Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 81

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

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

→

BNP

IS this RS [[1]] for the BNP's 1992 manifesto.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

no. There's no evidence Richard Kimber retransmits faithfully. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking a bit harder, it seems that there is, actually. Kimber seems to be a retired lecturer from Keele University.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area.htm is still a redirect to his site, so presumably Keele still endorses him. It certainly repeatedly refers to his site here: [2].
The Guardian seems to be using his site as a reliable source here: "Home in on votes", S A Mathieson, The Guardian Thursday 3 March 2005.
Intute seems to recommend his site here. [3]
Stanford University recommends it here. [4]
Palgrave Macmillan, highly reputable publishing house, recommends it here: [5]
Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library. [6]

I'd say that means it's regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question. --GRuban (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully accept and endorse GRuban's argument from academic and professional indexation, and from relevant expertise, that this is a reliable faithful and intact transmission of sources. Could someone gently prod Richard Kimber to include a better description of the reliability of his resource on its own pages? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I think this is the first time Fifelfoo has endorsed one of my arguments on RSN. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :-) --GRuban (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I really that much of a hard case :) ? Excellent research to find those points of argument! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholastic text replaced by a non-scholastic source

Article: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Source: Elmer, Greg; Gasher, Mike (2005). Contracting Out Hollywood: Runaway Productions and Foreign Location Shooting (Critical Media Studies: Institutions, Politics, and Culture). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 4. ISBN 9780742536951.
Excerpt on Google books: [7]
edit:[8]

The above source is a scholastic text that was used to source the budget on the Terminator 3 article. This has been removed from the article and replaced with Box Office Mojo as a reference. The book in question is a published collection of academic writings on the film industry. The two authors are respected academics, both holding PhDs and are associate professors. Here are their profiles: Greg Elmer: [9], Mike Gasher: [10].

Since this source was removed by an administrator who didn't say why he didn't consider it a reliable source, I would be grateful if someone would check my source and tell me if they consider it reliable or not. I've looked into this and WP:RS states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It seems to me that a published scholastic work should be considered more reliable than Box Office Mojo. I don't see any credible reason for removing it. Any comments, suggestions, advice would be welcome. Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

please also supply the other citation. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I linked "Box Office Mojo" to it above. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Here it is again: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator3.htm Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note The site - Box Office Mojo - is regarded as reliable with regard to movie information. To quote IllaZilla, another editor who restored the BOM reference prior to me, "BOM's #ss are more reliable as they come from financial reports while these others are from cast interviews". Note also that the referenced text in the book does not directly focus on T3's budget, but mentions the value as an aside when discussing the book's real subject, films moving out of California. That aside, I'm still looking for better sources to resolve this. I'd note that I wish Betty had expressed her concerns to me prior to (or even concurrently with) coming to this forum, as I was not informed of this posting despite being a party to it. It is also important to note that two other editors (one relatively new, one with years of experience) had disagreed with the budget value prior to my revert. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The view that "Box Office Mojo is more reliable" is a personal opinion though, there is no evidence to substantiate that view. The only mechanism we have for gauging reliability is through the various fact checking policies various sources employ. I'm not actually challenging your action (although I was disappointed that you gave no reason for rejecting the source after I went to the trouble of finding what I thought was a good quality source). My main reason for coming here was to get an independent opinion as to the reliability of the source—there is no point me pushing the issue on the article if it is not considered a reliable source so I wanted to get that cleared up first. Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the two editors objected to sourcing the figure using Forbes and Variety references, not to the scholastic source under discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both sources are reliable for Box office revenues. Box Office Mojo is an edited magazine / database. Elmer and Gasher is a chapter in a scholarly book or collection. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

insideworldsoccer.com

I noticed that almost every single edit by Denkyu (talk · contribs) uses insidesoccer.com articles as source. The site is relatively slick for a Wordpress blog, but there's no "about us" that tells us about the site's editorial policies (or whether it's a content farm). It seems better to replace these cites with more established sources or remove these edits altogether. Thoughts? Mosmof (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the website it attributable to a reliable source, it doesn't meet the criteria. --HighKing (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke

An editor named Leadwind is deleting a lot of cited material off of Gospel of Luke and with it pushing a heavily skewed POV. He is deleting material because he says the publishers are "sectarian" even though they are some of the largest and most recognzied publishers in the world. Unfortunately I am outnumbered and cannot do a whole lot, but his reasons for deleting "sectarian" material certainly go against wikipedia policy. Will some editors go over there and look at some of his edits as well as the talk page?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent discussion at first sight I see nothing wrong with the question Leadwind is asking. He is asking for more information about a publishing concern which he thinks is being used a lot, and you are not denying it is used a lot. So why not get some more information about the source and state the case for it? Is that the discussion you mean? Of course whether you are right or he is right is not the point for this noticeboard to discuss.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have and he just ignores what I say. I restored some of Leadwind's POV pushing here. I am sure he will restore it, but just look at his methodology. He completely discounts the legitimacy of non-skeptical schoalars, even when they comment on the views of scholarship at large. I really can't say much to him.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At least you've given a diff now, but I do not see you answering his question yet. In any case, a quick google books search seems to show the work you want to use is being cited by various reliable looking publications. I see no good reason yet to be deleting citations from it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please leave a comment on this on the Gospel of Luke talk page. The editor who is deleting this material has no regard for what is reliable, just for what he regards as "apologetic".RomanHistorian (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone reading here will have time to participate more fully. The problem I have for now is that I have only looked quickly and you have not yet given a full explanation of what is really being argued in terms of the purpose of this noticeboard. I do know that on articles like this there does always tend to be tension about how to interpret WP:NEUTRALity when it comes to religions. Can believers really give a good over-view of their own faith (or of a faith they consider a heresy)? Perhaps this is such a case? So maybe your sources are good for some purposes but what is being debated is whether they are neutral? I am not taking a side, just asking if that is what it is about. These can sometimes be "no easy answer" cases. Having said that my first impression was indeed that your source was reasonable and not sectarian in any strong sense. But that is a first impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for airing your grievances against another editor. Please refrain from such comments. Dlabtot (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to air grievances, but get some other editors to comment on the talk page on this issue.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your commments consist almost entirely of criticisms of Leadwind. Perhaps it was your intention to do something else, but I can only comment on your actions, not your intentions. Please do not use this Noticeboard as a platform to attack other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, Dlabton... having looked at the page in question, I think you are being a bit harsh on RH. He is faced with a POV warring editor who is removing sourced information inappropriately, and RH is asking for help with that. That is what this noticeboard is for. Granted, RH could have referred to "the editor who is removing the sourced information" rather than referring to that editor by name... but in the long run that is a nit-pick. The fact is, there is a dispute at the article that could use our assistance. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with even the smallest part of your comment. "An editor named Leadwind is deleting a lot of cited material off of Gospel of Luke and with it pushing a heavily skewed POV. He is deleting material because he says the publishers are "sectarian" even though they are some of the largest and most recognzied publishers in the world." is not a reliable source question, it is an attack on Leadwind and an attempt to recruit editors into a dispute. Nor do I agree with your assessment of the dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not just a place to ask sourcing questions. It is also a place to ask for outside help in disputes over sourcing issues. Complaining about someone removing sourced material falls within "disputes over sourcing issues". The fact is, I think RH is right to come here and ask for assistance. Furthermore RH isn't "attacking" anyone (commenting on another editor's actions and edits is not an "attack") ... he is calling our attention to a problem at an article. As for my assessment of the dispute... you are free to disagree, but that is how I see it. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I completely disagree with the idea that this noticeboard should be used for canvassing or documenting the alleged faults of rival editors. It is, by design, and in practice, "just a place to ask sourcing questions". Dlabtot (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I have made remarks indicating that this might not be purely an RS case above I'll comment that I agree with Blueboar that there was nothing wrong with coming to this board. It is sometimes very difficult to know where to go on WP. As I remarked above, it is just difficult to handle it here, because while the source seems reasonable a quick look at the argument shows it might be a difficult case. The best solution is probably to try to get more people on the article talk page, but that is sometimes easier said than done as we all know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion

This related discussion moved over from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A dispute has come up on various articles, most recently Gospel of Luke and Historicity of Jesus where some editors have been deleting sources from religion articles because the biblical scholars quoted are personally religious, and their publishers are what some editors define as "minority sectarian" or "apologetic". One publisher these editors want to exclude is Thomas Nelson (publisher), even though it is the 6th largest publisher in the world. I think we need some kind of RS policy on religious sources. From what the current policy is, I would think there would be no question about these sources. But this dispute has come up again and again, so I think we need to put together a policy that is a bit more explicit. Any suggestions?RomanHistorian (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RH... this isn't really the place to raise this (this page is to talk about edits to the policy itself, not violations of it). You have already raised this at WP:RSN which doubles as a sort of WP:V noticeboard. That said... underneath your dispute over verifiability and sourcing is a basic POV dispute. I suggest you raise your concerns at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with moving this to RS/N, but since the question there is less specific, let me address it here (I'm fine if we move all this over, of curse): From our article: "Its former US division is currently the sixth largest American trade publisher and the world's largest Christian publisher." - nothing about 6th largest publisher in the world. Moreover, it also publishes WND, which absolutely is not a reliable source. I don't know if some of its imprints have a better reputation, but just being published by TN does not seem to imply scholarly weight or reliability. Note also TN has a self-publishing arm, so check carefully where something comes from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I don't quite see a rationale for deleting material from the source here? Can you explain? As I mentioned above the one article I checked seems reasonably widely cited by various publishers, so this certainly does not seem like a self-publication job?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What? ;-) Seriously, can you explain what you think I said? All I point out that the claim about Thomas Nelson (publisher) made by RH are in conflict with our article on them, and that Thomas Nelson publishes some very questionable stuff. I do not know enough about them to reject everything they publish outright, and I don't think I've advocated deleting anything (also, I'm confused about "from the source" - do you mean from a particular document used as a source, or from the publisher seen as the source of its publication)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, apparently you think I've gone out and researched all recent discussion first before responding to you, but unfortunately I did not. I suppose that goes goes for most likely to look at this board. I therefore just answered as if your post connected to the discussion above. If not, sorry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha. See above. The part under the subheader is an independently started discussion moved from WP:V. No harm... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians#Verified living supercentenarians

This chart relies almost exclusively on this list. But I don't think it's in any way a reliable source, as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. How does one know who contributes to the list and how much editorial control anyone has over it? So it may be unreliable. On the other hand, if it's very reliable, it's a primary source. Using it for citations on WP is thus prohibited original research or prohibited synthesis.

There are battles going on all over the wiki right now over longevity, centenarians and supercentanarians. But if the list at www.grg.org is not a wiki-kosher reliable source, either because its contribution and editorial control policies are too opaque, or, conversely, because it is a primary source, a whole lotta articles and lists fall of their own weight.

The topic requires an influx of nuetral, uninvolved editors to look things over. The disputants have become too entrenched and incivil, and could all do with a reality-check or three from the uninvolved. — David in DC — continues after insertion below

Second David's request as a sympathetic involved editor, although there are several more articles like this. For instance List of disputed supercentenarian claimants relies heavily on, IIRC, grg.org/Adams/G2.htm. That article and longevity claims rely heavily on inaccessible posts to the "World's Oldest People" Yahoo group. And Minnie Moore. Recommendations for overall community involvement are solicited. JJB 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can bear to look, check out:

Jan Goossenaerts,
WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Might wanna Wake Up!,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion recommendations,
WP:FTN#Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, and
assorted editor's contribution histories and talk pages, including my own. I'm not without blame here, although I think mine are some of the lesser offenses against civil discourse.

Help! David in DC (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For #1-2, the RS question is whether a couple Belgian-only and a couple this-week mirrors confer an unrebuttable presumption of notability, or whether the coverage is sufficiently nontrivial and independent. #3 is my attempt to ask the relevant Wikiproject WP:WOP, which overlaps the Yahoo WOP and the GRG e-group significantly, to start taking sourcing and core policy more seriously. The others are backup: #4 is a log of deletion discussions and #5 is the (messy) ongoing mediation. But the more involved editors and the better consensus on how to present the topic-area issues to the larger community, the better. JJB 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

grg.org seems to be the Gerontology Research Group. According to our article on that, it is considered an authority on the subject of "World's Oldest Living People" by the Guinness Book of World Records and the New York Times ("the Gerontology Research Group, an authority on the matter."). That seems to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question". --GRuban (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, both Guinness and GRG present an insurmountable COI problem. Please check this out. You wind up in a Mobius strip. Robert Young co-founds GRG. On the stregth of that, he's employed by Guinness. According to the World's Oldest People WikiProject page, he also leads that group. So GRG is a reliable source, because it's recognized by Guinness. A Guinness expert in longevity and gerontology, who co-founded GRG, is identified on the World's Oldest People WikiProject page as leading that project. A WikiProject is supposed to be aimed at developing policy for its special area of interest, here longevity and gerontology.

I feel like I'm walking the ever-uphill stairs of an M.C. Escher drawing, but I can fight the vertigo long enough to identify a checks and balances problem wide enough to drive a COI-laden 16-wheel lorry through. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. You say Guinness uses GRG as an authority, then hires someone from GRG; so he now works both for Guinness and GRG. Why does that make him less credible than if he only worked for one of them? After all, it's not as if he's a reporter also working for a political campaign and against another one, Guinness is an amalgamator of trivia, it's not endorsing GRG against any competitors. --GRuban (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GRuban, there are several problems, though it's a bit of a digression to say them all. One big one is that user Ryoung122, aka gerontologist Robert Young, has been found to be editing under massive COI, which you seem not to notice. WP:WOP is a group of editors who regard Ryoung122 as a leader and who see no conflict with the overlap between WP:WOP and a Yahoo mail list also called WOP. Ryoung122 has outed some among the workgroup as teens. You quote the GRG article as proof of its reliability, but the article was heavily edited by Ryoung122 and WP:WOP.

When we come to RS, I have no problem saying GWR is a reliable source, but to say GRG is reliable because GWR contracts with them does not logically follow. Ryoung122 has created drama by prematurely announcing a death of a living supercentenarian who, with her family, was mighty offended and came on here saying so. When you actually look at the GRG links they are pitiful spreadsheets, often outdated, and we are reproducing them relatively verbatim. GRG does not quote its sources, nor are Yahoo WOP articles accessible. GRG often accuses living people of lying about their ages, and often changes its own opinion. Given all that, do you propose to say that whatever GRG says about anyone should be accepted without question and without backup source as a reliable statement and as a contributor to notability? Do you propose to say that, when GRG uses faulty and wholly inventive methodologies in counting and cataloguing supercentenarians, they do not count as original research to import them here? An awful lot of articles ride on these egregious and uncorrected violations. If you think the whole case can be thrown in favor of Ryoung122, I must respectfully ask how David and I should bring the matter before the larger community. JJB 07:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely needs a concerted effort from people who are currently uninvolved and can stay uninvolved. I was in that category but it is difficult to remain so. GWR is reliable, but GRG perhaps much less so. Robert Young, on behalf of the group, seems determined to make the copious WP pages a mirror of the records held by GRG which, as JJB says, sometimes have a work-in-progress character. Robert Young has a conflict of interest if ever there were one, yet a post on WP:COIN yielded nothing helpful. He was once indeffed, and has a sock puppeteering record. To complicate matters further, JJB himself is admittedly editing from a biblical literalist standpoint, which allows Robert Young to set himself up as the defender of scientific rationality. IMHO the priorities are to remove the walls from the garden, get the WikiProject either properly functioning or disbanded, and get the COI addressed. After that, checking that various Christian and Jewish perspectives (on the ages of Biblical patriarchs) are given appropriate weight should be pretty straightforward. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent summary, IMJ; just one correction, I am not via this WP account "admittedly editing from a biblical literalist standpoint", I am only ensuring the biblical literalist POV is properly weighted when appropriate. If you have any admissions of mine to the contrary I'd appreciate knowing that at my talk or at the mediation. However, you may have simply been affected by Ryoung122's ubiquitous chorus claiming with monotonous regularity that I believe Noah was 950 years old and the like; a long time ago I stopped telling him to cease his OR about my POV and to stop making personal attacks, but if anything it's gotten worse. JJB 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with that. I hope that "via this WP account" doesn't imply there's another WP account??? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just that I reserve the right not to speak one way or another about real life, beyond the statements on my user page. JJB 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow this has digressed; from gerontology to biblical literalism? Editor behavior issues are not for the reliable sources noticeboard. The fact that a specific person may or may not behave properly does not necessarily damn his reference work. I give you The Oxford English Dictionary, one of the main contributors to which was a murderer and insane (see The Surgeon of Crowthorne). Presumably you aren't claiming Mr.Young goes that far? And yet the OED is one of the definitive hallmarks of reliability in its field. If you want to address an editor's behavior, that's more for WP:ANI than WP:RSN. --GRuban (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it all gets a bit weird. I am seriously considering taking the conduct issues to ANI. In the meantime, views about the discrete question of whether Gerontology Research Group documents are RS for articles on long-lived persons would be very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

<Since you asked, we're not talking about the reliability of the OED, we're talking about the reliability of a couple of inscrutable wordlists found in Dr. Minor's asylum cell with arcane notations all over them, and we have Dr. Minor yelling at us repeatedly that WP does not incorporate his wordlists correctly whenever we lift a finger. That would be the parallel here, Ruban. And according to the WP articles, Minor at least was able to cough up his sources on demand when asked, which Mr. Young has failed to do on many occasions. Let's try this one instead, more up your alley. In the article List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, the site health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People is used as a source currently 66 times. Is this a reliable source? And how should we handle the verifiability and accessibility issue other than 66 "request quotation" tags? Do you not understand our frustration yet? JJB 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To cut to the chase: three RS questions. 1) Does the GRG website have a reputation for fact-checking before information from it is/isn't taken into Guinness World Records? 2) Is the GRG Yahoo! group reliable in any way? 3) What about the journal Rejuvenation Research? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1) That's a little like asking "Does Barack Obama have an influence on world politics not considering that he's the President of the United States?" A reputation for reliability specifically comes from the fact that other reliable sources tend to rely on it, so not considering that is silly. It seems to be relied on by Guinness and the NYTimes, so I'd say yes; that's only 2 data points, of course, but they're pretty good data points.

2) Can you give a link to it, and a diff for how it is used? In general, discussion groups aren't reliable, unless there are strict control on who posts.

