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

I propose that based on its editorial decision to advocate Holocaust denial and other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as well as its being owned by the tightly controlled Iranian media (a country that has advocated the destruction of the State of Israel), I posit that Press TV must be considered unreliable with respect to any subject relating to Judaism, Jewish history, Israel, Jews, or Israelis. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not being directly used in that manner, though. The passage in question that this stems from is at the Orly Taitz article;

• • "Journalist Wayne Madsen, himself often viewed as a conspiracy theorist, was quoted in the controversial Iranian media outlet Press TV as alleging that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (the latter being a native of Moldova like Taitz) are acting through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in support of Taitz' efforts."

When all it is being used for is to quote a journalist on a particular matter, not directly on any Israeli or Jewish affairs. This complaint is much ado about nothing, in the end. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Like other biased sources, I could agree to limiting it to attributed statements of opinion... but I can not agree to declaring any media source completely unreliable no matter what. So much depends on the exact statement being cited to the source. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Tarc. The statement is clearly attributed to a "controversial Iranian media outlet", and our readers will know to take their opinions with a large grain of salt. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I support Tarc's intepretation. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly not notable, as discussed above. If they are used, what they say should be attributed, but of course that's only if what they say is mentioned in reliable source. Otherwise, their pronouncements are not WP inclusion worthy per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont think a major media source can be called "fringe", other than that I think Tarc nailed it. nableezy - 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So Holocaust-denying articles published by PressTV are not WP:FRINGE and should be given its due weight at The Holocaust article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. Even if the statement cited is nonsense, if all of Iran believes it, then it is important enough to include in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SFC: Would your position stay the same when editor wants to include PressTV's or Der Stürmer's position on the Holocaust at the The Holocaust article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PressTV? No. It's highly unlikely that what's essentially a press release from a government that didn't exist until many years after the Holocaust, in a country which was not part of the matter would have anything important and unique enough to include in the article; on the other hand it may be citable in an article about Holocaust denial.

Der Sturmer? Surprisingly, yes. As a primary source example of propaganda directed at the Jewish people in Germany. According to our article on the paper, the publisher was tried at Nuremburg and hanged for inciting the Holocaust. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual articles may be, but that isnt what is asked here. nableezy - 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you admit that individual Press TV articles can be considered WP:FRINGE, I take it you would admit that an individual article proclaiming that the Israeli government is behind the birther movement is WP:FRINGE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you treating me like a hostile witness? Otherwise I thought leading questions were a no-no. But as I wrote in the comment below the JPost article is referencing an op-ed. If your problem is that Press TV published the op-ed there isnt much I can do about that, but that op-ed would not be reliable. nableezy - 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded below. I thought it was clear that PressTV is unreliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

also, the JPost article was referencing this op-ed, which would certainly not be reliable, as with other op-eds. nableezy - 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts. PressTV is unreliable. Full stop. The issue is whether their unreliability makes them WP:FRINGE and should be ignored or should their conspiracy theories be given due weight in all subject matters they care to publish.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, you provided a JPost piece with what you see as proof of Press TV's unreliability. I responded that the JPost article is referencing an op-ed, not something we generally consider reliable anyway. So I havent accepted either the premise that Press TV is unreliable or that its material is fringe. nableezy - 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, now everything is clear. In contrast to everyone else on this thread, you don't admit that PressTV is unreliable. Pretty shocking.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Im shocked that you are shocked, but to call a major media source unreliable I would like to see them reporting something that is false and not issuing a retraction. The idea that we should not use all of a nations media goes against NPOV which says all major viewpoints need to be addressed. nableezy - 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Der Stürmer was a major media source of a nation. Should their opinion about Jews be given due weight at Jew?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, and Press TV is hardly the voice of the Nazis. I dont like where this is going so let me know when this is no longer about Nazis. nableezy - 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course PressTV not the voice of the Nazis. According to PressTV, the Nazis never existed. But getting serious for a second, bringing up Der Stürmer was to point out that major media sources of a nation are not automatically given due weight on whatever they publish. Which brings us back to square one: Why should PressTV's conspiracy theories be given due weight when it is ignored by the mainstream media?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "mainstream" you mean Western media then the answer is to provide a world-view, you know, systematic bias and all that. If by "mainstream" you mean major media outlets across the world, Press TV is mainstream. nableezy - 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV (the parent of wp:undue). The significant viewpoints that must be taken into consideration for compliance with wp:npov must come from a reliable sources. NPOV is not about gauging world opinion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If we wish to be a comprehensive information source, we should give at least a nod to world opinion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way things work. World opinion is notable for the fact that its a notable opinion, but we don't write articles that give due weight to "world opinion." Take for example the article about homosexuality. Should the "world opinion" about homosexuality be given weight in the article's description of homosexuality?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

World opinion is important even in subjects like homosexuality. We shouldn't put it in Wikipedia's voice, necessarily, but we should include it. In that particular case, it would be a NPOV error, and unfortunate for the homosexuals in that area who face discrimination to not have their areas "opinion" included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The world opinion about homosexuality should be included where WP discusses the world opinion about homosexuality, for example, "In large parts of the world, homosexuals are discriminated.........." However, the world opinion about homosexuality should not be given due weight in WP's description of homosexuality. For example, the lede of Sexual orientation should not include something like, "Scholars maintain that........... but in the world opinion, this is a bunch of nonsense and fags should be rounded up." Point is, the world opinion is notable, but it must be put in the proper context.

Similarly, PressTV's anti-Israel conspiracy theories and their Holocaust denialism are notable to the extent that it is being published by a mass media source. What that means is that their propagations should be written about to the extent that they are propagations. The proper place for this is probably in PressTV, Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and/or Holocaust denial.

