathew5000 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are using Daily Hive as a source—which we are, frequently—then Canadaland is at least as reliable. Daily Hive is at least half advertorial-style content and has been critiqued before for at-times shoddy journalism. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Daily Hive isn't a source we should be using, though. Obviously it gets used — a lot of people either don't understand or don't care what is or isn't a reliable source for our purposes, and will try to use just any web page they can find that technically supports the content (we even see people try to source stuff to iTunes, Netflix, Breitbart and YouTube!) — and it's not easy to always catch every attempt to use a bad source right away. But that doesn't mean it's a source that should be getting used. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * We need to take into account the fact that Canadaland's main focus is media criticism, so when we cite the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and Christie Blatchford in opposition to them, these are all outlets and individuals that have come in for sustained criticism by Canadaland. The fact that they have wide public acceptance does not mean that they are impartial in their assessment of Canadaland.  By the same token, if critical mentions in the media are sufficient basis to discount a source, then given that Canadaland's primary purpose is to document the failings, omissions, and biases in these and other media outlets in Canada, one could just as easily argue on the basis of that documentation that the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and certainly Christie Blatchford are themselves not reliable news sources.
 * I would be curious to know how many of the people who discount Canadaland have actually consumed much of their journalism. I've been following them for years and find them quite reputable.  I would venture to suggest that anyone who has 'never heard of Canadaland until today' should perhaps not be weighing in on their reliability.  The only solid basis for discounting Canadaland is to cite specific instances of stories which they both got wrong and then refused to correct.  We should be extremely wary of basing our judgement on a vague sense that they're problematic, especially when that vague sense might well have been created by Republican PR firms hired by WE.  Standingwolf (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Standingwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nikkei
We currently have around 1,600 citations to Nikkei, including around 600 to the main Japanese language newspaper per and over 1,000 to the English language Nikkei Asian Review per. I think that the Nikkei Asian Review is generally reliable. However I am unfamilar with the domestic papers reputation. The Economist has some interesting views from the FT purchase. "Nikkei journalists themselves have a reputation for knowing everyone and everything that matters—but holding their punches on controversial stories. One former reporter, Shigeo Abe, who spent 25 years at the paper before leaving to set up Facta, a monthly investigative business magazine, says its journalists are overly timid due to their fear of legal action and losing ad revenues from the big companies they cover."

This is corobborated by a quote from the New Yorker, also related to the FT purchase."Japanese reporters, and those who work for Nikkei in particular, have a reputation for going easy on the country’s corporations" There's also some interesting criticism in this piece from the Irish Times, which aside from the previously mentioned criticisms also states that the paper was uncritical of Abenomics, again similar in Quartz. I think from this that Nikkei is the gold standard source for Japanese financial reporting and generally reliable, but it's reporting is considerably less hard hitting than one would expect from Western newspaper, but this criticism is one that could be applied to most Japanese newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think how hard they hit comes into consideration when assessing reliability. In any event Nikkei is generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