3) Apparently yes, within bounds, and with a grain of salt. Our article Rejuvenation Research says "peer reviewed" and "scientific" but also "somewhat fringy". So it's not the New England Journal of Medicine, but neither is it the National Enquirer. It does seem that numerous reliable sources pay attention to it, for example: The Guardian, [11] [12] (the first one also seems to treat the GRG as reliable), USA Today: [13] Ear Nose & Throat Journal [14], MSNBC: [15][16], Daily Telegraph: i[17]. In general, I'd say it's worth citing; where it seems dubious, we can add the qualifier "According to Rejuvenation Research...". --GRuban (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Some explanations/further questions: 1. Agreed that the research is used by Guinness and was praised by NYT. Is all data posted on the GRG website to be treated as equally reliable? Might some of it not have a work-in-progress character? Before incorporation in Guinness, it presumably goes through a further fact-check. 2. Referenced in about 25 articles. List of German supercentenarians uses it on multiple occasions, for example. 3. Anxious about "a bit fringy", but will refer any problematic cases to FTN. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruban, the point of #1 is that GWR does not use the sprawling, inconsistent GRG spreadsheets cold like we have been subjected to doing. I just found evidence on WP that the spreadsheets are mostly maintained only by Coles and that Young does not even consider them fully reliable himself! Please actually tell me you looked at the sheets E.htm and G2.htm and that they're fully reliable. #2 is the same as my question above, where I provided you the link to the Yahoo group you asked about. What should be done about the use of unreliable sources defended by one or more editors: just delete? JJB 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Looking at http://www.grg.org/Adams/G2.HTM and http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM, they look like data dumps... or, as Judith writes, works-in-progress. I think treating them like primary sources is reasonable: in other words, we can use them as backup, but without basing articles entirely on them. If a secondary source, like a newspaper or a book, decides one of those people is one of the world's oldest based on that list, that's one thing - apparently they do just that often enough - but we shouldn't be doing it. I especially don't like their use List of disputed supercentenarian claimants: since by definition each entry there is a controversial statement about a living person, so we shouldn't be relying just on one line in a data dump. --GRuban (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think we have no problem treating them as primary-source data dumps. Just wanted to add that [Ryoung122 himself doesn't regard the GRG sheets as reliable unless he has personally double-checked them. @David, I'd thought the "down" Escher staircase was much easier than the "up", but I was wrong, it turns out they go to the same place. JJB 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 sources ( part 2)

(The unclosed part 1 of the discussion is currently in archive)

Non-Coanda related references

Binksternet is using in the Coanda 1910 assessment after the death of the inventor sources which have not a single entry about Henri Coanda or Coanda-1910 in a personal synthesis to demonstrate that Coanda does not belong to aviation history books. What are the correct actions to be taken in this case?--Lsorin (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Blog

Is the LA Times Blog a reliable source for the statement "According to the Los Angeles Times, The organization provides a map that shows where books were officially banned or challenged?"

Article: Banned Books Week
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/09/banned-books-week.html
Quote from Source: "This year, they've launched an interactive map that shows which books were officially banned or challenged, and where, in 2008."
Contested diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banned_Books_Week&diff=396134351&oldid=396127207

Thanks for any assistance. Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the publication, but blogs of major newspapers tend to fall under the same editorial policies as the main paper. That said, I would avoid the "According to the LA Times" construct unless it's an unsigned piece that represents the whole editorial department. Especially since these blogs tend to reflect the voices of the writers more than a standard news article. Mosmof (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So you would think it's a valid source for "The organization provides a map that shows where books were officially banned or challenged?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or do you mean it should read ""According to Carolyn Kellogg of the Los Angeles Times, The organization provides a map that shows where books were officially banned or challenged?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to mention the source, since the existence of the map is presented as an uncontroversial fact, not opinion. And it might be best to describe the map as being provided by Banned Books Week organizers using user submitted data - that should resolve any attribution issue, I think. Mosmof (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin Systems newsletter

After I asked for help on the WP:VG talk page, User:Jinnai suggested that I bring my problem up here. It is this:

While researching the article for System Shock, I have encountered an unusual problem with sourcing its release date. I can confirm that it was released in September 1994 via a reliable source. However, this source is an internal newsletter from the game's publisher, Origin Systems, dated October 7, 1994. It is an issue of a weekly newsletter published within the company; hundreds of issues were created. However, these newsletters were never published outside of Origin Systems; scans of them were leaked to Origin fan communities in the '00s by Electronic Arts, the owner of Origin Systems. The source is obviously reliable, but Wikipedia's strict standards on source quality confuse the decision of whether or not to include it. While I wouldn't normally use a source like this, it's the only one I've found—in all my extensive research on this subject—that confirms its September 1994 release date beyond a shadow of doubt. The common date passed around by today's game websites is March 1994, which, as I have discovered through research, is obviously false. Advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have sighted the document with your own eyes, cite it. It was published for internal consumption, but it was published. Unlike other SPS, this doesn't have the problem of self-aggrandisement. If you've only seen a scan of a photocopy of a leaked document, then don't cite it, you can't guarantee the transmission of truthful material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've only seen the scanned version, I guess the best course of action would be to not cite it, then. Hopefully, I can find another source that contains the same information. Thanks for the response. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Germans and Franks

Is the quotation, "However, by a polite fiction, educated Catholics give them the name of Orthodox which they have usurped. The term Schismatic Greek Church is synonymous with the above; nearly everybody uses it, but it is at times inexpedient to do so, if one would avoid wounding the feelings of those whose conversion is aimed at", from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, a reliable source for the statement, "... the Germans and Franks used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character" (Filioque#Eastern Romans, Byzantines, Greeks)?

The quotation is not made by "Germans and Franks", and mentions neither Germans nor Franks; but the editor who inserted the quotation as verification of the statement insists that it be maintained, and has said: "Take it up with the noticeboard" (Talk:Filioque#Quotation from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia). Esoglou (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find Germans or Franks mentioned in that source, did I miss it somewhere? If its not there then this would seem to be a case of WP:SYNTH at best and the citation does not back up the statement. He iro 06:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I also can't see the relevance. So I am not sure how this can be a question for this board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the persistence of an editor in denying what seems obvious to the commentators who have intervened above, can we perhaps already give him a negative response to his claim that the quotation is a reliable source for the statement in question? However, the matter is far from urgent. Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That type of question is always a bit problematic. You are asking people here to give a comment about context in a content discussion they are not involved in. You give a description which, if it is correct, does not sound like a valid RSN case, but what often happens when people come here with content disputes is that other people involved in the dispute actually disagree with the description of the dispute. Not sure if anyone else has a more useful answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that this is a content dispute. It is not. I am not asking for removal of the statement that this citation is supposed to support, one that has two other citations to support it. The question is only whether this particular citation is or is not a reliable source for the statement. It is doubtless a reliable source for other matters, but is it a reliable source for statements about actions of the Franks and Germans of a millennium ago? That seems to be a straightforward question to which surely almost anyone can give a straightforward answer. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this particular citation is not a reliable source for the statement, for two reasons. (1) I can't find anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia article in question that matches the statement to be used here in Wikipedia. (2) This particular Catholic Encyclopedia article is primarily about the Eastern Orthodox Church and describes that church in a negative and hostile way. This particular encyclopedia article "Greek Church" reflects views from over 100 years ago (it was published in 1909) and is too biased to be used as a general source by Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, yes I think if you both agree that the source is reliable for related issues (which Metropolitan90 disagrees with it seems) but disagree how to use it exactly, then this is at least not purely a question of source reliability, but more concerning content decisions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel sure that nearly everyone, including Metropolitan90, agrees that it is a reliable source concerning one early-20th-century man's view of the Greek Orthodox Church of that time, but not a reliable source concerning the actual state of that Church either then or at any other time before or after. I don't know what are the related issues to which you refer (if you mean the Greek Orthodox Church - since you seem to disagree with Metropolitan90's judgement - I really think you must be alone in considering it a reliable source on that topic), and I presume in particular that, by now, not even you would defend it as a reliable source concerning actions of Franks and Germans towards the end of the first millennium. Esoglou (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan90 is correct here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So if the actual Pope says negative and hostile things about the Orthodox church we can't use that as a source because it's not unbiased or because it's hostile? [18] Cause he did just like a week ago. I mean he just stated that the Orthodox church is defective. So how is it that people are to gain understanding when things that are considered negative and or in a hostile way can't be mentioned? The Catholic Encyclopedia opinion seems consistent with what the Pope just said. Is there any official Roman Catholic source that for the church says that the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Greek Orthodox church is wrong and not actually the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia about the Orthodox church? If its wrong where is the Roman Catholic churhc screaming for it's removal from the Web (where's William Donohue for example). I mean if its so obvious that should be pretty easy to find, right? Can anyone here provide that? I was asked to source what Roman Catholic sources made hostile and bias remarks against the Orthodox church. I posted that and now because it was made a hundred years ago (and hasn't been officially denied by Roman Catholic official sources) that it's not a reliable source? How so? And for the record another Roman Catholic editor deleted the entire section from the article Esoglou is here complaining about. Esoglou gave a big thumps up to that blanket deletion on the article talkpage [19]. So it is is quite obvious that what is out there and what informs people is not really supposed to be included here at wikipedia since this all about attack the message or the messenger and not about what really has happened and how that causes people to see now. I mean it is pretty obvious that only one side of the issue is going to be allowed and that anything that might give the opposing view and or source why the view is in opposition is going to get hounded and banned, blocked etc etc. Please forgive my frustration in advance. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what? Forget the issue of hostility and bias for the time being. Just point out to me which specific sentence(s), in which paragraph(s), of the Catholic Encyclopedia article at [20] indicates that "the Germans and Franks used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character". I can't find anything in the article that says that. If you find something the article that clearly supports that claim, we can then discuss the issue of whether the article is too biased to use as a source. But if the article doesn't support the claim in the first place, there's no point in worrying about whether the article is biased. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The sentence, which does not make any sense by the way ("distinguish" is surely the wrong word), is dealing with "Germans and Franks" in the 1st millenium, while the CE is clearly referring to the situation current in 1913. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WoWWiki/Wowpedia

Recently, there has been discussion on treatment of the WoWWiki article after many of its users forked into a new website over disputes with the service provider and host, Wikia. All that can be seen in the history and talk page, but what is being discussed now is if certain links in this section detailing the fork are okay via SELFPUB or if they violate it. You can see the discussion here. Could other users please provide assistance and thoughts? Thanks. Hooper (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the Transcendental Meditation technique article

This ref John H. K. Vogel, Mitchell W. Krucoff (2007). Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart (1st ed.). McGraw Hill. p. 81. is being used to support this text.

According to a medical textbook on integrative cardiology, double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies, but it is important to blind assessors and study coordinators. The book examined two studies that involved TM and found them to be carefully blinded, in that the technicians and physicians involved in assessing the outcome didn't know whether the subjects were in the TM group or control group. The textbook said the studies had many other essential design features, including contact time with instructors, structure of the intervention, level of expectation for positive results, and assessment of adherence.

I do not have access to verify it. However it seems like an alt med book not a medical textbook. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The two studies mentioned in the quote above. NW (Talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Schneider, R.; Alexander, C.; Staggers, F.; Orme-Johnson, D.; Rainforth, M.; Salerno, J.; Sheppard, W.; Castillo-Richmond, A.; Barnes, V.; Nidich, S. (2005). "A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction in African Americans Treated for Hypertension for Over One Year". American Journal of Hypertension. 18 (1): 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.08.027. PMC 2224896. PMID 15691622.
Fields, J. Z.; Walton, K. G.; Schneider, R. H.; Nidich, S.; Pomerantz, R.; Suchdev, P.; Castillo-Richmond, A.; Payne, K.; Clark, E. T.; Rainforth, M. (2002). "Effect of a multimodality natural medicine program on carotid atherosclerosis in older subjects: a pilot trial of Maharishi Vedic Medicine". American Journal of Cardiology. 89 (8): 952–958. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02245-2. PMID 11950434.

It's partially accessible on Google Books.[21] Will Beback talk 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Source pages:

Page 81 [22]

Page 73 [23] Will Beback talk

Note: Conclusion of the segment on "Transcendental Meditation", see Page 82: "the effects of conventional diet and exercise were controlled in one group, but the addition of only a standard care control group does not allow the researchers to tease apart the independent effects of social support or attention, nor of any of the components of the intervention, on cardiovascular risk factors." -- in other words, the studies did not allow for the likelihood that effects were influenced by "social support or attention", or other "components of the intervention", other than the "Transcendental Meditation" techniques. Does not seem like an adequate or rigorous study method. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The publisher is actually McGraw-Hill Medical. The citation wasn't completely correct. TimidGuy (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no separate, "McGraw-Hill Medical" company, to my knowledge, it is just a trade name. Unless "McGraw-Hill Medical" has some, separate and independent, form of editorial review? -- Cirt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical is one of the McGraw Hill Professional Companies.[24].(olive (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Wrong. The link says it is a "publishing program". -- Cirt (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It also says, "McGraw-Hill Medical, publisher of Harrison's, the world's #1 medical textbook, and a leading provider of digital solutions for medical students and practitioners." Companies is simply a way of naming the Company ... branding. I'm not sure what your point is though. (olive (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Pave the Way Foundation website, Ronald J. Rychlak paper reliable for Communist plots?

Is this source by Ronald J. Rychlak on the www.ptwf.org (Pave the Way Foundation) website reliable to support a section in an article stating that the play The Deputy was actually a Communist plot to undermine the Vatican's authority? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pave the Way Foundation is a political religious lobby group. It is not in the business of publishing and fact checking, but in stating particular opinions. An opinion is insufficient to reliably support the extraordinary claim that a play was a Communist plot to undermine the Vatican's authority. Not Reliable for Claim listed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone else have any views on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Web forums as citations?

I would like some advice please. Can you advise if popular web forums are allowed as citations for an article on something that has limited and mostly biased sources? I don't intend to use each and every post as a citation but if say 20 or so knowledgeable people post similar comments about a product and these are bundled up in the same thread is it OK to use that thread as a citation? Is it OK to use that thread as an external link? I would like to use a forum link to add balance to an otherwise strongly biased article. Unixtastic (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would think web fora should not be considered reliable sources. But it would be helpful if you posted a link to the specific item you wish to source and the forums you'd like to use sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The article Belen Echandia appears biased and doesn't show anything critical at all. A link to feedback and impressions from real customers would balance things out a lot. The biggest source of customer feedback seems to be http://forum.purseblog.com/belen-echandia/ In particular the quality control thread at http://forum.purseblog.com/belen-echandia/post-customer-service-quality-control-concerns-here-539747.html . Customer reviews would go a long way to make this article NPOV. Unixtastic (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the forum cannot be considered to be a reliable source since there is no evidence that the contributors are themselves reliable sources for anything but their own opinions. It's a primary source. The criticism needs to have been published by a reliable secondary source or else sampling/summarizing/including it etc will be original research. Also, unless it's published by a reliable source it's inherently non-notable and doesn't qualify under NPOV's "significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Web fora do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, there's no telling who s posting on that forum, for all we know some percentage of poster are reps for one or another company. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Having no source as a reliable source

I'm in the strange situation of having an editor(two in fact) claim that no reliable source meets the requirement of WP:BURDEN, so I ask is having no source a reliable source. The content is on Logarithm#Logarithmic_identities, I've tagged it twice as Template:Unreferenced section and twice been reverted(see article history) without any sources and one editor has suggested I raise the objection here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it has not been challenged nor is it even liable to be challenged. It has simply been tagged along with a whole pile of other things the editor was going round challenging. I believe the editor misunderstands verifiability as meaning citations are always required. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, citations are not always required. Tagging it has challenging it, and when it's challenged a reference is required. So from my perspective I've challenged it, I'm asking for references and quoting WP:BURDEN. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No you've put on a tag in what's called drive-by tagging. You're not actually challenging it. If you have just put on a citation needed tag because you wanted to find a good text on the subject that would be one thing. But it is obvious that you just were doing semi automated tagging of sections without citations. Dmcq (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from but I did a random selection of current GA candidate articles with poor sourcing, Logarithm was one such article and the tag is clear and unambiguous(tags that are vague are a pain). I'm helping this article and now that it's challenged a reliable source is required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If something is challenged, then it must be cited. Drive-by tagging for NPOV or NOR templates is discouraged, because editors must explain the nature of the concern. But anyone can add a citation-request template to an unsourced statement, as the nature of the concern is obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The point at issue here (the logarithm of a product is the sum of the logarithms of the multiplicands) was not challenged as either being dubious or being unverifiable, but merely as being unreferenced. I think there is a risk that inserting individual citations for such basic mathematical points is that (a) it gives too much importance to the particular reference used (in this case now from 1845, which is neither the origin of the point nor the use of current material) and (b) it actually weakens the credibility of the point being made by suggesting that it needs to be referenced before being believed. How many of the next 15 identities also need individual references? --Rumping (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary it's been challenged twice as requiring verifiable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you challenged it because you doubted it could be verified, or you thought it was not neutral or original research then you might have made a comment with your edits. But I find it difficult to believe that is what you thought at the time --Rumping (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I am not the only one on WP to believe that citing WP:BURDEN but not have any rationale for concern (drive by tagging etc) is exactly what is intended by the term WP:wikilawyering. i.e. It very obviously is a case of putting rules before article quality or consensus building.
I wish WP:BURDEN would be written in a less legalistic way. It is exceptional on WP in the way that it seems to some people to encourage citing rules instead of rational discussion. Other policies make it clear where the limits should lie, but these are more vague and tend to be ignored. For example, article quality should be the highest priority (WP:IAR), and just because defining article quality is not simple it should not be ignored or given a lower priority than some lesser priority.
Therefore I think drive-by tagging (or deleting or any other similar action) should be more strongly discouraged by the community. The burden rule, by my understanding, is not meant to be used unless there is a real sourcing concern. I do not think it the intention that you can just cite burden instead of having a rationale.
And if I understand this particular case, it seems like WP:BURDEN is being cited even when there is a source, i.e. just to question whether a source is good enough. I don't think Burden even nominally covers cases where there is a source, and there is reasonable debate about how good the source is. What do others think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is being cited because there is a NO source. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to ignore bad-faith challenges and very large-scale drive-by tagging, including "I spammed {{fact}} after every paragraph without an inline citation". It is not necessary to provide an inline citation for facts widely accepted in the field merely because someone thought that identifying the absence of inline citations was a way to be helpful.

In short, no: You don't need to provide an inline citation for "The human hand usually has four fingers and a thumb,", even if someone fact-tagged it.

Having said that, for small-scale tagging, it's usually much faster to provide the citation than to argue about it. (See WP:LIKELY and WP:SKY.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, logarithmic identities aren't like human hands and it's not unreasonable for a reader to expect an encyclopedia to give them a reason to believe its contents. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Drops jaws, Whoever would think that 'Logarithm of a power' or that 'x = blogb(x) yields logk(x) = logk(blogb(x))' is as obvious on 'fingers on a hand' is in a different world. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the problems in many such cases. The practical problem involved in this rhetorical question is addressed by WP:CLUE which, because it sounds personal and offensive, is one of the less citeable pages we have, as opposed to the wonderfully legalistic "burden" where "it's not me you are arguing with, but the rules" so nothing is personal, or so people say.

But here is what I think. I totally disagree with you. I think that if you take every sentence of this level of obviousness and allow drive-by tagging all over Wikipedia, Wikipedia ends the next day as a serious project. Wikipedia has never had sourcing on every sentence and if it ever does it will be unreadable. I try to write on subjects I know about, and I hope that other editors who look at my work will know something at least about the subject and that they will not start wikilawyering, but I also know that if they do I can do what is happening increasingly, and that is start the silly job of adding footnotes to every sentence and turning all paraphrases that people don't have google books links for into exact quotations. Is this where we are headed?

