Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 86

Guardian Lost in showbiz blog
Could this be used to write a brief summary of the production of the documentary in question in the Lindsay Lohan article? Siawase (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. This is by a Guardian staff journalist. It does have a rather strong viewpoint on media coverage, which you can probably just ignore, and pick up simple factual info from it. Remember that the article is a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two editors at Talk:Lindsay Lohan object and think the source should basically be treated as an opinion piece, and that per WP:BLP no factual statements that may reflect negatively on Lohan should be sourced to this piece. Ie, something like "Lohan was initally scheduled to be present at the raid, but due to rescheduling she arrived too late." would be out of bounds. Thoughts? Siawase (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the careful tone of the discussion on the talk page. On my reading the source was not so much critical of Lohan herself but scathing about the way that the media use stars like her. I'm sure that this piece received all the fact-checking that one would expect in a broadsheet paper, considering Britain's libel laws. It doesn't seem to contain anything that could simply have been made up. My advice is still the same: you can use but take care. You might get other views. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the two editors, and although Siawase did an admirably concise job of summarizing what I said, I'd like to elaborate (not so concisely).


 * First, one of the issues I have goes to the RS guidelines, which permit a blog to be cited if it's not self-published. That is the case here. However, frankly, not all unself-published blogs are the same, and the tone and content of this particular source gives me pause.


 * Second, I don't necessarily have the same confidence in the fact-checking of a blog, even when it comes from an otherwise reliable periodical, mainly because opinion and fact generally get intertwined, so a misstatement could be construed as an opinion (acceptable) rather than a misstatement of fact (unacceptable).


 * Third, if "facts" can be derived from this source and they are otherwise sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the Lohan article, then they should be findable from news pieces rather than opinion pieces.


 * Finally, because this is a BLP, we have to be especially cautious of statements that are critical of Lohan.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSBLOG applies here. Newspaper blogs like this are under the same editorial control as the rest of the newspaper, and may be used, even in BLPs. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. As a source this is OK, but it's right to consider whether there is any substantive information that is worth including. We avoid trivial celebrity tittle-tattle - but this piece isn't exactly that. The language used about Lohan is quite scathing, but the criticism is actually aimed at the TV company that employed her. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:NEWSBLOG Jayjg, I hadn't seen that section before. Itsmejudith: that's sort of what I'm thinking. To be sure, there is a lot of gossip floating around about Lohan, but when UNICEF and anti-trafficking groups are involved it's a bit beyond that. I wrote the whole expansion as I intended and did a WP:BRD edit inserting it into the article so you can see the precide wording I chose and how the material sourced to the lost in showbiz blog comes off in context. Siawase (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

asianews.it/
i just came across this link on wikipedia at an ITN page (assassination of the pakistani figure) and tagged it as dubious, but i also had further concerns about its status as reasonable/reliable. Its about page cites its goal as "dedication is a missionary gesture," where a cursory glance at article also shows its one-sided view to portray persecution and push a pov. It also says its mission to start the chinese language page was because "Nowadays, curiosity about Christianity, the Church and pope John Paul II is widespread among the Chinese populace" clarifying its worldview limits. "urgency becomes even more heightened because of two facts:" + further proofs of pov in its raison d'etre "We wish to place the beginning of our mission on the internet under the protection of St. Francis Xavier, whose feast day we celebrate today (Dec. 3) and who died desiring to go to China. He is the patron of foreign missions and is venerated in China and throughout Asia." + "This effectiveness -at a distance- adapts well to our brand of news service, while being far yet near to the heart of the Church in China and her people."
 * the source is also cited above for the other ongoing ITN event (alexandria bombing)
 * I would also like to suggest a WP:Blacklist listing.(Lihaas (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC));


 * It sounds like this concern is not an RS concern, but more concerning neutrality/POV/due weight?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * wouldnt neutrality/pov be a RS concern?Lihaas (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this book an reliable source or would it be classed as self-published
Book Title: Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet Copyright 2002 to Author Richard Reames Richard Reames's publishing name Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087.
 * This is the author's 2nd book in the field of Tree shaping. His first book How to grow a chair copyright in 1995. Richard has self-admitted to being a non-expert at that time for his first book. An editor has suggested due to the length of time that Richard has been in the field of Tree shaping he must now be an expert and that his 2nd book should be considered as an reliable source. I disagreed and have asked for who and where he as been classed as an expert. The other editor hasn't produced any reliable source/s stating that Richard is an Expert. I first asked for sources in June 2010.
 * So would this book Arborsculpture be a reliable source or would it be classed as self-published. Blackash   have a chat 09:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Qualifications can be an indication of expertize but are clearly not the only one. How do experts in the tree shaping field see it? Do any cite him or discuss him in other publications?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no set standards yet. There are only approximately 17 practitioners in the world who do this art form and 3 of those are dead. Most have not published their shaping method. As far as I know no-one within the field has published that Richard Reames is an expert. Richard edits here and knows that I have repeatedly asked for the other editor to provide a cite-able source that Richard is an expert. Yet neither have done so. Blackash   have a chat 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears to be self-published. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until he is referenced in several clearly reliable sources, I don't think it should be used. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The author and his book are referenced in several reliable sources. FYI, Blackash is a professional rival of Reames.Slowart (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart, when asking for opinions about the reliability of a source it doesn't' matter who asks. Though Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) you should write in the first person. Richard which tree shaping experts have published that you are an expert in Tree shaping? Where are your peer reviews of your trees? Blackash   have a chat 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Expertise in trade and crafts is generally judged on a peer review basis of masterworks. Look for other tree shaping experts who have favourably reviewed Reames' expertise in tree shaping in otherwise reliable sources (there are only 17 of them to check).  Additionally, look for exhibition catalogues by galleries that have exhibited craft items of treeshaping by Reames: a major commercial exhibition will indicate master status.  At the core is citation by other existing experts, or recognition through other forms of "publications" such as exhibitions on a commercial basis in major galleries.  These can be reliably demonstrated or failed to be demonstrated.  If demonstrated treat Reames as an expert for SPS purposes for all books published after that recognition.  Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note that if there are substantial independent mentions of the type that Fifelfoo describes, it probably won't be necessary to use Reames' own book. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the 2005 World Expo in Japan, Reames was given the honorary title of worldwide coordinator, by the producer (of Growing Village Pavilion) John Gathright, as a thank you for giving him everyone's contact details. Reames's own art work was not part of the exhibition. Only 8 people from around the world were chosen for display. My partner and I were the featured artists at this exhibition for the full 6 months. There is only 4 books in English (two of which are Reames) on the subject of tree shaping. Blackash   have a chat 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (for the record not this discussion)Your wrong about Reames not having work in the pavilion, the oldest living shaped tree in the pavilion transplanted there from the "laughing happy tree park"  planted and grafted by Reames. Writing in 3rd person, no big deal.Slowart (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart/Reames (for the record) when we were in Japan John Gathright (producer of Growing Village pavilion) told us that tree was his. Also in your book you make no such claim. The tree you are talking about appears in John Gathrights section in your book.
 * P.S. In your 1st edition of your book Arborsculpture (published before expo)in regards to your work, you only talk about sending 3 tools with grown handles page 143. We know that they didn't appear at the expo and in your 2nd edition of Arborsculpture (published after the expo) you removed the text about sending them to expo. Nowhere else through out your book do you claim to have anything at the expo. Blackash   have a chat 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just realized you had successful sidetracked me. Richard which tree shaping experts have published that you are an expert in Tree shaping? Where are your peer reviews of your trees? Blackash   have a chat 04:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. I think the question is missing a very important part, what statement is the book being cited to support? #4 from the list at the top of this page. If there are only 17 practitioners of the field in the world, then the difference between "expert opinion" and "practitioner opinion" is quite likely going to be academic. What is this mysterious statement that we require "Reames, acknowledged expert tree shaper, writes ..." but not "Reames, one of the only 17 tree shapers in the world, writes ..."? --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor had made the claim that all the references for tree shaping had been extensively checked. The reality was he had only checked the refs (13 out of 92) for a tiny section of the article. They had created a separate talk page for this Talk:Tree_shaping/Alternate_names. Because of this claim I have taken it upon myself to systematically check all the references. I've followed on the same talk page by the other editor Talk:Tree_shaping/Alternate_names. I'm up to 13 out of 70 now.
 * The book Arborsculpture is being used for 12 cites in the tree shaping article at the moment. Which is why it needs to be established whether or not this book is a reliable source so we know how it should be used throughout the article. Blackash  have a chat 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

pakistanthinktank.org
Imran Farooq

Hi, this cite http://pakistanthinktank.org/component/k2/item/749-imran-farooq-was-a-ruthless-operator is being added to support a single ethnic claim that the subject is a Muhajir. The user wants to add that Farooq was a Muhajir(immigrant) and has struggled to find a RS calling him one, his father was one but Imran was born in Karachi (son of an immigrant but Pakistani born). The cite is imo very opinionated and an attack cite full of extreme claims, checking on the usage of it it is only used in one other place,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fpakistanthinktank.org%2F is it wiki reliable and is it undue to use such an attacking opinionated cite to cite a single word in an article? The article is written by Maheen Bashir Adamjee who it says is an editorial assistant with Newsline - I can't see any evidence of editorial control or suchlike but I found this author FAQ. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article (as with any op-ed piece) maybe attacking and is this not used as gospel to cite the OPINION of the article at all. Nothign suggests figures are made up, furthemore part of what the other user added above is beyond the scope of RSN in dealing with the issue of a mohajjar (this article deals with the issue of RS). Both the wikipedia page and other editors had explained waht the term means in its SOUTH ASIA context as opposed to the ARABIC ROOTS, somethign he doesnt want to believe so expects everythign else to be changed.
 * Are we then questioning the facts from the article (As opposed to opinion on it) which says "medical degree from Karachi’s Sindh Medical College and began his political career as a founding member of the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation in April 1979" something that also exists on this wikipedia page for it?
 * If, and when, consensus says the cite is unreliable then im obviously accepted to removing it, but now on the whim of 1 editor ofcourse.(Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).


 * - Well, user Epeefleche has also commented on the article talk page that the cite "lacks any indicia of being an RS, from what I can see both on the site and in a search for RS coverage of it." .. are there any users here that support this external as a reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes ... I happened by this page due to a link to it on the article talk page, and Off2 has accurately reflected my view (after having searched both the site itself and google news, google books, and google generally). It appears to be a non-RS blog.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also supported your supporting consensus that i was against the grain of opinion on that page. I have not problem with removing it, but then also tagged the part as such pending the discussion on here that he has then initiated. When consensus is forthcoming (particularly with the outside editors) then i agree that it would be fair to remove it.Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - Can we please get a couple more opinions about this cite, I have asked him to remove it again but he says there is no consensus here yet.Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be a reliable source, nor is anyone making an argument that it is one. The site actively solicits new writers, and doesn't bother to say what editorial oversight exists, if any. Also, WP:BLP applies, giving us little leeway. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an RS. The organization responsible for the site appears to be non-notable. It is not even clear if it is a registered organisation and I could not find its address or location on the site. There is zero evidence that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and objectivity. Looks more like a collaborative blog or a wiki. Nanobear (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IPS News vs. Encyclopedia Brittanica, CUP, and Rowman & Littlefield.
I've got two problems with the use of a particular source being used at State terrorism. The citation is to a 2005 article on IPS News by Thalif Deen called "U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism", and the statement it is supposed to be backing is:
 * "The definitions of "terrorism", "state-sponsored terrorism", and "state terrorism" remain without international consensus."

My first problem is that the source cited doesn't seem to support the statement referencing it. (It seems to only support the notion that there was disagreement at a particular UN meeting.) My second problem is that this is a news article that is disagreeing with 3 high-quality academic sources including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which all define the term "state terrorism" in pretty much the same way. I don't feel that this news story from IPS News should be given as much weight as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and books from Cambridge University Press and Rowman & Littlefield.

What are your opinions on this? Does the source support the statement in question, and if so should we say that there is "no international consensus" on the definition of the term, in spite of the fact that the academic sources cited all have the same definition?

Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The user who insists on including the above statement and citation has now added another reference for the same statement, which also seems not to support the statement. It does seem to support the statement that there is no consensus on the definition of "terrorism"; however, it explicitly states that the discussion group the article is written about actually avoided discussing state terrorism at all, which hardly supports the notion that this is a source that is an appropriate reference for a statement about the definition of state terrorism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is not really with the reliability of the sources, but the misleading conclusion they are being used to create. I have commented at the article's talk page. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added references and answered on the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still the case that none of the references added support the statement citing them. The number of references is irrelevant if none of them support the text citing them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive changed the statement to conform to the references. Address it on the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What to do when two editors disagree over a source
If one editors considers a source to be reliable/suitable for use, but another doesn't - how should they resolve the issue? I ask in relation to this here above. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion in that section above rather than starting a new section about the same discussion. If on the other hand this is just a general question then others can only give general and useless answers like "try to find agreement" or "come to this noticeboard" or "see if you can find other editors interested in the subject of the article you are working on so as to get more opinions".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An amusing thought
A few days ago, our illustrious (co)founder, Jimbo Wales appeared on the Daily Show. In that program Jon Stewart asked Jimbo how long the "information" that "John Stuart is Batman" would remain in the article. Jimbo correctly noted that it would not last more than a few seconds... and went on to ask Jon if there were any reliable sources that said he was Batman. Now... this exchange raises an interesting and amusing thought. Jimbo's comment would allow us to say "Jimbo Wales questions whether Jon Stewart may be Batman" (an example of twisting the source, but "technically" it is an accurate statement... keep it in mind for April 1st.) Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Film.com
Is Film.com a RS? It seems a number of WP pages link to synopses, cast/crew info, and reviews there, e.g. Keddie, Lisa (2009-08-03). "'G.I. Joe: The Rise Of The Cobra' UK Review". Film.com. Retrieved 2009-09-28. at GI_Joe:_The_Rise_of_Cobra. While anybody can post comments there, reviews appear to be only by staff, but I couldn't determine what sort of editorial oversight there might be and am not sure of the site's reputation for film criticism. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This looks RS to me. It's run by Real Networks and its contributors seem to be professional staff. Unless it is shown to the contrary, I think you should assume that it is does not have a high reputation for criticism (although don't take my word for it), but I think it should be reliable for cast/crew info etc. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently it has a minor rep among reliable sources. Here's what USA Today has to say about it:, Variety drops links to it: , and Deseret News mentions it: . That's not much, but the bar for popular film criticism isn't that high: it's not BLP, and there aren't really peer reviewed journals; with the exception of Roger Ebert, professionals of the kind mentioned in the USA Today and Deseret News links are about as good as it gets. I would think for straight forward non controversial reviews, Film.com would meet it. --GRuban (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund returns for Empirica Capital.
The ref in question: "The "Black Swan" Hedge Fund Returns Aren't So Hot", by Joe Weisenthal. On that page is a Scribd link to an image of a financial statement from Empirica Capital LLC, run by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, detailing returns from a hedge fund. In that image is a table of "monthly performance".

This is an issue at Talk:Empirica Capital. Please see the discussion there for background.

Actual numbers for that fund are hard to come by, and this is the most comprehensive set of numbers available. A few numbers are available from more prominent sources, but none of the other sources provide enough data to build a table of yields. This is a hedge fund, so there are no SEC findings or public financial statements to provide definitive numbers. Taleb has released some numbers, but primarily for the "good years" when the fund went up. Using those creates an illusory image of the actual returns.

This is an issue because much of the reputation of Taleb rests on his performance as a fund manager. --John Nagle (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have earlier thought this reference (Business Insider) was a "gossip blog", and hence not a reliable source for Wikipedia. However, I recently searched on www.nytimes.com, and they reference Business Insider 216 times under the last 12 months. If this reference is good enough for NY Times, I guess it is should be of acceptable standard for Wikipedia. I encourage everyone to give arguments for and against Business Insider as a reliable source; on e.g. talk page of Empirica Capital there are good arguments against using Business Insider as a reliable source which would be nice to repeat here. Ulner (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would avoid giving numbers... as they will quickly become out of date. Stick to generalities. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. What is true and will never become out of date is the fact that NY Times have cited Business Insider hundreds of times, and this is a good indicator that Business Insider is a reliable source in my opinion. Ulner (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Out of date" is a non-issue for Empirica, because that fund has shut down. --John Nagle (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the NYT that calls it "a gossipy Web site, Business Insider" and most certainly not what the NYT uses for financial returns (on October 5, 2010). The fact that they have cited them for anecdotes means nothing. IbnAmioun (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well from the New York Times link provided by Mr Amioun it literally states that it is a gossip blog.
 * "Tellingly, his first guest was an old target, Henry Blodget, a Wall Street analyst whom Mr. Spitzer got banned for life from the securities industry. (To settle with regulators, Mr. Blodget also paid $4 million in penalties.) Now, like his nemesis, Mr. Blodget has recast himself as a journalist -- he is the editor in chief of a gossipy Web site, Business Insider. They congratulated each other on their comebacks."
 * Also the site itself claims it is an gossip blog.
 * "Editor and CEO, Business Insider "Star tech-stock analyst-turned-media mogul; his fall from grace in 2002 was an obsession of the industry he has now joined. His gossipy Business Insider has been dubbed by some as 'the Hooters of the Internet, a title Mr. Blodget is known to appreciate." LoveMonkey (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite much noise, no one has suggested that the numbers in the image of the Empirica Kurtosis LLC fund statement are wrong. If they were, Taleb and his team would probably have made a public statement by now. Taleb is very active in defending his reputation.  So I think we can safely go with the numbers. --John Nagle (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * distorted logic. Would you love to make logical inferences etc.? That is pretty much original research and in quuite an original way Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and this editor has added the "hooters guy" as a source again to the article without explaining that the source is not reliable as was indicated here already LoveMonkey (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though we have no special reason to believe the numbers are false, we can't include them if the source is deemed to be not reliable. Ulner (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look around at the articles in NY Times, I found for example this: "In fact, her personal finance advice company, Learn Vest, has recently attracted significant venture capital financing, according to Business Insider, to the tune of about $5 million dollars." This means that NY Times journalists generally find Business Insider reliable enough to quote for numbers. For this reason I think this supports to find Business Insider a reliable source. Would be nice with more discussion here - very few editors have written comments about this. Ulner (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a struggle to get hard facts about Empirica. At least we've established that the fund ended in 2004. On the other hand, if the published statement from Empirica was actually phony, one would have expected loud complaints from Taleb.  He certainly made enough noise when GQ got one number wrong. I'd argue that, given a published image of an Empirica statement and no denials from anyone affiliated with Empirica, we should accept the statement as valid. --John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still seem to be missing how Nagle could put Business Insider in the article and now to use Douglas Hubbard? In the article twice?,  Who is Douglas Hubbard? Where did he get those returns from? Is he a Benoit Mandelbrot associate like Taleb? Did Benoit Mandelbrot do videos with Hubbard about the economy? Or is Benoit Mandelbrot not significant? Also why did Nagle use the Bloomberg article  on Taleb to source the statement "The fund was closed in 2004 "after several years of mediocre returns". Which is not stated in the Bloomberg article. Or maybe I missed it in there. If I missed it please quote the passage and I apologize for being WP:Bold in advanced. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is intended for discussing whether a source is reliable or not; discussions about the article is better to keep on that page. Concerning your new sources: books published by Wiley are reliable sources and Bloomberg articles are reliable sources which can be used as references. Ulner (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning whether the Business Insider article is a reliable source, anyone has some idea what editorial oversight Business insider have? It would be good if more editors would participate in this discussion! Ulner (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I understand. However I thought that the source of Business Insider was kinda already disregarded. As the Hubbard book maybe you could pop in at the article so if the deletion is wrong I need to re-add the contribution. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement if two sources are WP:CIRCULAR
Related to discussion at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority. There are two sources by authors who User:Night w consider to be 'reputable experts' over the issue, but I find a particular part of the content of these sources to be suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia page these sources were added to.