etymonline
There are over 2,500 references to this site. The About page indicates it's a one-man psudonymous amateur project. Am I misreading this? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, its how it reads to me, an SPS if ever I saw one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we should be citing it, it’s sometimes wrong. For example, it claims Hun is a Turkic word when this is not known or even the most common theory among specialists. It’s somewhat opaque in its sourcing too. It’s also definitely a one man project. (I use it as a convenient source in my private life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good source for Wikipedia).—Ermenrich (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I'm generally in agreement that unless it can be shown to be wrong (in situations where a lot of other dictionaries might be wrong according to specialist literature), Etymoline should receive a better sourced needed tag rather than being removed entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should rely upon it, though I also have the sense that in any particular case, assuming that it's correct unless there's specific evidence to the contrary is a low-cost kind of error. In practical terms, I'd rather replace citations to it with cn tags than delete entirely the text sourced to it. (During the AfD for our article about it, I did a little work and !voted to keep, on the basis that it's wiki-notable even if not solidly reliable.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been known to use it for quick ref-desk answers and in my own private uses, but it does not have the provenance necessary for use in articles. There's literally nothing there that shouldn't instead be cited to better dictionaries (OED or Merriam-Webster) and it's only use seems to be "I'm too cheap to have an OED subscription to look this up in the actual source" (which is why I use it in less critical applications).  In short, I like it, it's a cool project, but there's no way it's a reliable source as defined by WP:RS.  -- Jayron 32 18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The author might well be a subject-matter expert that qualifies as an exception to the self-published rule. His library of dictionaries with which he sources his work is far more vast than anything I ever imagined for myself. (I have been a collector and user of dictionaries for decades.) I checked quite of few of his entries against some of my own print dictionaries and found his etymologies to be accurate to the printed dictionaries, including "hun". I got an insight into his technique and level of scholarship at this link. I'm familiar with the old dictionaries he refers to in that essay. I once had a Johnson 1755 but was convinced to part with it for $500 cash. I still miss it; it was unique and distinct from other modern dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary (which I also used to have and sold, though kept the magnifying glass, LOL) is rather verbose and obtuse for the average reader, and even some scholarly ones. After reading his About page and several of his current essays, which you can find on the right side of the About page, he definitely is a researcher and very precise. He has a degree in history, he's published, he's worked as a copy editor — all key elements you would expect in a subject-matter expert for etymologies (his humble and self-deprecating manner notwithstanding). He's obviously a deep-dive researcher: "To write the Chester County books I immersed myself hours every day for years in censuses, old maps, letters, diaries, accounts, glass-plate photographs, deed books, minutes, newspaper morgues." Normal Op (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An English etymological dictionary is not a good source for something like Hun. For actual scholarly opinions on the origins of the name Hun, you can see our Huns which is well sourced and includes not a single Turkic derivation that has widespread support. I bring this up mostly because Etymonline is used as a source in the ongoing battles with Pan-Turkism here.
 * Also, I don't think that he can qualify as a self-published expert. He doesn't seem to have any credentials. Plenty of people amass large quantities of books on subjects.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment. Transclusions of OEtymD should be checked and the template deprecated or revised if consensus is that etymonline is not reliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable and should be removed on sight—an obvious self-published WP:RS fail. This is an amateur website from an individual without a formal background in historical linguistics. Its entries are works of synthesis, and should not be trusted. The OED is widely available, as are various other etymological works produced by philologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Legit linguists use it frequently, but they characterize it as "a good place to start, but not to stop" (much like Wikipedia). Someone with access to the OED should replace existing citations with it, instead of indiscriminately replacing them with . Nardog (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is indeed self-published, but I've seen it cited by other sources that are credible. (It's not pseudonymous by the way; the author is Douglas Harper.) I remember it being widely cited (up until recently, at least) as a source on Dictionary.com. You can see evidence of this through this type of Google search. Linguist Daniel Midgley often lauds the source on his podcast Talk the Talk; here's one of many examples where Midgley lists the source in an episode's show notes. I actually emailed Midgley about this about five months ago. He contended that Harper had a Patreon post where he addressed questions as to his credibility and "has looked up every word in many sources, including the OED, Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, and some others. From what I've seen, it seems pretty solid. I use it. I haven't seen any clangers. I try not to make it my only source. The OED is better, perhaps, but not everyone has access to it." Midgley admitted that he really knows nothing about Harper's personal credentials. Wolfdog (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree it would probably be better to cite the actual references he uses instead of him. Quite often the OED has the same information as is being cited, but I don't think the reference should be removed, just tagged with until knowing which of his sources was used and the citation replaced. Removing the citation or just replacing it with a  makes it harder for subsequent editors to track down an appropriate source to back up that fact since they no longer have his list of sources as a starting point. Umimmak (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Better source needed" tag is the correct course in my opinion. EtymOnline is better than nothing since it's usually pretty okay, but in general we should prefer the OED and similar sources with editorial oversight. — Wug·a·po·des 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with replacing the citations with better sources, or—if no RS is at hand—adding -tags as default solution, since etymonline is an SPS by an amateur who is obviously highly competent, but has no credentials based on earlier peer-reviewed publications that could "heal" the SPS-issue. If someone feels compentent enough to contest a dubious etymology, but has no source for the correct solution, they may replace the citation with a -tag or even remove the complete information, but a removal spree as default procedure would create more harm than benefit. –Austronesier (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreeing that we should prefer other sources. It's got occasional inaccuracies, but my impression is that there aren't more of them than you would expect in any "properly" edited popular dictionary (which is an impressive feat for the mostly one-man project that it is). I don't see a need for blanket removal of existing citations. If any editor has reliable enough grounds for believing this dictionary to be wrong, then presumably they should be able to produce a reliable enough source with which to rewrite the text in question. And obviously, Etymonline shouldn't be used for words like "Hun" where there exists a lot of scholarly literature. – Uanfala (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe
What is the reliability of claims cited to the "Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe"? "about us" German Wikipedia article Apparently (not mentioned on their website) it is a project of Gudrun Kugler, a Roman Catholic Austrian anti-abortionist, theologian, and (far-)right-wing politician for the Österreichische Volkspartei. It seems to be cited on the listed as an external link on the Anti-Catholicism article, on Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era, and possibly elsewhere for statements of fact. Their neutrality and thus their reliability seems prima facie dubious. Should the external links remain in place? GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I just looked at it in respect of the current dispute on ANI. The lead item on the website was sourced to the mayor's facebook page. The site is attempting to weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians. It meets none of the reliable, verifiable, independent norms we expect. Cabayi (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabayi and GPinkerton, this is Systemic bias, so reporting on church vandalism disqualifies it as reliable? Unfortunate, the "mainstream media" does not pick up those type of stories. Also, news sites regularly report on Facebook posts or Tweets from political figures and or celebrities. But, a local mayor documenting church vandalism is just a "narrative". Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended. I find numerous NGOs, charities, and issue specific news sites cited in Wikipedia, apparent this is where you draw the line. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Church vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority. Your taking offence to a quite anodyne remark is completely irrelevant. GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're misrepresenting what I said. I don't accuse the local mayor of weaving - it's clearly intoleranceagainstchristians.eu weaving multiple minor incidents into a larger narrative. Only by aggregating trivia can the website make a supposed anti-Christian story.If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy". It's an excellent piece on the value (and to whom) of exaggerating the importance of events. Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabayi, I understand and I do not agree, one citation comes from a NGO the other form an established charity which also has a news website. They are not weaving a "narrative" how many time did I see a news blurbs about site vandalism (related to other groups), these are treated as a crime and statistics are documented by the police and often compiled and analyzed by NGOs. But, in this case when this NGO is compiling and analyzing stats on church vandalism it's a "narrative". Again, I don't agree with that view and its not a "conspiracy theory" when in 2019 you have 3000 reported cases of vandalism in churces. --E-960 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The question is actually about using it as a link in the list of "External links". The site is basically a curated database of cases which provides links to the sources of information like here. One should use these linked sources as RS. However, this in not "a link to avoid" because it maybe useful for a reader of this page. Hence I think this link might be restored. My very best wishes (talk)
 * It's just a tiny little bit disingenuous to claim that what that actual sources say looks like a fire started by a short-circuit is an instance of a case of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. No, we should NOT link to that.Vexations (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about one news story about a short circuit or a graffiti, the sites document issues facing Christians. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't see why we should hold "External links" to a lower overall standard than inline sources; if the former can't in principle be promoted to the latter, there's often something wrong. A polemical aggregator with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking is not a WP:RS (and this would apply just as much to a random communist's website recording "instances of discrimination against atheists"). We shouldn't point readers to such things, whether by footnote, endnote or "External link" bullet point. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because External links and WP:RS are very different guidelines. Here is overall idea: some links in section "External links" may not be necessarily reliable sources, but they should be provided if they link to information that may helpful for a reader, even if it may not be sufficiently reliable. For example, providing a link to Uniprot (another curated database) from a page about a specific protein is fine, even if the reliability of Uniprot as a source can be debatable. But of course not all links are good. Hence WP:ELNO. "Random communist site" may or may not be OK, depending the site and specific WP page. That one? I am not so sure. If it would be a notable resource we have a page about, I would be sure. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between say Amnesty International and Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe? Both report on the issues they see fit, compile data form individuals as well as government sources. But a report by one would be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, while the other not. We should treat all NGOs the same, if both are registered and official NGOs. --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The legal status of an NGO is not what grants it credibility. You can be batshit crazy and still register an NGO. The quality of reporting is what makes the difference. Amnesty international also has its own problems, as it is very biased in terms of issues such as capital punishment. They should not all be treated the same by virtue of all being registered NGOs, in stead - their track record of publications should be analyzed for reliability and biases, with their acceptibility on wikipedia determined on account of how well they fare when judged by those factors. As for an NGO that hasn't made a name for itself - one should be careful and opt to find corroborating sources. If none exist, the validity of their claims becomes questionable. This has nothing to do as to wether or not they report on church vandalism, it has everything to do with establishing credibility. Of course, I would welcome any evidence you could provide that could prove this NGO's credibility as an RS. NGOs should be held to the same standards, but that standard shouldn't be "is it registered?". Goodposts (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some NGOs are notable, recknowned, have an editorial staff, work with recknowned experts and other bodies, etc. Others are small propaganda advocacy orgs with dubious reliability.  It really depends.  As for external links, they have to be relevant to the topic and controversial links are usually not preserved.  As aforementioned, some are usable as sources with WP:ATTRIBUTION despite doing advocacy.  For both sources and external links, WP:CONSENSUS still matters on a per-article/per-topic basis.  In this case it would be better to use a less partisan source; Wikipedia is also not for WP:PROMOTION.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, Vexations, Goodposts and PaleoNeonate, I find some of the arguments presented here as evidence of Systemic bias, right of out the gate, User:Cabayi starts to throw around not too subtle jabs that my views regarding the Christian marginalization in Europe are akin to conspiracy theories, and User:GPinkerton bluntly accuses the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe of having far-right ties because Gudrun Kugler is a ÖVP politician (apparently the party of the current Austrian prime minister Sebastian Kurz is far-right). If you are going to be so blatantly bias and use such non-neutarl language to descibe my arguments as the two editors above mentioned you are pushing nothing more then Cultural Maxistim talking points, utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks, who called themselves the "majority", even though they were not, and took power through a coup not a democratic vote, yet always presented themselves as the voice of the people, and viciously attacked everyone including moderate democratic voices in Russia (everyone not on the left is a radical right-winger). Also, please focus on the 2019 report here, which was put out the the NGO not some individual news articles. Finally, this NGO is frequently cited by religious news sites or . --E-960 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, the U.S. Helsinki Commission held a briefing titled The State-Sanctioned Marginalization of Christians in Western Europe, and BBC posted this article on the issue of Christian persecution in the Middle-east , quoting that in the West "political correctness had played a part in the issue not being confronted." --E-960 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am correct in assuming that by "Cultural Maxistim" you meant "Cultural Marxism", then I hope you know that the concept of "Cultural Marxism" is in itself a conspiracy theory. Furthrmore, you mention the Bolsheviks - while you are correct that their name is derived from the russian word for "majority", it does not reffer to a majority of the russian population, but rather a majority of representatives at a congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party. The Bolshevik faction held a majority in the congress and as such managed to pass a motion regarding party membership over an opposition faction, whose proposition was supported only by a minority of representatives and as such were labled "Mensheviks" (from the Russian word for "minority"). Not that it really matters though, because the entire argument over Bolsheviks is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Goodposts (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point about the cultural marxism conspiracy theory, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Not reliable. Special pleading and personal attacks are not convincing. Being a registered NGO is not a sign of reliability. No evidence of credible reputation has been presented, while several warning signs have been brought up here.--Hippeus (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No pleading, just blatant Systemic bias. --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias should not be used as a club to include sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia standards. I worry that this website has been added as a form of WP:ADVOCACY to promote a certain narrative. Vandalism isn't necessarily motivated by anti-christian sentiment. (t · c)  buidhe  00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Not reliable per . There could in principle be a reliable website on this topic, but as pointed out, this isn't it. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. "The Scottish Justice Committee has proposed a new hate crime bill, which extends the current hate crime law covering race, to include other "protected characteristics" such as religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity." Sorry, guys, but stopping people from engaging in Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and the like is not oppressing Christians, it's oppressing bigots. You can certainly be a Christian and not be a bigot - most Christians in the EU manage it just fine. And that kind of idiosyncratic interpretation of "oppression" also disqualifies it as an external link. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Dating
I am interested in knowing what editors think about the effect of deprecating sources. I haven’t been able to find an explicit answer in policy though there are some hints. If a source A is deprecated at time $$\ T$$, what effect does that have on our ability to use articles in A that were published at time $$\ t < T$$? More particularly, suppose source A has been examined by the community at times $$\ t_1 < t_2 < \dots < t_n$$ and at each time has been found to be reliable. Suppose that at time $$t_{n+1} > t_n$$ a further examination of A found it to be unreliable. Does this latter decision affect the usability of articles published at a time prior to $$\ t_n$$ when the source was regarded as reliable?