If you think a reference to something in high school maths needs a source, I have no problem with you going out and getting a source. But I think saying you "challenge" the sourcing when you clearly have absolutely no real challenge is just not on. What is your aim and how does it relate to making better articles? No community can survive long when its citizens start playing cynically with its good faith traditions like this. This is the invocation of a rule for no reason other than to see what you can make people do. I object.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Many of the things that are common knowledge and learnt at relatively low levels of schooling in our times are actually quite complex. Take for example some long words that many people know the meaning of. And almost nothing which is common knowledge is known by literally everyone anymore. So, in exact parallel to the above case, if there is an unusual long word being used in an article, does the community here think it is OK to tag that long word asking for a source to prove what it means? Is that a valid "challenge"? There are long words that most people misunderstand, but we still treat word definitions as common knowledge, don't we?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For me, the problem with this approach is the implicit assumption that the obligation to ensure that readers are able to verify information is a function of the level of expertise of an editor on a given topic and/or the nature of the topic. This seems problematic in many cases particularly on technical topics, things that are not common knowledge. It's a view that isn't really supported by policy. I consider myself a bit of an expert on a few things. I deliberately don't write about them in Wikipedia. It would be rather foolish for a reader to simply accept Wikipedia content on faith no matter what the topic is or who the editors are. Providing verifiability under the appropriate circumstances is a bit of difficult thing to get right. Still, if we get it wrong sometimes nobody dies. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, consider it unavoidable that we have different levels of sourcing and common knowledge. It's simply not plausible to source complex topics to the level accessible to an average high school student. In particular, I'd claim that nearly every scientific paper needs a good degree of secondary education (or equivalent other experience) to understand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'll emphasize those words "simply not possible". There is no point even considering any norm for Wikipedia which it would be impossible to allow consistently. Ask yourself how editors are supposed to edit in order to avoid drive-by demands like this. There is no way. If people are allowed to pretend there might be a problem even though they know of no problem then there is no logical limit to how far this can be taken.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be a policy saying that there is a BURDEN of proof to show that there is a rationale for demands made by editors upon other editors, at least in cases where there is no obvious problem - and it should be stated somewhere that not having a footnote on every sentence is not a prima facie case for saying that there might be a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If somebody tags a statement, that statement should be sourced. If an editor makes a habit of tagging statements whose truth is not actually in any reasonable doubt, that probably needs to be dealt with as a 'disruptive editing' issue (and the statements still need to be sourced). There are more than enough genuinely dubious statements scattered through Wikipedia; tagging willy-nilly just wastes people's time and distracts them from fixing real problems. (PS - WhatamIdoing, did you mean WP:BLUE rather than WP:SKY?) --GenericBob (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? Here. Andrew Lancaster, above, wrote he wouldn't object if someone else cited one of these. Done. [30] User:Dicklyon cited one of the three subsections, I cited the next, the third specifically says its derivable from the second, and even performs the derivation. Good enough? --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you GRuban! It refreshing that action is taken. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Andrew Lancaster. There are far too many tags saying "this section is unreferenced" added by people who simply find a section with no footnotes and add the tag, without any knowledge of the topic or any explanation about disputed content. Editors who add these tags may well believe they are helping to draw attention to potential problems, but I don't think that the mere addition of ugly tags improves or helps anything. I had a dispute about this some while ago over the article Brittany. An editor added a tag which claimed that the whole article needed additional references and may not be 'neutral'. [31] No explanation was offered. I argued on the editor's talk page that the topic was largely uncontroversial. The editor replied that "most un-sourced material tends to be non-NPOV". At the time (Sept 2009) I argued that the opposite is the truth: "It is entirely untrue that "most un-sourced material tends to be non-NPOV". In fact a great many articles on uncontroversial subjects are poorly sourced precisely because the content is not in dispute, and does not attract tag-adders, who are usually motivated by a desire to reject some assertion or another. It is often difficult and tiresome to find footnotes for uncontroversial facts. Aribitrarily, I will mention Carl Nielsen as an example [at the time this lengthy article had three footnotes]. In contrast controversial subjects also attract deceptive and disingenuous use of references as anyone who regularly reads the Reliable Sources Noticeboard may see. It is inappropriate to imply POV if you have no reason to do so." [32] My point was that the most heavily footnoted articles are often the most disputed ones, and that footnotes are often misused to bolster controversial claims. I could give many examples of articles in which footnotes are cleverly deployed as smokescreen for OR or POV warfare. Since the advent of Google Books it has been easy to trawl sources to find footnotes to bolster a pre-existing POV, or at least obscure it. It is rapidly becoming the case that the absence of citation is a better sign of reliability than a profusion of it. Paul B (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get lost in the multiple straw man posts above. Logarithm isn't any article, it's a Good article nomination and as such has good reason to be tagged if the article wants to be pass the good article criteria. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria say "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2]". So I'll ask again, exactly what was counter-intuitive or controversial? Dmcq (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear before but I'll try and rephrase again to assist in communication. I don't focus on section 2 (b) that you quoted especially. Part 2 of Good article criteria is that the article is factually accurate and verifiable, and contains No original research. My question or point is, how do you intent to meet verifiable and no original research without supplying a reference? I don't think you can. ~~Ignoring~~ Being against WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:NOR doesn't make much sense to me. All I've asked is to reference the section so this article can potentially become a good article, surely that is a goal we can agree on? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This type of argument seems to come up fairly regularly on this board, in effect, that on good articles material should be more quickly deleted or "challenged" even if there is nothing obviously wrong with that material. Does this not mean that the programme of having "good articles" is actually a programme which is to some extent in conflict with other norms on Wikipedia? So was this exemption or special case ever agreed upon as acceptable? Normally on wikipedia you would say that deleting an important definition while someone finds a source would be against WP:IAR and therefore against core policy. I mean that in some cases it seems to mean crippling an article, hurting its quality in a clear way, in order to follow a deliberately (and I would say in this case artificially) strict interpretation of what is normally considered a less important rule. It is like having another wiki within wikipedia, with its own rules. Has there ever been any extended community discussion about this way of interpreting the good articles programme which seems to conflict with the rest of the project? Are there any special policies which only apply to good articles, like there are for articles about living people or medical subjects?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a definition, there are tons of citations in the article including the definitions many of which would include this basic fact. The tag was on a subsection. The article easily meets verifiability criteria, just verifiability seems to be being mixed up with always needing inline citations - even when the good article criteria only calls for them when referring to a source like a survey or the material is counter intuitive or controversial. The policy and the criteria for a good article seem in pretty good agreement to me about this. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

'needing inline citations' is a strawman. I'd say the policies and the criteria for a good article are in complete contradiction to your view. Can you specifically state how each of WP:BURDEN, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SCG(if you consider maths a science) are fulfilled by having a section that is unreferenced entirely. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to SunCreator: The logarithmic identities in question are verifiable by anybody with a modicum of maths skills from basic algebra. They are meaningless for everybody else. I'd say that it is easier for nearly all people to verify these identities (by doing the maths) than to verify a claim sourced to a modern scientific paper (which nearly always requires advanced schooling to understand). I don't see why the requirement for basic maths is more of an impediment to verification than advanced reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a maths skills beyond A-Level and I couldn't tell you if text such as log_kb ≠ 0 is correct or not. Maybe I missed class the day of that lesson. If it was common knowledge you hold a view different from Scientific citation guidelines, where sections or articles of uncontroversial knowledge requires 'one or two authoritative sources'. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a better reason and at least debatable compared to what you've said before. Dr Math classifies that sort of stuff as Middle School not even A level never mind university so that guideline does not require inline citations for it, but I believe the various sections of an article should aim at the level of the people who might read them and they could easily be at that level here. By the way the sentence following your equation explains 'Indeed, this logarithm cannot be zero, since k⁰ = 1, but b was supposed to be different than 1'. Much more detailed than that and it would get to be a textbook, but perhaps we should provide a service by having some citation closer by as children require instant gratification and they'll just hit google again rather than having a cursory look at a more general citation. Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as others have said it eventually boils down to 'it can either a) be fairly easily sourced, or b) isn't as obvious as is claimed', or even both. Now the article section has at least been partially sourced it's not something I wishing to pursue further. The above discussion contains a large number of mis-representations of my position, maybe good faith oversights but multiple misleading straw men none the less. Meaning that an understanding of the topic by reading the discussion is very difficult at best. If there is anything that still remains unclear please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I will contact Hans separately because he is a normally insightful editor that I respect and there is a bit more for us to clear up. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a clarification to WP:V at WT:V#When a reliable source is required. Hans Adler 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead Hans. I'll look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Believer

Is the Believer a WP:RS? For instance, in the following article, [33] the claim is made that: The “60 Minutes” segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: “This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.” How do we use this source in an entry? Do we have to attribute the claim that the "segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that ..."? I raised the issue on the talk page of the entry, Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, because of how it was attributed in the entry. The answer I received was that the quoted bits could be stated as fact but that the "filled with so many factual discrepancies" bit had to be attributed as opinion. This strikes me as a claim to WP:TRUTH as opposed to WP:V. Either they are all opinion, because we cannot trust the believer in terms of fact checking and accuracy, or they are to be trusted. But maybe I am wrong. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Believer (magazine) is primarily a magazine about literature. It should not be used as a WP:RS related to lawsuits, litigation or legal matters. If used, it should only be used with direct attribution to the author's opinion, as a form of personal commentary of what the author stated themselves. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should not be presented as fact. But we can trust that the piece is an accurate reflection of Snider's opinions, and it is noteworthy because it appears in a relatively major publication, even if its focus isn't media law. --Mosmof (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Mosmof (talk · contribs) - the magazine is an accurate reflection of Snider's personal opinion. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that this reporter, with what appears to be no experience on reporting legal or copyright issues, in a magazine with no experience fact checking legal and copyright issues, may have mistakenly confused a pro-forma copyright notice with some sort of retraction. I will do more research, but I do not consider the source in question a reliable one with respect to legal matters. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Hipocrite (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently nearly certain that I am correct in stating that the "legal or copyright reasons" quote is youtube boilerplate, and suggest that including this reporters information, while verifiable, is likley to be verifiable error. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Error or not, I don't think we need the bit about CBS News pulling the content. The facts, "Well after the “60 Minutes” segment aired, his daughter Celeste confessed that she’d been offered a half-million dollar share in a pending book contract in exchange for the allegations, and the IRS, too, later retracted their claim, and paid Erhard $200,000 in a lawsuit he initiated." are strong enough on their own (and verifiable) that a somewhat sensationalist, unverifiable claim doesn't help the article. --Mosmof (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I am also wondering if those can be presented factually. Does this publication have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The material has always been attributed to Snider, and everyone seems to agree that The Believer is a reliable source for Snider's opinion. I see no reason to assume Snider misinterpreted a youtube boilerplate. Of course, a corroborating source for why exactly CBS withdrew the programme would be nice, but it does not seem to be an exceptional claim. According to multiple sources, Erhard's daughters subsequently retracted the claims of incest they had made in the program, putting CBS in a difficult position. Under those circumstances, it seems unsurprising that CBS would withdraw the programme. Is it a reach to speak of "factual inaccuracies" if the key witnesses quoted in the programme later said in court that they lied? --JN 466 16:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

According to amazon, "The Believer is a monthly books and culture magazine" and "A three-time finalist for National Magazine Awards in General Excellence and Design". The statement sourced to it concerns the withdrawal of a video by CBS which was found to be factually incorrect. I think a literary and culture magazine is an okay source for that; it clearly is a notable publication, and unquestionably has editorial oversight. The statement was clearly attributed to Snider and The Believer in the text, which seems appropriate. --JN 466 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What legal expertise does the author or the publication have? -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are citing the Boing Boing group blog quoting Wikileaks on the same matter, i.e. why CBS retracted the video, and at length. Don't you think it is disingenuous to question The Believer, but not to question Boing Boing's or Wikileaks' legal expertise? I'd feel better too if we had an authoritative statement from CBS News themselves, but I cannot find one. As long as that is so, we can only report what various notable media outfits have said about it. Everyone agrees that the video was taken off the market. Several sources say the daughters later retracted the allegations they made in the broadcast. Boing Boing, quoting Wikileaks, says it was taken off the market because Erhard made legal threats. That does not sound terribly plausible, as your article explains that Erhard filed for dismissal of his own lawsuit and does not seem to have pursued the matter further legally. Erhard says CBS removed the video from circulation out of journalistic integrity. The Believer says, CBS removed it because it was factually wrong. None of these sources are first-class sources for legal matters, but then the matter does not seem to be terribly involved, legally. Allegations were made in a broadcast, some of the key witnesses recanted, and the video was withdrawn. All we can do is report, neutrally, what various sources said about it, and attribute statements to the sources that made them. Further, more authoritative, sources would be welcome, in particular any statements by CBS themselves as to why they removed the programme from circulation. --JN 466 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I trust Boing Bong's coverage of legal matters far more than The Believer. Boing Boing is edited by Xeni Jardin and Mark Frauenfelder, who have substantial experience reporting and editing publications that deal with legal matters (Silicon Alley Reporter, Wired and Playboy). The Believer (magazine), on the other hand, dosen't care or focus on the law or legal matters - which is why they let something obvious like the YouTube boilerplate "this video is down due to lawyers" language sneak into the article attributing some admission that the report was retracted. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen. There is hardly any technical legal knowledge needed for this particular piece of information. I have a very hard time understanding why that avenue is being explored to this extent.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Boing Boing too says (or rather quotes Wikileaks saying) the report was taken off the market. It says it was taken off the market due to Erhard's legal threats. How does that make sense, if Erhard dropped his libel suit? Apparently, "Erhard later dropped the suit, he told Larry King during a December 1993 radio interview, because his lawyers told him he would have to prove not only that the TV show knew the material aired wasn't true, but that 60 Minutes used it maliciously. To King, Erhard denied the allegations of sexual and physical abuse, saying his family members had been pressured by CBS and had since recanted. He also referred to the tax fraud and evasion charges as "misunderstandings" that were being cleared up." (Westword). That part about the tax fraud is true, by the way; the IRS later paid Erhard $200,000 in damages. It's not often that people get money from the IRS. --JN 466 19:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer the direct question, I do not know if The Believer is a reliable source. I would have to find out more information, as I've never heard of it until now. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What was the purpose of that response? Are you insinuating something about it because you haven't heard of it? It is published by McSweeney's, which was founded by Dave Eggers. It is very well known in literary circles, and is really more of a literary magazine than anything else. As such it is extremely well respected.Griswaldo (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to use interviews with company owners as citations?

Can you please advise me on one more point. Is it OK to use transcribed interviews with company owners as citations for their own company page? For example if a company owner makes a claim which ends up on a magazine or newspaper webpage in an interview format is it OK to state what was claimed as fact based solely on that citation? Or do citations have to be from a neutral source? Or can they be used as long as it's not asserted that they are true? Thanks in advance for your advice. Unixtastic (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To some extent this depends on who conducted the interview (and where it appeared). Does the interviewer or publisher have a reputation for accurately presenting what interviewees say? Or does he/it have a reputation for taking an interviewee's comments out of context and twisting things so it appears that the interviewee is saying something they didn't actually say? If the former, then the interview can be considered a reliable source (but the remarks should be considered WP:SPS)... if the latter then the interview should be considered unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the question was, if John Smith says in an interview in Widget News that Smithco sells more widgets than any other company, is this a RS for the statement "Smithco sells more widgets than any other company". The answer to that question is No. If the question is, is this a RS for the statement "John Smith claims that Smithco sells more widgets than any other company" then the answer is Probably Yes, depending on the reputation of Widget News for reliable reporting. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Kenilworth Terrace. In general we will want to say "Smith claims that...", and the magazine will generally be an RS that the claim was made, but for statements comparing Smithco to their rivals we need a neutral source to say it's a fact rather than just a claim. In cases that are highly unlikely to be disputed, we can leave out the "claims", for example "Smith claims that Smithco was founded in 1993", the "Smith claims" is probably unnecessary. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

...possibly factoring in the Manual of Style section WP:CLAIM. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think "claims" would be appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So an interview with an owner from a RS would be acceptable for a statement about the history of the company, without adding "Smith claims...."? AuroraHcky (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the statement. "Founded in 1993, in Kennebunkport", yes. "Founded based on psychic revelations from alien overlords," needs a "claims". "Founded after Jones, that bastard, cheated me out of Jonesco, which was rightfully mine," similarly. --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ezines as sources

An edit to Envision EMI, LLC cites what appears to be a self-published ezine. The source article uses poor grammar ("These is...") and contains phrases like, "Young minds are like surging waves which if properly directed can render any pasture green. Energy, enthusiasm and excitement always accompany the youths; they eagerly jump to new challenges and put their mind, body and soul in it. Such tremendous potential needs to be properly channelised." These mistakes do not lend to the article's credibility. And, "...like the "National Youth Leadership forum exposes the eager young minds" which doesn't give the impression of a dispassionate third-party source. The article appears to lack verifiability. The author does not appear to be an expert of any kind. Articles about a wide range of topics by this individual appear on ArticleSnatch.com, ArticleBase.com, and many other similar sites including a number of splogs. How does this ezine fit in as a reliable source?-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the submission guidelines on articlesnatch.com[34] their standards seem well below what WP:RS refers to by editorial control: "normally well written, well thought out articles are accepted." The FAQ[35] further makes clear that they have no requirement of previous expertise. Under benefits they list: "Gain "expert" status and become recognized as an authority in your field - By publishing information packed articles, you'll soon enjoy the status of being seen as an authority on your topic." As there is no evidence that the author is a previously published expert this source does not appear to qualify as reliable by Wikipedia standards. Siawase (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx and his 6000 francs

User:The Four Deuces is objecting to the insertion of sourced text "according to Belgian Police, Marx used 5,000 of the 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers" into the article Karl Marx. User:The Four Deuces going so far as to revert the edit, calling it a "shaggy dog story".

He claims the following sources are not reliable enough:

Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, Goldmann, 2002, p. 127:

"In mid-February his mother had belatedly sent him the huge sum of 6,000 gold francs as his share of old Heinrich Marx's legacy, and most of this windfall was immediately put to subversive use ... There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself. 'The German workers [in Brussels] decided to arm themselves,' she admitted. 'Daggers, revolvers, etc. were procured. Karl willingly provided money, for he had just come into an inheritance. In all this the government saw conspiracy and criminal plans. Marx receives money and buys weapons, he must therefore be got rid of"

Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers, M.E. Sharpe, 2008, page 144:

"Marx was arrested by Belgian police for spending his inheritance from his father (6,000 gold francs) on arming Belgian workers with rifles"

The Karl Marx library, Volume 1, McGraw-Hill, 1977, preface page xxii:

"Marx urged German refugees to join the Belgians in revolt. He had just received 6000 francs in partial settlement of his father's estate, and he contributed about 5000 francs to buy weapons"

Sue Curry Jansen, Censorship: the knot that binds power and knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1988

"During the revolutions of 1848, Marx urged German workers to join the demonstrators in Belgium and Paris. He also contributed 5000 francs to buy arms. As a result, he was immediately jailed and subsequently expelled from Belgium"

Hiroshi Uchida, Marx for the 21st century, Routledge, 2006, page 176:

"The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium"

Boris Nicolaievsky, Karl Marx - Man and Fighter, READ BOOKS, 2007, page 143:

"According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels. The police had their opportunity of dealing with the exiles at last. They worked in close touch with the Prussian ambassador, who had in his possession on February 29, only a day or two after it was drawn up, a list of those who were to be expelled. Marx's name was at the top of the list"

Paul M. Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, HarperCollins, 2007,

"All the same, one way or another Marx got considerable sums of money by inheritance. His father's death brought him 6000 gold francs, some of which he spent on arming Belgian workmen."

