Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Sourcing required in lists linking to other articles

Related to discussion at Talk:Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems#Citation_needed_flags_for_launch_numbers.2Fetc.

There is a group of 6 articles listing the different classes of rockets (according to the weight they can bring to orbit). Each rocket gets a line starting with a link to the article about it and the rest of the columns include different statistics about this rocket - such as weight uplift capability, number of successful launches, number of total launches (including failures), etc. - these stats are taken from the linked rocket article.

The problem is how such list/comparision articles should be sourced. So far, there are two opinions:

1. User:N2e - each individual data piece should have a [1] note after it with the source reference. Data pieces that don't have such note after them are tagged with [citation needed] and after 6 weeks can be deleted - even when at the individual rocket article (linked in the begin of each line of the list) there is an external source for this data. He cites WP:V/WP:BURDEN (OK) and WP:CIRCULAR (this is irrelevant as nobody claims that the data is backed up by "another wikipedia article", but by "external sources at directly linked wikipedia article")
2. User:Alinor (filing this question) - individual data pieces that are backed up by external sources at the directly linked individual rocket articles should not have [1] notes and all the sources from all rocket articles should not be copied over into the list/comparison article. Only data pieces that are not backed by external sources at the linked rocket article (if there are such data pieces) should be tagged with [citation needed] (and be deleted eventually).

At the discussion linked at the top you can see examples of N2e tagging with [citation needed] data piece sourced in the way described above and of N2e deleting such data piece. So far he doesn't dispute the sources in these examples as unreliable or anything like that - he just insists that somebody else should copy the sources to the list/comparision articles from the rocket articles after he has tagged/deleted the respective data pieces. Alinor (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone should absolutely copy the citations over. You shouldn't expect readers to have to go looking for references. Each article should be able to stand on its own, with its own list of references. Nightw 11:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, unlike the other debate that you and I still haven't finished - where you question the data itself and where there are other things you considered as controversial - this case is different. There are no controversies or anything - it's just that the sources are at the linked pages. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Every claim that isn't considered common knowledge should be referenced to a reliable source wherever it appears. No matter how ordinary the claim, nor how lazy the editor who added the information is, there aren't any exemptions. Nightw 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some established practice, recommendation, rule/policy or whatever over the issue of copying vs. not copying source over into summary lists? And if this noticeboard is not the right place to ask about this could someone point where should I ask? Alinor (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

yes there is somewhere. the reason is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Something that is as of today sourced on some other article page cannot be guaranteed to maintain that source on that article page as it is edited by freelance editors. Once it is removed from the other page for whatever reason, there is no way to know what other pages had been "using" that page for the reference. the fact and the verification belong on the same article page. Active Banana (^bananaphone 08:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR depending upon the wikipedia article to source the list article, WP:CHALLENGE challenged material "requires an inline citation" - not "requires a citation on some wikipedia page". and more specifically WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability" Active Banana (^bananaphone 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant in this case.

The problem with applying WP:CHALLENGE is that N2e, the user putting the 'citation needed' flags is challenging almost all data pieces in the summary lists - without checking if they are sourced at the linked articles. So, sooner or later he will delete all data pieces - and then the lists will become useless. This seems as a sneaky way of avoiding AfD nomination.

WP:Source list is OK, along with WP:BURDEN and WP:V and this relates to your main argument above - that even if the data piece is sourced at the linked article today it may become unsourced after subsequent changes to the linked article. I agree with all that, and won't raise the issue if N2e was checking whether this is the case (a data piece lost sourcing because of changes to the linked article) - but he doesn't and insist that others should do this after his tagging and that unless others do it he will delete the data pieces tagged. I have given him 2 examples of sourced data pieces (that got deleted/tagged) months ago, but he just ignored these. Alinor (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

YES circular applies. You are using content in another wikipeida article as the basis/souurce for content in the list article. NO, N2e nor any other editor does not have to go looking anywhere else for sources. If xe challenges the content in the list article, AN INLINE CITATION IN THE LIST ARTICLE is required. Active Banana (^bananaphone 09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply - I don't propose to use the Wikipedia content as basis/source - I propose that we use the EXTERNAL SOURCES referenced at the linked articles as basis/source. IMHO it's not a good practice to copy all sources from all linked articles in the summary/list. If a data piece isn't sourced at the linked article - then it should be challenged, tagged and eventually deleted. But if a data piece is backed by EXTERNAL SOURCES at the linked article - then I don't see it as beneficial to just copy these sources in the summary/list - this will only make it cluttered.