The hints in policy related to this come from wp:Deprecated sources which says:

"Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not". This suggests that once a source is deprecated, existing links to that source should not be removed without taking into account the specific circumstances related to it.

"Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare". New articles published by the source after it is deprecated should not generally be added to Wikipedia.

"Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia". Common sense is a nebulous concept. Common sense would seem to allow links to articles that were published during a period when that source was regarded as reliable.

Burrobert (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * It might be more helpful if you're more specific. For example, which deprecated source are you looking to relitigate? --Calton | Talk 10:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * It's a general question. The list of deprecated sources is continually changing so it would be helpful to work out what the general principle, if any, is. It would also be useful to know that there is no general principle and that adding articles that date to a period when the source was reliable isn't specifically proscribed and may even be welcomed. Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Burrobert is making an error in logic. He is assuming that if a source is found to be reliable and later found to be unreliable the reliability of the source must have changed. It is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors, new arguments, and new examples.

 * To answer Burrobert's question, a source is only considered reliable before a certain date if the consensus of the latest discussion specifies that it was reliable before a certain date. Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ. If the two agree, older consensus adds weight to the newer consensus, as in "We have has 432 RfCs on the reliability of [ https://www.zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. The results ranged from No to Hell No." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I referred to a new vote deciding that a source was unreliable after it had previously been deemed reliable. I didn’t make an assumption about the reason for the change - whether this was due to a change in the nature of the source, change in the views of editors or other. It may be true that “it is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors” but I didn’t include that assumption or its negation in my question.

 * Your answer to the question itself, ("Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ") seems fairly clear and means that all references for a deprecated source back to the year dot become suspect unless the decision specifies a date. I note that the Daily Mail which was established in 1896 was deprecated in 2017 but "some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". On the other hand there was no such qualification in the deprecation of the Daily Express, first published in 1900 and The Sun, founded in 1964. Therefore all articles from these latter two publications, including reporting on Buddy Holly, "Ben Hur", space monkey, Mafia, Hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go, U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy, Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo are suspect. Burrobert (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * fwiw, the Daily Express isn't deprecated. (Though it'd be a fine candidate for deprecation.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Perhaps I was distracted by the note that it “is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail”. Burrobert (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

CB Insights
I see that we use CB Insights quite a bit for private company data. i.e. data about companies that are not public (e.g. startups), and any private acquisitions etc. Since private company data is hard to come by, there are a handful of reliable sources e.g. Crunchbase, CB Insights etc.

I found that this morning CB Insights, an article that I had created somewhile ago, was tagged for an AfD. Hence, my question if CB Insights is a reliable source specifically for pointed private company data (e.g. investment / funding value etc).

Ktin (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at The Financial Times it seems that they rely on CB Insights data but don't actually seem to report much on the company that owns the database ( https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+"CB+Insights" ). This suggests that it is a reliable source, but leaves a problem for notability at AfD. I see that the CB Insights page cites a Forbes article specifically on CB Insights, but that somebody has tagged that as an unreliable source, which is rather surprising, and also a question to be raised here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. That's what is leaving me conflicted - in the private markets (i.e. where the companies are not listed / public) reporting, CB Insights is used quite definitively for transaction data e.g. investments, valuation etc. Now, someone has marked CB Insights as a candidate for deletion, and I am struggling to explain. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Crunchbase is not merely not "reliable", it's literally deprecated and shouldn't be used as a source for anything: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261 - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, my question was about CB Insights. Did you mean to say CB Insights? Ktin (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he's responding to this: Since private company data is hard to come by, there are a handful of reliable sources e.g. Crunchbase, CB Insights etc. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Got it. Thanks for that clarification. I should have clarified that this was about CB Insights, and in the above text Crunchbase was just an example. The AfD discussion was specifically for CB Insights.Ktin (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Religions a reliable source?
Is MDPI's journal Religions (website) a reliable source? WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable1 says MDPI journals are "hit and miss". 's User:JzG/Predatory implies that good journals would appear in "ISI JCR" and "DOAJ". Religions is listed at ISI JCR and listed at DOAJ. And I don't find it listed at this version of Bealls list. But the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable seems to flag it as "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".VR talk 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * As it says above, you should provide the article used as a source, the information it supports and the article it is used for. The North Toronto Town Crier for example is probably a good source for local restaurants that have just closed down but for the Middle East peace process or inter-planetary travel not so much. TFD (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The stats are not encouraging (IF 0.45 and dropping), it's safe to say that it's not going to be considered generally reliable., so it will depend on the authors and the specific content as TFD says. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Beall never listed journals when he could list publishers instead. Beall listed MDPI in 2014, but removed it in 2015. The main issue with MDPI, much like Frontiers, is that their editorial boards are pressured to accept crap and mediocre articles. So it'll always be a borderline source.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306