Saul Kussiel Padover, Karl Marx, an intimate biography, McGraw-Hill, 1978, page 205:

"When, early in the year 1848, Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance, which amounted to around 6000 francs, instead of husbanding the money for the support of his family, he spent about 5000 francs helping to buy arms"

Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on earth: the rise and fall of socialism Encounter Books, 2002, page 74:

"Marx had recently received an inheritance from his father, and he soon spent most of it buying guns and daggers for German rebels in Belgium, leading to his arrest and expulsion from that country."

Can we have some uninvolved eyes and comment on this, the talk page discussion appears to be going no where. --Martin (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if all these sources are reliable and appropriate, but the Wheen biography is RS for the article, and enough on its own to source such a point. For a biography, we're not looking for texts by academic historians. It does occasionally happen that an untrue story gets recycled from one source to another, so if there's reason to doubt it, a case could be made. Even then, though, the standard policy response is that we're looking for verifiability, not truth. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I am mentioned here, Martintg did not have the courtesy to inform me of this discussion thread. Martintg has an edit restriction against contributing to Eastern European articles because of his tendentious editing. A clear sign of tendentious editing is presenting many sources instead of one good one. For example, Martintg presents Boris Nicolaievsky as a source. Nicolaievsky was a Communist who wrote a hagiography of Marx in 1933. None of the other writers are historians, although some, like Mark Skousen, the nephew of the historian Cleon Skousen and a fringe economist, did write within the academic mainstream. No historian has supported the evidence that Martintg wants included. Wheen btw is a journalist, not an historian, and of course is too young to have covered Marx in Belgium. Joshua Muravchik is also not an historian. TFD (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. TFD's resort to ad hominem attacks only discredits his argument. I did inform TFD that I was going to take this to RSN here. I'm not sure what TFD is talking about when he says "No historian has supported the evidence", in fact I did present one good source by the historian and political scientist Saul K. Padover and his book Karl Marx, an intimate biography. Paul Johnson is also an historian. The additional sources were to show how widely accepted that fact is, from pro and anti Marxist writers like Nicolaievsky and Muravchik, to notable journalists like Francis Wheen and economists like Skousen (is TFD violating BLP by calling Skousen a "fringe economist"?). Heck, it is even found in the preface to "The Karl Marx library" published by McGraw-Hill of all places.

Frankly TFD, misrepresenting the issue only weakens your argument further, I suggest you read WP:HONESTY. What appears to be happening here is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you disregarded the ongoing talk page discussion with your blind revert of sourced texthere, and you still have yet to explain to EdJohnston where you believed the consensus was to remove the sourced text [36]. --Martin (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are not consistent. They disagree on how much money was spent, what weapons were purchased or whether they were provided to Belgian or German workers. They also disagree on whether this was the reason for Marx's expulsion from Belgium.

Wheen: 6,000 francs was spent on arming German workers with daggers, revolvers, etc.

He actually says: "most of this windfall was immediately put to subversive use"

Skousen: 6,000 francs were spent arming Belgian workers with rifles

It is not clear whether "spending his inheritance from his father (6,000 gold francs)" is referring to the sum Marx received or the sum spent.

Library: 5,000 francs were used to buy weapons
Jansen: 5,000 francs were used to buy arms
Nicolaievsky: 5,000 francs were used to buy weapons
Johnson: some of the 6,000 francs was used to arm Belgian workers
Padover: 6,000 francs was spent to buy weapons

He actually says: "he spent about 5000 francs helping to buy arms"

Muravchick: most of the inheritance was spent arming German rebels with guns and daggers

The original source for this story appears to be writings by Marx's friends and his wife, as explained in Franz Mehring's 1933 biography. I actually looked for books published in the academic press to see what they said about the inheritance and according to Jerrold Siegal, a professor of history at Princeton, in his book published by them, which was well-reviewed in The Journal of Modern History,[37] "[Marx] received a sizeable advance on his share of the family estate in 1848 to float the Neue Rheinische Zeitung." Marx's father had in fact died ten years earlier.[] The paper was launched after Marx left Belgium.[38]

TFD (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have again misconstrued the evidence which does in fact appear consistent, I've added what the sources say above to your bullet point list. Most people would agree that "most" is consistent with 5000 spent from 6000 received. Siegal states "[Marx] received a sizeable advance on his share of the family estate", however Padover states "Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance", seems to be that there were two different sums are being discussed. --Martin (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Marx received the remainder of his inheritance in the form of an advance. His mother had advanced him money through the years from his inheritance. In any case no source makes the distinction that you do. We need to determine whether he requested the advance to pay for a newspaper or for the groups in Belgium. Can you explain which source you think should be used for the types of weapons and the group(s) that received them. TFD (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the sources being used, nor do they seem to be terribly in conflict with each other. Actually they are not terribly bad conflict with the other sources TFD is citing. I don't see any justification for removing references to the weapon buying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Marx give the money to Belgians or Germans? TFD (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand are you saying that disagreement about the nationality of the workers who might have received weapons bought with the money would somehow be a reason for ignoring all these fairly consistent claims from quite strong sources? What a look over these sources seems to indicate is that the exact details of expenditure are not a subject of consensus in the field. Implication is that for any very exact details we should consider attribution. However the basic idea that money was spent on weapons for workers and publication of a newpaper seems to be a consensus. If someone would dig up a document that proves both these assertions wrong would not shock me, but here on WP we report what the mainstream of each field is saying to the extent that it agrees?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there is a sizeable German ethnic minority residing in Belgium. In fact German is one of the official languages of Belgium along with French and Flemish, there is no "Belgian" language. I see no contradiction here, obviously those sources referring to Marx arming Germans actually means Belgians of German ethnicity. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a helpful comment I'm afraid. The German speaking area of Belgian is in a hilly, wooded and rural area on the German border. And the people who live there are not called "Germans". More to the point though, communism wanted workers to see themselves as part of an international brotherhood, and Marx himself was an international person crossing borders.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think you are right there, the Belgian German enclave is to the rural east of the country. I re-read the sources and found "Marx urged German refugees to join the Belgians in revolt", so presumably there was a large body of German nationals living within Belgium as refugees at that time, probably mainly industrial workers. --Martin (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources with Quotes

I understand if a source has a quote from an individual, that information should be attributed to them like "Bob Smith says...." But should the rest of the article be treated as though the information be treated as though it came from Bob Smith? AuroraHcky (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010(UTC)

Can you provide an example of what you mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have 2 examples: http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx and http://www.mpnnow.com/ontario_county/x1838124750/Former-RIT-player-a-Hershey-Bear AuroraHcky (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I realized I should have provided additional information. For this link: http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx I'd like to use as a source for Belen Echandia about the retailers that sell the Product. For this link: http://www.mpnnow.com/ontario_county/x1838124750/Former-RIT-player-a-Hershey-Bear I've used it as a source on Steve Pinizzotto for "In March 2007, Pinizotto became the first RIT sophomore to sign a professional contract" though I'm now questioning if that was correct. AuroraHcky (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Where the source quotes an individual, the information comes from the individual. Where the source states something as a fact, the information comes from the source. We don't know how much research a source does, but just because an article contains an interview, that does not mean all information in the article comes solely from that interview. For the specific case you mention, the article states "Pinizzotto, who turns 26 on April 26, is the first Tiger ice hockey player to sign a contract with a National Hockey League team." That seems like a statement of fact, not a quote from the individual, so can be used as a source without "says" disclaimer - but I'd rephrase: why "first sophomore", and not just "first RIT ice hockey player?". The source doesn't say that other RIT sports players didn't sign professionally, just no other ice hockey players, and it doesn't restrict to sophomores. --GRuban (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If a source quotes an individual, then Wikipedia should certainly attribute the information to that individual. If it doesn't then Wikipedia can state it as fact (with a citation) if uncontroversial, or attributed to the source otherwise. If one wishes to be exquisitely NPOV, one would write "According to Lauren Milligan, writing in Vogue in April 2009, the label 'is now retailed in some of the world's top stores; including Fred Segal in LA, Henri Bendel in New York, Harvey Nichols in Dubai and Browns Focus in London.'" However, the writing tends to suffer if the entire article is written like this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pavlova (food)

I have a question about the use of Youtube videos such as in this article Pavlova [39]. Is this allowed? How is this not a copy violation? I tried to remove it but I notice it was reverted back into the article by an administrator. – Josette (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there. The information about the advertising campaign, if it's noteworthy enough to include, should come from an independent source, perhaps a TV channel website or a TV review in a newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, how do I get it removed when I have admins putting it there? - Josette (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just took it out, and am watching the page let's see if it's reverted again. I made a brief post on the talk page so we could discuss there. And this thread can remain open if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - Josette (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the puff as unsourced ;) Jack Merridew 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable?

Is this website a reliable source for BLPs? It looks somewhat reliable, in that more than a few of the articles use information from the subjects, and most of the content shows its work (see here for instance). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting site, but there's nothing there indicating it meets the requirements of WP:RS, much less WP:BLP. As far as I can tell, the various contributors are not noted as topical experts, and there's nothing on the site about its editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Big bad wolves

In Alma, New Mexico, can this source: http://epw.senate.gov/107th/mil20524.htm be used to support this statement: In 2000, a "lone male wolf began hanging around a bus stop in tiny Alma" that serves a local elementary school. or this shorter one: In 2000, a "lone male wolf began hanging around a bus stop in tiny Alma".

Or is the submission not actually published in a reliable source, it's just an individual's assertions in a letter to a Senate committee (but shouldn't that be truthful?). Thoughts welcomed so we can solve a minor content dispute! Bigger digger (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just one activist's claim. It doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement was made under oath in testimony to the US Congress. Is there a more reliable way to ensure that a person is stating the truth, even if it's from their perspective? Would it matter if a qualifier was added to the statement? • Freechildtalk 02:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't meet WP:RS. At best it's very much a primary source, and in my opinion shouldn't be included per WP:WEIGHT. Looking at the article it seems other bus stop wolf sightings are already included, sourced to a secondary source, so I'd say let this one go. Siawase (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the source believes he's telling the truth; that doesn't mean this primary source satisfies WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

reliable sources for legal issues

Hi, in the Climategate article there remains a question mark over whether a release of emails was illegal or whether it was hypothetically protected under UK whistleblower laws.

Many (most?) reliable sources have preferred to describe the email release factually as simply 'unauthorised', e.g. Revkin/NYT, Yale University study, BAMS study.

It is noteworthy that Legal News Online also prefers 'unauthorised' release, the only source of a legal nature I have been able to find.

In general, if Wikipedia is explicitly citing/footnoting the word 'illegal', as is the case here, is it not common sense that the footnote should lead the reader to a source which actually contains legal advice (i.e. the opinion of a solicitor, lawyer, judge) or evidence of an actual court ruling? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Or would a cite to the first line of the introduction to the UK Government's Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's Report be good enough? (That's what the article currently has). Of course, several other uses of this word in this context also exist. --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the government of the UK called the release "illegal" multiple times in the first (substantive) page of its report ([40]). I don't see an issue here. Is someone seriously arguing that a government is not a reliable authority on its own laws? MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The reliable authority on a parliament's laws, or an executive's actions, is generally the court of final review in common law societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, thank you. Could you elaborate on this point for those who don't seem to understand it, with a view to also clarifying Wikipedia's policies? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In most common law societies, courts determine the legality of specific individual actions after they have occurred. Courts are generally the only body empowered to do this, and, a matter is not settled until it has been rejected by the review process of superior courts, possibly leading to the final court of review. As in many common law countries it is libel to claim someone is a criminal unless they have been demonstrated to be a criminal in a court of law, we ought to avoid this. Documents may be prohibited to import, possess, distribute or create, but the illegal action inheres in a human being. You can state, "According to the Parliament / Government of [X], the possession of documents of type [Y] is illegal, and the Parliament / Government has claimed this in relation to documents [Z]." And the P/G could be an authority for their own opinion. Whether this is true or not is a matter for the courts. Given the extreme difficulty in determining the central point of a ruling, a court document, wikipedia ought to rely on reliable second hand reports, for instance in the press, academic papers, or by jurisprudence opinion leaders. In particular, unless a legal matter has resolved, or been reported, we ought to avoid claims about legality in relation to people's actions. Even in general cases, "Under British statute law, x is illegal" is far preferable to "x is illegal in Britain". The first can be documented: the statute exists until overturned by a court. The second is a universal claim. In the case of "Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" [report] we ought to state, The Government of the United Kingdom concurred with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's opinion that the release of documents was illegal. The rest is a matter for the courts; and, subsequent to any action being reported reliably, we can revisit wording as the reliably sourced information changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. It would be fine to write that according to the government of the UK, the document release was illegal. I think this is excessive hairsplitting, and we're clearly talking past each other on a basic level, but it's not worth arguing further about. These arguments seem faintly pedantic and ridiculous: after all, if witnesses observe men in a car drive up and shoot an innocent bystander, one may confidently say right away that the act was illegal, even though the courts will have nothing to say on the subject until a suspect is apprehended, arraigned, and tried. Courts deal with the guilt or innocence of individuals, but an action may be obviously illegal before any individual is tried for it. The question, to me, is simply whether a UK government report is a suitable encyclopedic source, according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. That seems like a no-brainer to me, but I've continually underestimated the ability of Wikipedians to complicate simple matters, particularly where there's an ideological subtext. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that hair splitting is somewhat more justified in cases which involve calling the actions of living people illegal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC) PS. No sarcasm intended, because I do also understand the point of MastCell to some extent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Even when that involves completely unknown living people? Does BLP apply to utterly unnamed individuals (without even speculating as to what continent they may be on)? I understand the fuss necessary around unconvicted suspects, but is it true that we can't concur with a government report that begins "In November 2009, data including emails were illegally released from a computer server"? Must we note that that is only a national government's possibly biased and hastily expressed opinion? Our BLP rules are really that much stricter than the UK government's human rights policies? This view raises more questions than it answers, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, yes I said I said I do see MastCell's point also. I was just pointing to another way of seeing it. BTW I don't know if the people who spread this information are completely unknown?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas is claiming that the advice here given at RS/N was prejudiced by my reference to UK whistleblower legislation. He says, I suppose I better quote it, You misrepresented this issue on the RS board. There is no "question" of whether or not there is a whistleblower, and the illegal release of data is just that. Of course, plenty of skeptical commentators, e.g. the MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen, have indeed raised the question of whether or not the release of emails would have been protected under the said whistleblower legislation. Anyhow, Fifelfoo, Andrew, did I confuse you with my question? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I felt quite capable of clicking through the links provided and reaching my own conclusion. My only concern, having seen your representation of this discussion at the article talk page, is with your selective cherry-picking of only those comments which agree with your position. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested that the official Government Response might have been "hasty" – it's the government's position after about 10 months of investigations and three official inquiries in this country, as well as another three in the U.S.. The government would have had plenty of time to take legal advice in preparing this document, and would be expected to do that. It may be noted that there's been a change of government since the report this responds to, and far from being partisan, this is a report by a Conservative government.
The question of possible protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the "whistleblower act") relates to protection of employment rights under specified conditions, not whether or not the act was illegal. The specified conditions require ‘qualifying disclosure’ about malpractices, the examples listed being more serious than anything found in the emails. The disclosures have to be made by a worker to to the right person, and in the right way (making it a 'protected disclosure'). The worker is not protected if they "break the law when making a disclosure", hacking into someone else's server to plant unauthorised information is likely to be breaking the law. If the person or people who disclosed the documents suffer discrimination at work for making the disclosure, they can take their case to an Employment Tribunal. That doesn't make their actions legal. . dave souza, talk 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are two widespread ways of describing something, and the difference between them is agreed to be meaningful, I suppose the logical way to handle that would be to report both wordings on WP, with attribution of some kind? who wrote this? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC) My apologies. It was me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I would agree except that I really don't truly think the differences are meaningful. The many RSes that have gone with 'unauthorised release' have done so, doubtlessly, because they understand that it is both technically and ethically wrong to assert 'illegal' in the press without any legal evidence. There is, however, no necessary contradiction between the two wordings. That said, I would be quite happy to have the wording changed to say, "A number of commentators, including the UK parliament, have expressed a view that the email release was illegal'. What I do object to, and what I think we all should object to, is having Wikipedia's voice giving advice to the reader of a legal matter. I think you've already expressed the same view. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sounds about right from what I can follow. To me it seems like a wording compromise can fix the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza, I suppose I should say how misleading this all is. The investigation has been an investigation of possible corruption in the CRU, not the server breach. The server breach is a police matter, and the police have found nothing consistent with server hacking so far. Meanwhile, the present UK government is a coalition of Liberals and Tories, not a normal conservative government. The climate change minister, Chris Huhne, is a Liberal Democrat. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Are any other uninvolved editors who understand reliable sources and for legal matters willing to say something here? Suffice to say, it will take many editors to state the same thing before the large number of involved editors would take any notice. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well MastCell's question "Is someone seriously arguing that a government is not a reliable authority on its own laws?" made me LOL. Like most democratic governments the UK one constantly has squads of lawyers in the courts defending the government's interpretation of the law, and as often as not losing roundly. Where the matter is contentious, the government's view should be clearly stated to be just that, and not taken as the last word. I haven't gone into the detail here, but I'm clear on that, and it is far from "hair-splitting", just basic factual reporting. Also that the phrase "...the UK parliament, have expressed a view..." should never be used. Both houses? "View"? No. Hope that helps. Neither the views of a House of Commons committee nor the ministerial response to it should be inflated in status beyond what they are. Johnbod (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess this communistic, world-government, anti-freedom, global warming conspiracy hoax is now so huge that, especially since they include some 'liberals', the UK government must be involved in it or brainwashed by it, and so they're lying and twisting all the facts in their published reports. There's not many people left who you can trust, it seems. --Nigelj (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is actually expressing any climate change skepticism (I could be wrong...). I think it's more a case of... are you guys serious? or... have you all been living in caves? Just in the last week this is what's happened in Australia, where I live. Australian Bikie Gangs vs Government of South Australia; High Court rules Government's legislation is unconstitutional ref, University student in Melbourne vs Commissioner of Taxation; court rules student's expenses are in fact tax deductible ref, Two Tamil Refugees vs Federal Department of Immigration & Citizenship; court rules government's decision to send refugees home is illegal, that refugees were denied 'procedural fairness' ref. Our system of government has been handed down from the time of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Governments, quite simply, have never, ever been authorities on what is and isn't 'illegal'. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well their opinion certainly has some sort of authority as they design the laws, but as mentioned above it is correct that in debatable cases they are not the last word and so it can sometimes be preferably to attribute their opinions if they are going to be used (their opinions are often notable of course).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If there had been a constitutional case made against the government in this example, then I would understand what you are saying, but starting from the premise that every word in this government report is unreliable, as there might be a Supreme Court case made against it at some indeterminate point in the future, although there is no reference claiming for that challenge anywhere, seems extreme. --Nigelj (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, even by Wikipedia's standards. Since people seem to have interpreted my initial remark as showing an ignorance of constitutional democracy, I should clarify (again, though in a sane atmosphere even one clarification would be unneeded) that I meant that a government is an authority on its own laws for Wikipedia's purposes. That is, an authority as a reliable, encyclopedic source. I really wish we could do without the armchair lawyering, because it's entirely beside the point, but such is life.
In any case, to go back to the actual issue at hand: is there any objection to saying that "According to the government of the U.K., the document release was illegal"? Does anyone disagree that inline attribution addresses this concern? MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That suggested wording would be reasonable if the government report said, "Therefore, on balance, we conclude that the document release was illegal". As it is, the report begins, "Introduction 1. In November 2009, data including emails were illegally released...". It is not a conclusion, but an obvious statement of fact before the detailed discussion and findings go on for several pages. This, and other statements we can easily find, easily justify the opening of our article, "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the illegal release[2] of thousands of emails and other documents..." There is no reason to change this on the basis that the UK government is an unreliable source on its own laws, because they might be subject to a Supreme Court challenge at some time in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your reasoning Nigelj. If there is a comment about legality which is made by a reliable source, but some reasonable doubt about whether all reliable sources would agree, what is wrong with the "safe option" of attribution? The only problem I can see is that it adds a few extra words? That does not seem too bad if we consider that legality of recent events is a sensitive subject. What other problems are there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the point, no reliable sources disagrees: no RS has been produced that actually says that the release of the documents was in fact legal. None of the four American sources presented by Alex Harvey at the start of this thread argue that the release was perfectly legal, they simply omit to use the word illegal, 'preferring', as Alex puts it, to say unauthorized. But then, none of them are about the legality of the hack, they are about the coverage in the blogosphere, the neutrality of the subsequent enquiries, the science of GW, etc. How can we argue that because every source in the world than mentions the event doesn't explicitly repeat that it was an illegal act, and anyway laws can be overturned by the Supreme Court, therefore it was a legal act? That is a logical fallacy. Why is a logical fallacy being used to alter, dilute or obfuscate simple wording based on the most recent official report? In other discussions of this point (on the article talk page), the argument is put that, even if the UK laws are not overturned (which they show no signs of being), if the hacker(s) are brought to trial they may get off under whistleblower laws. Again, mounting a successful defence in a trial doesn't make the act legal, it makes the defendant not guilty. That's a separate issue for the future, and again there are no RSs for that trial defence at this time, only blogs and the hopes of their supporters. What we have here seems to me to be simple Teach the Controversy campaigning. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that helps me understand and the way you present this is logical and reasonable. However the counter argument in this particular case is also not unreasonable. Tough call, but then I really wonder if there is not a wording that can work for all parties. As you say, all sources are close. For example "this unauthorized release of information has been described as illegal by the UK government" would not imply that there is any strong argument AGAINST the UK government? Or something like that...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Like you, Nigel, I can't see any way that this release of data could have been legal. The notion that there will be a successful whistleblower defence at this stage can be ruled out. But "unauthorised release" isn't incorrect; it's both factual and neutral. I don't have a problem with using government sources, so I think the straightforward thing is to use "unauthorised release", and also cite the government document with attribution. Perhaps some people are determined to keep "illegal" out of the encyclopedia, which is unhelpful. But it could also be unhelpful to force it into the encyclopedia at all costs. Verifiability not truth, not here to right great wrongs, and all that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way: Suppose all emails that we send through Wikipedia's email interface were stored on the server (I think they are not), and on the eve of a parliamentary decision about a law that concerns Wikipedia they all appeared on Wikipedia Review, together with bold and misleading claims that they prove the existence of a cabal etc. Do you think "unauthorised release" would be an adequate description of this? I don't. I think by calling this an "unauthorised release" we would create the impression that this "release" could, in principle, have been "authorised". But for such a huge corpus, which is a mixture of work-related and private emails, written under a reasonable expectation of privacy by many different people who all retain copyright in their emails, and who in fact did nothing wrong (as has been proved by now, although the claims otherwise were dubious from the beginning) – for such a corpus of emails there was never a chance that their publication would be "authorised" in the first place. It's totally inappropriate to create the impression that there was merely a bit of red tape missing. Hans Adler 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt, reflect what the sources say. What about Andrew Lancaster's suggestion? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, it's a perfect suggestion.