Background - as documented on the same page at the end of 2010 a few countries recognized the State of Palestine (SoP) - Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador (in that order). With each subsequent announcement the Wikipedia page was updated accordingly (using sources other than those in question here). As can be seen at the page the question of "total number of states recognizing SoP" is not so easy to answer, because A] some sources are conflicting/inconclusive and B] there are sources stating "about/over 130" without giving the names of these ~130 states and we have sources with the names of only 108-118 (presented in the list at the article).

Now, the two sources in question here: Even up to here the two sources appear to be WP:CIRCULAR, because they cite exactly the number of the first part of the Wikipedia table ("sure thing") - not counting any of the entries listed in Wikipedia as having "conflicting and inconclusive sources" (second part of the table). If we are to accept that the authors of the two sources in question here were using another information source different from Wikipedia - it's almost sure that they will come up with a different number than the "sure thing Wikipedia" figure (as do the sources that don't give a list of states - such as Boyle, Anat Kurz and others - they give 114, 117, 130, etc.). I wouldn't open this question if the two sources in question were giving a figure different by at least 1 from the "sure thing" Wikipedia figure.
 * - "Bolivia's recognition brought to 106 the number of UN member states recognizing the State of Palestine" - this corresponds to this version of the Wikipedia page (Bolivia listed as 106th)
 * - "With recognitions in recent weeks by Brazil and Argentina, some 105 states now formally recognize Palestine at the diplomatic level." - this corresponds to this version of the Wikipedia page (Argentina listed as 105th)

But then, on 30 December 2010 Night w found multiple official sources showing that Dominican Republic has recognized SoP already in 2009. We added it to the article, but now it is obvious that the two sources in question are wrong (because Argentina is 106th and Bolivia is 107th - not as the two sources in question state). I think that they are wrong, just because they are WP:CIRCULAR and had used the versions of the Wikipedia article before we corrected the Dominican Republic mistake there.

So, the question is: Are these two sources WP:CIRCULAR? Alinor (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It'd be helpful to identify the authors, don't you think?
 * John V. Whitbeck, "an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, author of The World According to Whitbeck." (Al Jazeera), and
 * John B. Quigley, "a distinguished professor of law at the Ohio State University's Moritz College Law and the author of more than a dozen critically acclaimed books on various aspects of the law" (McClatchy-Tribune)  Night w   15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that renowned credibility cannot preclude any accusations of circular sourcing, but I'd normally expect said accusations to be based on a little more than coincidence in numbers.  Night w   17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * more than "coincidence in numbers" - the coincidence I described is too suspicious - they use exactly these wrong numbers that the Wikipedia article used before founding the DR source. Alinor (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know the numbers are wrong and are you sure they ONLY ever appeared in Wikipedia? I have to say though that even if you have good answers, it is not easy to "win" a case like this in terms of WP policy, because your answers would likely be verging on "original research" or "synthesis". WP long ago gave up trying to be better than its sources. See WP:TRUTH. It is hard enough (and rewarding enough quite often) just to make sure we summarize fairly what reasonable sources say, even if we sometimes doubt things in them. (This happens to all of us BTW.) Sometimes editors agree that they don't need to use a particular source, and quite often these agreements in effect involve some hidden original thinking about the weak and strong points of a source, and not just about whether it is notable, and what weight is due to it. I don't think this is a cause for panic when it is something where there is a clear WP:consensus to kind of ignore a rule and use common sense. But if there is not consensus, then trying to exclude a good published source can be a very difficult exercise on WP. One of the problems that can develop quickly if we did not have this approach, if we allowed people to delete sources they personally found wrong, is that people with a particular point of view can abuse it and make article non-neutral. See WP:NEUTRAL. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I agree with Andrew Lancaster and Night w. We need a bit more than "agreement in numbers" to show that they're using us as their source. So, they're the wrong numbers; they may well have made the same mistake the Wikipedia article made independently, and for the same reasons, and just having made one mistake doesn't disqualify them from being experts. We're all human. If you find a similarly reliable source that disagrees with Whitbeck and Quigley, then we should write a footnote sentence to that effect ("there is disagreement over whether Thailand recognizes...[ref][ref][ref]"), but until then, we have a statement from some experts. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are other sources - such as:
 * 2005 Anat Kurz ISBN 1-84519-032-7, ISBN 978-1-84519-032-3 p. 123: "117 UN member states recognized the declared State of Palestine ..."
 * 2010 Boyle - "about 130"
 * These two Night w finds as "reliable", but we already have discussed another one of Boyle's sources wrong claim that UN members are 195 - (in the end we removed this particular source around the Night w reasoning that Tamilnet made errors in writing the interview. I don't agree, but anyway at least that particular source was removed from the article)
 * Afterwards (following new recognitions in Latin America) we have multiple news reports about "over 130", , - I would assume that these are based on Boyle number "about 130" + the new recognitions = "over 130" - but of course this is just my assumption.
 * The problem with all these figures is that they are just thrown around - some of them are even not specific (the Boyle originated), but give some range such as "about 130", "over 130", etc. - and all of these don't include a list with the names of the states recognizers. In contrast the 105/106 (currently at 109) "sure thing Wikipedia" number is backed up by source for each one of these 109 states - we have all 109 names and we have even the date of recognition for most of them.
 * So, Night w finds as reliable all of the "not specific, just a number/range without list" sources, but the number can't be 130 and 106 at the same time. So, one of these (or both) are wrong (speaking about Boyle vs. Whitbeck/Quigley). Not to mention that the 105/106 number is wrong both according to Boyle (he claims 130), according to Kurz (117 or more) and because we have sources showing 106/107 recognitions at that moment (we wrongly used 105/106 because we didn't know about DR source back then).
 * Andrew Lancaster, you are right in general, but in this particular case I don't see what is the benefit of using the Whitbeck/Quigley sources - we already have more than enough numbers/sources cited in the article (Boyle, Kurz, others) - and while they are also non-specific (do not give a list of states) at least they don't copy a past "sure thing Wikipedia" number. If readers want to check the 105/106/109 number they can just scroll below to the table and will see the most "up to date" version of it - instead of the number when Whitbeck/Quigley readed the page (OK, that's my assumption). I don't see skipping Whitbeck/Quigley numbers as going in a POV direction - after all the large table below continues to represent similar (if not "the real source") figure.
 * GRuban, the problem with Whitbeck/Quigley is not about specific country (Thailand or other) - they don't give a list of countries, they give just a bare number. Also, we have whole paragraphs dealing with the different figures given by Boyle, Kurz, etc. - so there is no need of special footnote - Whitbeck/Quigley figures just go in just like all the rest (per current version). The problem is if we should mention these two numbers or not - because if they are WP:CIRCULAR as I think - then they have no place in the article. I don't say that we should treat Whitbeck/Quigley as unreliable in general - if they have other statements/etc. that are not WP:CIRCULAR - then, of course we can cite them as notable lawyers/experts/etc. The issue is only with the "suspicious" 105/106 figures. Alinor (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com
At WikiProject Film, I have started a discussion about whether or not the website movie-censorship.com is appropriate to use in any capacity on Wikipedia. I wanted to inform this noticeboard's regulars about the discussion, and they are welcome to weigh in. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination
An editor used a reference from this organization as a cite for a recent change in the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. I posted a question on the talk page, but thought it might also help to post here. I've seen this website used as a reference elsewhere, and I don't think it's a viable source as it appears to be a pure advocacy site. Thoughts about the site in general and the specific edit would be appreciated. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that "Citizens for Truth..." can only really be a reliable source for their own opinions. The attempt to use the site as a reference for quote from a 'Secret Service agent' is rather stretching things. Unless the quote can be found in WP:RS, I'd say it should go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unreliable, un-notable, and if Godfrey is still alive, a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some reliable sources on the book review's author, Vince Palamara:
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/19980125bjfk5.asp
 * http://www.defamer.com.au/2010/04/what-happens-when-you-tweet-obama-death-threats/
 * He was also quoted as a researcher in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy#On_camera Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Vince Palamara. But WP:RS allows us to cite someone if they're an established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.   Is Palamara a published expert?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's tough - he's definitely considered an expert about the Secret Service and the Kennedy assassination by other conspiracy theorists. Contrary to GoN, I'm not quite sure I'm trust the word of a gossip blog (defamer.com.au) or an article written by a free-lance writer (post-gazette.com).  This is a WP:FRINGE topic though, so some of the information will come from sources that proponents strongly believe are good.  I think Palamara meets that criteria.  The reference itself is described as a "review", but it's more a counter-arguement by Palamara who disagrees with the book's message.  Calling it one-sided is, well, polite.  Maybe the edit can be rephrased as "Vince Palamara, considered an expert on the actions of the Secret Service related to the Kennedy assassination by many fellow conspiracy theorists, said (rest of comment)".  Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Did a quick search on Amazon, and Palamara is published ... sort of. His book is listed on Amazon but as self-published.  Worldcat listing is similar.  Note that the title of the book changed.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone can self-publish a book. In order to qualify as an expert, it needs to be published by a respected publishing house.  Given that this is probably the most famous conspiracy theory of all time (at least in the US), it shouldn't be too hard to find other sources for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to publish a book to be a notable book reviewer. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette apparently felt the free-lance writer's story was good enough to be published in their newspaper, which is what matters. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with Vince Palamara's website (assuming that it is his, but I'll take that as read) being used for Vince Palamara's opinions. The problem is that this was being used as a source for a quote from a third party: a 'Secret Service agent'. This seems to be asking too much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not Palamara's website. The first comments are not Palamara's. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say this guy is notable if this is true - he claims 40 books have cited his research: http://www.amazon.com/VINCE-PALAMARA-SECRET-SERVICE-BOOKS/lm/R159E1MYPECO9B Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Quite right. It isn't Palamara's website. I don't see this as significant though - he is being used as a source for a quote from a third party, in a context where WP:RS couldn't reasonably be seen as valid. If anything, the fact that he is being cited in turn can only make it less reliable as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo: An article about someone is completely different as an article by someone. In order to be considered an expert, they must be previously published by a reliable source in the relevant field.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Palamara's research has apparently been cited in 40 published books about the JFK assassination and/or the Secret Service. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Other conspiracy theorists self published works? He could be cited ty 40,000 of those and still not be worth a hill of beans in the WP:RS department. Active Banana    (bananaphone  08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we've got:
 * "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" published by W. W. Norton & Company
 * "The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Engimatic Agency" published by Basic Books
 * "The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy" published by the University of Kansas Press
 * "Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board" published by the U.S. Government Printing Office
 * "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: An Annotated Film, TV, and Videography, 1963-1992" published by Greenwood Press
 * "High Treason: The Assassination of JFK & the Case for Conspiracy" published by Carroll & Graf Publishers Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do any of those have the information that you're wanting to add to the article? I'm assuming you've reviewed those to make sure there's more than just a passing mention.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the information sourced to ctka.com, and tweaked GoN's recent addition sourced to the Post-Gazette. I'm not totally sure that it meets the RS criteria, but overall it does add useful information to the article. It does provide a counterpoint to the claim about the lack of protection that seems to have some weight in the conspiracy theory world. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The book review is the source of the information. The books cited above are to show that Palamara is a recognized researcher whose material has been cited in reliable (published) sources. But the question raised here was "Is CTKA a reliable source?". I don't know if we've addressed that issue, but Palamara seems to be a person whose comments on this subject are notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheist being used as a source for church scholars' opinions
In the Jesus myth theory article, an encyclopedia entry written by G.A. Wells (an atheist) in the encyclopedia of unbelief is being used a source for the opinion of "mainstream church scholars". Using an atheist as a source for the opinion of church scholars seems highly problematic to me. Laker1988 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Source:

Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of" Tom Flynn (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446.

Exact statement:

...although mainstream church scholars agree that material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value.

Talk page discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_theory#Robert_Price_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_the_opinion_of_.22mainstream_church_scholars.22 Laker1988 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Full citation per the instructions at the top of this page? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Why? Do you feel the problem with the author of the article, or the encyclopedia in which it appears? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the problem is with the author of the encyclopedia entry. (G.A. Wells) Laker1988 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The religious beliefs of the author aren't relevant. Can you tell us the exact text that is being disputed?


 * For the benefit of others reading this thread:


 * Our article on the author, George Albert Wells.
 * Amazon web page for The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief.
 * Publisher's web site.
 * Publisher's web page for book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in this particular context the belief of the scholar is relevant. If I understand this correctly, in this context one person summarize the general opinion of church scholars in this area - and if the person is involved in a debate in this area I would not trust his summary to be fully neutral. Ulner (talk)
 * This is the reliable sources noticeboard, not the "neutrality" noticeboard. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of making a point, it is not the case that the religious beliefs of an author are not relevant here. There is always possibility that a source may be biased to the extent that it is not reliable for a particular statement of fact.
 * That said, the argument being put forward in this case does not seem reasonable for two reasons:
 * (1) The statement the source is used to support is uncontroversial. Even amongst (mainstream) Christian clerics - let alone those who qualify as scholars - the notion that the Bible should be taken at face-value, in any respect, belongs to the fringes. There is no real likelihood of bias because there is not real question as to the facts of the matter.
 * (2) Given the nature of the point in question, if anyone can come up with a wholly neutral source as an alternative (ie from an author who is neither an atheist nor a Christian nor a follower of some rival belief system to Christianity) then I will award them an impossibility barnstar. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The opinion is question is that mainstream scholars think material about Jesus in the New Testament can't be taken at face value. This is a little like asking for another source for "Paris is the capital of France," when two have been provided, but because one of them isn't French he can't be trusted. Laker seems to believe that most mainstream biblical scholars believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that three wise men arrived at the stable, etc. But they don't. For a summary of what most scholars seem to believe now, see Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27 (visible on Amazon). SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, rushing to the RSN with issues being discussed on talk is unhelpful, and leads to people having to repeat their posts unnecessarily. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about what I believe the scholarly opinion to be. I am perfectly fine with keeping the sentence, as long as you don't have to resort to using atheists as a source for what Christian scholars believe. Also, since you have seen the Stanton source, it would be immensely helpful to provide an exact quote at the article talk page. Laker1988 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we also agree to not use anti-communists as sources for communism? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shhhh, Petri. Don't ask awkward questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that, only let pseudoscientists assert the value of pseudoscience and astrologers the value of astrology. Let's not let any critics be cited. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eddy and Boyd are visible on Amazon, so please look up what they say. See above and the article for the citation; it's too much to ask other people to type out for you. Laker, I'm concerned that you've arrived at the article without background knowledge, without reading the sources, unwilling to look them up even when they're cited for you, unwilling to read the article and the footnotes, reverting against multiple editors, then running to the RS noticeboard forcing me to make the same points about the same sources on more than one page. It's not helpful editing. And this is an entirely uncontentious point. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you are the one who immediately reverts. You are the one who has failed to provide the Stanton quote you found on Amazon, even after I said I couldn't gain access to it.  That is not helpful editing.  I've read the article, and I've read the source you've provided, which says absolutely nothing about taking the gospels at face value, nor does it mention "mainstream church scholars".  It would be helpful if you could just provide the quote. Laker1988 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been reverting against more than one editor since Dec 29. Stanton is not fully visible, as you know already. You asked for another source, and I have given you one two or three times: Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27. It is available on Amazon. Please read it. And please discuss this on the article's talk page. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You said you could see half of the sentence on Amazon. Even half of the sentence in question would be helpful.  I asked you to provide the quote but you stopped responding on the talk page.  And I've already said that I've read the source and it doesn't say anything about taking things at "face value" or "mainstream church scholars". Laker1988 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a misuse of the board, Laker. If you want to discuss it, please read that source, then discuss what you've read on talk, and explain why you think it doesn't support that sentence. I'm not going to discuss it here anymore, because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@FormerIP: a source's beliefs, religious or other, can be relevant in neutrality discussions, but this discussion is not being framed as a neutrality issue - and I do not just mean that it is on the wrong noticeboard for that. For example no argument has been made that the citation is giving un-due weight to a particular theory that is not mainstream. The complaint being made seems to be that "on principle" non-Christians should not be used as sources for Christian subjects, and that if there are no sources saying otherwise a literal understanding of the Bible can be assumed to be mainstream. I think the responses so far show that there is a clear consensus that such a principle is not compatible with how Wikipedia works. If on the other hand there is a real neutrality concern it needs to be framed in a very different way (and not on this particular forum).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem using Wells as a source in this article... but, I am a bit confused by the phrasing of "mainstream church scholars". This phrase can be understood in two ways: 1) mainstream scholars who study the church, and 2) scholars from a mainstream church.  What is the intent here?... are we claiming that Wells is a mainstream scholar? (I would agree with that)... or are we claiming that he is from a mainstream church? (I would question that). This could probably be resolved by rephrasing the sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is RS, as to neutrailty thats another issue. I would however aks the proposer do you think that only Muslim sources should be used for statments about Islam? Or only Iranian sources for statements about Iran?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in how we present what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as you rightly say above, this can probably be fixed quite well with some wording tweaking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion bears some similarities to one going on here. Involved parties might be interested in checking it out. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem, to my eyes, is the use of generalities and nonspecific language in the text itself. I have no problems with the source as a RS, far from it. However, I agree with Blueboar that the language used is such that we cannot be sure exactly what the author is trying to convey by his statements. If the source were clearer, I would definitely support the inclusion of the material. However, given the ambiguity which cannot apparently be resolved by the use of the text in question, I would have to think that, in this particular instance, we would be best advised to indicate the source used and possibly use the material in question as a direct quotation. If other sources, including later editions of the book perhaps somewhere down the line, resolve the ambiguity of the material, then that would have to be taken into account at that time. However, I do believe that I have seen such "generalizations" in a few respected and reliable sources before, including some clearly academic ones, and believe that, in general, such generalizations, when made in such sources, can be used, provided that there is no obvious problem with POV pushing and/or with other perhaps equally respectable and reliable sources making contrary statements. In the latter instance, I guess I would support adding something to the effect of "reliable sources disagree..." John Carter (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The two cases are not necessarily as similar as they look, but one thing they have in common is the error in the way these cases came about:- POV sources CAN be used on WP, as long as they are reliable sources about notable things, and as long as they are used in a way which is in accordance with WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, sources have a POV. The question here is whether or not they are reliable, not whether they have a POV. We do not reject sources on church history simply because they are atheists. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Our Sunday Visitor Publishing" as reliable source on atheist circles
Our Sunday Visitor Publishing is a Catholic press whose main output is "religious periodicals, religious books and religious-education materials." Are they a reliable source for the claim that the anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power is popular in atheist circles? I argue firstly that a publisher with an explicitly religious affiliation and an explicitly religious agenda is unlikely to be a reliable source on what atheists like to do in their spare time, whatever their actual opinions are about atheists; and secondly that the press's open hostility to atheists makes it an even less reliable source. Mamalujo and Haymaker say that it is a reliable source, although I can't reproduce their arguments here as they haven't given any - hopefully they'll stop by. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're a newspaper that writes about religion writing about a religious topic. I don't see any indication of unreliability. - Haymaker (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As may have been evident from my edit, I'm cool with their analysis of the book's argument - I'm just pointing out that they have no credibility when it comes to atheists. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From the "About us" section of Our Sunday Visitor Publishing: "Through the Our Sunday Visitor Institute, we fund Catholic projects throughout the United States, particularly those that seek to address religious illiteracy, contribute to the evangelization of the culture, link faith and morality, especially to young people, and explain and promote the dignity of the human person." This stated ideological goal of the publisher makes it a non-reliable source for atheism, except of course in matters of OSVPs own view on atheism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More to the point, are they even a reliable source for claiming that 'atheist circles' exist? I suspect most atheists aren't involved in anti-religious campaigning, or actually consider themselves part of a 'circle'. What exactly is the context for this claim though? Is the claim US-specific, and about active atheist campaigners, or is this a general claim about non-believers worldwide? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I phrased it wrong above. Since OSVP specifically states that it is a publishing house that has an ideological agenda, it is not a reliable source at all in Wikipedia context, though it can be a primary source for the views of OSVP and affiliated organisations. So it is not a reliable source for the existence of "atheist circles" either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the agenda applies to reliability in this case as there is nothing to indicate that the organization endorses fringe ideas. Neutrality is a different matter.--3family6 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: This argument seems to be of the same type as one a few sections above, and that section appears to uphold a source written attributable to an opposing ideology.--3family6 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the main difference is that the statement being sourced in the previous case was more-or-less truistic and it wasn't clear where the suggestion of bias may be. In this case, the claim appears much more contentious. --FormerIP (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what the source says about 'atheist circles': "Most of [Blanshard's] works are still in print, and American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles.". This is being used to 'source' the following: "Today the book is popular in atheist and humanist circles". (diff) Since it doesn't, the question is moot, unless the words 'quite' and 'various ' have an entirely novel meaning in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the wording was changed to "remains popular in some atheistic and humanist circles" or something similar, I see no problem, unless there is a different source that contradicts that statement. I will say that if an additional source from an atheist or humanist could be found, it would be best.--3family6 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a reliable source even for that. I mean, would we cite the book discussed in the article for the statement "Some fields of American society are totally controlled by Catholics"? If the claim that atheists are fond of this anti-Catholic book is to be included in the article, we'd need a source that isn't known for attacking atheists - either a neutral source, or a source from "atheist circles." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a source known for attacking Christianity can be used to support what Christians believe, then a source known for attacking atheism can be used to support what atheists read. Also, as pointed out by John Carter below, they may have access to the publisher or some other source. I personally have reservations about using a Catholic source to support a statement about atheists, but I also have reservations about using atheists as a source on Christianity.--3family6 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wells is a scholar on the subject, and his books are analyses - one might disagree with them, but he presumably gives evidence for his position. (The discussion above also appears to indicate that the statement for which he's cited is fairly uncontroversial among Christian scholars.) This is a passing statement with no supporting evidence in a book by a guy with an agenda and no credentials, and since it's relatively defamatory I think we need a reliable source. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the OSV have a particular history of "attacking atheists" - Haymaker (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Until now, I have not even heard OSV. "Attack" might be a strong word, but it is the one used by Roscelese. They might have such a history, but everything provided does not appear to support that.--3family6 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the word "attack," we don't have to use the word "attack." But do check out the links above, and also their atheism articles, before you try to argue that they have nothing against atheists and no desire to discredit them. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not made such an argument.--3family6 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have grave reservations about such a source for content about atheism. However, it may well be that in some way they might have access to the publisher of the works in question (particularly if the publisher has something to do with Catholicism) and be basing their comments on that. "various atheist and humanist circles" seems to me to be the problematic language. Alternately, there clearly are atheist and humanist groups (and, by extension, "circles") and the quote may be based on some material from such. I wouldn't see any problem with a statement life Sfamily6 proposes above, unless there are other comments from more directly relevant and possibly more directly knowledgable sources which contradict it. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't base their reliability on "well, maaaaaaaaybe they know something but they're not telling us." And even if they have information from the publisher, how would the publisher know that the people ordering the book are atheists? Do Christian publishers have a line on their ordering forms for the buyer's religion? Maybe they do, I don't buy a lot of Christian books. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that. Having a idea of what books are popular among what groups is far from witchcraft. - Haymaker (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So cite a reliable source. If it's so easy to know that the book is popular among atheists, citing a source that isn't known for hostility to atheists (do you prefer this phrasing?) shouldn't be difficult.
 * ...Also, obvious brain fail in my previous comment; the publisher of AFCP wouldn't necessarily be a Christian publisher, and doesn't appear to be one from the cited sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement already is cited. - Haymaker (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have overlooked the "reliable source" and "not known for hostility to atheists" part of my comment. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article currently states "Today the book is popular in atheist and humanist circles." This is more than the source says, as AndytheGrump above noted. "Quite popular" is less than popular and only some "circles" are mentioned. I rather doubt that the comment is more than a reference to the fact that it crops up in some anti-Catholic webpages. The problem is that the comment is essentially "thowaway". It's not meaningful enough to include as a definitive statement. If you're so keen on it attribute it and quote the exact words. 'According to Catholic writer Robert P. Lockwood, "American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles."' Paul B (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better than the current statement, but do we make a policy of including unreliable attacks as long as we attribute them? I don't think so. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is "Most of [Blanshard's] works are still in print, and American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles" an unreliable attack?--3family6 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said at the top of this section, which hopefully you read before jumping in, the author and publisher are not reliable sources on atheist culture: the publisher is not mainstream/scholarly and their focus is, conversely, on Christian culture, and no one has demonstrated that Lockwood has any credentials on atheist culture. Their reliability is further lessened by the fact that the press has an explicit agenda of evangelizing and of trying to prove that morality is linked to faith, and has published a lot of stuff opposing atheism. "Atheists subscribe to this anti-Catholic book's content," absent any actual evidence, is an attack. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the question above is a good one. OSV is a generally reliable source as per WP:RS, and, although it has a clearly biased Catholic viewpoint, I don't see that this statement is necessarily one which would be indicated as likely given that viewpoint. Admittedly, I don't know the book one way or another to say much about it. Also, I think there is a potential problem with the word "popular". It can mean that the work in question is one which is frequently positively referenced by individuals, or it could mean that the book is widely read, which can and sometimes is true of works which are in opposition to the tenets of the group. If there would be any way to find out which of these circumstances applies here, that would be wonderful. I guess we would have to go with "popular" as a default pending other sources, but would appreciate some clarification if possible. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just that the publisher has a "clearly biased Catholic viewpoint," which doesn't necessarily indicate a bias against atheists. It's that the publisher and author demonstrate no expertise that qualifies them to make that kind of statement, which coupled with the publisher's anti-atheist (not just pro-Catholic) bias, makes the uncritical use of it really problematic.
 * This case isn't quite in the realm governed by WP:SELFPUB, but I think it still might be a good guideline: this clearly biased source is reliable for statements about itself, but not about third parties. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(can't indent that much) My $.02: we need a consistent rule for this and the other case. I probably wouldn't find an atheist writer WP:RS for the proposition that church sources doubt Jesus' historicity, or a Catholic group reliable for even "some" atheists endorsing a particular attack on the Catholic church. If either quoted a reliable, neutral secondary source, I'd go directly to that, or leave the material out of the article entirely. The moment we start trying to justify the first instance while criticizing the second, I think we we are on very dubious ground. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ^Thank you! That was the point I was hoping would be made :)--3family6 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in the Wells discussion at all, so my comments on that situation are, in the end, pretty irrelevant. (Although I do think that acting as if the two situations are exactly analogous, and trying to base a rule on that supposed fact, is folly!) Do you think I should direct some of the people up there to this discussion? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Roscelese: I would. I think the two issues are similar enough to be considered together. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec/)The publisher is not a mainstream nor academic publisher. Its claims should not be made in Wikipedias voice. A phrasing of "Catholic scholar / OSVP states the book is popular in atheist circles" might be acceptable. But unless OSVP or that catholic scholars are well respected outside of Catholic circles for their research and knowledge of "atheist circles" is there any reason why we should be quoting their opinion? Active  Banana    (bananaphone  23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO that's the strongest point here. Why are they considered an authority as to what is popular in "atheist circles"? There's no doubt that it has the ring of so much fiction. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, my basic googlebook searches have indicated that there is a wealth of coverage of this book from well respected mainstream sources that could/should be used to support claims in the article. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Sunday Visitor claim to fame appears to be printing buletins and Robert Lockwood (well thats not actually the RL we are talking about) doesnt seem particularly noteworthy either. Active Banana    (bananaphone  08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is the saem. As others have said this does not appear to be a scholerly publication that. It may be RS for its views (but are its views no0table) but its not RS for such a statment as presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Active Banana has it right. Why should we include their claim? Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the following agrees with most others: It is possible to use POV sources on WP. That is not the issue. But this particular off hand generalization does not appear notable or worth citing, and giving it a big say in WP could hurt neutrality and does not appear to be a good selection of sourcing. Comments about what one type of person thinks are all over the place, and often made casually, so we can not cite them all. Therefore the source's opinion should be notable, or else the source should be a strong one in terms of making "serious" generalizations (for example an opinion poll or maybe at least someone conducting some type of literature review). If editors involved with this content can not agree that these types of criteria are met then Wikipedia does not have to include everything from every RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree; Active Banana is correct here. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pranknet
There is a discussion ongoing on WP:BLPN about whether this article meets BLP standards, but I have a collateral question. Much of the information about alleged criminal activities by the otherwise private individuals is sourced to a single investigative article in TheSmokingGun.com. Other newspaper sources seem to echo that article. I suspect there have been prior discussions as to the circumstances under which Smoking Gun is WP:RS, and would like to hear what other editors say about its use in this context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The RS/N discussion Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20 and our article say that The Smoking Gun has been a branch of Court TV/truTV since 2000. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52 had one person who objected to their reliability as a secondary source, but most still seemed to support it. It was founded by investigative reporters, sponsors a television series, and has published two books. Seems like consensus is that it is as reliable as most other popular media. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per GRuban; as reliable as most other popular media. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requirement that a source be accessable on the internet
In a recent deletion nomnination the reasoning was given by someone who voted to delete that most of the sources were not accessable on the internet (books and magazines NOT online), so they doubted them and voted delete. What is Wikipedia policy on the bias against non-online sources? Mathewignash (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Offline sources otherwise meeting WP:RS are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. There are many articles and matters which can't (yet) be completely sourced online (for example, Liturgy (ancient Greece)). However, if equally good online sources exist, it is probably best to use an online source where available. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable Offline sources are Reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and may of us have access to these things called libraries, where one can actually walk among books, some of which have been for many years reliable sources of information. (Sorry, could not resist). --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And there are also things called local papers and magazines, which are often one of the best ways to tell if a local organization/company/group is notable in its community. (Though most papers are available online, albeit for a fee.)--3family6 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online? Mathewignash (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest referring the other editor to WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this question is related to this discussion, 137.122.49.102's argument isn't simply that the source is not accessible via internet but that they "doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article" The way to handle this is to tell them how much coverage the book gives about this topic.  IOW, is it a sentence or two, a page, a chapter, etc.?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online". For a start, you can say that AfD discussions aren't votes. If their only argument is that an article should be deleted because sources not available online are being used, then since this is a misinterpretation of policy their argument is irrelevant to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but someone needs to point explicitly to the policy. My experience is that admins often aren't familiar with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the sources in question do not mention who published them or have a page number for the statemtn they are referencing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They do need this. If there is not standard referencing in order to enable someone to find the source, it fails WP:V. If the source is a book, it also normally needs page numbers (WP:Page numbers). --FormerIP (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

www.oafe.net reliable?
Is the site http://www.oafe.net/ a reliable source for fictional character bios? Mathewignash (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say no; they are about the toys, not the media storylines per se. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance the review of this figure: http://www.oafe.net/yo/hulkic.php talks about the character's origin. Mathewignash (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The site says nothing about its ownership, authors, editorial policies etc. that I can find. It doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

boards.transformersmovie.com reliable for quote from film writer?
At http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?p=388596#post388596 one of the writers for the 2007 Transformers film posts how he wrote the movie. This is the official message board for the film. Is this a reliable source for the writer? Mathewignash (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming that's really Roberto Orci, I would say that it's reliable as an WP:SPS: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. However, if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.  Also, you can not use it to source claims about third parties.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the board is owned by the movie makers, and it's been there since they started working on the movie, I think we can assume it's legitimate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its being used for this []. Thus in fact its not about him, but the plot to a film. Also the material makes no mention of the ARC just a large spaceship, thus is being mis-represented.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. I would suggest that presuming that the large ship is the Ark would be OR and probably not a good idea. But I note that the presumption is admitted in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagd it as unreliable. It may not be for Mr Orci's views (assumning it is his views) but it does not support the text. I willleave it 24 hours before removing in order to give the edd more time to find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with this topic. Does he mean the ark?  I'm not sure we have to be that literal in demanding that a source use the terminology we want.  IOW, if George Lucas was discussing Star Wars: A New Hope and he says, "So, Luke Skywalker is flying down the trench and uses two photo torpedoes to destroy the space station", it's quite clear that the "space station" he's referring to is the Death Star.  I don't think the source can be rejected solely on the basis that Lucas doesn't specifically say "Death Star".  No reasonable person who's knowledgeable about that film would ever conclude otherwise, and I don't think that's WP:OR at all.  OTOH, as far as notability goes, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  In fact, don't you need third-party reliable sources to establish notability?
 * Slatersteven: might be more appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But that is one film, and a specific quote about an aspect of the plot. This is a quote about an adaptation of anotehr persons work that does not stick to that cannon (its a bit like saying that in the new star trek film if a source said "the Enterprise as attacked by a Romulan ship" its a source for the text "and in the new star trek film the Romulans used the warbird class ship".Slatersteven (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ship was named the "Ark" in the official prequel novel for the 2007 movie. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the example, I still think we should focus on the source's meaning. But I think the larger issue that that discussion is missing is that you need third-party reliable sources to establish notability (if I'm wrong, please correct me).  Also, you need significant coverage, not a passing line here and there.  In fact, I'm currently involved in an AfD myself and I was able to find a dozen or so third-party reliable sources about the topic.  But editors are still arguing for its deletion because the articles themselves are fairly short (1-3 paragraphs) and don't qualify as "significant".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just checked WP:SIGCOV and you need reliable sources that are independent of the subject: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. So these sources might be reliable, but that's not what you need to establish notability.  Also, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that this citation is NOT one of the ones I added as proof of notability. It just already in the article when I arrived just being used to state information. So there is no question about whether this citation proves notability. It wasn't intended to. 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The novel was not writen by the script writer of the film (and offical novels do not always follow fil, plots exaclty anyway). Does the source or does the source call it the ARK? if not then you cannot say it does.Slatersteven (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So the movie writer says that the aliens arrived in a space ship, then the novel prequel for the says the aliens arrived in a space ship and names it, and you are not sure that it's the SAME space ship. I suppose I could cite prequel novel instead. Mathewignash (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Only for what is contained in the novel, not the film. Yes I would say that if they weere in fact witen by different writers. There is a sequal (offical) to Bram Stokers Dracula) that alters the events of the plot, it would be RS for its plot, but not matrial contained within the original.Slatersteven (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps using a quote that doesn't call it "The Ark" goes under the ratchets are gadgets type of WP:SYNTH. Some time last year, people said they they couldn't mention any connection between Power Rangers Samurai and Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in an article because the only proof is that it's bloody obvious two anybody who looks at the two, but never stated outright in any sources. NotARealWord (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Widely" described as ethnic cleansing per the Guardian?
We've had a discussion on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus (link) concerning whether this source could be used to source the notion that the expulsion of Palestinians would "widely" be considered to have involved ethnic cleansing. The document is an article by the Guardian's middle-east editor, Ian Black where he writes:

Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved.

