Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamGuy (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 6 December 2015 (→Pride of Tamil Cinema: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Malini Agarwal

Her personal website is being used by experienced users in Bollywood articles. How much reliable is a personal website. --The Avengers (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A person's personal website may be used to cite uncontroversial facts about that person (though even with uncontroversial facts, it's better to seek a secondary source) but is not considered reliable for anything else. —GrammarFascist _contribs 16:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In particularly, for performers ofany sort, some basic factsabout their earlier work, their birthplace, and their date of birth, are particularlikely to have some degree of inaccuracy,and even these should have third party cofirmation. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the website in question missmalini. --The Avengers 16:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

MissMalini’s World (missmalini.com) appears to be a professional news and gossip web-based title - a problog - broadly for the Bollywood lifestyle scene, and as such, should be usable as a reliable source for certain types of information (determined case-by-case as for any other source). It does not appear to be a "personal web site" in the sense of someone sitting on their bed with a laptop, banging out a gossip blog, or an individual spouting personal and unsupported views - it is a recognized pro media venture.

• A recent Forbes interview with Agarwal confers business credibility, and indicates that the web site is a full-time staffed media house, and that Agarval has significant prior professional background in the entertainment media industry.
• According to our article, Malini Agarwal, "Agarwal and her blog missmalini.com are regularly featured in leading digital and print fashion and lifestyle publications, including Elle, Cosmopolitan, Harper's Bazaar, Grazia, Femina (India), and Glamrs.com among others."
• A spin-off Miss Malini's World is in its second season on TLC, described as featuring "exclusive conversations with Bollywood celebrities starting from Shah Rukh Khan, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Kangana Ranaut to Hrithik Roshan the best of fashion, beauty and Bollywood." which indicates professional media stature and entertainment industry access.

There's more, but based on that alone, the site should be considered as a potential source for entertainment information. It may be argued against due to its "gossip" and "blog" labels, when in fact, it appears to be a bona fide digital age entertainment news organization, widely known and perhaps preeminent in its space in India. --Tsavage (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The salary of a public figure

The job held by the current governor general of Canada, prior to his appointment by the queen, was as the president of a university in the Canadian province of Ontario. The province has made the salary of most high-grossing "civil servant", which is what this is as the school is funded primarily with public funds, public. At least two reliable sources have published and commented on the salaries: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/how-much-does-your-universitys-president-make/ http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/gg-johnston-earned-more-than-1m-in-2010-at-waterloo-1.625946, with the latter directly related to the subject. It was removed. It was restored. It was removed again. A discussion was opened Talk:David Johnston#In response to "trivia" or "smear". It's claimed that it's a violation of BLP. I don't think it is. Comment here or in the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the CTV News Toronto source is reliable for the information on his salary. Looking at the edit on the page concerned, the text may be slightly WP:UNDUE in reporting details of his salary, but an abbreviated comment ("In 2010, he earned over 1 million") would not be undue, IMO. I don't see a BLP issue here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Typically the salary of a public servant would not be notable enough to include however, because David Johnson has been recognized among the "most high-grossing civil servants", it may be significant. I think those who are wanting to include this content on the page have a clear motive - to disparage the subject by noting his salary is funded by public funds - and for that reason, I do not support adding the information. Meatsgains (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The salary is clearly reliably sourced, from the news sources provided, and presumably from a primary Ontario government source, an annual list of highest payed government employees (over $100,000). The same sources make it noteworthy for the article, both the news recognition, and the fact that the Ontario government has explicitly created this "sunshine list" to make public this information (it is not simply a dug-up statistic). The argument against inclusion, here and on the Talk page, seems to be about neutrality and undue weight, in general, or specifically with respect to BLP content (in that case, it would seem to be more of a matter of wording than exclusion). --Tsavage (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ship on a banknote

Based on this source there is an editor asserting that the ship on the 500,000 Rubles and 500 New Rubles note is the Argentine sailing ship ARA Libertad (Q-2). The source itself doesn't make that claim it states:

Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.

By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.

i.e. the article is repeating Internet rumours this is the case. I'd appreciate some third party input on whether this is a reliable source to make that claim. The relevant edit is . According to the Russian Ruble article it is the STS Sedov. See File:Banknote 500 rubles 2010 front.jpg and File:Banknote 500000 rubles (1995) front.jpg. WCM_email 08:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Other sources confirm Sedov ,,,. WCM_email 09:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it, then cite those sources. If it's just rumor then remove it. You know what to do here. 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not reliable sources. The latter, in general, a copy of the wiki-article Russian ruble.--Insider (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Designer (painter) of the banknote Igor Krylkov in the interview said: "I immediately found a photo of the sailboat and repainted." (Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал.) See also: 02:08 "Народная экономика" выяснила, как время изменило виды с денежных купюр // First Channel (Russia): "Многие горожане думают, что на 500-ке изображена шхуна "Запад", она стоит с 83 года, последний парусник Беломорья. Если взять справочник, то можно определить - это корабль ВМФ Аргентины "Либертад", - говорит историк Сергей Терентьев..--Insider (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

At no point does the designer say it is the Argentine ship. All online sources state this is the STS Sedov. WCM_email 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.
— Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков.
— На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?
— Moskovskij Komsomolets

тем парусником in Russian means "the sailing ship", not just "sailing ship". Definite sailing ship, which is written above (парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад” - sailboat identified as an Argentine ship "Libertad"). --Insider (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also see video (from 00:39) of Channel One Russia. Если взять справочник, то можно определить - это корабль ВМФ Аргентины "Либертад", - говорит историк Сергей Терентьев. - If you take a guide, it is possible to define - it is the Argentine Navy ship "Libertad", - says historian Sergey Terentyev. --Insider (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Further, no I am not a moron, I didn't cite a wikipedia article, I cited a number of currency websites, all of which say Sedov. The above claim of a quote saying it is the Libertad is citation fraud, it does not at any point state it is the Libertad. Further in the same interview he ridicules the suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. WCM_email 19:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