text:
Talk:Deb Fischer

Wording Question
This is poorly worded: "In 2007, she helped to filibuster a bill that created a statewide smoking ban for indoor workplaces and public places." Huh? Did the bill pass or didn't it? If it passed, this should say "She help with an unsuccessful filibuster…" If it failed, and especially if the filibuster was successful, it should say "…a bill to create a ban…", not "…a bill that created a ban…" The way it's currently worded, it tells us that the ban was created, so the bill must have passed, after telling us it was filibustered. Let's clear this up. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Cleared up—the bill was passed despite the filibuster. spoko (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deb Fischer


text:
Sävsjö BK

Sävsjö BK was a bandy club in Sävsjö, Sweden, established in 1971. Jonas Claesson played for the team, debuting in Division 2 as a 13 years old. before switching to Vetlanda BK at age 14.

The women's team has played two seasons in the Swedish top division., 1972/1973 and 1973/1974.

title: Sävsjö BK


text:
Portal:Research/Researchers

This page is for people who are interested in research - of any description. If this includes you, please add youself to the list so that others can find you, and possibly collaborate on a project of mutual interest.

Researchers
Please add yourself at the end of the list (Should we add ourselves alphabetically, or by interest? Is the latter possible?)

 * Cormaggio: I'm a PhD student in Manchester (UK), interested in educational research, particularly action research. I've instigated a project (possibly to become a number of smaller projects) at Developing Wikiversity through action research - please do pitch in if it sounds of interest. I'm keeping a blog and a wiki to help with my research, though neither is very well-developed yet. I very much look forward to learning more about research through doing it here on Wikiversity - and I am fascinated to see what kind of research community we can help to build here. Loads more to say, of course, but better leave space for everyone else to have a say. :-) Cormaggio beep 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Juan: I´am a MSc student in Prague (cze), actually interested in short term research based on two foreign language teaching in the same time at the same place. --Juan 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * User:JWSchmidt. Wiki technology combined with volunteer editors..... what can be accomplished at Wikiversity with that combination? "..... the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." (source) In addition to introspective analysis of Wikiversity itself, I am interested in the role of research activities in the "learn by doing" model of education. I hope Wikiversity can become a center for engaging participants in research projects such as the Astronomy Project. There is some information about my personal research interests at Cell Biology/JWSchmidt. --JWSchmidt 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * recoverypsychologist: I am psychiatric rehabilitation worker, who is studying clinical psychology (no degree yet) so my actual expertise is this "recovery" stuff that seriously conflicts with clinical psychology. My research is based on the assertion that two conflicting concepts can not logically exist seperatelty.--recovery psychologist 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Relex: Hmm.. I'm an undergrad studying Neurobio/Microbio, and my interest here is in creating an open academic forum, a venue for all research in the unique Wiki-way. Let's get things started :) --Relex 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * mikeu: I'm an astronomer at the Ladd Observatory.  Prev. worked at a planetarium.  Interested in astronomy, history of science and public education.  Currently working on Observational astronomy/Extrasolar planet.  --mikeu 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi i am Pulak Agarwal from India, am working with a company as a operations manager. I basically wanted to do a research in business operations. Pulakcat, 03:59, 20 May 2007

 * sherons: I´am a MSc Physics holder from Mahatma Gandhi University, India, interested in space research, i think wikiversity is a good source of informations i needed, if anyone interested in the same please contact me<EMAIL_ADDRESS>05:04, 30 July 2007

 * I'm Prof.Vivek Sharma, Chandigarh, India. I feel that today, as the complexities are increasing, still, researchers from different fields can share their findings and they can be applicable to many other fields benifiting the human race.

 * Cbbahn Hi, I am a senior researcher with CUREM in Zurich, Switzerland. I am especially interested in urban economics and sociology, real estate and hedge funds. 13:45, 31 August 2007

 * Tom Jirinec: Interested in all kinds of research but mainly physics and/or astronomy. Anyone care to join me? 14:00, 9 September 2007

 * Brentc: A am currrently doing a small exploratory research project: Elearning_in_open_source_education.

 * AFriedman: I am studying neuroscience and evolutionary biology using a largely computational approach, in a "laboratory" I have built on my Userpage.

title: Portal:Research/Researchers


text:
Ologies

A

 * Acarology, the study of ticks and mites
 * Actinobiology, the study of the effects of radiation upon living organisms
 * Actinology, the study of the effect of light on chemicals
 * Aerobiology, a branch of biology that studies organic particles, such as bacteria, fungal spores, very small insects and pollen, which are passively transported by the air.
 * Aerology, the study of the atmosphere
 * Aetiology, the medical study of the causation of disease
 * Agnoiology, the study of things of which we are by nature ignorant, or of things which cannot be known
 * Agrobiology, the study of plant nutrition and growth in relation to soil conditions
 * Agrology
 * Canada: the art and science of agriculture
 * Non-Canada: the study of soils
 * Agrostology, the study of grasses
 * Algology, the study of algae
 * Allergology, the study of the causes and treatment of allergies; a branch of medicine
 * Andrology, the study of male health and disease
 * Anesthesiology, the study of anesthesia and anesthetics; a branch of medicine
 * Angelology, the study of angels
 * Angiology, the study of the anatomy of blood and lymph vascular systems
 * Anthropology, the study of humans
 * Apiology, the study of bees (apiaries)
 * Arachnology, the study of spiders and their kind
 * Archaeology, the study of past cultures through the analysis of material remains
 * Archaeozoology, the study of relationships between humans and animals over time through examination of animal remains at archaeological sites (also see Zooarchaeology)
 * Areology, the study of Mars
 * Assyriology, the study of the Assyrians
 * Astacology, the study of crayfish
 * Asteroseismology, the study of the internal structures of stars as revealed by their oscillations (see also Helioseismology).
 * Astrobiology, the study of origin of life
 * Astrogeology, the study of geology of celestial bodies (e.g., planets, asteroids, comets)
 * Astrology, the study of the purported influence(s) of celestial bodies on earthly affairs
 * Astrometeorology: using astrology to forecast the weather
 * Atmology, the study of the laws and phenomena of aqueous vapors
 * Audiology, the study of hearing; a branch of medicine
 * Autecology, the study of the ecology of any individual species
 * Autology, the attribute (of a word) of being self descriptive. The word "polysyllabic" is autological because it is polysyllabic. (compare heterology)
 * Auxology, the study of human growth.
 * Axiology, the study of the nature of values and value judgements

