Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 81

WP:RS related to lawsuits, litigation or legal matters. If used, it should only be used with direct attribution to the author's opinion, as a form of personal commentary of what the author stated themselves. -- Cirt (talk

) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The material has always been attributed to Snider, and everyone seems to agree that The Believer is a reliable source for Snider's opinion. I see no reason to assume Snider misinterpreted a youtube boilerplate. Of course, a corroborating source for why exactly CBS withdrew the programme would be nice, but it does not seem to be an exceptional claim. According to multiple sources, Erhard's daughters subsequently retracted the claims of incest they had made in the program, putting CBS in a difficult position. Under those circumstances, it seems unsurprising that CBS would withdraw the programme. Is it a reach to speak of "factual inaccuracies" if the key witnesses quoted in the programme later said in court that they lied? --JN466 16:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• According to amazon, "The Believer is a monthly books and culture magazine" and "A three-time finalist for National Magazine Awards in General Excellence and Design". The statement sourced to it concerns the withdrawal of a video by CBS which was found to be factually incorrect. I think a literary and culture magazine is an okay source for that; it clearly is a notable publication, and unquestionably has editorial oversight. The statement was clearly attributed to Snider and The Believer in the text, which seems appropriate. --JN466 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

You are citing the Boing Boing group blog quoting Wikileaks on the same matter, i.e. why CBS retracted the video, and at length. Don't you think it is disingenuous to question The Believer, but not to question Boing Boing's or Wikileaks' legal expertise? I'd feel better too if we had an authoritative statement from CBS News themselves, but I cannot find one. As long as that is so, we can only report what various notable media outfits have said about it. Everyone agrees that the video was taken off the market. Several sources say the daughters later retracted the allegations they made in the broadcast. Boing Boing, quoting Wikileaks, says it was taken off the market because Erhard made legal threats. That does not sound terribly plausible, as your article explains that Erhard filed for dismissal of his own lawsuit and does not seem to have pursued the matter further legally. Erhard says CBS removed the video from circulation out of journalistic integrity. The Believer says, CBS removed it because it was factually wrong. None of these sources are first-class sources for legal matters, but then the matter does not seem to be terribly involved, legally. Allegations were made in a broadcast, some of the key witnesses recanted, and the video was withdrawn. All we can do is report, neutrally, what various sources said about it, and attribute statements to the sources that made them. Further, more authoritative, sources would be welcome, in particular any statements by CBS themselves as to why they removed the programme from circulation. --JN466 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Boing Boing too says (or rather quotes Wikileaks saying) the report was taken off the market. It says it was taken off the market due to Erhard's legal threats. How does that make sense, if Erhard dropped his libel suit? Apparently, "Erhard later dropped the suit, he told Larry King during a December 1993 radio interview, because his lawyers told him he would have to prove not only that the TV show knew the material aired wasn't true, but that 60 Minutes used it maliciously. To King, Erhard denied the allegations of sexual and physical abuse, saying his family members had been pressured by CBS and had since recanted. He also referred to the tax fraud and evasion charges as "misunderstandings" that were being cleared up." (Westword). That part about the tax fraud is true, by the way; the IRS later paid Erhard $200,000 in damages. It's not often that people get money from the IRS. --JN466 19:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:SPS)... if the latter then the interview should be considered unreliable. Blueboar (talk

) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

...possibly factoring in the Manual of Style section

WP:CLAIM. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

An edit to

Looking at the submission guidelines on articlesnatch.com[34] their standards seem well below what

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

) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

He claims the following sources are not reliable enough:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we have some uninvolved eyes and comment on this, the talk page discussion appears to be going no where. --

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

Although I am mentioned here, Martintg did not have the courtesy to inform me of this discussion thread. Martintg has an edit restriction against contributing to Eastern European articles because of his tendentious editing. A clear sign of tendentious editing is presenting many sources instead of one good one. For example, Martintg presents

Cleon Skousen and a fringe economist, did write within the academic mainstream. No historian has supported the evidence that Martintg wants included. Wheen btw is a journalist, not an historian, and of course is too young to have covered Marx in Belgium. Joshua Muravchik is also not an historian. TFD (talk

) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Frankly TFD, misrepresenting the issue only weakens your argument further, I suggest you read

talk

) 05:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a question about the use of Youtube videos such as in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like an interesting site, but there's nothing there indicating it meets the requirements of