Editors who oppose saying in the article that the expulsions would be widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing point to this source ("Muslims in Australia"), which says that many place the expulsions in context of war, rather than ethnic cleansing.

The author of "Muslims in Australia" is Dr Halim Rane, who appears to be a sociologist by training. Further, sources in Ethnic cleansing frequently do place ethnic cleansing in the context of war, in apparent conflict with Rane's implication that they are mutually exclusive. Comments? I'm not an uninvolved editor and am of the opinion that the Guardian is a RS and using it here is straightforward, "Muslims in Australia" nonwithstanding. --Dailycare (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be used as a source for the statemtn "widely called ethnic cleansing". but not for that fact it was.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unsure overall, but would say that war and ethnic cleansing are far from mutually exclusive, so Muslims in Australia does not seem to provide a very strong rebuttal on the face of it. Also second Slatersteven's comment if that is a relevant issue.
 * Seems to me that this is something where neither a Guardian article on it's own nor a book about a different topic are likely to represent the best sourcing available. --FormerIP (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the utility of the Guardian piece is that it contains an assessment as to how widespread the idea is. There are lots of sources that state by name which researchers consider the expulsions to have been ethnic cleansing, but not many that describe as conveniently how prominent the view is. --Dailycare (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Rane does not seem to suggest that they are exclusive, but rather seems (after a _very_ quick read of a few paragraphs) to be outlining that although many "revisionist" historians view the expulsion of palestinians within the framework of war, Pappe sees the "ethnic cleansing" as the frame and the war a means to the end. So the distinction seems to me not to be either/or, but rather primary cause. I think it is fine to use the Guardian article for saying "widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing point" but also the Rane source for saying that that view is disputed, thereby documenting the dispute. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)The source DC has provided to support putting "widely described" (note the violation of WP:WTA, specifically unsupported attributions) in the lead of the article is an editorial/book review which uses the term in passing and doesn't say who widely describes it as such. The opposing source is by an academic whose dissertation was about the Arab-Israeli conflict. See . While he himself thinks the term is correct, he specifically notes that many others disagree. I'd also like to point out that some editors seem to think that their personal opinion on what context ethnic cleansing may happen in has any bearing on the reliability of a published work by an academic. I believe that's not how things work here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tought one, it seems to be an artciel, not a review persee. Its an articel about the author as much as the book.Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn: think I more or less agree, although think a better source to show an alternative point of view should be used, since this is not directly the topic of Rane's book. Rane surely can't be suggesting the two things are mutually exclusive, because that would seem to be obviously incorrect. So, as you say, it is a question of focus or framing. In which case, he isn't in very direct disagreement with The Guardian. Something could be ethnic cleansing on the one hand and seen as primarily an act of war on the other without there being any contradiction. --FormerIP (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and since Rane does not contradict the notion that it is widely described as ethnic cleansing, and the Guardian is a reliable source, absent any other good reliable sources that directly dispute that notion, using the Guardian seems fine to me. That being said, the Guardian is a newspaper, and ethnic cleansing a loaded term, so for those reasons I would suggest that articles written by professional historians would make better 2ndary sources for this kind of information, if such can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's so "widely described" you'd think there would be other sources saying so, not just an editorial, even if it is in the Guardian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finkelstein, p xii. (partial preview available on google books). --FormerIP (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::::::I disagree. That phrase itself may not be widely used, but there are many sources that link ethnic cleansing to the expulsion, as one would expect given the nature of the conflict. "Widely" does not mean "mostly", and this is a contentious subject, so it should not be a surprise that that linkage is made in many sources. I also assume there are many sources that refute the linkage--indeed, Rane's work alludes to some of those. It is not an issue for this noticeboard, but my suggestion would be to take care to document what is said, and not try to document what it true. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read too deeply into this particular discussion, but as far as sources supporting "widely considered ethnic cleansing", here's a few:
 * - "Although Israel has legitimate security concerns, many governments and international lawyers, however, think that the barrier is illegal and a means to ethnic cleansing"
 * -- "the mass explusion of Palestinians demanded by right-wing parties in Israel ... widely perceived to be just such ethnic cleansing"

I'm sure more sources can be found. Perhaps the wording of the statement should be changed, but it's fairly clear that whether or not this is a majority idea, it is certainly a widespread idea. I don't think the Guardian source should be used, though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources do need to refer to 1948, though. (BTW From reading a couple of things just now, I actually don't think there's a reasonable substantive doubt about this, but getting the best sources would be a good thing). --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Racing-reference.info
I reviewed BLP John Graham (racing driver) as a DYK nomination and said Racing-reference.info was an unreliable source. In 2008 in this discussion an editor said it was "sort of like the IMDb of racing."

The statement, "Graham, born on October 22, 1955 in Belfast, Northern Ireland, began his professional career in 1986, when he competed in one Firestone Indy Lights Series race," is attributed to this page.

--Pnm (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems appropriate to cite for racing statistics. However, it's inappropriate for determining when he began his professional career, a kind of synthesis/original research. The statement should read something like, "Graham competed in a Firestone Indy Lights Series race in 1986."
 * 2) It seems inappropriate to cite for biographical information. It's a tertiary source, and biographical content appears to originate from user comments. Though the site is moderated I was unable to locate an editorial policy or evidence of fact checking.

Behind the Voice Actors.com RS?
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider Behind the Voice Actors.com as reliable source A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! of voice actors? Content appears to be scrutinised and edited. Voice actors are quite hard to source as they rarely attract mainstream news coverage.--Plad2 (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I would say it's borderline. They do not have a reputation for fact checking, but in their FAQ they do say that they fact check, and distinguish themselves from IMDB and us. Material from the forums would be out, and I think we would not want to use them for anything the least bit controversial. Can you provide a couple of specific examples of what you'd like to source to them? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I used it for one of two weakish sources for Kenichi Mochizuki and changed the article from "BLPunsourced" to "BLPsources" as part of the current month focus at the BLP Rescue Project. There are probably some notability questions on this one which need to be answered but the sources I used at least verified that the actor exists and confirmed some of his roles. We're building a page of RS to help with the Project and I'd like to get a fix on whether this one could help with the slew of Japanese voice actor UBLPs we're uncovering. Sometime the fuller article at ja.wikipedia helps but often there are very few sources over there either.--Plad2 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I wouldn't propose using a forum discussion as RS.--Plad2 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "[T]o verify existence and roles"?!!? I would question whether they are in fact notable at all if you can't find any more solid sources for their very existence!!!! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourcing Japanese voice actors is not easy. Even if you put the language barriers to one side, the question as to whether (or at what point) voice actors meet WP:GNG belongs in another place, I believe. My question here relates to whether this site can be used as a reliable source or not.  If you (or anyone) can provide a better source, that would be helpful.--Plad2 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think the way you used the source is fine, although I agree with Orange Mike that notability may not be established. I do note, however, that there's an external link to www.animenewsnetwork.com, and that they claim to fact check. That may be a better source for what you are trying to accomplish, but anime isn't my schtick. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The information at WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources is that the Anime News Network "News" items can be used as RS but the "Encyclopedia" information cannot as it is user contributed and no better than IMDB. But thanks everyone for the time taken to consider this.  I'll add it to the URBLPR resources marked "borderline". PS: I agree that the example article I used was also questionable on notability.--Plad2 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

uwire.com
A collection of shared college newspaper articles by student reporters. Useable for citing? Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of UWIRE before, but apparently it's news service with articles aggregated from student newspapers.  I'm not sure if we've discussed student newspapers recently, but they do have editorial oversight and I would imagine are staffed with students in a journalism program.  But since it's an aggregator of news, it might be better to cite the original newspaper instead.  In any case, we can't give you a yes or a no without more information.  Please see the instructions at the top. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * its being used to establish notability based on a film review []. Its also being used as a source for fan unhappyness at a character being left out of teh tranformers movie.Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By "fan" you mean a film reviewer. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you have reason to believe otherwise (such as contradicting sources), I think we can trust a student newspaper to get the plot of a film right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not being used as a source for the plot, but is being used to say a pluraility of reviews have critised an aspect of the film (I will ask for the quote that establishes that more then just this reviwer have compalined about this aspect of the film). Also I doubt its good enough a source to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you post a link to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have an online copy. I saw it at college in their library. Mathewignash (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is mit the case that all student newspapers are considerd RS as a default position?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge that we can normally assume that a student newspaper will get the plot of a film right in a movie review. However, I'm reluctant to say that student newspapers are considered reliable sources by default, because they are subject to all of the tendencies toward error that regular newspapers are, plus other negative tendencies -- they are often written by amateur reporters and edited by amateur editors, who are often trying to fit their journalistic activity around their classwork. I'm not worried about using a student newspaper to report which characters appear in a "Transformers" movie, but I am worried about using student newspapers for sourcing controversial issues in biographies of living persons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Carbonic Acid
The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark, appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression

Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration) Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.

It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.

(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered).

The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark, appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression

Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration) Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.

It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.

(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beranay (talk • contribs)
 * This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You haven't mentioned any specific source that you think needs to be reviewed for notability, like a book or a journal article or something like that. If there are problems with the Wikipedia article Carbonic acid, you can discuss those problems on the article's talk page, Talk:Carbonic acid. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seminar paper
This paper How to subsidize contributions to public goods - Does the frog jump out of the boiling water? (pdf mirror  ) by Theo Offerman is listed as a "seminar paper". Does this paper fall under WP:SPS? Looking at google scholar, the author appears to have a number of widely cited articles published in peer reviewed journals: but all the articles appear to be in the field of economics. The paper is currently used to source biological material in the Boiling frog article regarding experiments from the 1800s, which the paper gives an overview of. Is this appropriate? Previous discussion at Talk:Boiling frog Any thoughts? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standards of publication in economics are peer reviewed scholarly modes. Seminar papers are not peer reviewed.  Publishing outside of mode creates a very strong disposition against the source being reliable, even when the author is "expert" for such an SPS, because these experts have access to scholarly peer reviewed modes.  (Also, Scholars generally use seminar papers to seek feed back on work moving towards publication).
 * Secondly, the work is in no way reliable for history of science, such as 19th century frog boiling experiments. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a reliable source. All it demonstrates is that writers may be as susceptible as anyone else to believing in myths when they are outside their own area of expertise. --FormerIP (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Fifelfoo's point about seminar papers being used by scholars to get feedback is a key reason why we should never use a seminar paper which may be radically changed by the time (and if) it is published. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never is a fairly absolute word. I have seen this discussed on this board several times now and there seems to be quite a few of us who think that the weakness/strength of seminar papers differs a lot between fields. It should also be noted that some seminar papers end up being cited widely, meaning that they are considered reliable by people in some fields. I make this comment only as a side remark upon the use of the absolute word "never".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This paper is could be reliable ... for economics. It doesn't make a single claim about science. The idea of the frog sitting in boiling water is simply used as a convenient metaphor for discussing economic behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the following considered secondary review sources?
As per the title, are these articles considered secondary review sources? These three articles (among others) show up on a pubmed search when you type in spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak and then click on "Review" on the right side. I am curious to know as I am preparing an article on this topic for a FA candidacy and would like to overcome the hurdle of a lack of 2econdary sources. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Spontaneous low cerebospinal fluid pressure syndrome. A case report and literature review
 * 2) Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: clinical and neuroimaging findings in six cases with literature review
 * 3) Spinal dural enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging associated with spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Report of three cases and review of the literature
 * The articles might be considered RS but the extracts that you link to would not. But we have to see the the specific statements in the Wikipedia artcile that were supported by these sources before making any further comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Are they considered reliable secondary sources? Basket of Puppies  17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These aren't systematic reviews, if that is what you are asking. Rather, they appear to be reports on research, incorporating literature reviews. On my reading of policy they count as primary, but I am not qualified in the substantive area. I hope you get a response from an editor who works on medical articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As do I. They seem to be a hybrid of primary and secondary. Just not sure which. Basket of Puppies  18:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They appear to be primary research. A literature review of some sort will always appear in primary research. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Think a literature review will always be secondary, even if it is contained within what is basically a primary source. The same source can be both primary and secondary, depending on what is being cited. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the consensus that they are secondary sources? Basket of Puppies  22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they are capable of being secondary, depending on what information is being cited, but two other editors have said that they think they are primary so, no, there isn't a consensus that they are secondary. Some more commenters are needed, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What use is being proposed for these sources? --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These are all clearly primary sources, not secondary sources. They are not reviews of other studies, they are basically case studies of extremely small numbers of patients. The second is 12 years old. Under WP:MEDRS, these would not qualify as reliable sources on multiple counts: Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources. WP:MEDASSESS Fladrif (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that may miss the point (although we still lack the crucial information: what is being cited?). A case study is of course a primary source. However, a literature review within a case study is capable of being a secondary source. If a peer-reviewed paper says (for example) "all research up to now has shown x" then that would be good secondary material. Per WP:MEDASSESS: "The best evidence comes from (inter alia) reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation". The only problem is that it is not yet clear whether this applies. --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with FormerIP. These articles do have some primary information in them, but they also act as secondary sources by virtue of the fact of being literature reviews. As well, PubMed lists them as review articles. Basket of Puppies  07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles are primary sources with some secondary information.
 * Again, could someone please provide some proposed context of use, as suggested in the instructions for this noticeboard: #4 of the instructions, "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to understand why this question is being asked. Basically, I agree with what Fladrif said. Although FormerIP is, in a sense, correct that sources such as these can include, in their introduction or discussion sections, some secondary review of the literature, they are not, for the purposes of medically related pages, secondary sources. They are primary sources: primary research reports (and in these cases, reports of very small case studies, in all three instances), with a primary source commentary on some other, previous studies. Even if they are cited with respect to that commentary, they would absolutely not be regarded as secondary in an FAC review. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see your point there, Tryptofish. An FA candidate sourced only to journal articles is probably not a good FA candidate, which is basically what seems to be being asked here. On the other hand, I think that article material sourced to the literature review sections of journal articles would not fall foul of WP:PRIMARY. Which isn't the question being asked, but it is an appropriate one to answer on this noticeboard. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We really could do with some more medical people in this discussion, but as I understand it, the literature reviews in such articles aren't cut-down versions of systematic reviews. Rather they serve to place in context the small studies undertaken by the authors. They may cherry-pick the literature, not necessarily to back a particular point, but because of word limits and because they are only focusing on one aspect of the problem - which may well turn out to be a minor aspect. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my experience as a medical science person it that that's exactly what often happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Question If PubMed is classifying the above listed articles as "review articles" then why/how can we classify them as primary articles? Basket of Puppies 08:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, on their face, they are case studies and not reviews. "Case Report" is the first, and most accurate "type" listed at PubMed for each of these three case studies. Judith and Tryptofish have this exactly right: referring to some prior literature in the course of writing up a case study doesn't make the case study a "review". Fladrif (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The crucial question has been asked several times and not answered: what material are these sources being used to support? To answer the general question: no, the short 'literature review' section that comprises part of the introduction to every research report is not a "literature review" in the usual sense. It's simply a standard convention in research writing that you start by citing the prior research that's been done on the specific question, establishing the line of inquiry that led to your research. By the logic used here, every single primary research report ever written could be called a "literature review" since every research report should include this brief citation of prior research. Citation of research leading to a particular question is not a review; a review is a systematic critical analysis of all the research that pertains to a particular question or topic area. In other words, a research report is primary; the obligatory introductory citation of prior research included in a research report does not change its primary status. Woonpton (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternet
It should go without saying that the far-left Alternet is not a reliable source, no? THF (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Reliable sources may have a bias, and what a source is used for is part of the equation. Can you provide more details to what is being sourced to alternet about which you have concerns? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A publication's political stance has absolutely no bearing on whether it is considered a reliable source. Who the author is, whether or not the article was subject to editorial review, and which information the article is being used as a source for, amongst other things, are all important in determining reliability. That said, for most subjects, there are probably many better sources available than Alternet. Where is Alternet being used as a source, and how? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are reliable for their own opinion, as is any other source. Soxwon (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like their material is mostly op-ed and so they are an RS for attributed opinions and for uncontested facts. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And then you get into the whole idea of WP:WEIGHT. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal. and as such all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited. AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially “hate talk” media. is clear. Collect (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reality-Based Self-Defense
I just spent some time with this. Cannot decide on its notability. There are some 50,000 google hits at least, and it is clearly a term in active use in self-defence circles, even though a neologism. Otoh, hardly any quotable third party references. Black Belt Magazine is the best one so far, and that was a column by the person selling this.

Since I spent some time on this, please don't just send it to AfD, try to talk to me first. I am not sure this should remain an article (which is why I am posting here), but I am confident that the term should be glossed somewhere on Wikipedia, so the title should be merged rather than deleted. --dab (𒁳) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Appears to be just a (rather redundant) marketing slogan -- is there a viable 'Fantasy-Based Self-Defense' for contrast? Nothing linking to that article gives it any appearance of substance. I would certainly !vote for its deletion at an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And what is the source of which you wish to discuss the reliability? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a stupid term, but apparently one that has started to make an impact. But how much impact?
 * The sources I wanted reviewed are those in the article, Kenilworth, and the Black Belt Magazine I mentioned in my post right above. Also, these. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Songfacts yet again
I've discussed this site at least twice before but just cannot get anything out of anyone about it. Songfacts seems to rely almost entirely on user submitted content ("The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors."), and yet it's still linked from over 1000 articles. Is there some reason we're still using such a patently unreliable site? Also, can someone help me prune the many links to it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the removal, but I wont necessarily have much time to help for a while. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, is that just a standard disclaimer? Lots of reliable sources have a "not liable for errors and omissions" boilerplate on them.  It's OK if they accept input from users, as long as there's some screening process between the user and the site.  Anyway, according to our article about them, which you just AFD'd for the third time (all three deletions were from you), the site originated as a database for radio DJ's to use in their work.  It seems to me that while this is a tertiary source and we shouldn't have thousnads and thousands of cites to it, it still has some value as an RS and we should be working on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They have published 123 interviews with respected songwriters: http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/

How is an interview with a songwriter not a reliable source? There are comments and forums on Songfacts that might not be reliable sources, but many RS sites have blogs or other areas that should not be cited.