However, WP's article on the Holocaust should not give due weight to PressTV's Op-eds that the Holocaust is never happened and WP's article on Orly Taitz should not give due weight to PressTv's conspiracy theories that that the Israeli government is behind the birther movement.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV, like the Tehran Times is not just biased but morally defective. A problem occurred at Mohamed ElBaradei where 30+ references came from Iranian-based media that I felt compromised the integrity of the article. I really feel wikipedia should cement that these "news" sites are unacceptable and should only be used to describe the companies actions. For comparison, we might as well consider The Onion as a reliable source. Its assessments of the Middle East are far more verifiable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reprinting an interview with Norman Finkelstein first published in a Turkish newspaper makes a news source "morally defective"? Not exactly. nableezy - 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If the interview is romanticized, yes. There is other examples, such as promoting Holocaust denial and the blood libel. Can this really be argued? We're talking about Iran here. Press-freedom is 0/10 and virtually all media filters through the propaganda agencies. Notice the lack of coverage on the 2009 Iranian election protests. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Morally defective"? Where do you guys get this stuff? Remember, nobody is suggesting this be quoted as fact. The question is whether a conspiracy theory, when published in the Iranian media, is important enough to mention in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do they get it? Hell, they've been doing this for years around here. All this is is a news source quoting a journalist. The objectors here are not objecting on the grounds that presstv misquoted, selectively quoted, or perhaps fabricated the quote. They are against it because of the content of the journalist's opinion. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to make a comment without attacking specific or vague editors? Thanks. As for the non-attack of your comment, you are right. There's no reason to suspect that Wayne Madsen, who thinks the basis for the Iraq war was for Israel to colonize Iraq, does not claim that Israel is behind the birther movement. There's also no reason to suspect that PressTV, which publishes Holocaust-denialism, would misquote Madsen. There's also no real disagreement whether PressTV is a reliable source or not. They are not. That's why this entire thread is a waste of everybody's time. The issue here is whether a conspiracy theory that is unnotable because it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press deserves to be covered in Wikipedia, despite policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE prohibiting its inclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV should not be considered a reliable source, when ever used (if ever) it should clearly state that its a state owned propaganda machine. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that aspect of the source was covered already (text; "...was quoted in the controversial Iranian media outlet", but if further clarification of state ownership is desiered, I am not opposed to that. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear whether we ought to quote Press TV's views on the reality of the Holocaust in articles on the Holocaust. We can say something like, "The Holocaust really did happen, but controversial Iranian media outlet Press TV says it did not happen." I'm sure that would satisfy some editors here, but that's not how I interpret the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. --GHcool (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link where Press TV makes that claim? Everything I have seen is about Press TV publishing editorial or opinion pieces or interviews with Holocaust deniers (they call them revisionists), but I have yet to see Press TV actually reporting as a fact that the Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated. They have certainly reported that certain people have said that, but I would like to see something that supports your statement that Press TV says it did not happen. nableezy - 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me. I should have written as my example above, "The Holocaust really did happen, but controversial Iranian media outlet Press TV published an editorial by a Holocaust denier who says it did not happen." Is Nableezy's argument that Press TV's has extremely low standards, but nevertheless reliably quote crackpots? --GHcool (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not my argument. The Guardian has published an editorial by Khaled Meshal, a man many have no love for. Does that make their news reports unreliable? nableezy - 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we would not cite PressTV in an article about the Holocaust, for reasons described in a reply to Brewcrewer above. But can we get back to the original topic? Nobody is proposing it as an RS on the Holocaust, and all this Nazi-baiting is getting distracting. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi analogy was brought out for precisely this reason: it manifests the logical inconsistency of editors arguing for the conspiracy theory's inclusion. Why is is that we all admit that PressTV's opinion that the Holocaust did not happen should not be given due weight in The Holocaust, but PressTV's opinion about the Israeli government's involvement in the birther movement can be included in an article about the birther movement? Is there a difference between Israel and the Holocaust, that one cab be bashed but not the other?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not suggesting adding this to our article on Israel. We're suggesting it belongs in an article about the birther movement. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't reliability. We all agree that it's a questionable source for a certain range of topics. So when quoting it, we're essentially quoting it as a primary source for its own opinions, and heavily qualifying it as a controversial source. The debate is over whether its opinions are important enough to include in the article.

And I feel that statements from the Iranian state media are important enough to include in topics where Iran is an actor. This would include some articles about Israeli military or intelligence topics. Even if it's disinformation, it's important to know what the other side is saying. There are already a few minor media mentions critiquing Presstv's running the aformentioned report which were cited in the article, but even without sources that report on the sources and so on, I feel a publication in state media is important enough to mention in our article. A state publication may be a questionable source but not a fringe theory. And we can avoid undue weight by limiting the matter to one or two sentences in our article.

Also, this theory won't go away just because we don't keep it on WP. People will hear it on the net, and they will come here looking for answers. And I'd rather have them see how the story first ran in the Iranian media before they decide to believe it. Writing about conspiracy theories doesn't necessarily propagate them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Use it, with very careful attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Squid's assessment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific usage straw poll

Is this citation of PressTV appropriate or inappropriate? Editors who are already in discussion on Talk:Orly Taitz need not respond again to be counted. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Inapproriate for the reasons given above and on Talk:Orly Taitz. I may not need to respond, but I have decided to anyway. --GHcool (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To contextualize: This is the Reliable sources noticeboard, not the Orly Taits talkpage. That talk page already evidences a rough consensus opposing the inclusion of the conspiracy theory. Thus, there's no reason to start a new discussion or straw poll in an inappropriate forum to get a different consensus.

Moreover, the reason for dragging this issue to this noticeboard was because Jclemens claimed that PressTV was a reliable source and insisted that anyone claiming to the contrary must prove it. Its unreliability is now clear, yet Jclemens still insists that the conspiracy theory be included. It makes me think there's no way this can be resolved through a regular editor interaction.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

uhh, most users here felt that it is reliable enough to source the statement "Journalist Wayne Madsen, himself often viewed as a conspiracy theorist, was quoted in the controversial Iranian media outlet Press TV as alleging that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (the latter being a native of Moldova like Taitz) are acting through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in support of Taitz' efforts". So not sure where you are getting that "its unreliability is now clear". nableezy - 06:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PressTV never said that "Wayne Madsen himself is often viewed as a conspiracy theorist." But regardless, you're missing the point. The reason why this discussion was initiated was that an editor at the Orly Taitz talkpage claimed that the PressTV was a reliable source. The consensus (everyone but yourself) is that it is not reliable.

The next question is whether despite PressTV's lack of reliability, their statements can be still be used if the statements are properly attributed. A number of editors have stated that per wp:rs, their statements can be used if attributed and a number of editors have thought that, per wp:rs, its best that their statement not be mentioned at all. But this split in opinions concerns the reliability requirement for inclusion in any article. After the reliability issue is resolved, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE must be satisfied before any conspiracy theory is included in an article.

The issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE have not been discussed in this forum, because the article talkpage is the proper forum for this discussion, not the RS Noticeboard. The rough consensus at the Orly Taitz talk page that is that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE prohibits the inclusion of the conspiracy theory, parlty because PressTV's conspiracy theory was essentially ignored in the mainstream press.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of order; there is no "rough consensus" at the article talk page. 5 users have participated in the discussion there, with 3 opposed to inclusion and 2 favoring inclusion. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Another few points of clarification

• The issue was brought here because two editors (GHcool and Brewcrewer) asserted without any supporting evidence of previous policy discussion or community consensus that PressTV was an entirely unreliable source.
• The applicability of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is under dispute on the talk page--those asserting that they apply to this case have failed to provide detailed reasoning for their assertions.

Overall, I find Brewcrewer's summary of the talk page of limited accuracy. I welcome interested editors to join the discussion at Talk:Orly Taitz. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens: Your summary is inaccurate. You keep on conflating the reliability of a source in relation to WP:RS and the reliability of a source in relation to WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. I never said that PressTV cannot be used under any circumstances.

Obviously, as Blueboar points out below, PressTV is believed to be saying what they claim they are saying, just like Mein Kampf is reliable for what Mein Kampf says. Everyone agrees.

Similarly, everyone (except Nableezy perhaps) agrees that PressTV is not reliable for its content. All this is moot because in the Orly Taitz article, PressTV is not being used a source for the content of its claims. Rather PressTV is used to source that PressTV made a certain claim.

Thus, since the issue here has nothing to do with believing PressTV's claims, this entire discussion is a waster of everyone's time.