@Hans, No, that's completely wrong. You can't see it, Hans, but I put it to you that the real problem you have with my proposal for the factual 'unauthorised' wording is that it fails to properly express your own moral outrage at what happened. You want the stronger wording that is unambiguously unsupported by any actual legal or court opinion. We as Wikipedians have judged the matter. My own opinion on the legal matter is overruled by a majority, but I'm no more a lawyer than any of you. Hans, look. I wrote to my local MP recently about something I also found outrageous. I don't need to go into specifics, but I had clearly suffered an injustice. I asked the MP about the legislation that his government had designed and his response was that he was unable to give any advice w/r/t interpretation of the said legislation. Presumption of innocence is fundamental. You want the hacker locked away. That's fine, and you're allowed to feel this way. But he deserves a trial with a competent barrister. Will you not agree that really, you really are not a lawyer, or a judge? Can you make just this small concession? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If what he did wasn't illegal, the police should give up the investigation (perhaps we should let them know?) and he doesn't need a trial. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase instead of engaging in theoretical arguments outside of the scope of RSN. The source uses the term "illegal" several times. The source is undeniably reliable for what is says. That guilt or innocence will be determined by a court in the event that someone is charged with a crime in this matter is beside the point. In such an eventuality, the indictment and the trial result will certainly become part of the scope of the article. The obvious solution at this point in time is to simply attribute the statement: e.g. "according to ____, the release of documents was illegal". Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that this is not the chase. Let's chase the right chase. No one denies, I think, that an authority which would normally be considered a very strong source has declared this illegal. The question is somewhat finer, and it is what WP should prefer to call it given that we have a choice between strong sources. The argument seems to be between two sides which consider one of the two types of description better simply, in some cases quite obviously based on their own opinions or "OR". So we can say illegal, but is that the best description given the sources? This is in fact not just an RSN question but also a question about neutrality and due weight - how to reflect what the outside world says into words here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What would be interesting would be to hear why it would be such a problem if the article simply said the release was 'unauthorised'. Unauthorised certainly doesn't imply 'legal'. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is ALSO a reasonable proposal. There are two reasonable positions here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

By 'two resonable proposals', you mean (1) "according to ____, the release of documents was illegal" (2) drop illegal and just say 'unauthorised'; (1) and (2) are the two proposals that seem reasonable? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better to say that there are two reasonable "rationales". Exactly what wording is best is another question probably best answered by people involved. But I certainly don't think it is obviously that the two rationales require two different wordings. There must be quite a lot of acceptable overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be asking now is whether the "illegal" from a UK government source should be included at all. As Andrew says, that's a due weight question rather than a strictly sourcing one. However, it is pretty obvious that UK government sources are useful for the article and their contents should almost certainly be reflected in some way. As I've said before, as the story unfolded we wrote it from the news sources as they appeared. Now it is in the past, we can reconsider the sources and select the best ones. I note that you have been speculating on the talk page about what the actual scenario of the document release was. Remember that talk pages aren't for that. "Illegal release" is sourced to the UK government. "Whistleblower" was speculated on some blogs a while ago, but I suspect it hasn't appeared recently; I don't think we ought to spend time discussing such speculations. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, perhaps Andrew or someone else here could cite and quote the reliable source that, to them, best argues that the UK government is wrong to say 'illegal', so giving rise to the other 'rationale' that we need to consider? --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is there are no reliable sources, legal or illegal, period. It is not our job to find a reliable source saying it was legal; it is your job to find a reliable source that says it was illegal. Go back to Fifelfoo's very clear statement of the problem (his second comment down from the top of this thread). Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Our job is to put aside our personal political and legal views, and accurately represent notable viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources (such as the UK government report). If some of us are unable to do that job, then that's a matter for administrative attention. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why not raise raise an AN/I if you can't otherwise answer the objection. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Fifelfoo's argument about legal process is entirely irrelevant. There is an undeniably reliable source which calls the release "illegal". It is entirely proper to state in the Wikipedia article "According to X source, the release of documents was illegal". If someone can come up with a reliable source that says "no it wasn't", then it would be appropriate to add to the article, "According to Y source, however, it wasn't". But to claim that the Wikipedia article shouldn't use the term "illegal" with appropriate attribution, based on a legal process argument, is improper WP:OR WP:SYNTH and indefensible. Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this depends greatly on the specific article in question. If we are talking about an article on the event, then Fladrif is correct... we can not bluntly say "The release of the documents was illegal" ... but we can say "According to X, the release of the documents was illegal" (or "X has argued that the release of the documents was illegal" etc.). However, in articles on the person/people involved in the event, WP:BLP enters the equation, and there are strict limits set as to what can and can not be said when it comes to accusations of criminality. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As no person, living or dead, has been accused of individual criminality, BLP considerations don't apply in this case. The article is on the event; no individuals are accused; and so this case would fall under your first scenario. Fladrif summarized it very well. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what we're arguing about then. I also have no problem with "According to X, Y was illegal". The trouble is, the present wording does have Wikipedia's voice baldly asserting 'Y was illegal'. I disagree that just because we don't presently know who the person was who released/hacked the emails, BLP doesn't apply, but that's a finer point, and let's just say that if we can add the words "According to X", then we should all be able to live with the compromise. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me; in fact, I had proposed exactly such a compromise about 20 kb up, as had others, but it got lost in the fray. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

gme.grolier.com

Resolved

– DVdm (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Theory of relativity uses the following sources:

^ a b c d e f g Will, Clifford M (August 1, 2010). "Relativity". Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0244990-0. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
^ a b c Will, Clifford M (August 1, 2010). "Space-Time Continuum". Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0272730-0. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
^ a b c Will, Clifford M (August 1, 2010). "Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction". Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0107090-0. Retrieved 2010-08-01.

I wanted to verify whether the most recent anon edit is indeed waranted by the cited source (http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0244990-0) and found that:

"Scholastic Online product subscriptions are available only to institutions (schools, public libraries, colleges, etc.) and their authorized remote patrons."

I'm not sure whether this source is acceptable per wp:SOURCEACCESS. The first sentence of the policy section says that "...'anyone should be able to check...", which clearly is not the case. Is this source acceptable? DVdm (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess WP:PAYWALL is relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DV, you misunderstand what is meant by "anyone should be able to check"... it does not mean you must be able to check immediately, without any effort and from the comfort of you home. It simply means that you (or someone else) must be able to access the source and read it... eventually. In this case, anyone can check the source... all they have to go to one of those institutions that has a subscription (such as a library), or find a willing volunteer to do so for them. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, not having a username/password and, not belonging to any of such "institutions (schools, public libraries, colleges, etc.) and their authorized remote patrons", not being able to get a login, I was inclined to conclude that not everyone is able to check the source and that it could be inadmissible. But OK, if that is really what the policy has in mind then so be it. Let's hope that someone will check the edit - eventually. Thanks for the clarification. DVdm (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, that edit by the anonymous IP has been removed. I added the groiler references, and I don't recall any mention of the bose-einstein condensate. The anonymous IP was simply adding text, without regard for the references, as far as I can tell. A fact related to the Bose–Einstein Condensate would probably be easy to verify without having to access the Groiler references. I mean if it seemed incorrect then it probably is. I could also look up Bose–Einstein Condensate in this encyclopedia and see what it says. In any case, maybe it would be best to supply quotes with the Groiler references in this article. That is what we did in the Time article for references, including Pay-sites. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the bose-einstein condensate is not really related to this article. The Bose–Einstein condensate article states that " ...the first gaseous condensate was produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman in 1995 at the University of Colorado at Boulder NIST-JILA lab, using a gas of rubidium atoms cooled to 170 nanokelvin (nK) [2] (1.7×10−7 K). " So the anonymous IP's addition was not exactly correct. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I had severe doubts about the addition, which is why I wanted to check the source in the first place. I notice that Christopher undid the edit.

Thanks, Steve. Feel free to send me the Grolier account login/password by email, so next time I can verify myself... - TIA :-)

DVdm (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, anyone can check is usually taken to mean; availiable through a well stocked library. So I don't think the limitation of this site violates availiability. Taemyr (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace Now in Psagot

The Israeli human rights group Peace Now was cited in the article Psagot saying that an Israeli outpost is located 400m from the settlement. The source is this. A Wikipedia user, Jaakobou (talk · contribs) claims that Peace Now has fabricated this information, and that what they report is in an official Israeli government report, that Mitzpe Hai is 385 m as the crow flies from Psagot, is not in the report. I cant find any source disputing this material, and Jaakobou has insisted that that his claim that Peace Now fabricated this material is enough to remove the material from the article? Can the source be cited, so long as it is attributed to Peace Now, in the article? nableezy - 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the request for input: More generally, Peace Now's Settlement Watch project has issued two reports on land ownership issues in Israeli settlements.

"Breaking the Law in the West Bank - The Private Land Report" from November 2006, was based on 2004 [Israeli] Civil Administration data leaked to Peace Now.
"Construction on Private Palestinian Land - Report based upon Official Data" from March 2007, was based on 2006 Civil administration data released by court order after the prior report.

Both reports combine Peace Now assesments of buildings and boundaries with Israeli government sources on ownership to produce a set of percentages. Their methods are spelled out. In both cases, the material under question, including Peace Now's calculations, appears in respected mainstream publications such as the New York Times (and again in 2007) and Haaretz, who treat Peace Now as a credible source of information.

Now, on Psagot and potentially other West Bank settlements' pages, there are several questions under dispute. Jaakobou has objected to any use of material from Peace Now, on the grounds of WP:FRINGE, while Shuki has merely required that statements be attributed to Peace Now in the text. Nableezy and I have stated our willingness to attribute such statements. Is it appropriate for us to do so on statements derived from these reports, such as the existence of the Mitzpe Ha'ai settlement outpost, its position, its relationship to Psagot, and land ownership percentages in the combined area of Psagot and Mitzpe Ha'ai. In other words, does a sentence that begins with, "According to Peace Now, …" or "A Peace Now analysis of Israeli Civil Administration data found …," constitute an appropriate use of these sources? Or should any information in these sources be excluded from Wikipedia?--Carwil (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace Now is a political advocacy group. Its claims and opinions may be published, properly attributed, but not stated as facts. Specifically, the report cited above ("Breaking the Law in the West Bank - The Private Land Report") was later found to be highly inaccurate - off by a factor of 15,900 percent in some cases(http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3379237,00.html), so it is certainly not something we should be relying on or reporting uncritically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.232 (talk • contribs)

The settlement discussed here is Maale Adumim. Its land status varied the most between the 2004 and 2006 Civil Administration data. This is acknowledged in the 2007 Peace Now report: "The main difference between the two reports refers to the land on which Ma’aleh Adumim, a large settlement, sits. According to the 'One offense begets another' report, approximately 10,965 dunams are land which is privately owned by Palestinians (constituting 86.4% of the area of Ma’aleh Adumim). In comparison, according to the up-to-date data which was officially received from the Civil Administration, only 69 dunams are private land (constituting 0.54% of the total area of the settlement). This great disparity has a significant effect upon the total amount of private land in all of the settlements. [footnote: The difference between the 'One offense begets another' report and the up-to-date data comes to only 1% if one does not include the data re Ma’aleh Adumim.]"

In short, while the data for a single settlement (the principal subject of the op-ed cited) was wildly inaccurate in the first report, Peace Now acknowledged and corrected the error. All other discrepancies represent a very small variation.--Carwil (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace Now is a extreme fringe political advocacy group with a bad record for accuracy. On top of them being often criticized, I went ahead and checked their claim that an official report requested by the Prime Minister stated something on Mitzpe Ha'ai. The Mitzpe was not mentioned in the original, which goes to show just one of many examples on how they fabricate content and pass it off as 'legit'. Regardless of the accuracy status of the actual content, I am against inclusion of information from this group even if it is accurate just as I would oppose the inclusion of content from jewsagainsttheoccupation.org. Fringe advocacy groups with a shady record for fact checking should be avoided -- and if the Mitzpe exists, there should be no problem to find a number of proper sources about it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is about fringe science, not politics. You could try and make a case that Peace Now is an extremist source in Wikipedia terms, but since they apparently received 1.2 million euros from the EU, that might be a bit problematic. I would say the statement can go in if attributed. Obviously any contradictory views should also be mentioned, and if most sources contradict this one, leave it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

J, to be clear, PN's Settlement Watch project has primarily been occupied with tracking the growth of Israeli settlements. To do so, it has not relied on the Israeli government, but on direct research. The reports mentioned above combined PN's own tracking of the land used by settlements (and made unavailable to Palestinians) and the CA's land ownership records.

What is at issue is not whether a source is an advocacy organization (such as Human Rights Watch or Oxfam), but whether it has "a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" per WP:SOURCES.--Carwil (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Judith, to make myself clear, a fringe, extremist, political advocacy group == extremist source. I'm not referring to a theory being fringe -- this started because they mention some outpost is located somewhere which, true or false, is not WP:FRINGE. As far as funding goes, that does not make an organization wiki-relialbe or desirable. No other source mentioned this locality, btw -- how about finding one good source instead of making the unreasonable request that there should be sources to contradict a bad source's fabricated content in order not to use the fabricated content.

Carwil, original research by agenda driven bodies with a bad record for fact checking is not what makes for a wiki-reliable sourcing. If this locality is of any value outside the minds of this fringe groups, I'm sure there can be at least one proper source that mentions it. Peace Now is not a reliable source for their original research published in their blog, making the fabricated claim that the locality is in the official, government requested report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, are you saying that we should treat Peace Now as an extremist group? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, does anyone have a link to the full Sasson report including the appendix with the outpost statistics rather than just the part on the MFA site linked from our Sasson Report article ? You can see this place on Google earth so perhaps it is in the appendix. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the entire report (in Hebrew). Perhaps someone can have a look to see whether the outpost is there in section 5.6 or elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitzpe Hai doesn't appear in the report you linked to (which doesn't include the appendixes). There is a "Psagot South East" in a list of outposts without known establishment dates on page 104. Later on the same page she says that land ownership information for outposts without known establishment dates is not included in the report since she didn't have data for most of them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but there was a bit of confusion over the name. Peace now said it was called Givat Ha'ai at the time of the report. p101 maybe. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Givat Haai appears on page 101 under "outposts on private Palestinian land". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. Maybe Jaakobou can have a look at it, see if it changes things. Perhaps it can be cited too if that helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Non of the content cited by Peace Now is mentioned on that page. Peace Now is not a reliable source to begin with, but if we see an original with interesting content, I'm not against adding info from the original and citing it to that original (leaving out the Peace Now embellishments and fabrications). I've always stated that if this place is notable, we'd be able to find normative sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou claims that this sentence applies to Peace Now: original research by agenda driven bodies with a bad record for fact checking. Jaakobou expects others to accept his claim that Peace Now is an "extremist" "fringe" source and do this based on his word and his word alone, declining to provide sources for his claims and instead calling the request for sources contradicting Peace Now "unreasonable", that is Jakkobou believes it is"unreasonable" for somebody to request that he provide sources for his claims. I dont think that position has any backing in Wikipedia policy, though WP:JAAKOBOUSAYS may magically turn blue. Peace Now is by no means an "extremist" sources, they are regularly quoted in the NYTimes, BBC, Haaretz and the list goes on. Jaakobou further characterizes Peace Now's work as "original research published in their blog" which is truly a comment that induces much head scratching if not much understanding. Peace Now's website is not a "blog", whether or not their research is "original" is immaterial to the question. Jaakobou, original research is a rule directed against Wikipedia editors, not sources. Sort of exactly what you are doing now, claiming, without any backing by sources, that Peace Now is an extremist group and thus they cannot be cited. Even if your premise were true, which it is not, the conclusion still has no backing in anything other than your demand that we accept your word over the sources. nableezy - 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out we have an academic article on press coverage of Peace Now and Gush Shalom. David Levin, "Making a Good Impression: Peace Movement Press Release Styles and Newspaper Coverage" International Journal of Press/Politics Winter 2002 vol. 7 no. 1 79-101. Describing Peace Now, Levin reports:

"Peace Now is amuch larger, almost mainstream group, which consciously attempts to pursue a combined populist-insider approach to advancing the peace process." (81-82)

"Peace Now is a relatively old social movement group by any standard. It has acquired a reputation for providing generally reliable information about settlement expansion (Bar-On 1996). It regularly organizes informational Settlement Watch tours and reports that mesh well with news media needs for numeric data (Shoemaker and Reese 1991)." (92)

It also finds that Settlement Watch reports had a 99% chance of being covered in the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz, compared to a 65% likelihood for other Peace Now press releases.--Carwil (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace Now website is indeed a self-published blog with little to no editorial supervision written by fringe political activists. I agree that they were in the mainstream in 1996, at the hight of the Oslo Peace Accords, but following the year of the suicide bomber in 2002, they slowly lost their mainstream status to the point where they are currently considered an extremist fringe group. If this locality is notable, there will certainly be long term normative sources -- i.e. who are not fringe political activists -- who talk about it. It is indeed unreasonable to request that someone bring up reliable sources to say that content from a barely known fringe group is faulty. On that same level, someone might demand reliable sources that attack jewsagainstzionism.org in order for us to refrain from using their content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC) +c Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou are you deliberately wasting our time? What's the evidence for "extremist"? What's the evidence for "blog"? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The debate on the article talk page about the existence of the outpost is somewhat bizarre, since you can find information on Hebrew University newsgroups,[41] & travel and tours bulletin boards [42] about a big festival there on the first day of Chol HaMoed and the fact that Givat Ha'ai is located right next to Psagot.