I beefed up the "Dar Williams on songwriting" section of the Dar Williams entry using the Songfacts interview with Dar Williams (http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/dar_williams/). The reference was deleted, but my information is still there. So is it OK that Songfacts does the work to interview Dar Williams so that Wikipedia can publish the content without citing the source? Yahoo Music just yesterday cited Songfacts in their discussion of a Britney Spears song and if she stole it: http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/ourcountry/90036/does-britneys-hold-it-against-me-rip-off-the-bellamy-brothers/

It's not fair to the websites generating the original, reliable content (interviews) to not cite them as sources. Ndugu (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail known as "Daily Hate", "Daily Heil", "Daily Fail" etc.
Is a "reliable source" for a statement that the Daily Mail is known as the "Daily Hate"? Is this of sufficient import to be listed in the article on the Daily Mail in any case? Is sufficient for such a claim? Is sufficient for such a claim? Is the claim that Julie Birchill called it the "Daily Hate" sufficiently supported as a claim? Are these particular sources "opinion pieces" which are not really utile for a statement of fact? Is use of "Daily Heil", "Daily Fail" etc. also thus admissible in the main article because they have also been found in "reliable sources"? Many questions - all I seek is that WP policies about what is opinion and what is fact be carefully maintained. Collect (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20 and Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_7 are prior discussions on this type of comment. Collect (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In what capacity would they be mentioned? A passing mention would seem in order for a couple of sources that say it is in wide use. Soxwon (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the talk page for the full discussion. It would be a significant mention that such are nicknames for the Daily Mail.  I find, as an aside, no paper with such pejorative names mentioned where the paper itself does not use the nickname in its own pages. Example: The fact that the article makes no mention of the well-known phrase 'Daily Mail reader' (with negative connotations) seems very odd - I vaguely remember it doing so some time ago. Has someone connected with the Mail removed it, perhaps? Similarly for negative nicknames for the paper, such as the Daily Hate (after Lord Northcliffe's suggested editorial line) and the Daily Wail. Also it says nothing really about Paul Dacre, who is regularly identified as the source of the Mail's widely criticized editorial policy. E.g. I recall that a few years ago listeners to the Today programme (or it may have been PM) voted for him to be ejected from Britain! shows the nature of edits proposed in the past.  [[User:Collect|Collect] (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be mostly a content dispute, but looking at the source, the "about page" of the journal says that it "was established in 2007 by Scotland's leading young journalists". It's "main focus is to cover news and current affairs in a way that is both interesting and useful to students across the Scottish capital. It aims to offer expert analysis and in-depth features that students will value". I'd say there is no obvious reason to say that it has no fact checking but it might not be the strongest of sources for many types of subject, but given that the subject here seems to involve "what students call the Daily Mail" it is probably on pretty strong ground as it is students who are writing, so they are in effect sources for their own opinion? Whether this is notable enough for inclusion in WP is a content discussion and not for this board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted - opinions should be clearly noted and ascribed as opinions, and not simply stated as fact.  The issue is that some wish to make this a statement of fact. Collect (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes in some cases. But if the wording being defended is about what some people say (what something is known as) then aren't you demanding a doubling up of attribution (it is said that it is said)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is left would then be "Some critics of the Daily Mail have called it the "Daily Heil," the "Daily Hate", the "Daily Wail" and the "Daily Fail." Which I doubt is of any encyclopedic value at all. Collect (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (OR, so not a lot), I've certainly heard it referred to as the 'Daily Fail'. The only other British paper nickname that I can think of offhand is the Grauniad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the nicknames are in wide enough use that they should be covered by the article then the widespread practice of using such nicknames would be found in multiple unquestionably reliable sources. Active Banana    (bananaphone  14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whether you agree with Active Banana or Collect, this thread now appears to be about notability and weight, and not about reliability of sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the British fondness for nicknames, it would be surprising to find a paper that didn't have one. Some are gentle, The Times / 'Thunderer', some mere contractions for the Indie / Sindie of the Independent & Indie on Sunday, some literary and famous, Evelyn Waugh's "Boot of the Beast" for Bill Deedes and the Telegraph, although that's more usually parodied today as "The Torygraph". The Express sometimes catches it (deservedly but weakly) as "Excess" and the Guardian gets any sort of mis-spelling from "Grauniad" to "Guradian". The grand-daddy of them all though has to be the Wail / Fail / Bile / Mule / Heil. Steve Bell has a long running character of Harry hardnose writing for the "Morning Mule", which is generally a vitriolic Mail parody (the "Notta Bleck" speed-editorial writer, based on the barefoot South African runner), although the masthead resembles the Express and it has even stood in for the Morning Star when needed. For sourcing these, it's hardly rocket science, but the obvious start would be in Private Eye. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been launched a bit prematurely, since there hasn't really been time for discussion on the talkpage of the range of sources that might be available. Still, since a positive outcome might obviate the need for that legwork, okay then.

It's also part of a wider issue really. The Daily Mail has a very clear an well-documented reputation for front pages specialising in what some would see as scare stories about things like immigration and what gives you cancer. Part of that reputation is the Daily Hate nickname, but it's not even really the main thing. I think it is well sourced and it certainly only needs a passing mention in itself.

This source is a biography of the Mail's editor and a fifth of it is dedicated to discussion of this reputation and the Daily Hate name:. In my view, that on its own is enough to show significance.

In response to the request for examples of the name in use as opposed to being discussed:   --FormerIP (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stellar House Publishing
A web page by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S (apparently the author uses both names) titled Jesus as the Sun throughout History appears on the website of Stellar House Publishing. According to the "About" tab in that website, it was founded by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. This article is being put forward at the Revised Julian calendar article as a source to support statements about the attitude of the Orthodox Church concerning the date on which Christmas should be celebrated. I would like to know if Stellar House Publishing is a reliable publisher, and whether this particular article having been written by the founder of the publisher raises a concern about a self-published source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Murdock established Stellar House Publishing to publish her own books. This is a SPS. A SPS can still be a reliable source, if the author is an established expert in the field whose work has been previously published on the subject in independent third party sources. Is she an established expert in the field? Has her work on the relevant subject-matter been independently published previously? Is the particular point for which the SPS is proposed to be used within the scope of that expertise as previously published by independent third party reliable sources? Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

starlounge.com
Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a reliable source for the claim that an actress has ADHD? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Their corporate website states as their mission, "Our mission is to always provide high quality news, separating information from gossip." and they have a commercial editorial structure in place. Incidentally, major media conglomerates are partnered into them.  They are a reliable source of celebrity news.  Jason, Chester, "Bettany and Connelly expecting second child: Couple's representative confirms pregnancy to the press" Starlounge 15/12/10 is reliable for the claim that an actor has ADHD.  The claim is written over a byline by an edited news service dedicated to standards of truth.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Selected works
In the article about the Japanese art historian Ichimatsu Tanaka, Tanakasthename disputes one sentence here:
 * Ichimatsu's published writings encompass 228 works in 326 publications in 6 languages and 2,797 library holdings.<:ref>WorldCat Identities: Tanaka, Ichimatsu 1895-1983

For purposes of comparison and contrast at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, I suggested we consider a similar sentence in the "Selected works" section of the article about Nobel laureate Kenzaburo Ōe:
 * Kenzaburo's published writings encompass 699 works in 1,597 publications in 28 languages and 27,632 library holdings.<:ref>WorldCat Identities: Ōe, Kenzaburō 1935-

Tanakasthename's rejection was unambiguous here, arguing "I think the Oe example actually supports my original position that the inclusion of this data is terribly misleading, if not downright false." We disagree because I construe WorldCat identities as a reliable source &mdash; not "terribly misleading" and not "downright false". IMO, this kind of overview sentence provides a necessary and useful context for a dynamic list of selected works. I have added similar sentences in many articles, e.g., compare Japanese mathematics#Select mathematicians. IMO, we don't know how to move beyond talking past each other. I hope this thread can become a constructive step in a process which helps mitigate an awkward impasse. --Tenmei (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is taking your personal search of worldcat as a primary source for the claim which I do not think is acceptable. In general you would want to source to a published piece of scholarly work that makes the claim of how many items Ichimatsu Tanaka created Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note here where I have indicated not my mistrust or lack of faith in WorldCat or WorldCat Identities itself, but rather this kind of use of the data available there, a statement that is quite contrary to the above summary of my stated positions. To summarize in my own words what I have said up to now, WorldCat is a network of library catalogs, a reliable source of information on the holdings of libraries worldwide, but NOT a reliable source of comprehensive information on writers' bodies of written works, the manner in which Tenmei has used it, seemingly on more than a few occasions. The data contained on WorldCat Identities is certainly not a pertinent source for the kind of statistical summary of an author's oeuvre that Tenmei has inserted into the Selected Works section of Ichimatsu Tanaka and elsewhere. Presumably, a non-expert turns to Wikipedia for reliable and verifiable information. The "data" that has been added to these pages based on unanalyzed search results from WorldCat Identifies, while technically "verifiable," is also verifiably misconstrued, and thus of little or no use to the reader of said pages. WorldCat has a million and one valuable uses for the academic and general community, but this is not one of them. To argue otherwise is ultimately to not understand what WorldCat is or from where the data found there comes. Tanakasthename (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase "unanalyzed search results" may help us. The phrase is highlighted in blue above with the convenient device of hyperlinking to the original diff.  In fact, the explicit data is summarized as part of the WorldCat Identities website.  This short sentence is published and cited with an embedded hyperlink.  The reliable source performs the process which can be described as "analysis" and the published results for Ichimatsu Tanaka are verifiable, including
 * 2,797 library holdings
 * 6 languages
 * 326 publications
 * 228 works
 * Which one or more of these numbers is unverified? Is there a claimed error?  Is there a claim that these numbers are unwelcome in our wiki-project because they represent WP:Original research? I don't understand what the problem is.  Tanakasthename has not yet explained. This has nothing to do with "unanalyzed search results".


 * Tanakasthename may have a problem with those people who are identified as responsible here for the research results which are published here, but that is not our problem . I am unwilling to make it my problem. --Tenmei (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Active Banana misconstrues this dispute as something to do with "how many items Ichimatsu Tanaka created"; but that is a non-issue. The WorldCat Identities project summarizes a writer's output in terms of a number of "works" in a number of "publications" in a number of "languages" and in a number of "library holdings". IMO, this reasonably provides a introductory foundation for the dynamic list which follows.  This sentence becomes an introduction and an invitation to investigate further.  Can you see that this is a quite different matter? --Tenmei (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanakasthename seems to explain that parsing issues about "reliable sources" is a non-issue. If so, perhaps another venue is preferred? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. --Tenmei (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Active Banana did not misconstrue the dispute. Although you, Tenmei, are a participant in this dispute, it seems it is you who has misconstrued it. Let me summarize.


 * The sentence you have added to multiple pages is as follows, which you have acknowledged: "Z's published writings encompass X works in X publications in X languages and X library holdings," where Z is the subject of the wiki article, and X is a number taken from WorldCat Identities. In the case of Ichimatsu Tanaka, the exact sentence readings: "Ichimatsu's published writings encompass 228 works in 326 publications in 6 languages and 2,797 library holdings."


 * 1. The above four numbers come from a WorldCat Identities page accessed by a search of the name "Ichimatsu Tanaka." The number's Tenmei gives, are accurate, insofar as they can be found in the "Overview" section of each WorldCat Identities page. The numbers themselves are not a problem, as Tenmei pulls them directly from WorldCat and cites them properly.


 * 2. While the numbers that Tenmei has found through his searches of WorldCat are a reliable source insofar as they As I have reiterated repeatedly over the course of this dispute, despite the fact that Tenmei has failed to acknowledge it, it is Tenmei's sentence itself ("Y's published writings encompass...") that is problematic. That understanding of the information, that the numbers found in WorldCat Identities may be used to make a claim such as the one being made ("Y's published writings encompass") is wrong. No where on WorldCat Identities does it say that the number's refer specifically to works that are "Ichimatsu Tanaka's published writings." Indeed, immediately below the place where Tenmei has culled these numbers is a graph of the "works" that WorldCat Identities has found in the search "Ichimatsu Tanaka." Within that graph are included not only works BY Ichimatsu Tanaka, but also works ABOUT Ichimatsu Tanaka, making Tenmei's sentence "Ichimatsu Tanaka's published writings encompass..." a patently false one.


 * 3. Another argument that I have made previously that Tenmei has chosen to ignore is that the "publications" WorldCat includes in the total number (in the case of Ichimatsu Tanaka, 326 total "publications"), include publications that are verifiably not by (or even about) Ichimatsu Tanaka. Note that on the same WorldCat Identities page for Ichimatsu Tanaka, the following works is included.
 * El-Sayed, Mustafa, I. Tanaka, and I︠U︡. N. Molin. 1995. Ultrafast processes in chemistry and photobiology. A "chemistry for the 21st century" monograph. Oxford [England]: Cambridge, Mass.
 * You'll notice that WorldCat Identities has misinterpreted "I. Tanaka," one of the author's of this scientific publication as "Ichimatsu Tanaka," a Japanese art historian who had already been dead 12 years when this entirely unrelated scientific study was published. The inclusion of this single work alone discredits Tenmei's inclusion of the above sentence into the Ichimatsu Tanaka article, as well as variations of the sentence in many other articles. But, wait, there's more!


 * 4. A simple analysis of the data from which the raw WorldCat Identities numbers come, will show that among the "works" associated with Ichimatsu Tanaka, are no less than 13 which actually identify the same work, the title, in Japanese, being "Hōryūji Kondō Hekiga Shū," written by Ichimatsu Tanaka and published in Tokyo by Benrido in 1951. The reasons why this single work has been counted 13 times are multiple. For example, in one entry, instead of using the given Japanese title of the work, whatever librarian entered the information at some point in the past, used instead a translated English title. In another case, the publication city is listed as Kyoto instead of Tokyo. At least 2 of the 13 "works" here are actually not the above work, but are actually review articles of the book. This kind of fact-checking could be done over and over to reduce the clearly false total number of works that Tenmei has added and for which he is arguing so forcefully.


 * 5. Verifiability states:
 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
 * The source, WorldCat Identities in this case, does not "directly support the information as it is presented in [the] article." To repeat, while the numbers themselves that Tenmei has cited are indeed accurate insofar as they can be found on WorldCat Identities, the sentence "Ichimatsu Tanaka's published writings encompass X, X, X, and X," is not directly supported by the source, because, as I have just shown, the works included therein include a large percentage of works that could not, in any way, be called "Ichimatsu Tanaka's published writings."


 * 6. I cannot believe something so easy to prove wrong has become to contentious, but please, somebody with more experience than myself, a third-party, please offer your guidance. Active Banana has already done so above, but apparently Tenmei has deemed that third-party, who happens to be a highly experienced editor, invalid?


 * 7. Let me state conclusively that I have no personal stake in WorldCat, OCLC, or WorldCat Identities, as Tenmei has suggested above. I am simply committed to accuracy. Tanakasthename (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically "verifiable" and verifiably misconstrued
The words of Tanakasthename in this sub-section heading are a credible complaint. Summarizing the issues and history of the complaint: Tanakasthename -- Thank you for investing both time and care. Our work together is an example of successful collaborative editing. This re-drafted sentence incorporates your fine-tuning perspective:
 * A. One sentence was subject of critical scrutiny at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
 * B. The disputed sentence-template cited the WorldCat Identities overview summary of "works" and "publications" and "languages" and "library holdings" which had been derived from the evolving OCLC catalog. The statistical analysis was published online with the  imprimatur of OCLC/WorldCat.
 * C. Tanakasthename presented a conclusory argument, i.e., that "... unanalyzed search results from WorldCat Identities, while technically "verifiable," is also verifiably misconstrued ...."
 * D. This "reliable sources" venue is not well-suited to address the concept of "technically 'verifiable'".
 * E. The very high quality of Tanakasthename edits at Ichimatsu Tanaka has informed the unconventional attention which was given to this complaint.
 * F. North8000 summarized succinctly here: "Tanakasthename is claiming that it fails a standard which is not a Wikipedia standard" and "Tanakasthename has not even raised a a WP-relevant challenge, much less supported such a challenge." (bold and italics added for emphasis)
 * G. The very specific nature of this talk page venue plus North8000's good judgment did encourage Tanakasthename to present a 7-point analysis here which helped clarify the complaint.
 * H. IMO, without North8000's significant contribution, the impasse would have persisted and we would have continued talking past each other.
 * OCLC/WorldCat encompasses roughly 200+ works in 300+ publications in 6 languages and 2000+ library holdings in a statistical overview derived from writings by and about Ichimatsu.<:ref>WorldCat Identities: Tanaka, Ichimatsu 1895-1983

I will take it on myself to make changes in other articles with a similar sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

French language video interview
Could an hour long video interview in French be considered RS for a historical figure?

Allegations are made that Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was a rapist here - in "(French video)". I can understand a little French and it seems that the video about the Congo does mention Brazza, but I have not had the patience to sit through an hour long video to hear and attempt to translate what he says, nor do I think it reasonable. But this does not seem to be an encyclopaedic approach. None of the other language versions of WP carries this allegation, although a discussion in the French version suggested that it might have been originally mentioned in the French satirical magazine le canard enchaine (but no-one has given a reference or link.) I have asked for better substantiation in the article's talk page, but without response from the editor who has placed these allegations. Brazza was a major historical figure and this allegation does not appear in any of the major references to African colonialism that I have seen - I feel that something more substantial is needed in order to substantiate such a revisionist claim. Am I right to remove such references? Ephebi (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the same way that book references need page numbers, it's not OK to draw potentially contentious information from a long video without indicating in which minute it appears. Also, while I don't know any of the people involved, it appears to me that such an interview can only be used for the interviewee's opinion, and even that only if it is notable. Hans Adler 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting one. Theophile Obenga, who made the allegations, is a San Francisco State professor from Congo, who seems to be WP:NOTABLE with extensive writings on Africa, archaeology and colonialism. I looked for a source other than the video, and found his allegations discussed in an essay published by Oxford, http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/109/436/367.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=TalHYOsg7SzHRJc   :


 * "According to Obenga, the Teke royal court has dissimulated a significant episode in the 1880 encounter between Brazza and Iloo: the explorer’s rape of a royal Teke princess, a virgin in charge of keeping the kingdom sacred fire. ‘If you want to celebrate somebody who has raped a Congolese woman, be my guest! . . . De Gaulle knew very well that Brazza had raped a woman, this is a documented fact, an established, a banal fact that people hide. . . . This is a fact established by oral tradition, a fact that tells about the destruction of the Bateke kingdom, the destruction of the King.’"