The key here is that these articles are not regular "List of ..." articles - these are summary/comparison articles that present content that is mostly already present in the individual rocket articles - it's just that in these summary articles the stats of the different rockets are presented side-by-side, for comparison purposes. Alinor (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Each article should have its own references. If you already have references to cite, 6 weeks seems like more than enough time to copy and paste the cites from one article to the next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are references to cite - I gave the examples on the talk pages. But for the moment I have no intention to clean up after N2e who tags everything (is there such thing like "deletionist"?) I really think that if he is interested in having the citations copied in the article (as "challenger" of the data pieces) then he should first check before tagging. And even if he missed something - it's he who must copy the source/correct his wrong tag/deletion - when somebody points it out. He just ignored the sources I shown him. Alinor (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is quite clear that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged [must] be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation". That means in every single article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, N2e has been involved with improving referencing in Wikipedia since before you were even editing. It might interest you to know that many editors, myself included, learned proper citation style from him. Given your own appalling laziness when it comes to citing sources, perhaps you should refrain from attacking him, and ask him for a lesson instead. Nightw 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone and I don't think we should engage in measurements about who edits since how long, whether you like N2e or me more, etc. I agree with some of his edits, but disagree with his application of this particular process of tag-wait-delete in this particular set of articles (that mostly summarize data pieces from other linked articles). Regarding my "laziness" - most of the things (if not all) that N2e tags/deletes were not added by me, for what it counts. If you refer to whether I use the exact citation style when I add sources (we had such discussion before) - I don't see this relevant here at all.

I just ask here about whether there is some specific policy for such articles that summarize data pieces from another articles. If there isn't - fine - I will let N2e delete/tag whatever he likes, even if it's backed by external sources at the linked articles.

I asked him to first check before tagging/deleting - and if he wants to improve referencing - to copy the sources. He refused. He even ignores the examples I gave him. That doesn't seem to me like improving, but like harming - albeit 'technically' supported by the WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:BURDEN. Anyway, that's just IMHO. Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not his responsibility to "check first" or to "copy the sources". The burden is on the editor who adds the information. If the information isn't added with a source, it'll be tagged as such. If the original editor and/or another editor don't want to see the information deleted, then it's their responsibility to add a citation. Otherwise, the information is free to be deleted. This is WP:V, which requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation", and which is "strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". Nightw 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems that there is no special policy for summarizing articles - can someone point me where should I make proposal for such change? Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:V would be the place to do this. Nightw 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here it is. Alinor (talk) 14:53, 10 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.[1]
• Publisher's web site.[2]
• Publisher's web page for book.[3] 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 ⋅ 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)

Are the following considered secondary review sources?

As per the title, are these articles considered secondary review sources?

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

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)

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)

"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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 ⋅ 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Smoking_Gun and our article say that The Smoking Gun has been a branch of Court TV/truTV since 2000. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52#TheSmokingGun.com 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)

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 | 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 Wikipedia: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)

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,[4] 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 | 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 | 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)

Haaretz and Dershowitz

An editor is repeatedy removing two sentences from the Civilian casualty ratio article, with a claim of "unreleiable sources". One of these sentences is presented in the article as fact: "In 2007, Israel achieved a ratio of 1:30, or one civilian casualty for every thirty combatant casualties" - and sourced to an article by a well known military journalist, Amos Harel, writing in a mainstream newspaper (Haaretz). The other is an an opinion, attributed to its author - 'According to Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, "No army No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting"'. Opinions on the reliability of these sources for those statements are requested. Two for the show (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you took it in! The reason for the RS objections, voiced by more than just me (here's the relevant talk page), is that Dershowitz is not an international monitoring agency, nor a reliable source for statistics, nor an academic specializing in international conflicts, is writing an op-ed, and is actually contradicting the Israeli Supreme Court which holds that people subject to targeted killingsare not combatants. Sources must be considered RS depending on the circumstances; this isn't in his area of expertise. This is just straight up wrong information. That brewcrewer keeps pushing to include information that he's even admitted is wrong is pretty hard to believe. If the argument is now that the source is reliable for Dershowitz's opinion than you can look at the undue weight arguments in the talk page. Simply put, why does the incorrect statement of a man with no expertise in the target area belong in the lead? It doesn't even meet lead policy, brewcrewer's just copy and pasted the same thing into the body.

