Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 210←Archive 215Archive 216Archive 217Archive 218Archive 219Archive 220

Very poor GQ fluff piece cited in Generation Snowflake

This article from GQ magazine has been cited 3 times in the article Generation Snowflake. On examining the GQ article, I found it to be very poorly researched and not a serious piece of journalism, for reasons which I have detailed on the article's talk page. In my opinion it should not be treated as a WP:RS. Two other editors, DynaGirl and Keri disagree with me, even insisting on re-inserting a wikilink to a sitcom in the "see also" section, citing the GQ article which alleges that millenials are "offended" by it. This is not the only questionable source in the article, and in my opinion the whole thing needs to be looked at by fresh eyes. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What information is being cited to the article? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

After University of Oxford law school implemented trigger warnings in 2016, with the purpose of alerting law students of "potentially distressing subject matter such as criminal cases involving rape and murder", GQ writer Eleanor Halls described this as related to Generation Snowflake saying: "How are these lawyers going to do their jobs? Are they going to turn down important cases if they broach the topic of rape and murder?"

is the main one, also being used for a a couple of other statements in what looks like citation bombing. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Its a correct cited opinion by a writer in a magazine. The GQ piece is not *unreliable* for the opinion of the author of the article (I may be being dense but I cant see it cited anywhere else in the WP snowflake article) regardless of how wrong or misinformed said opinion might be. I dont disagree with your general thrust on the talkpage that the information has no encyclopedic value and gives undue weight to the opinion of a non-expert who appears to have limited writing and research ability. But that is an WP:UNDUE issue, not a reliable source issue. I also have no idea why the sitcom article is linked, beyond sharing subject matter. Also Stephen Fry being involved in that makes me sad. I have generally found the best way to deal with this is 'Why is this person's opinion relevant? Who are they? What makes their manifestly poor opinion relevant to include?'. RE the sitcom: MOS:Linking indicates that articles should be linked if they provide more a relevant understanding of the subject. The sitcom article does not provide the reader with any additional information that would help in the understanding of 'generation snowflake' however the article 'Millenials' would obviously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I only see a problem with the source as, as Only in death says "why is this person's opinion important", otherwise the source remains a valid opinion piece from GQ. "Generation Snowflake" is predominately a negative term that no one likely wants to associate with (unlike, say, Gen X), so the article is going to be slanted from the start (though I do see a handful of stories that could be used to put this group in a positive light, citing them as a new form of student protest [1]). Recognizing that, the opinions included should be key experts relevant to the topic and not any random journalist that makes a comment about the term (making this more an NPOV issue than RS). --MASEM (t) 15:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's OK as a source for the author's opinion, but it's not OK as a source for the claim that 'University of Oxford law school implemented trigger warnings in 2016, with the purpose of alerting law students of "potentially distressing subject matter such as criminal cases involving rape and murder"'. So this sentence should at least be rephrased. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thats supported (as a reasonable re-wording) by this piece. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process... Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Keri (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"the opinion of a non-expert" This might be off-topic, but who would be considered an expert on the topic? The expression seems to be a neologism dating to 2015, which aims primarily to belittle people who take offense at "culturally insensitive" material. A "conservative" writer in the article uses the term in association to parents who want their employer-based health coverage to also cover their adult children. Another source associates the term with the pejorative terms which the alt-right uses against their targets of ridicule. A satirical website suggests, possibly correctly, that the term "special snowflake" is used to label anyone who does not share the "mean-spirited opinions" of the persons using the term.

This does not seem to be a sociological or scholarly topic. It is an insult term for "culturally sensitive" people, not unlike social justice warrior. It has all the seriousness and depth of a "yo mama" joke.

The one who coined the term, Claire Fox, has a literature degree only and is a media personality. Her article credits her with statements against multiculturalism, support for unlimited human activity on planet Earth, and a slanderous accusation that she has supported the "right to download child porn". What makes her an expert on the field? Dimadick (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right, this is not an article on a serious topic such as a recognized demographic cohort such as Millennials or Generation X. It's an article about an informal and derogatory term. It doesn't contain the same sort of scholarly sources included in those demographic cohort articles; instead, it is mostly referenced by newspapers and magazines. Also, it's not clear Claire Fox actually coined this term, although it seems she popularized it in her 2015 book I Find That Offensive!. Regarding whether it should be on Wikipedia at all, there was a recent AFD and the result was keep: [2]. I've had this page on my watchlist for a while, and I think the page could use some more eyes on. There seem to be editors who do not like the term or like that wikipedia has an article about it (which I think is reasonable because it typically is used as an insult) but it seems not liking it can become an issue if/when editors try to remove reliably sourced content because they really don't like it or think the topic in general is crap. Maybe it is, but it meets GNG and survived an AFD. If I understand correctly, See Also listings do not typically require a reliable source reference, yet the link the The Great Indoors (TV series) has one. I honestly don't understand the objection to listing this show in See Also section and there doesn't seem to be any policy based reason to remove it. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion would be better at NPOV board... but anyway pretty much every source in the article except for Collins is an opinion piece. To properly reflect NPOV the article should be slimmed right down, not filled with "random journalist says .....", "random article in student mag says....", "random pundit says....", "random person with an opinion says...". Even Claire Fox comes into the "random person with an opinion" category. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not automatically delete articles about derogatory terms or neologisms. But searching for scholarly sources on the latest slang seems to be a fruitless pursuit. And it is not a "recognized demographic cohort" because it has nothing to do with the theory of generations and other similar definitions. This is calling people "snowflakes" for voicing their opposition to offensive content. I am not a fan of the term myself, but we can not delete whatever bothers us.

The "See also" sections of various articles seem to be under constant dispute, with editors expanding them, trimming them, or outright deleting them. This is not a unique case. I do not think we have a concrete policy on the matter, you can try bringing up the point in the talk page of the article. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Indiarailinfo.com

https://indiarailinfo.com/ - The contents of this website are of user generated ones (just like IMDb). And even the disclaimer of website states that their contents are not 100% accurate. Though the link best preferred to be in EL, it has found its way as reliable source into the body of about 300+ articles primarily related to Indian railways by various users and IP's. Since the link doesn't fit into the guidelines laid, concerning neutrality. It shall be reviewed appropriately for inclusion under WP:UGC. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Historical sources in Zeno, señor de Vizcaya

The reliability of the sources used in this article has been challenged. These are entirely 16th to 18th-century publication referring the Basque noble by the name of Zeno. An IP editor keeps claiming that Zeno never existed and the sources just made him up. While I don't read Spanish, the sources, even though old and probably not utterly scientific by modern standards, don't look unreliable to me. So I would like to hear some more opinions. Note also that the article was created by block-evading user but speedy deletion has already been declined.

Sources:

De728631 (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As the IP in question let me weigh in. An awful lot has changed in the practice of history and genealogy since the time these books were published. At the time this legend was concocted, they had two goals - to tell a good story and to flatter potential patrons. Accuracy never got in the way. Modern historians reject material from this period out of hand - it isn't even worth the effort of refuting. They just go back to the contemporary and near-contemporary source material, and for Viscaya, there isn't any primary documentation for another 200+ years (see Lord of Biscay, which gives the view of modern historians). Nobody has even bothered to mention Zeno of Viscaya in the past 150 years (Google Books, excluding reprints). Nobody would dream of quoting Holinshed's Chronicles for a supposed vassal of the historical Macbeth, and the sources used here have the same lack of validity only they are pretending to describe events 700 years before they were written. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

While I have taken amateur genealogy as a hobby before, I can't say I am familiar with this "Zeno". I notice he is claimed to be the father of Toda and father-in-law of Íñigo Arista of Pamplona.

The article on Íñigo paints quite a different picture of his familiar relations and has sources. "The name of the wife (or wives) of Íñigo is not reported in contemporary records, although sources from centuries later assign her the name of Toda or Onneca. There is also scholarly debate regarding her derivation, some hypothesizing that she was daughter of Velasco, lord of Pamplona (killed 816), and others making her kinswoman of Aznar I Galíndez."

Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands, which covers much material from primary sources, reports that the name "Onneca" for Íñigo's wife derives from the Libro de Regla, an 11th-century monastic source from the Monastery of Leyre. However that source only mentions that a king called "Enneco Xemenones" married "Oneca regina". The assumption in genealogical sources is that this "Enneco" is Íñigo, but Cawley doubts that. He writes that "it is not certain whether "Enneco Xemenones" is intended to refer to Íñigo "Arista". " He found no primary sources to confirm the identification and he considers the Libro de Regla to be rather unreliable to begin with. "This source is confused, and contradicted by numerous other primary sources in many of the details which it records."

There is no mention of a "Toda" in any of the Medieval sources Cawley studied.Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Libro de Regla has two problems. First, it dates from about 250 years after the fact, and second, it is an important 250 years - long enough for vague cultural memories of a local chieftain who was a vassal of the Emirate of Cordoba to morph into a foundation legend of an independent founding ruler of a newborn nation-state. It is all the more curious because Inigo's dynasty wasn't exactly antagonistic to Leyre but Leyre was the source for a lot of anti-Muslim propaganda, while the Iniguez dynasty were much more ambivalent, and were eventually expelled in favor of a new dynasty that was much more of the Leyre confrontational mindset, yet these documents splice the two together and pretend that the second dynasty was a direct continuation of the first. They even somehow manage to forget two recent kings - the true sequence ran Sancho Abarca, Garcia the Trembler, Sancho, Garcia, Sancho el Mayor, but these documents show it as Sancho Abarca, Garcia the Trembler, Sancho el Mayor, and that wasn't even 100 years before. So, they are not only late, they show demonstrable reworking. (And while Cawley expresses doubt, he really isn't very familiar with the range of sources for medieval Iberia nor contemporary Iberian historical/genealogical opinion - nearly everyone accepts that this Enneco Xemenones is intended to represent Inigo Arista, but they also accept that it is a highly idealized and nationalized version that bears little resemblance to the historical Inigo Arista.) There are really just three, or maybe four, references that cover Inigo in what is thought to be a reliable manner - the chronicles of Ibn Hayyan and al Udri, the Roda Codex, and a Frankish chronicle that just mentions 'Induo (? Inigo) and Mitio (?) princes of Navarre sending envoys to the Carolingian court. The al-Andalus chroniclers both call him Inigo Iniguez (or simply 'the barbarian' Iniguez, another strike against the Leyre document and its Inigo Jimenez), while the Codice de Roda just calls him 'Inigo, called Arista'. None of them name a wife, and none of them name a lord of Viscaya.
The earliest date that can actually be associated with Inigo (Navarran foundation legends aside) is in 840 when 'the barbarian ibn Wannaqo' and his half-brother rebel and the chronicles follow the rebellion, its battles, deaths and defections, for the next 12 years until Inigo dies of a stroke. Going back further, there isn't another record until a quarter century earlier, when in 816 Velasco the Gascon, Garcia Lopez, Sancho the 'premier warrior of Pamplona', and 'Saltan, leader of the pagans', are kiled in battle. Before that in 798, Muhammad ibn Musa is assassinated in Pamplona. The Codice de Roda names Inigo, his son Garcia, a daughter who married Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi, and a daughter who married Garcia el Malo of Aragon. That is the sum total of the historical record that names people native to the area around Pamplona when this Zeno would have lived.
How then do some sources decide that Inigo's wife (whether Oneca or Toda) was daughter of a Velasco or akin to Aznar Galindez? Because Velasco the Gascon was the ruler in 816, and under the assumption that there should be continuity, and since Inigo wasn't called Velasquez (son of Velasco), then the only way to connect them is to make his wife daughter of 'the Gascon'. And for Aznar, because Inigo had a son Galindo (named by Ibn Hayyan but not the Roda Codex), so maybe Inigo named the kid after his wife's family. It is all flimsy but at least one can parse the logic behind it - with the stuff from the 16th century, they were building on the fantasmagorical Leyre traditions and adding some of their own. Just as Holinshead took the earliest known Stuart ancestor Alan Fitz Flaald and made him son of the fictitious Fleance, son of the fictitious Banquo ally, then enemy of Macbeth, so these writers took the 11th century lords of Biscay and stretched the generations to move them backwards, then invented some names to go at the top in order to make them really old - it is noteworthy that they are not made to marry the daughter of Inigo, but the other way around: they didn't come from kings, the kings came from them. It is all completely unfounded.
For our treatment of more nonsense that has cropped up around this early foundation period, see Jaun Zuria and Kingdom of Sobrarbe. This is Arthuresque material, except that Zeno is so obscure that nobody has even bothered to document him as a non-entity - as I said, not a single mention in the past 150 years until some sockpuppet decided to create a page for him as if he was real. It would be like taking an obscure figure from Mallory's Arthur and creating a page that treats them as an authentic historical figure. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, here is a book from 2001 by a Basque author that mentions Zeno and Iñigo, but I can't figure out what the Spanish excerpts mean and what their sources are. Another book from 1984 about the Basque country between the 8th and 11th century writes that a "señor de Vizcaya, Zeno" was taken prisoner somewhere. The latter book has a chapter on falsifications starting at page 50 but from the preview you cannot see which chapter page 150 (Zeno) belongs to. So at least it's not entirely true that nobody mentioned Zeno in the past 150 years. I would agree though that there is currently insufficient material to prove that this guy is more than a legendary figure. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh, don't know why those didn't turn up when I did the search - all I got was a reprint and two irrelevant matches. Still, the first is a book about a 16th century historian, Garibay, who wrote about Zeno, and from the snippets it is hard to tell that he isn't just relating what the subject said about Zeno, rather than talking about Zeno per se, and again with the second, he is quoting Garibay as telling this story, but the snippet deprives us of his analysis of the story, whether he builds it into a historical narrative or instead is referring to it as an origin legend. Even with these two mentions we are still talking about a really obscure legend. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-determination and Territorial Integrity

Thomas D. Musgrave (2000). Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-19-829898-4. Retrieved 5 March 2012.

(p239)


I have used this source as a neutral academic source per WP:SECONDARY (based on a similar text at Self-determination) for the two contrasting legal opinions on self-determination and territorial integrity. Another editor has reverted my edit [3] and is now stating that this source and the topic is "irrelevant" [4]. The complete discussion is Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Conflicting views on 1514.

Bringing it here for a neutral 3rd party opinion on whether this is suitable for inclusion using this source. WCMemail 15:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts since I am involved in this argument: This is not the correct forum for this dispute. No one is disputing reliability of sources. The article Disputed Status of Gibraltar has been the focus of a series of protracted edit disputes, all of which have been either covertly or overtly political in origin. Although I can hardly be considered neutral since I have been involved in many of these disputed, this editor has ensured, over the past months, that no sourced statements not aligned with his particular political views be included By a combination of sheer willpower and effective strategy of status quo WP:STONEWALL. The article has remained virtually unchanged for some months with some pretty glaring mistakes and glaring omissions.

In this context, he has now decided to make the first significant change to the article - one which is both destructive and highly political in nature. To summarize: The article currently has three short sub-sections which succinctly explain the political positions of each party involved in the dispute: a) The Spanish Position b) the British Position and c) the Gibraltarian position. They are neat sourced summaries of the basic positions of each party. The Spanish position is based on UN Charter principle of territorial integrity and UN resolutions which call for a resolution of the colonial situation based on this principle, b) the British on the need of consent by the Gibraltarian population for sovereignty transfer and c) The Gibraltarian position based on a right to self determination.

The aim by the editor is to destroy the existing normality and neutrality of these three sub-sections by copy a bulk of text from an article on an off-topic to the subsection on the Spanish position, to make this particular position look weaker. Not only is the content unrelated to the dispute (it is about territorial claims in a totally different context) but, more importantly, it is not within the scope of the section which is to present the position of the party. No other sub-section presents counter arguments, nor would this editor allow such changes to be made, as can be seen from the edit history and talk page of the article. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

While the question has been brought to the reliable sources noticeboard, it is actually an issue for the No original research/Noticeboard. The source obviously meets reliability. However, "Synthesis of published material" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case, you are applying what is said in the book to the case of Gibraltar, although the passage quoted does not mention Gibraltar. Another editor could read the passage and come out with a different analysis of how it applies to Gibraltar. For example, the inhabitants of Gibraltar do not have "historical title" to the state, the title belongs to the United Kingdom of which the inhabitants of Gibraltar are citizens. Prior to that it belonged to Spain. Transferring Gibraltar to Spain would not deprive British citizens of their right to self-determination. Note I am not arguing they would be right, just saying that different editors' original research could lead to different conclusions. TFD (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually the chapter is about a number of cases of self-determination vs territorial integrity - including Gibraltar. WCMemail 08:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well gentlemen, congratulations, as involved parties I'm sure you've successfully deterred outside opinion, well done. I take it you agree this is a reliable source? WCMemail 08:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If this chapter includes passages about Gibraltar, then quote some of those to support your position. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do, soon as I get back home. WCMemail 08:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
TFD This is exactly the issue. The quoted text relates to two post-colonial states arguing over what may have been their pre-colonial territorial boundaries or to subgroups/nationalities existing within a post-colonial state. At no point is their any reference to Gibraltar or the situation in Gibraltar, which is totally unrelated. Its a bad attempt at OR. Furthermore, in its current state no counter-arguments against each respective positions are provided for each of the three sections. WCM wants the Gibraltarian and British position to remain without counterarguments and for the Spanish position to be rebated within its section. I don't even see why we are discussing this on this noticeboard.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
[5] For the record, I said two days ago the sections needed a balanced range of views from secondary sources. The current status where this is missing means the article is unbalanced. The WP:PA that I want to unbalance the text is untrue. WCMemail 13:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I neither see any reference to Gibraltar in the text, nor does the quoted text actually name any historical example of post-World War II territorial claims. And Gibraltar was ceded to the Kingdom of Great Britain at the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), which significantly changed the political borders of Europe. What exactly is Spain claiming, the return of its borders to what they were before the War of the Spanish Succession? Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Context

The quote is taken from Chapter 10, which deals with the conflict between territorial integrity and self-determination based on historical titles. It considers UN GA Resolution 1514(XV), the Western Sahara Case, United Nations Practise, Colonial Enclaves. It dwells extensively on a number of cases including specifically Gibraltar. p245-248 apply this discussion specifically to Gibraltar. E.g. on p.246


I trust that helps deal with the concern raised above. WCMemail 18:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

yournewswire.com as a source for adding CNN to List of fake news websites ?