The only real issue regrading their lack of reliability is whether their claims deserve inclusion with WP. If they are not a reliable sources, their content regarding Israel is WP:FRINGE, and per that policy and WP:UNDUE they should not be included in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE agrees this shouldn't have its own article, but that's not the question. WP:UNDUE demands that a reliably sourced fringe theory be included. The two of them together provide a pretty unassailable rationale for inclusion in the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. If not covered by reliable sources, the issue is a fringe issue and should not be included in an article. WP:FRINGE does not speak to article creation, but to content within an article. You may be confusing WP:N, which exclusively to article creation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, aside from conflicting with the text of FRINGE, is that it is covered in reliable sources, including but not limited to PressTV. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV is certainly a reliable source for an attributed statement of what was said on Press TV... In that, it is like citing Mine Kamph for a statement about what Hitler wrote in that book. Whether the article in question should include discussion of what was said on Press TV or not is a WP:NPOV issue and not one of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen + Press TV = not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Russia Today

Almost all the discussion so far has centered on Iran's Press TV. But the original source was an interview on the Russia Today television network, which is available online.2 It seems to me that after something's been run on national networks in two large countries ( plus the syndication of Press TV's writeup in the Voltaire Network, an alternative international-relations-oriented news source out of France, and an editorial critique of the idea in the Charleston Daily Mail ), it's important enough to mention in the Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

works for me. How you word that mention to maintain NPOV might still be up for debate... but as for imporant enough to mention ... yup. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

The roots of the story go back a little further. In Tablet Magazine, a general-interest magazine about Jewish life, there was an article about her in late July which explains her involvement with AIPAC and her "connection" to Netanyahu.3 Apparently though they were just Facebook buddies, and according to this piece in the Detroit Free Press commenting on the issue, it's not unusual for politicians to grant friend requests.4

However, apparently right after the "Kenyan birth certificate" came out in the beginning of August, she was interviewed on MSNBC from Tel Aviv, and a harshly-worded editorial on Talking Points Memo questioned why she traveled there so soon and about whether she's part of a "milieu" of Soviet-born Israelis with unusually right-wing views. 5

Then a Wayne Madsen article, "Feud between Emanuel and Netanyahu heats up" came out, asserting that leaks of information about Obama to the conservative media were a "warning shot" from the Netanyahu goverment over his stance on Israel.6

Two weeks after that, Madsen appears on Russian television, where he said pretty much the same things plus a mention of Taitz's trip to Israel, and then there's the article from Iran's Press TV and so on.

So there's a pretty interesting story here, though quite a few sources would have to be condensed into a few lines to avoid undue weight, and my head's spinning trying to keep track of all this:

• We could quote Tablet straight, as an antidote to the frenzied speculation of "ties" to Netanyahu, and briefly tap the DFP article as a reaction to it.
• Similarly, we could add a brief TPM cite as a reaction to the Kenya document which I'm sure the article already covers.
• We can cite Russia Today ( with Press TV and Voltaire as backup ) for the Madsen interview, and point out that this was following Madsen's "shot across the bow" article, and that it's been criticized in the Charleston Daily News article.7 I think if we limit this to a couple of sentences we can stay within undue weight for this opinion, as per its coverage in national news services discussed above.

With these additional sources, I think we can do a pretty good job at demystifying a political theory that seems to get more and more exaggerated each time it changes hands. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As you would expect, the guideline WP:Fringe theories links the words "Fringe theory" to a wikipedia article on the topic... or so everyone thought. In fact, for years that link was simply a redirect to the article on Fringe science. This bothered me. There are Fringe theories that have nothing to do with science. Heck, there are probably Finge theories in every academic discipline - and there are fringe theories in pop culture (conspiracy theories and urban legends). So... I decided to undo the redirect and start an article on the broader topic of Fringe theory.

Now I have hit a snag. Finding sources upon which to build the article. I am finding tons and tons of sources that use the term "Fringe theory" (most accusing something of being one), but hardly any that discuss the topic of Fringe theories in abstract terms. In fact, I am even having difficulty finding a reliable source that to define the term. I think this is a notable topic... one that deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but I can't seem to substantiate that notability with sources. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tried googling for ten minutes and...nothing. I thought searching for "a fringe theory is" would do something, but it didn't. Maybe it isn't fringe theory, but fringe something else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The closest I am coming to a defiintion for the term so far is to define each word seperately... Fringe is defined as X, theory is defined as Y... hence Fringe theory is X+Y... but that "Hence" probably constitues OR by our rules (I will have to ask about that at NORN). And that still does not help me build the article beyond a stub. This is FRUSTRATING! Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dare I suggest, perhaps there should not be such an article. It's a common phrase, but do we have articles on every common phrase? Dlabtot (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's one possibility. Another is creating a List of Fringe Theories article. There's plenty of RSs for that. And, you'll probably find a enough info somewhere out there to create a nice lead, and then you might be on your way to an actual FT article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article called List of conspiracy theories (which is a subset of fringe theories) and it's a headache. Fringe theory proponents tend to be more dedicated than non-fringe theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about more dedicated. Maybe as individuals, but there's a much larger element on WP that is if anything fringe-phobic, and many debates run towards protracted battles to keep even criticism of fringe theories off the WP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that "fringe" normally refers to science? I can't remember seeing the word "fringe" used in discussions of conspiracy theories, etc, except here on Wikipedia. Which means we have to think twice about codifying an article on "fringe theories"; not only would it be OR, but it would bring a wider range of topics under the auspices of WP:FRINGE. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While the term "finge theory" is certainly used in both hard and social science and in medicine, a quick Google News, Books and Scholar search would indicate to me that the other place it shows up most often is in politics. Fladrif (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Władysław Siemaszko's published collection of oral recollections from members of his former military unit (related to the Polish wartime activities) considered a realiable source?

In Polish: Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na ludności polskiej Wołynia 1939–1945

Used in article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia Bobanni (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, subject to WP:PRIMARY, I would think so.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• The above thread posted by a Ukrainian editor in relation to the Ukrainian participation in the WWII massacres of Poles, requires some background info. First of all, information explaining the scope of Siemaszko’s work was deleted by Bobanni’s tag-team member User:Bandurist recently. So, unless we look at the article’s edit history, we’re mislead into believing – what seems like – a clear case of edit warring against the Polish historical records, which are the only records in existence. Siemiaszko's work on the Volhynian massacres of Poles, was based on witness accounts as well as court documents including trials of Ukrainian war criminals, not to mention Polish national archives and statistical censuses. It was a ten-year long project undertaken by a professional lawyer without bias (see: Tomasz Potkaj, Jan Strzałka, "Krzyże z Przebraża" Tygodnik Powszechny 2003). The 1,500 pages of research collected by Siemaszko in two published volumes are the main source of data with regard to the number of victims, their locations, the names of annihilated villages, OUN-UPA correspondence, and the precise timeline of their war crimes. Please do not attempt to undermine the value of such documentation. --Poeticbent talk 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What are our thoughts on this? It's in the Kari Ann Peniche article specifically, but I see them a lot in google news, so I'd like to hear general thoughts as well. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well they definitely meet RS, and have been around for a very long time. They're seen as kind of a second fiddle to the New York Times, but they have good coverage of everyday events in the NYC metro area. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come across a couple of articles on immigrant populations in the UK which rely on sources that, although seemingly reliable due to their publishers, may reflect the common tendency to confuse the United Kingdom with England alone. Macedonians in the United Kingdom uses this source from the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs which states that 9-10,000 Macedonians live in England (the Macedonian for England is mk:Англија). Meanwhile, Māori in the United Kingdom uses this source from the New Zealand government which gives a figure of 8,000 Māori in England. It seems strange to me that these sources give figures for England but for none of the other constituent countries of the UK and I wonder if the authors have used "England" when they mean the UK. It is common for national statistics in the UK to only apply to England and Wales combined, since Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own statistics agencies, but having figures for England only seems odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Such sources need extra care. I think a small amount of original research to find out what the sources mean would be OK (e.g. if the number for England is 50 % more than the number for the UK 10 years earlier, the editors might decide that the UK must be meant). But if it's not clear what is meant, the source may become unusable, or usable only using tricks such as direct quotation and a warning in a footnote. Hans Adler 10:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. The problem is that I can't find any other sources with which to compare the figures. I have found an e-mail address for the author of the Māori article though, so I could contact him to check whether he meant England or the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say the best method to prevent this problem would be to use official statistics from the United Kingdom government, UK agencies or devolved governments / agencies and not foreign governments or foreign 3rd parties. When it comes to things like immigration despite being out of date, i would still prefer to use the 2001 census data gathered across the United Kingdom unless more upto date clear reliable information is available from a good / respected source. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trabucogold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) originally created Scriptural geologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a WP:Close paraphrasing of a PhD thesis by one Terrance J. Mortenson. An admin first deleted and then restored the article as a stub. I have since rewritten it to more reliable and prominent sources (such as Martin J. S. Rudwick & David N. Livingstone). Trabucogold is now insisting on reinserting Mortenson material, specifically a claim that Granville Penn "was familiar with current geological literature".