The first reports regarding Givat Ha'Ai appear to have come from Haaretz, not the Sasson report or Peace Now. The Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem cites an August 2000 Haaretz report which established the location of Givat (Hill) Ha’ai as "beside Psagot, east of Ramallah" and said it had initially been setup on private land that was owned by a resident of El Bireh. See page 2 [43] and [44] Mitzpeh (Lookout) Ha'ai is listed as #69 in the Haaretz Outpost Watch Project "data [which] is based in large part on extensive research conducted over years by the Peace Now organization, augmented with and cross-referenced by information from settlers and Haaretz correspondents." [45]. Of course it was mentioned on page 101 of the Sasson report along with Amona and five other outposts that were built on privately-owned Palestinian land. harlan (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is a good enough source for the purpose of adding information on this locality. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As appreciative as I am Jaakobou, that you will concede discussing Mitzpe/Givat Ha'ai, I'd still like to hear this noticeboard's opinion on using Peace Now for other information, as described above: "Is it appropriate for us to [cite Peace Now] on statements derived from these reports, such as the existence of the Mitzpe Ha'ai settlement outpost, its position, its relationship to Psagot, and land ownership percentages in the combined area of Psagot and Mitzpe Ha'ai?"

It seems that Itsmejudith supports such a citation, and also seems that you haven't answered her and Nableezy's requests to justify the "extremist" and "blog" labels you've applied to Peace Now, both of which seem amply refuted by the academic source I cited, as well as the consistent use of Peace Now data by reliable mainstream publications. Do you have any substantial justification for these terms?--Carwil (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that website under editorial review or is it a publication by an unnamed individual with little to no review? All due respect to people with horses in the race like Nableezy, when the material is notable, there are clearly normative sources rather than this fringe political group. That they were mainstream, btw, in the late 1990s is something I don't contest.. however, they are not mainstream now (far from it) and they are not a reliable source. If their perspective was published by a wiki-reliable source at one point in time, that publication can be used (if warranted) and attributed to them. This locality issue, however, can only be referenced to a proper source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou's argument that Peace Now is unreliable is based at least in part on his claim above that "The Mitzpe [Ha'ai] was not mentioned in the [Sasson report of 2005], which goes to show just one of many examples on how they fabricate content and pass it off as 'legit'." The report in question has detailed information on the location (called then Giv'at Ha'ai) in appendix A of the report. The information at the Peace Now website is copied verbatim from that appendix. Giv'at Ha'ai is also referred to in the body of the report. The report is available from the Prime Minister's office. The final report is not on-line, but the interim report (without the appendixes) is available here.

I am guessing that Jaakobou was looking at the report summary, and not at the full report. The summary is available on numerous websites, and indeed makes no mention of Givat Ha'ai. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If we need a general principle about Peace Now it can perhaps be based on the following. Not by any means an extremist source in Wikipedia terms. An advocacy group, but the very fact that the Israeli government has complained about them having received funding from the government of Finland shows that they aren't advocating a totally off-the-wall viewpoint in international political debate. However, we should bear in mind that they are regarded (in Israel at least) as being on one side in the Israel-Palestine conflict, rather than dead centre. Being an advocacy group doesn't automatically rule a source out, but it doesn't rule it in either. Different criteria apply to different parts of the website. It isn't a blog because it isn't open for all and sundry to post, there is obviously some kind of editorial control. Op-Ed can be treated using existing criteria, in particular the notability of the writer - always attribute carefully and seek to balance. The listing of settlements appears to have won praise in many quarters, including for accuracy. It's oan area where mistakes can easily be made, though. If Haaretz is doing a similar exercise it should be preferred, but I don't see any reason to rule out info from Peace Now's listing so long as it is attributed and so long as any contradictory information is presented alongside. If it is obvious that an error has been made, then omit. If what we are mainly considering is whether to cover small settlements/outposts, then we are in a strange situation compared to other countries, where little hamlets, suburbs and housing estates are keen to be represented on WP and the usual problem is independent coverage. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to be reasonable... I understand of course that Peace Now has a particular position, making it a less preferred source of information. However, through Settlement Watch, they have also done a great deal of research, primarily on the size and composition of the settlements, including documenting exactly what area is exclusively used by the settlements and made unavailable to Palestinians, and documenting the rise (and occassionally fall) of outposts. Some of this data is uniquely provided by Peace Now, and for that reason it's useful to rely on them.

In the case of Psagot, the land ownership data in the second report (entirely based on the CA) has the kind of problem worthy of omission: a central parcel we know from other sources to be state (actually muncipal Jerusalem/al-Quds) land is called private land. Peace Now devotes a page of its report to listing this discrepancy (between the 2004 and 2006 CA data) as one deserving of an explanation. I've advocated on Talk:Psagot not to include the percentage of private land in the 2007 report for just this reason. I would still like to say, "Peace Now estimates the total land controlled by Psagot and nearby outpost(s) is XX hectares," and it seems clear from the discussion that this does not violate WP:RS.

Summary: Thanks! Other sources are preferable when available. Careful and attributed use of PN is consistent with policy.--Carwil (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Jaakobou, I want to be clear that I have little interest in presenting PN's political views as fact. Only rarely does its legal analysis come in an area not considered by more mainstream sources. It's this settlement data, and other kinds of detailed research that make it a useful source at times.

It would seem that in terms of political position, the Israeli mainstream has moved since the mid-1990s, while Peace Now has not, making it less central to Israeli politics. Since the "international community" Judith describes hasn't moved very much either, PN remains a relatively mainstream source for Wikipedia purposes.

On standards and sourcing, repeating that PN is a blog won't turn it into one. I think it's clear where the evidence lies.--Carwil (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think its clear that the same 3 highly involved editors supporting a fringe advocacy group -- with a shoddy record for accuracy and no editorial process -- who's opinions they support for factual content is of poor taste. Fact does remain that PN's advocacy website is a commentary website on a particular subject that functions, more or less, like a personal online diary -- see "blog". This group has no special expertise on the topic in question and they are ripe with "analysis" and fabricated content. i.e. not a wiki-reliable source... no matter how much Nableezy and co. wants it to be. When/if the content in question is of value and notability, it can be easily enough found in proper, wiki-reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) +c 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The only person who has made any claim that this source cannot be used is you. You and only you. And when you are asked to provide evidence that this is a "extremist" or "fringe" group publishing on a "blog" you decline to do so. I think we have a pretty clear consensus that rejects your position. Your demand that we cede to your unsourced views on the quality of this groups work goes against the policies of this website and as such I will ignore it. Peace Now is clearly a usable source, even an IP likely to be NoCal100 agrees it can go in if attributed. nableezy - 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell me, that they are a neutral research institute?! I've already explained why they are a blog so it is disingenuous of you to act as though I have not. Also, you are shifting the goal-posts, trying to portray this as an issue of mentioning a published perspective of theirs (e.g. npov representation of opionion). This is clearly not the case here as the intent was to use them as a source on land property ownership of localities in Israel. Forget neutral, they are not even "qualified" as researchers. They are most certainly NOT a wiki-reliable soruce to this topic no matter if you and a couple same-opinion buddies -- all of whom are highly involved in the Arab-Israeli topic -- want to present them as such. Find a source that says they have legal expertiese on the subject and you might have a case to argue against the obvious observation that they are a politicized, fringe advocacy group. Another option... just use the proper source, which they claim to be quoting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They are an advocacy organization conducting systematic research; as are, for example, Amnesty International and Oxfam. The "blog" claim is just making you look silly, J. "Extremist," which is grounds for excluding them, is neither true nor proved, and you've dropped it. We've provided mainstream citations of their research (on the front of the New York Times, for instance), and even a social science study showing that 99% of their settlement reports (not blog posts, but organized reports) get mainstream press coverage in Israel, you've provided invective. We've provided citations describing their reliability, you've provided this bizarre "blog" claim. We've also provided published attributions of reliability, but can add more:

Peace Now "has acquired a reputation for providing generally reliable information about settlement expansion" (Levin 2002 cited above, citing Mordechai Bar-On 1996)
"The organization [Peace Now] offers comprehensive analysis of Israel's illegal settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories." (Mark Braverman, Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land, 2010)
Dror Etkes, the head of Peace Now's Settlement Watch was invited to testify before the US Congress, on October 15, 2003, presenting research about the settlements.
The American Prospect describing a lawsuit brought based on Etkes' work, writes: "The suit is the product of dogged research by Dror Etkes, who for years monitored settlement growth for the Israeli left-wing Peace Now movement."

--Carwil (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you guys wrap this up? Unless I'm mistaken, there's agreement that Peace Now is generally reliable, but due to the nature of its advocacy, should probably be given an inline cite. For purposes of Wikipedia, how much more do we need to know?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody except for one person agrees with that summary. If you would like to convince him that he is on the other side of that agreement that would be lovely. nableezy - 14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To compare Peace Now, an organization which advocates against Israeli civilians only because they reside in disputed territory, with Amnesty International is nothing short of an insult to intelligence. Their reports are agenda driven advocacy with numerous inaccuracies - compiled by people without any more expertise on the subject than mine or Nableezy of Carwil. They are not reliable for original content on settlements, unless that content was published by a wiki-reliable secondary source. Nableezy, repeating the same mantra -- i.e. that your buddies all agree among themselves -- is disingenuous. Please stop doing that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Carwil, we've already mentioned the issue of them being in the mainstream and falling out of it. You're not gaining points for them by repeating the argument that they used to be mainstream in 1996 or by finding someone who calls their concoctions "analysis". When an issue is of value, there will be wiki-reliable sources on it. Peace Now does not fit the bill. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are ever going to get consensus for the position that Peace Now is so unreliable we can't use them at all. So what's wrong with inline attribution, if you can't have what you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue of mentioning a published perspective of theirs but an attempt to present a fabricated-by-activists "analysis" self-published on their blog as fact. I'm not in the interest of making Peace Now non-grata, but I will argue against misuse of their blog-site as a reliable source. On its own, it is not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support the statement "fabricated-by-activists" ? I thought we had already established that the material was consistent with the Sasson report. Is there some frabrication ? What is it precisely ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The material includes content not in the report. I thought this was understood. Anyways, that they are a known activist group goes without saying. This politicized, marginal group has no expertise on land ownership and law and if/when the material is of notability, there is no problem to find proper, wiki-reliable sources on it. Content published solely on their website doesn't fit that bill. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What Wehwalt said, what Carwil said, and what I said above. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you try to use material that is self-published only on their website, we'll probably be forced to do this type of thing again -- even if you and Nableezy are in love with Peace Now and both agree that they are supposedly reliable on their own accounts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Jaakobou, a) I am not trying to use any material, b) I said prefer Haaretz, c) I said that this kind of exercise is prone to error. In love with, well, you are going to find people generally well-disposed to peace organisations, but I also explicitly said that they aren't regarded as neutral in Israel. I'm off to join the Israel-Palestine collaboration effort, overdue. The Northern Ireland peace initiative stuff on Wikipedia seems to be working a bit, hopefully we can transfer some of the positive vibe. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa pointed out (above) that the material on the Peace Now website is copied verbatim from Appendix A of the Sasson report. I mentioned that the location of the outpost can be independently verified from other sources including Haaretz reports and Hebrew University of Jerusalem newsgroup announcements. Jaakobou has never offered us any evidence to support the claim that the material was "fabricated-by-activists", and NOT by an official appointed by PM Sharon with the necessary expertise on land ownership and law. harlan (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it is like this. We can go around in circles for days on this, but by the standards that the community sets for reliable sources, this qualifies. Due to controversy about this group's views, we inline attribute, to set the reader on notice, not to tell him what to think. And I think that's about all there is too it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed the Appendix A note. I'm not against inclusion of the content from that appendix. However, citing the content to Peace Now is problematic, since they add their own words and images to wiki-reliable information. Btw, the lawyer who made the original report was not an "official", but this is outside the scope of the current debate. Clearly, the locality can be mentioned and referenced to the Sasson report. It might not be bad to add an inline attribution to that report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with supplying analysis of a primary source document via an inline citation to a published secondary source. The notion that Peace Now is "problematic" is a bit far-fetched. They don't espouse any political causes that are outside of the mainstream or that aren't embraced by a plethora of mainstream sources. The "disputed territories" viewpoint is considered quirky and fringe by the majority of reliable published sources. The Sasson report was officially commissioned by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and was headed by the former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department. harlan (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone decides to reintroduce the material on Givat Ha'ai into Psagot, the reference to the Sasson report is Appendix I, Detailed Review of the Settlements, page 37. The text was copied verbatim to the Peace Now website. Jaakobou's contention that the addition of a satellite photo of the settlement on the website somehow detracts from its veracity is interesting, but a little pathetic. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to whitewash a fringe anti-settlements advocacy group's website as a reliable source on these localities is pathetic IMHO. Use proper sources and we won't have any of this pathetic whining by the usual anti-Jewish settlement wiki-editors. Its not like anyone picked up on the basic challenge of showing that they have some credentials in the field of legal expertise on land ownership -- they don't. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there is no "settlement test" for reliable sourcing here at Wikipedia. 99% of the international community of states have official policies in place that are "anti-settlement". Those policies are based upon a principle of law called a "norm". The Peace Now report was co-authored by Dror Etkes, the head of Yesh Din's Land Advocacy Project, who also acknowledged attorney Michael Sfard's assistance.[46] Both men have regularly petitioned the Supreme Court and participated in numerous cases involving the settlements. harlan (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

dvpedia.com

dvpedia published a set of volumes of business related people based on their Wiki website. Are the resultant publications (such as http://issuu.com/mcd202dc/docs/best_of_dc ) usable as reliable sources? I have an example of usage where notability of eight or more school alumni is based on this publication. Fæ (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

no becasue we are niot allowed to use sources that source Wikipedia (or indea any wiki).Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not allowed seems a strong wording, but yes that is the basic idea. There seems to be some discussion possible about cases where "wikis" are very different to this one in the sense of having a fact checking or editorial system. Not sure if relevant in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't source Wikipedia. Sheesh, do a bit of research before answering. It's published by Global Village Publishing, and it may have editorial oversight. As the content is developed on a wiki my response is maybe, though probably not. Basing notability wholly on this source is a total non-starter. Fences&Windows 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sefi Rachlevsky and Gideon Levy

Please check or give opinion whether the following sources Sefi Rachlevsky, Haaretz and Gideon Levy, Haaretz are RS to be used in Human Rights in Israel article. thanks.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 05:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Noam Ben Ze'ev cites Sefi Rachlevsky in his articles.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 08:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the text that Jim wanted to insert into the article based on these sources is the following: "A campaign of racism and anti-Arab incitement, initiated by local government, is a common practice in a number of areas in Israel. The campaigns instignate Jewish population to subject the Israeli arabs to racial hatred, personal humiliation and discrimination. Radical rabbies are often issue orders which serve as basis for arab pogroms. The Jews who are suspected of having good relations with their Arabs neighbores are subject to threats and intimidation." - Obviously, opinion articles are not proper sources for such controversial facts. Marokwitz (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that neither source even opined that "A campaign of racism and anti-Arab incitement, initiated by local government, is a common practice in a number of areas in Israel" or that "Radical rabbies are often issue orders which serve as basis for arab pogroms", and even "The Jews who are suspected of having good relations with their Arabs neighbores are subject to threats and intimidation" is an exaggeration. There was one example between the two pieces. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If the sources did not even say these things then that would be a waste of the noticeboard's time, of course. If the sources did say these things, in the context of opinion pieces, then Haaretz would normally be reliable so opinions pieces there could be used as sources for the opinions of those individuals. But are those individuals important enough (WP:NOTE)to have their personal opinions reported here? There are contexts where such opinions might be cite-able, especially if the people with the opinions are notable themselves. But with controversial individual opinions it is better to attribute, for example "In the opinion of Mr X..." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy is certainly notable. RolandR (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity second opinion

Amicable consensus was reached between the three presenting editors and the noticeboard regular at this RSN thread. However, due to the overall topic-area difficulties, I would greatly appreciate a second uninvolved editor skimming the thread and giving a second opinion. Essentially, I don't want to be told later that there really was no consensus because we just badgered a board regular into agreeing with us. Please let us know your second opinion of the two e-groups mentioned in the thread, thank you! JJB 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and I looked into that thread and the sources linked there. If I'm reading it correctly it seems that consensus was that the web pages at http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM and http://www.grg.org/Adams/G2.HTM are likely to be work in progress spreadsheets and can at best be used as primary sources. From reviewing them and the information provided about them in the thread, I agree with this basic assessment. Also per that thread consensus seemed to be that Rejuvenation Research is deemed basically reliable, but with some fringe concerns. I agree with this assessment also.

While looking over this I came across something. I did not delve into the talk pages etc relating to the underlying conflict, so what I'm suggesting might be previously discussed or irrelevant. But it seems Rejuvenation Research is regularly publishing what appears to be a version of http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM see [47] and one partial example [48] Maybe it would be possible to use the latest version published in Rejuvenation Research instead of the grg.org site as a source on Wikipedia. Siawase (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice to get an uninvolved comment, thank you. I am still anxious about Rejuvenation Research and would like to read any more comments, especially from people who regularly edit medicine/biology articles. Also, even if Rejuvenation Research does count as a peer-reviewed journal, these don't look like refereed articles in it. Some journals do have sections that aren't refereed, for example letters to the editor. The authors of the lists you mention are always Robert Young (User:Ryoung122 and initiator of WP:WOP), Stephen Coles (the founder of GRG), and Louis Epstein (another GRG staffer and sometime WP editor). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where I am on the involved v. uninvolved spectrum at this point, but it appears to be fringe to me. It is edited by Aubrey de Grey and has a relatively low real impact factor (when you get rid of the all the circular citations by writers in the journal to other essays published in the journal). The fact that there is an inordinate amount of circular citations is also a concern. This means that not only are other journals not citing this one very often, but the articles it publishes are less likely to cite research published in other journals.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth while to start a thread at the FT/N about all three of these -- Aubrey de Grey, SENS Foundation, and Rejuvenation Research. I believe all are fringe science, but I'm outside my area of comfort with that.Griswaldo (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Great (and welcome again Griswaldo). That is a significant point as to Rej Res. However, the facts on the ground are that any citation to Rej Res would beat any citation to an egroup or Yahoo group, such as we have currently hundreds of! And yet even as a journal, it will have its faults, because for instance the lists state people as alive with a certain daily-updated age in days, when it has not been verified each and every day that the age has been attained (the common assumption that people remain alive has certain ramifications when odds of death per year reach up to 40%, and I have invited comment on this side point at User:John J. Bulten/BDP). So since there is a patent representation going on (age in days) that does not accord with the manpower available (unless Ryoung122 calls every nursing home every day), even as a journal it will not be reliable in all things. As to the larger question, by all means invite these topics to FTN; I suspect they will claim they are debunking fringe science, but I'm haunted by Dr. Gavrilov's comment that most demographers treasure their own "verified" cases (Jeanne Calment) as dearly as the former credulous cataloguers treasured the longevity data they "verified" by their own former standards. I.e., be skeptical of everything especially skepticism. JJB 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for WP:N purposes?

Currently there is an ongoing AfD about Thinking in Java book. As a part of discussion, this review has been cited, mostly as a proof of book notability. Personally I don't think it should qualify as WP:RS at least because it has an obvious affiliate link to Amazon, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'm asking here. NB: I understand that notability discussion per se is not relevant to this noticeboard, but I hope the question "if certain source qualifies as WP:RS for WP:N purposes" is a valid one. Ipsign (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Amazon link should be the main focus. Lots of sites have links to Amazon or other kinds of advertising or links to commercial sites. There are other links by the way, and these might help see more independent reviews.

I should remark that your question mixes two issues. This board is about reliability of sources, meaning whether they are good to use as a source within an article. But at the top of your post you seem to say the question is whether the book is notable, meaning something quite different. See WP:NOTE.

Concerning whether the book is an RS: The fact that the book is in 4th edition and published by a large publisher would seem a good sign to me, at least in showing that this is a textbook that really gets used. Textbooks can be useful resources for many types of facts, but for example not normally for "cutting edge" science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion, the question was not if the book itself is WP:RS. The question was if this link qualifies as WP:RS (about the book). Ipsign (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the javalobby.org article is reliable to prove the book exists, and I suppose could be used to provide the author of the review's opinions of the book. Given the nature of that website, i would argue that article by itself doesn't by itself establish the notability of the book -- but that's my opinion; as andrew said, this board really isn't supposed to speak to that question (the afd is).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The site looks like a good sign, but is not an ideal RS. OTOH it looks easy to find more independent websites? Try looking for textbook reviews?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that javalobby.org is a RS. [49] There is no indication that there is any editorial oversight over submitted content, including book reviews. Fladrif (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've read this book! It's quite excellent. As much as I hate to say this, the review you found appears to be a Web 2.0 site and the review user-submitted. Sorry, but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules. That said, I hope this article can be rescued. Good luck! AQFK (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Finding more independent websites (and rescuing the article) could be possible, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion, so I won't raise it here. My point was to find out that having this kind of reference isn't a good thing (even for rescuing article). Ipsign (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying this source is really "bad". Like I said it is a good sign even if not ideal. I'd say that it is borderline and might in some cases be acceptable temporarily while someone looks up the leads and gets a more independent review somewhere. But, being borderline, I am not 100% sure everyone would agree. I think what some of us are thinking is that it would probably be easier to find better sourcing than to come to this noticeboard. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think message of User:AQFK above was rather clear that "it doesn't qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules". Anyway, it is not that important now as I've indeed managed to find IMHO significantly better references for this book (which doesn't seem to help AfD anyway, but this is a different story). Ipsign (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Another longevity source question

Relates to List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. Most cases in the list relate to people born right at the end of the 19th century. Some are earlier, and some relate to previous centuries. I've been looking at one of the early ones in the first instance, St Patrick. We give a "claim" of 122 years. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 gives an age at death of about 103, and our article says that there is doubt about the birth and date deaths, which are ultimately derived from 5th and 6th century chronicles. The sourcing for the idea that there is a "claimed" life at death of 122 years is as follows. Arthur Custance, writing in the 20th century, says it comes from James Cowle Prichard. The first volume of Prichard's 5-volume work, which is mainly a survey of all the peoples of the world, their languages and supposed racial characteristics was published in 1813. However, when you look at Prichard's book, he says he got the story from "a very curious book" by Mr Easton of Salisbury. I found the whole text of James Easton's book in Google Books [here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d4AOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Easton+Human+Longevity&hl=en&ei=8xPkTMqyPIyxhQfYpoXDDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Patrick&f=false. It was published 1799, and does indeed state St Patrick's age as 122, with no further comment, in a list that includes a few other cases from ancient and medieval times and many more from the 17th and 18th centuries. We don't have an article on James Easton, but it seems he might be worth one, as there are some further references in Google Books from academic journals, mentioning him as an early demographer. Indeed, he does seem to be right in there at the beginning of modern demography, with references to Richard Price. He also refers to the phlogiston theory, showing the kind of science that we are dealing with in 1799. Anyway, my question is: can this be used to include St Patrick in a list of "longevity claims". St Patrick himself presumably made no claim about his life length, and nor do we have any mention of anyone commenting on it at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a RS for that purpose. There are considerable references and citations to this source, and it appears to have been well-known, so as a source for claims of longevity it would appear to be a good source. Fladrif (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my question was clear, so unfortunately, your answer isn't either. Which do you think is usable: Custance, Prichard or Easton? Bearing in mind that Custance might be considered fringe and Prichard and Easton are both very old sources...Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As the defending editor, and very appreciative of IMJ for digging up Easton as very eminently encyclopedic, my position is that this article is one in a set of articles attempting to catalogue all historical cases where people have been said to live over a certain age (set by demographers at 110). While reliance should be accorded most to the most careful demographers (from the 18th century we also have Albrecht von Haller), they should not be disqualified because they speculated about phlogiston in the 18th century, or because (or if) they held fringe views in later centuries. IMJ accepted the previous RSN report of GRuban that, at worst, such claims could be considered primary-source data dumps, improvable but not necessarily deletable as unreliable. The fact is, we're just talking about ability to correctly report names and numbers here; the former argument that someone's religious views make them unqualified to transcribe numbers has pretty much been laid to rest (and some of the scientists in this case are IMHO the worst at transcribing numbers!). In short, thanks to Fladrif, but the more input and the more eyes, the better. JJB 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Easton is a very interesting writer, and notable, but I don't think anyone is "encyclopedic" on their own. I believe he is a primary source in longevity research. Von Haller would be the same. Writing about phlogiston doesn't disqualify them - it just shows that this scholarship has been superseded. What I am concerned about here is OR and SYNTH. BTW, Easton got it from the 17th century Annals of the Four Masters. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that I thought that Easton was a RS for claims of longevity. I did not focus on the others, but they seem fine as well. To the extent it is argued that Easton is a primary source, those other sources (and many others which could be cited) which cite Easton become secondary or tertiary sources, and themselves are reliable and verifiable in reporting that Easton wrote about the claimed extraordinary longevity of the various people that he listed. Fladrif (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I will look for tertiary sources on Easton, which will help if I start an article on him. I don't want to use Custance, although it was Custance that led us, through Prichard to Easton. Do you think that we can describe St Patrick's purported 122 age as a "longevity claim" on the basis of Easton, given that we have no source to say that St Patrick claimed it himself? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article for the first time, I'm thinking that this more appropriately falls under the "Longevity Myths" article. But, regardless, Easton looks like a good source for a claim of 122 years for St. Patrick, though we have no idea cwho first made the claim. Fladrif (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Longevity myths is the subject of mediation at the moment. I'm digging down, you could perhaps call it original research, or perhaps it is source research. Annals of the Four Masters is very likely the origin of the 122 years statement. The authors seem to have put together dates from different chronicles of the 5th century to come up with it. The Catholic Encyclopedia came to a different conclusion, and given how long ago it was his exact dates of birth and death - assuming that he existed anyway - will probably never be known. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When is a self-published blog a reliable source?

I see that a blog is being used as a reference here to establish relevance of the preceding information.

Can someone give me a sense of whether or not this is a reference that can be used to show that the challenge which is to paranormal in general is relevant to the subject of the article? My view is that the challenge should be noted in an article like Paranormal only. Having it in every article about paranormal subjects amounts to advertising the paranormal website.

If the blog reference is used, then noting the challenge may be relevant. If it is not, then the challenge would seem to be more like an advertisement. Tom Butler (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the particular blog post goes into some detail about EVP (the subject of the article), relevance may not be a problem. I guess the key question is: have the proponents and deniers (or whatever you want to call them) of EVP been especially notable in terms of their response to the Randi challenge? If they have, then by all means mention it in this article. If they have been no more prominent in that context than believers/disbelievers in other paranormal phenomena, then maybe not.

However, it might be better if the article reported some of what Randi has to say about EVP, if it's of interest (I don't know enough about the subject to judge that) - as you point out, repeating this generic challenge to the paranormal in multiple paranormal-related articles starts to get a bit spammy.

Randi's blog is a reliable source as to his own views, but having said that I seem to recall his challenge has had a fair bit of mainstream media coverage as well. Barnabypage (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see two different aspects here. The first is whether you want to use the blog as a source of factual information and the criterion there is whether the author is a person whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This is a question of fact that can easily be addressed. The second aspect is whether the blog can be used as a source on the authors own opinions and the answer is yes, unless the material is unduly self-serving or involves claims about third parties. The source does appear to involve claims about third parties (e.g. Gentile), so care should be taken. --Dailycare (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Quickly scanning application titles, of I think 180 applications to the prize, I see only 1 concerning EVP. here.

I will convey your comments to the talk page, as they are after me for COI.Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject is Lecturer at the Özyeğin University

The article: Arnold Reisman

The text and its source in question:

In recent years he has lectured at Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. Reisman Lecturer at the Özyeğin University

This text, which was not originally formed and inserted by me, was removed (hidden in the revision history) by a fellow editor which I did not contest, because of the other-primary concerns I had in mind.

All I did with the above text - prior to removal - was, to correct the name of the university, wikify it and source the claim, that the subject lectured at the Özyeğin University in Istanbul. Actually I used one of three links I found on the Internet, from the same university, showing that he did indeed lecture at said school, during the 2008-2009 academic year. Other two, quite-similar sources are:

→ Seminars and Conferences → Development of Modern Arts in Turkey

My question is this: Are these sources reliable?

→ The editor, in hidden section, says this: → "not clear what this says"

My opinion is this: It is very clear. Subject says he lectured at the Özyeğin University and the source verifies it:

→ In recent years he has lectured at Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. Reisman Lecturer at the Özyeğin University

I did not question the fellow editor's removal of the text, instead, I decided to come here and make my case.

I would like to hear your insightful thoughts about this matter, whether my edit, (the source I found and inserted,) was correct. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An organisation such as a university is usually considered a reliable source for facts concerning itself, which would include a report of somebody lecturing there. So, unless there is some reason to believe the university is lying, yes, it's reliable.

However, I wonder if the source of the issue here arises from the terms "lecture" and "lecturer". As far as I can see (and I am using Google Translate because I don't speak a word of Turkish), Reisman gave one or more lectures at the university, but he was not on staff there, which "lecturer" can imply. Perhaps the text should stress that he was a "visiting lecturer" or "guest lecturer".

BTW Reisman's own biography is here: http://www.nullisecundus-survivorliteratureandlectureservices.com/prof-arnold-reisman-bio.php Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and very good point. The text could go such as:

He was visiting lecturer in the 2008-2009 academic year at the Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. (Then my reference.)

Does it sound usable to you?

By the way, I think I'm going to invite the respective editor who removed my reference along with the text which was there at the time I arrived. Her rationale could help resolve this matter I addressed here.

I am also aware of the link you provided. This was how I found the subject's e-mail address which I needed to clarify some specific issues, in terms of his university record from UCLA, AAAS fellowship, and more which all would be very handy for writing a biography of the subject. Thanks again for your insightful thought._{Fusion Is the} Future 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The text you suggest sounds fine to me. Barnabypage (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Metsul.com/blog

WP:RS notes that blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. While cleaning up vandalism, I often follow up and check on other past contributions of the culprit. On some occasions I've followed them, then reverted, articles on hurricanes. Of course, in the natural course of reading these articles, I've often been led to other articles with this questionable source.

Some of these articles (for example, the main culprit I've found is Tropical Storm Anita (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) use http://www.metsul.com/blog/ as a source, even claiming that it is the "Brazilian Meteorological Service" (which you can actually find here). Its about page, when machine-translated from Portuguese, says it is "an innovative space for debate and interaction between Meteorology and the community that receives the information. Join in and make you part also in the process of information and dissemination of weather forecasts", which I take to mean a forum.

I would argue that any articles using this as a reliable source and claiming it to be the Brazilian Met Service are in breach of a number of policies and guidelines.

Per WP:RS#Statements of opinion, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

This may well be the case here: the blog says it is written by "professionals about the weather and climate in Brazil and around the world", which would make their opinions reliable, so should(n't) these articles citing this blog all use some sort of qualifier?

I look forward to the responses. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Which professionals write for this blog, and how do we know this to be the case? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't, or certainly at least I don't. Personally I don't think this should be used at all. Str Pby (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page article - People's Daily (China)

Malagasy constitutional referendum, 2010 - an article currently bold-linked by the main page is sourced to a substantial extent to People's Daily, a Chinese Communist Party newspaper. This doesn't seem tolerable to me. I'm tempted to pull it from the main page but want other views first. Any views? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

People's Daily should be OK for this kind of factual stuff, where interpretation isn't really involved, and they won't want to get the facts completely wrong in case they lose face with the rest of the international media. I expect the same information is available elsewhere, and it would be a good idea to replace People's Daily with, say, AP, if you have time. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that bias is best masked in "facts" - ie the choice of which facts are presented and the manner of their presentation. On further research, China and Madagascar have a long diplomatic history, and China is well know for meddling in the domestic affairs of its African allies. It's made me uncomfortable to the point of pulling it from the main page pending discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

we could certainly add the official EC's report for the results. (really shouldnt be on ITN with such wishy-washy results)Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find replacement sources for a lot of the material sourced to People's Daily. Although, you will notice that, of the three refs from that site, all say "Source: Xinhua" at the bottom. Of course, Xinhua is a state news agency, too, but I don't see too much issue with leaving them in or finding replacements. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to use sources whose contents aren't tightly controlled by non-transparent government policy and directives. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an extent but I'm not sure that I really share the concerns about People's Daily in a case like this. I think it qualifies as a RS in general although when it comes to domestic reporting or reports about disputes involving China it obviously wouldn't be wise to rely on them too much. If there is evidence that the CCP use the People's Daily to misreport factual foreign news in order to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries it's not something I've come across personally. If anything, in my experience where I've have to compare/use multiple sources, their factual reporting of international news is on a par with mainstream Western media sources and it's often better than many wiki-reliable media sources I'm sorry to say. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Francis A Boyle

I'm opening this discussion on behalf of another editor Alinor (talk · contribs), who seemingly refuses to come here to discuss the issues s/he has with a source.

The dispute is over the reliability of Francis Boyle, a professor of international law, and legal counsel to the Palestinian National Authority, who helped draft the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988 as well as the subsequent constitution, and his ability to crunch numbers, apparently.

In his 1990 paper Creation of the State of Palestine, he states: "Over 114 states have already recognized the newly proclaimed state of Palestine..."
In his 2009 paper, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, he states: "Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states."
In June this year, during an interview with Indian magazine Vikatan about the situation in Tamil Eelam, he stated: "Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine."

There are only 192 member states in the United Nations, and this is where the expression of doubt has arisen.

User:Alinor has claimed "all 'hard numbers' for SoP recognizers, that come from the same person that counts UN members as 195, are disputable", and has repeatedly tagged numbers cited by Boyle with {{verify credibility}}, followed by the following hidden statement:

"in a subsequent related source Boyle is making numerically incorrect statement - http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=31816 - quoting "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine." UN members are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine."

There's a preliminary discussion here. Any advice or input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally reliable sources should not be used when they address issues where they have an axe to grind. In general, if numbers are in dispute, a neutral source should be used. While Francis Boyle has credibility in general, he should not be used as a source for these numbers. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Try and find an alternative source for this particular point. It might be a typo rather than an error by the expert. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that there is a conflict of interest with the subject, I think it is reasonable to cite his claim as long as his connection to the subject is made explicit. Currently, it introduces him as "Francis Boyle, legal advisor to the PLO, assisted the organisation in drafting the 1988 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine."

He is also one of a handful of sources used in the article at the moment, all of which cite numbers that disagree with each other, which is why we approach the situation as inconclusive: "The exact number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown".

But this isn't the concern being raised; it's over the effect that one minor mistake—or the typo—has on the credibility of any numbers he gives in any sources. Should all references to numbers be tagged as "unreliable" simply because he (or the typist) made an obvious error in one instance? ...Because that's what is being argued. Nightw 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is a typist error OK, but the number 195 is not just any number - this is the number of All States (192 + Cook Islands + Holy See/Vatican City + Niue) - so there is a high probability the Boyle used it intentionally, but giving a wrong description. Anyway, since the issue of "SoP recognitions number" is so disputable - we can't rely on sources giving wrong information for the much more obvious UN members number. Alinor (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is how the UN counts members ... BDR and DDR were separate members until Germany reunified, for example. I suspect this is molehill territory. Collect (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but I can't remove the tags unless I get outside opinions. Nightw 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple cases of states merging/separating and this doesn't pose a problem to have the total of UN members at any one time. See here and here. Also, 2010 is at least 10 years away from the last such occurrence - it's not like GDR/FRG merged "yesterday" - and also UN members were nevenr 195 and never above 192 - regardless of mergers/secessions. Alinor (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Every year 165 UN member states adopt a UN resolution reaffirming the "permanent sovereignty" of the Palestinians over the resources of their territory in accordance with a UN-implemented post-colonial era norm of international law. FYI the objects to which permanent sovereignty apply are governed by the Vienna Conventions on the Succession of States. See for example page 11 [50] and General Assembly Resolution 64/185, 29 January 2010, adopted 165-8-7.[51]

Boyle is a long time tenured professor at the University of Illinois School of Law. He has two earned doctorate degrees from Harvard University, one in Law and the other in Political Science. You are citing an article that he authored which was reliably published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Law. Boyle and the EJIL are beyond all doubt WP:RS sources on the subject of recognition of states in international law. The fact that he has served as legal counsel for a number of entities, including the PLO, Bosnia and Herzegovina, & etc. before the International Court of Justice, UN political organs, and various national courts does not mean that he "has an axe to grind". The code of ethics of the legal profession obliges all practitioners to represent even the most unpopular clients and causes to the best of their ability. See for example the Cab-rank rule.

As a matter of international law, it was the international community of States acting through their intergovernmental organization - the United Nations - that recognized and affirmed the right of the Palestinians to their own State, not Prof. Francis Boyle. The UN has established a number of UN subsidiary organs in accordance with the terms of the Charter, such as the UN Palestine Commission in 1948 and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in 1975. Those organs are aimed at the establishment of successor States in Palestine. Judge Roslyn Cohen Higgins explained in the Wall case "This is not difficult - from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State." See page 9, para. 18. [52] The EU has pointed out that the right of the Palestinians to their own state is not subject to any veto. [53] harlan (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we said he was a good source in principle, no need for the speech. Just don't confuse him with the other Francis Boyle. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, why have you deleted multiple of the comments above? (I put them back)

on subject. The issue is not if Palestinians have the right to have their own state - or if Boyle has good reputation. The issue is if should accept exact numbers he gives for states recognizing SoP as 100% correct/reliable. Alinor (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read all of the above, including the possibility that 195 isn't a typo but was meant to include the Vatican and other states that aren't in the 192 count, I'm now inclined to the view that this source is perfectly usable as is. The article discusses the gradual process of recognition quite carefully and soberly, and Prof. Boyle's figures can fit into it well, especially if attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith there certainly is a need for the speech when WP:RSN starts advising editors to find other sources besides Boyle and the EJIL. @Alinor, you really haven't mentioned anything authored by Boyle that can be called into question. The Palestinians exercised an unqualified right to declare a state in 1988. UN working documents of the era indicated that a minimum of 92 other states had extended de jure recognition. [54] Today, at least 69 countries have taken the next step of establishing diplomatic relations and hosting an "Embassy of the State of Palestine". President Abbas has publicly stated that the State of Palestine is already in existence and that the current battle is only to have the state's borders recognized. See Abbas: Palestinian state an existing fact, Ynet, November 11, 2009 [55] Prof. Ruth Lapidot pointed-out that the Palestinians have already unilaterally declared statehood, and that they do not need to do so again. She also noted that recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state.[56] Many members of the international bar have pointed out that the Palestinian declaration of statehood pre-dated the Oslo Accords, which did not effect it. Many other countries have already recognized Palestine on either a de jure or de facto basis (e.g. tacit recognition via the UN permanent sovereignty resolutions). Any deletion of material was unintentional. harlan (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue discussed here. And doesn't explain comment deletion.

The problem that I see is about "exact numbers" given by Boyle. He misquotes the number of UN members (unambiguous, very easy to check), so we his numbers for SoP recognizers (a disputable issue - in contrast to the UN members number) are not to be taken as 100% correct, e.g. it is notable if Boyle says SoP is recognized by 127 states, but this does not mean that they are "exactly 127", but most probably "around 127" - just as UN members are not 195 (Boyle number), but 192 (real number). So, his numbers can be utilized only as a general guideline - if he says 127 we know that it is not 27, but we don't know if it is 126, 127 or 128, etc. And since we can't have a specific "range of incorrectness" - we need to either put some disclaimer (like 'unreliable source' tag or some text) - or not use these sources at all (and since we don't have too many other sources - I propose to use them, but put the tag+hidden explanation). Alinor (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean he possibly misquotes the number of UN members. Given that the source is a transcript of an interview (that has been translated from Tamil to boot), and also contains a large number of spelling (e.g., "contrain", "orgination", "Kaula Lampur", "challanged") and grammatical errors (e.g., "china", "Tamil eelam"), it's highly likely it was a typist's mistake. ...Or there's the possibility that it was intentional, as you say, to include other observer states. So, please, why should we then indicate that every number quoted by Boyle is "not to be taken as 100% correct"? Surely the reader should get to decide that?

The purpose of hidden text, by the way, is to convey a message to editors. It has neither relevance nor purpose in this situation. Nightw 11:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, message to editors - so that they can see the reason for the tag without having to look in talk page history. Alinor (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If it was intentional then we surely should add tags to every Boyle number - because in that case he is giving factually wrong, albeit "almost true" information. If it was intentional, then maybe some of these 127 are not "exactly" recognizing SoP (e.g. they support its cause, but do not recognize it diplomatically as state) - or maybe there is some 128th that isn't included for some odd reason? UN members are not and never were 195. That is a fact. So, intentionally adding 3 more states to the real number doesn't improve credibility of the other 127 number. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: you are claiming we should now tag every number quoted by Boyle as unreliable, despite the fact that there is a large possibility the discrepancy may have been one of the dozen typos in the transcript, and despite the fact that most numbers quoted by Boyle are rough figures (e.g., "over 114", "about 130")? Is that correct? Nightw 13:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alinor you are wasting everyone's time here and at the article talk page by invoking a rather obvious logical fallacy to do some drive-by tagging. Boyle is not the author of the article that you are attempting to discredit. So, it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not works that he has actually authored are considered reliable published sources. harlan (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an interview and the '195 UN members' are his words.

I don't question his credibility as legal expert, I question the reliability of "exact numbers" he gives - 127 and 'bottom end figure' (over 114). I don't question the "about 130", because this is vague/not-an-exact-number and can mean anything (thus it may be correct). Alinor (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

May be his words. As I've shown above, there's a considerable chance it's a typo. And therefore cannot be used to justify tagging other numbers by quoted by Boyle in other references as dubious. Nightw 14:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alinor if you don't understand the basics of sourcing you should not be editing Wikipedia articles. If Boyle did not author or publish the article himself, then he is not the source in question. You seem to be claiming that Wikipedia cannot cite and quote sources which employ ordinary English language constructs like approximation, suggestion, or analogy to convey information. That is a doubtful proposition. The qualified use of "round" numbers, e.g. "over 100", "nearly 130", and etc. is very common. harlan (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, you are mixing 2 different sources.

There is a 2009 book of Boyle where he mentions "about 130". We are not discussing this here, and also I don't object to use "about 130" with the appropriate wording (e.g. we already had the case where the article was stating "114", but after I requested a quote from the source it appeared that it was actually "over 114" instead of "exactly 114" - this was in 1990 Boyle source).

There is a 2010 interview with Boyle where he mentions "127 out of 195 members of the UN". We are discussing this one here, and my concern is that since in this source there is one wrongly reported figure (195 UN members) we can't rely on the other one (127). Also, by extension, other "exact figures" given by Boyle should be reported only with great caution (e.g. 'unreliable?' tag), because it is possible that they are wrong just like the 195 UN members figure. Of course there is aways the possibility of a source misquoting Boyle because of typo, etc. - but this is true for any source. Also, the number 195 is not so random (as I explained above) to lightly disregard it as "typo". Alinor (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No Alinor, it is you who is mixing-up reliability issues concerning two different sources. You have been attempting to impeach Boyle's credibility on the basis of an article that was created and published by Vikatan/Tamilnet, not by Professor Boyle himself. The 2009 book contains a collection of articles written over the years, including the 1990 EJIL article. I don't think that "127" is out of line with "about 130", or that the nature of the subject material requires "great caution". Boyle also cited the General Assembly resolutions regarding the recognition of permanent sovereignty over the occupied territory and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on pages 182 thru 184 of the book. Those were all adopted by recorded votes. So, the number of states that have formally recognized the initial declaration of statehood, the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinians, and their unqualified right to determine their own political status is fairly well-known. 127-130 is a pretty conservative number. harlan (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, harlan. You are approaching the issue from the standpoint "Boyle is famous legal professional + Palestine has rights". This is all well and great, but I don't dispute any of this. And it is irrelevant in this case.

I don't claim that "127 is out of line with about 130".

General Assembly resolutions has nothing to do here - unless they include an exact number of countries recognizing the "State of Palestine" (as declared in 1988 by the PLO) - this is different from recognizing the "Palestine state right to exist" and similar statements.

What I dispute is the use of 127 as exact number - it may be 126 or 127 or 128 or about 130 - we can not rely for exact number on source stating that there are 195 UN member states. This is incorrect. That's why I propose to put 'unreliable' tag. I don't suggest to remove it completely - only because "Boyle is famous legal professional" - thus we can still utilize it, but with the disclaimer - so that it is clear that this is only for "orinetation", e.g. more of "about 127" than "127 exactly".

If Boyle was not "famous legal professional" I would have proposed to outright abandon that source with "195 UN members".

UN members number is pretty easy to check. In contrast the number of SoP recognizers is not so clear cut - mainly because many countries have relations with PLO/PNA without recognizing the SoP and also many countries recognize Palestine state right to exist without recognizing the SoP declared in 1988.

"the number of states that have formally recognized the initial declaration of statehood ... is fairly well-known" - what is that number, who are those states (and if you know - when have each one of them recognized the SoP)? If you can give exact and specific answer to this question this will be great improvement to the article in question. Alinor (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a statement in with a tag of unreliable is not a good solution. Consensus must be reached about whether this source is usable or not. I think it is because Boyle is an expert and the 195 figure may either be a typo or he may have intended to include other states that aren't strictly members of the UN. We are not in a position to decide that he has been careless with numbers. At this point what's really needed is comments from some RSN regulars who haven't said anything in this thread yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that.

What bothers me is that if he intended to include in the 195 figure other states that aren't strictly members of the UN - then there is no guarantee that Boyle hasn't included in the "127 ... have recognized Palestine" some other states that haven't strictly recognized the State of Palestine, but instead recognize the PLO/PNA as "representative of the Palestinians" and/or recognize the 'Palestine state right to exist', but not the SoP as declared in 1988 (especially since this particular source doesn't mention 'State of Palestine', but only uses the generic "Palestine" term).

if 195 is a typo then there is no guarantee that tamilnet.com editors haven't made a typo in the 127 number. Alinor (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this the only source for exactly how many countries recognize SoP? Isn't that a bit odd? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@NMMNG the State of Palestine article also cites the 1989 UNESCO application @ 92 states, Fowler and Bunck 1995 @ over one hundred states, Anat Kurz 2005 - @ 117 states, & etc. Boyle's 2009 book page 19 @ about 130, and the Tamilnet article 127 are simply the most recent reports.

@Alinor, I am approaching this from the standpoint that Boyle is a qualified expert on the legal and political aspects of recognition of states. He said the majority of UN member states (about 130) recognize Palestine and favor its admission as a UN member state (page 19). The UNIBISnet [57] browse list search function has a "Voting Records" tab that allows anyone to do lookups on resolutions for the names of the member states and their votes. FYI, the fact that legal recognition of statehood can result from votes cast in favor of United Nations resolutions is explained in "The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States", American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, §204, Reporters Note 2, "Express or Implied Recognition" (page 90). Many legal scholars have said that the General Assembly vote acknowledging the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine was one such an example. The 104 States that voted in favor of A/RES/43/177, 15 December 1988 happen to be listed at the bottom of the UNISPAL webpage at [58]. There is a UNBISnet voting record link at the top of the UNISPAL webpage for A/RES/64/185, 29 January 2010 [59] which will allow you to find the names of the 165 states that voted in favor of the latest "permanent sovereignty" resolution. For expert analysis see the material on Palestine in Section 6.6 "Collective Recognition", Tim Hillier, Sourcebook on public international law, Routledge, 1998, ISBN: 1859410502, starting on page 205; Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine: An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations”, The British Yearbook of International Law, l990, pp.l35-l53; and Quigley John, The Palestine Declaration To The International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, Rutgers Law Record, Volume 35, page 4. [60]. harlan (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, all this is irrelevant to the question - "should we use for 'exact numbers' a source/person stating that the UN members are 195, when they are in fact 192 and have never been 195?" Alinor (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please define "members". The Security Council has 15, the General Assembly has 192, but there are other Chartered UN organs with more "members" and "associate members" than that. UNESCO has 193 members and 7 associate members. [61] Boyle has always discussed membership in any UN organ, and advised Palestine on its WHO application. It has 193 member states [62] and two associate members, Puerto Rico and Tokelau (See page 5 [63]), which adds up to exactly 195 "members" as of 31 May 2009. How do you figure that all of this is irrelevant? I just cited US Foreign relations law and several scholars on the subject of recognition and UN resolutions. Some of them say that UN resolutions have a "constitutive effect" on statehood. Boyle made that claim himself in the EJIL article, and others have made similar claims in connection with the resolutions on permanent sovereignty. harlan (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, you ask for definition of "members of the United Nation" (quote from the '127 of 195' source). Is this clear enough: "Member States of the United Nations"?

If Boyle is stretching the official list to include members of Vienna list organizations (the UN itself, the separate UN specialized agencies, IAEA, parties to the statue of the ICJ) and/or the organizations of the United Nations System (I think you refer to these as "Chartered UN organs"?) - instead of the United Nations organization - then we go into the first if of my 10:24, 18 November 2010 comment above.

About your calculation. UNGA and UNSC are organs of the UN organization, not organizations themselves. They don't have separate membership - UNGA includes all UN members and UNSC includes all, but on a rotational basis (5 permanent and 10 rotational chosen by vote).

So, this leaves the so-called "Chartered UN organs" - if you include specialized agencies in this then there are 196 members ("All States" + Kosovo as member of the IMF and WBG). If you want to add "associate members" (the source doesn't specify such thing, but anyway it refers clearly to United Nation = 192 - so I think this is moot point in the first place), "observers", "member territories", "invited delegations", "organization members" and so on categories (or even only one of these categories) - you will get figure even higher than 195.

Also you don't need to explain to me all this (where I explained my assumption that Boyle refers to these 195 "All States" per the practice of the UNSG = 195 = 192 + Cook Islands + Holy See/Vatican City + Niue). Have you readed the "preliminary discussion" linked by Night w in the opening comment of this section? Alinor (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, one of the first rulings the ICJ ever made in the "Reparations case" was that "the United Nations Organization" has its own international legal personality. The Charter distributes powers and functions to various organs which act on behalf of the organization when they admit members, collect assessments, or ratifications. Under the terms of the Charter, several of the primary organs do posses the power to create additional organs or agencies to fulfill the organization's functions and purposes. I'd suggest you stop lambasting Boyle and add a footnote to advise the reader that some UN organs and agencies serve as UN treaty bodies on behalf of the organization and do have more members than the General Assembly.

You mentioned the ICJ above. Many scholars have noted that Article 1 of the ICJ statute provides that "Only states may be parties in cases before the Court." [64] and that, in order to settle disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the former PCIJ, the statute could not be limited to "sovereign" or "independent" states. For example, in the Mavrommatis case the Court ruled that Palestine was the responsible successor state. [65] The Court also made a determination in the Wall case that, although it was not yet independent, Palestine was an international actor with a status that entitled it to participate in the case. See for example paragraph 7 of the Separate opinion of Judge Higgins [66] and page 5 of John Quigley, Palestine Statehood: A Rejoinder to Professor Robert Weston Ash, Rutgers Law Record, Volume 36, Part 2, Spring 2010 [67]. The UN Treaty Organization has also accepted ratifications from Palestine and the Palestinian Authority as the depositary for treaties that are only open to states regarding roads, railways, and maritime transport in the Arab Mashreq. [68], [69], [70],[71], [72] harlan (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, excuse me, but you reply like a spam bot. Have you readed the comments of the other users in the above discussion? Could you explain, without giving random texts/sources, what do you propose?

Nothing of what you put above is related to the issue discussed, namely: "should we use for 'exact numbers' a source/person stating that the UN members are 195, when they are in fact 192 and have never been 195?" - my proposal is: "not as exact numbers, we should use these only as general guideline and put some disclaimer tag"

Itsmejudith comment from 08:55, 18 November 2010 pretty clearly explains the situation. Your comments don't add anything to the discussion and are off topic.

Palestine is not mentioned in this question. Statehood is not mentioned. ICJ is not mentioned. Decisions from 1924 British mandate period are not mentioned. Etc.

"roads, railways, and maritime transport in the Arab Mashreq." harlan, I am the one that added this information to Wikipedia [73], so I'm aware of this. Also, you should differentiate between SoP, PLO, PNA in your explanations and not use just "Palestine", because it is unclear what entity you refers to - the state, the Israeli-approved administration or something else.

So, please focus on the issue of "UN members are not 195, but 192". If you consider it OK to use exact numbers from a source claiming that UN members are 195 - OK, it is enough to just explain that clearly. Alinor (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually you reply like a spambot. Itsmejudith and the others said there is nothing wrong with using this source and suggested alternate sources be supplied regarding the foreign relations of Palestine and the UN. I've been doing that. I also suggested the use of a footnote in the first paragraph of my response above. There was no consensus to support your proposition, so I'd suggest you consider that suggestion. harlan (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Providing other sources is to be done at the relevant pages. Also, you don't provide sources showing at least the number, but preferably the names of states and dates of recognizing SoP - you are providing general statements and similar.

Itsmejudith suggested that we wait for the opinion of seasoned WP:RS editors - their opinion on the question I bolded above, not on the question of "who recognizes Palestine". Alinor (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you only want to discuss Tamilnet, you need to open a thread about it. I think that other editors are going to tell you the same thing. Boyle didn't write the Tamilnet article, so it has nothing to do with his credibility. He wrote a book that says "about 130" and that is a very conservative number. The "International recognition" subsection of the State of Palestine article already cites a UN "permanent sovereignty" resolution; mentions that it was adopted by a 165 state vote; and explains that "permanent sovereignty" is an international law norm that is an inherent element of state sovereignty. Boyle also cited those resolutions and votes in his book. But you don't seem to be interested in what he actually wrote about that subject, because you keep claiming it is irrelevant. harlan (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained, 195 is not just a random number, that's why it's not so straightforward to attribute it to Tamilnet typo. But anyway, that's what this thread is about (or at least that's its starting point - if you think this is a typo and not Boyle words - then obviously you don't find any reason to question other Boyle words.

That's what Itsmejudith said - let's see what seasoned WP:RS editors will say in this case - should we consider this as typo or as Boyle words? What is the general practice/policy of Wikipedia for interviews? Etc.

UN "permanent sovereignty" resolution has nothing to do with "recognizing SoP (as declared in 1988)". There are many states that don't recognize 1988 SoP, but at the same time actively support the Palestinian cause - by voting in favor of multiple related UN resolutions. If you find a UN resolution about SoP membership or observer status (not PLO observer entity designation change to "Palestine") - this will be relevant, but AFAIK there is no such resolution yet.

If you find a list of states recognizing SoP (not PLO/PNA/Palestinian state right to exist or similar wording) - that will be great. If it has dates - even better. If you know Arabic you can try here. Alinor (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a huge digression from the topic. If the interview transcript —whose text contains multiple typos and spelling errors anyway, and therefore any mistakes can easily be attributed to the typist— is removed as a source, can we remove all the "Unreliable" tags from Boyle's own publications? Nightw 10:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is only one additional Boyle publication with semi-"exact number" - the "over 114" lower range exact border. And yes, if the consensus of WP:RS aware editors is that the "195 UN members" can be attributed to tamilnet typo, then yes, this single additional "unreliable?" tag can be removed.

But, as noted above, it is not obvious whether "195 UN members" is tamilnet typo or Boyle words. 195 is not a random number. Alinor (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

From reading above, I'd have to say that some sort of cautionary note on the accuracy of the figures of States recognising the State of Palestine should be used, just because different figures are used by numerous sources, and if we decide to use this particular source, we need to acknowledge that the issue is open to dispute between various sources. Just my two cents on the matter, at least. --JeevanJones (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the source, given its multiple errors. That should clear up the issue. Nightw 12:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)