Is "yournewswire.com" a reliable source to say CNN is a fake news website for inclusion at List of fake news websites ?

Nick012000 (talk · contribs) has added it in, twice now, at [6] and [7].

I removed it from the page, once.

I tried explaining reliable sources at Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites#CNN, but the user added it back again.

Clarification would be helpful, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to find less reliable sources. yournewswire.com was founded by The People's Voice (internet TV station), which was (before it went defunct) controlled by David Icke, a man who believes shapeshifting alien reptiles control the world. YNW's source for this article is reflagnews.com. That site has no obvious editorial process at all, and is run by one J.R. Elliot, who claims to have been inspired by famed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. I'd also note that the journalist who was the alleged source of this information is quite active on social media, and never mentions this story. I'd call both of these sites as absolutely unreliable for all purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the normal process here? Did I do the right thing? I don't want to revert again. I tried educating Nick012000 (talk · contribs) about reliable sources to no avail. I asked him questions on the talk page and got ignored. What's next? Sagecandor (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't give you an immediate response because I was eating dinner. Now considering next course of action to get CNN listed on that page without it getting reverted. Nick012000 (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The course of action is to find a reliable source which says CNN is a fake news site. Of course, that is likely to be rather difficult. If you can't do it and you keep reverting anyway, you'll just get blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then. Is Sean Hannity a reliable source, then? http://www.thewrap.com/sean-hannity-fox-news-cnn-brian-stelter-fake-news-donald-trump/ Nick012000 (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No. The criteria for inclusion are in the opening line of the article: These sites intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. You will need to demonstrate that a significant number of reliable published sources (not opinion commentators such as Sean Hannity) consider CNN to do that. You will also need to gain consensus from editors on the article talk page that CNN should be included in the list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, emphasis on the second part of that clause, then: "Intentionally publish disinformation", which they do, both to drive traffic, and to push a political agenda. CNN does that. Sean Hannity is a published source, correct? He has a news show on a major news network, he is a source, he is published (making him a published source), he is on a mainstream network (presumably reliable), that makes him a reliable source. Nick012000 (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No. At best, you have the opinion of a conservative commentator that one employee of CNN is a "purveyor of fake news." That opinion would have to be balanced with the wide array of reliable sources which consider CNN to be a generally-reliable source of journalistic reporting and commentary. It would seem to me that that balance is not in favor of inclusion in the list. You are welcome to propose that inclusion on the article's talk page, cite sources you believe justify the inclusion and see if consensus exists for inclusion. If editorial consensus rejects your proposal, then you'll need to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You did fine. There are many eyes on it, and now if he continues he'll be reverted again by someone else, get an edit warring notice, then the blocks start. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a gem of reality in all this bullshit. Amber Lyons did indeed complain about government influence on CNN. Specifically, she complained that a documentary she created for CNN was not aired on its international channel, and speculated this was to avoid offending the government of Bahrain, which purchases advertising from CNN. She never accused CNN of hosting fake news, and never accused any government of pressuring CNN to change a story [8]. The degree to which these sites have gotten the story wrong can only lead the conclusion they are unreliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible attempting to add CNN to a list of fake news websites by citing a fake news website, constituted trolling ? Sagecandor (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Possible, but it's hard to tell. Hanlon's razor and all that. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither. CNN is legitimately Fake News, and they've demonstrated it repeatedly during this election year, through things like saying "Trump has a 1% chance of winning" (when he actually had a 100% chance of winning, as history showed us). "CNN is Fake News" is a meme on /r/the_donald for a reason, but you wouldn't accept that as a source. Nick012000 (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
CNN is fake news because their prediction of the future didn't come true? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha Hanlon's razor I hadn't heard of that before. That's hilarious. I suppose I hope it's Hanlon's razor and not the opposite. Sagecandor (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

All news organ's have a bias, the issue should be how often they actually report genuinely (and obviously) made up stories (as nwews, and no opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste too much time on edit-warring this, because everyone knows CNN is not a fake news site. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of GossipGay?

Hello everyone! During the GAN review for the article Gagged (Violet Chachki EP), the reviewer advised me to verify the reliability and appropriateness of the following source that was cited in the article: (http://gossipgay.nl/interview-with-violet-chachki/). The website "gossipgay.nl" has not been discussed on here previously. I cited this source as it was an interview with primary subject of the article (Violet Chachki). I primarily used the source for Chachki's responses about questions relating the EP and album. I was wondering if someone could verify whether or not this source is reliable or not. I completely understand if it is not deemed appropriate for use on Wikipedia (as the reviewer pointed out the website does not show an editorial board, nor do they explain their journalism policy). I have added the part of the interview being cited in my article below:

If required, I could substitute this source with others that contain the same or very similar information. Thank you for any help! I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, so I greatly appreciate any feedback or support so that I can be better on here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular source, but in general I'd say we'd view with suspicion any source with the word "gossip" in its name. But bear in mind that even a source that would be disfavored in other contexts may still be reliable where what's being cited is the text of an interview—it is one thing to say that we don't trust a source's news coverage and another to say we think they would actually invent an interview. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for your response. I was not familiar with this source either before doing research for the creation and expansion of the article. I agree that the inclusion of "gossip" in its name strikes it from being an ideal source. I had some initially uncertainties about using the site as a source, but decided to add it since it was an interview. Thank you again for your help so far, and I will definitely keep in mind the idea of "context" in terms of source use/reliability. I look forward to hear more from you and other users about this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on their Facebook page, GossipGay is a News/Media Website from the Netherlands. You could probably ask users familiar with the Netherlands about its reputation. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have put a post on the WikiProject. I unfortunately do not know any specific user that is familiar with the Netherlands to ask directly about this issue. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not 100% sure they are reliable but its an interview with the singer. I'm pretty sure Chachki's labels, publicist, A&R and other personnel are aware of it and trusted them to conduct an interview. I would say its reliable even if its only because of the interview, in other cases might not be. However if not, and like you explained and I quote "I could substitute this source with others that contain the same or very similar information." I see no problems with it, whatsoever. Nevertheless, I would wait for a consensus regarding such, since today its your doubt and tomorrow can be anyone else. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your message. I believe that it should be reliable given it is an interview and I agree with Newyorkbrad that it is a separate issue to determine if a source is unreliable enough to point of inventing an interview or misrepresenting Chachki's words in any way, shape, or form. I also agree with your point that I would be sure that the team surrounding Chachki would have verified the source's credentials before agreeing the interview. And yes, I did say that I could replace this with another source that contains same or similar information. I said that as I want to stay open to whatever decision is made on here. I would prefer to keep the source (obviously), but I appreciate listening to everyone's opinion and look forward to hearing a consensus sometime in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan:@Dimadick:@Newyorkbrad: I have never done anything on this noticeboard, so I apologize if the following question is really obvious: Around how long does a consensus normally take to reach on here? I am just wondering since this is being conducted as part of a GAN. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither have I, so I have no idea. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have recently posted a question to WP:Netherlands abut the reliability of Gossip Gay and have received the following response:

I agree with Editør (and this point has been raised by people in this section already) that the source is reliable in the context of citing an interview as there is very little or no evidence that the publication would fake an interview or misrepresent an interviewer's words. I believe that this would mean it would be appropriate for use in the article I currently have nominated for GA. I was wondering if I could hear back from sone of you about this (@MarioSoulTruthFan:@Dimadick:@Newyorkbrad:). Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be reliable for interviews. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Itsmejudith: Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as an update, the article has passed GAN and I believe that the source was considered reliable enough for citing an interview following the above discussion (thank you everyone for your help!). Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparent faking of sources

Calling your attention to a piece now at PROD, Greater Equatorial Guinea, which original creator Camero-Belter put up using two sources. One a book by "C.R. Smith" ostensibly published by Cambridge University Press, of which there is no record either on WorldCat or at ABEBooks, and another an ostensible journal article by "Capha Abdul-la," "Equatorial Guinea and her Vassal States," of which the only Google hit is for the piece in question. I've tagged as a possible hoax and made glowering faces at Camero-Belter's user page and it seems that their other start has been deleted and content contribution reverted, but would like another set of eyes on the question as to whether these are faked sources and hopefully some truncheon-wielding by an Administrator. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing the Equatorial Guinea pages quite bit recently (got sucked in by the Africa Destubathon) and have probably read most of the wikipedia pages on the region, for what that may be worth. It does not make me an expert, but if there was such an animal as "greater equatorial guinea" either geographic or historic or whatever, it seems like I would have noticed it. So I am inclined to agree that this was be a hoax. There are no current vassal states ;) I would have to check whether the Portugese ran their colonies from there. Heh. was this supposed to be a historic entity? It's already red linked Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Forbes Blogs

Is there any template or easy way to mark a citation to Forbes to show that it is by one of their blog contributors and not actually a Forbes article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd just put it in the name of the publication in the citation template, such as the parameter "journal=Forbes (blog)". ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My favorite source

[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/pdf/jaba00061-0143a.pdf ] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is ground breaking work with applications in both the sciences and humanities. Clearly, Dennis Upper is the Da Vinci of our time. All of its text is obviously reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur. We need to whip up an article on this guy, post haste. He's bound to be seen by future generations as one of the greatest minds in all of human history. Furthermore, this source can be used to improve approximately 99.997% of all stub articles. I think a task force is in order. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm known as a demanding reviewer, and yet have not found a single flaw in this manuscript even after repeated readings. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that it's power as a source is increased, as its findings have been confirmed by a multi-site, cross-cultural team of researchers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget the existence of one of my favorite sources, [9]. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org as a source on Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory

This is to request for the community's inputs on whether or not globalsecurity.org is a reliable source for Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory. After running a search I've found that conclusions on the reliability of the site mostly mixed; for some topics (such as specifications of contemporary weaponry), it's considered sufficiently reliable as a tertiary source. However, its reliabilty for numerous historical and political topics has been in question. I am therefore raising the specific question of whether the site is a reliable source for Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory (basically everything prior to the late 1560s, and for maybe a few decades after that).

The specific page that prompted this query is at [10]. Please note that the site does not cite its specific sources, that the language is clearly not impartial or scholarly, and the text outdated language ("dark-skinned followers of Mahomet" for example). The basic skeleton of the history presented on the page is roughly congruent with orthodox tertiary Philippine history texts, but details such as names of rulers prior to the 1570s, their actions, and their genealogies ("Rajah Alon (1200- ?), King of Tondo and son of Lakan Timamanukum, expanded the Kingdom of Tondo by conquering neighboring territories such as Kumintang (Batangas) and Bicol. He was succeeded by his grandson Rajah Gambang") have no referential support.

It is my strong feeling as a student of Philippine History that the page is outdated at best, and excessively reliant on apocryphal sources - thus my request for community comment. - Alternativity (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against using globalsecurity for this subject area. The staff there are arguably experts in military affairs and military history, but no one on the staff would qualify as an expert in the area you're talking about. So, lack of appropriate expertise, plus a failure to cite sources, should disqualify this. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Globalsecurity.org has a mixture of levels of authority on its pages. Recent technical subjects are often -no, usually- handled quite well, but some other areas are little better than independent blogging. The words used here seems to have been taken from a British Foreign Office or Colonial Office report on Brunei from '67 or so, which in turn borrowed them from something older. Anmccaff (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe that there can be better sources to use, primarily offline. Arius1998 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Archaic history is never "fully sourced" even for Europe (genealogies of European rulers ca. 1200 AD are not guaranteed accurate, by the way) - but the website meets WP:RS as a rule, and the minor cavils that it relies on older books is actually a mark in its favor here. So far, no one has shown it to produce "fake news" for sure. Collect (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume we are talking about the page Prehistory of the Philippines, although I don't see that specifically mentioned anywhere. The specific material apparently being considered for sourcing from this source is details of individuals in that prehistoric period. I cannot see any particular reason to object to using this source for such information provided there are no particular controversies about the information to be sourced from it, although, possibly, with an indicator in the text that "globalsecurity.org says ...". Having said that, I have to assume that various scholarly journals and reference works would be much less controversial and would almost certainly be preferable sources. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
A larger, and, I think, more important point: This is no more "prehistory" than, say, much of Roman history is. The idea that the history of the area began only with people speaking a European language showing up is nonsense. Anmccaff (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Prehistory ends when writing begins, which did differ between areas of the world. But you are very correct with your second sentence: Writing was invented/introduced in the Philippines in 900AD, over six centuries before the arrival of Europeans. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can get some debate about that from the Oral History crowd; there's respectable belief that recorded history might stretch a generation back, that what otherwise might be called protohistory can be complete enough that a group's own adoption of writing is almost irrelevant, and that simple, spotty adoption of writing within a group is not enough to establish the era as historic; ability to make permanent records isn't enough, it's adopting the habit. All that aside, though, the groups in question here had connections both to Islam and to Indian civilization. Writing was, in fact, involved here, bigtime. Anmccaff (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As clarification: By prehistoric, I refer to the period prior to the oldest extant written record, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which dates to 900 AD. It's the only authoritatively translated local document from 900 to 1521 (there's the Calatagan pot, but the translation is in dispute), so that period (900-1521 AD) is referred to in some academic circles as the protohistoric period. The article that specifically triggered this query is actually Kingdom of Tondo, where the reference has been used as a basis for "authoritatively establishing" details not yet cited by scholarly sources, such as the extent of the territory and the genealogy of supposed rulers. As a local, my impression (and this is opinion) is that these details arise from contemporary nationalist-leaning oral history - in other words, modern storytellers who have tried to embellish history to "complete" the picture where the actual historical record says nothing. Of course, the problem is that "not yet cited" also means "not yet debunked". But that's because there's nothing to debunk. These uncited details would never be taken seriously in academic discourse because their slant reeks of a modern origin. Many of them have been argued ad nauseam in talk pages, but because of this ONE source and the refusal of some new editors to accept anything but a "complete" picture of history, such arguments keep/risk devolving into edit wars. Essentially what I'm saying is that the site is being used to push a number of minor but persistent fringe theories, and I'm getting really really tired of defending historical scholarship from misguided nationalists who reject academic rigour and have a lot of free time on their hands. I'm thus seeking a fair ruling of the degree to which this site can be used as the only source for certain in-depth details on articles having to do with Philippine History Prior to 900 AD, and from 900 to the Spanish Colonial Period. There. Cards on the table, I think. If you think my insistence on scholarly sources is a bias, so be it. - Alternativity (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not a reliable source for this subject matter. The subject is very off-topic in relation to the rest of the website's overall content. The article is anonymous, is rather badly written, often incoherent or inexact, and is completely without references despite citing third party names (presumably sources) a number of times. If all or any of its content is true, that content will be able to be found in suitable specialist rs sources. It is those sources that should be used to generate content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Interview videos on YouTube

User:GorgeCustersSabre said, "Wikipedia does not allow YouTube to be used as a source", in this edit. This user was specifically talking about a video interview of David Tua for personal information about David Tua for the David Tua Wikipedia article. In the video interview which was cited, the viewer can clearly see that David Tua himself is speaking, so there is no doubt that the statements said in the video are really from David Tua and not someone else. I added a table below, so the content being cited and their references can clearly be seen.--Ephert (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Content Being Cited
Text in the David Tua Wikipedia Article Reference Difference
While growing up, Tua lived with four bothers, four sisters and ten other relatives. Tua's mom worked three jobs, and Tua's dad worked long hours. In a video titled, "David Tua Boxing", which was published to YouTube on January 21, 2014, Tua said, "When we first moved into this country, didn't see much of my dad. He use to work long hours. My mom use to work three jobs. I have four brothers for me, and four sisters, and, um, ten other relatives, living with us. So, so, you know, that was always tough. You know, we, we did the best we could, and I guess that's why uh, when I was given the opportunity to do something decent, and become whatever in boxing, the first thing that crossed my mind was to do something for my parents." This quote starts at the 0:55 mark of the video, and the quote ends at the 1:22 mark of the video. diff
Tua's dad forced him to start boxing when he was seven years old, and Tua is grateful to his father for introducing him to boxing. In a video titled, "David Tua Boxing", which was published to YouTube on January 21, 2014, Tua said, "I was introduced into boxing by the age of seven through the love of my father. He absolutely loved the sport of boxing. He then introduced the sport into me. He force, and I repeat he forced me to boxing. Maybe, he got beaten up when he was young. Ha ha ha! Ha ha! So he thought oh, I'll teach my son how to fight, but there's not a day that passes that I not grateful, and I'm thankful to my father." This quote starts at the 0:22 mark of the video, and the quote ends at the 0:47 mark of the video. diff
--Ephert (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
You're completely right. I'm not sure why someone as experienced as George would think that youtube can't be used as a source. YouTube has to be treated like any other site with user generated content: Carefully. But when we're certain it's the subject of the article talking, that is presumed reliable for biographical facts about himself. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, ok, I was generalizing, which wasn't very helpful to this editor. Sorry Ephert. Here is the guideline: WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK

YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube.
If you want to cite a video you saw on YouTube as a source, such as an excerpt from a documentary or TV program, don't use the YouTube information, but instead find the original movie or TV program's data (a web search should be sufficient to find this information if you know the title). Sites such as imdb and Amazon often have the data you will need. If you provide readers with the necessary data, they can search a video out on YouTube themselves. You can use the {{cite video}} or {{cite episode}} templates if you like. If the title on YouTube differs from the title of the actual video being used as a source, you can put the YouTube title in the "quote" field of the template like this: |quote=YouTube title: Two Men in Dallas Part 2
You should be fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing. Please take care to verify this.
Anyone can create a website or video and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For this reason, self-published media as seen on YouTube are often not acceptable sources. Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources.
Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube.