- See to bottom of the page "Source(s): Misplaced Pages Ruble (Creative Commons)", - copy of the article Russian ruble (images, wiki-markup). The rest of the sites of the same authority. See official page of Bank of Russia: just "sailing ship", not Sedov. All the more so on the banknote 3 mast, but the sailing ship with 4 masts. That is generalized image of one of the birthplace of Russian civil and navy fleet (Arkhangelsk). --Insider (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also see modifications 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004 and 2010. The first four identical, but 2010 has a different pattern sailing ship, modified just after scandal in the blogs with the ship "Libertad". If this Sedov why it repaint? --Insider (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Original image from soviet book-guide. It is worth paying attention to the position of the sails, sailors, flags and other details. --Insider (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, the website you linked to doesn't state that is the photograph used, it merely repeats the rumour. There are more differences with the Libertad than there are similarities, this is just another Internet conspiracy theory. The interview you partly quoted above states quite clearly the author ridiculaes the suggestion it was the Libertad. Misquoting a source is not the way to get your edit accepted. WCM_email 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why you added the photo of the sailing ship "Mircea"? Let's use the source properly (for example without "Internet rumours" - not in source). Your suggestions? I expressed on the talk page of the article. --Insider (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Making a point, anyone can post a picture of a sailing ship that looks vaguely likely the one on the banknote. Analysing the picture is WP:OR and WP:SYN but you've looked at a picture convinced yourself you're right and are looking for evidence to support you rather than looking for evidence. The interview with the designer quite clearly dimisses this as Internet rumour and conjecture - you're simply ignoring inconvenient statements in the source. Further, you're continuing to revert to versions of the text that are not verified by the source. WP:BRD does not allow you to restore unverified material. WCM_email 08:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"The interview with the designer quite clearly dimisses this as Internet rumour and conjecture - you're simply ignoring inconvenient statements in the source." Cite this from interview. --Insider (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Official residences

Re: Monarchy of Canada#Federal residences and royal household: "The sovereign's principal official residences, as well as that primarily used by the governor general, are Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Ontario, and the Citadelle, in Quebec City."

The Glossary in A Crown of Maples Constitutional Monarchy in Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, p. XVII says, "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall." It provides no reference for the claim.

There are reliable official sources that each of these dwellings is the residence of a governor general or lieutenant governor, who all represent the queen, but none that they are the official representativeresidence of the Queen. I would expect if they were official residences that there would be an official source, such as legislation, orders in council, or case law. Also, "The official website of The British Monarchy" does not mention these residences although it has a section on Canada and lists her numerous official residences in the UK (See: "The Royal Residences".)

Who or what made them official residences, when was this done and does it apply to government houses in the dozens of government houses throughout the Queen's realms and territories? Or are they just unofficially official residences? I think this is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary source explains the situation.

TFD (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing "legal" (legislation, orders in council, case law), with "official" ("relating to an authority or public body and its duties"). This is no more an extraordinary claim than the fact that the official residence of the Governor General is Rideau Hall, or the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and in fact there are two official sources below, it's rather straight forward:

1. Crown of Maples (official Government of Canada publication put together by academic and professional experts): "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", and "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative . Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall."
2. The Parliament of Canada's official journal, Parliamentary Review: "...Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence".
3. From the book Fifty Years the Queen by Arthur Bousfield (published historian): "Rideau Hall was her home...the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Airforce - took turns mounting guard at her Ottawa residence ", and "She stayed at the Citadel, her official residence".
4. From Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments by Harold A. Skaarup (published historian): "The Citadelle...has also been an official residence of the Queen in Right of Canada and the Governor General of Canada since 1872".
5. From The Queen at the Council Fire: The Treaty of Niagara, Reconciliation, and the Dignified Crown in Canada by Nathan Tildridge (published author on several books on the Canadian constitution/monarchy), "Rideau Hall (the Queen's Canadian residence)".
6. From Royal Tours 1786-2010: Home to Canada by Arthur Bousfield (a historian) and Garry Toffoli (both who have published numerous histories), "...as they mounted a guard for the first time at the queen's residence, Rideau Hall".

I have yet to see any sources stating that these residences are not official residences of the Queen of Canada, so in light of multiple reliable references supporting a clear fact, and no reliable sources contradicting this fact, I don't see what has lead the editor to believe that the Canadian head of state has no official residences in Canada. trackratte (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove a negative. If a source said that Rideau Hall was also the official residence of Celine Dion for example, it would be hard to find one that says it is not. Instead I would ask for the official order that made it her residence. And of course a good reliable secondary source that said it was her official residence would cite the fact to an official source. TFD (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TFD, if an official Government of Canada source, and a wide variety of other official and other secondary reliable sources said that Rideau Hall was also the official residence of Celine Dion, the governor general, and the queen, and no other source contradicted this fact, then it would be a fact and reflected as such within Misplaced Pages inline with Misplaced Pages's policy. It is not up to individual editors to arbitrarily determine for themselves what the "facts" really are, and then impose these unsubstantiated opinions on articles. It's an encyclopedia not an opinion or research forum. trackratte (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've 3 sources here, here and here, supporting that RH is the official residence of the Canadian Governor General. These are just 3 of many sources that present Rideau Hall is mostly & at times exclusively the Governor General's official residence. Per WP:WEIGHT, we should be reflecting this in related articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is reflected in articles, and the sources above, for example: "...Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence". trackratte (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not accurately reflected in the article Rideau Hall, though. The article's intro gives the impression that the Canadian monarch resides at RH, when in fact the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about sources used at Monarchy of Canada#Federal residences and royal household, not about editorial choices at a completely different article. And as an aside, no it doesn't give the impression that Elizabeth II resides in Canada, it doesn't say anything about her living Ottawa, it says "the official residence in Ottawa of both" the Queen and the Governor General, which is exactly what the reliable official, expert, and other secondary reliable sources say, ie it's simply a reliably sourced fact. In addition, "official residence" is blue-linked to ensure the reader knows what that term means if ever they are unsure. Misplaced Pages assumes that readers know what common terms in plain language mean, and as we know, the term is blue-linked just in case they don't. trackratte (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By having Rideau Hall & Citdelle in the infobox. The infobox of that article creates a false impression. It also goes against WP:WEIGHT. Sources have been provided via Canadian news media (for example), that the Governor General 'only' is recognized as official resident of Rideau Hall. Anyways, I don't think there's going to ever be an agreement between us. It's best to allow others to decide on how to display such information. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC) repeated below, and responded to below, avoid having mirror conversations at multiple places running in parallel, especially as they are on the same page. trackratte (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The positive is already proven by several reliable sources, including the official stance of the Government of Canada. Thus, all of these reliable sources are not even disputed in any source. All of these sources also support the fact that the Governor General of Canada, as the Queen of Canada's constitutional representative, is also the official resident of Rideau Hall and the Citadel. Further sources supporting this fact are inline, and not against, the fact that these are the official residences of the Canadian crown. For example, the Government of Canada's official publications states that "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada ... and occupied by the Queen’s representative ". trackratte (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state...officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual...actually lives". Actual occupation has nothing to do with the designated status of "official residence" for an office. trackratte (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources favour the Governor General as the sole official resident of Rideau Hall. During the coverage of PM Trudeau's swearing in, little to no mention was made by CBC news, of RH being the Queen's official residence. Yet plenty was mentioned of RH being the Governor General's residence. WP:WEIGHT favour we show that the Governor General first & foremost is the official resident. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