• Mortenson's PhD is stated as being "'British Scriptural Geologists In The First Half Of The Nineteenth Century', PhD Thesis (Coventry University in collaboration with Wycliffe Hall, Oxford)"
  • As far as I can make out Coventry University has no expertise in either the history of science or geology (and is besides a subpar university -- ranking at the bottom 26th to 35th percentile in the UK, according to its published rankings)
  • Wycliffe Hall, Oxford is a "theological college" (i.e. seminary), and is unlikely to have any particular strengths in these fields either.
• Mortenson (AiG bio) main occupation has been Christian activism (mostly with Campus Crusade for Christ) and currently works for Answers in Genesis, a Young Earth creationist apologetics ministry whose ideology closely matches the scriptural geologists'. AiG has published a summarised version of his thesis on their website. I would note that it offers no insight as to why Mortenson chose an obscure university in the West Midlands of England (a country with which he had no apparent prior contact) as a venue for his PhD.
• One of the sources cited in the article (Piccardi & Masse 2007) dismisses Mortenson's defense of the scriptural geologists' geological competence as "special pleading", while another (Livingstone et al. 1999) states that "They were not, it turns out, geologists at all."

My question is, does the fact that this is a PhD thesis (with the review process that this generally involves) raise it above what would otherwise be considered the work of a WP:FRINGE creationist author (and thus a WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll comment anyways. PhD theses are only sometimes considered reliable. I think one way to tell is to check what other scholarly sources cite it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

with the review process that this generally involves - em what review process? You write it, you do your viva and your internal and external say "that makes sense and your arguments have some validity and now go and made those minor/major corrections". It's not a review process in the way that peer review is. I consider a PhD original research and it should only be used to support statement that *he* made in regards to the PhD or within the Phd and not as source that those views are widely held or 'true'. As for Coventry being a "subpar" University, this is a very odd statement - a PhD from coventry would still be considered a valid PhD in the same way that one from Leeds, LSE or anywhere would be. You make it sound like some shady diploma mill. The other problem is that a) you are using current rankings and b) even in a overall poorly rated university, individual departments can be highly rated for research in their area. Your other statement about "no insight into why he chose" is simply an attempt to poison the well which you should refrain from in future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(i) "em what review process?" Per PhD there is generally "a panel of expert examiners". (ii) "subpar" A university's reputation is normally considered to be to some extent 'backing' the degrees it confers, and thus the thesis that the degree was conferred for. (iii) "current rankings" -- Coventry is one of the New Universities -- and only was granted university status in 1992 (the very year that Mortenson apparently started his PhD there), so it is hardly likely that there has been a precipitous fall in rankings. (iv) "individual departments can be highly rated" -- this would be the non-existent geology department or the (apparently equally non-existent) department that would have coverage of history of science (generally taught as part of philosophy of science within a philosophy department, which Coventry also lacks). (v) "no insight" -- I mentioned this because something smells here. We have somebody doing a PhD at a newly created university, which has no apparent expertise in his chosen subject area, no reputation to speak of, and he has no apparent ties to the area. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One must consider the quality of PhDs to be related to the research rating of the relevant department; such ratings are assigned through Research Assessment Exercises. The reference cited does not even proffer a department under which the degree was granted, which makes assessment difficult. Knowing the identity of the external examiner(s) would also help. I should also point out that the reference to Wycliffe Hall is a well-known ploy for lesser institutions to trade on Oxford University's reputation. A recent review of Wycliffe, and other private halls condemned the practice and recommended that the university outlaw all such activities by private halls if they are to remain affiliated with the university. Rvcx (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you link to makes no mention of Wycliffe or this practice. Could you provide a link to the correct URL? Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a cut-and-paste from the wrong tab. Fixed above; the URL is http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2007-8/supps/1_vol138.pdf Rvcx Paragraph 32--34; Recommendation 7(d). (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting WP:RS: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research." Is there further research to support this PhD thesis? Is there a book or other secondary source quoting it? Quoting a single PhD thesis to support claims not found in other secondary sources should be done with the utmost caution. Even if the PhD thesis were to come from a university more respected and widely known than Coventry. The fact that the thesis comes from Coventry doesn't speak against it as much as the fact that it is a single PhD thesis. Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe is spot on. This shouldn't be about what university the PhD was awarded by, but rather by whether the research has stood the test of time. Has it been supported or refuted is the key question. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think which university awards it does have some effect. I think it's more complicated than a top 10 or bottom 30% or whatever, though. It's based on how they review their PhD papers. I don't think we have a list. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a UK based PhD, you don't do papers (although that method is starting to appear) - you write a Thesis of between 70,000-100,000 (humanities and social sciences) and then you attend a viva which is an oral examination which is assessed by an internal expert in your field and an external expert from another University. The situation in the US is different and complex but does not apply here so it's not worth getting into. As others have said, the awarding University is a red herring in this case. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, the thesis is cited twice (other than by Mortenson himself): Science and salvation, Aileen Fyfe, cites it (p8) as one of a long list of references for the existence of SGs, Darwin and Christian Faith states "Mortensen, who is highly sympathetic to these ‘Scriptural Geologists’ in his recent PhD thesis, nevertheless shows how by 1850 (note: nearly a decade before Darwin published his book on evolution) all the major orthodox commentaries had abandoned any support for such schema." See also Piccardi & Masse 2007 comment in my original post. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure (at least in the U.S.) is to pull out chapters of one's dissertation and publish them in academic journals. It is the journals' peer review processes that lend final credence to the work. At least in economics, if one cannot publish in a peer reviewed academic journal the ideas presented dissertation, then the dissertation ideas are (usually) considered fringe. Wikiant (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that, if it's of any use to the discussion, the original PhD thesis can be downloaded for free from the British Library's EThOS service. Just search for uk.bl.ethos.318155, which is its EThOS persistent ID. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, neither of the supervisors listed in the acknowledgements seem to have been members of the Coventry faculty. Mortenson lists Colin Russell (presumably Colin A. Russell) and Gordon McConville. The latter was at Wycliffe Hall though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell's field is History of Chemistry (not dead on point, but not too far off), McConville's appears to be Old Testament and Hebrew (completely unrelated field). Not really the best combination for a thesis in History of Geology -- especially for making claims as to the SG's geological competence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are still on this angle but if we must persist with the mud-slinging at the academics involved rather than concentrating on the source itself... - the supervisor's qualifications are irrelevant in that they don't do the assessment and pass the PhD, that's done by the external and the internal, if you search their bins you might find something wrong with them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in suggesting a previously-untapped line of inquiry that would be more fruitful, then feel free. I don't see any attempt at "mud-slinging at the academics involved", but do see the choice of two non-Coventry supervisors (one in a completely unrelated field) as rather odd -- and (further) raising the question of 'why go to Coventry at all then?' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For a PhD on "British Scriptural Geologists In The First Half Of The Nineteenth Century" Old Testament and Hebrew is not remotely a "completely unrelated field". It is central to the subject. The PhD is clearly about authors who arer attempting to reconcile geology with the bible. Expertise in the language of the bible and the history of its interpretation is clearly directly relevant. This is a subject within the general field of history, not science. The science is historical and the biblical exegesis is historical. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mortenson himself contradicts you there. He spends only 15 pages (out of 500) on 'Biblical interpretation', simply summarising the views of "Augustine, Calvin, Luther and Wesley" "…and then the commentaries in use in the early nineteenth century." He spends the same length on 'Defining a Competent Geologist'. The thesis is explicitly stated to be in the field of "history of geology". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mortenson himself does not contradict me at all. He confirms what I said. "To understand and appreciate the scriptural geologists, their historical context is discussed, beginning with the intellectual and religious background, and the historical developments in geology, palaeontology and cosmology that shaped the social and religious milieu of the early nineteenth century. Also relevant is the approach to biblical interpretation through the preceding centuries and amongst their contemporaries.. Paul B (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Also relevant" ≠ "central to the subject" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the chapter headings. You will find that it is in great part about the theological issues, the history of biblical intrerpretation and so forth, so yes, this is central to the subject. In fact your wholly false assertion that he spends only 15 pages on biblical interpretation is easily refuted by looking at the chapter content and page numbers. You are presumably referring to the short introductory chapter of that name, but that's just part of the introduction/background, the substative text discusses the issue and related theological concerns in relation to all his subjects. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the chapters instead. They outline the profiled scriptural geologists' views on Genesis (and occasionally Exodus), but include no depth of exogesis that would require the the tutelage of an Old Testament and Hebrew scholar. But in any case, this is getting to be beside the point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The pdf makes it clear that Wycliffe concentrates almost exclusively on theology, especially at graduate level. So what was its role in all this if the thesis is about the history of geology? Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the review, Wycliffe takes a pronounced evangelical Anglican viewpoint -- the same viewpoint that one author attributes to the (British) scriptural geologists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Theses are generally not considered reliable sources -- they're just an advanced level student paper with an opinion and so forth. If they go beyond that to get published as a book or journal article somewhere then apply the normal standards for determining notability of those, but if it's just a thesis, no way. Already that means it should either not be used at all or used extremely cautiously -- say, for uncontroversial claims or proof that some notable person holds some opinion and not for any facts. On top of that the individual and college involved are not at reliable for the topic in question and thus completely unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be citable for Mortenson's opinion, but not for anything else. I know a PhD is hard work, but it is not sufficient to make him a notable commentor in the area - that is determined by the reaction of reliable sources to his work. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, it should be citable for an opinion if the opinion is even notable in the first place, which the mere existence of a thesis alone wouldn't be enough to prove. I have no opinion on that ultimately, having not looked into that aspect of it. DreamGuy (talk)