The point I should have made to Ephert in my edit summary relates to this section of the guideline: "If you want to cite a video you saw on YouTube as a source, such as an excerpt from a documentary or TV program, don't use the YouTube information, but instead find the original movie or TV program's data (a web search should be sufficient to find this information if you know the title)." My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't actually look at the source. The source is a youtube channel. It's not a TV program or documentary being ported over from elsewhere. Basically everything you just cited is totally irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A great deal of material gets posted by people themselves these days, via their own YT channels. In fact most TV and film excerpts are far more likely to be seen as copyvio (unless being re-published by the broadcaster themselves), even if YT doesn't seem to think so. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If the question is "are interview videos on YouTube reliable?" then the answer is "exactly as reliable as any other interviews". If they are edited so as to distort the message of the interviewee, then they are not reliable, any more than when this is done on TV news. If they are from TV news and were uploaded by a random YouTuber, then they are almost certainly COPYVIOs and so are covered under WP:ELNO. However, if you have seen a bootleg copy of a reliable source, the original reliable source is still reliable; you just aren't allowed to link to where you saw it. All of this is, of course, subordinate to whether the information being cited to the interview is clearly cited as an opinion, or if the interviewee is inherently a reliable source for a factual statement (since interviews are primary sources). Now, the specific YouTube channel in question, TheCoconetTV does not look like any reliable source's official YouTube channel, and I don't think (if they publish original non-COPYVIO interviews) we can trust them not to have edited them to possibly distort the message, but that is not really related to the specific question posed by the OP. In the quote provided by the OP, GorgeCustersSabre is, bluntly put, wrong. I have encountered this user before, and frankly I think he/she should refrain from telling other users which sources they can and cannot use. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
If claims are being made by the subject and are on the subject's own Youtube channel or are being provided by the subject as a sort of advertorial to some other channel then this is primary source material, so it is usable but should be used very carefully. I think the way the spoken content had been converted into Wikipedia content is not suitable. These are claims made by the subject, made without external neutral scrutiny or verification, so the Wikipedia content wording should reflect that and not be worded as if absolute unquestionable truth has been revealed. For example, "Tua's dad forced him to start boxing when he was seven years old.." is not suitable wording - it should be worded "Tua has said that ...." and then maybe a quote. Also colloquialisms like "dad" and "mom" are not appropriate unless used within a quote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I find your recommendations to be helpful. If the claims made by Tua are deemed good to go back into the Tua article, I will rewrite them so they start with "Tua said" to attribute them as statements from Tua. I will also rewrite the text for the David Tua Wikipedia article to use the words "father" and "mother" instead of the words "dad" and "mom" if these former terms are the terms that are preferred by Wikipedia's style guide.--Ephert (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ursula Schele

Can Ursula Schele's article published in the Journal "Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944" pp. 8-9, considered to be reliable?

It is used to source the estimated victims of sexual violence and rape committed by the the Wehrmacht, which I have reworded to clarify: diff

Original quote:"Auf Basis biologischer Gegebenheiten lässt sich davon ausgehen, dass statistisch gesehen etwa jeder zehnte Geschlechtsverkehr eine Schwangerschaft zur Folge hat. Folgerichtig muss von etwa 10 Millionen Vergewaltigungen deutscher Männer allein auf russischem Boden ausgegangen werden." [...] "Eine intensive wissenschaftliche Erforschung der Wehrmachtsverbrechen, die Vergewaltigungen betreffen, steht nach wie vor aus und auch die Ausstellung vermag dieses Kapitel deutscher Geschichte nicht ausreichend zu erhellen. So scheint es auch der zweiten und dritten Generation noch schwer zu fallen, das gesellschaftliche Ausmaß der traumatischen Erfahrungen zu ermessen."

However, she appear to have no academic credentials,(*) the given estimate despite being excessive, is not referenced either. Although, she acknowledges that there's currently no investigation on the subject of German mass rapes, nor does any other study regarding the subject exists.

I'm uncertain if we should keep that statement in the article.

  • A pedagogue, has founded in 1979 the "Frauentotruf Kiel" and in 1993 the "Petze".

Sources:

1) http://www.kn-online.de/News/Nachrichten-aus-Kiel/Interview-mit-Frauenrechtlerin-Die-Maenner-muessen-sich-aendern

2) http://www.petze-institut.de/rede-schele-andreas-gayk-medaille/


This is perfectly fine. Wikipedia doesn't rely on only academic sources.The publication in question is published by public education institution and thus reliable Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944 Herausgeber: Gesellschaft für politische Bildung. Other editors should be warned that he above comment was made by SPA account which is now entering information in article about Wehrmacht atrocities and rape how "Russian females were willing", and deletes information about rapes committed by German soldiers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not deleting anything, see talk page, its all sourced. You have refused to discuss, despite the quotes are genuinely cited from the given sources. Raynolo (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC) The source it's not perfectly fine, Ursula Schele is not a historian nor is her article endorsed by any other study on the subject. Raynolo (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong, the Herausgeber is Gegenwind, "Politik und Kultur" a local print/publisher of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The publisher are only volunteers: "Der Gegenwind wird ehrenamtlich produziert: Wir sind für jede Art von Mitarbeit dankbar! Das betrifft insbesondere redaktionelle Zuarbeit aus allen Orten Schleswig-Holsteins und Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns aus denen wir normalerweise nichts erfahren.Wir drucken in aller Regel eure Artikel und Meldungen ohne redaktionelle Überarbeitung ab. Längere Artikel bitte immer rechtzeitig vorher absprechen!" Raynolo (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This can be seen at the very first page : "Anlässlich zur Austellung, Vernichtungskrieg. Vebrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944 im Kieler Landhaus gemeinsam herausgegeben von Gegenwind". Raynolo (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That is wrong. The publication is not by Gegenwind but by several instituions Zum größten Teil stammen die Artikel aus dem Sonderheft Schleswig-Holstein und die Verbrechen der Wehrmacht, das Gegenwind, Enough is Enough und anderes lernen/Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schleswig-Holstein[11] At least two of them are connected to academic institutions. As to your comments about raped Russian girls, you entered this in section about rape Russian females were very willing to give themselves to the German soldier[12].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The publication is done by Gegenwind, page 2 notes: "Diese Zusammenstellung enthält Beiträge, die zwischen November 1998 und Mai 1999 im Gegenwind veröffentlicht wurden. Zum größten Teil stammen die Artikel aus dem Sonderheft Schleswig-Holstein und die Verbrechen der Wehrmacht, das Gegenwind, Enough is Enough und anderes lernen/Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schleswig-Holstein im November 1998 gemeinsam herausgegeben haben"
Nothing about "several institutions", conencted to "academic institutions." Raynolo (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung [13] Several academic projects. Now, why have you entered a cherry picked sentence report about fraternization into rape section of the article? Care to explain.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The entered section is genuinely cited from Wendy Jo Gertjejanssen, see p. 58. However, this is not the place to discuss about what or what not has been entered to the article. I left a note on the article's talk page for discussion, you still refusing to participate in it. Raynolo (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The entered section is genuinely cited from Wendy Jo Gertjejanssen, see p. 56. No, its not, as it is taken out of the context. Also the section is about fraternization, not about rape. You cherry picked it, and it is completely out of place and highly offensive in section about rape to put a sentence "Russian girls were willing".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you keep derailing the topic; this is about Ursula Schele, not on what you have refused to discuss prior to the creation of the topic. Raynolo (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Schele's article was first published in a Gegenwind special issue of 1998 (see page 9 in the PDF, "Aus: Gegenwind-Sonderheft Schleswig-Holstein und die Verbrechen der Wehrmacht · November 1998") which was edited in cooperation with Heinrich Böll Foundation. Nonetheless there is a reference to Sander's book at the end of Schele's paragraph in question. The fact that several reliable sources have been used in Schele's article makes it a valid source too. Reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition are not confined to academic journals, and this one looks reliable to me. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Sander's books is only used to cite the given birth of 200,000 children during the occupation of Denmark, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The given 10 millions of victims remains in question, and has not appeared in any other study to the subject. She even acknowledges that: ""Eine intensive wissenschaftliche Erforschung der Wehrmachtsverbrechen, die Vergewaltigungen betreffen, steht nach wie vor aus und auch die Ausstellung vermag dieses Kapitel deutscher Geschichte nicht ausreichend zu erhellen." Raynolo (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
She actually says that intensive study of the rapes comitted by Wehrmacht needs to be conducted, there is nothing in the sentence about the estimate she uses.As mentioned before, the publication was made with academic institutions of public education, and is reliable if properly attributed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The "Gegenwind"-Journal feature articles publicated by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, but the article of Ursula Schele pp. 8-9 was not done with academic support. She has no academic credentials, why should the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung feature a private person who is only a pedagogue for child and woman abuse.(Notruf für vergewaltigte Mädchen und Frauen in Kiel) The estimate numbers of victims given for the Eastern Front is apparently not backed by a academic study. Raynolo (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The estimate number of victims is calculated from the number of 1 million children presented in Schele's previous paragraph. Citing unknown Russian sources, this number comes apparently from de:Wolfgang Eichwede who is an accredited historian. However, if the estimate of one pregnancy out of 10 sexual intercourses is biologically correct is another matter and seems not to be documented by Schele. However, if this was overly exaggerated and unscientific I'm quite sure it would not have been backed by the editors of this document. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the number of 1 million children in the article is referred to historian Wolfgang Eichwede, (which also can be found in numerous other sources, such as Wendy Jo Gertjejanssen, "Victims, Heroes, Survivors: Sexual Violence on the Eastern Front During World War II" or Pascale R . Bos, "Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945" without being related to Wolfgang Eichwede) however, the following extrapolation she made; of 10 million victims, can not be found in recent studies such as Helke Sander's "BeFreier und Befreite: Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder. Die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus." or Miriam Gebhardt "Als die Soldaten kamen. Die Vergewaltigung deutscher Frauen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs." (makes several parallels to rape and sexual abuse of Russian womans by German soldiers) which are fundamental works on the subject.
The publisher "Gegendwind" prints articles without edditorial revision or fact checking. The extrapolation remains in question as it has not appeared in academic studies nor has it featured other academic publications. I'm happy if it can be proven otherwise; to carify, I have not removed the "Gegenwind" article from the aforementioned Wiki-page, just want to determine if its reliable or not. Raynolo (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
That's right, on their website they state that Gegenwind is usually published without editorial review [14]. But this special issue with support from other professional organisations seems to be an exception to me. So while I wouldn't call Schele's article unreliable, it still leaves some open questions. Especially the mathematics behind the number of rape victims should have had an original reference. I would recommend finding additional sources for this number of c. 10 million to back up Schele's article as a source. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
What if the "mathematics behind the number" can not be verified by academic works? Since Mrs. Schele has no academic credentials, can she still be consindered RS after all? However, I have borrowed a book from the library according to the review of the two historian Springmann, and Ossietzky from the University of Oldenburg, in the hope to get new insight. Raynolo (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually she is the head of Petze Institute for prevention of rape and received a Andreas-Gayk-Medaille medal for her work on on prevention and assistance to rape victims since 1979.

So yes she is qualified to provide information on rape statistics.As was already explained here, the publication was made under oversight and with help of academic institution.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

New York Times' "The Interpreter"

Does the column "The Interpreter" in the New York Times come under news reporting or news analysis in "News organizations"? The policy says that news reporting in reliable sources is reliable for facts, while news analysis is rarely reliable for facts. The New York Times describes it as "A column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events." Fisher is described as an "editor and writer," while Taub is described as a "former human rights lawyer, now writer." Neither has ever worked as a news reporter. Their columns have such titles as "Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy's Institutions," "North Korea, Far From Crazy, Is All Too Rational," and "Behind 2016's Turmoil, a Crisis of White Identity." The last column attributes Trump's victory and the outcome of the Brexit vote to "white identity" politics.

In my opinion, these columns do not report news, but anaylze news that has already been reported, based on the viewpoint of the writers. While we can say for example that according to them, white identity politics, rather than say, economic insecurity or a weak Democratic candidate, caused Trump to win, we cannot present their opinions as facts.

The specific issue is whether to use their article, "Russia and the U.S. Election: What We Know and Don’t Know" as a source for 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I think that some editors want to use the article because it presents as facts what is merely reported as claims in news reporting.

TFD (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly a reliable source; it is a news column, not an opinion column or an op-ed. See also WP:NEWSBLOG.
  • The columns always appear under the "news" section (specifically, "World") and not the "opinion" section. This is a strong sign that it's news and not opinion.
  • Such columns fall under the category of explanatory journalism, which has "a long history and tradition by which journalists offer deep, engaging, detail-oriented accounts of important issues and events. Explanatory journalism sits as a counterweight to the breaking news, in-the-moment type of journalism that offers readers speed over nuance." See here (Thomas E. Mann's extensive piece on explanatory journalism, the first of a three-part series for the Brookings Institution). This kind of more deliberative synopsis/summary, from a high-quality source, is exactly the kind of source we should be following; it's often better than rushed breaking-news pieces.
  • The article titles you quote are news pieces that extensively discuss the views of political scientists and scholars ("Why scholars believe North Korea is rational"; "Political scientists who study troubled democracies abroad [say] ...]"). The article do not engage in argumentation or recommend policy.
  • There is no evidence that this news column presents as facts what other news outlets present as opinion. It appears very likely that each assertion of fact in the news column could be located in the reports of other news outlets.
  • You are flatly incorrect to assert that the writers have never "worked as a news reporter." Amanda Taub has been introduced as a reporter in a news-show appearance on WNYC (see here) and was a foreign policy and human rights staff writer for Vox before moving to the NYT. Max Fisher, before joining the Times, worked for The Atlantic, then The Washington Post, then Vox. Brian Stelter, the senior media correspondent for CNN and host of Reliable Sources, refers to "Washington Post reporter Max Fisher" (see here (2013)). See also here (2014 Poynter Institute for Media Studies post reporting about Fisher's departure from the Post along with other staffers); here (2015 interview with Politico in which Fisher states emphasis on explanatory journalism: "We launched focusing a lot on policy and 'hard' news, and we're continuing to emphasize and deepen that..."); 2014 statement by Fisher himself: "I was previously a reporter at the Washington Post and foreign editor at The Atlantic."); also here (2013 article in the non-profit journalism organization MinnPost referring to "Washington Post reporter Max Fisher").
Neutralitytalk 23:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It probably does qualify as sufficiently reliable for us to use in general. Having said that, there is also the matter of whether it is a reliable source in a specific situation or context, which can only be determined with a clear statement of what that context is. I don't see such a clear statement here. Under the circumstances, with the remarkable political polarization resulting from the recent election, and the fact that we are today only a month after that election, with a lot of frayed nerves still intact, possibly including the writers of this column, I would myself think that maybe in terms of dealing with the Trump election that, all things taken into account, it might be too soon yet to really consider any such source anything more than an opinion of some experts, not as the final word on the topic. In a few months, or maybe years, or, maybe, roughly after Woodward's book on the election comes out, if he's writing one like I expect him to be doing, we might be in a better position to be closer to a final word on the election. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
MrX, tagging you as a courtesy since you were involved in the exact same discussion on the article talk page. Neutralitytalk 23:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How does "explanatory journalism" differ from "news analysis" and where is the distinction made in policy? (BTW inviting readers to a discussion beccause you think they may agree with you is improper canvassing. I have mentioned this discussion on the talk page, which is the only appropriate way of advising the editors there.) TFD (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. It is entirely appropriate (and indeed good form) to alert editors who have previously been involved in discussion of similar or related issues, so long as the alert is given to all such editors (and to my knowledge, you, me, and MrX were the only three to weigh in on the article talk page). See WP:APPNOTE (entirely appropriate to alert "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)," so long as notification doesn't skip over editors on the basis of opinion).
As for explanatory journalism, nothing in policy forbids it. The rule against opinions was designed to prevent the use of editorials and op-eds as fact. The news column you take issue with is not an editorial nor an op-ed; instead, it's a more long-form, deliberative news piece that quotes extensively from experts (and their perspectives), but does not present an argument of its own. That is exactly the kind of source that WP:RS is aimed at encouraging, not discouraging. Neutralitytalk 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably should be attributed if it's the only source being used for whatever is being added. If there are other sources, should probably use those. Arkon (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There's not much that I would add to Neutrality's thoughtful and thorough analysis. The article in question (linked by TFD), lays out a pretty basic set of mostly uncontested facts, verifiable in other sources. TFD seems to object to this source, partly on the basis of its statement "Russian state media outlets have favored Mr. Trump and opposed Mrs. Clinton, but their reach in the United States is limited." which I read as a generalization, not an absolute. In fact, it's a pretty widespread view among other reliable sources [15][16][17][18].
I find it mildly amusing that, of the variety sources that are proffered as reliable in US politics articles (Breitbart, Huffington Post, Salon, Red State,...), a column in the New York Times is the one that is singled out as questionable. It must be slow day at Wikipedia indeed.- MrX 00:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, Breitbard I know has been discussed recently as to its reliability, including some rather incendiary comments on the talk page of an editor about how millions of people believe it. I don't know about the others. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you would make that comment considering Breitbart, Salon and Red State are not used as sources for the article, and the Huffington Post has consistently been found to be a reliable source on this noticeboard, while policy says news analysis is rarely reliable. I find it amusing too that none of your comments provide policy or guideline based reasons. TFD (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm always delighted to be able to provide amusement along with my helpful interpretations of policy. My arguments are based on the publisher's reputation and the verifiability policy. At the risk of repeating myself, I see nothing in the reliable source guideline that advises against using a New York Times column for facts that appear in other mainstream sources.- MrX 02:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an eminently reliable source. It is a news column in The New York Times, and not an opinion piece or editorial. The term Newspaper of record originated with The New York Times. Sagecandor (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Is consortiumnews.com a reliable source at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia ?

Is consortiumnews.com a reliable source at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia ?

Not sure as to quality of the source, so bringing it here.

Also haven't seen any reliable secondary sources discussing this, so it seems like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia.