With most sources supporting the Governor General as 'sole' official resident, we should remove both Rideau Hall & Citadel from the infobox of Monarchy of Canada. Also, having them in that article's infobox, only creates the false impression that the Canadian monarch resides in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says right in the lead that "Elizabeth II lives predominantly in the United Kingdom". Second, there is a bluelink provided for official residence in the text in the case a reader did have questions regarding it.

Second, which sources state that Rideau Hall and the Citadel are official residences of solely the governor general and not the Queen? trackratte (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

CBC new & CTV news, during Trudeau's swearing in, mentiond in coverage & on their websites, that RH was the Governor General's official residence. Neither network mentioned the Queen as official resident. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And why would they? It wasn't pertinent to their news coverage. In the same way they say 'Parliament passed a law today', instead of 'the Bill presented and passed in the House of Commons, and presented and passed in and by the Senate, was granted royal assent by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen of Canada today'. Just because some sources don't go into the details do not mean those details do not exist, particularly when the details are presented in several reliable sources, including official sources published by the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada. trackratte (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Going by WP:WEIGHT, we should be stressing that the Governor General is the official resident. To present the GG & the monarch as both official residents in the manner we have been doing, is creating a false impression of the situation. PS: We're never going to agree on how to display this information, so it's best to let others decide. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, going by weight, there are no two sides, the sources all say the same thing. Some sources don't provide further details, but some do, there is absolutely no source contradiction anywhere here. Secondly, sources such as scholarly articles, professional journal articles, official sources, and published histories have more weight than non-expert news stories. Third, official sources by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada trump the Globe and Mail or Salmon Arm Review. Fourth, to present the GG & monarch as both official residents is simply a plain fact, to cut out either the governor general or the monarch, or both, is POV. Fifth, the officials determine what is an official residence or not, and as we can see from the official sources (as well as the rest), these are the official residences of the Canadian sovereign and her representative, plain and simple. This, also supported by the fact that the Canadian sovereign owns both properties. trackratte (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We're never going to agree on this topic. So, it's best to allow others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, but to determine if the above listed sources are reliable or not. Given that your stated purpose as a republican is to remove the monarch, I don't expect anything other than your clearly POV attempts "to delete the Canadian monarch from the infobox" regardless of sources. trackratte (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're free to believe what you like. In the meantime, we'll have to allow others to judge the sources. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

From an uninvolved position, after reading this thread and looking at some sources, it would seem that a definitive reference for the Queen's official residences in Canada is the first cited reference (from above), Crown of Maples (2015), which is an official publication of the Canadian federal government's Department of Canadian Heritage. It states:

"Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall."

Elsewhere in that document, it is noted that Rideau Hall is the Queen's official residence, "when in Ottawa." Also noted, "Given that the Queen’s principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times. It is for this reason that her Canadian representatives — the Governor General (federally) and Lieutenant Governors (provincially) — are appointed and act on her behalf in performing certain duties and responsibilities."

From the Governor General of Canada's official web site, "The Citadelle of Québec" article indicates that the Citadelle includes an official Residence of the Governor General.

Given these sources, my clear understanding is that, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors represent the Queen when she's not around (because, hey, she can't be everywhere at once), and usually live in official residences while doing so, and when the Queen is in town, those residences become her official residences. So it would seem that the very least that can be safely concluded from these most reliable of sources for this subject is that (according to the Government of Canada) the residences of the Governor General (Rideau Hall and the Citadelle) are also the official residences of the Queen. I can't see by Misplaced Pages's WP:RS standards, how we could need additional verification for this information. --Tsavage (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Relative weight when highly reliable sources don't agree.

I have a question regarding dealing with relative weight when reliable sources don't agree. A subsection of the Southern Strategy article] has several claims largely based on two books from academic publishers, Lopez and Aistrup. Material in two books, Cannon and Mayer disagrees with some of the material from Aistrup and Lopez. Neither Cannon nor Mayer's books are published via academic press but...

Mayer is a university prof in the field. His book has been reviewed (favorably) in a peer reviewed journal. For 310 pages of text the book as 50 pages of citations/references. His text has been cited as a reference by other scholars in peer reviewed articles/academic books. The text has a Google Scholar citation count of 51. I verified that at least 10 of those 51 citations are peer reviewed sources using Mayer as a reliable source (used without disclaimers or simply to show what others are saying). Thus other scholars treat Mayer's work as scholarly. The material in the book on the whole not controversial. The book has been cited in other parts of the article without controversy. I argue that based on WP:USEBYOTHERS the Mayer text should be treated similarly to an academically published book.