WP:BLP. As far as I can tell, the various contributors are not noted as topical experts, and there's nothing on the site about its editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

It's just one activist's claim. It doesn't meet the requirements of

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree that it doesn't meet

WP:WEIGHT. Looking at the article it seems other bus stop wolf sightings are already included, sourced to a secondary source, so I'd say let this one go. Siawase (talk

) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the source believes he's telling the truth; that doesn't mean this

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is getting ridiculous, even by Wikipedia's standards. Since people seem to have interpreted my initial remark as showing an ignorance of constitutional democracy, I should clarify (again, though in a sane atmosphere even one clarification would be unneeded) that I meant that a government is an authority on its own laws for Wikipedia's purposes. That is, an authority as a reliable, encyclopedic source. I really wish we could do without the armchair lawyering, because it's entirely beside the point, but such is life.

  In any case, to go back to the actual issue at hand: is there any objection to saying that "According to the government of the U.K., the document release was illegal"? Does anyone disagree that inline attribution addresses this concern? MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  That suggested wording would be reasonable if the government report said, "Therefore, on balance, we conclude that the document release was illegal". As it is, the report begins, "Introduction 1. In November 2009, data including emails were illegally released...". It is not a conclusion, but an obvious statement of fact before the detailed discussion and findings go on for several pages. This, and other statements we can easily find, easily justify the opening of our article, "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the illegal release[2] of thousands of emails and other documents..." There is no reason to change this on the basis that the UK government is an unreliable source on its own laws, because they might be subject to a Supreme Court challenge at some time in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Itsmejudith, it's a perfect suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fladrif (talk

) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this depends greatly on the specific article in question. If we are talking about an article on the event, then Fladrif is correct... we can not bluntly say "The release of the documents was illegal" ... but we can say "According to X, the release of the documents was illegal" (or "X has argued that the release of the documents was illegal" etc.). However, in articles on the person/people involved in the event,

WP:BLP enters the equation, and there are strict limits set as to what can and can not be said when it comes to accusations of criminality. Blueboar (talk

) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Resolved

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

The article Theory of relativity uses the following sources:

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

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

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

I'm not sure whether this source is acceptable per

I guess

WP:PAYWALL is relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, anyone can check is usually taken to mean; availiable through a well stocked library. So I don't think the limitation of this site violates availiability.

Taemyr (talk

) 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Now, on

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is at issue is not whether a source is an advocacy organization (such as Human Rights Watch or Oxfam), but whether it has "a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" per

WP:SOURCES.--Carwil (talk

) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of Psagot, the land ownership data in the second report (entirely based on the CA) has the kind of problem worthy of omission: a central parcel we know from other sources to be state (actually muncipal Jerusalem/al-Quds) land is called private land. Peace Now devotes a page of its report to listing this discrepancy (between the 2004 and 2006 CA data) as one deserving of an explanation. I've advocated on

WP:RS

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please check or give opinion whether the following sources Sefi Rachlevsky, Haaretz and Gideon Levy, Haaretz are RS to be used in

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

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

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

If the sources did not even say these things then that would be a waste of the noticeboard's time, of course. If the sources did say these things, in the context of opinion pieces, then Haaretz would normally be reliable so opinions pieces there could be used as sources for the opinions of those individuals. But are those individuals important enough (

WP:NOTE)to have their personal opinions reported here? There are contexts where such opinions might be cite-able, especially if the people with the opinions are notable themselves. But with controversial individual opinions it is better to attribute, for example "In the opinion of Mr X..." --Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nice to get an uninvolved comment, thank you. I am still anxious about Rejuvenation Research and would like to read any more comments, especially from people who regularly edit medicine/biology articles. Also, even if Rejuvenation Research does count as a peer-reviewed journal, these don't look like refereed articles in it. Some journals do have sections that aren't refereed, for example letters to the editor. The authors of the lists you mention are always Robert Young (

WP:WOP), Stephen Coles (the founder of GRG), and Louis Epstein (another GRG staffer and sometime WP editor). Itsmejudith (talk

) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

It might be worth while to start a thread at the FT/N about all three of these --

SENS Foundation, and Rejuvenation Research. I believe all are fringe science, but I'm outside my area of comfort with that.Griswaldo (talk

) 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Currently there is an ongoing AfD about

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

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

WP:NOTE

.