What are views here about consortiumnews.com as a reliable source for this type of thing ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Also see more of same source added here [20]. This description is not encouraging: "an activist group which both farms out opinions critical of mainstream Republicans and sometimes peddles in conspiracy". Sagecandor (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. It seems rather fringe and opinion-based to me, and I don't see other reliable sources citing it (WP:USEBYOTHERS).- MrX 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. It's not high-quality; it looks like a one-man band operated by Robert Parry. It's not the absolute bottom of the barrel compared to some of the total nonsense we see (e.g., Alex Jones) but it's quite marginal.
But aside from the reliability question, the specific pieces cited appear to be open letters of opinion that are WP:PRIMARY sources - not reliable for statements of fact, and only usable with attribution. The "US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims" piece, for example, is an open letter signed by six political activists/dissident ex-U.S. intelligence figures (William Binney, Mike Gravel, Larry C. Johnson, Ray McGovern, and two others). If their letter is referred to in an article, the claims made must be specifically attributed to those making them, and principles of due weight must be followed. Since (1) the figures are quite marginal; (2) they have no personal knowledge of the specific facts at issue; and (3) their opinion has not received broad/mainstream attention, the weight to be accorded to it is quite low. Neutralitytalk 02:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity...

This relates to the following source:

Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder
Authors: Dominique Belpomme, Christine Campagnac, Philippe Irigaray
Published in: Reviews on Environmental Health. Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 251–271, November 2015
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2015.30.issue-4/reveh-2015-0027/reveh-2015-0027.xml

This source has been proposed as being a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for changing the article Electromagnetic hypersensitivity to say that EMH actually exists, despite alleged EMH sufferers repeatedly being unable to tell if the electromagnetic field is on or off in double-blind clinical trials.

Related: if the source is found to be reliable and to support the claim, could it also be used to support the claim that Multiple chemical sensitivity exists? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This source has to be handled carefully. I don't think most doctors believe that EMH and MCH don't exist, simply that whatever is causing the patients' symptoms has nothing to do with chemicals or EMF, besides as a possible psychological trigger. The paper in question searched for biomarkers by comparing various biomarkers in self-reported EMH/MCH patients with medically defined "normal ranges". They did not do a before-and-after exposure with any of their patients. That is, they did not take a patient, measure a biomarker, expose him to his trigger, then retest. This was just comparing the baselines of their patients to accepted averages. You cannot use this paper to conclude that EMH or MCH are caused by EMF and chemical odors, only that patients who report these symptoms are physiologically different from the average population. The authors make a big to do about this confirming animal studies showing that EMF induces molecular heat shock responses, but those animal trials (such as this one) dealt with EMF exposures far beyond what you'd experience even while holding an active cell phone against your head. So, summary: this study is fine for talking about biomarkers common to self-reported EMH/MCH sufferers, but not for any claim that their symptoms are actually caused by what they think cause them, as that was not even tested. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Clarification: when I make the claim "EMH does not actually exist" I mean that there is no known sensitivity to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. I accept that a bunch of people have something wrong with them, that the something wrong can be measured, and that they claim without evidence that they know the cause, which they claim without evidence to be sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (a sensitivity which does not actually exist). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
As I understand MEDRS, it requires secondary sources. Isn't this paper a primary source? On that basis, it may be used to support a claim that has been verified by a secondary source, but not to establish any claim in its own right. Also, the abstract seems to ignore the possibility that some other cause is responsible for the effects and the sufferer is wrongly attributing it to EHS/MCS (how is the clinician expected to confirm one suggested cause over another?) but I don't know if the paper itself is as bad.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that you only accept secondary sources, and not original studies, or both? The study by Belpomme (also others) have shown that blood changes (and blood pressure) ISB22 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)rise and fall according to exposure. What do I do now? I was working with someone called 'Guy'. Thanks.
I second the statements/assessment made by Someguy1221. Also in my opinion after a cursory reed of the article it isn't of the quality that I would like to see/rely on.Unconventional2 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
For controversial claims, we only accept secondary sources. In fact, secondary sources are the default for Wikipedia, but we may allow primary where they are uncontroversial. There are several guys called Guy, we are not related. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi ISB22, I replied on your talk page. Essentially, we do need reliable secondary (or tertiary) sources to validate a claim. I would add that primary research papers can not be used, in part because they sometimes contradict each other's findings and in part because they only demonstrate that the claim exists, they do not demonstrate that it is significant enough to include in an encyclopedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@ISB22:, have you actually read this study (and the others you mention) and understood them? Belpomme never even tries to figure out what causes his patients' symptoms. He is only documenting how they differ from the general population. Even if we accepted this source at face value, it could not be used to support the changes you are trying to make to the article on EMH. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: user @ISB22: answered this question on my talk page (short answer no, (??) BUT have read the abstract - whole papers too jargonistic, am not a scientists - and found it to be supportive of the fact that EHS is diagnosable through blood testingISB22 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)) Unconventional2 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Belpomme find that people attributing their aliments to EHS and MCS have abnormal biochemical signs: According to the abstract; "Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS self-reporting cases." It utterly fails to address the likelihood of misdiagnosis. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

twdi.in

twdi.in is cited 27 times in the List of National Defence Academy alumni, which is a Featured list candidate. The website was run by "a group of Sainiks", i.e. by a group of soldiers. It's account was suspended few days ago. We neither know regarding its editorial control nor about the credentials of the editors. Should we use this source at all? I guess at best it should be used only in those cases where it's attributing the information to some reliable independent source. Anyway, I want experienced users' views regarding this source. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And the domain has expired! Guy (Help!) 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That alone should mean no .Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that is correct Slatersteven. Its current status should be irrelevant because if it was a rs when online, it still is a rs even if now offline (regardless of it being still accessible through archive.org). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it not fail verifiability?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No, if availability were a reason, the same argument could be made for any very difficult to access periodical, or very rare or unique book, or any newspaper website that an oppressive government wishes to take over and delete. The source on that article doesn't seem to be being used for controversial claims, just for who has received a particular military award (though surely such info should be available elsewhere). The same source is used for more extensive content on other articles - like the award citation text here [[21]]. Again, surely there will be official Indian sources that have this same information. I suspect this website is just being cited because it is convenient and online. But the content does not seem controversial - some reasoning would need to be presented to suggest the content is, or might be, not accurate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
All content must be reliably sourced, whether controversial or not. As it's a user-generated source, it must meet WP:UGC, which states that the "content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." But here we have no idea regarding the credentials of the editorial staff. That's why, in my opening comment, I said that "at best it should be used only in those cases where it's attributing the information to some reliable independent source". - NitinMlk (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
While it is better to always have the highest standard for sources, controversial content needs to be better sourced than that for non-controversial content. So there should be some leeway regarding what is a reliable source, based on what content the source is being cited for. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a case of "some leeway". We are talking about a website, which is/was run by unknown people. In fact, WP:UGC exists mainly to deal with these kind of sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources used at article PropOrNot

Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, and Zero Hedge are referred to in this article, are they worthy of mention?

Truthdig is used in this article for information about itself -- is this a reliable source ?

Sagecandor (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

They have been widely noted to have been accused of being "useful idiots" by PropOrNot, so of course they have a right to response (TruthDig) and mention.SashiRolls (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Depends how they're used and how much. Definitely shouldn't appear in the lede. Are we suppose to include every single wacky site that's on that list as "criticism"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article PropOrNot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Zero Hedge is not reliable for anything. It's an anonymously written, fringe blog known for promoting conspiracy theories.
The other sites are opinion/commentary blogs. They not reliable for factual assertions, but may arguably be used for statements of opinion in (rare) circumstances, assuming that WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are followed. Because more mainstream sources have criticized PropOrNot or called its authority into question, those can be cited; I don't think there's any need to cite the blogs in the PropOrNot. And, in any case, such opinion doesn't belong in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 21:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the book Autism and Asperger syndrome, did Hans Asperger call his patients "little professors"?

Asperger H; tr.; annot. Frith U (1991) [1944]. "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood". In Frith U. Autism and Asperger syndrome. d Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–92. ISBN 0-521-38608-X.

Used in the article History of Asperger syndrome.

The disputed quote:

Asperger called his young patients "little professors"

I cannot find any evidence in this book that he said that. Another user keeps attempting to add it.

Ylevental (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The "little professor" quote appears on page 137, and Asperger is only referring to a single patient, not generalizing. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
But it's there which means the source is reliable and the quote should stay. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not Asperger who calls the single patient "little professor" in the source. It's the chapter's author Christopher Gillberg, who is describing one of his own patients. Asperger's paper is translated in an earlier chapter in the cited book. There is no mention of "little professors" in his paper, although Asperger does say in page 74 that his patients' "helplessness in the matters of practical life is typical of the absent-minded professor." CatPath (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That "although" part suggest that it is possible that a translation error may have occurred, and in fact it WAS mentioned. The source should stay for now with the claim until the original text can be verified. See here and look manually for "kleine professoren". And don't believe Ylevental is he claims it's not there as he is biased. Also as an aside, there are many other references to the claim being made. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
But using this logic, you could make up any claim and say it shouldn't be removed until the original is verified. I have an exact copy of the same pdf here which is searchable by computer, and I could not find this exact phrase. I only found "professor" once in a completely different context. Ylevental (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Not in source = remove from article. Per WP:V it is the responsibility of anyone wishing to retain the claim to provide a citation to a reliable source supporting the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Only applies to one source, and besides the user is biased and can not be trusted. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Give us a source or it doesn't go into the article. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove the sources that DID have it? Pretty poor effort just quietly. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing they were removed because they weren't great sources. I found some better (scholarly) sources that support the quote in question: "In terms of language and communication skills, Asperger described these boys as like "little professors" who talked (often at great length) about topics of their interest....": [22]; "Asperger (1944) originally used the word autism in the name of the condition (autistic personality disorder) for a group of cases in which boys had severe social impairment and motor problems but apparently good verbal skills; because of the international political climate, he was unaware of Kanner’s (1943) report the preceding year. Despite the apparent verbal precocity of his subjects (they were described as “little professors”), Asperger emphasized that these children were extremely socially isolated and could not join groups, and their lives and that of their families were dominated by unusual and often esoteric special interests" in p. 201 here [23]. CatPath (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
A source is a source isn't it? Anyway, you've found a good one that the others simply back up so I'll add it now if I can. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS and only add sources that meet the requirements of that content guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the addition of "little professors" needs to be as strict as WP:MEDRS, in this case WP:V and WP:RS should be all that is required. It's not adding anything "medical" to the article, merely explanatory. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, this isn't medical or diagnostic info, it's historical. And one of the sources above us an academic monograph from a very good press (Cambridge). I don't see a problem here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, one of the terms for Aspergers is Little Professor Syndrome, which I'm surprised is not mentioned in any of the Asperger articles. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There you go! I was right to insert the sources as were the other IP's (who were not me). They should be put back. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Edit warring is not forgiven because you are "right". And you have been warring over purely stylistic things such as the wording of the sentence. If you start up your edit warring again when the protection lifts, you'll find yourself locked out of the page again in short order. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh what rot! Sources are hardly "stylistic"! And it's not my fault that several people agreed with me! I've asked someone with an account to put the sources back. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"Stylistic" was a reference to the wording of the sentence, which you have also been warring over. You've shown repeatedly in this discussion that you've already decided what's true, and you don't actually care what the sources say. The rest of us have been carefully reading the sources, discussing their reliability, and figuring out the most accurate, source-friendly way to phrase the sentence. Yet you still seem to think you can just edit war with impunity because you are right. And no on agrees with you, all of the IPs are you. You have been editing from one ore more devices on two different Telestra connections in the same area, and sometimes you edit from a library. So either you're pretending to be three people, or you dragged two friends in to just parrot your opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
That (the IP) is a paranoid accusation that you can't prove. I have ONLY edited from this IP. End of that one. This is not about whether I'm right or not. It's about the sources saying it. That's how WP:RS works right? And when the Google book was found, the matter was settled that Asperger DID say those words. End of problem right? Oh and look again at the ANI. User accounts agreeing with me as well as other IP's! Explain that! 203.27.47.150 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Consensus. Those are how it works. Wikipedia:Reliable sources governs article content, but not editor behavior, which is what I'm trying to get through your head. You can find yourself banned from Wikipedia even if you're 100% correct, if your behavior is deemed disruptive to the project. You could have just as easily had this little debate with everyone over sources and wording while leaving the article alone until it was settled. But you instead chose to ignore several requests to take a break from editing the article, and now it is locked to anonymous editors. If the warring starts up again after the protection is lifted, it will likely be locked again (or you'll just be blocked), and the admin who makes that decision won't care how right you are. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that he went right back to edit warring when the semiprotection expired,[24] this time from his Telstra Internet account.[25] Australian IP editor, I find it to be an amazing coincidence that three IP addresses registered to the State Library Of Victoria in Australia[26][27][28] all decided independently to edit the same page, engaging in the same edit war,[29][30][31] and all refusing to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Sorry, but simply moving to a different computer in the Victoria library does not make you exempt from our policy on edit warring. 'Especially when the content of the page is now as you wanted it to be with an appropriate source for a historical claim and you are only edit warring to keep in additional low quality sources. Is there something about the accusations of collaboration with Nazis that makes you really, really, want to WP:COATRACK it into the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can do one of two things--semi-protect or block--or both. I've applied semi-protection to the article for the next two weeks: there is no doubt in my mind that we're dealing with the same person here, on behavioral evidence, including some idiosyncrasies I'm not going to share here. As for blocking, that's probably not so useful now the article is semi-protected, unless the disruption spreads. It would suck to have to start blocking, since we might have to block a whole range--but hey, if that's what it takes, that's what we'll do. IP editor, you are so obviously working against consensus that your edits are seriously disruptive, and that's all I gotta say. Liston to these other editors. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

World News Network

Is it a reliable source? --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was pretty sure WNN didn't generate any of its own content, which would make it merely a host and possible convenience-link, not a source. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it is more of an index or search tool as opposed to an independent reliable source on its own. Meatsgains (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Penal code

Context: Beheading in Islam

This source (p. 425) alleges that Islamic penal code of Iran regards "beheading" as one of the four punishments for those who participate in civil unrest, or in activities for overthrowing Islamic regime of Iran. I have downloaded the official version of Islamic penal code (in Farsi) from Iran Supreme Court website. There's no mention of "beheading" in no point of the full version of penal code. It's certainly a mistake by the book! --Mhhossein talk 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the mistake?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Slatersteven:Read the cmt once again, the book is alleging something which does not exist at all!--Mhhossein talk 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That is what I was trying to establish, it could have been read as you trying to establish the book is correct and the criminal code is not. It is possible (this says it https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=iran) that Iran's legal code has changed. I would suggest that indeed ( if others can verify Iran's legal code) the book is out of date and not RS for the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
But the book (in page 422 lines 7 and 8) refers to the latest version of penal code now used in Iran. It's talking about the changed version. --Mhhossein talk 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Shahid M. Shahidullah Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 19 Sep 2012Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It also might help if you link to the passage in the article the book is being used as a source for, as the article says
"but as of 2014 is no longer in use." Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Slatersteven: At the moment, the real issue is that the book fails the test for factual accuracy in this case. Checking older versions of Islamic penal code of Iran shows that "beheading" had never been a part of that. Mhhossein talk 16:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It is just a matter of correct wording, I think. Beheading has been carried out as a punishment under the jurisdiction of the penal code of the Islamic Republic of Iran, so it does / did exist regardless of what the text of that penal code says / has said. The use in the article of words like "reported" to imply doubt is not appropriate - every bit of content on Wikipedia is derived from content "reported" somewhere. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield: So, you mean that it does not matter what the law says and judges are allowed to do as they wish? Is it so only in Iran or we can find similar situations in other countries? By the way, we're talking about an obvious mistake in a book not something else! --Mhhossein talk 12:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the beheadings that did occur in Iran occurred outwith the jurisdiction of the legal system of the penal code of the Islamic Rpeublic of Iran? If they did, then someone is certainly being allowed to do whatever they wish. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I never said. This was exactly you saying "Beheading has been carried out as a punishment under the jurisdiction of the penal code of the Islamic Republic of Iran." By the way, There's just an allegation by an advocacy group with zero clue and no detail, and you interestingly said it "did occur in Iran". You also introduced a new concept by saying "The use in the article of words like "reported" to imply doubt is not appropriate - every bit of content on Wikipedia is derived from content "reported" somewhere." --Mhhossein talk 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying that there have been no beheadings in Iran during its Islamic Republic era at all? Words like "reported", "claimed", "alleged", can be misused to imply there is doubt or that something is just an opinion, and should be avoided. There is nothing new in saying that, it is in WP:ALLEGED and WP:CLAIM. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. No beheading as capital punishment or via a legal approach. --Mhhossein talk 05:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Is CounterPunch a reliable source ?

Is CounterPunch a reliable source ?

For example specifically at articles Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and PropOrNot.

Per sources at its article in Reception section, it's been described as "extreme", "radical", "political newsletter", and "muckracking newsletter".

Is this a reliable source for use on Wikipedia ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, no. It's in the same realm as Buzzfeed/Gawker/etc. Arkon (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Generally, no -- not for factual assertions. It's a far-left opinion website. It perhaps may be citable for the opinion of the author; but considerations of weight apply. Neutralitytalk 02:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
So can its use be removed from articles Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and PropOrNot ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Removed it but can use more eyes at both pages due to insertion of unreliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Removal is abusive. Clearly CounterPunch has the right to defend themselves against PropOrNot's McCarthyism.SashiRolls (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Like any political magazine, its articles are opinion pieces and hence rarely reliable for facts. However, each article stands on its own merits and different sources are reliable for different things, so you would have to provide the specific edit supported and the article. A writer's political views btw have no bearing on the reliability of what they write. Opinions expressed by liberals do not magically become facts, while peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals even if written by Marxists are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


I imagine Sagecandor isn't going to cite what he wants to delete so I'll do it for him:

"PropOrNot also published a list of websites they considered “bona-fide ‘useful idiots’” of the Russian government using methodology based on "a combination of manual and automated analysis, including analysis of content, timing, technical indicators, and other reporting".[1] Though the group listed Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, the Ron Paul Institute, Black Agenda Report, Truthout, Truthdig, antiwar.com, and CounterPunch as being so identified, they did not provide any individual analysis to justify inclusion on the list.[1] In response to an email asking for the reasons why they were included on the list, PropOrNot removed the site from its list, stating:

If someone contacts us and the resulting conversation makes clear that they understand, for example, how Putin’s Russia is a revisionist authoritarian wannabe-imperialist kleptocracy that uses ‘fake news’ as online propaganda, then we have a lot of common ground. That factors into our understanding of the merits, but more importantly, becomes a basis for constructive movement forward.