The second text is by Lou Cannon. Cannon is a reporter but acknowledged by scholarly authors as a Ronald Reagan biographer and has published several books on that subject. The book in question has been reviewed by at least 4 peer reviewed journals and has almost 600 citations according to Google scholar. Another database shows 141 citations in peer reviewed journals. Again, we have wide spread use of this source in other scholarly works WP:USEBYOTHERS. The work has also undergone peer review via the post publican reviews in peer reviewed journals.

I feel the above is enough to give the articles weight similar to what the Lopez and Aistrup articles are given. In places where they conflict both views should be presented. What are the thoughts of other editors? Is it reasonable use it were it does not agree with statements from the Lopez and/or Aistrup books? Does the WP:RS guideline intend that the only sources that can conflict with a scholarly book are other scholarly books even if the "non-scholarship" book is widely cited in scholarship? Would WP:IAR trump a narrow reading of WP:RS reasonably apply assuming the books are of high quality (not fringe) and widely cited already?

Side note: This question is related to a stale NPOV discussion opened by another editor.] Because that topic has been stale for almost two weeks with no 3rd party input I decided to ask my questions relating to RSs here. I state this to avoid an impression of forum shopping. Springee (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Privately published books are not as reliable as scholarly articles that have undergone the peer review process. Counting citations does not bypass WP policy identifying the most reliable sources and WP:RS specifically says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Both of the peer reviewed sources are more current than the Cannon source, and both of them reflect the scholarly consensus of the Southern Strategy being a top-down strategy consisting of racially coded language largely responsible for southern realignment following the 1960s. So there is no reason a less reliable source should be used, especially when it's being used to try and contradict what peer reviewed sources say. Also, since you referenced WP:usebyothers, it explicitly says "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." Since your argument almost entirely rests on outside citations, it's clear other WP policies should be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR we should avoid being dogmatic to rules when common sense suggest otherwise. Note the word "usually" in your quoted sentence. It does not say that we cannot treat other works as highly reliable. A claim their works are fringe would need to be supported. The two books in question works have been reviewed by scholarly journals and have been cited by main stream scholars. WP:USEBYOTHERS says, "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability". Both Cannon and Mayer are widely used by scholars without comment and for facts thus mainstream scholars have accepted the work as reliable. We should not censor the work because it disagrees with specific claims contained in other works. Springee (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it says "usually" then gives examples of out date sources or sources not representative of the scholarly viewpoint as the exceptions. I've already addressed these concerns and neither of these apply to the numerous peer reviewed sources being used for the article. Common sense says we use the strongest sources available, which WP defines as peer reviewed scholarly sources, also I'm pretty sure WP:IAR doesn't apply to the pillars of WP. Regardless, you've presented your questions, I suggest waiting to hear from others.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't limit "usually" to just discounting out of date sources. Common sense does not say we exclude highly reliable sources just because they don't agree with a few scholars. With regards to the particular points in question there the article does not present a scholarly consensus. Furthermore, we are not trying to present a single answer. In cases were reliable sources disagree we should provide both points of view. WP:IAR applies to all WP guidelines.

Just to add a bit more information about Lou Cannon to assuage any concerns that he might be a fringe source. He was granted an honorary doctorate by Cal State ]. In granting the doctorate the Cal State announcement noted:

Mr. Cannon has written five books about Mr. Reagan, including the acclaimed President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, originally published by Simon and Schuster in 1991. ... Mr. Cannon has received many distinctions from several higher education institutions in California. ... On a national level, Mr. Cannon has won numerous awards including the White House Correspondents Association's coveted Aldo Beckman award (1984) for overall excellence in presidential coverage, and the first Gerald R. Ford Prize (1988) for distinguished reporting on the Nixon, Ford and Reagan presidencies.

Dismissing his work just because it wasn't published by a university press simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Springee (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just like you removing Herbert from the article doesn't pass the sniff test? This is no different, regardless of how you try to dress it up.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Herbert is not part of this discussion. Please confine discussions of other sources to the article talk page. Springee (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Go by the other sources to weigh a percentage, and if there aren't any put both opinions in the article. We aren't here to pick. DreamGuy (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree that we should include both. What do you mean by other sources weight? Do you mean if other reliable sources say something like "author A is the majority view"? Springee (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Dreamguy - Sounds like you're addressing weight instead of answering concerns about privately published books and blogs being less reliable than peer reviewed scholarly works.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about blogs? None of the sources being discussed are blogs. The sources are widely cited books, one by an acknowledged scholar and the other by a distinguished reporter. Both books have been subject to academic reviews after publication and both books are widely cited by peer reviewed academic articles with out disclaiming comments. Note that WP:RS states, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." So if non-academic sources may be used in articles about scholarly issues, how can we justify excluding Mayer and Cannon, sources that are clearly respected by scholarship, from mention just because they don't agree with Lopez and Aistrup's interpretation of the facts. Do note that there isn't a disagreement on the facts of the event, only how the information should be viewed. Springee (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the part preceding that explains how peer reviewed academic works should be used when available and the Southern Strategy is vastly covered by academic sources, so thee is no need to include inferior quality sources, especially when they are being used to dispute what scholarly sources say. This is why WP establishes peer reviewed sources as the most reliable. This applies to privately published books, new articles, and blogs, which is why I mentioned blogs, especially since you were just trying to add a blog into the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to muddy the waters with claims of blogs. We are not discussing blogs here. Springee (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I went hunting for previous archive topics similar to this one. I found a discussion by the editors who worked on WP:RS that I think is relevant and probably can close out this topic. What I basically read in that discussion is that peer review is one way to establish a reliable source but it is not the only one and it is abusing the policy when one says a non-academic source can not be used if it disagrees with an academic source: There are many other examples, in many areas, which I have seen myself over the years, where editors become confused and assume that scholarly sources always trump news media or other popular sources, to the point of excluding the latter kind. Springee (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Quoting one part of a conversation 5 years ago, doesn't close out this subject, especially when other editors explicitly say that peer reviewed academic sources trump non-academic sources. The conversation boils down to how do we define reliability, and WP:RS clearly considers peer reviewed sources the most reliable. As I said before, specific exceptions are given being that an RS is too old to reflect current scholarship and/or is a view not representative of current scholarship. Neither of these apply to Lopez and Aistrup. You can not take a book from Ken Ham and use it to dispute claims all over the article regarding Climate Change. This is why articles are written based on the strongest sources available and when there are peer reviewed sources available, the article is written to reflect those peer reviewed sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I quoted one of many editors who said the same thing. The editors were discussing if it was necessary to draw specific attention to this phrase in WP:RS "but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." They were discussing emphasizing that passage specifically because of cases where editors tried to exclude reliable sources that didn't agree with a scholarly source. There is clear consensus that it is not OK to exclude a reliable source that doesn't agree with an academic source because it isn't academic. That is exactly what you are trying to do on the Southern Strategy page. Springee (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification The article currently uses Lopez and Aistrup to avoid WP:CITECLUTTER, however there are numerous sources that support the relevant entries. Here is a list of more sources, all of them peer reviewed/scholarly sources:

• "Like Nixon and others, Reagan successfully used the southern strategy...Reagan's use of such racial code words...was enough to win back the South."

• "....Reagan playing very much to the Southern Strategy...using those code words."

• "The Southern strategy offered a more palatable reality, retooled and 'recoded' by...Reagan to sell an embittered white citizenry..."

• "Reagan made his case against civil rights legislation not in the pugnacious, arm-waving, and belligerent style of Wallace but in a polished and low-key manner."

• "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose."

• "While Nixon has been more pronouncedly identified with the southern strategy, many presidents before Nixon and since have used it. Ronald Reagan did in his infamous 1980 speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in which he called for states' rights."

• "The strategy for such a politics gathered a powerful momentum during the Reagan era with the practice of "coding" racial meanings so as to mobilize white fears. Hence, the use of terms such as quotas, busing, welfare, and multiculturalism as signifiers to arouse the insecurities and anger of whites.

The above is simply an attempt by Scoobydunk to cloud the issue or perhaps to shut down this discussion via a wall of text. The base question appears to have been answered by an archived discussion, WP:RS was not meant to be a way for editors to block reliable content just because it didn't come from a scholarly source. Springee (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the content and not personal attacks. Facts don't cloud the issue and only give more context on the fact that there is a clear scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language during his campaign. It makes no sense to use less reliable sources in an attempt to refute what so many peer reviewed sources acknowledge. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are making the flawed claim that non-scholarly sources are inherently less reliable or lower quality vs ones from a scholarly publisher. It is clear that the editors of the WP:RS policy say you are incorrect in that assumption. Additionally, there are thousands of works that talk about Reagan. Google was clearly your friend in finding those. You have not shown that POV to be scholarly consensus. Putting up a wall of text however, makes it quite likely that few additional editors will join this discussion. So far we have one for inclusion and clear evidence that WP:RS does not mean to say scholarly sources automatically trump others. Springee (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My claim is not flawed and that's directly how WP policy is written. The strongest sources should be used and peer reviewed sources are generally the strongest sources and are the most reliable. If your authors views had any merit, then they'd be able to get them published in a peer reviewed source or at least you'd be able to find a peer reviewed source that voiced the same perspective. The "editors of the WP:RS" discussion from 5 years ago were split and there clearly was no consensus. Also, the only person who's responded only voiced inclusion if there were no other sources and clearly there are multiple peer reviewed sources that support the position as Lopez and Aistrup. Based on his comment, that means he doesn't support inclusion. That's the reason why I've listed multiple peer reviewed sources, because the only editor who's commented expressed interest in determining what other sources said on the topic. You're attempt to boil this down to 2 sources vs. 2 sources, misrepresents the scholarly viewpoint that Reagan used racially coded language. WP:BESTSOURCES also clearly explains that the best, most reliable sources be used to avoid POV concerncs, which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. Again, this is why we don't use Ken Ham's books to write articles about dinosaurs in Eden, when there is scientific scholarly material already covering the dinosaurs.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Those who wrote and edited the policy do not agree with you. Your summation of their discussion is wrong. They didn't agree on changing the language, they do agree that it was not meant to exclude on scholarly yet reliable sources. Your claim of bestsources is nice but it doesn't support your removal of Mayer and Cannon which are clearly strong sources. Springee (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You two really need to work on depersonalizing this: what you need most is more people in the discussion and outside perspectives, but you're arguing in a way that makes everyone else reluctant to jump into the middle of a knife fight.