B

 * Bacteriology, the study of bacteria
 * Balneology, the scientific study of baths, bathing and of their application to disease
 * Batology, the study of blackberries
 * Beierlology, the study of stalkers
 * Bibliology, the study of books, printing, and publishing; also called Bibliography
 * Bioclimatology, the study of the effects of climate on living organisms
 * Biogeomorphology, or ecogeomorphology, the study of interactions between organisms and geomorphological processes
 * Bioecology, the study of the relationship of organisms to each other and to their environment
 * Biology, the study of life
 * Biometeorology, the study of the effects of atmospheric conditions on living organisms
 * Biotechnology industrial use of living organisms or their components to improve human health and food reduction
 * Boxology is the study of schematic layouts, for example of corporate org charts.
 * Bryology, the study of bryophytes
 * Bryozoology, the study of the phylum Bryozoa
 * Buddhology, the study of the nature of Buddha

C

 * Campanology, the study and the art of bell ringing
 * Cardiology, the study of the heart; a branch of medicine
 * Cereology, the study of crop circles
 * Cetology, the study of cetaceans - whales, dolphins, and porpoise
 * Characterology, the study of character
 * Chavezology, study of devil worshipers
 * Christology, the theological study of redemption (christos > christein: to sacrament), not only speaking of Christianity but also extended to religion in general
 * Chorology, the study of the relationship of biological or other phenomena to their locations
 * Chronology the study of things in order of time or the study of time
 * Climatology, the study of the climate
 * Codicology, the study of the preparation of books and manuscripts (ink, paper, vellum etc)
 * Coleopterology, the study of beetles
 * Coniology, the study of dust in the atmosphere and its effects on plants and animals, also spelled "koniology"
 * Conchology, the study of shells and of molluscs
 * Contrology, a neologism for the Pilates method, a system of physical exercise
 * Cosmology, the study of the cosmos or our place in it
 * Cosmetology, the study of cosmetics and their use
 * Craniology, the study of the characteristics of the skull
 * Criminology, the scientific study of crime
 * Cryology, the study of very low temperatures and related phenomena.
 * Cryptology, the study of how to encrypt and decrypt secret messages
 * Cryptozoology, the study of animals that may or may not be mythical
 * Cynology, the study of dogs
 * Cytomorphology, the study of the structure of cells
 * Cytology, the study of cells

D

 * Deltiology, the study of, but more often the collecting of picture postcards
 * Demography, the study of statistics such as births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease, which illustrate the changing structure of human populations
 * Demonology, the study of demons
 * Dendrochronology, the study of the age of trees and the records in their rings
 * Dendrology, the study of trees
 * Deontology, in ethics, the study of duty.
 * Dermatology, the study of the skin; a branch of medicine
 * Dermatopathology, the field of dermatological anatomical pathology; a branch of medicine
 * Desmology, the study of ligaments
 * Dialectology, the study of dialects
 * Dipterology, the study of flies
 * Dudology, the study of men

E

 * Ecclesiology, the study of Church architecture and decoration, or separately the study of the Christian Church
 * Ecogeomorphology, or biogeomorphology, the study of interactions between organisms and geomorphological processes
 * Ecohydrology, the study of interactions among organisms and the water cycle.
 * Ecology, the study of the interrelationships between living organisms and their environment. Sometimes spelled "œcology".
 * Economic geology is concerned with earth materials that can be utilized for economic and/or industrial purposes.
 * Ecophysiology, the study of the interrelationship between an organism's physical functioning and its environment
 * Edaphology, a branch of soil science that studies the influence of soil on life.
 * Egyptology, the study of the ancient Egyptians
 * Electrophysiology, the study of the relationship between electric phenomena and bodily processes
 * Embryology, the study of embryos
 * Emetology, the study or knowledge of emetics
 * Endocrinology, the study of internal secretory glands; a branch of medicine
 * Enigmatology, the study of puzzles
 * Enology (or Oenology), the study of wine and winemaking
 * Entomology, the study of insects
 * Enzymology, the study of enzymes
 * Epidemiology, the study of the origin and spread of diseases
 * Epistemology, the study of the nature and origins of knowledge
 * Escapology, the practice of escaping from restraints or other traps.
 * Eschatology, a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of mankind
 * Ethnology, the study of race
 * Ethnomusicology, the study of music in society, usually non-western music
 * Ethology, the study of animal behaviour
 * Etiology, same as Aetiology
 * Etymology, the study of word origins
 * Eulogy, the speech of praise
 * Evolutionary biology, the study of the process of biological evolution
 * Evolutionary psychology, the study of the process of (usually) human psychological evolution.
 * Exobiology, the study of life in outer space

F

 * Felinology, the study of cats
 * Fetology, the study of the fetus, especially when within the uterus. Sometimes spelled foetology.
 * Formicology, the study of ants
 * Fungology, fungus + -ology, see mycology.
 * Fulminology the study of lightning
 * Futurology, the study of the future

G

 * Garbology - study of refuse and trash
 * Gastrology or Gastroenterology - diseases of stomach and intestines ; a branch of medicine
 * Gemmology or Gemology, the study of gemstones and ornamental materials
 * Genealogy (commonly misspelled and mispronounced as "geneology"), the study of relationships within families particularly with a view to constructing family trees
 * Genecology, the study of genetic differences in relation to the environment
 * Geobiology, the study of the biosphere and its relations to the lithosphere and atmosphere.
 * Geochronology, the study of the age of the Earth
 * Geology, the study of the Earth
 * Geomorphology, the study of present-day landforms, traditionally on Earth but with increasing frequency on nearby planetary objects
 * Gerontology, the study of old age
 * Glaciology, the study of glaciers
 * Grammatology, the study of writing systems. Also the study of deconstructive literary criticism, popularized in the 1960s by Jacques Derrida
 * Graphology, the study of handwriting for the purpose of analysing the character of the writer
 * Grossology, the study of gross and disgusting things. Fictional; book title
 * Gynaecology or Gynecology, the study of medicine relating to women, or of women in general