 (emphasis added)[2]
 --SashiRolls (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Nelson, Steven (November 29, 2016). "Publications Called Russian-Propaganda Distributors Consider Suing Anonymous 'Experts'". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved December 13, 2016.
  2. ^ Frank, Joshua (December 2, 2016). "CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post's Shallow Smear". Counterpunch. Retrieved December 13, 2016.

CounterPunch reverted, back into the article again, at [32]. Can we get some extra eyes on this ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, generally speaking, CounterPunch is not a reliable source. However, reliability depends on context. If you look at the instructions at the top of this page, it says to list 3 things:
  1. Source
  2. Article
  3. Content
The articles are listed by OP, but not the source or the content. Taking a closer look at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, apparently the content is "Kathleen Christison and William Christison, Santa Fe, NM - resigned from VIPS in July 2003, over a memo calling for Cheney’s resignation." The cited source[33] is an article written by Kathleen and Bill Christison themselves. I don't see a problem with its use in this particular case. Note that I didn't look at PropOrNot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
An article[1] for those who may still have an open mind about Counterpunch and not think that pop-up warning applets are appropriate every time you click on a CP story. Cf. BS detector (Google Chrome plug-in) Frank mentions those who have expressed their opinion in CP, and those who he says have smeared the publication he manages...

References

  1. ^ Frank, Joshua (December 9, 2016). "This Week at CounterPunch: More Hollow Smears and Baseless Accusations". Counterpunch. Retrieved December 18, 2016.

SashiRolls (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Anonymously-written unsourced Turkish governmental websites used as sources for history or archaeology

The ongoing Turkey 1000 article challenge has resulted in the creation of many new articles on Turkey-related subjects. Unfortunately the sources used for a number of these articles are low-grade online ones, mainly Turkish state or local governmental sites. The use of official Turkish sites is troubling when they are cited as references for content related to history or archeology. Turkey has a record of producing works intended to create an alternative history, one that inflates or invents Turkish influences and which minimizes or denies the presence of non-Turkish elements in Turkey's past, particularly Greek or Armenian ones (see for example Clive Foss, The Turkish View of Armenian History: a Vanishing Nation in The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, 1992). All official websites in Turkey also as a matter of course deny the Armenian Genocide happened, thus tainting any claims they make regarding Armenian sites or Armenia-related history. The particular issue that has initiated this RS noticeboard discussion is the use of the official Kozan municipality website www.kozan.bel.tr to support claims about an Assyrian or Hitite construction origin for Sis castle (see this diff [34]), claims which differs radically from that given in an unquestionably RS source (Edwards, in The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia, states that there are no records of the settlement older than the Byzantine period, and shows that the castle's standing remains reveal no physical remains dating to a period earlier than that of the Byzantine era and that the vast majority of the castle's structure is from the Cilician Armenia period).

As proof of its non-RS nature, the kozan.bel.tr content dealing with history or archeology is incidental to the website's main purpose, and much of that incidental content is propagandistic - for example http://www.kozan.bel.tr/?/kozan1 details the history of Kozan (called Sis until the 1920s) and in it the city's extremely important medieval Armenian past is summarized in just a single short paragraph, there is no mention at all of the Armenian Genocide, no content on the First World War period, and there is a huge section at the end presenting a localized version of Turkey's "Turkish War of Independence" foundation myth that details how violent and evil Armenians were during 1919 and 1920 and how they all left with the French because of how violent and evil they had been towards the Turks. At http://www.kozan.bel.tr/?/tarihi-degerler the expulsion of the Armenian patriarchate and subsequent deliberate demolition (see Edwards Ecclesiastical Architecture in the Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia, DOP 36, 1982) of the patriarchal complex at Sis [35] (which is called "Kilikya Manastırı" on the website) at the end of the Armenian Genocide is recounted simply as the last Catholicos, for unexplained reasons, handing a sack of keys to the Turkish mayor and then leaving, and after that, again for unexplained reasons, the whole complex unfortunately becoming ruined.

As well as Kozan.bel.tr being declared non-RS, I would like all anonymously written content on Turkish governmental websites, whether at state level or municipal level, to be considered non-RS for Wikipedia content detailing the history or archaeology of historical sites within or connected to Turkey. If particular claims are true, they should be able to be located in independent RS academic sources, such as specialist archeological, art, or history publications or journals, and it is those sources that should be cited and from which Wikipedia content should be derived. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the unsourced material in question doesn't meet RS standards. I don't think we are necessarily in a position to make the blanket statement requested above regarding all anonymously written content on Turkish government websites, although I admittedly know very little about them in general, particularly whether what might be seen elsewhere as reasonable sources, like maybe the website of a state-sponsored university. I do however agree that the independent sources suggested above would almost certainly be better in most if not all cases. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I don't think university sites would generally host anonymous content - if they are reporting on, say, excavations done by some of their staff, such content would have an author or be credited to a particular department. And such content (given in the context of a department of history or archeology or similar) would not be incidental. I'm concerned about anonymous history or archeology content given in general municipal-level or state-level governmental websites where such content is incidental to the websites' main purpose. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tiptoethrutheminefield. For the reasons you admirably explain, I strongly support your proposal that anonymously written content on Turkish governmental websites, whether at state level or municipal level, should be considered non-RS. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some similarities with a previously discussed issue [36] - so I am pinging the contributors to it, @LouisAragon:, @Zero0000:, @Doug Weller:, @Rhoark:, @Jytdog:, @Florian Blaschke:, as well as the editor wanting to use the kozan.bel.tr source,@Nedim Ardoğa:. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad al-Hassan: are a YouTube video & an image sufficient to "prove" descent from Muhammad?

The relevant text is: "However, the family tree of Ahmed Al Hasan which is signed and approved by 4 Iraqi clans proves his lineage to Muhammad al-Mahdi and the Twelve Imams from the progeny of Prophet Muhammad. [1] The Iraqi government, its subordinate Basra police and Shia clerical authorities have tried to dirty the image of Ahmed al Hasan with publishing unverified and untruthful information about him. Another example for this is their claim that his name is Ahmed Gata. However a Shia scholar from the followers of Ali Sistani who doesn't believe in Ahmed al Hasan has himself refuted these false claims. [2]" Note that the image may be deleted in 7 days. I've already reverted text sourced to Facebook. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Family tree of Ahmed Al Hasan, signed by 4 Iraqi clans".
  2. ^ "Shia cleric follower of Sistani denies claims made against Ahmed Al Hasan". youtube.com. Retrieved 2016-12-18.
The image is a Family Tree of Ahmed al-Hasan proving his lineage, signed by four Iraqi clans and the ones who signed it have swore in God that this is the truth. In Islam you need witness of one male person and you need to accept it as truthful. So yes, the family tree 100% proves the lineage of Ahmed al-Hasan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamarraSumer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That... is so far from being a reliable source. 'Here is my family tree signed by some people who have sworn by the magical sky fairy that it is the truth'. -edit- Saying that, assuming the youtube video does actually show the person concerned, it is probably useable for the CLAIM by the subject he is descended from Muhammed, but not the fact he is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
User:SamarraSumer is now adding copyvio, removed by another editor and by me. There's a serious pov problem here, probably due to a complete lack of knowledge about how we work and what we are, although I did leave her a welcome message with links earlier, to no effect. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The text you have pasted is clearly not written in a good encyclopedic neutral manner which is WP policy, but possibly if that was fixed we could have a discussion about whether this family tree can be reported as a notable but controversial claim?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

crazymeds.us

Is crazymeds.us a relaible source? Benjamin (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a wiki; and it also appears to take a bazillion years to load any page on that site. I was able to determine very little about it apart from that. I would say no. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

roglo.eu

Currently there are 54 pages that use http://roglo.eu as a source or in the external links section.

http://roglo.eu states:

Page displayed by GeneWeb 5.02-exp (version 2012-01-28 09:35:07 CET) Copyright © 1998-2011 - connections 50, wizards 14, friends 23 - DOC VERY IMPORTANT WARNING! THIS WEBSITE IS NOT AN AUTHORISED REFERENCE SOURCE AND MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. INFORMATION IS PROVIDED HEREIN WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEE. PLEASE VERIFY IT AGAINST RELIABLE REFERENCES BEFORE USE. WE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED HEREIN.

This is clearly an unreliable source.

There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites.

Two more that often cite reliable sources so can be used via WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT when the reliable sources are also cited, but are unreliable in themselves, and so are unreliable when not used in conjunction with a reliable source:

-- PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That statement would be a standard disclaimer for about every rs news organization too. What exactly would an "authorized reference source" be? Authorized by who? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
These sites are generally not great and contain a lot of errors. However, they may be OK for non-contentious information.It should usually be possible to find a better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Scopus

Is https://www.scopus.com/ RS f=for the notability of the companies own publications (as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_%26_Healing_(2nd_nomination)#OK_lets_make_this_easy)?

https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus

It is being used to prove that Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing is notable enough for an article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Only independant sources can be used for an assertation of notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to argue that, to be told (in effect) that is original research.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
See WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.." Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Scopus is a database, and the data is provide is reliable and does not originate from Scopus (but rather from journals indexing in Scopus). That's like arguing Google Scholar can't be used to show that [37] the Google Ngram Viewer is notable, even though none of the data in Google Scholar comes from Google. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It is irrelevant if it is notable (like Google Ngram Viewer, it is whether or not it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to think the data in Scopus about an Elsevier journal is manipulated. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The citations listed in Scopus are easy to check, and any systematic manipulation by Elsevier would be exceptionally stupid and easily proven, so I think very strong reasons would be needed to doubt Scopus being a reliable. The academic community uses Scopus. I agree with DGG. EdChem (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this that Scopus is a reliable source for impact factor. I am less convinced that it is suitable as a secondary source, as required by notability guidelines, any more than the output of a Google search or library card catalog is a secondary source. Typically secondary sources involve the analysis of an author, rather than what is, in effect, a tabulation of statistics. I think it should be regarded as a primary source, albeit a reliable one, and treated accordingly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Its not a question of reliability. The data may be entirely accurate, but notability requires independance of the subject. WP:GNG is very clear on this. If *scopus* is being used as a source to demonstrate notabillity, it is required to be independant of the subject. If the argument is that Scopus is merely indexing data from elsewhere, then the 'elsewhere' needs to be the relevant factor in determining the notability. I gather in this case there are problems with this, but it doesnt alter the fact Scopus is owned by the same people who own the journal, so you cannot demonstrate notability of one with the other. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Scopus is reliable for the fact this journal exists as an Elsevier journal. I can't see that it contributes either way to the question of notability. Presumably it also has an ISSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Would this documentary be reliable?

I will be citing it offline in the actual article because this link may be copyright violation but here's the video: [Piracy link removed—Crime Investigation Asia: “The Sorcerer from Hell”. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)]

It will be put in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Suradji

And majorly supports mainly this piece of information: He told police that he had a dream in 1986 in which his father's ghost directed him to drink the saliva of 70 dead, young women, so that he could become a mystic healer.

This is because many news articles say that his father told him to kill seventy women, while the documentary provides an audio clip of him literally saying "my father didn't directly tell me to kill, I took up that initiative myself."

I understand that this may be original research.

Depthburg (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that audio clip would be considered a primary source. I’d say it supports the claim that he said what he’s heard to say. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Burqa ban. Is this SYNTH?

Article:The Burqa(Germany section)

Discussion:Article talk

Also:here about related text on another article which is currently the subject of an RfC

Disputed text:: 

Chancellor Angela Merkel called for the burqa to be banned in Germany[1] in the aftermath[2] of the rape and murder of Maria Ladenburger.[3]  In addition to the Ladenburger murder, the Cologne New Year's Eve sex attacks and the Munich shooting were mentioned as causes for "anger" in Germany.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Angela Merkel endorses burka ban 'wherever legally possible'". BBC News. 6 December 2016. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  2. ^ MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel's measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils "wherever legally possible,"
  3. ^ Steve Hawkes; Corey Charlton (6 December 2016). "MERKEL'S U-TURN Angela Merkel calls for Germany BURKA BAN saying 'the full veil is not appropriate here' in astonishing U-turn". The Sun. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  4. ^ NEAL BAKER. "LIFTING THE VEIL What are the European laws on the burka and what is the difference between a burka and a niqab?". Retrieved 13 December 2016. Incidents like the Cologne sex attack scandal, the Munich shootings and the alleged rape and murder of 19-year-old student Maria Ladenburger by an Afghan teen has fuelled anger in the country.

The question is primarily about current text on the Burqa article. Is the current text supported by these sources or is it SYNTH to claim a connection between Merkel's proposed 'Burqa ban' and these sex crimes in Germany (everyone agrees that these sources DO support that both 'ban' and crimes are manifestations of current 'foreign'/German tensions and could possibly SEPERATELY support text in the various articles). It is also not disputed that the possible ban is worthy of inclusion in the Burqa article.

A secondary consideration is that the present text fails to give the full picture on the 'ban'. The Merkel proposal is that the ban would be a very specific one covering, for example, court appearances, public offices and situations where health and safety, or security considerations apply (German sources give a fuller picture). German sources also show that Merkel's proposal pre-dates the identification of a suspect in the Landeberger case.(Google translate gives a reasonably clear reading)

Discussion on both articles is stalled by whether sources support any legitimate link between the ban and the crimes, or whether the text is WP:COATRACK. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


I would say yes, if the sources do not make the link neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Slatersteven, do you mean yes it is SYNTH?Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
LOL, sorry yes (i should have made it clear) that is what I mean.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources for inclusion in a list that seem to get relevant facts wrong

I know we can't cite a source, even a generally reliable one, for a specific claim that is demonstrably wrong, but our Whitewashing in film article until today included (and quite possibly will included once I am reverted) the 1963 film Cleopatra (but none of the other films where she or others in her family were portrayed by white actors) in its list of "whitewashed" films because some otherwise apparently reliable sources missed the fact that we know a fair bit about her ancestry (and so her probable skin colour/ethnicity) and she probably wasn't "black" or even particularly "brown".

My question is whether this being inclusion as an entry in a list of films "that have had their casting criticized for whitewashing" (note the passive sentence structure) is acceptable since no specific, demonstrably-wrong, factual claim is being made. It's a little different, since the whitewashing criticism in Cleopatra's case is almost all retrospective, but there was a lot of pre-release complaining about Iron Man 3, even in reliable sources, about how the film's antagonist was a Chinese character whose ethnicity was changed for the film. It seems to have died down once people realized that was the point, but even pre-release a lot of the criticism missed the relevant fact that a "loyal" adaptation that didn't change the character's ethnicity would have been significantly worse (the traditional "Chinese" Mandarin is a racist stereotype, but most of the critics apparently weren't aware of that).