As far as I can tell, this is a question of weight rather than reliability - whether or not Springee's sources are reliable isn't the issue so much as whether they're being used in a way that gives then undue weight, and makes it look like the mainstream/consensus view (that Reagan used racially coded language to win votes) has been more thoroughly challenged than it actually has. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right of course. The question I asked was reliability since Scoobydunk was reverting my edits claiming RS. I think we have agreement that WP:RS does not imply scholarship always trumps other sources. I think most agree that Mayer and Cannon are highly reliable sources and thus it would only be a weight question, not an inclusion question. It also means we should not present one POV as the only one. We certainly can not justify a passage, written in WP voice, stating Reagan's "young buck" comment was testing coded racism if a reliable source says otherwise. Anyway, says we can not assume or claim a scholarly consensus unless we have a source that says so. Yes, Scoobydunk has used Google to find scholars who are making a set of claims but none claim that theirs is the scholarly consensus view. Until that is shown we might as well count citations of the primary sources. Both methods are imperfect ways to decide consensus. Regardless, I would welcome your level headed views into this conversation. Springee (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Haney-Lopez, Ian (January 13, 2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press
2. Aistrup, Joseph A. (2015). The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South. University Press of Kentucky. p. 44. ISBN 0-8131-4792-1
3. Lou Cannon President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime 1991, Simon & Schuster
4. Jermey D Mayer Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000 2002 Random House Inc.
5. Tasha Philpot (22 December 2009). Race, Republicans, and the Return of the Party of Lincoln. University of Michigan Press. p. 47. ISBN 0-472-02500-7.
6. GUILLORY, FERREL. "On The Temper Of The Times." Southern Cultures 18.3 (2012): 25-41.
7. Susan Searls Giroux (28 July 2010). Between Race and Reason: Violence, Intellectual Responsibility, and the University to Come. Stanford University Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 978-0-8047-7047-7.
8. Earl Black, Merie Black (2002). The Rise of Southern Republicans. First Harvard University Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0674007284.
9. Dan T. Carter (24 February 1999). From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963--1994. Louisiana State University Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-0807123669.
10. Hill, Ricky (March 2009). "The Race Problematic, the Narrative of Martin Luther King Jr., and the Election of Barack Obama" (PDF). Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society. 11 (1): 140.
11. Henry A. Giroux (2002). "Living dangerously: Identity politics and the new cultural racism: Towards a critical pedagogy of representation". Routledge: 38. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• I was asked to comment here, but it's too much to read. Springee has said (on my talk page) that these books are not being regarded as RS for Southern Strategy – Lou Cannon's President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (Simon & Schuster, 1991) and Jeremy Mayer's Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000 (Random House, 2002). I don't know whether that's an accurate summary, but if it is, can someone say what is wrong with those sources? SarahSV 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee intends to use those sources to "cast doubts" on what the numerous peer reviewed sources listed above claim about Reagan's use of coded racism. This isn't simply a matter of reliability, it's a matter of how they're being used, and when there's roughly 9 plus peer reviewed articles discussing Reagan using the Southern Strategy through coded racism, I don't think less reliable privately published books should be used in an attempt to refute or contradict what scholarship says on the matter.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this board is for getting outside opinion. If you people simply bicker among yourselves, everyone else will tune out. Secondly, there is no automatic rule for reliability, it is always in context, and dependent on many things, including author, venue, peer review, citations etc. Thirdly, on a major historical topic, usually a lot is written, and you can often find even famous and well-regarded people to advance any viewpoint. It is generally better to stick to the best sources available. I would generally. Fourthly, I can't stress this enough, reliability is always in context. A reporter may be cited by an academic source as to Reagan's campaign or whatever (I have no idea what he is cited for), but are his judgements regarding the Southern Strategy being cited by the peer reviewed sources? Fifthly, one should aim to have up-to-date scholarship if possible, they often have better sourcing. Lacking any details, I would not consider the latter two sources reliable. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It definitely feels to me like Cannon and Mayer are being given WP:UNDUE weight here; their view is relatively WP:FRINGE on the topic, which should be obvious from the extent to which the debate focuses on them (that is, few other sources that could even be claimed credible take their perspective, while countless other sources oppose them.) They could perhaps be mentioned in a sentence, but more than that -- and particularly giving their view equal weight to the mainstream view, or trying to use them to discredit it -- would be WP:UNDUE, all else aside. And beyond that, I don't think their sources are as credible as some of the others that have been used; their contributions look like coffee-table-style popular-interest political books intended to convince ordinary readers rather than academic sources that can be relied on to determine scholarly consensus. (The number of citations doesn't change this, since most of those citations could be eg. "a few people have dissented from this view" citing the tiny number of books that have dissented, or citations describing the popular perception of Reagan, or things to that effect -- citations are more meaningful for scholarly works, less significant for books like those.) Additionally, their books are not about the Southern Strategy in particular, whereas eg. Lopez and Aistrup are. If there is genuine debate among scholars over the Southern Strategy, it should be possible to find academic papers specifically focused on it that take a different view, rather than having to pull out sections of popular biographies. For example, Springee mentions that they used a large number of sources in their books -- why not go to the sources that they used on the Southern Strategy? If their claims in those books are backed up by academic research, we should be able to find the papers themselves. The Southern Strategy is not an obscure topic in political science, so I'm leery of trying to use excerpts from biographies on Reagan to try and refute peer-reviewed papers that discuss it specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, I think you are lacking the information needed to decide Cannon and Mayer are not reliable. Cannon is a VERY noted biographer of Reagan who has been widely quoted by many scholars. The book I was quoting from has been reviewed by 4 peer reviewed journals and cited by over 100 peer reviewed articles/books. Mayer is a scholar even though the particular book I was quoting from was not released via a scholarly press. However, that work has been quoted by a number of peer reviewed articles as well. Regardless, yours and Aquillion's concerns regarding undue weight are further evidence that I need to beef up my references and too that end I've spent some time in the research library and have turned up additional sources. I think the additional sources, and the fact that, unlike the scholars discussing the causes of southern realignment, none of these scholars have claimed theirs is the consensus view with respect to the 1970-1990 section of the article. The material I was quoting was in response to specific claims, not the broader Southern Strategy or the evolution theory in general. I would note that the evolution section really seems like it would fit better in a broader "race and elections" topic. Recently we had a discussion in the talk section regarding the scholarship section of the article which illustrated one of the issues with refuting specific claims. Rjensen, (Richard_J._Jensen) noted that historians that don't agree with a topic aren't always going to spend their time writing an article that says "no". Instead they write an article that is closer to their interest and which might refute the other theory but not state it. Hence a book that talks about say the top 5 reasons why the South turned to the GOP and doesn't mention the Southern Strategy should be taken to mean the author doesn't consider it a factor vs the alternative which is to assume because "Southern Strategy" wasn't mentioned it isn't a relevant soruce. Regardless, it's best when we have sources that have easy to digest quotes and I'm endeavoring to expand my references. To that end. Springee (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Felix V: Are These Reliable sources?