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

Sorry for confusion, the question was not if the book itself is

WP:RS (about the book). Ipsign (talk

) 15:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

talk

) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not convinced that javalobby.org is a RS. [49] There is no indication that there is any editorial oversight over submitted content, including book reviews.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've read this book!  It's quite excellent.  As much as I hate to say this, the review you found appears to be a Web 2.0 site and the review user-submitted.  Sorry, but it doesn't qualify as a

reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules.  That said, I hope this article can be rescued.  Good luck! AQFK (talk

) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Well, I think message of

reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules". Anyway, it is not that important now as I've indeed managed to find IMHO significantly better references for this book (which doesn't seem to help AfD anyway, but this is a different story). Ipsign (talk

) 09:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a RS for that purpose. There are considerable references and citations to this source, and it appears to have been well-known, so as a source for claims of longevity it would appear to be a good source.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

As the defending editor, and very appreciative of IMJ for digging up Easton as very eminently encyclopedic, my position is that this article is one in a set of articles

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

17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Fladrif (talk

) 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Fladrif (talk

) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article: Arnold Reisman

The text and its source in question:

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

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

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

→ Seminars and Conferences → Development of Modern Arts in Turkey

• My question is this: Are these sources reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does it sound usable to you?

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

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

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

Some of these articles (for example, the main culprit I've found is

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

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

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

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

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

Mkativerata (talk

) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"in a subsequent related source Boyle is making numerically incorrect statement - http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=31816 - quoting "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine."

UN members

are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine."

There's a preliminary discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boyle is a long time tenured professor at the University of Illinois School of Law. He has two earned doctorate degrees from Harvard University, one in Law and the other in Political Science. You are citing an article that he authored which was reliably published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Law. Boyle and the EJIL are beyond all doubt

WP:RS sources on the subject of recognition of states in international law. The fact that he has served as legal counsel for a number of entities, including the PLO, Bosnia and Herzegovina, & etc. before the International Court of Justice, UN political organs, and various national courts does not mean that he "has an axe to grind". The code of ethics of the legal profession obliges all practitioners to represent even the most unpopular clients and causes to the best of their ability. See for example the Cab-rank rule

.

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

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

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

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

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

@Itsmejudith there certainly is a need for the speech when

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

) 23:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harlan, you are mixing 2 different sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I agree with that.

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

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

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

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

@Alinor, I am approaching this from the standpoint that Boyle is a qualified expert on the legal and political aspects of recognition of states. He said the majority of UN member states (about 130) recognize Palestine and favor its admission as a UN member state (page 19). The UNIBISnet [57] browse list search function has a "Voting Records" tab that allows anyone to do lookups on resolutions for the names of the member states and their votes. FYI, the fact that legal recognition of statehood can result from votes cast in favor of United Nations resolutions is explained in "The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States", American Law Institute, 1986,

ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, §204, Reporters Note 2, "Express or Implied Recognition" (page 90). Many legal scholars have said that the General Assembly vote acknowledging the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine was one such an example. The 104 States that voted in favor of A/RES/43/177, 15 December 1988 happen to be listed at the bottom of the UNISPAL webpage at [58]. There is a UNBISnet voting record link at the top of the UNISPAL webpage for A/RES/64/185, 29 January 2010 [59] which will allow you to find the names of the 165 states that voted in favor of the latest "permanent sovereignty" resolution. For expert analysis see the material on Palestine in Section 6.6 "Collective Recognition", Tim Hillier, Sourcebook on public international law, Routledge, 1998, ISBN: 1859410502, starting on page 205; Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine: An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations”, The British Yearbook of International Law, l990, pp.l35-l53; and Quigley John, The Palestine Declaration To The International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, Rutgers Law Record, Volume 35, page 4. [60]. harlan (talk

) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If Boyle is stretching the official list to include members of

Vienna list organizations (the UN itself, the separate UN specialized agencies, IAEA, parties to the statue of the ICJ) and/or the organizations of the United Nations System (I think you refer to these as "Chartered UN organs"?) - instead of the United Nations

organization - then we go into the first if of my 10:24, 18 November 2010 comment above.

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

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

Also you don't need to explain to me all

192 + Cook Islands + Holy See/Vatican City + Niue). Have you readed the "preliminary discussion" linked by Night w in the opening comment of this section? Alinor (talk

) 09:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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