One could ask why Iron Man 3 should be left out just because the sources that could be cited for its inclusion were wrong, but Cleopatra should be left in despite the sources cited for its inclusion being just as wrong.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not this again - we've been over this before, quite recently. The RS saying that Liz Taylor playing Cleopatra was an example of whitewashing aren't "wrong," (in fact, numerous very high quality sources support the claim) - people are just interpreting "whitewashing" too strictly. The argument isn't that Cleopatra was black - all that matters is that Liz Taylor wasn't Egyptian (ancient or otherwise) was of a different ethnicity than Cleopatra. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
But Cleopatra wasn't 'Egyptian' in the ethnoracial sense that you and the article use it. Very few of the sources mentioned in that discussion (perhaps none) are by historians of Ptolemaic Egypt who think the casting was problematic for the reason you give, and The argument isn't that Cleopatra was black has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole list is dubious - casting aspersions on a great many artistic projects on the basis of some unstated criticism by unstated individuals of unknown status. At the very least some part of the arguments presented by those critics should be stated in order to prove they are not fringe nonsense. Ludicrous assertions that ethnically-Hellenistic, Greek-speaking Cleopatra should be required to have been played by a modern Egyptian-born "ethnic Egyptian" actress (whatever that is, though presumably it implies not "white" and not Greek speaking) are definitely fringe nonsense. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I basically agree with you. Honestly, I think all the click-baity sources that don't properly address the scholarship on these issues should be dropped and the legitimate discussion of whether or not films like Cleopatra (which cast white actors in traditionally white roles, though probably chose their subject matter because most of the roles were traditionally white) should be lumped together with The Conqueror (which cast white actors in roles that were specifically not white) and 21 (which changed the in-universe ethnicity of characters to be white rather than casting non-white actors). The entire list lacks any kind of context or nuance, but if we cut out all the ones of which the criticism is bogus, or of which we couldn't say anything interesting, then the list would be decimated, and if we merely expanded on the current entries to give appropriate context and nuance then the article would explode into one of those massive entries like List of rulers of China. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair point on the "Egyptian" thing, I've altered my comment to clarify what I meant. There are plenty of RS saying this is a case of whitewashing though, demanding a source by a "historian of Ptolemaic Egypt" is a bit much. If you're convinced the assertion is wrong, find some RS that say its wrong, and include those as a counterpoint in the article. The content is very well referenced though - and there are literally hundreds of RS out there that make this assertion. We can't just write those off. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Again I must emphasize that the article and the text that was recently restored is about casting a "white" actress in a "non-white" role, not merely about the actress being of a different ethnicity to the historical Cleopatra. Again, my Alexander comparison is apt: a lot of people made fun of the film for its Macedonian/Greek characters all sounding like late 20th-century Dubliners, but if there was any criticism that "Alexander wasn't white and they cast a white a white actor anyway" I can't see it. Cleopatra, who was probably of the same ethnicity as Alexander (at least her claim to legitimacy as the queen of Egypt derived from her descent from one of Alexander's Macedonian generals, regardless of the possibility that one or more of her female ancestors may not have been of Macedonian ancestry), should be treated the same way. The only reasons she isn't treated the same way are (1) the film is old and comes from a time when legitimate white-washing (such as casting John Wayne as a Mongolian who was explicitly stated to be a Mongolian in the film) was common, so people naturally assume the same must have been the case for a film set in "ancient Egypt", and (2) people think "ancient Egypt" was a homogeneous, unchanging entity and "the pharaohs" were all "ethnically Egyptian".
I know (2) is the case because I got a fairly high standard of education in a modern first-world country and I still was "people" until I happened to watch Dale Martin's lecture on the Greco-Roman world on YouTube a few years back. (1) is fallacious as far as asserting that Elizabeth Taylor's casting qualified as "white-washing", although I don't doubt that several characters in the film who historically would have had black or brown skin were played by white actors (I saw the film once like 20 years ago, so I don't know), and (2) is just plain wrong when we know that the Ptolemaic dynasty, to which Cleopatra belonged, was at least initially and quite probably down to Cleopatra's time predominantly Macedonian/Greek in ancestry.
Saying that the film contains white-washing based on (1) would be acceptable if it is accurate (again, I think it probably is), but the problem is that the "reliable" sources that accuse the film of whitewashing don't talk about the other characters in the film. Sources that just say "Cleopatra was Egyptian; she was not white" cannot be assumed to be accurate in that claim unless they indicate that they are aware of the Ptolemys' and Cleopatras' origins in Europe and are basing their claim on something other than the fact that popular culture knows her as the queen of Egypt.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of reliable (as wikipedia defines it) sources that describe Cleopatra as an example of whitewashing. There are plenty of reliable sources that make it clear historically the person Cleopatra was very far from being the ethnicity used as the base of the whitewashing accusation. There are almost (and I have looked) no reliable sources that use the latter to counter the former. As historians do not waste time refuting popular press. Unfortunately this is a case where Verifiability trumps truth. Without some reliable sources explicitly refuting the whitewashing argument, there is not much that can be done other than trying to gain a consensus amongst reasonably sensisble editors that we dont have to include material *just* because it has a valid source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, up until "Verifiability trumps truth". Verifiability means unverifiable material cannot be included, but I think very few Wikipedians would interpret it as meaning that all material that is verifiable must be included. Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources depends on context, as all sources must be reliable for the specific claims we are attributing to them. If one source uses an assumption of fact to draw a conclusion, and another, better, source states outright that the first source's assumption of fact is wrong, then talk page discussion should take place and consensus should be not to include inaccurate material whose source might generally be reliable for some claims, but in this or that specific case was wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont disagree with you as I thought my subsequent comments made clear ;) Per WP:V however verifiability trumps truth as applied to this discussion. There actually has been a lot of talkpage discussion about this issue which has so far not come to a consensus to exclude it. And since its verifiable, that means by past wikipedia experience it will stay in the article unless there is a decent policy-backed reason to exclude it (such as BLP etc). Despite it being based on a faulty premise and demonstratably wrong. However to prove that requires original research as no authority we can use has actually done so. The other problem of course is that in an article titled 'whitewashing in film' its reasonable to include high profile accusations of whitewashing if they have gained significant coverage. The prose should reflect the legitimacy of the accusations, the problem with Cleopatra is there is little-to-no material that outright refutes it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
to prove that requires original research Yeah, but WP:NOR explicitly does not apply to talk pages and states that [d]eciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. NOR bans inclusion of original research in the main space, not using original research as a basis to remove obviously counterfactual material that is based on (in this case unreliable) sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding that "verifiability trumps truth" thing - I think there is guidance that is meant to avoid or at least minimize that, it was something about the quality and number of rs sources that repeat or cite the content. So, if a source doesn't repeat the claim, a source that would be expected to if the claim were generally held to be true, then that counts against the claims significance and points to it probably being fringe. Maybe someone more aware of source guidance can elucidate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't seem to have a question about a source or sources here. If there's a source of a film-criticism nature that identifies this film as an example of whitewashing, I don't see a problem with including this item in the list. It isn't a fringe argument it doesn't depend on Cleopatra being Black. (Let's agree for the sake of argument that Cleopatra was Greek, therefore likely to have had somewhat darker colouring than British-American Elizabeth Taylor.) Itsmejudith (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, these opinions (in the list section) are being presented as if they have some automatic inclusion validity from the mere fact of them having been said, yet are presented without any of their backing arguments or indication that the opinions themselves do not have fringe status. For example, for the Cleopatra film, have they appeared in any of the books or articles written just about this film? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88 is of course historically right, Cleopatra was of Macedonian Greek lineage and it makes no more sense to describe the casting as 'whitewashing' than it would to complain about Burton not being Roman. This hardly helps, but the 'error' is not modern, Shakespeare describes her "tawny front". Where the sourcing for a claim is poor, I would have thought that this is a case for IAR, or at least to add 'correcting text' (ie the historical Cleopatra was Macedonian Greek descent). Pincrete (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mesoamerica maps

There are 2 maps of pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican territories that don't seem to have any sources given for their information. The first, File:Territorial Organization of the Aztec Empire 1519.png used in Aztec Empire and File:Mesoamérica y Centroamerica prehispanica siglo XVI.svg used in Mesoamerica.

They both source their content as 'own work', but the first one cites the Mexican Secretary of Public Education, with a broken link leading to the main page of biblioteca.tv. I assume there was something more substantial initially. The second one pretty much has no sources to verify its claims of territorial borders.

Both the maps have great detail and work put into them, especially the second map, but I'm afraid the lack of any and all sourcing could invalidate any claims they make. I've asked both the authors about this and am now awaiting a reply. In the meantime, can these still be used on Wikipedia articles? Anybody knowledgeable in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica able to back the maps up? --TangoFett (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional input sought for a GAR re sources

Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1. The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable for military biographies. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to specify the issue a bit. One of the works in question is
  • Taghon, Peter (2004a). Die Geschichte des Lehrgeschwaders 1—Band 1—1936 – 1942 [The History of Lehrgeschwader 1—Volume 1—1936 – 1942] (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-85-0. VDM Heinz Nickel [de]
  • Taghon, Peter (2004b). Die Geschichte des Lehrgeschwaders 1—Band 2—1942 – 1945 [The History of Lehrgeschwader 1—Volume 2—1942 – 1945] (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-88-1.
@Sturmvogel 66: argues that he owns a copy of the work in question, that it is not pro-Nazi[38], that it is "RS by every stretch of the imagination", that the author has published "several books on WW2 history in Dutch, French and German with a variety of publishing houses" and that this is a "specialized topic" which needs examination "on a case-by-case basis".[39] He claims, that "in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source."[40]
First, I would disagree that this is the general policy on Wiki. Regardless of whether it has been written by an academic or a non-academic author, if a book is to be considered reliable, it should be easy to substantiate that with some references. If you reverse the burden of proof, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide such an "authoritative source" (I imagine that this does not include fellow Wikipedians), the more esoteric the source is and the less attention it has generated.
Now to that particular case: The author, Peter Taghon, is a Belgian jurist. He claimed to have worked "utterly factual" (ganz sachlich) and to provide a "plain and objective presentation of the events" (eine nüchterne und objektive Darstellung der Ereignisse). He calls his work a "documentary" (Dokumentation) and a "chronicle" (Chronik) He also professed to have purposely refrained from any judgement and his intentions were, according to his own statement, to provide a "source" and "treasure trove" for later historians. (So ist dieses Buch denn auch als Quelle und Fundgrube für spätere Geschichtsschreiber gedacht.) As the Luftwaffe had, on orders by Göring, systematically destroyed its own documents at the end of the war, Taghon used documents provided by veterans of the LG 1. Among them were documents from a collection by former commander Joachim Helbig (Sammelkiste Helbig), an unfinished manuscript by Helbig on the LG 1 and the papers of Oberst Gerd Stamp. Taghon was assisted by veterans Wolfgang von Bergh and Gert Winterfeld, and historian Ulf Balke has worked on the manuscript. Taghon also used documents by the Allies to assess the damage inflicted by the attacks. On the whole I consider that to be a primary rather than a secondary source. It should be used with extreme caution, but not be considered a RS as such. I might also note that it is not in wider circulation. As to Germany, not very many libraries hold a copy of it. --Assayer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a couple of comments to open with.
There is some misrepresentation of the facts here (I'm not saying this is deliberate). Firstly, there was an order by Goring to destroy Luftwaffe records in the last week of April 1945. This was carried out imperfectly in the first days of May, to say the least. In fact, in some cases the order wasn't carried out at all and a lot were lost in the general chaos in Germany at that time and rediscovered in later years.
If we were, for whatever reason, to reject studies in history based solely on the fact they were based on primary sources (the opinion of Assayer who hasn't seen the book), or as you say, vet them using "extreme caution", whatever that means, then where does that leave the study of this field?
Thirdly, cross-checking with Allied sources (particularly the British whose records on these things are exceptional), is an entirely sensibly thing to do.
Finally, what is notable is the complainant hasn't presented any evidence from other sources that contradict the validity of the Taghon book.
I see a lot of "I think" in all this. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
For matters of clarification: It is Taghon himself who notes that only about 5% of the Luftwaffe files ended up in German archives, and it is Taghon himself who notes that his work is not a historiographical study. Thus I consider it to be a collection of primary sources and not a "study in history" based on primary sources. There's a difference between a chronicle and a historiographical study.--Assayer (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm pinging the editors who participated in earlier discussions involving sources for WWII biographies (mainly Franz Kurowski); pls see:
@Darkfrog24, Nick-D, Nug, Stephan Schulz, Sfarney, Peacemaker67, Dimadick, Thewolfchild, Irondome, Coretheapple, Keith-264, ÄDA - DÄP, Woogie10w, Maunus, EnigmaMcmxc, and Calistemon:, in case they'd like to comment either here or at the GAR. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have had a short wikibreak, to clear my mind. We all know how it is occasionally needed. Appreciate the ping. Will be over to join the conversation later today. I have not read the thread yet, but I should be inputting later tonight London time. Regards all. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the proposed source, I have two observations on the matter. First, collections of primary sources are often useful sources themselves and offer details missing in more general histories. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire offers biographies of thousands of major and minor figures, listing which primary sources mention them and what the sources claim about them. It generally keeps modern opinions to a minimum.

Second, if Taghon's books are relatively obscure and out of circulation, how can we verify their content? While it is not necessary for a Wikipedia source to be available online, they should be within reach of editors who want to check their content. Any vandal can claim that a source verifies their made-up fact. It is usually up to editors to check the source and verify. We can not do this with sources that are unavailable in libraries or have not been translated in more than one language. Dimadick (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@ -Assayer: Whether it is a chronicle or not is irrelevant. And five percent of the remaining records is a huge amount of data.
@Dimadick:Don't be misled. It is a false assertion that Taghon is not available, it is on Amazon! And because something is obscure doesn't qualify it for deletion anyway.Dapi89 (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to point out, it could be in Esperanto and only currently available in one library in Slough, but that would not per WP:V make it unverifiable. The relevant sections are WP:NOENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. If its in another language and/or not easily available, WP:V allows for requesting a quote from someone who does have access to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There are several thingh I feel that are going against Taghon:
  • It's published by a small-time right-wing publisher VDM Heinz Nickel [de], which does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking
  • It's based in part on Joachim Helbig's writing, which makes it a non-independent source for the article on Joachim Helbig
  • The post-war accounts by Wehrmacht soldiers and generals were by nature apologetic, and are not held in high regard by today's historian. Using such sources for articles about these very same soldiers and generals is WP:UNDUE and leads to articles that do not meet the WP:NPOV requirement. See Clean Wehrmacht. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I mentioned that these two volumes are not held by many libraries at least in Germany is not because I would distrust the editors who used them, but to underline that this is a work on, as another editor put it, an "esoteric subject" and thus a somehow esoteric source. Be that as it may, its reliability has to be carefully evaluated. Some seem to aliken such an evaluation to a trial where the source is the defendant and to be disproven on every count. Instead, if we want to stay in the court room, the source is the witness to help us reconstruct an historical event and thus subject to appropriate scrutiny. In history that's called source criticism. The historiography of WW II works differently than the historiography of ancient Rome, especially in regard to primary sources. And if Taghon's book would have been published with Cambridge UP instead of VDM Nickel, there would certainly be less concern.
Once again I quote Taghon: "I have only tried to preserve and make avaiable for posterity the testimonies of the last witnesses, the many reports of personal experience and the log book entries of one of the oldest fighter squadrons of the German air force". (Ich habe nur versucht, die Aussagen der letzten Zeitzeugen, die vielen Erlebnisberichte und Flugbucheintragungen von einem der ältesten Kampfgeschwader der Luftwaffe der Nachwelt zu erhalten und zugänglich zu machen.) Thus the book is to large degree written from the veteran's perspective, i.e., it is WP:BIASED. As to reliabilty, I do not put much trust in such sources and I simply do not trust many Wikipedians to handle them with proper care. So the question is, to what extent can Taghon's work be used? Can it support claims as to what the squadron have attacked and sunk? Can it support information about clashes between Helbig and his superiors? There may be more issues, but that is subject of the current discussion.--Assayer (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
More opinion. Speaking of WP:BIAS, these last two posts, taken as one, would like us to believe that all former serviceman and women of the Wehrmacht were liars or at the very least inherently untrustworthy. There is a palpable sense of "I think" in all of these excuses. Every source, academic or otherwise, uses testimony from veterans or historical actors to supplement other research. In this case, the other research is done through Allied sources to help cross-reference the effectiveness of this particular unit. That point has already been dealt with. Dapi89 (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, for what it's worth, I quote Taghon: "Furthermore, I had access to extensive archival records of the former enemies, which show the effectiveness of the attacks." (Außerdem stand mir umfangreiches Aktenmaterial der ehemaligen Kriegsgegner zur Verfügung, aus dem die Wirksamkeit der Angriffe hervorgeht.) I would have liked some reviewer tell me, how thorough Taghon's research has been.--Assayer (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Other research will tell you whether it can be verified, it doesn't even require input from Taghon to do that. I put Hooton, Goss, De Zeng and co on this article for precisely that reason. HMS Jackal and her accompanying destroyers did not just vanish. They were sunk. And they didn't sink themselves. The Italians did not attack them, and the British sources say it was Ju 88s. In fact, RAF Y-Services monitoring Luftwaffe radio traffic came to know their attackers as the "Helbig Flyers". Dapi89 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The publisher, VDM Heinz Nickel (de:VDM Heinz Nickel) is not reliable - it publishes low-grade military history and technology books, often with a revisionist bend. Any reliability of the source could only come from reliable third-party reviews or from the author's expert status, not from the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What an extraordinary thing to say. The author writes the book, not the publisher. Dapi89 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What is extraordinary? If a book is published by Oxford University Press, the publisher performs quality control, by vetting the author and by having expert editors or outside peers perform a critical review before the book is published. We therefore assume that such a book is a reliable source. For books published by VDM Heinz Nickel this assumption does not hold. The book may still be ok (or not), but it does not gain any reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" from the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The three basic reasons we can assume a book is reliable is its author, its publisher, and its reception. The publisher is critical because of the editorial review it is expected to provide. At one extreme, books from the major academic presses are considered probably reliable, though the other factors have to be taken into consideration also. At the other, self-published books are considered to rest only on the personal authority of the author, and unless the author is known to be a generally accepted authority, are not considered reliable. Book from a general publisher rather than an academic publisher need to be considered publisher by publisher, and within each publisher, according to what line of imprint or series. Their serious non-fiction books can be reliable also in many cases. Books from a specialist publisher need evaluation similarly. If a publisher primarily publishes ideologically oriented material, the books will usually be presumed to be of only limited reliability, except as a statement of that ideology. This may of course not be true of any particular book, but it must be taken into consideration. The notion that all printed books are reliable is extremely naive or misleading--it is the sort of judgmenet usually encountered in the totally uneducated. I cannot imagine that anyone who understands history would think that way. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Firstly I said no such thing, and if I were you I wouldn't make assumptions about my credentials unless you'd like to be embarrassed.
Stephan, you've already made the assumption that the said publisher is unreliable and cannot examine anything objectively, even though you cannot, by definition, show that. My point is that the employees of HN didn't do the research or write the book. It stands to reason that their world view, whatever that might be, is not reflected in the book. The work is a product of Peter Taghon only. Dapi89 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Re: "What an extraordinary thing to say. The author writes the book, not the publisher", i.e. the statement that publisher has no role in whether or not a source is considered reliable. Here's a quote from WP:RS:
Definition of a source
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
The statements that that the publisher has no bearing on the reliability of a source or that any published book is considered RS by default are not accurate interpretations of WP:RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This is assumption once more. We have a clear divide here between fact and fiction. Can you show HN was involved in the research process or even perhaps directed or had control of what Taghon wrote and researched?
In any case, there is a raft of prior work published that complement and buttress Taghon's work. How much longer is that fact going to be ignored ? Dapi89 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
HN was probably not involved in the research phase, nor did it have control over what the author wrote. It did presumably have control over what the author published at that firm. A publisher that does not have such control & prints whatever the author writes, is what is known as a vanity publisher. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't automatically disqualify the research from being respectable. Taghon is supported by work published before and after. Dapi89 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if there are unquestioningly reliable sources supporting the same statements, why not use them instead of Taghon? I managed to locate the books on Google scholar, and the only two citations to either volume seem to be to mirrors of our own article Joachim Helbig that started this discussion. So no-one (known to Google Scholar, which is extremely inclusive, if sometimes spotty) relies on books by Taghon, except via the very article under discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We have. There would be no sense in taking Taghon out. It acts as confirmation Taghon isn't an agenda-driven bull shitter. I agree that Scholar is spotty, as is evident by Taghon's work being endorsed and used by Christopher Shores (a reliable titan of the air war literature) and the search engine's exclusion of that fact. He as been used in other reliable works as well. Taghon has been treated in more or less the same way Florian Berger. The Austrian State Archive's (examined by Dr Gerhard Artl) commended it and it's "dark chapters", for bringing to light war crimes and other criminal activities some of these people were involved in. Misterbee1966 brought that up but K.e.Coffman was not interested in that fact and agitated for his deletion anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that Taghon has also written on the German occupation of Brussels and Nazi war crimes in that country (see his book Brussels 1940 to 1945). He assisted Hugh Sebag-Montefiore (a non-academic writer) with his research on Dunkirk with sources on Nazi crimes against the Belgian Army in May 1940 by supplying him with archival data (Les Crimes De Guerre commis lors de l'invasion du territoire national Mai 1940: Les Massacres De Vinkt) (Vinkt War Crime Report). Taghon has also been used by Professor Jonathan Andrew Epstein (University of New York) in Belgium's Dilemma: The Formation of the Belgian Defense Policy, 1932-1940. He has also been used as a source in Dr Jean-Michel Veranneman's (from the University of Brussels) Belgium and the Second World War. The work on LG 1 was used by Frederick Taylor in his work on the Coventry raid in November 1940. Dapi89 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the evidence that Shores "endorsed" Taghon's work? Historians routinely use unreliable sources to either (1) point out their deficiencies; (2) compare and contrast with other sources they are using. So far the claim that Taghon is reliables appears to be the result of original research, and no 3rd party evidence has been presented as to Taghon's reliability. Is there any available, such as Shores reviewing Taghon's work? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
How do you think? He used it in his Mediterranean air war book. And it wasn't to attack it.
Really? Are you really going to claim any defence of Taghon relies on third party original research when that is precisely the approach you've taken to denigrate him? So far you've given nothing to this debate that tells us Taghon is unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In fact it's worse, your attacks on his character don't even directly address him. Dapi89 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Strangely enough, it has repeatedly been claimed, that it would not be fair to draw conclusions from the publisher's reputation. Each work had to be assessed for its own worth. But now we are asked to believe, that the reliability of a certain publication can somehow be delineated, not even from the reputation, but from other publications by the same author. As to Frederick Taylor's book on the Coventry raid: He does indeed use Taghon's book just once. From it he takes a lengthy quote from an observer of a bomber belonging to LG 1, who described the use of the Knickebein system for the final run to Coventry that night "to his unit historian" (i.e. Taghon). That's exactly what I keep saying: This is not a secondary source, but rather a collection of various primary sources by the unit's historian. At least it is used as such by others.--Assayer (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It isn't strange.
Your collaborator K.e.Coffman has done the claiming: he wants us to draw the inference that (apparently) an author's research is unreliable due to the alleged reputation of the publisher. Then he complains that I haven't presented any reliable information from a third party that verifies Taghon as reliable. In fact, the very use of him by such people does precisely this. Mr Coffman does not hold himself to his own standards of course (nothing directly critical of Taghon whatsoever).
At least you acknowledge that he is in use by respected researchers. The fact that he is a "unit historian" and this is not a "secondary source" is irrelevant. It is almost suggesting that primary sources must be excluded in this field. I wonder how you could draw such a view of the entire book when it is clear he does use secondary sources. I shouldn't need to say how daft that is. Dapi89 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the bad reputation of a publisher calls for special scrutiny when you deal with one of its products. It has been repeatedly explained to you that historians can use any sources, primary or secondary, reliable or unreliable, while Wikipedians can't. That's the whole idea behind WP:RS. It's not the simple fact that it is used, but the kind of use other researchers make of a book which allows you to assess its reliability. After all we are discussing the reliability and not the mere existence of sources. --Assayer (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No, the point is actually the quality of the research. The author is not an employee, nor is he beholden to HN, whether these stories about the publisher are true or not. And I have to say, they're not convincing. And secondly, besides the fact you haven't said that before now, Taghon hasn't been proven to be unreliable at all' . That's the point. Until you've done that, everything else is irrelevant. Bearing in mind that you've offered nothing other than weak inferences about Taghon's credibility, are you also trying to tell us that the professionals mentioned this case have used him without regard for his reliability or their own reputation? Are you questioning their professionalism? If so, where is your proof for this assertion? Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And editor Dapi attests to such "quality of the research", based on their personal experience with the source? Is editor Dapi a reliable source themselves? Any special credentials, academic institution affiliations or similar? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Make contrastive comments Coffman. Trying to distract us from the point is unhelpful. Dapi89 (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
What makes this source reliable then? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Taghon: Summing up