As to Haaretz, please find where Amos Harel talks about a 30:1 combatant ratio. You can't. He doesn't. He talks about the terrorists to civilian ratios. That's not the same as a combatant to civilian casualty ratio; combatant has a very precise meaning in the laws of war and, as pointed out above, these are definitely not combatants and it's OR to construe them thus. Sol (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any statistics would have to come from investigators who actually went into Gaza, or secondary sources quoting such investigators. It's unlikely that Dershowitz has either done one, or is doing the other. There is also the small matter of whether policemen are militants or whether they're part of the civilian infrastructure - I think the international consensus is settled in that regard. Templar98 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Haaretz article does refer to the combatants as terrorists, but not exclusively. That is the Israeli view of the combatants, and not appropriate for NPOV. The word was juxtaposed to discriminate "civilians" and "innocent bystanders" from combatants. He also uses the word "gunman" as "In all the attacks of recent weeks, only gunmen were hurt, as confirmed by Palestinians. The rate of civilians hurt in these attacks in 2007 was 2-3 percent." Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. It doesn't call them combatants and they are not, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, combatants. Sol (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about what the Israeli Supreme Court calls anyone. It is about the civilian-to-casualty ratio which is based on an international understanding of who is a civilian and who is not. It is likely that Harel did not specifically call them "combatants" so as not to confuse them with the protected class (privileged combatants). According to definition, these combatants would likely fall under the category of unprivileged combatant. Simply because Harel did not specifically use the word "combatant," did not mean he was intending to imply that these "gunmen" or "terrorists" were therefore civilians. Civilians who directly engage in hostilities ("gunmen")are understood to be combatants, if "unlawful" ones. Any honest reading of the article should make his meaning clear. Opportunidaddy (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This debate is about a sentence of two in the lead of an article. Leads are by their nature a brief summary of an article. To be a reliable source someone has to be reliable, if a person is publishing biased opinions that are inaccurate, or use weasel words without citing their sources, and we republish them without pointing that out the article is breaching NPOV. There may be a place in the article for this short paragraph, (particularly if there is a retort) but not in the lead. -- PBS (talk)

Dershowitz is a reliable source and cites sources in his academic work. He has made factual errors in his lifetime, but there is no academic that has not. He has been highly criticized, but also highly praised. D acknowledges his bias, but bias does not make a person's facts wrong. I don't know anything about the Harel fellow though. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a criminal law specialist who has taken on a role as an aggressive advocate for Israel. He is a reliable source only for his own opinion, and not for the truth of statements like the one cited. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:16, 11 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 [[5]]. 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: {{verify source}} 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)

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 [[6]]. 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)

Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)#Sonoran_Desert_refs

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? Agne^Cheese/^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. Agne^Cheese/^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. Agne^Cheese/^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. Agne^Cheese/^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)

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? [7] (pdf mirror [8]) 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: [9] 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)

"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 [10]. 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:

• [11] - "Although Israel has legitimate security concerns, many governments and international lawyers, however, think that the barrier is illegal and a means to ethnic cleansing"
• [12] -- "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.

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.

--Pnm (talk) 00:51, 10 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. [13] 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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)

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</ref>

For purposes of comparison and contrast at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Selected works, 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- </ref>

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 — 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)

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)

Daily Mail known as "Daily Hate", "Daily Heil", "Daily Fail" etc.

Is [14] 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 [15] sufficient for such a claim? Is [16] 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)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20#Daily_Heil and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_7#Daily_fail 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)

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:[17]. 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. [[18]].

My previous contributions (except for an accepted minor expression or two) [[19]] have been ignored with prejudice. [[20]].

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)

• 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)

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)