If you search the archives you will find a great deal of discussion about the use of american PhD theses. the general consensus is, use with caution, preferably not at all. I don't know the particulars of the british system first hand, but it doesn't appear to be radically different from the american system. There are a lot of sub-par theses out there, the good ones will eventually find their way into print, one way or another. In the case of this thesis I'm doubly cautious given the subject matter, the author and the reviews in print. I suggest that it not be used at all. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are court judgements made in jurisdictions that have legal requirements to be impartial (and are generally recognized as being impartial) reliable sources? For example, if a Canadian court says here (at paragraph 1090) that the Hells Angels meet the Canadian statutory definition of a criminal organization, would that be a reliable source? Would it make a difference if it was upheld on appeal as to whether it was a reliable source? Would it make a difference about what country the decision was made in (say North Korea instead of Canada)? Singularity42 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Strictly from a sourcing standpoint, you could, for example, say something similar to, In June, 2009, a Canadian court held that the Hells Angels met the Canadian statutory definition of a criminal organization. Whether that would be appropriate in a particular article, however, is a different question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is literally a primary source. the structure of most court documents is complex. We may consider a court document 'primary' with respect to legal formulation (in some cases) because they are not removed from the decisisonmaking. But much of the big D Discourse going on in a court document is analytical and sensitive to context. Many appelate court decisions represent hundreds of person hours worth of deliniating various decisions and evidence. For some of those, quoting them as a secondary source would not be inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it goes through a process before it is published. But it is the original and primary source for that legal opinion. If a newspaper or magazine were to publish a story about that opinion, that's a secondary source. And when, for example, an encyclopedia amalgamates various primary and secondary sources into an overview of the topic, that's a tertiary source. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess that leads us back to the discussion taking place here. Would such a court case be enough to justify the use of Template:Infobox Criminal organization? Or would a secondary source, such as this newspaper article be what's needed? If neither are, what would be a reliable source to justify the use of Template:Infobox Criminal organization? It seems to me to be a legal distinction... Singularity42 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to be rude, but I think a recitation of the conventional wisdom on primary and secondary sources is not an appropriate response. When we classify a legal opinion as a primary source we place it in the same category as a found historical object or a value in a tax collector's book. The thrust of my point was to say that such a characterization is wrong because it breezes by the different elements of the analysis. Using the standard taxonomy of sources, the Unabomber's Manifesto was a primary source up until it was republished in Time magazine, when it became a secondary source. I'm oversimplifying of course, but the point is that the medium and mechanism are largely immaterial. The nature of the work determines its status. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand you, and detect no element of rudeness. I just think you are wrong, for the reasons I already stated. If you think those reasons are overly obvious, so be it. Dlabtot (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't agree that the republishing of the Unabomber Manifesto in Time Magazine magically transformed it into a secondary source, any more than the US Constitution would be a secondary source because of its numerous republishing in myriad venues. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is best practice to avoid heavily relying on court decisions, laws, treaties, and other such documents. They are most appropriately used as accompanying material to other reliable sources. The Toronto Star is a highly reputable newspaper, so it is an appropriate reliable source. The court cases could be used in a secondary footnote referring readers to the decisions in the context of the Star article. That said, while it is strongly implied that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization under the Canadian legal system, using the court case and Star article to make the full assertion seems to go beyond what the sources present. Especially for such a controversial assertion as labelling a group as a criminal organization, the sources used to support the claim should be very explicit about the point. Editors should also exercise due diligence to ensure that such an opinion is not a tiny minority view. Additionally, navigation templates, categories, and similar tools should represent the mainstream or at least majority view of the subject. --Vassyana (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We can report what a court judgment says, but we cannot endorse their conclusion as factual. This is simple, basic encyclopedia writing, and I'm surprised there's any question about it here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't think raising the question was frivilous. The original question leads back to a wider debate, one that may be more difficult to answer. We have Template:Infobox Criminal organization, but no clear policy about what is a reliable source to justify its use. Russian Mafia uses it without the need for sources, since "Criminal organization" is implied by the title (i.e. "Mafia"). Mara Salvatrucha uses it with the source being a news article citing the FBI (which some editors in other debates on the issue have argued is not a reliable source since they would be biased). Anyway, I think this more narrow issue has been concluded. The most we can do with a court case, no matter the type and level of court, is say Court X says Y rather than Y is a fact. Singularity42 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All material needs interpretation, selection, and fair quoting, and appropriate use, primary as well as secondary. The standard taxonomy of sources is a crude approximation, the various parts of a court judgment have different weight and significance. What the Toronto Star or any newspaper, magazine, legal book, or scholarly article reports of a court judgment may or may not be correct-- by unconscious or deliberate misunderstanding, error, bias, or even manipulation. No work is beyond question. The court may decide correctly, and the newspaper get it wrong, or may decide incorrectly, and the newspaper follow it. The Star does not decide who is a criminal. For the other example, Time's republication of the Unabomber's manifesto is not a secondary source, in any taxonomy; it is the reprinting of a primary source. Time's discussion of what it said and meant is a secondary source. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just to address the question about court documents in policy terms, per WP:BLP policy the use of court documents as sources in articles on living people is only permissible if the court documents have been commented upon in secondary sources. In other words, court documents that have not been cited in books or newspapers or other reliable sources are not considered suitable sources for a Wikipedia article discussing living persons. For further details see WP:WELLKNOWN. JN466 15:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus though that WP:BLP should automatically apply to companies and organisations? Personally I think it should. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a bunch of historical documents there 8. These documents are primary sources, and, by formal criteria, they are the Russian equivalent of the Avalon project 9. Can anyone comment on how trustworthy these documents are? Can they be used as reliable primary sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable as such: internal government reports. "Officer X reported to general Y that..." does not mean that the facts reported occured exactly as reported, or even that they ever occured at all. Even assuming good faith on behalf of NKVD, it was 1940 - fog of war. And be wary of omissions, within each separate document and within the whole selection. NVO (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See comment here (Russian). The documents have been intentionally selected to justify the Occupation of Baltic States, but the documents themselves seem to be authentic.Biophys (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be a resolution of Europarliament, or similar institution, considered a primary or secondary source? More concretely, I am interested is the statements from this resolution 10. Does it add something new to our understanding of those time events, or this resolution just shows a point of view of present day's politicians on the Molotov Ribbentrop pact? In other words, does the opinion of politicians have the same weight as the opinion of professional historians?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I depends on how it's being used.陣内_Jinnai 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be if it was used directly as a reference and included any self made up commentary. However Reuters and BBC who discuss the resolution are secondary sources. Please see Russia scolds OSCE for equating Hitler and Stalin and Resolution on Stalin riles Russia.--Termer (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source... but that does not mean it is not reliable. It can be used as a citation for a purely discriptive statement as to what is contained in the resolution itself (best done as a direct quote). However, care must be taken... it should not be used for analytical or conclusionary statements. For example, if you want to discuss what the resolution means, you need a secondary source such as the reuters article. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A fairly new website at 11 is being used/substituted for a source for biblical texts. Here is where they describe themselves. The site wants donations, Twitter followers, etc. I'm not sure about it and although I've removed it a couple of times as promotional I'd like other opinions. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we should stick with free sources for the Bible, that don't carry strings. Has anyone checked to see if there are COI concerns about the editors who are replacing the refs?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The site seems to be run by a ministry in Zionsville Indiana, but I don't see a reason that would immediately discount it. Despite it's attempts at what looks like a fairly complete set of references (you can choose from 12 different major versions of the Bible), I would be hard-pressed to believe that it would be the only source available for anything Bible-based, but the passages it quotes do seem accurate. On the whole, I don't see why this isn't a viable source, although, as I said, on something like this where there is so much material available, I would think there would always be a more accessible source that could be used. I also don't see where it engages in any research, it looks more like a nicely laid-out quote machine. If that's the case, any Bible would be a better source. Since it's reliability can be confirmed easily for quotations, I would say this could be a reliable source, unless someone can prove otherwise. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliability is somewhat less of an issue here than the self-promotion aspects. We should really consolidate all Biblical text links to a standard source -- surely Wikisource would have Biblical texts, and there's no need to go to mom and pop Bible site if we have an official Wikimedia Foundation option. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Something to remember here... there isn't one single "biblical text"... there a many (KJV, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard, etc. etc.). Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all fully aware of that. Any reference to a Biblical text should state which version is being referred to.DreamGuy (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If you read the posts, I think they indicated we were all aware of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In interpretation of WP:RS, what adult publications might be considered as authoritative on the adult field? I am not asking if Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler or others of that ilk be considered as authoritative on world politics... only if such publications are accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to sourcing articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry... films and stars and authors and such. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Such publications as which to source which articles to cite what text? Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I stress that I do not watch porn nor read adult magazines, and am trying to follow guideline as closely as possible in several AfD discussons: 12, 13, 14. An experienced editor has taken an interest in numerous adult-related BLPs and has nominated many for deletion 15. I feel that WP:PORNBIO is not the only guideline that might apply. When it is pointed out that adult sources might be considered in context to what is being sourced, the editor requests me to qualify the sources as authoritative and reliable for the context in which it is being used, so I have come here. In responses to opinions that an adult BLP may meet WP:ENT, the editor seeks input to change that guideline after-the-fact to support his view 16. The editor asserts that such pubications are unavailable to Wikipedians 17. So I am here seeking clarification, as I do not see the various notability guidelines as exclusionary... but understand them to be various related ways to determine notability. My thought is that if an actor has multiple write-ups in Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, or one of the other adult industry major publications, it would then qualify as meeting notability under the WP:GNG since reliable sources must be consdered in context to what is being sourced. I am of the thought that such publications should, under WP:RS, be accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to the sourcing of articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler are all reliable sources. Playboy is just below peer reviewed journals and books, in a lot of cases. Hustler isn't great for politics, but it's just fine for adult entertainment. Penthouse is in-between, I think (not entirely sure, I think it's going down and Hustler is going up). The problem with Lilly Ann, and articles like that, is that it's a pictorial and not a normal article. The subject of a pictorial is kinda like an author. It's kinda by them as opposed to about them. If it meets PORN or whatever, that's fine, but I'm not sure that a pictorial really meets the independent part of the GNG. Finding sources is difficult for that kind of stuff. Not sure where to look. If it's an article and not a pictorial, then it's just fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I think, however, that we can safely say that the Penthouse Forum section of that magazine should NOT be considered reliable for statements of fact! Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the forums and letters sections of such are not RS, and if a pictorial spread is accompanied by an article about the subject, that should be suitable toward meeting GNG. I agree that pictures alone do not do it. I needed assurance that I was not reading guideline incorectly. And I found the discussions about WP:ATH at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) 18 19 to be enlightening as well and for the same reasons... in that the sub-criteria of WP:BIO are not intended to prevent determining notability through other applicable guidelines. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I look at "sub-criteria", like WP:PORNBIO as specific ones tailors to those areas. In some cases, they allow in people who would otherwise fail GNG. On the flip side, I see them as over-riding GNG in a way. If specific guidelines were needed for an area, then why shouldn't we go with them? Is an actress that made 35 non-notable straight to DVD pornos notable because of the number? Is a guest spread (no pun intended) in Hustler (with a circulation of under 500,000) or Penthouse (with a circulation of under 350,000)as notable as Playboy with a circulation of over 3 million? If showing up in Penthouse or Hustler in notable, then a guest model in FHM (circulation 700,000), Maxim (2.5 million) or Sports Illustrated (3 million a week) should be a shoe-in. I am perfectly content with the PORNBIO criteria and use it as a default. It is a very easy criteria to meet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in terms of establishing notability. The biography is not independent from her paid photoshoot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensible. "Articles" might establish notability per WP:GNG where a simple bio or pictorial spread, though it might perhaps offer some WP:V, would not of itself confer notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry but until it can be demonstrated that these publications have the same degree of fact checking and/or peer review (and I don't mean that kind of review thank you) as a broadsheet newspaper or even a red top I'm flatly not buying into the concept that an editorial in playboy or penthouse can be considered sourcing to establish notability under N or BIO. Personally, I find redtops to be unreliable in many cases so adult mags? No. I don't think so. I'm sure I'm not alone in taking this view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• With respects Spartaz, does your comment indicate then that you do not fully aprove of how WP:RS is written? Its phrases "...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "How reliable a source is depends on context" seem rather clear. Subject at hand. Context. I think it is reasonable common sense to accept that Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler would be both authoritative and knowledgable on adult entertainment subjects, as that is their field of expertise. Without my researching years of archived dicussions, I believe the accepting of certain adult magazines as reliable in context to an adult subject, have already been disussed multiple times, and that consensus had been reached. No doubt it was acrimonious. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note On his talk page Spartaz indicates that I asked the question about Realiable Sources at the wrong venue.20 So I have copied the entire discussion to Wikipedia talk:Reliable_sources#Adult industry. Further coments may be made there. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's either mistaken or you are misinterpreting him. Discussion of what does or doesn't constitute a reliable source goes here. Discussion of the RS guideline happens at WT:RS. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Exact quotation of the Spartaz comment: "I'm not seeing an established consensus at the discussion you are pointing to but any consensus needs to be reached at WP:RS as that is the relevant guideline. Has that happened?" I do not know any other way to interpret it other than he does not see a consensus being created here and that he feels one needs to be reached at over at WP:RS. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to feel that the content of the profile matters. Playboy is host to a great deal of excellent articles (cue joke about not reading it for the pictures), but we can't immediately compare any given article with the interviews and other accoutrement to a paid photoshoot. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would really be skeptical of treating Hustler as a reliable source, even for the description of the models. It's been years since I've read one (and there isn't a Dutch language edition, so I can't run down to the store and buy one), but if memory serves, there's a disclaimer that the model biographies are fictional. I would be fairly cautious of Penthouse on that topic as well. In both cases, I would be more inclined to rely on their articles on politics and history than their articles on the adult industry.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think KWW's about right, except there's a difference between a (theoretical) article on the adult industry, and their model bios. I think the bio's are made up. IIRC they have likes and dislikes that so sexually oriented, it's almost a joke. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why there is no point in trying to make general statements about what is or is not a reliable source. We can only deal in specific citations. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but I must say that Playboy is considered very reliable. They do in depth analysis on stuff that goes way deeper than Time or Newsweek, and their interviews are considered just about the best in the industry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • While a bio might be quite imaginative and not generally considered as reliable (case by case need be considered), I feel each source must be measured for what it says, how it says it, and what it is being used to cite. If a sentence in a wikipedia article states someone appeared as a Playboy or Penthouse centerfold, the picture should be reasonable WP:V of the fact of being the centerfold. In depth articles (and these publications do have them) need be themselves considered on a case by case basis. A blanket dismissal of them all as unreliable "skin mags" seems a bit of a narrow interpretation. That's why I came here for clarification. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article lists states that the editors feel match a dictionary definition they have chosen from Webster's. We thus end up with the list including the Liberian Republic with a footnote stating "Note: Liberia was established as a republic under the model of the US; however, it fully fit the model of empire as defined by Webster throughout the 19th century", the Orange Free State and the South African Republic. These last two have sources but a quick look at them shows that one, for instance, doesn't mention empire, another (Bundy) doesn't give information enough to even find it easily and I suspect the editor doesn't know the source, etc. I think that, at least, the lead is fundamentally wrong is calling on Webster's to decide what should be included, and that only states that reliable sources have called an empire should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are serious WP:RS problems throughout this article. As to your specific question, a footnote making an unsubstantiated claim is not a reliable source. If there were a reliable source that explicitly stated that Liberia contained several ethnic states under centralized leadership, then the inference that it met the definition "several ethnic states under centralized leadership" would be justified. That's not the case now. Rvcx (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What other RS problems do you see? There are also edit warring, or potential edit warring, problems there. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that most of the countries on the list don't have any supporting references whatsoever, the page is incredibly sketchy about what an "African empire" is. For those countries that do have references to books, is the country listed because the source expressly lays out the conditions of the definition used, or just because the author uses the word "empire" under a completely different interpretation? My view is that a complete rewrite of the lede to introduce a list of entities that have been referred to as empires under some definition---then you can simply go for use of the word "empire" in any reliable source. Rvcx (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I firmly agree with Rvcx statement above. I tried a little rewrite of the lead in hopes of fixing the dispute. any comments suggestions are welcome and NEEDED. If I had more help with the article, it would be better sourced. however I'm kinda stretched thin. The vast majority of empires on the page are referenced as empires on their own pages (Mali, Songhai, Kanem bornu, etc). I didn't think they needed the extra citation, but seeing as how List of empires is cited on every line, i'm beginning to come around to the idea. Liberia fit the definition cuz it is undisputable that several different ethnic groups lived under the Liberian government (no ethnic group in the whole country constitutes anything near a majority). plus, the state was ruled over by a minority similar in comparison to how the british were minorities in their own empire and the spanish were minorities in their own empire (one small group ruling over many). That was my logic in including it; however, i will remove it per your reasoning if I can get some consensus from Dougweller.Scott Free (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Liberia referred to as an empire, have you? If you can find reliable sources stating it's one, I'd be surprised, but that would be the only way something should go in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok. i'll remove it. what about orange free state? i've never read anything referring to it as an empire (tho i think it kinda fits the definition). It has sources.Scott Free (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article may not need to mention definitions at all. As for OFS and SAR, there are lots of references to their imperialist nature. However, editors must remember that use of the term empire is not necessarily straightforward. Take for example the French empire. After 1870, France no longer termed itself an empire, but was officially a republic. In 1946, the colonial empire was formally renamed the 'French Union'. But it was one of the largest empires in history. Yet notwithstanding the name change, according to Wikipedia 'France unsuccessfully fought bitter wars in the 1950s and early 1960s to keep its empire intact. However, I am puzzled as to why Dougweller has brought the discussion here, rather than challenge my sources in detail on the article's talk page.Ackees (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article suffers from not having a clearly defined scope... So far, you have all been focused on the word Empire... but when we say "African" do we mean empires of African origin, or are we including Empires of non-African orgigin that contain territory in Africa? Do we mean empires completely within Africa, empires mostly within Africa, or any empire that includes even a tiny bit of territory in Africa? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Amazon.com considered a reliable source for the following sentence in the Cape Feare article: "The episode was selected for release in a 1997 video collection of selected episodes titled: The Simpsons: Springfield Murder Mysteries."? (comments can be left here or at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cape Feare/archive1) Thanks, Theleftorium 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Iffy... too many open questions... Was the episode released in other collections? Was the collection released at times in different formats? And of course, is this really important enough to include in the article in the first place (ie is it trivia)? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, but it doesn't effect notability. Whether to include it is an editorial decision. Normally we don't use all the Amazon product info we can, but it may be useful on occasion, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, see Cape_Feare#Merchandising. Theleftorium 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... If it were up to me, I would cut that entire section ... but to answr the question, I think that Amazon is fine in this instance. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would cut out all articles on individual episodes of TV shows. But failing that Amazon is perfectly fine to show that something is available for sale in a certain format or packaging. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would prefer seeing expanded season articles before individual episode articles are created but that is neither here nor there. Does FOX have any video/DVD release info available online? Barring that, Amazon seems like a great source for this claim. You could also just cite the video box/DVD case (copyright date, UPC, etc.) as a primary source for the claim that the collections do, in fact, exist. The argument promulgated here that Amazon is disallowed because they are "commercial...writing to sell and not inform..." would seem, to me at least, to be non-germane to this particular usage (the mere existence of an item). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Fox doesn't have any VHS/DVD information website. Thank you for the answers! Theleftorium 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#nurse nayirah. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the nurse nayirah page commodore sloat is persistantly using editorials as reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309265055&oldid=309254335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make false statements. On that very page, the anon ip is disruptively deleting well sourced information and personally attacking me on the talk page. csloat (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No opinion as of yet, but ".<ref>See, for example, Michael Kunczik..." seems a bit odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{EC}Deception on Capitol Hill is an opinion piece and is only reliable for statements of opinion, not fact. You will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. If you have any doubts on whether a particular source is reliable and reliable for what, please post specific questions on the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest is right about opinion pieces. They need to be attributed. It's not that hard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• While this particular Youtube video looks legit, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of WP:RS and should be removed from the article. See if you can find some coverage on a major news site, such as BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• CONGRESSMAN SAYS GIRL WAS CREDIBLE is a reliable source but be careful. Some of the reporting is done with inline attribution (i.e. "According to Tom Lantos,..."). If the New York Times felt the need to use inline attribution, we should probably, too.
• Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. As before, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect.
• Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities; Retracted Testimony appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. Again, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are three more sources which (at quick glance) appear to be reliable for statements of fact that you can use in the article:

• MIDEAST - Kuwait Story of Babies Removed From Incubators Refuses to Die
• In war, some facts less factual
• United we are strong, united we will win A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

During the discussion here 21 I have been repeatedly requested me to provide an additional proof of reliability of the Beloff's work published in a peer reviewed journal. I tried to explain him that in that case the very name of a publisher warrants reliability of this source, however, he maintains that the proof is needed. A simple scholar.google.com search 22 demonstrates that Beloff's "The foreign policy of Soviet Russia" has been cited 37 times. In addition, he authored about a hundred of books and articles, and, based on the scholar.google.com search I estimate his H-factor to be around 18. Without any doubts, it demonstrates Beloff's prominence and notability.
In connection to that, my question is, am I obliged to do such a search every time I am requested to do that, or the burden of proof rests with those who decided to question the reliability of some publication in reputable peer-reviewed journal?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just authorlinked many of the books cited at that article. It's a simple step that avoids the need for lengthy debate in many such cases. A word to the wise.LeadSongDog come howl 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since WP is not a source for itself, authorlinking is not a solution (although, by itself, your job is definitely an improvement).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

authorlinking just points out which sources are notable and allows easy verification/ It isn't a matter of being a source on itself. If someone wants to check up on the author, they can head to their wikipedia page and read what cited sources there have to say about him/her. The short answer to your big question is, "no". Peer reviewed sources do not necessarily need to undergo voir dire. If you have two peer reviewed sources which conflict, then yes, you may be forced to get into a discussion about which claims are more reliable or which bit of evidence more substantive. I will offer a caveat. It doesn't happen much in the humanities, but there are some cases of faux peer reviewed journals in the sciences or the medical world--journals which are shams for drug companies or lone researchers. Any serious claim that an ostensibly peer reviewed journal is one of those sham journals should be investigated. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Protonk for your comment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources for the current self-governing level of Gibraltar. They seem to define a variety of perimeters:

The current citation, from the Encyclopedia Brittannica, says that 23 "Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters but defense."

Other alternative sources are:

• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” 24 (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” 25.
• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." 26 (page 4).
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”27
• A UN report says that “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.3” 28 (pg. 3)

I think that probably the most accurate source is the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as the Governor of Gibraltar reports to its Secretary of State. But I'm not sure if it would be a primary source. What do you think would be the best source?

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the UN report, due to independence from the subject. It is of course an issue of weight, rather than reliability. Taemyr (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook 29Fladrif (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times does this have to come up at one forum or another, how many threads need to be started, before someone brings up WP:FORUMSHOP? This is the fifth different thread and the third different forum where the OP has brought this up. There's clearly no consensus on talk for the change the OP wants (if anything there's consensus for the status quo) - can we move on? Pfainuk talk 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding it hard to follow the discussion. Last time I checked the discussion was taking place a couple of threads above and here but I lost track when the OP chose to reply on a user talk page. I have already invited the OP to refrain from further canvassing and centralise the discussion per WP:MULTI, but these threads are still popping up left right and centre. RedCoat10 • talk 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Am I right in thinking that this is the 3rd thread started by this editor on this page? Previous threads acknowledged the sources as reliable and the comments in the lead acceptable given the status was amplified in the article. Is the intention to ask repeatedly in different ways to get an answer he feels is favourable. Justin talk 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a very interesting decision to take about which source to use in order to describe the Government status of Gibraltar, and that's independent of any dispute we may have. Two editors want to include more detail in the lead, others (you three plus other 3) think it's OK to leave the detail in the Politics section, and one is neutral. In any case, we have to use the best possible source, either for the lead or for the Politics section.

The interesting thing is that there is a variety of usually reliable sources that deal with this issue, but they say different things. And we have to a) choose only one as the most reliable one or b) reflect some of them (as this is a more technical and not a POV issue, I don't think this is called for -just my opinion). The sources are:

Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except in …

Which alternative should we use?

This is not an easy issue, and I am sure that any help will be welcome. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are on the wrong track by asking which view to discuss... WP:NPOV tells us that when reliable sources disagree, we should discuss all significant view points. This obviously can not be done in the lede, but it can be summarized by a statement that informs the reader that the extent of its self-governing status is disputed. Suggest something like: "Gibraltar is considered Self-governing, but sources disagree as to the extent" for the lede, with further discussion and details explained later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely what the article does already. As you state all significant view points should be discussed; they are. The thing is the self-governing status of Gibraltar isn't disputed. The UN applies a somewhat arcane definition of what constitutes self-government. The UN definition is:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

Gibraltar is none of the above but then this is not what people would consider when you talk about self-government. The stated policy of HMG is to devolve Government of British Overseas Territories as far as is practical. Its further complicated by the rather arcane ways in a constitutional monarchy reserves what are basically theoretical powers and what are actual powers. So while in theory the Governor retains the power to appoint public officials, in practical terms he is responsible as the Queen's representative for the appointment of democratically elected officials. Internal security is theoretically the prerogative of the Governor, in practise he appoints a Police Authority based on the recommendations of the Gibraltar Government.

The question posed here is misleading, its not that the sources disagree. In fact they don't, its just that they are covering the same subject from different perspectives and applying different definitions of what constitutes self-government. Its comparing apples and oranges.

The BBC statement that Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except defence and foreign relations is reasonably accurate. The UK Government is notionally responsible for the defence and foreign relations of Gibraltar. But there even that is not entirely accurate, since the Government of Gibraltar has reprsented itself at the UN Decolonization Committee (I use the past tense as the GoG has chosen to cease attending dismissing the annual meetings as a waste of time).

But the lede actually says self-governing British Overseas Territory. As its written it implies internal self-government, were we talking about a nation state the term self-governing would be superfluous since states are by defintion self-governing. So the lede already conveys that the self-government is internal self-government. The possibility of adding internal to the lede was considered on the Talk Page but generally dismissed by most as superfluous.

Just to re-iterate, the lede as currently written is an accurate reflection of the status of Gibraltar. It doesn't contradict any of the sources and the article reflects the differing views of the status of Gibraltar.

Nevertheless thank you for your input, hopefully an objective third party observation might make this editor understand the points raised elsewhere. This has already been extensively discussed on the talk page. Justin talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Question, are there British Overseas Territories that are not self-governing? Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't, except where the territories are remote with only a transient scientific or military population eg South Georgia. All of the populated BOT are self-governing, the policy of HMG is to devolve Government as much as possible. Obviously this varies according to the population, eg the Pitcairn Islands have an island council, whereas Bermuda has a Parliament. Justin talk 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Or BOTs where self governance has been suspended (I forget where it occured recently, somewhere in the Windies I think) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands, corruption is the issue. And you're right it was suspended last week. Justin talk 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_42
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---