  • So far, 4 editors -- Assayer, Stephan Schulz, DGG and myself -- have questioned the source (Taghon), either due to its publisher, its source material and / or qualifications of the author.
  • 1 editor came out in defense of the source -- Dapi89, -- although without providing proof or 3rd party reviews that would attest to its reliability. Editor Dapi89 has indicated that they have qualifications to judge this source ("...if I were you I wouldn't make assumptions about my credentials unless you'd like to be embarrassed"), but have not divulged what these qualifications are.

Question: Could we close this with the conclusion that this is not a reliable source for the article on Joachim Helbig? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that you conspicuously failed to ping many of the other editors who commented on the GAR, I see no reason to think that all viewpoints have been represented. @Kierzek, Dead Mary, Auntieruth55, Ian Rose, and Anotherclown:
All I see here are weak aspersions, generally unsubstantiated by actual evidence. You have not yet established that Taghon is unreliable. Nobody's actually examined his work and you've ignored the fact that his research on Nazi war crimes has been used by other scholars. So why would you then conclude that he's biased in favor of the Nazi's?
As is common in aviation unit histories, Taghon quotes veteran's accounts in his narrative of the unit's activities and I think that only the loss lists in the back are the only other thing that can really be considered a primary source. So that pretty much disposes of Assayer's comments, although I'm happy to email scans of various pages, including the bibliography, which includes archives in the US, France, UK and Germany, to anyone who's interested. And I'll note that Ulf Balke, who helped with the research, is a well-respected WW2 aviation historian who's published a book with the German Military History Research Office (Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt).
I believe that coffman wants Helbig delisted at all costs and has seized on challenging Taghon as his best shot at doing so. The core of his argument against Taghon appears to be that he's published by VDM Nickel, a publisher that he believes is fundamentally non-RS, (based on Smelser's comments, if I'm not mistaken). That may be true for the non-aviation stuff, which I haven't seen, but they've also published Axel Urbanke's well-received book on JG 54, Green hearts : first in combat with the Dora 9, which has been has been reviewed at History.net which you can read for yourselves in addition to several other unit and type histories. So this goes to DGG's and Assayer's points about specific imprints that may or may not be problematic and I'm not seeing any substantial evidence that this is the case with the aviation titles by VDM Nickel. Note that I'm being very clear here that I make no judgement about any other titles published by them and I'm very much willing to bet that Smelser didn't examine the aviation titles when he make his comment almost a decade ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
As to Stephan Schultz's point about Google Scholar, I find it to be very spotty on foreign language material and the lack of any substantial reference to Taghon is evidence of nothing at all, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, VDM Nickel has not been reviewed in Smelsers book, it is not mentioned there. Still, their Ger-Wiki page is very negative. Dead Mary (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am late to the party, but my opinion on all of this, summarized as bullet points:

  • VDM Nickel seems to be indeed a right wing publishing house. Their Ger-Wiki page is very damning. I personally would not use books from them.
  • Taghon has not much reception. He is a Belgian lawyer with a PHD. I cant really judge if he is RS.
  • Most editors seem to consider him as a primary source? This seems to be a good case for WP:PRIMARY then.
  • WP:PRIMARY allows the use of such sources but only with great caution and for straight-forward facts which are unlikely to be challenged.

Since this here is basically an extension of the discussion at GAR:Joachim Helbig I would argue that the right approach would be to check for which statements Taghon is used as source and then whether those statements fulfill the constraints noted in the guideline. Obviously the majority of the article should be based on reliable secondary sources, but GA articles are not forbidden to contain primary sources. Dead Mary (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    • I dunno where you got that idea; Taghon includes a few primary sources, notably memoirs by various members of the unit, but relies on primary sources himself, plus various secondary works. So WP:Primary doesn't apply.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Huh, just translated the de.wiki page. Note than none of the titles mentioned were aviation-related, so I think that maybe that line of books has a different editor or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I got the impression by the books content, but I guess that is up to interpretation (veteran's accounts etc.). Maybe I am wrong though. I dont think there is much point to discuss which label can be put on the book but more how to use it. There doesn't seem to be an argument which disqualifies Taghon as author, but the publisher is not very great. I think he can be used in the article but with constraints so not entire article is based on him. I guess user K.e.coffman and Assayer are afraid that an uncritical use of these sources can lead to a glorified picture of such soldiers. In Germany this topic is very touchy, and the German Wikipedia went through great lengths (and lots of drama) to avoid that. Currently I don't think this can be solved to the satisfaction of each. Dead Mary (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not posted a comment here before as I don't write on Luftwaffe personnel. Again, as for RS standards for GA, mainstream works are allowed (as they should be; as long as not pov pushers or fringe or blatantly not RS) but certainly the bar should not be only those produced by "academics". I am not convinced by what has been presented that Taghon cannot be considered an RS source for specifically Luftwaffe articles. There has to be balance here; this article is for general readers and this project is voluntary. Frankly as I have said before many publishers are a mixed bag when it comes to books they publish on a subject such as World War II and Nazi Germany in particular. And I find the reliance on Smelser to be undue weight here. Kierzek (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I do not think that anyone has to prove a source to be unreliable, but the reliability has to be proven. I could examine the work. But who would believe me, that it's unreliable? It is Taghon himself, who states that his work is not historiographical in nature, but a "source" and "treasure trove" for later historians. I do not remember that anyone has claimed that Taghon was "biased in favor of the Nazis". But given his close collaboration with the veterans, he is likely biased in favor of the aviators. Neither did I argue that Taghon's book was unreliable or right-wing by any means, because it was published by VDM Nickel. But the publisher has a reputation that calls for a closer look. In general, their aviation stuff seems to be for "Luftwaffe fans" who appreciate "tremendously detailed account[s] of the day-to-day existence of a single German unit." (Ray Denkhaus in the review of Urbanke cited above). But I doubt that these are the "general readers" and Wikipedia is not about WP:FANCRUFT. Luftwaffe fancruft is not pro-Nazi, but still a problem, because it tends to feed into the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.--Assayer (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This confirms most of my suspicions about your approach. A researcher must, in your words, "collaborate"; which I assume to mean interview and extract information from historical actors if at all possible. That does not automatically mean they're bias. Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias. The book has been used by reputable authors and in some cases well-known academics, so it really doesn't require further comment from you. I also don't think you've understood the definition of fan cruft either. And it certainly doesn't feed into this "myth" of the Wehrmacht. That remark doesn't make any sense. The fact that it has been found in serious works on the European air war enables us to comfortably dismiss any notion of it being a fan-book. Dapi89 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: "Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias", please see WP:NPA.
Re: "The fact that it has been found in serious works on the European air war enables us to comfortably dismiss any notion of it being a fan-book" -- no it does not. The fact that others have used it a source means no such thing. The source needs to be demonstrated to be reliable, and an opinion by an editor who strenuously advocated (in this very forum not so long ago) keeping Franz Kurowski as source in the Otto Kittel article does not count, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does. Do you need to be reminded that their opinion of a source, by review or use, counts and yours does not?
K.e.Coffman, you've had several weeks to offer evidence of Taghon's unreliability. You've failed to do so. Your persistence claiming and lack of evidence says to me your agenda-driven. I also note your deletion of scores, if not hundreds of articles on German personnel and your consistent message on all of the articles you can't delete is that the information given is a figment of the Nazi imagination. Your activities on Hans-Joachim Marseille encapsulate your behaviour. Scouring the internet for any source you can find that accuse him of being a Nazi, despite the evidence of the biographers shows us all we need to know.
One last time: show us that Taghon's research is unreliable with reputable sources or stop disrupting these articles.
As for Otto Kittel, it will be restored with the information give. Except this time, it will be done through other sources. Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: "their opinion of a source, by review ...." -- except that no such review has been presented. Are there reviews from an RS available? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of the source by an academic to assist their own work on the operations of the Luftwaffe is an endorsement in itself. Provide evidence not opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a very peculiar way of implying an endorsement. Secondary sources (i.e. historians) routinely use sources that we as editors are not supposed to generally use, such as primary or unreliable sources. I'd note that the editor has not provided a 3rd party review of Taghon as of yet. So far, we've only the statement that Taghon has been used by others. As noted before, opinions by editors do not matter; what matters are sources, and none have been presented to suggest that Taghon should be considered a reliable secondary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's quite clear that are guilty of all you accuse others of failing to do. You can't show that he is unreliable. At least we can show his research has and is being used in other reliable sources. Your argument that he might favour a far right view of the second world war is nonsense. He has written before of Nazi crimes against Belgium, which seems to be an area of particular interest to him. So all in all, you've got nothing of any susbtance to say. Dapi89 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Berger and others

Responding to the comment from above that "coffman wants Helbig delisted at all costs and has seized on challenging Taghon as his best shot at doing so" -- many of the sources in the current article are equally challenged and are possibly worse. The article currently contains:

  • 2 citations to Miller, published by Merriam Press, which also produces and markets the Siegrunen magazine by Richard Landwehr, an "extreme admirer of the Waffen-SS, writing from the fringes of the far right" (according to S.P. MacKenzie).
  • 5 citations to self-published source Florian Berger
  • 3 citations to Schumann, also of VDM Heinz Nickel [de]

Berger was discussed in some detail at GAR, both his self-published work in German and the English-language The Face of Courage. For comparison purposes, here's Berger's discussion of Cavalry Regiment Mitte from The Face: link. He refers to it as "Boeselager Riders" and describes the formation "as feared by the enemy as it was respected". Berger notes that unit operated on "anti-partisan" duties supporting Army Group Centre, becoming "famous" and "so successful that similar formations were establish for Army Groups North and South" (pp. 492, 494).

Here's the context for these "successes" from Christian Gerlach in War of Extermination: The German Military In World War II (link):

The unit took part in rear security operations conducted in the area of Army Group Centre (AGC). On 23 June 1943 the unit commandeer, Georg von Boeselager, sent a report to Henning von Tresckow regarding tactics of partisans and ways to reduce "risk of gangs":[1]

It is impossible for a German soldier to distinguish between partisans and non-partisans... The regiment's view is that the area must be subdivided into a) pacified areas, b) areas threatened by gangs, c) gang infested areas. In areas threatened by gangs ... all males passing through such areas alone or in small groups must be shot or imprisoned at once... The bandit infested area must be swept clean of all males. ... After the deadline, men in this area will be shot.

These suggestions were enthusiastically received by AGC and were eventually implemented in the directive from Heinrich Himmler (as chief of Bandenkampf, literally: "bandit fighting") of 10 July 1943: "Gang-infested areas of northern Ukraine and the middle region of Russia are to be cleansed of all of its inhabitants".[2]