H

 * Hematology/Haematology, the study of blood; a branch of medicine
 * Heliology, the study of the Sun
 * Helioseismology, the study of vibrations and oscillations in the Sun
 * Helminthology, the study of parasitic worms. See Vermeology.
 * Hepatology, the study of the liver; a branch of medicine
 * Herbology, the study of the therapeutic use of plants
 * Herpetology, the study of reptiles and amphibians
 * Heterology, the attribute (of a word) of not being self descriptive. The word "monosyllabic" is heterological because it is not monosyllabic. (compare autology)
 * Heteroptology, the study of true bugs
 * Hieroglyphology, Egyptian hieroglyphics, an ancient writing system
 * Hierographology, the study of sacred texts
 * Hierology, a more inclusive term for theology
 * Hippology, study of horses
 * Histology, the study of living tissues
 * Histopathology, the study of the (microscopic) structure of diseased tissues
 * Historiology, the study of the writings and practices of historians
 * Homology, concept in anthropology, biology, algebraic topology, and sociology, meaning "likeness in structure"
 * Horology, the study of making timepieces, measuring time and timekeeping (also the study of time)
 * Hydrogeology, the study of underground water
 * Hydrology, the study of water
 * Hypnology, the study of sleep (also: somnology)
 * Hoplology, the study of weapons and armor and/or human combative behavior

I

 * Ichnology, the study of fossil footprints, tracks and burrows
 * Ichthyology, the study of fish
 * Ideology, the study of ideas throughout society both socially,politically,historically and literary
 * Immunology, the study of the immune system; a branch of medicine
 * Indology, the study of the history, languages, and cultures of the Indian subcontinent
 * Iranology, the study of history, literature, art and culture of Iran (Persia)
 * Islamology, the study of the Islam

J

 * Japanology, the study of Japanese people

K

 * Karyology, the study of karyotypes (a branch of cytology)
 * Killology, the study of human beings killing other human beings (Grossman's theory)
 * Kinesiology, the study of movement in relation to human anatomy; a branch of medicine
 * Kremlinology, the study of the Soviet Union
 * Kymatology, the study of waves or wave motions

L

 * Laryngology, the study of the larynx, or voice box; a branch of medicine
 * Lepidopterology, the study of butterflies and moths
 * Lexicology, the study of the signification and application of words
 * Limnology, the study of fresh water environments, particularly lakes
 * Lithology, the study of rocks
 * Ludology, the study of games and play
 * Lymphology, the study of the lymph system and glands

M

 * Malacology, the study of mollusks
 * Mammalogy, the study of mammals
 * Memeology the study of memes
 * Mereology, a branch of logic focusing on the study of part-whole relationships
 * Meteorology, the study of weather
 * Methodology, (properly) the study of methods
 * Metrology, the study of measurement
 * Microbiology, the study of microorganisms.
 * Micrology, the science of preparing and handling microscopic objects for study.
 * Mineralogy, the study of minerals
 * Mixology, the study or skill of preparing mixed drinks.
 * Molinology, the study of windmills, watermills and animal engines.
 * Monadology, a book by Leibniz on the study of his theory of monads.
 * Morphology, the study of forms that is used in several other fields (biology, linguistics, astronomy, etc.)
 * Museology, the study of museum management.
 * Musicology, the study of music
 * Mycology, the study of fungi
 * Myology the scientific study of muscles
 * Myrmecology, the study of ants
 * Mythology, the study of myths

N

 * Nanotechnology, the study and design of machines at the molecular level
 * Nanotribology, the study of friction at very small (atomic) scale
 * Nematology, the study of nematodes
 * Neonatology, the study of diseases and the care of newborn infants; a branch of pediatrics/paediatrics
 * Nephology, the study of clouds
 * Nephrology, the study of the kidneys and their diseases, a branch of medicine
 * Neurology, the study of nerves; a branch of medicine
 * Neuropathology, the study of neural diseases
 * Neurophysiology, the study of the functions of the nervous system
 * Nosology, the study of disease classification
 * Numerology, the study of numbers (often in a non-mathematical sense)
 * Nutriology, the study of nutrition

O

 * Oceanology, the study of oceans
 * Odonatology, the study of dragonflies and damselflies
 * Odontology, the study of the structure, development, and abnormalities of the teeth
 * Oenology, the study of wine
 * Omnology, the study of everything
 * Oncology, the study of cancer; a branch of medicine
 * Oneirology, the study of dreams
 * Onomatology (also called "onomastics"), the study of proper names
 * Ontology, the study of existence
 * Onychology, the study of fingernails and toenails
 * Oology, the study of eggs
 * Ophthalmology, the study of the eyes; a branch of medicine
 * Organology, the study of musical instruments (not just organs); alternatively, the study of anatomical organs
 * Ornithology, the study of birds
 * Orology, the study of mountains and their mapping
 * Orthopterology, the study of grasshoppers and crickets
 * Osteology, the study of bones
 * Otolaryngology, the study of the ear and throat; a branch of medicine
 * Otology, the study of the structure, function, and pathology of the ear
 * Otorhinolaryngology, the study of the ear, nose and throat; a branch of medicine

P

 * Paleoanthropology, the study of prehistoric people and human origins
 * Paleobiology, the study of prehistoric life
 * Paleobotany, the study of prehistoric metaphytes (i.e., multicellular plants)
 * Paleoclimatology, the study of prehistoric climates
 * Paleoecology, the study of prehistoric environments by analyzing fossils and rock strata
 * Paleontology, the study of fossils of ancient life
 * Paleophytology (see "paleobotany"), the study of ancient multicelled plants
 * Paleozoology, the study of prehistoric metazoans (i.e., multicellular animals)
 * Palynology, the study of pollen
 * Parapsychology, the study of paranormal or psychic phenomenon that defy conventional scientific explanations
 * Parasitology, the study of parasites
 * Pathology, the study of illness; a branch of medicine
 * Pedology (soil study), one of two main branches of soil science
 * Pedology (paidology, paedology), the study of children's behavior and development
 * Penology, the study of prison management and criminal rehabilitation.
 * Personology, a variant of physiognomy
 * Petrology, the study of rocks and the conditions by which they form
 * Pharmacology, the study of drugs
 * Phenology, the study of periodic biological phenomena such as flowering, migration, breeding, etc.
 * Phenomenology, the study and science of phenomena as distinct from the science of actual existence or being; also a movement founded by Husserl which studies conscious experience without its metaphysical concerns
 * Philology, the study of a language together with its literature
 * Phlebology, a branch of medicine that deals with the venous system
 * Phonology, the study of vocal sounds
 * Phrenology, the derivation of a persons character traits, by studying the shape of their skull
 * Phycology, the study of algae
 * Physiology, the study of mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms; a branch of medicine
 * Phytology, the study of plants; botany
 * Phytopathology ("Plant pathology"), the study of plant diseases
 * Phytosociology, the study of the ecology of plant communities
 * Piphilology, the mnemonic practice of writing sentences such that the numbers of letters in the words correspond to the consecutive digits of pi
 * Planetology, the study of planets and solar systems; more commonly called Planetary science
 * Planktology, the study of plankton
 * Pneumology, a synonym of Pulmonology
 * Polemology, the study of war in an interdisciplinary context.
 * Pomology, the scientific study and cultivation of fruits
 * Posology, the study of drug dosage
 * Primatology, the study of primates
 * Proctology, the study of the hind regions (rectum, anus, colon and pelvic floor) of the body
 * Psephology, the study, especially statistical, of elections.
 * Psychobiology, the study and psychology of organisms with regard to their functions and structures
 * Psychology, the study of mental processes in living creatures
 * Psychopathology, the study of the mental processes within mental illness or disorders
 * Psychopharmacology, the study of psychotropic or psychiatric drugs
 * Psychophysiology, the study of the physiological bases of psychological processes
 * Pulmonology, the study of the lungs and the respiratory tract; a branch of medicine