 * This is sourced as follows:


 * "Obenga, ‘De Brazza, faux “humaniste”’. See also the video of the interview, <www.video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7116215169848427224>."


 * I will keep searching, and will also watch that video, and post results on the de Brazza talk page. My best guess right now: the rape allegation deserves a mention in the article in the format "African studies scholar Theophile Obenga opposed the Braazaville memorial on the grounds that...." I think the sources will be at least WP:RS for Obenga's opinion and interpretation of the historical record.


 * Also, please be aware of WP:3RR as you guys seem to be reverting each other a lot on the article page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jonathan suggests, the solution is to cite the journal article. Florence Bernault, "Colonial Bones: The 2006 burial of Savorgnan de Brazza in the Congo", African Affairs Vol 109 Issue 436 pages 367-290. Bernault cites a number of other sources that may be useful in our article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the change, eyes appreciated for wording etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of minor editing, seems good now. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos as source
Are videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, reliable as sources that show that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Are they less reliable than books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. These videos are not subject to editorial control, and as such, are not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was that if the video came from an official channel (ie. a BBC News report coming from the official BBC Youtube channel) It was OK, but not if someone independant just uploaded it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The videos in question are personally recorded videos, not professional commentaries, not distributed through any official channels, and not accompanied by any authoritative narrative explaining that these are examples of normative Eastern Rite baptismal practice; the section of the article in question already cites a number of WP:RS describing normative Eastern Rite baptismal practice, and when Esoglou could not find any WP:RS which contradict the WP:RS already cited he turned to Youtube in an attempt to find something.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you respond to the objection that these numerous videos cannot have faked the way the baptism was carried out? No editorial control would have checked against such extremely unlikely fakery?  Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Making an inference from unreliably edited PRIMARY sources is ORIGINAL RESEARCH in Theology, Studies in Religion, or Sociology. We are Editors of an Encyclopaedia while editing wikipedia; we are not Theologians, Cultural Studies or Sociologist academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume that you know best. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Two independent editors of the article have already explained this to him.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

CreativeSyria.com RS?
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider CreativeSyria.com as reliable source. The source is being used in number of articles now. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Creative Syria is a website with a wide range of material. Could be very good for arts news and reviews. The piece you link to appears to be a signed current affairs essay, possibly reliable for the opinion of its author, depending on how notable the author is. Should be attributed if used. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, how about current usages: After Turkeys annexation of Alexandretta (or Hatay) in 1939, 60,000 mostly Christian and Alawites fled the area to Syria., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
 * Not reliable for ethnic/national/military history. There may be scholarly books or articles by the same author that could be used instead. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with this -- I don't see any reason why scholarly sources shouldn't be used here. See for instance: . -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Creative Syria is not the source, its only published there, the source is Joshua Landis who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma

"Joshua Landis Associate Professor, IAS Director of the Center of Middle East Studies

Joshua Landis is co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and Associate Professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oklahoma’s School of international and Area Studies. He writes www.SyriaComment.com, a daily newsletter on Syrian politics that is widely consulted by officials in Washington, Europe, and Syria, and read by over 3,000 people daily.

He is a frequent analyst on TV and radio, having recently appeared on the PBS News Hour, the Charlie Rose Show, al-Jazeera, NPR, and the BBC. Last year, he was quoted in over 100 news stories, including in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Times Magazine. His book, Democracy in Syria, will appear in the coming year, and he is author of numerous articles.

He was educated at Princeton (PhD), Harvard (MA), and Swarthmore (BA). He has lived over 14 years in the Middle East; having been brought up in Beirut, he returned to the region in the 1980s to teach in Beirut and study at universities in Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul. Most recently, he spent 2005 in Syria as a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow and lived several months in Damascus in 2007.

He teaches: Political Islam, International Relations in the Middle East, Islam, The Modern Middle East, Culture and Society in the Middle East, the US in the Middle East and other courses." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested looking for scholarly works by him. We have to distinguish between his research and his commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes his article not his research? How do you know he hasn't researched what he is saying? Would a man with this background be making up stuff? Same information can also be found at the Federal Research Division: "Fear of persecution actually prompted several thousand Arab Alevi to seek refuge in Syria following Hatay's incorporation into Turkey." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a research article. Academics report their research in scholarly journals and in books. That doesn't mean he's making it up, just that we can find a better source for the same information. Jtayloriv easily generated a list of scholarly articles for you to use. We need to use good sources for historical information. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what if its not in a journal or a book? Its from a reliable source (Joshua Landis), also see the FRD source above and another one talking about the same thing: "That year, the Turkish army moved in with French approval and expelled most of the province's Alawite Arabs and Armenians. A rigged referendum followed in 1939, and the province was annexed to Turkey." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Would a man with this background be making up stuff?" Best almost-laugh of the day, and see the Alan Dershowitz discussion above. He's a Harvard law prof and, by consensus, not a reliable source on matters relating to Israel, terrorism, etc.  Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films
Currently, http://blonnet.com, http://www.idlebrain.com/index1.html and South Scope Magazine (http://southscope.in) are being quoted as definitive sources of box office figures for Telugu films in order to rank the list by gross income. Are any of these sources reliable in an encyclopaedic sense to provide definitive statements of box-office income? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)
How do you answer the assertion that every RS you provide from a variety of unrelated sources (be it newspaper, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, Royal BC Museum, etc) is unreliable because (according to another editor) they "ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board". Of course, this other editor is not providing any links or evidence of this collusion between sources like the The New York Times, Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, Toronto Sun, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, etc but he is adamant that these sources are not reliable because....well just because. I suppose the question really is....what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? AgneCheese/Wine 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you dno't realize that travel writers only copy over material from press releases, and why travel articles are not viable sources for scientific articles, or anything else than the taste of wine and the quality of bedding and where to buy knick-knacks, then you should find out. Even better - why not do as I suggested?  - run this by the Science Editor of the New York Times, or any geography department that's NOT associated with the Okanagan or British Columbia, and see what kind of reply you are gonna get?  Travel articles are NOT Reliable sources; that's even in WP:RS somewhere, I believe, as it's come up in relation to other articles where spurious information is provided and claimed to be authentic, when really it's just hype, sloppy information, or just confabulation and romanticizing, or just completely off the cuff.  or are you gonna tell me the NYT Wine Guide editors make sure they vet their stuff through teh same paper's Science Editor?  I highly doubt it - but why don't you write the Science Editor and ask?  And while you're at it, ask the Geography Departments at any one of the dozens of universities between Osoyoos and the REAL Sonoran Desert?Skookum1 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * New York Times and Houston Chronicle TRAVEL articles are NOT "reliable sources" for scientific/geographic matters, and it's a GIVEN that those travel writers are using press-release copy from the tourism/wine board circulating this FALSE geography; Only Osoyoos and the Okanagan Wine Region make the claim that the Sonoran Desert extends to Canada; this is not known to be part of any LEGITIMATE classification system and is not a designation shared or spoken of by any area in between Osoyoos and the actual Sonoran Desert. Reliable sources are reliable only if they are TRUE.  And in this case, NONE of them are WP:Verifible sources because no other copy about the Sonoran Desert, save when google with "Osoyoos" or "Okanagan" (note Canadian spellling vs. US spelling "Okanogan") says ANYTHING about the Sonoran Desert extending into Canada.  Dozens of US ecoregion and landform and geography pages for the intervening states and regions say anything that jibes with the unfortunately vast sources that you claim "prove" this, and you've actually asked me to find cites that, effectively, would say "the Okanagan/Osoyoos is not part of the Sonoran Desert", which is asking for a negative cite, and those aren't admissible even if something like that could be found.  If there's not a Wikipedia guideline on WP:Bad science or WP:Bad geography, there should be.  This campaign by Agne to impose the Osoyoos/Okanagan wine region's redefinition of North American geographical classifications is just that - a campaign, it has no basis in academic fact and no scientific relevance.  I'll repeat again - sources which give un-factual information are NOT reliable sources, nor verifiable sources.  Repeating a lie across hundreds of travel and wine guides and "biome" reports commissioned by the same wine region or its wineries does not establish a fact (that RBCM-published report is one of those...); it establishes that their press releases have had wide-ranging impact. It still does not make the Okanagan, the American Okanogan, the Columbia Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave part of the Sonoran Desert, or mean that that term includes (because the wine region in BC says so) all those deserts, and the particular tiny patch of the Okanagan which is being promoted this way.  It's NOT EVEN A DESERT - it's only shrub steppe, and not much different at all than lots of other areas of southern British Columbia which have pretty much the same climate and vegetation.Skookum1 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've invited this editor to ask on the talkpages for the various state geography and various ecoregion, landform articles for the intervening regions, and to read their (extensive) sources....they're not interested in that, instead they want to bring the catfight here.....again, if there's no guideline on WP:CITE about bad geography, bad science, incorrect sources (no matter how numerous), there should be.Skookum1 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Is there any univolved, 3rd party editor with experience in dealing with reliable sources available to comment? Outside objectivity would be greatly appreciated since, as you may surmise, Skookum and I have been going around circles and I would really like to find a compromise. AgneCheese/Wine 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Travel articles and books are never reliable sources. They should not be cited in Wikipedia articles. A possible exception can perhaps be for certain basic, anodyne, uncontested information, but that would be it. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay...what about when only 4 of the 30+ reliable sources are travel articles/book and the rest are published wine text, atlas, scholarly journals, news articles, magazines, Royal BC Museum project pages, etc? I think the Canadian Journal of Environmental Education or books like Indigenous women: the right to a voice by Diana Vinding would scoff at the notion of being called "Travel articles" yet that is apparently what Skookum assumes any WP:RS that doesn't agree with him to be. AgneCheese/Wine 05:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To take two, "wine text" is going to depend on what the particular text is considered reliable for. Is it an authoritative text on geographical factors affecting wine production? Does it quote a scholarly source to back its assertion? And a book on indigenous women would not score highly as reliable on matters of specific geography - unless, say, it had been critically reviewed and praised for the accuracy thereof. The main idea here is to look at which specific sources are more likely to be authoritative on a specific issue as opposed to those that may be uncritically repeating information outside of their specialty. For instance, if Nature mentions in an article about a physicist that wide ties are out this year, they are pretty certainly reliable on the physics issues but potentially less so on ties. (I'm not fully arm's-length here, but I believe those are general principles of RS) What you want here are reputable sources about arid-ecosystem geography. The ideal is a review article published in a top-flight geographical or ecological journal. These represent peer-reviewed assessments of the current state of knowledge in the field. Well-rated textbooks are good too. It's important to separate the marketing memes promoted by the BC wine industry from actual geography. Franamax (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was giving examples of the broad range of sources that quote the same material. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the BC wine industry has "infiltrated" any of these sources as part of some marketing meme. In the 30+ sources I've listed on the talk page, the only one that I can find any connection to the BC wine industry is....the BC wine industry link of the British Columbia Wine Institute--and that ain't exactly a hidden relationship. That still leaves dozens of other unconnected sources. And the "wine text" mentioned are benchmark standards in the wine industry when it comes to reliability. The Oxford Companion to Wine is put out by Oxford University Press with over 50 contributors to the text ranging from Masters of Wine to PhD in various sciences that assisted in editing the text--in addition to the oversight and fact checking by the OUP staff. They're certainly not under the "spell" of the BC wine industry, if there is such a thing. AgneCheese/Wine 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A marketing meme is a marketing meme, as Franamax has pointed out; the pervasiveness of a false bit of geography as a result of marketing campaigns (including inviting newspaper travel and wine editors to come and have some wine and dinner, and giving them press copy so they don't actually have to write articles themselves) do NOT constitute "reliable sources". Your word-picking and ongoing gamesmanshhip continues to avoid the core issue; by ALL authoritative sources, such as the EPA, Britannica, etc, the Sonoran Desert does NOT extend into Canada. It's THAT simple, and no amount of inaccurate references you provide can change that FACT, nor any nit-picking of Franamax's very wise and experienced knowledge of "what is and isn't a reliable source". I did a thorough search of BC Government websites, and the only three times the phrase "Sonoran Desert" appeared in relation to BC were all exactly the same phrasing, "the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which extends from northern Mexico into Canada" (exactly); one was a tourism ministry blurb about the area, another was the local MLA saying it in the house, in relation to the wine industry, another was a legal case in which this local slogan/byline was cited as part of the description of the property under dispute. The only other mention of "Sonoran Desert" was in a Ministry of Environment master plan for Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park, near Kelowna (not Osoyoos and not in teh South Okanagan), which said that the some of the same plants and animals found in the Sonoran Desert are also found on Okanagan Mountain; it did NOT say that the Okanagan was "part of the Sonoran Desert", not did it say that desert "extends from northern Mexico to Canada".