References

  1. ^ Gerlach 2004, pp. 136–137.
  2. ^ Gerlach, Christian (2004). "Chapter 6: Men of July 20 and the War in the Soviet Union". In Hannes Heer; Klaus Naumann (eds.). War of Extermination: The German Military In World War II. Berghahn Books. ISBN 1-57181-232-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEGerlach2004136–137" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Does Berger look like a reliable source suitable for use in an encyclopedia? Or are his writings a mixture of hagiography, omissions, half-truths and misrepresentations? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You've given nothing in the above to show that he is. All looks like opinion and OR to me. In any case, you're expanding this beyond the scope of the title. Stick to Taghon. Dapi89 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Berger's been published by Stackpole which pretty well negates the self-published issue. I've seen similar hyperbole to "as feared by the enemy as it was respected" about the US Marines, so I discount that sort of stuff as endemic to the genre. The unit was used as a model for similar units in AGN and AGS, all of which ultimately used to form the 3rd and 4th Cavalry Divisions in 1944–45, so the Germans obviously believed that its structure and tactics were effective. I'm well aware of the brutality, massacres and war crimes committed by German troops of all branches on anti-partisan operations, but I don't think that a failure of discuss those things by a historian disqualifies him from use as a source because there are plenty of other sources available that discuss exactly those issues.
I'm with Dapi89, if you want to challenge Berger, Schumann, etc., start separate threads here for them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The name of the thread is "Additional input sought for a GAR re sources" so the discussion on Berger is within scope of this thread. It's best to keep them together. I would also note that Stackpole did not run the book that's being use at the Helbig article, so it remains a self-published source. (The Face of Courage appears to be a reprint of Berger's work on the holders of the Close Combat Clasp in gold).
Re: "there are plenty of other sources available that discuss exactly those issues" -- the point that's being missed is that if Berger is the only source on low-level Wehrmacht personnel, then using such a source would result in an article failing the NPOV requirement. WP:RS sources generally do not cover low ranking commanders (and that's what Helbig was for the most of his WWII career). The info about him is spotty that's why the article relies (mostly) on a patchwork on unreliable sources for his career. The few citations to reliable sources currently in the article are mostly about the larger unit that Helbig's sub-unit was part of. Hence the challenge for this article sustaining a GA status; there aren't enough RS sources to build an NPOV article on the subject, rather than the wing he was part of.
The Taghon souce, being based on post-war accounts of the veterans of the unit, by necessity subscribes to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, as it seems highly improbable that the veterans would willingly speak about attacking civilian targets. Hence we get the language of:
  • Taghon is not based on post-war accounts of the veterans; it does include some accounts by veterans as I've stated earlier if you'd paid attention. And I'll reiterate my offer to send scans to verify that to anyone willing to spend the time to look. I swear it's like talking to a fencepost.
  • "Industrial target specialist" has been deleted from the article and will stay that way as I've seen nothing myself to source that statement. "Hospital ship" will be used as given in the sources; I haven't gotten there yet in reworking the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said before, archives in the US, UK, Germany and France, plus numerous secondary works in German and English as well as correspondence with veterans. If you want the full list, email me and I'll send you a scan; I'm not about to type it up. There's generally an entry for each day of the war, but many are quite brief while others extend for several pages, depending on the amount of information available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The article in toto is largely based on unreliable or biased sources; hence there was only one editor advocating that it is (in the state when the discussion wrapped up) eligible to keep its GA status. That was out of about a dozen editors who commented at the GAR. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
A bit of a mischaracterization, I think. Many of the commenters never rendered an opinion one way or another, and quite a few objected to your characterization of many sources as unreliable. So I don't really think that you can claim a majority of all commenters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've not said that the majority of participants advocated delisting, merely that only one editor explicitly advocated keeping. Here's the summary:
  • 1 editor (the nominator -- myself) iVoted for delisting: K.e.coffman
  • 3 editors mentioned delisting, although without submitting a formal iVote: Assayer; Roches; CCCVCCCC
  • 1 editor mentioned that the article is currently not at GA, but could possibly be brought up back to the GA level: AustralianRupert (quote: "I agree with you that in its current form it is not a GA; I disagree with you, though, about what needs to be done to bring it back up to GA.")
  • 8 editors commented on the discussion without expressing an opinion as to keeping / delistings: Sturmvogel, Kierzek, DeadMary, Auntieruth55, ÄDA - DÄP VA, Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Anotherclown
  • 1 editor advocated keeping the article as GA, although without submitting an iVote: Dapi89.
The paucity of "keep" votes is rather telling, no? Alternatively, I'd invite the editor to ping the participants and find out. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
As you well know, they've been pinged by both of us; I suspect that this has gotten well into TL:DR territory for them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Talking about Florian Berger's work, what does it take to show that this work is not a RS? For example, he is used as a reference for a certain paragraph in the article on Jochen Marseille. I think that the information provided there is highly dubious, to say the least. See Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Der Stern von Afrika (movie) for details. If Berger does not correctly summarize the plot of that 1957 movie, what does that say about the reliability of his work? As a side note, if a historian fails to discuss war crimes committed by the subject he is dealing with, he would most likely be criticized by other historians. IMO such criticism would disqualify him as a reliable source. Just recently, we discussed two works, one by a former Waffen-SS general, one by a journalist, who are considered to be strongly apologetic by historians, but still Wikipedians consider them to be RS. It seems to be necessary to disprove each and every detail of even the most obscure works. --Assayer (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That encapsulates the problem Assayer, with you and K.e.Coffman: "I think" and "IMHO". Editor opinions count for nothing. In fact, is there actually an indication that Berger's account of the film is wrong?
I've had no part in the debate on this Waffen-SS general, but I consider all memoirs (if that is what it is) and journalist sources as unreliable - that means that they should be used to reference claims by the individual against reliable research.
Move Berger to a separate thread. It was started for Taghon. Dapi89 (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
We all, you included, utter nothing but opinions. But I promise to be more rigid in my argument. Why don't you just watch the movie? I did. I won't post links; a simple google search will do the trick. If you'll find the scene Berger describes, please let me know the minutes the Holocaust is mentioned and when the Gestapo are entering the stage. Most of the sources we are talking about are not written by trained historians or academics of any kind, but by veterans, amateur researchers, enthusiasts, fans, journalists. Kurowski was a turner who turned (no pun intended) propaganda writer in WW II, worked in a factory till 1958 and wrote dozens of pulp novels for Der Landser. This thread was started to discuss the sources used for the article on Joachim Helbig. One of these sources is by Taghon, another by Florian Berger. There is no need for another thread right now.--Assayer (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't. I've asked for evidence. I can and have pointed to various sources/work by Taghon that suggest his work is unlikely to be revisionist or agenda-driven, but I don't recall defending Taghon because no evidence has been presented that is critical of him. In fact, Wolfgang von Bergh, deputy inspector of the Bundesluftwaffe, also reviewed his work. I assume you will also claim he is unreliable.
Concerning Berger and Marseille: I have. The original context of the information that Misterbee1966 added I'm sure mentioned a rumor that it was to be in the movie. I cannot find that particular edit. It would seem the wording did not accurately reflect the information Berger provided. I do not have the source to confirm this. Dapi89 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You ask for evidence, but at the same time you are merely suggesting something? Besides, my point was not that Taghon's work iswould be revisionist in its outlook, but that it should be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source rather than a WP:RS. You yourself consider memoirs as unreliable, but at the same time you try to make a case that the personal recollections of Wolfgang von Bergh, Staffelkapitän of the 6th and 9th squadron of LG 1, are some sort of a reliable review. Taghon refers to von Bergh as a collaborator, and von Bergh wrote a preface. As to the Marseille-story, it seems that it was added as a "rumour" by a German IP in 2008[41] and turned into "fact" somehow some time later.--Assayer (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you actually understand what is going on here? You make a claim, you verify it. That is how it works. I'm showing you that your claim is doubtful. A man who writes detailed work about Nazi crimes against Belgium is unlikely to be a Nazi.
Another unsubstantiated claim!!!! Prove Taghon is a revisionist.
Ah, I see my crystal ball worked. The use of the word "collaborator" is interesting: carries with certain Nazi connotations doesn't it? I wonder whether you think the Bundeswehr regularly appoints people with these traits as deputy inspector of the Bundesluftwaffe.
As I said above, you offer assertion laced with bias. I have had many arguments/debates with people on Wikipedia, but never have I been involved in a discussion where the opposite point of view fails to bring any (and I mean any) evidence to the table.
In respect of Marseille, I will go o that editor and ask exactly what Berger says. Sometimes things get changed that do not reflect the information given in the source. Dapi89 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
No need to prove a claim I don't make. I changed the wording, hoping it clears up that I meant to use indirect speech. I do think, however, that the word "collaborator" is correct when used in connection with someone's work, especially a literary work.--Assayer (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You have said he needs to be treated with "extreme caution" (whatever extreme caution is when using sources is hard to define) and you've associated the quality of research with the alleged revisionist/right-wing/neo-Nazi (which ever you wish to choose, it amounts to the same thing) publisher.
With regard to Berger and Marseille: I have an answer from Misterbee1966. Berger says, A very rare – and questionable story – may have occurred immediately after the presentation of Marseille’s Swords. This story states, the young Oberleutnant Marseille, during his brief stay in Germany, was confronted with the facts of the final solution of the Jews. Emotionally impacted by this, Marseille did not immediately return to his unit in Africa, but instead went into hiding for five weeks in Italy. Only after the Gestapo located him, and pressured him, did Marseille agree to return to his Geschwader. Although this story sounds very vague, and is unproven, the aspect that Marseille did not want to return to his Geschwader was built into the 1950s movie and so far that aspect has not been contested. Also possible – similar to the Mölders letter – that the story was created by the British secret service.
Berger is quite clear, the aspect of this story that appears in the movie was related to Marseille's reluctance to return to Africa only. The film depicted this as his desire to stay with his fiancé; biographers know this was actually because he ran off with an Italian girl and the gestapo issued a missing persons alert. Berger makes no comment on the later two points. So the assertion that Berger claimed this was in the movie is false. That seems to have been an issue created by editors, not Florian Berger. Dapi89 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reluctance to return? Based on the description, Marseille was guilty of desertion. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct. If you scroll to the info on Marseille's page (Marseille and Nazism) it is confirmed he heard a conversation among some influential and high ranking SS men at a dinner party in Germany that they were taking revenge for Heydrich's assassination and were dealing with the Jews and Czechs there. On his way to Italy he was to meet Mussolini, and although this meeting took place, he then disappeared in Italy for a few days, long enough for the Gestapo to issue a missing persons alert. It transpired he had absconded with an Italian woman and returned to Africa thereafter. No apparent penalty was incurred for this infraction. Perhaps because of his fame. Anyway, there it is. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: "You've given nothing in the above to show that he is. All looks like opinion and OR to me" -- WP:V requires an assessment of source quality and WP:GNG, WP:AFD, etc, all require editors to determine whether articles have sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Such source assessment is not considered OR, but rather standard and expected practice.
I'm curious if, with the information provided above and at the Helbig GAR, the editor Dapi89 considers Berger's The Face of Courage to be RS for military biographies? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Your curiosity is not a topic for discussion and unlike you, I don't make a habit of attacking books I've never read. How many times do you have to be told opinions don't have any place here?
In any case, you seem to have made the assertion that Berger is unreliable for what he doesn't write about, as opposed to what he does write about. Unless he actually excuses the Wehrmacht or contends well know instances of Wehrmacht crimes, then it is just another example of your tendentious treatment of authors, books and facts at large. This thread shows you're a polemicist, nothing more. Dapi89 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the Marseille story. I won't go into further details here, but since even Berger calls that story "questionable", I will probe deeper into that subject. As to Berger himself, one of his few reviewers called Berger's motivations "hero worship". Manfred Dörr, himself not a military historian and a writer of low profile, commends Berger's works by stating in his foreword: "The attitude of the author impressed me in that he views the soldierly virtues of courage and bravery separately from the political system, for which the soldiers displayed these qualities." Writing in 2004 Dörr said, that "Berger has taken another important step in becoming a serious writer of non-fiction", and continues: "His future works will meet the standards for serious research, and his books will be discussed and ranked accordingly by the institutions that set the standards." (The Face of Courage, published by Fedorowicz in 2007, and by Stackpole in 2011). Which means that by 2004, Berger was not yet a serious writer and his works up to that point did not meet "the standards for serious research" set by someone like Dörr. I might add that the bibliography of that book shows that Berger completely ignored scholarly works in favor of, among others, Paul Carell, Janusz Piekalkiewicz, Werner Haupt and Franz Kurowski. Berger himself goes on record with sentences like: Even the Red Army, in many ways much worse than all of the guilty on the German side, was never maligned as an “army of murderers”, “Stalin’s gravediggers” or worse. Up to this very day, the mass executions of the Soviet Union have not been examined. There are no monuments, no days of remembrance, nor any processing of history. What can be "much worse" than the Holocaust? That is nothing but an "excuse" of the Wehrmacht and the latter two sentences are blatantly wrong. Just think of The Black Book of Communism.--Assayer (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wehrmacht as a criminal organisation?

Firstly, thank you for taking this seriously and actually coming back which something substantive. It sounds as if Dörr isn't someone that should be taken seriously from what what you've said; whether he is endorsing or criticising Berger. I'd have preferred it if said he something directly critical of Berger, which is what we need.
The last part is a much stronger argument. Are you sure it hasn't been taken out of context, and that is a direct, literal, or exact translation? The argument that the Red Army was a criminal organisation like the Wehrmacht, or at least, complicit in large scale crimes, is not controversial. The statement much worse than all of the guilty on the German side is something that does raise eyebrows. Although the SS and Gestapo were central to the Holocaust, it is undeniable that the Wehrmacht facilitated these crimes in the East and elsewhere. To my understanding the Holocaust could not have happened without the German Army, to be more specific. The Luftwaffe escapes the stigma, and I have recently looked into the extent to which that branch was complicit. I know some incidents where the Luftwaffe did perpetrate crimes that meet the said definition. I know the Kriegsmarine transported Jews from the Baltic in 1944, when Army Group North was cut off and I am surprised this isn't mentioned in that article.
Does Berger have anything negative to say about the Wehrmacht in this regard? Because if so, that would add more context and build a better picture. Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've read Berger's acknowledgements in Face of Courage and there is an important excerpt that you've left out. He also says: that war was wrong and it promoted the most horrific political goals in history. The operative word being most. He draws attention to war crimes in his book and this statement doesn't excuse the Wehrmarcht, which was one of the instruments of these political aims. Dapi89 (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've quoted Dörr, because I found it an odd statement for a foreword, where you would have expected more praise. There seem to be some misunderstandings, though. I would neither classify the Wehrmacht nor the Red Army as "criminal organizations". And I did not want to suggest that Berger was something like a Holocaust denier. He tries to make a clear distinction between "the war of aggressions and the political goals of Hitler" and the "military achievements" of the German and Austrian soldiers, in particular Knight's Cross recipients. That's a common strategy if you believe in the Clean Wehrmacht. Sure, he claims that he aimed "to uncover the “black sheep”". But then he draws a bizarre comparison between Jochen Peiper and Audie Murphy, based on the theoretical assumption that Murphy could have been a racist. After all, his argument can be described as the childish excuse "everybody could have done it". That's why it is important to note his evaluation of the Red Army. To be sure, "all of the guilty on the German side" means not only the Wehrmacht, but this also includes the Waffen-SS.--Assayer (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Gerhard Artl, an Oberstleutenant and archivist in the Austrian State Archives, wrote a forward to Berger's book that concludes: "Der Autor hat nicht nur in zeitraubender und daher besonders verdienstvoller Weise zahlreiche biographische Daten zusammengetragen und verarbeitet. Er scheut sich auch nicht, in kritischer Distanz auf "schwarze" Flecken in manchem Lebenslauf hinzuweisen." Artl is a published professional military historian, so I think that this pretty well settles the question of Berger's reliability.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: "The argument that the Red Army was a criminal organisation like the Wehrmacht (...) is not controversial" -- wait, what? What are the sources that describe the Red Army as a "criminal organisation"? Even calling the Wehrmacht as a whole a criminal organisation seems controversial, if by "criminal organisation" we mean a similar judgement metered by the IMT to the SS organisation.
For sure, the OKW and the OKH, by today's standards, can be considered to be criminal organisations. I've seen Geoffrey P. Megargee describe Wehrmacht senior commanders down to the corps level as war criminals for having 100% implemented the criminal Commissar order during Barbarossa. According to the recent German research, at least 80% of divisions on the Eastern Front implemented the order as well, and their commanders can rightly be described as war criminals (apart from all the other crimes Wehrmacht has committed during Barbarossa and later). But all the way down to, say, every battalion commander and individual soldiers? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Sturmvogel about Berger. I hope that the English version of Berger's book is accurate, but that is the message. He wants to draw a distinction between personal bravery and the criminal nature of the organisation and it's commanders.
There is a long-standing academic discourse over this. Different academics draw different conclusions. There is a significant number of researchers that regard the Wehrmacht as a criminal organisation. Omer Bartov is one. Of course, it is quite possible to be a member of a criminal organisation without committing a crime and membership alone doesn't make an individual a criminal. In state sponsored crimes, and in this case, conscription and call to arms is coercion and removes the freedom of choice. I think Bartov's argument was in Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis and War in the Third Reich or his book Holocaust and a chapter entitled "German fighting men and the Holocaust". I don't have copies, but I was asked to review them. In both cases he makes a case for the Wehrmacht as a criminal organisation, at least so complicit in Nazi crimes as to be for all intents and purposes a criminal organisation. Also one must view work that writes about its origins. It was, after all, a creation of the Nazi state and imbued with its ideals. See Wolfram Wette for how the Germany Army was expected to assist in the Holocaust. Dapi89 (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
First, I briefly translate what Artl wrote about Berger: Not only did the author undertake the time absorbing and therefore particularly praiseworthy work to collect and to process many biographical data. With a critical distance he also does not shy away from pointing to "black" spots in the life of some. Yet, as Bartov and others make clear, the argument to conceive of war crimes as excesses by individuals is exactly the line of reasoning that was challenged by the Wehrmacht exhibition. In his preface, not to be confused with a review, Artl actually doesn't say much about the reliability of Berger's research, whose approach others have called "hero worshipping". But I increasingly got the impression that reliability is something you simply have to believe. So may the light of Gerhard Artl's academic education shine on Florian Berger's self-published work.--Assayer (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

General comment re MilHist GA reviews

One of the statements in support of Berger was "The fact that his books are self-published simply means that he did not get them published in an academic publication. This does not mean that he is ignorant." -- this does not jive with the WP:IRS, and suggest to me that some of the editors are setting the bar so low as to result in a POV-challenged fan page for Helbig: June 2010, GA version.

The article as assessed for GA included the fabulist Franz Kurowski & the fringe (read: neo-Nazi) publication Immortal German Soldiers, on par with books such as KZ-Lies and The Wehrmacht as Liberator. The article missed being promoted to MilHist A-class status because of not enough information being available on Helbig's personal life, and not because of dubious sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the discussion going on above, here's what the A-class nominator had to say about sources: "The sources Berger, Kurowski and Schumann are the only sources I know of that portray Helbig as a person. Williamson is a plagiarism of the latter. Peter Taghon, author of the Lehrgeschwader 1 chronicles, mentions a Helbig collection that Helbig himself had started to put together with the intentions to publish his own book. This work has never been published (to my knowledge). Personally, I think that Schumann's article (Helbig is only one of many KC recipients in that book) is the historically most sound data point available. Kurowski basically tells the same story, filling many pages with anecdotal stuff that seems like fiction." The nom earlier states that in Taghon "Helbig is not mentioned much in the early years". Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joachim Helbig.
If this does not flat out say "reliable sources on this subject are sorely lacking", I don't know what does. Yes this article passed the MilHis peer review and GA review with flying colors, and only stumbled on the A-class review due to "lack of personal information". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't what does say "reliable sources on this subject are sorely lacking". Again you try and set the bar too high for sourcing on a GA-class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: "You don't what does say..." -- there's a word missing, so I'm not quite clear what this means and cannot respond. Re: "you try and set the bar too high for sourcing on a GA-class article" -- I've always gone by WP:RS & WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. Is this setting the bar too high? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Your interpretation does not match that used by many Wikipedians, particularly your willingness to condemn the entire output of various publishing houses for issues that may exist for one type of content that they publish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this slideshow a reliable source?

Is [42] (slides 3 and 4) a reliable source for the definition of license compatibility? My concern is that a slideshow made for a presentation at an event is a self-published source, and as far as I can determine, the presenter (though he is a lawyer) is not a published expert in the field. And it may just be me, but it seems stupid to use a slideshow as a source for anything, ever, without access to a recording or transcript of the presentation itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

He might be a published expert. His blog is here, he could be considered an expert if nominally reliable sources cite him a lot. He also has at least three articles published in law journals, such as 1, 2, and 3. This is far outside my field of expertise, so I wouldn't even know where to begin figuring out if this qualifies him as an expert for SPS purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thanks for finding that site! If we can find any publications or citations relating to copyright law, we’re golden, I think. But what about the use of presentation slideshows as a source, divorced from the actual presentation? The only thing I’ve ever seen on the question was once on this very noticeboard. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean, a website can be a source. I don't see any templates for citing a powerpoint, but I don't see any particular reason it would be disallowed. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So can we establish whether Laurent qualifies per WP:SPS? I don’t know if a company’s “Copyright Blog” counts as a reliable publication (though they do have a managing editor and associate editor[43]), and while they have published his IP law–related work, they don’t list him as a contributor. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Citing a Facebook post

Realizing that it's generally not the best idea; yet in limited instances it's an acceptable source per WP:SOCIALMEDIA; is there a template for this? I don't like just a bare url pointing to the organization's facebook page, as the specific post in question will quickly be buried under all the other traffic. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The timestamp on the Facebook post should be a permalink to the post itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: because I forgot to ping you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Rudaw Media Network

Is Rudaw Media Network reliable for number of casualties in the 2016 West Iran clashes? Pahlevun (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, in my opinion. The US State Department describes it as "KDP-affiliated", so it seems to have a significant conflict of interest. I'm not an expert on the subject, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_217&oldid=1164509749"