R

 * Radiology, the study of rays, usually ionising radiation; a branch of medicine
 * Redology, the study of the classical Chinese literary masterpiece Dream of the Red Chamber
 * Reflexology, originally the study of reflexes or of reflex responses; but see also non-study list
 * Rheology, the study of flow
 * Rheumatology, the study of rheumatic diseases, a branch of medicine
 * Rhinology, the study of the nose and its diseases
 * Ripperology, the study of Jack the Ripper and the crimes associated with him

S

 * Sarcology, a subsection of anatomy that studies the soft parts. It includes myology, angiology, neurology, and splanchnology
 * Scatology, the study of feces
 * Scientology, the applied religious philosophy created by American writer L. Ron Hubbard
 * Sedimentology, a branch of geology that studies sediments.
 * Seismology, the study of earthquakes
 * Selenology, the study of the moon
 * Semiology, the study of signs
 * Semitology, the study of Semitic cultures
 * Serology, the study of blood serum
 * Serpentology, the study of snakes
 * Sexology, the study of sex
 * Sindonology, the study of the Shroud of Turin
 * Sinology, the study of China
 * Sitiology, dietetics, the study of diet. Also, a treatise on diet. Also spelled "sitology"
 * Sociology, the study of society
 * Sociobiology, the study of the effect of evolution on ethology
 * Somnology, the study of sleep, also: hypnology
 * Somatology, study of human characteristics
 * Soteriology the study of the doctrine of salvation, especially as related to Christianity
 * Sovietology, the study of communist Soviet Union
 * Speleology, the study or exploration of caves
 * Sporalogy, a parody of astrology
 * Stemmatology, a discipline that attempts to reconstruct the transmission of a text (especially a text in manuscript form) on the basis of relations between the various surviving manuscripts
 * Stomatology, study of the mouth and its diseases.
 * Sumerology, the study of the Sumerians.
 * Symbology, the study and interpretation of symbols, or a set of symbols. Also used for types of barcodes
 * Symptomatology, the study of symptoms
 * Synecology, the study of the ecological interrelationships among communities of organisms
 * Syphilology, the study of syphilis

T

 * Taxology, a synonym for taxonomy
 * Teleology, the study of ends or final causes
 * Teratology, the study of wonders, or monsters
 * Terminology, the usage and study of terms.
 * Thanatology, the study of physical, psychological and social problems associated with dying.
 * Thermology, the study of heat.
 * Theology, the study of religion
 * Tibetology, the study of Tibet
 * Tocology, the study of childbirth, sometimes spelled "tokology".
 * Tonology, the study of intonation in speech
 * Topology, the mathematical study of closeness and connectedness
 * Toxicology, the study of poisons
 * Traumatology, the study of wounds and injuries caused by accidents or assaults and their surgical treatment and repair; a branch of medicine
 * Tribology, the study of friction and lubrication
 * Trichology, the study of hair and scalp
 * Typology, the study of classification

U

 * Urology, (Sometimes spelled "ourology") the study of the urogenital tract; a branch of medicine.
 * Ufology, the study of Unidentified flying object (UFO) phenomena.

V

 * Vaccinology, the study of vaccines
 * Venereology, the study of venereal diseases
 * Vexillology, the study of flags
 * Victimology, the study of victims of crime, often applied to characterizing the criminal
 * Virology, the study of viruses
 * Volcanology (also spelled vulcanology), the study of volcanoes and related phenomena (traps)

X

 * Xenobiology, the study of non-terrestrial life
 * Xylology, the study of wood

Z

 * Zooarchaeology, the study and analysis of animal remains at archaeological sites to reconstruct relationships between people, animals, and their environment (also see Archaeozoology)
 * Zoology, the study of animals
 * Zoopathology ("Animal pathology"), the study of animal diseases
 * Zymology, the study of fermentation

Ologies that are not fields of study
Words ending in -ology that are not fields of study, and thus not "ologies" in the sense of this article, are:
 * Anthology, a collection of literary pieces (such as poems).
 * Apology
 * a statement of regret.
 * an explanation for or justification of beliefs.
 * Arcology - enormous habitat (hyperstructure) of extremely high human population density.
 * Chronology is the arrangement or setting out of past events in order of occurrence; the recording of historical events in date sequence.
 * Cosmetology, the art and career of using cosmetics to improve beauty.
 * Dilogy is
 * ambiguous or equivocal speech, or
 * a work composed in two parts (see trilogy)
 * Docimology, a treatise on the art of testing, e.g. in assaying metals.
 * Doxology, a spoken or sung end of a prayer.
 * Eulogy, though not an -ology, is a commemoration of a person's life at his/her funeral.
 * Hagiology is literature dealing with the life of a saints|saint or, indeed, any revered person, a biography of an individual, rather than a study of saints, sainthood or saintliness in general.
 * Heterology, a dissimilarity of parts often attributable to a difference in origin.
 * Homology (biology)|Homology, a similarity often atributable to common origin
 * Ideology, sometimes spelled idealogy, is a system of ideas about politics, human life or culture.
 * Kibology, joke religion worshiping Kibo.
 * Menology, a register of months, or a calendar of the lives of the saints for each day of the year.
 * Necrology, a list of people who have died, especially in the recent past or during a specific period.
 * Philology, the historical study of languages. This is not a ology in the strict sense, because it is not the study (-ologia) of love (philo-), but the love (philo-) of literature (logia).
 * Phraseology is the way words are put together, therefore the style guide|style being used in a Sentence (linguistics)|sentence, or the set of phrases or the choice of words used by any particular group of people, or a type of register (linguistics)|register that reflects the form of language used in a certain social situation in which particular subjects are being discussed.
 * Piphilology seems to be a borderline case with some aspects of a field of study, but not a scientific discipline.
 * Reflexology, alternative method of massage, manipulative therapy|therapy or pressure on certain points of the sole of the feet as a means of relieving nervous tension.
 * Scientology, the belief system/cult religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard, self-described as a study of knowledge.
 * Tautology (logic)|Tautology, a self-affirming truth.
 * Technology, the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
 * Terminology, a set of words and/or phrases, usually in relation to some particular canon or field of study e.g. 'mathematical terminology'.
 * Tetralogy of Fallot, an abnormality of the heart consisting of four deformities that often occur together.
 * Trilogy (although not strictly an -ology) is a body of writing in three parts, as tetralogy is that in four parts. Other words such as pentalogy, hexalogy, and heptalogy or septology cover larger series.
 * Tropology, the use of tropes in speech or writing.
 * A Zumology is a treatise on the fermentation of liquors.