Felix V is an ancestor of every French monarch from Francis I (succ 1515) onwards and, through Mary Queen of Scots, an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Umberto II, the last king of Italy.

Here is a line of descendants from Felix V to Queen Elizabeth II. It shows the descendant on the left of each row (both parents above). I am convinced it is well sourced. Please let me know if there are any errors or inaccuracies. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

       Amadeus VIII of Savoy, Pope Felix V (1383-1451) = Mary of Burgundy (1380-1422) are parents of:
       Louis I of Savoy (1413-1465) = Anne of Cyprus (1418-1462) are parents of:
       Margaret of Savoy (1439-1483) = Peter II Count of Saint-Pol (1440-1482) are parents of:
       Marie of Luxembourg (1472-1547) = François of Bourbon, Count of Vendôme (1470-1495) are parents of:
       Antoinette de Bourbon (1493-1583) = Claude of Guise (1496-1550) are parents of:
       Mary of Guise (1515-1560) = James V King of Scots (1512-1542) are parents of:
       Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587) = Lord Darnley (1545-1567) are parents of:
       James VI & I (1566-1625) = Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) are parents of:
       Elizabeth Stuart (1596-1662) = Frederick V Elector Palatine (1596-1632) are parents of:
       Sophia, Electress of Hanover (1630-1714) = Ernest Augustus (1629-1698) are parents of:
       George I (1660-1727) = Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick and Luneburg (1666-1726) are parents of:
       George II (1683-1760) = Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1683-1737) are parents of:
       Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707-1751) = Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1719–1772) are parents of:
       George III (1738-1820) = Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744–1818) are parents of:
       Adolphus of Cambridge (1774-1850) = Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889) are parents of:
       Mary Adelaide Wilhelmina Elizabeth (1833-1897) = Francis of Teck (1837-1900) are parents of:
       Mary of Teck (1867-1953) = George V (1865-1936) are parents of:
       George VI (1895-1952) = Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002) are parents of:
       Elizabeth II (1926-)

http://fabpedigree.com/s076/f662700.htm http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.thelist.html#henry.ii</ref>

AlwynJPie (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These look like personal webpages and not published, vetted information. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at each Misplaced Pages article for each of the descendants on the list from Felix V to Elizabeth II above, although that only show immediate descendants and ancestors, taken together they appear to confirm the list of descendants is correct. How can I tell if the two websites I quoted are adequate for Misplaced Pages? AlwynJPie (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't. They aren't. What you can do is use the references from the Misplaced Pages pages (I do hope they have reliable references) to make the point. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You have also got to consider weight. If no reliable source makes this observation, then there is no reason for an article in Misplaced Pages to make it. TFD (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Salon.com

The piece was originally published by The_Washington_Spectator with it's own editorial staff and a print circulation of 60,000. The piece was then reprinted by Salon.com. Salon's editorial staff can be viewed here. The piece in question has therefore been through two rounds of editorial review. Salon.com is cited in ~17,394 Misplaced Pages articles, indicating a rather substantial reputation as a reliable source in general.

Article: Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz

The source is being cited for "How salon describes Cruz". Specifically:

Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."

References

1. Lou Dubose; Hannah Harper (19 October 2015). "Ted Cruz's dad has a very sketchy resume: Rafael Cruz's credentials are exaggerated, at best". Salon. Retrieved 30 November 2015.

Rafael Cruz is primarily notable for his speeches at the intersection of religion and politics. Salon is far from the only source describing Cruz as Dominionist. Of particular note Encyclopedia Britannica says: Rafael Cruz, was a pastor with the Dominionist ministry

I'm posting because User:Winkelvi objects that Salon.com is "just the opinion of a Salon blogger".