That the phrase, as stated just above, was also used verbatim in the article, since removed as a falsehood (but twice or three times re-inserted by you), constitutes in fact a form of "copyvio", except that widely-disseminated marketing information is not copyrighted. Your refusal to admit that the authoritative sources do NOT say what you claim is real and true, and taht you have in fact said that because they don't say it's NOT, explicitly, means that it is true....well, that's just not in the wiki-ballpark, not as a reliable source, not as a verifiable source, and not as a FACT. It is a claim, a widely-circulated one, but not factual in the slightest, and clearly related to a standard pharse (often verbatim, as noted, or in only slightly-adjusted wording) - a standard phrase rooted in publciations coming out of Osoyoos. If Franamax used the terms "spell" and "infiltrated", he was meaning only figuratively; you, on the other hand, have accused me of having a "conspiracy theory", as if it were a conspiracy; no, it has just been a blind, unwitting, but totally inaccurate repetition of material in local brochures and wine/resort-marketing promotions; it is not a fact, never will be, and never was.Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm interested why you think travel articles and books are never reliable sources. I would tend to think that the New York Times would stand by its travel articles as much as any other. I do, however, strongly debate the statement, "Reliable sources are reliable only if they are TRUE." It's very rare that we will take the word of an editor, even in all capital letters, over that of a reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I"m using the heavy emphatic because I've had to repeat that over and over and over, but it continues to be rejected despite the obvious non-factual nature of the widely-spread claim. Authoritative and verifiable sources have been very pointedly ignored, with the constant re-iteration of the refrain of so-called reliable sources which really aren't, because they're not true.  That the preponderance of those sources use the neary-same, often verbatim, phrase, points to a common origin, and is not part of an official and scientific source, not from the BC government Ministry of Forests, not from the Ministry of Environment, not from the US Environmental Protection Agency, not from any mainstream document on the Sonoran Desert; not from the Brittanica, not from Merriam-Webster, and though I haven't looked I know it won't be in Funk & Wagnall's.  AS for travel articles not being reliable sources; they are reliable sources (generally, but not always) for where hotels are, where ferry routes and train stations are, and so on, but they are not reliable sources for scientific information, or for geographic descriptions of this kind (especially when they are at odds with bona fide authoritative sources); that all those travel articles, and wine articles, use variations on the given phrase, and often exact quotes of the phrase "Osoyoos [or the South Okanagan, whichever] is part of the Sonoran Desert, which stretches from northern Mexico into Canada" and/or the phrase "Osoyoos is at the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which stretches from northern Mexico into Canada", and the well-known fact (and it is a fact, though you can say I have no proof of it and "my word isn't good enough" as no doubt you will) that travel and wine writers use prepared press copy from the places they visit underscores the verbatim repetition of the phrase, or its endless variation.  The EPA, Environment Canada, BC Parks, BC Environment, BC Forestry, the Legislative Libraries etc etc make no mention of it, and in any serious academic document (not one related to the wine industry, as some commissioned papers clearly are, partly because they use "that phrase" again), the fact is that there is no desert at all in British Columbia.  Nor is any part of Washington, Oregon, Nevada etc part of the Sonoran Desert, as they would have to be if this claim were true (which, again, it's not).  The argument has been made that because authoritative sources do not say that it's not, therefore it's true....but that's a ridiculous statement as anyone who has a smidgin of logic knows.  No doubt you'll now criticize me for using too many italics.....I looked at the page of the Osoyoos Desert Society, by the way, and it very explicitly says that the area is "not part of the Sonoran" and that it is not a desert; the claim originates in the wine industry and local tourism promotions, and is not in any valid, official, authoritative source of any kind.  If necessary, I'll dig out the copy of Nk'mip's tour-traning document, which I had at one point (if I still have it) and I know that "northern tip" phrase is in it, and it's also explained that they hired a biologist or ecologist to do a study saying what they wanted it to say (about a particular 4 ha or so of ground, or less....); I don't have a care or I'd just drive down there (about an hour or hour-fifteen away) and just get another copy.....I'll repeat again, in different phrasing and without caps: "sources which have non-factual information are not reliable sources" - because they cannot be verifiable sources.  it's pretty cut and dry, and I really think the lot of you should start looking at real maps, instead of drawing your own....Skookum1 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Largely agreeing with Skookum1 here, but in particular words such as "never" should be used with care. Travel (and real estate, and automotive) sections in newspapers should be evaluated with great care, as they are often written by non-arm's length parties and/or the writing is based on non-arm's-length information. I'm sure the NY Times would stand by its travel articles in the sense of retracting false information which they thought needed to be retracted. I rather doubt though that they employ fact-checkers to ascertain desert boundaries, nor that they would publicly correct what from their standpoint is a very minor error. In these cases, more definitive sources must be sought out, and just one of these will match any number of random statements gathered from a Google search. For instance, the link Skookum1 provides just above, which on its face may seem less reliable, seems much more reasonable as representing expertise on ecosystem and geography issues. Now if that source were used to recommend the best wine in the area, mehh. Franamax (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the big issue here is that we have more than just "travel articles" making this claim (In the 30+ sources listed on the talk page only 4 could be definitively called "travel articles") and that even though Skookum has repeatedly said "the claim originates in the wine industry and local tourism promotions", he has actually offered up ZERO proof that the mountains of reliable sources provided ALL trace back to the BC wine industry and some sort of collusion. Zero, none. He gives us absolutely no reason to take that claim serious and furthermore, I'm starting to sense a troublesome WP:COI with Skookum here due to his ties to the Nk'mip tribe--one of the parties that he claim is spreading this "falsehood". Both here and else where, he makes reference to working for them in some capacity and he has given hints of some conflict during his experience there. Considering his vehemence in fighting this "conspiracy" and willingness to edit war over this claim, this may have a personal root that is interfering with his editorial discretion. AgneCheese/Wine 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Boy, Agne, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to engage in personal attacks aren't you? I worked there two days (they wanted me to cut my ponytail off and I wouldn't), and COI would only apply if I still worked there; that was back in early summer of 2007. What's your COI? Because you're certainly determined to support the wine industry's literature on this, rather than listen to logic or authoritative sources? At least I openly disclose mine....My "editorial discretion" is to do with truth and reality, and actual geography, not made-up bad juxtapositions of similar plants and animals constituting proof this is a "desert", which very pointedly it's not....you've lost on the issue, so now personal attacks of any kind are what's on your menu. What else have you got in the bottom of the barrel?Skookum1 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agne, bringing the character of the other editor into things usually means that you are running out of valid arguments. I looked at 8 or so of your 30+ references and they are almost all travel articles, buying-a-second-home articles, wine articles. Yes, these all do rely on press-release type information. I don't have my CG access any more, but based on what I know of the magazine, that looks like something from either the "CG Travel" supplement or the "Explorations" segment. Email me the fulltext, I'll be glad to ask Rick Boychuk (EinC) for the supporting sources. The J. of Envir. Educ. source is notes on the cover art of the journal, the cover! You can't throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and expect others to pick each piece off. The only remotely acceptable source I looked at was from RBC Museum, which calls it the Great Basin. Even the Osoyoos Desert Society goes to great lengths to specify it is not really a desert, only that many of the plants are similar. I'm not going through the rest of your list, please apply some critical thinking of your own and narrow it down to academic references which actually discuss geography and climate. You can send me fulltexts of the paywalled ones to evaluate. If you want to change your desired text to "often thought of as, but not really part of, the Sonoran Desert", then you have got a great set of sources there. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating that someone may have a potential COI by referencing their own comments is not a personal attack and typically when people dismiss such observation as a "personal attack", it is normally because they don't have a valid argument to dismiss the concerns. Everyone has COI in some matter and it is not a statement of character. And Skookum, a COI is a conflict of interest and that conflict doesn't have to be due to current employment. Past employment, especially if that included an unfavorable experience can create an COI that can unduly influence the way you approach a subject. Your overly-aggressive approach to this article and willingness to launch baseless charges of some collusion between any reliable source that mentions the Okanagan Sonora and the Nk'mip/Osoyoos tribe (without any evidence that the many diverse and various sources all trace back to them) comes across as an irrational "conspiracy" theory. It's not unreasonable to wonder, based on your own comments if your past experience with the Nk'mip is unduly influence your editing on this subject. AgneCheese/Wine 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing only one portion of a response, the one which does not involve the purpose of this board (which as far as I can tell is not the COIN) is another sign that someone is running out of arguments by attempting to personalize the issue. Parroting other editor's wording is yet another sign. Can you specify which editor here mentioned "personal attack" before yourself? Suggesting that someone's personal experience is affecting their judgement is indeed bringing their character into the matter. More to the point, do you have a response to the concerns I've raised with weaknesses in your list of sources, which is why we're here? Or do you still expect the "there are 30+, it must be true" argument to carry the day? Which specific sources do you claim as reliable to support your "Sonoran Desert" wording with expertise in the field? Franamax (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um...how about Skookum's last comment? That was the first interjection of the "PA card". But regardless, I agree that this is not COIN but re-reading Skookum's comments, in light of his admissions about his past involvement with Nk'mip have certainly helped me better understand his position, even if I disagree with his grossly unsubstantiated claim of every reliable source dealing with the Okanagan Sonoran to be unreliable because of some connection to Nk'mip/Osoyoos. As for your question of reliable sources, of the 30+ source listed I would start with the Royal BC Museum "(the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert)", the Oxford Companion to Wine, The Encyclopedic Atlas of Wine, Opus Vino for directly using in the wine article (using reliable, fact checked Wine Atlases in a wine article, whodathunk?). For other reliable sources on the Okanagan Sonora in general, I would view Canadian Geographic, the University of Winnipeg climate change paper, the University of Okanagan water systems paper, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, the Condor Journal article on quail species in the Okanagan (which BTW was written in 1965 before the Nk'mip opened up their desert education center or there was a BC wine industry...but I guess "conspiracies" can be retro-active), etc. Should I go on? AgneCheese/Wine 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I will note that there is a world beyond Wikipedia that involve things like sick children and work teleconferences so I wouldn't be so quick to chastise for "Addressing only one portion of a response" and making far-fetched interpretations. Folks aren't always blessed with the time to craft 2000+ byte soliloquies on Wikipedia to fully cover every angle and this conversation certainly wasn't going away in the couple hours I needed to be away from the computer. AgneCheese/Wine 03:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We're verging on WP:TL;DR territory here, so I'll try to keep this short. (Sick children, ponytails, and Indian tribes? Please?) We have a number of sources usually considered reliable saying the Sonoran Desert extends into Canada. The response to that is that in this case "they're not reliable ... because they're not true", and proposes other reliable sources that give a different definition. Well, we very rarely make judgments like that here. When reliable sources disagree, we very rarely pick one to side with, we almost always write: "(some sources) say X[ref][ref][ref]; though (other sources) say Y[ref][ref][ref]", so the reader can see both sides. I strongly recommend that here, rather than making a judgment that we must know better than the New York Times travel writers. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting inane; aside from having words put in my mouth ("conspiracy", which is Agne's assertion that I've been advancing a "conspiracy theory") and that Franamax's observations about why "sources usually considered reliable" are not on topics in which they have no expertise are being consistently ignored, as are the authoritative sources (Britannica, the EPA, the BC MoF/MoE, etc), and there is the endless repetition of supposedly reliable sources which all say, in verbatim or nearly verbatim terms, the same un-scientific claim which defies all conventional or accepted meanings of Sonoran Desert. I have now been personally attacked (more than once, and in more than one way) and a spurious allegation of COI been made, based on two days' employment three years ago....sheesh!! - all in defence of a statement, which though widely repeated in travel and wine articles and badly-researched academic papers and other publications, is in no way true at all. It's not sufficient to equivocate and come up with "some reliable sources say this, while others say that", when there is no qualititative determination of the value of the sources which are advancing the non-scientific and a-factual claim that Agne is not just persistently advancing but also vociferously defending to the point of personal attacks.  Wine and travel articles are not authoritative in any way, and Agne's consistent refusal to reckon with the authoritive sources I and others have provided, or even to refer to the Sonoran Desert article, other than to say that it should be changed to include this false definition, as if it were true....despite all authoritative information, and a host of other well-cited Wikipedia articles which show, rather explicitly, that it cannot be.  Truth and untruth cannot be given equal weight in Wikipedia, no matter how many magazine articles on travel and wine repeat the untruth.  It's that simple.  But instead of going "OK, uh, I guess the authoritative sources have a point, and don't support what all these wine and travel articles and wine-industry sources have to say about geography, they're not geographers and must have made a mistake" - instead of that concession to teh truth, the escalation of personal attacks and non sequitur arguments and the continued refusal to acknowledge authoritative scientific sources.....this is getting beyond a reliable-sources article and is verging on a WP:ANI matter.....I've said all I can say, more than once, both here and on the wine region's talkpage, about the scientific truth of the matter and about the proper and true definition of the Sonoran Desert, but it is pointless to argue with a stone wall and someone determined to overlook reality in favour of something that is contrary to scientific consensus and the academic mainstream.  Nothing is ever going to make Osoyoos part of the Sonoran Desert, ever....I don't even think wine grapes can grow in the Sonoran Desert (other than with extensive irrigation perhaps).  The New York Times also refers to the Okanagan (not just Osoyoos) as "Canada's Sonoma"....does that make it part of the Sonoma Valley??  Spurious, if endless, sources which say an untruth are simply not valid, other than as curiosities and a widespread myth/mistake.  There are no deserts in British Columbia of any kind.  Period.  The Sonoran Desert does not extend north of teh Mojave or the Great Basin, and does not include either, period.  It's that simple.  As for the COI allegation, that's ridiculous and nothing more than bottom-of-the-barrel wiki-lawyering in defense of the indefensible...I was senior geographer for the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia for three years and more - does that mean I can't comment on or write mountain articles, or point out when it is in error about historical details/name origin? (some of which were my own errors, by the way).  I'm from Lillooet and neighbouring Shalalth and am the site-owner of the Bridge River-Lillooet History and Scenic Archive - does that mean I shouldn't write anything on the Lillooet or Shalalth articles?  I am widely-respected in Wikipedia - and elsewhere - for my knowledge of British Columbia geography and history and my work to bring order to them here for many years now; and am being accused of being a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that the widespread myth that Osoyoos is "the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert is patently untrue.  I haven't even bothered to read Agne's recent replies, there's little point given the obstinacy and also ad hominem'' attacks which are increasingly disturbing and very un-Wikipedian......even bringing this here instead of containing the debate to the article's talkpage smacks of wiki-stalking.....I'm tired of this, I've said everything I can say, and know what the facts are....and I also know the difference between authoritative sources and "usually reliable" ones.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. That's a rather fundamental policy. We write about much more serious untruths all the time, from Piltdown man, to the Gleiwitz incident. So the fact that a Canadian tourism agency states rather strongly that British Columbia does, in fact, have a desert, is important enough for us to write as much, whether or not if we think it is actually true. --GRuban (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again, GRuban - canada.com is NOT a Canadian tourism agency, it is a news agency and the home site for a specific chain of newspapers, e.g. the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and a whole bunch of others; it is just another travel article, with uncited claims from a non-verifiable (unstated) source.Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly noted on Talk:Okanagan Valley (wine), I am 100% open to a compromise of including the reliable sources that mention the Okanagan Sonoran with other sources (such as the desert.org) link that offers a dissenting view on the desert classification. Unfortunately I've been hesitant to edit the article because of Skookum's aggressive response to changes to his edits on the article, such as the lead. Perhaps that aggressiveness is just targeted towards me and hopefully he would respect another editor's attempt at instituting a compromise in the article. AgneCheese/Wine 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooo, that's a new term - "Okanagan Sonoran"....where'd you get that from? Sounds like OR to me....Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about talk page shorthand instead of writing "The northern extension of the Sonoran in the Okanagan" over and over again? WP:OR deals with article content, not discussion and not everybody wants to invest 3000+ bytes into each response. But, your red herring aside, would you respect another editor instituting a compromise of including the reliable sources in wine atlases along with the dissenting view from things like desert.org (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, of course, this is a wine article and not a geography article)? Or will your response be similar to other changes to your edits? AgneCheese/Wine 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any article that makes a geographic statement must be accurate; if the wine industry cannot get its act together on proper geography, that's their problem and they should make amends. As to your insistence that I'm "evading" the idea of a compromise, this is just another example of you ignoring what you don't want to see, as I originally proposed that compromise, more than once, and said I'd wait and see on Carmw's compromise solution, now in sandbox incubation.  What you are evading is the very pointed question of why you misrepresented the content of the academic link from the RBCM (actually there's three, two of which refer to Cranbrook, none to Osoyoos (if you aren't familiar with BC, look at where Cranbrook is....); misrepresenting sources is not just unreliability, it is dishonest; but maybe you just didn't read the cite, just quoted the link after searching for the same phrase/strings.  As for the other two supposedly academic link, one, the Medical Post is a weekly newspaper for doctors, and is not even a medical journal, and medical journals would not be valid for geographic descriptions; even moreso because it's just a travel article.  The Canadian Geographic link is a members-only Seattle college library site; a search of Canadian Geographic's own website turned up only an article on the REAL Sonoran Desert around Tucson; no mention of Canada at all; and the CG is NOT an academic magazine, it is a popular-geography magazine similar to National Geographic and the quote you gave from the article is clearly a travelogue, and uses the same old refrain from local tourism materials; "Canada's only desert" is clearly in error if your other "last but not least" citation, the RBCM, says that there is desert in Cranbrook.  There is no "compromise" between non-academic sources like wine and travel articles (including the one in the Medical Post) and proper academic sources.  Period.  So why don't you answer why you misrepresented both the nature of these sources, and their contents??  And why don't you answer why you continue to ignore teh bulk of academic sources, cited on teh Sonoran Desert and other articles, which say nothing of the kind?  Oh yeah, I remember, because "if they don't say it's explicitly not, therefore it is"....Skookum1 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just had a protracted and detailed discussion with the natural history curator/editor of the Royal British Columbia Museum, who is going to forward the articles in question (there are three and three only) to their authors for comment and clarification; his opinion is the plant-biologists may say one thing, geographers another, but he also pointed out that what seems most likely meant is that there are pockets of Sonoran-type conditions throughout the Intermontane West. He expects the authors to reply at length, i.e. in great detail, and concedes it may be necessary to amend the wordings so as to be more specific about what is meant and avoid confusion/extrapolation. NB of the three links on the Living Landscapes site: TWO of them talk about the Cranbrook District (meaning its Forest District, by the wording) as being at the "the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert, a sagebrush-dominated biome that runs from British Columbia to Baja California". NONE of the three links mention Osoyoos, OR the Okanagan at all.  The term "Columbia Basin", which is the context of all three, in its British Columbia usage, does not include the Okanagan (even though in abstract geographic watershed terms, the Okanagan and Similkameen are part of the Columbia's basin, as is the Kettle River basin of the Boundary Country, which also is not in the BC meaning of "Columbia Basin", which is entirely between the Monashees and the Rockies only. I don't know how long it will be before I get replies from the authors, but will post them on the wine region talkpage (rather than here, as protracted content discussions are not the purpose of this talkpage. I will similarly take things up with the Canadian Geographic and other academic-oriented sites as time and phone bills permit....NB a search at the Canadian Encyclopedia, a not-always-authoritative source in my experience, particularly for historical content, does not make mention of the Sonoran Desert, nor does Environment Canada......Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I'm not a geographer. Is it an exact science; is there a test that can be performed on a piece of land to determine whether it is or is not part of the Sonoran desert? Is it a science with a governing body that decides the borders of the Sonoran desert, and writes them down somewhere that we can look up? If not, then it sounds like there isn't an absolute truth, merely a concordance of the opinions of reliable sources. It is perfectly legitimate to write that certain mass media sources, such as newspapers, tourism agencies, and travel books, have claimed that the Sonoran desert extends to BC, while certain other sources, such as certain geographers, encyclopedias, etc, disagree. But it would take a lot to say that since the encyclopedias say X, we can't even mention that newspapers and travel books despite that continue to say Y. We don't even do that for evolution vs creationism. --GRuban (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The loose use of "reliable sources" here is getting quite annoying; magazine travelogues which mis-state geographic terminology cannot be given equal weight to proper definitions and real sources. Declaring that just because a source exists does not make it "reliable".  Also the RBCM site's papers make it clear that it cannot be stated that Osoyoos alone is "at the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert etc etc" and that statement must, if all sources are to be taken into account and reported honestly (instead of misreprsentationally, as what's been done here so far), also mention the Cranbrook District; and NB the wording "Sonoran life-zone", or other variants on that, takes in Okanagan Mountain as per the Ministry of Environment's master-plan for the provincial park there...and the line "Canada's only desert" is entirely unsupported, given the number of places you'll find mentions of other places in BC being "desert towns", and the TNRD's designation of the northwest end/area of Kamloops Lake as the "Red Desert Country"....any statement which claims exclusivity for the Osoyoos/South Okanagan area as "the northern tip yada yada yada" (the refrain is consistent, and as noted nearly-always the same or close to) is not acceptable, given the RBCM sources about Cranbrook also being included in that botanical-science statement....travelogue articles and wine-writeups may say it, but they're not reliable sources in the slightest for geography.  The misrepresentation of non-academic journals like the Canadian Geographic and the Medical Post as academic sources is also a serious issue here, given the tenor of the claims and obstinacy attached to their existence.Skookum1 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question site has questionable reliability sourcing in proposed article
I originally thought this issue was a NPOV issue, regarding the Shakespeare Authorship Question's peer-reviewed article by Tom Reedy, but have been advised that the RS Notice Board is more appropriate. I am a new editor and all these Notice Boards seem to apply. I had been met with obfuscation when I called for more neutral language. The ultimate root of the issue may be found in the article's selective sourcing, which then makes neutrality impossible. In the lead paragraph of the article Shakespeare authorship question, it states "…all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]" As I understand it, this is a string of “exceptional claims”, requiring “exceptional” sourcing. My question concerns the sources supplied, and whether they are comprehensive enough to support the claims in question.

I would also like to ask whether WP:RS/AC is being followed, particularly "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." The references cited in ref #3 are located here:. To my eye, they seemed to me anecdotal, personal, rather than factual, and as personal statements could not be used to document the claim that "all but a few scholars" dismiss contrary scholarship as lacking hard evidence. For example, here are statements that are presented to justify the claim that Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian theories are without foundation:
 * a)"Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon ... ",


 * b)"I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. "


 * c)"any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."


 * d)"...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."

As the presented sources seem to be speaking from a personal point of view respectively, the authoritative sounding 'All but a few' does not seem to be supported, and it amounts to a derogation which has no place in a neutral statement reliably sourced. And the one source containing the pejorative label of “fringe belief” does not discuss whether “all” scholars or any particular group of scholars have applied such a label, or whether this is just the individual opinion of the source, as referred to at WP:RS/AC. Also there is the practical question, how is “a few” defined? Credentialed academics who have doubted the Stradfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship have been ostracized to the point that only one Ph.D. thesis has been successfully entered in the United States university system. There is no way of knowing what professional scholars might say if there weren't an unspoken but effective ban on expression in this subject area. This throws into doubt how few or how many literary professionals feel on the matter. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt indicates there are far more than a numerical few.

Thus, how would such a strong series of claims, attempting to prove “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians” be justified as citable, short of a scientific poll or survey? The only survey we do know about does not support the language.[See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html] Consequently I want to suggest alternate wording, such as:
 * "According to a N.Y. Times survey of American Shakespeare professors, 82% of those educators surveyed felt there is no good reason to question the traditional attribution."

The remaining 18% of approximately 20,000 professors, (that number according to D. Allen Carroll) 3,600, would not be a "few". or possibly
 * "Most Shakespeare professors (61% in a recent NY Times survey) consider the contrary position of Oxfordian scholars a "theory without convincing evidence"?

The remainder, 39%, ~8,000, would not constitute a "few".

Then, in order to evaluate their opinions fairly, it would be a matter of finding out if they had read that contrary body of scholarship in order to make a scholarly judgment, versus those who had not read any. I’m wondering if some such wording as I have suggested above would be better supported by the sources cited here, which are far more factual, and therefore more reliable, than the quotations presented by the article, and whether in turn the article would be rendered more neutral as a result of the greater specificity added? I would appreciate input from uninvolved editors, as the recent talk page conversations by the article author and friends have devolved into constant sniping at criticisms and suggestions of any kind whatsoever. [].

My previous contributions (except for an accepted minor expression or two) [] have been ignored with prejudice. [].

A lot of premature archiving is also going on before any conclusions are reached or agreements made. To be exact, there have been no departures from the original article's text. Is it the Wikipedia practice to archive after five days instead of the usual thirty before removing the current discussion from sight, when it is clearly a controversial subject? This contributes to the feeling of an ambition by the article author to establish what I would consider as factually dubious dogma as the official language on the Wikipedia site. In short, the situation a bit of a mess. That’s why we need help from uninvolved editors here. Thank you and with best wishes. Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Zweigenbaum Thank you for the information. No, the 20,000 figure is not critical to my position or request for comments, or to the overall purpose of gaining greater reliabiity of sources and neutrality of tone in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I used that number because D. Allen Carroll is a Stratfordian professor who opined at a public symposium on the topic in 2003, "In the interest of full disclosure, I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment', one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare--and some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare." (Tennessee Law Review,v. 71:2, page 278) So I took a figure offered by one respected guild member of the Stradfordian constituency by which to show an example of logical inconsistency in the conclusions expressed in the proposed article, in its first paragraph, as written by another member of that constituency. I assumed this should pass muster or at least avoid pretextual outrage among Stratfordians since he is one of their own and thus trustworthy to some extent; I do not know if his number corresponds to fact. If Carroll's calculation is exaggerated, I could make the same point with a lower or higher one, as the percentage is significant in either case, i.e., not a few, although I feel when seeking factuality here as elsewhere the utilization of what most or a few think should never be the prime determinant towards the goal. Such a utilization usually amounts to gratuitous conforming pressure upon the reader to be among the many as against "the few". It forces an effect rather than states a point and betrays an emotional drive behind the attempt.Zweigenbaum (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is significant to your argument either way, but I doubt there are 20,000 Shakespeare professors in the U.S. The New York Times survey you mention says that the College Board reports 1,340 four-year American colleges and universities that offer degrees in English literature. Of 637 schools randomly selected from that group, the survey compilers found Shakespeare professors ("the professor currently teaching a course on Shakespeare, or the professor who had most recently or most frequently taught one") at 556 of them. Assuming that the 637 schools randomly selected were representative, that would imply that 87.3% of the schools with degrees in English literature have Shakespeare professors, or about 1,170 of the whole group. There may be multiple Shakespeare professors at some schools, plus a few at schools that don't offer English literature degrees or two-year colleges, but I doubt one could find 20,000. To look at it another way, only 4 of 34 members of the Princeton English faculty evidence an interest in Shakespeare, and 3 of 49 members at Harvard. And there are lots of colleges with smaller English departments than those. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved. (Well, except my very occasional reading of the matter in reliable newspapers had suggested there was some reason to attribute the plays to someone else. Or at least, had left me thinking this was a real live argument. Wasn't there a new and gorgeous theory proposing a well-travelled Jewess? She's not in there - why are there only 4 names if there are 170 possible other candidates?)
 * However, statements such as "theory without convincing evidence" and "no good reason to question", held by the majority of scholars (whatever "scholars" means) would suggest to me wholesale rejection of the alternative authorship theory. By all means have very interesting articles on these alternative theories, but the main article must not give them any credence whatsoever. The Shakespeare authorship question about strikes it right in the lead, first of all stating that it's all pretty fringe before saying there are other theories.
 * Later on, I'm not sure the authorship article is fair - statements such as "Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.[21] They attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;[22] offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate; and postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[23]" look to me over-broad and over-personal. Templar98 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Three websites

 * http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/
 * http://www.project-blu.com/
 * http://www.411mania.com/

The question of the reliability of these sources has been raised at at good article candidate. They all look borderline to me, but I admit this isn't necessarily something I know a great amount about. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Was Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" a reference to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence?
I have a problem. The Death Panel article is under a tight article probation and there are several editors there who, it seems to me, are using the probation to form a cabal to prevent changes which would restore balance to the article. Now an issue has arisen over a citation which to me is clearly not a RS even though it had at one time (apparently) been published.

I would not normally raise this here because to me, it seems so clearly an untrustworthy citation, but due to my having already received a ticking off by my fellow editors and others (including an Admin, and the fact that I have reverted this addition two or three times now (but not three times in the last 24) I am, possibly, in breach of the tight regulations at that article. I have risked doing this because I am fairly sure that this source is not reliable.

Here is the issue. Sarah Palin is on record for saying that when she was talking about Death Panels, she was referring to rationing which she thought would emerge from the Affordable Care Act, and in particular a body set up to control Medicare costs that was in that bill.

The Times newspaper it seems may have published a piece by a journalist claiming that Palin was talking about a British body known as NICE. Google it seems has the cache of the page, but as far as I can tell the link is not working. My guess is because the claim in that story is nonsense. Palin has not actually said that NICE was the target and in fact she has said something quite different. At least two editors, on an IP and the other a reguk editor has reverted my deletion of the claim that Palin was talking about NICE, the only evidence for which is the claim of the Times journalist. This is "The Times" and not "The New York Times"..

Here is the latest revert, this time by the IP editor who claims that the link is working.... But whether it is working or not, I fail to see how a journalist in London can claim to know what was in Palin's mind because it was several days before she clarified what she was talking about, failed initially to quell speculation that she was talking about provisions in the law for paid consultations in Medicare for living wills, and then settled on the IPAB (the new Medicare costs reduction board). It was NOT NICE despite what this journalist may (or may not) have written.

But in case I have missed a trick perhaps someone would be kind enough to cast a look and check it over.

Thanks Hauskalainen (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a new inconsistency here too. Palin has NOT said the term death panel was a reference to NICE in but seemingly it IS allowed in WP because the editor using that reference rightly attributed the improbable reference. So the article is allowed to connect death panel with NICE even though it does not meet the definition we had of a death panel. Fast forward now to Palin's use of the is article is allowed because a source claimed. A few days ago Palin's recent use of the term blood libel to describe inflamed and allegedly inaccurate accusations made against her following the recent shootings. Suddenly the Palin crowd have managed to get OUT of the blood libel article Palin's use of that word which DID create huge news comments and which the fact that Palin had posted on her Facebook page a video of her using it. Palin clearly did use that term to accuse her opponents of attributing the shootin in Arizona to her. The Palinistas seem to have a lot of control here at Wikipedia.Hauskalainen (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know anything about the blood libel issue, Hauskalainen, but I don't think this case here is the Palinistas at work. If you ask me, the implication that Palin was talking about NICE when she said "death panel" is not flattering to Palin, if you know anything about NICE. --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An earlier revert of my delete here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=406909339&oldid=406908541
 * And another here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=406909339&oldid=406908541
 * And another here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=406909339&oldid=406908541


 * and if you are very keen and want to look at another try this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=prev&oldid=406486821. Gratzer is well known for being less than honest with statistics, especially about the British and Canadian health care systems See http://www.factcheck.org/bogus_cancer_stats_again.html and even this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs.  I would say he is NOT a reliable source, especially about the health care system in the UK. He works for a pro free market institute which one suspects is paid to support the free market health care system and put down those that are the antithesis of this.


 * The Times link worked fine for me. The quote in it is: "Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, claimed it would lead to the creation of “death panels” — a reference to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the quango that determines which treatments are funded by the NHS." I would be slightly cautious in case the writer may be connecting dots a bit too readily, so wording is important and may be a matter for discussion. But its there quite clearly in an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So only the The Times in London got to read her mind? And it seems got it wrong. When normally reliable sources get it wrong we accept that they got it wrong. We don't go on quoting them, unless the falsehood becomes itself reknown. Are you now implying that Palin was lying when she FAILED to come out publicly and say what The Times journalist (allegedly) told the world she was thinking? Come on, that really does not hold water!Hauskalainen (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the source is offering an interpretation of Palin's words and there may be others. But it is attributed in the text, so it seems basically okay to me. Like I say, there may be need for other discussions about wording, weight and contradicting sources and wotnot, but in terms of RS I can't see the objection. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. We're not about truth, and the article text specifies that the Times reported that Palin meant the NICE, so I think the statement is well qualified. If other RSs claim Palin did not target the NICE, by all means include those as well to ensure balance, but the source seems reliable. -- (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But I think you need to look again at how the reference is being used. The source is not being used to prove that a British journalist made a particular observation, it is being used to create a false hypothesis. That hypothesis is that Palin WAS referring to NICE when she made that statement. And she was not. It is no good cloaking a dubious source with a careful attribution which actually deceives the reader. The source is clearly NOT RELIABLE because (a) it is not what Palin was talking about and (b)she had no way of knowing what Palin was talking about anyway. The false hypothesis is based on a very very dubious piece of journalism. I am not arguing against WP:V or WP:TRUTH but in this case a WP:RS.  This is not to say this journalist is not usually a RS. She may well be. But in this case she clearly got it wrong, and on THIS OCCASION, THIS REFERENCE is NOT reliable. How can it be?? Hauskalainen (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing "reliable" with "wrong". It's a reliable source. It's made an interpretation of what Palin said. Reporting that interpretation in the article is OK as far as WP:RS goes. There may be other evidence that would show that the interpretation is seriously out, but that's a talkpage matter and someone would need to come up with the goods (incidentally, I don't see why it couldn't, in principle, be a reference to NICE and also to the IPAB). --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen you argue that a journalist had "no way of knowing" how to interpret a public statement by a politician? But this is what journalists normally do for a living, and politicians make their public statement with the intention that journalists will try to understand and interpret them. So "no way of knowing" seems a little stretched. Of course people get these things wrong, but very often journalists and people in general are successfully able to agree on the meaning of the words of other human beings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Not at all. What Nuujinn is saying would be valid if the point of the text was to show that the journalist had said this thing. For example if Palin had complained about the article to the Press Complaints Commission. But it is not. Death Panel is a Palin term but she never connected it to NICE. If she had, we would have other sources for that. What we have here is wrongful use of a UNreliable source to get a claim into Wikipedia that Palin HAD made this connection. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG. It clearly IS and unreliable source for connecting PALIN to NICE via DEATH PANEL. I urge Nuujinn to think again and would welcome comments from other RS reviewers too.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As a passive, fairly disinterested third party, I will say that the source does appear reliable, but according to Palin was wrong. So maybe just put in a line right after that states what Palin said she was referring to?--3family6 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say there is nothing to indicate that the source is reliable in any way; it looks like speculation by an ill-informed reporter who was too provincial to realize that Palin never heard of NICE. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @3family6: "according to Palin"? Does she say it was wrong? @Orange Mike. Who says she's never heard of NICE? The British system has been one of the the main points of comparison for both opponents and supporters of socialized health care, even referred to in US advertising by opponents. If she denys that's what she meant why is that denial not in the article? Paul B (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will amend my above statement, as I do not know whether Palin has specified that the Times article was wrong. However, she has stated what she was referring to with the term "death panels," and as far as I know, the NICE wasn't included.--3family6 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And therein lies a solution. I regard the Times as a reliable source even though in this particular case, it very well may be wrong. The article clearly states that the Times made this claim--if Palin has clarified what she meant in other reliable sources, then document that, too, and let the reader decide. There is enough press scrutiny on Palin that there must be sufficient sources to balance this out. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I just had a read of Sarah Palin at, and it seems pretty clear that she means things like NICE and there's no if or buts about it and the Times was right. So I'll be very interested to see it written up to correct my current misunderstanding if that's what it is. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does she mention NICE in the article? She may have been referencing organizations like that, but there needs to be a reliable source that has been supported by Palin herself in order to say that she actually was referencing organizations like that. Like what was suggested above, both the (seemingly incorrect) Times article should be cited, but Palin's later clarification should also be cited.--3family6 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I took this stab at the issue. Problem resolved? Jesanj (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Er... well as I recall it she said also that she was using hyperbole and that because she had heard that now an extra 30 or 40 million were going to be insured, the inevitable result was that health care would have to be rationed. We actually have three items that Palin has talked about I'm not sure which order they came in (the three being (1) the living wills funding provision, (2)the IPAB and (3) being the generalized "gosh. More insured people, so it will have to be rationed" argument - which completely ignores the fact that doctors are now going to have so much free time now that they will soon have a lot less time fighting with insurance companies over what is or is not essential coverage). The point is, that not ONE of these three stories she as had told herself or has allowed to be told in her name, actually mentions the British body which the British journalist, for no apparent reason, dreamt that Palin was talking about. A journalist that gets her facts wrong is not a reliable journalist in the case of this quotation. it is being dishonest to the reader if we allow this citation in without further explanation.. We know three things that Palin has definitely said, and one which she almost certainly did not say. That fourth one (about NICE) is not in fact attributable to NICE and should be removed. Hauskalainen (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the gist of your argument. And to a certain point I agree, perhaps we can exercise our editorial discretion to remove it, as we also have other 'death panel'–NICE assosications mentioned. But is that a WP:RS issue? On the other hand, journalists are allowed to interpret things in questionable manners and just because there is good reason for us to think it is wrong does that make it an unreliable source? Jesanj (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I took out your addition, Jesanj, because it just repeats material from elsewhere in the article. The claim of the sources that are being discussed here is essentially that Palin said that the AAHCR Act would create "Death Panels" which would, according to some commentators interpretation of her comments, have similarities to NICE. Pointing out that Palin has said that she was referring to the AAHCR Act does not go against the claim in any sense. --FormerIP (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation of The Sunday Times doesn't match the text. It says "Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, claimed it would lead to the creation of 'death panels' — a reference to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the quango that determines which treatments are funded by the NHS." They state it was a reference to NICE. Jesanj (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might need to be more specific about how it doesn't match the text. What I'm saying is that there is no version of this in which Palin isn't referring to US healthcare reform. To give the impression that this it is a matter of "was she referring to AAHCR or was she referring to NICE?" presents a false dilemma. --FormerIP (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No source is automatically reliable all the time. In this instance it appears that a normally reliable source made an interpretation of a comment that the speaker of the comment has later "clarified" was an incorrect interpretation of what she meant. Unless the incorrect interpretation itself becomes notable, we say "bad job normally reliable source" and we do not use their incorrect content. Active Banana    (bananaphone  19:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the situation. Multiple sources make the link between healthcare reform and NICE. The Sunday Times is an RS which has made the link explicitly mentioning comments by Palin. Palin has made a statement which does not mention NICE and can't reasonably read as a clarification that she wan't talking about NICE. --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That fourth one (about NICE) is not in fact attributable to NICE, Hauskalainen, if I am following you correctly, and please excuse me if I am not, but it seems that you are arguing that because you have looked into the matter and have not found any other sources that claim that Palin was referring to NICE, and you know what she did say from other sources, therefore the Times article is wrong, and thus the Times article is not reliable. If that is the gist of your argument, I think you are falling into OR, since you are drawing conclusion about what really happened. I agree with 3family6 that the Time article should be cited, but that other sources should be used to clarify the situation and provide balance, and those are issues for the article's talk page. If Palin has, in effect, refuted what the Times article asserts, by all means document that thoroughly. But we cannot simply declare that because we believe a source that in general meets the criteria for reliable sources (and the Times clearly does), that an article is not reliable because we know it is wrong. I believe policy prohibits that action. In this particular case, I think I know how this happened since I dug around a bit, but my belief is not relevant, since I am not a reliable source. What we believe to be true does not matter, what matters is what a reliable source says, even if it is wrong. Even if we have reliable sources that directly refute the information in the Times article, we should document the disagreement--to do otherwise is to begin a downward march on a very slippery slope. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My issue is that we use reliable sources because they can usually be relied on to provide objective, factual reporting. I am not saying that the Sunday Times is not a reliable source, but on this occasion their journalist clearly did get it wrong. As you say it sails quite close to OR but we know quite clearly from all that has been said by Palin subsequently that she was not referring to NICE. If she was referring to NICE then why don't the hundreds of article by American journalists about Palin's claims say this too? We can be fairly sure that if Palin had said she was referring to a US body such as NICE have been rightly criticized because NICE is much less of a death panel than any US insurance company review panel in the US of which there must be hundreds if not thousands.
 * NICE is, for he most part, a comparative effectiveness body and does not control funding or have any NHS funding objectives whereas American insurance companies do not undertake comparative effectiveness research and do have control over their companies spending
 * Insurance company review panels DO make considerations of personal cases whereas NICE does not
 * Insurance company "no fund" decisions are final whereas NICE decisions are only final in the case of funding approvals (i.e. if NICE approves it, then the NHS must fund it. But if it does not approve it, the procedure may still be funded by the PCT.
 * NICE rules are published for all to see and one can still take out private insurance covering work the NHS will not fund whereas US insurance companies do not make their decisions public
 * In fact America is to get a comparative effectiveness board but Palin has not made any reference to it. So what we are left with is a usually reliable source publishing an article which in the full light of all the facts looks very unlikely to be true. As for Verifiability versus Truth, I would say that we can be sure that this claim by the journalist was not Truth but neither is it Verifiable. If we only had this one reporter to rely on for what Palin said at the time and subsequently we would have been forced to use this article on the grounds of it being the only way to verify the claim. The fact is we have not only Palin's own words at time and subsequently (none of which refers to NICE) but also hundreds of other journalists and fact checkers most of which have said Palin was talking nonsense and only a few (British and not American) sources have claimed that she was talking about NICE. Thus on grounds of verifiability I think we can safely say that it would be totally wrong to include a claim which is not verifiable. Its only verifiable to the extent that a journalist made a certain claim that is most likely to be wrong. If this was an article about the journalist it would warrant a mention in Wikipedia. But not otherwise.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)