title: Ologies


text:
Talk:ITV Sport

Great work
Can I just say, well done and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this article. It looks great now, bursting with info. --GMc 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reluctant to criticize other people's work but this article feels inaccurate and unreliable. It gives no clue about the history or development of sport on ITV since 1955. I don't have the sources to do that at present. I have limited myself to amending the straightforward factual errors about the summer Olympics. Jcb336 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed
Added the Unreferenced template - there's not a single reference in the article. Proof needs to be provided of stuff like "The network promised to revolutionise the sport,", "who regarded the event as one of their sporting 'crown jewels'" and

Stuff like "Perhaps the biggest ITV football achievement..." is weasley

Stuff like "Whilst most of the time no key action is missed" appears POV as I believe they do miss key stuff most of the time during ad breaks and so it should be removed altogether. Other POV stuff includes "Big Fight Boxing is another pivital part of ITV Sport's portfolio." and

Stuff like ITV hold joint UK rights to the 2007 Rugby World Cup along with S4C and show all games live on either ITV1 or ITV4. The network has broadcast every Rugby World Cup live and exclusively since 1991..." is conflicting - ITV didn't have exclusive rights to the 2003 RWC as they broadcast it jointly with S4C.

Stuff like "Brian Moore was the voice of ITV's football coverage from the 1960s through to the 1998 World Cup final in France. He presented and commentated on football for the network in four different decades. He died on September 1st 2001, on the day England beat Germany in Munich 5-1." is really non-notable trivia.

This article therefore generally needs a cleanup and rewrite in places. Alexj2002 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ITV or ITV?
The article states that ITV Sport is ITV plc's "sports producer" is this really the case or is it just a brand-name of a strand. AFAICT the ITV Sport brand is used across the ITV Network? Pit-yacker 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ITV Sport F1
03ogmsmith 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Hey, the page is great. Could anyone update the itv motorsport section so that it makes reference to the fact that Tony Jardine no longer analyses on ITV ?

Thanks.

Formula 1
This seems to be akin to an anti-ITV rant at the way that they provide the F1 coverage, does anybody else agree? Andy4226uk (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They've not done fantastic job with F1 so that's not surprising, especially last year when they were speaking like there was only one driver on the grid. It is hardly a huge talking point now, seeing in just over 6 months they won't be broadcasting it at all. IrishLad08 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The section desperately needs sources, otherwise without that context it definitely seems like it's a rant. Bill (talk 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name of the ITV F1 music which is played during the ending titles and the intro/outro of he breaks? DRD —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Its a re-mixed version of Lift Me Up (Moby song). Andy4226uk (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, anotha question: does anyone know if i can buy that exact song? Because i heard that ITV was giving the F1 over to the BBC and they are going to change the title music, that song means a lot to me DRD —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary Ilmach
I wouldn't say he is a main presenter of ITV Sport. He is free-lance and only presents the Tour De France which is once a year. Should be removed from the main presenters list in my opnion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskart (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Gary Imlach? Britmax (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Should there perhaps be a separate section for controversy? No doubt the Everton/Liverpool fiasco is fresh on peoples minds but is it worth mentioning other occasions there has been a "balls up"? Such as when they have missed finish of F1 races due to advert breaks? --Uksam88 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup underway
This article is filled with unreferenced passages of text and a conversational tone. For this reason, large passages may be removed as the "needs verification" tag has been up for three years now. Any further additions of information should be referenced throughout. Where there are multiple presenters, a short list will be created and left open for citations. Please comment on this talk page for any issues regarding imminent mass deletion before reverting. Thanks GiggsIsLegend (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion is not necessary but it is true to say that, as well as a lack of verification and external references, some of the passages, especially the Current Sports Coverage section, was bloated and not relevant. The article should be of a similar level of detail as seen on the BBC Sport article.  Therefore I have begun the process of reinstatement of the previous content in a way which should alleviate these concerns by adding additional references and by significantly reducing the length of these sections. (Rillington (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Thank you, I'll try to assist in the process :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on ITV Sport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924125858/http://www.pdc.tv/page/PlayersChampionshipDetail/0,,10180~2445351,00.html to http://www.pdc.tv/page/PlayersChampionshipDetail/0,,10180~2445351,00.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:ITV Sport


text:
User:Vermishis

My name is Mackie Drew, I am a high school student from Ontario Canada. My E-mail address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Aliases
This is a list of my user names and nicknames from various places.

 * opop39
 * Vermishis
 * orbity60
 * prodigious
 * Zephyr
 * Tosh

Interests
A list of my various computer related interests.

 * Programming
 * Game Design
 * Graphic Design
 * 3D Graphic Design
 * Web Design
 * Computer Engineering
 * Gaming
 * Software Engineer
 * Information Technology

Projects

 * Smash 'N' Hurl (Website)
 * Trial Tours (Web Site)
 * Unnamed (Video Game)
 * Cheese-Off! - Cheesiness Detector (Web service)
 * iMod - Makes Everything look like an iPod Commercial (Half-Life 2 Mod)
 * Digital Broom - Cleans Computer (Freeware)
 * Gooie - VERY early stages (Operating System) Possibly For Quantom Computers

Current Wiki's

 * School:Computer_Science
 * User:Vermishis
 * CrystalCore

title: User:Vermishis


text:
Wikibooks talk:Designated agent

Since this page is protected, please could an admin change the address to

This is the new official Wikimedia address. Thanks. Angela 19:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. --mav 20:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Angela 02:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance. Could the phone number change to<PHONE_NUMBER> and the address to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>please. Angela 19:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * done. Gentgeen 20:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The address has changed again. Please could an admin update it to

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 200 2nd Ave. South #358 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313 +1<PHONE_NUMBER>

Thanks. Angela 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * done. Gentgeen 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Direct this page to Foundation
Please direct this page to

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Designated_agent

The correct & official information will always be kept there.

title: Wikibooks talk:Designated agent


text:
Talk:Chester–Birkenhead line

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chester–Birkenhead line


text:
Pratum, Oregon

Pratum is an unincorporated community in Marion County, Oregon, United States. It is located northeast of Salem on Howell Prairie near the Pudding River. Pratum is Latin for "meadow". The community was settled in the late 19th century by a group of Mennonites, many of them of Swiss extraction. A branch of the narrow-gauge Oregonian Railway was built through the area in about 1880, and the station there was called "East Side Junction". The railway was eventually converted to standard gauge, and is still in use today by the Willamette Valley Railway. In 1895, the station was renamed "Enger" by a Mr. Larson, who opened the first store there. "Enger" was confused with Eugene, however, and the name of the station changed to "Pratum" in 1898. Pratum post office was established in 1887, and was originally called "Switzerland", then "Enger" and finally "Pratum" in 1898, matching the railroad station. The post office ran until 1964. Pratum Elementary School, was built in 1928 and is part of the Silver Falls School District, and is still operating.

The community is part of the Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area.

title: Pratum, Oregon