I'd like to use the Salon cite because it was the top hit in my Google search, and because it conveniently includes a reader-helpful definition of Dominionist. If Salon is not an RS, would it be acceptable if I used Encyclopedia Britannica as an emergency replacement Reliable Source here? Or is Britannica also just the opinion of some blogger? Thanx! Alsee (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a RS. To argue against it is weird. It's not a blogger by any means, since it was in two publications that count as more of a real source than most. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Salon is probably fine with attribution, but given the number of other sources attesting to Cruz's association with Dominionism, it might be better to pick a stronger source. (For example, from the National Journal: "(Cruz) has been iden­ti­fied over the years with a move­ment known as Chris­ti­an Domin­ion­ism. In a 2012 ser­mon pos­ted on­line, Ra­fael preached that Chris­ti­ans are 'anoin­ted' to 'take domin­ion' of every as­pect of life on Earth—'so­ci­ety, edu­ca­tion, gov­ern­ment, and eco­nom­ics.') MastCell  01:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur with what's been said here. Also, the primary author, Louis Dubose, has what appears to be a healthy resume as a political journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have always been told by other experienced editors over the last three years that salon.com is not a reliable source. Secondly, sources may claim Cruz is a dominionist, however, if Cruz himself has not said he is a dominionist how can we claim he is? It's truly no different than when political publications say Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, but if Barack Obama himself has not said he is born in Kenya, then we don't say he was born in Kenya. Reliable sources can still be reliable sources but if what they are publishing is opinion, we need to make sure that what we write indicates that it is opinion only and that the individual has not confirmed one way or the other. This has been my problem with the dominionism content from the beginning: we have nothing saying that Cruz is a dominionist from his own mouth, or even from the mouth of his son. One can attend a Catholic Church regularly, that doesn't make them Catholic. Same with Cruz: he may attend a church that preaches Dominionism, but does that make him a Dominionism? I say it does not. Barack Obama for 20 years attended a church that preaches a certain Black Nationalism philosophy: he later denied he espoused those beliefs. How is this instance with Rafael Cruz any different? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources say he's a Dominionist, he's a Dominionist regardless of whether he says anything. Salon and Spectator are obvious reliable sources. There can be even better, and they exist too. Misplaced Pages follows the sources and not the subjects. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No. If a reporter gives an opinion -- doesn't back it with facts and proof -- we don't blindly go with what a reporter says because they work for an alleged reliable source. If we truly did that, we would go with every op-ed in the NYT, LAT, and so on...because it's coming from a reporter who works for a major publication and they have journalistic oversight. Never mind that the reporter has given no proof to support their opinion. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia, that's the way to build a tabloid or online blog. Someone needs to save Misplaced Pages from itself if that's truly what WP:VNT and WP:REF means. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So Winkelvi's original objection is that the information & cite came from Salon.Com. However, since every interview and article I've seen about Rafael Cruz describes him as being a Christian minister, I think it is valid to describe his particular theology in the associated Misplaced Pages article and to provide cites to back that information up...not every Christian sect is the same, not every theology described as being Christian is the same...for instance, there are many differences between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals/Charismatics and Church of England...yet all of these institutions are described as Christian churches by multiple reliable sources... Veering off of the matter at hand (re Salon.Com etc) but how should Rafael Cruz's theology be described by Misplaced Pages. He doesn't have a church, the Suzanne Hinn/Purifying Fire Ministries no longer exists, Cruz told National Journal writer Andy Kroll that "Puri­fy­ing Fire and Grace for Amer­ica are merely the names for his {Cruz'] trav­el­ing preach­ing busi­ness, which is based out of his apartment." So what does Rafael Cruz believe, what is he on record as saying about his religious beliefs? Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Shearonink, Cruz is extensively on the record in sermons and in political speeches (which are commonly compared to sermons). He preaches/campaigns that God has anointed Christians to take dominion over Government, business, and social institutions. I find it amusing that he preaches that God will transfer wealth from the unrighteous to the righteous during the end days.... but only if you tithe lots of money to him now. As far as I know Cruz has not publicly described himself as a Dominionist (it would be politically inconvenient to do so). However sources, up to and including Encyclopedia Britannica, routinely use "Dominionist" in connection to Cruz. Some people think "Dominionist" is a positive term, some people think it is a negative term. The issue here is whether we should expunge that word, and expunge the Weight of Reliable Sources using that word, because Cruz himself has not publicly described himself with that word. Can we quote them using that word. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone said they believed that Jesus was God and the Son of God, but never specifically said that they themselves were Christian but multiple reliable sources described them as such then I think Misplaced Pages would also describe them as such (with appropriate information & cites). Not every Christian follows what Raphael Cruz preaches, I think it is important to delineate what particular theology and tenets he espouses. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, I appreciate and share your concern to be very careful with biographies. Particularly when it comes to something like religion. "if Cruz himself has not said he is a dominionist how can we claim he is?" - We don't. You cited it yourself - we deal in Verifiability, not truth. We don't debate the Truth of it. It is Verifiable to say Salon describes him that way. When there are a pile of valid sources all saying basically the same thing then it is Due Weight to accurately inform the reader what those source are saying. Our job is to summarize what Reliable Sources say, with due caution on BLP-sensitive aspects. We don't allow attack-POV, but we also don't whitewash anything Weighty. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We also don't allow undue weight. As long as there is no undue weight, the content is worded NPOV, doesn't try to lead a reader to a conclusion via insinuation, and it is clear the writers of the articles are claiming Cruz is a Dominionist and Cruz has never said he is a Dominionist, there should be no issue(s). If the content, however is attempted to be used subjectively to paint the article subject and his son as fringe religionists, we will have problem. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, sounds good to me. I've already backed you up on several of those points. My first priority was to get those issues under control, then more carefully bring in what was appropriate. Alsee (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, you're trying to define UNDUE as "anything I disagree with". That's not UNDUE, that's OR and POV. The strongly reliable sources say he is it, period, end of discussion. And Cruz is a Dominionist, regardless of what he says and regardless what you say. DreamGuy (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@WV: "No. If a reporter gives an opinion -- doesn't back it with facts and proof -- we don't blindly go with what a reporter says because they work for an alleged reliable source." In fact this is how Misplaced Pages works, although obviously not blindly. We do actually discuss if a source is the right kind to be reliable for the case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Something else to consider per WP:V

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I agree with WV and will add that the claim could certainly be considered exceptional. Atsme 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, Could you clarify what you think could possibly be an exceptional claim here? There's not one line in RedFlag that remotely applies. We have someone extensively on the record preaching dominion, everything is absolutely in character and unsurprising, we have a multitude of sources, there appear to be zero sources contradicting it, and the sourcing goes all the way up to Encyclopedia Britannica. Alsee (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the sources are not bipartisan (Salon reports from a liberal perspective and the US is gearing up for the 2016 presidential election), and the man himself does not admit to the claim, then it's considered exceptional. WV provided an in-depth explanation. Atsme 18:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, this started with Salon being a "blog", and now Encyclopedia Britannica is a worthless left wing rag part of a WP:REDFLAG lacking any neutral or bipartisan sources?? Alsee (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Your argument is also contrary to Policy. But lets address Britannica first. Alsee (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The question was whether it's a reliable source. It is. There are also more extensive others sources saying the same thing. All the arguing in the world won't change that. At this point the question is asked and answered. All the wikilawyering in the world won't change that. We're done here. If you want to take it elsewhere, feel free.DreamGuy (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The European Center for Kurdish Studies—Berlin Society for the Advancement of Kurdish Studies is a private research institute that is registered as a non-profit association. It was established on September 1, 1999 to continue the work started by the Kurdistan working group at the Free University Berlin.
Our goal is to promote Kurdology and Kurdish Studies, two terms we use synonymously to denote the interdisciplinary academic discourses on Kurdistan and Kurds in both their places of origin and in the diaspora. Moreover, we have been instrumental in establishing civil-society projects in Syria since 2005

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution