Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

There is disagreement over the reliability of Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems, Yefim Chernyak, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987.[1] Additional input would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reliable to me. I am going to guess that the argument against is... it's a Communist source and therefor "unreliable" (yes?) If so, that is a false argument. The fact that a published source supports a particular POV does not make it unreliable. The trick is to make the reader aware of the source's POV and to balance it with statements based on sources that support other POVs. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is a widely known international publisher of professional and academic texts. Basic snippet analysis of the google books entry indicates that it is an academic volume. Given its era (1987) the work is unlikely to contain fundamental methodological flaws. However, like all academic works, it will represent a methodological and theoretical tradition. Read, classify according to the literature typography of the field, represent opinions contained within the work as scholarly opinions from the discrete literature group. As reliable as any other HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS/N editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias in this context. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS. Only a handful citations in the West; the Russian original edition Вековые конфликты is somewhat more widely cited by Russian scholarly sources. --JN466 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite many Russian authors have Soviet background and repeat Soviet propaganda. One has to be an expert to understand the difference between Russian nationalists, post-Soviets, independent scholars. Some writers work for FSB, Russian Army, Russian government. The Russian texts you quote are - 80 anniversary of Chernyak, Tobolsk teacher's college curriculum, a Renaissance article, nothin serious. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Soviet and Soviet Block book was censored, both negatively - removed parts of the text, and positively - either the whole book or parts of it were designed by political leaders. Zhukov's Diary has several versions, all of them manipulated. Brezhnyev's "deeds" were created and described by many authors, including standard WWII books. So any censored text should be described as censored and quoted with extreme caution. Many Russian authors reject Soviet texts.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite correct. All books published in the USSR were officially censored, but for most books that involved only "negative" censorship - the censors checked for material that could be viewed as ideologically problematic or could contain some sort of sensitive security information. Relatively few books were actively "positively censored" in terms of inserting some fabricated or semi-fabricated information at the insistence of the censors or some higher level political leaders. Such "positive" censorship would only really occur for books dealing with important Soviet leaders or sometimes with some particularly sensitive ideological issues. Of course, there was always a degree of self-censorship involved, both in literary and in scholarly works. However, in post-Stalin era, particularly in the late Soviet and perestroika periods, people writing scholarly papers, even on politicized topics, generally did not engage in deliberately falsifying or misrepresenting data. Their methodological framework was often wanting and inadequate, and they had to represent their work with a particular ideological slant. But, as a general rule, they did view themselves as honest scholars engaged in pursuit of truth and they tried to exercise corresponding standards. Usually, censorship and self-censorship primarily resulted in avoiding talking about certain issues and topics that were viewed as taboo or too sensitive. E.g. in the coverage of WWII this included not talking at all about mistreatment of Soviet civilian population by the Soviet partisans operating behind the German lines; not talking about the reasons for the catastrophic start of the war for the USSR, not talking about mass rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Europe, etc. There were some exceptions, of course, where entire fields of research were so ideologically contaminated as to be completely unreliable from the modern perspective. This would apply, for example, to all Soviet-era writings about the history of CPSU, all writings on communist/marxist philosophy, "scientific communism", etc. But in many other fields, such as medieval and ancient history, much of the stuff published in Soviet times represents first-class research. Without seeing the book Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems itself, it is hard to make any judgement on its reliability (in terms of the data being presented, if not in terms of its interpretation given in the book). But the title does sound very ideological to me. If the book comes from the school of "political science", as it existed for most of the Soviet period, I would probably regard the book as too ideologically contaminated to be reliable, even though it was published just as perestroika was beginning to gather steam. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Soviet citizen was trained since kindergarden to be Soviet, so he/she didn't need any direct control to know, what is allowed, he/she could have been the source of Soviet propaganda. However almost everything in the SU was planned rather than left to individual Communists, eg. research plans in Universities, so if you have a subject "UK imperialism", you rather don't describe UK values in your text. Any book translated into foreign language was cheched additionally. BTW, has anyone checked if the English languge text is the same like the Russian one? I agree that some fields were less ideological, the book has been quoted recently in a Russian text regarding the Renessaince. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) "honest scholars" - I don't know the SU academic world, but in a quite liberal Poland several historians worked for the political police SB. Some others wrote totally different texts after 1989. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my concern. Books published under totalitarian regimes discussing the views of their ideological opponents can't be assumed to be free of censorship, and better sources should be available for the material in question. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... have you read any US Sovietology? The problem isn't confined to "totalitarian" regimes, in itself a problematic and US biased theoretical construction of social ordering. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo is right on target. Totalitarian regimes don't have a monopoly on dubious sources. Consider for instance the Cold War incorporation of US Information Agency (USIA) into the US government’s Psychological Operations Co-ordinating Committee, and its funding of a book publishing programme in the late 1950s at a cost of $100,000 annually. American readers were unaware that many of the supposedly independent books they were buying and reading were actually subsidised with their own tax money. When books condemning the "Red menace" did not meet commercial standards, USIA obligingly eliminated the publisher's risk by surreptitiously buying up sufficient copies to cover production costs. (Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967, p.12.21).The CIA considered books to “differ from all other propaganda media, primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader's attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium." (Thomas C Sorensen, The Word War: The story of American propaganda, New York, Harper and Row, 1968, pp.69-70). Communicat (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this [2] is a correct copy of the Saturday Evening Post article, it does not support anything that you say. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link you've provided is not the correct link to the item I cited. However, you have helpfully provided a link to a related topic that mentions specifically the British cultural journal Encounter. As the linked article states: The editor was a fulltime CIA agent, and funding of the publication "came from the CIA, and few outside the CIA knew about it." Communicat (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Ignore citation Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967. It was included in error. The Sorensen attribution is correct. Communicat (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British and American secret services, with covert British and US funding, also established an ostensibly "independent" publishing house in Munich to produce anti-Soviet literature throughout the 1950s, including books that were used to influence public opinion in America and throughout Western Europe. A certain Vladimir Porensky was employed as head of this publishing house. Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists, had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945 and then released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified US State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a "200% Nazi". (Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988 pp.224-5ff). Communicat (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have both the date of publication and the publisher wrong for Blowback [3] Only 2 works, one by the fringe theorist Stan Winer, seem to mention Vladimir Porensky at all, the work you cite does not seem to mention Porensky at all.[4] Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (Striking own comments. Google failed me; Communicat listed correct date and publisher.[5]Apologizes to all for the error on my part.) Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Fifelfoo's point is well taken. Reliability of a source does not imply a source is neutral in it's point of view. Fox News is a good example. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source reference to Blowback by Christopher Simpson is completely accurate. Edward321 is badly mistaken. He may be confusing the Simpson book with a completely different work of the same title -- even though the link he provides proves that the author and title as given are accurate. I don't know what's his problem. The Simpson book Blowback as already accurately cited by me, the was published in London by George Weidenfeld & Nicolson in 1988, ISBN 0 297 79457 . I recommend it highly. A good companion piece would be Philip Knightley's The First Casualty, London: Quartet 1987, especially the section that deals with censorship and books about Korea around the McCarthy era, p.331. Communicat (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is regretable that Xx236 Nsk92 have taken it upon themselves to refactor this thread with needlessly argumentive postings that are in any event becoming TL;DR Communicat (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is regretable in informing the redaers about the context of Soviet propaganda? The Western propaganda wasn't in any way comparable to the Soviet one, babies opposing wolves.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidently confused Edward321 and any other interested parties might find this Simpson page quite helpful. Communicat (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Soviet joke - a Soviet activist answers any critics of the Soviet system with words "But you persecute Afroamericans", this reminds me your argumentation. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terrible CIA financed a number of best Polish writers allowing Czesław Miłosz to get the Nobel prize rather than washing dishes.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Former Nazis were used in the Soviet Union and GDR [6]. So USA Nazis are wrong and the Soviet ones seem to be O.K.. BTW the Soviets murdered more civilians than the Nazis, why do you think than "NAzi" or "Fascist" is wrong And "Communist" O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that much of this is irrelevant. Who's propaganda fung fu is better is not the issue, even if we could determine that (and I will simply point out that in the US, I would expect propaganda to be more subtle than that in under the average totalitarian regime, and thus that much harder to spot and that more dangerous), as is whose nazis were worse. Seems to me that there's not a RS issue here, but rather matters of due weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The propaganda was only a part of the cold war, the Soviets had a better ideology, were more crazy to risk a WW to control the whole world. But Western jeans and washing powders won, at least in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yefim Chernyak was a Soviet victim himself, never free, survived several waves of terror and WWII. Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is book “Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero” whose main author is Harry Hodgkinson with coauthors: Bejtullah D. Destani, Westrow Cooper and David Abulafia, published by The Centre for Albanian Studies in 1999 reliable source?

Please take in consideration that:

• Professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs...... etc.... wrote here that Harry Hodgkinson “left school at the age of 16” and that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions” being "intelligence officer".
• Bejtullah D. Dostani is founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies
• "goals of the CAS are to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world"
• Bejtullah D. Destani (founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies) is in this letter written by Noel Malcolm described as man who "pay for the basic costs (editorial work, layout, and printing) of each book. Far from gaining financially himself, he is constantly spending his own money on these projects;"
• Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer."

1. A full citation of the source in question: Hodgkinson, Harry (1999), Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero, Centre for Albanian Studies, ISBN 9781873928134
2. A link to the source in question.: snippet view, since not available online
3. The article in which it is being used.: Skanderbeg
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.: Please find list below.
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.: Scanderbeg discussion page with diff here

Please find below list of statements referenced with this source:

1. Skanderbeg is derived from the combination of Iskender (a Turkish word derived from Alexander) and the Turkish appellative Bey (for Lord or Prince).
2. Coat of arms

   

3. Gjergj Arianit Komneni, who was a distant relation of the Byzantine Komnenos dynasty through one of his great-grandmothers)<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240">{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=240}}</ref>
4. Skanderbeg...... had absolute control over the men from his own dominions, and had to convince the other princes to follow his policies and tactics.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
5. About 8,000 Turks were killed and 2,000 were captured.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
6. At the same time, he besieged the towns of Durazzo (modern Durrës) and Lezhë which were then under Venetian rule.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p85>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=85}}</ref>
7. In late summer 1448, due to a lack of potable water,^[B] the Albanian garrison eventually surrendered the castle with the condition of safe passage through the Ottoman besieging forces, a condition which was accepted and respected by Sultan Murad II.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=102}}</ref>
8. Although his loss of men was minimal, Skanderbeg lost the castle of Svetigrad, which was an important stronghold that controlled the fields of Macedonia to the east.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102/>
9. The Second Siege of Krujë was eventually broken, resulting in the death of Ballaban Pasha by an Albanian arquebusier<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/><ref name=Noli2009p35/>
10. Skanderbeg is considered today a commanding figure not only in the national consciousness of Albania but also of 15th-century European history.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pix>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=ix}}</ref>
11. According to archival documents, there is no doubt that Skanderbeg had already achieved a reputation as a hero in his own time.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xii}}</ref>
12. The failure of most European nations, with the exception of Naples, to give him support, along with the failure of Pope Pius II's plans to organize a promised crusade against the Turks meant that none of Skanderbeg's victories permanently hindered the Ottomans from invading the Western Balkans.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
13. When in 1481 Sultan Mehmet II captured Otranto, he massacred the male population, thus proving what Skanderbeg had been warning about.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
14. Skanderbeg's main legacy was the inspiration he gave to all of those who saw in him a symbol of the struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxiii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xiii}}</ref>
15. With much of the Balkans under Ottoman rule and with the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683, nothing could have captivated readers in the West more than an action-packed tale of heroic Christian resistance to the "Moslem hordes".<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>

This is first time that I approached to WP:RS noticeboard. Therefore, besides checking reliability of this source please feel free to comment on any mistake I made in this comment on the WP:RS noticeboard. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for presenting this information clearly! I know this might be a frustrating answer, but I think your concerns above are concerning WP:POV and not WP:RS. Concerning WP:RS this noticeboard can often (not always) give clear advice. But concerning "point of view" and "neutrality" Wikipedians generally have to find ways to work together. I say this because to me this source looks fine for use on Wikipedia. Source reliability is not affected by a source having a point of view. All sources may have a point of view. I note there are three authors by the way. I've read works by David Abulafia before which were about other parts of the Mediterranean. Having said that, when a source is thought to have a very strong point of view it is sometimes appropriate to present its information carefully IF it is being used to say something controversial. For example instead of "Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" you could adjust it to "according to some commentators, Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" (exaggerating for the sake of clarity). Looking through your bullet points however, most do not seem terribly controversial. If you are just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view, I do not think the community will agree with you. A more acceptable approach, if your aim is balance, is to go get more good sources and give the article whatever you think it is missing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concern that one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster, I am not "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it has pro-Skanderbeg point of view". I was not trying to resolve disputes on numerous POV issues in the article by making it more balanced with disqualifying source with certain POV using opinions from this noticeboard. My main and only simple aim was to get some opinion about reliability of the source. That is what this noticeboard is for.

Regardless of my concerns and aims about POV of the article, regardless my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, I think that we should focus on policies of wikipedia. I believe that this source is not reliable and that using this source is violating three wikipedia policies connected with reliability of the source (WP:RS, WP:SPS and even WP:NPOV). According to WP:RS only those sources that are "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" may be considered reliable. According to WP:SPS " self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.". Publisher violated NPOV by self-publishing works, and Hodgkinson's authoritativeness and neutrality were disputed by very credible expert in his obituary.

I believe that violation of fundamental principles and policies of wikipedia by excessive (15 statements) using of sources that are not reliable should not be tolerated, even if Scanderbeg article was not nominated for GA.

If I am wrong, I will not be frustrated, but happy that I learned something new. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz said he could see reason to raise the issue of SPS, but no one here has yet gone beyond raising the issue. Having founded an institute that publishes something you wrote is a lead to check, but not yet conclusive. Are you saying the institute is just a vehicle for self-publication like a "vanity press"? What I understood from your first posts was that the institute is an entity with its own existence and activities. Your original concern indeed, seemed to be that you thought it showed a very strong point of view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The book is a posthumous publication (HH died 1994, the earliest edition I can find is 1999). This suggests to me that the other authors listed may have played a significant part in assembling the book. I've found that although my local University library has a range of books on Scanderbeg dating back to 1664 it doesn't have a copy of HH's book- maybe the price tag of 40 GBP for a 240-page paperback put them off! The first page, available as a preview on Amazon, is written in purple prose not indicative of a serious historical work. I wouldn't consider it as an RS. Ning-ning (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Hodgkinson conclusions or citations, as fringe or controversial. Practically you can find the same things on other sources related to Scanderbeg. Take the case of Noli (XXth century main biographer in English literature of Scanderbeg). Noli was himself a priest but just take a look at citations of his work. I don't remember any scholar dealing with the topic claiming "Hey this Noli was a priest, therefore his work is not RS" ..on the contrary, his work on Scanderbeg is highly considered among historians. Returning to Hodgkinson, his work on Scanderbeg has been cited also.

P.S. Remember that there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century, and none of the so called "great historians of XXth century" has dealt with Scanderbeg alone. When they do have to mention Scanderbeg war the mostly refer to Noli (his first biography on Scanderbeg was in 1921 and the last revision in 1960') and others. On the other side we have many Albanian scholars (Frasheri, Bicoku etc) who have written Scanderbeg biographies even after 1990 and 2000, but unfortunately they are in Albanian so practically unknown on English speakers (Apart professional historians who do know their works) Aigest (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic historical texts in Albanian can be used; translations can be arranged so that we can see if they are reflected accurately. Another possibility is to use more general historical works, even if what they say about Skanderbeg is a bit limited. For history articles we should use the work of mainstream academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do find some Hodkingson conclusions very controversial, this is not noticeboard that deals with content of the source, but relevance of the source itself. If somebody self-published work of person who died 5 years before, and who was not scholar because he ran away from school when he was 16 and later was intelligence officer famous for his anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions then, (I believe and would appreciate other users comments), using such text as source on wikipedia violates WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:NPOV, although “there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict with Antidiskriminator:] This is an odd publication. British libraries don't seem to have got it, in spite of copyright laws. Library of Congress has a copy, and credits the author, the two editors, and David Abulafia who wrote the introduction. I can't look inside (Amazon won't let me, for some reason).

The author, I gather from above, is said to have been a Balkan expert but not a scholar. Well, to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it. You would also have to be alive: not only did Hodgkinson die in 1994, the other books he wrote were published in 1952 and 1955 (and were strongly political).

Scholarship might be added by the two editors or by Abulafia. So far as we can tell from the LoC catalogue, Abulafia didn't touch the text; what the introduction amounts to, we don't know. Was it even newly written for this book? We don't know. Bejtullah Destani (as indicated above) is the Centre for Albanian Studies, which has a friendly link with the publisher of the reprint, I. B. Tauris. Westrow Cooper is a "copywriter" (so I gather from googling him): at a guess (but this could be quite wrong) he took an unpublishable manuscript or set of notes left by Hodgkinson and made it publishable.

Anyone with better knowledge of the book's history might correct me at many points. Without such knowledge, I wouldn't risk treating this book as a reliable source on Scanderbeg. Andrew Dalby 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that David Abulafia only did the intro, which is what some are asserting above, so the facts arrayed now make the source sound less authoritative. Nevertheless, if he wrote the intro then, given that we all agree this is about WP:RS and not about WP:POV, it is not for us to judge why he put his stamp of approval on the book but it sounds like something that would normally be considered a good sign here. A couple of arguments I find unconvincing above:-

• "one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS." Raises a question, but does not answer it. I think that without further information there is no reason to equate the institute with the author as an SPS vehicle.
• "to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it". That would be an example of Wikipedians deciding what makes a good author, not the field. We do not get to judge like this generally. It is sometimes argued that we are allowed to be judgemental about things like qualifications when there are WP:REDFLAG conclusions being drawn but the things being sourced do not look like red flags to me.

I would think it relevant to check whether this book is being cited or reviewed by historians. But for now I see no reason to delete materials cited by it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster, thank you for your comments, but I am not sure if you find this source reliable or not since you agree that there is question about WP:SPS and propose to investigate if this work is cited and reviewed by historians, but still would not "delete materials cited by it". This is first time I wrote on this noticeboard and I may be inexperienced user that does not understand this noticeboard completely, and therefore I apologize if I will make mistake with below comment.

I think that we should focus and write opinion about reliability of this source based on informations about this source:

1. coedited by Bejtullah Dostani
2. published by Bejtullah Dostani
3. in publishing company founded and solely owned by Bejtullah Dostani
4. which name is The Centre for Albanian Studies, which main aim is “to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world” (click here if it still does not ring the bell)
5. with costs connected with editing, printing and publishing paid by Bejtullah Dostani
6. man (Harry Hodgkinson) who was presented as main author of the book about 15th century history ran away from school when he was 16, died 5 years before this book is published, has never wrote a book on history in his life, was "intelligence officer", published 2 books on politics 42 and 39 years before he died and was described (by professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, etc.) that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions”

In WP:IRS it is clearly written that reliable source has three related meanings:

1. piece of work itself
2. creator of the work
3. publisher of the work

"All three can affect reliability" Is this work reliable source for Skanderbeg article in the way requested by WP:RS policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no I did not say I see it as a self published source. I indicated that I thought it might be a question worth raising, but I also indicated that it did not seem like one from what you've said so far. Indeed in your new post you are trying to judge the author yourself, and to remind you once more, that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia. What is your argument for saying the Institute which published this book is like a vanity press?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Andrew Lancaster, you did not say that "it might be a question worth raising". You said: “Raises a question, but does not answer it.” Please forget about me, my judgement of the author, my concerns about POV of the article, my reasons for aproaching to this noticeboard, me probably being frustrated with your answers, me "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view", my aims about POV of the article, my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, my ..... anything. Please, (for the third time) focus on policies of wikipedia and write opinion about reliability of this source in context of using in Skanderbeg article. If “that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia” please help me and inform me how we generally work on Wikipedia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Commenting on a couple of points raised by Andrew lancaster:] "Vanity press" isn't the right term, I'd say. My impression from Web sources is that the Institute doesn't appear to have any existence independent of Destani: he perhaps uses it as a name under which to publish books he chooses, but surely not for reasons of vanity, more likely to forward his point of view on Albania and its neighbours.

As for Abulafia, the fact that he wrote an introduction (this is what the Library of Congress says, it's not an unsupported assertion) might mean that he put his stamp of approval on the book, but it might not. We would need to read his introduction to know. Andrew Dalby 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to check is to see if this work is being cited by more clear reliable sources as if it were a reliable source. I continue to feel some caution about deletions of relatively uncontroversial materials based on the concerns of one editor whose main concern is obviously POV rather than reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, citations in other historical work will be the crucial factor in deciding whether this book is reliable or not. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is defined by WP:RS. Besides WP:RS, "reliability is often dependent upon context". Therefore it is requested to provide links to five things (name of source, link to source, article, statements and talk page discussions). Based on this, I have to state that I don't agree with you Andrew Dalby, Andrew Lancaster and Aigest. There are following main reasons:

1. You were not focused on request of WP:RS and three related meanings of reliability of the source (work, author, publisher). Your opinion that this source could be accepted as reliable if there are "citations in other historical work" because you believe that it contains “relatively uncontroversial materials” does not consider all “three related meanings of reliability of the source” requested by WP:RS
2. Context. Maybe most important reason for me not agreeing with three of you is that I think you were not focused on second important thing for determining reliability of the source.Context of the article and relevant talk page discussion. Instead, some users considered me and my concerns and context of my question here. I believe that if you take in consideration context of the article and relevant talk page discussions you would notice following things: article has been subject to numerous heated discussions, numerous disputes that are affecting not only certain sentences, but used perspective for writing the article, there are two groups of editors that participated in editing and discussing the article, one group reached consensus that article is "massive POV" and submitted almost hundred sources aimed to balance perspective of the article and make it NPOV and another described by some users as "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article", almost hundred different sources were disqualified by "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article" (many of them written by authoritative scholars for history, published by reliable publishing companies with citation list that would take hundreds of pages to be presented), ... If three of you conclude that this source is reliable, you would make precedent that could intensify conflicts and disputes, because editors from both groups could misuse this precedent in the conflict. One group to continue their “struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article” and another to introduce more sources that do not correspond with reliability defined by WP:RS (based on precedent you could make). I believe that sources that should be used in articles with so much dispute and conflicts should, at least, not have lower limits for reliability than requested by WP:RS

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, this discussion would not be setting a precedent because this kind of debate happens all the time, with the Balkans coming up often. The approach I have been describing has developed partly as the least bad solution that actually works in precisely such cases. We separate reliability from neutrality, and then we say that concerning neutrality our aim is to present all points of view, not delete any unless they are both un-notable and un-sourceable. You object to a source which you think is pro-Albanian and anti-Serbian and anti-Bulgarian. The solution we keep finding works best is saying that it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance, rather than trying to filter and censor. The difficulty in practice then sometimes comes with deciding how exactly to present the various sources, but that is not normally a question for this noticeboard. (But how would a pro Serbian source disagree with a pro-Albanian source concerning a coat of arms for example?) Anyway, it still seems to me that your own concerns are more to do with neutrality and point of view than with reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your advice: “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” directly opposed to the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV that state “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources” and only “when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.” I think that your advice “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” is like advice to extinguish fire with gasoline. I understood completely your position but I do not agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not sound like you do get what I mean. You emphasize the word reputable, but almost every concern you've expressed is about the principle of neutrality - not about reliability (and also not about any concrete neutrality issues). I distinguish that it seems to only be about the principle and not concrete neutrality issues because perhaps my advice does not make sense in the real case, because perhaps there is not real disagreement between pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian sources concerning, for example, a coat of arms? And so perhaps there would be no real point to "balancing" the positions being cited anyway. I am just saying that being a reliable partisan for a particular position does not make you unreliable. That is the way we split up reliability and neutrality here on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made mistake with emphasizing. I should emphasize reliable (the way how we here on Wikipedia describe it as "three related meanings of reliability of the source" (work, author, publisher).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are scholars who do use him or recommend him.

1. The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople and master of an empire Author John Freely Publisher Penguin, 2009 ISBN 1590202481, 9781590202487 link
2. Das Sein der Dauer Volume 34 of Miscellanea mediaevalia Authors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Editors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Edition illustrated Publisher de Gruyter, 2008 ISBN 311020309X, 9783110203097 link
3. Archeologia medievale, Volume 30 Publisher All'Insegna del Giglio, 2003 ISBN 8878142255, 9788878142251 link
4. Civic Christianity in renaissance Italy: the Hospital of Treviso, 1400-1530 Author David Michael D'Andrea Edition illustrated, annotated Publisher University Rochester Press, 2007 ISBN 1580462391, 9781580462396 link
5. New Turkes: dramatizing Islam and the Ottomans in early modern England Author Matthew Dimmock Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005 ISBN 0754650227, 9780754650225 link
6. Raumstrukturen und Grenzen in Südosteuropa Author Cay Lienau Editor Cay Lienau Publisher Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, ISBN 3925450947, 9783925450945 link
7. The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective Author Mortimer Sellers Editors Mortimer Sellers, Tadeusz Tomaszewski Publisher Springer, 2010 ISBN 9048137489, 9789048137480 link
8. Staatsbürger aus Widerruf: Juden und Muslime als Alteritätspartner im rumänischen und serbischen Nationscode : ethnonationale Staatsbürgerschaftskonzepte 1878-1941 Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentichungen Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin Author Dietmar Müller Publisher Harrassowitz, 2005 ISBN 3447052481, 9783447052481 link

Aigest (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me at least these sources seem to make the source reliable in the sense of showing that people who are published in this field treat it as reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks for doing the legwork, Aigest. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made mistake and failed to include this section of the discussion talk of the article that shows that work of Harry Hodgkinson is used to disqualify work of Karl Hopf. I am not sure if it can affect this discussion, but since it is context that is propositioned to be taken in consideration, I am providing this link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has been clarified in the same talk page some days latter, but as Lancaster said, you Antid ignore the others' answers and keep insisting in the same questions. Typical [WP:IDHT]] behavior. Aigest (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I do not know how to conclude this discussion, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Till now we had three users that had opinion that above mentioned source is reliable:

1. Andrew Lancaster
2. alby
3. Aigest

and we had other users that did not had opinion that mentioned source is reliable:

1. Antidiskriminator
2. Stephan Schulz
3. Itsmejudith
4. Ning-ning

What is conclusion of this discussion? Is it too early to make conclusion that no consensus has been made?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want to try to get people voting, then if I had to choose I'd say keep. So I accept where you've pigeon-holed me. I say this also after noting your latest diffs, which are about a 19th century scholar whose WP article is a stub you started. I also went to the talk page debate you noted as evidence and saw yet more editors noting very similar concerns about your position and apparent lack of policy-based rationale. It is starting to look like you are going to keep asking the same questions, ignoring the answers, until someone gives the answer you want. I fail to see any major RS concern here of a type serious enough to raise concerns about the material being cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for your input, it is appreciated, and sorry about the conversation turning down unfruitful paths, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Next time I will try to avoid lack of policy-based rationale. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in on this late, but it seems to me the list provided shows experts in the field consider this to be a reliable source. Abulafia is not a co-author, he wrote the introduction. Cooper and Destani are not co-authors, they are editors. Almost everything listed as being sourced by this work is in no way controversial.Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much fuss about a man who writes for passtime. Prof. Oliver Schmitt put it in a more lughable way, talking about "british secret agents of 2nd WW (H.Hodgkinson), who did not check any archive." Needless to say that Schmitt didn't count H.H. as a source. (in Oliver J. Schmitt: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, p. 8.).--Exodic2 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Hi. In reverting an editor wanting to alter the consensus-based, well-sourced lede of the John Birch Society, I've found that he's been updating references that are to the New American, referred to here at RSN only recently as the propaganda arm of the John Birch Society. And so I've seen for how many articles this site has been used as a reference. Here are the user contributions: Special:Contributions/Vitacore. He hasn't been putting all of them in himself - at least some have been used inadvertently by other editors. I don't want to go through and remove them, as I've just been in a minor (2RR) revert war with this particular editor. What do other people think? thenewamerican isn't RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New American is published by the JBS. It is, of course, not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of advocacy groups may meet RS, but are generally cited with attribution. For instance, the ACLU, NRA, SPLC, ADL, and EFF are often cited for their points of view on subjects where their views are notable. I don't see any reason why an established organization like the John Birch Society couldn't be cited in that fashion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh. I really wouldn't compare the ACLU with JBS in terms of notability! I think I didn't state my request clearly: I think these uses of newamerican are not justified in terms of "the JBS" said, they are used as if it was mainstream media, like an ordinary newspaper - not as the opinion of the JBS. But as I have been reverting this user, I was reluctant to start chasing round and removing the material from articles myself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't use it like a mainstream newspaper, but I could see using it on topics like the anticommunist movement or places where a "hard" right-wing or producerist opinion would be warranted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But see Recreate 68 - about a leftwing coalition, where it is being used to cite statements about what the group has said. Somehow I don't see it a reliable source, and it does look as though some of these links may be there more to push the organisation/publication than for any other reason. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case of REFIMPROVE. I still think The New American is permissible, but some of the figures could be cited to the Denver Post.[7] Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A graduate thesis “Doing it for the lulz?”: Online Communities of Practice and Offline Tactical Media is being used in the article Facepalm (an internet slang term). Since I deleted the other sources which were clearly not acceptable (urban dictionary, etc.), this thesis now remains as the sole source.

My first reaction was "Wow, somebody spent their entire grad school career browsing 4chan and ED, and then he managed to pass it off as an MS thesis?" This reaction alone makes me biased in reviewing this reference, so I don't want to delete or modify it based on my own opinions. I thought it might be an elaborate trolling attempt hosted on student webspace at the university, but it checks out as a genuine Georgia Tech publication, albeit a surprising one to me. My understanding of a published student thesis is that they are acceptable on their specific topic and then should be used sparingly on other, related topics when alternatives cannot be found. In this case though, the nature of the subject makes it seem less reliable to me - whereas most theses are completed under ostensibly close supervision of the committee, it's a little hard to imagine such supervision producing content like this:

One example of Anonymous trolling involved sending particularly inflammatory messages to the messageboard of The Oprah Winfrey Show...The apparent misreading of the post by Oprah led to many members of Anonymous re-appropriating the clip, re-mixing the audio with music or using the image of Oprah in the episode and mixing it with other elements familiar to Anonymous such as the “Over 9000” meme and the “pedobear” meme.

(The entire section is unsourced, but followed by an image macro which is also unsourced.)

Two questions, first does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable? Obviously I don't think too much of it, considering 4chan itself and various anonymous posters are cited by post number as part of the references - though it does contain legit sources as well. However I don't want to remove it simply because of my personal thoughts on the quality. If this were a book by a reliable publisher, it would be acceptable no matter how "bad" it is, and the fact that four Ga Tech professors accepted it certainly establishes an editorial process...still, well, it's a thesis about memes.

Second question, even if this ref is acceptable, is it enough on its own to establish notability for the article? The subject of the article (facepalm) actually occurs as an unsourced footnote within the thesis in question. In other words, the information came from the student's own general knowledge (presumably from browsing the aforementioned websites). Personally I think that is inadequate to establish third-party coverage, but I'm just a lowly IP and some moderators seem to disagree strongly about this so I'd like to hear what others' think. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we don't consider a Masters thesis a reliable source. Even a Doctoral dissertation can be iffy. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctoral dissertations are acceptable once they are published. It is unfinished dissertations that are not allowed. See WP:Reliable_sources#Scholarship.

And when the dissertation is published, the reliability is a function of the academic journal in which it is published, not on the fact of it being a dissertation. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most doctoral dissertations aren't published in academic journals, but by UMI, as stated in that section I linked to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a masters thesis, it conceivably could be used as per the above guideline as long as it has been published. MA theses--even unpublished ones--at one time were routinely cited in published papers, but they are not seen as often nowadays. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAs it been published?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that it has been published in any publication. Georgia Institute of Technology is listed as the publisher, but that's it.[8] Siawase (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Institute of Technology is an acceptable publisher, IMO. Looking at the thesis itself, the second page lists his committee members, all of them doctorates, so it fulfills the requirement of being vetted by the academic community. For the purpose of this article, I would say it is WP:RS. Whether the topic is notable or not is a different question altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. In the US, IME, a thesis is usually only a local publication, and the committee that approves it does so in the limited context of passing it as one requirement for completion of the degree. Mine sits in my uni's library, and a copy is in the department's library if the shelf hasn't gotten too full. It is far from an equivalent to publication in a peer reviewed journal. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masters and doctoral theses are both published "locally", yet doctoral dissertations (also just one of several requirements for completion of the degree) are acceptable once they are published in that manner. MA theses are available in the same place PhD theses are: UMI (you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?), and neither of them are published in a peer-reviewed journal unless the recipient revises it and goes through the publication process.

And as WP:Reliable_sources#Overview states, "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online", which means that when read in context with the rest of WP:RS an online publication by a reliable source (in this case Georgia Institute of Technology) is an acceptable source as long as it meets the rest of the criteria. The policy itself in that section states that the examples given are not exhaustive, and it also says that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I think in the context of this article, Facepalm (an Internet slang term), this source is more than acceptable. For an article on, say, Philosophy, Politics and Economics? No, but Wikipedia policies encourage us to use common sense and editorial judgement, and IMO that is what is needed here.

And again, that has no bearing on whether the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If it were up to me I'd have to say no to that question. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable" Wikipedia editors are not practicing sociologists, cultural studies academics, or anthropologists while they are editors. We rely upon the institution (GIT, a research intensive institution) and the proof of acceptance (yup, it was accepted). However, definitionally, Masters Theses are not original scholarly contributions to knowledge. They aren't held to that standard. I would be very reluctant to allow a Masters thesis be used to establish notability. Additionally the discussion on "published" status is a bit septic. Publication covers two things, "Has the work been reviewed by an external body prior to publication, such as by editors or by peer reviewers?" Yes, it was assessed by a scholarly committe. "Is the work available for consultation?" In this case yes. Not useful for establishing the notability of facepalms, really. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tom Reedy, "you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?" No, as a matter of fact, because I didn't, and they don't have my thesis, as far as I know. I just looked for it, and can't find it via proquest. At my uni, paying that fee was required for the dissertation, but not the thesis. Please note that Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship mentions dissertations, but not master theses, and notes that dissertation are cited often in other scholarly works. Theses, generally, are not. Also, I looked up the author and the title of the thesis in question on proquest, and no joy. Have you verified that the thesis has been published by UMI, and if so, can you provide a link to same? Also, if you believe the subject isn't notable, why argue for reliability of the source? If there's significant coverage in reliable sources, GNG is met. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain your distinction between "dissertation" and "thesis" which is not present in my academic system? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I arguing? Because it's an interesting topic, it's not simple, and I want to find out. (IMO Wikipedians need to get back to the Socratic idea of argument instead of the in-your-face toxic idea that arguments are only to convince someone that your side is right and theirs is wrong.) Also back before a PhD was required for being a custodian plenty of respected and widely-published scholars held only an MA (also the fact that I only have an MA myself might be an unconscious motivation!).

But as I suspected, this topic has been thoroughly discussed, and more than once. It appears to me that the consensus is that a masters theses should be avoided if there is any other source, but that on some occasions they can be used with great care when they are recognized within the field as reliable sources. I doubt this one meets that standard. As far as PhD dissertations, they are specifically allowed by WP:RS policy. (And the difference in usage is that of geography: In the U.S. a thesis is written for an MA and a dissertation for a PhD; in the UK it's usually the opposite.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A master's thesis is pretty much on the edge of RS. They might be useful to cite on subjects that are highly technical and matter-of-fact, or in pop-culture articles where sourcing is thin. But it provides only a weak claim to notability. I'd treat it almost like a primary source, OK for non-contentious facts, but not enough to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that while some Master's Theses are undoubtedly fine works, the oversight process at least as far as I am familiar with it in the UK context, is not strict enough for silly opinions or syntheses to be struck out in the final version. People can pass with a poor thesis that doesn't drag them down into failing. There isn't typically the formal reiterative process of viva voce, outside independent input, followed by revisions, followed by a further submission and so on, which tips PhDs, in my view (and depending on the country) over the line in terms of RS. (Meaning I think they're useable if there is nothing better available). On the other hand, I think Masters' Theses can provide excellent bibliographies. Is there nothing in the thesis you could raid for use here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks to all users who responded, the discourse was very helpful. Personally, I don't really care if an article like Facepalm exists or not, but I do care about what the acceptance of certain sources says about the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. It's not my wish to personally attack the student that wrote the thesis either. (If it were my university I'd probably voice my concern regarding the acceptance of such a thesis, but it isn't, and I'm not -- after all some departments will give you a thesis for just about anything.)

The real issue seems to be the context of how the thesis is used. In this case, the article cites a footnote placed in the thesis, in which the student explains the slang term for the committee faculty (who are, presumably, unaware of the term's meaning). While I'm not arguing the "truth" of this statement, I am questioning the verifiability since there is neither demonstration of independent research nor sources cited for the author's claim in this case. In other words, the author simply stated it based on his own general knowledge as a point of clarification. Other types of publications could rely upon the author's own knowledge and the presumption that the author is an expert in his/her field, but by definition that is not yet the case for a student writing a thesis as a degree requirement.

Regarding VsevolodKrolikov's question: The only part of the thesis which has anything to do with the article in question is aforementioned footnote, and again it was given without any explanation of where it comes from. In the article in question, there were two moderators who seemed keen on stopping the article from being deleted, despite a positive vote in the RFD - and this thesis is the only thing keeping that article alive. For me, a lowly IP, to delete the reference without some consensus on the source's acceptability would be stepping on their toes. I'm trying to play nice. :)

Let me put forward as a consensus that a thesis for an M.S. degree is acceptable in some cases where (a)it is needed to support an important point, (b)no suitable alternatives can be found, and (c)the methods and results leading to the specific conclusion for which the thesis is cited are clearly stated. Because of this specific instance not meeting criterion (c), the thesis is not an acceptable source for this particular subject. It seems like the takeaway from this discussion regarding the article in question, but if someone feels I'm in error please say so. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late with this, but see WP:IRS#Scholarship. Also (out of purview here), WP:N says, "[Sources] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and "Multiple sources are generally expected", with clarifying footnotes there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked some absolutely rubbish Masters theses. One problem is, what is a Masters thesis? In the UK it can be a relatively short paper done at the end of a taught course, where the grade is mainly based on an examination. I'd say that unless it has been cited multiple times in reliable sources it shouldn't be used. In this specific case, it appears that either a thesis or project work is 1/6th of the credits required for this 2 year degree. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it looks like we might need to reword the relevant policy. I'm in the southeastern US, and my experience is that the masters thesis is primarily a demonstration of the candidate's potential to complete a doctoral dissertation. I would suggest that one requirement for use as a source under WP:V would be that the paper in question be published fairly widely, for example, be available via Proquest, or in multiple libraries. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the policy needs to be made clearer, especially since this question seems to be an evergreen on the noticeboard. If I had to choose between an outright ban on using MA theses or allowing them all, right now I lean toward a ban. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Only rarely to be regarded as reliable sources. We can make an exception if there is evidence that the thesis has been referred to by other scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. It sounds like there are instances where it could be used sparingly, but in a case like this where the quality is more like an ED article than a scholarly work, it is a definite no. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I have proposed a wording change in the scholarship section, see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Clarification_of_use_of_dissertations_and_theses. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the idea of a masters thesis being an RS should remain a gray area, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the thesis in question. It's a thesis about the online group Anonymous and theories of how memes work. It only mentions the "facepalm" meme in passing, one sentence in a footnote. It certainly doesn't confer notability on the "facepalm" meme, but it might make a good WP:EL on our article on Anonymous. I thought the thesis was pretty decent, and it cited quite a few scholarly articles on memes and RS reports about the group; it did cite a few websites as primary sources but that's what research is.

I would also say that while I don't agree with the removal of the primary sources from facepalm, it is not notable and should be merged to a article on memes, an article on emoticons, or even an article on body language.

It's not often we would use a masters thesis as a source. I couldn't see using them for something like history or theoretical science. However, I could see using one for uncontroversial, matter-of-fact information. For example, an engineering or business graduate student writing about a weather radar or a city's water utility will have information on how these things work, which will have been checked over by a professor. I could also see using them for literary criticism in pop-culture articles.

I've proposed in the past the idea of a "weak secondary" source to encompass, along with masters theses, certain types of citizen journalism, letters to the editor, in-house newsletters, fan-oriented zines with a volunteer "editorial board" and other situations where there is some acceptance process, and the idea of using those sources only for matter-of-fact details. It's also possible a masters' thesis could be seen as a "budding expert" SPS, especially if it was cited by other works, or seen as a primary source about the research activities of the academic department. But it normally falls just shy of RS, and when we decide whether to use a master's thesis, we need to take into account whether it's for a controversial academic claim, or whether it's for details used to augment what's already well-cited. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this website considered reliable, especially for BLP? It appears to have user-contributed content and to publish on an "as is" basis. I'm thinking of Tim Sweeney (game developer), for example, for which it's the only source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article for Gamasutra, and the website itself, I'd say it's borderline but probably okay for reliability. Notability might be a different story, and if it were a request for deletion, I'd call Gamasutra too "fringe" and vote delete. They list the email addresses of five individuals, which probably could be considered an editorial process, but there's no way to know if every article is reviewed by more than one person (as with any fringe publication). I'd say it can be used when no alternative can be found, but if it's the only article and you've made a good faith effort to find other sources, put up a RFD.

Not sure what else to tell you. The article for Sweeney's company, Epic Games, is horribly under-cited; otherwise, I'd say use whatever citation that article did. As it is now, they might as well say the board of directors consists of Boba Fett, Queen Elizabeth, and Captain Morgan since there's no way to check it. Wikipedia articles require some 3rd-party coverage beyond a single publication for that particular industry (otherwise, every published professor and corporate executive could have his/her own wiki article). If this particular game developer isn't mentioned in something more widespread than an article in a game development industry magazine, I'd say he's not notable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Video Game project, Gamasutra is considered a highly reliable source - there is editorial oversight and it is the website frontend of a major game development magazine. Mind you, whether one source is enough for notability, that's a different issue, not a question of whether the website is reliable or not. --MASEM (t) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Masem on reliability of the source (I subscribe to the electronic version of the magazine). I found another article using dogpile that identifies Tim Sweeney as "co-founder of Epic Games and the brains behind every iteration of the widely licensed Unreal series of 3D game engines" [9], so will add that to the article. --Habap (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site contains a large amount of information about the horribly difficult to reference articles in Category:Bus routes in London. Since it's run by one person with no editorial oversight, it would usually be considered unreliable under WP:SELFPUB. However, on this page it cites a large number of apparently reliable sources used to build the site. This suggests a sort of tertiary source, with all the ambiguity that that particular policy subsection brings. So would we consider it reliable or not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he wrote a 200-page paper on the London bus routes with hundreds of reliable sources, if he never published it or had any editorial oversight, then it is self-published. This is not automatic disqualification, but it should be used sparingly, only for non-contentious points, and only when no alternative can be found. The question I have to ask is this: if a point needs to be made and eplates.info is the only source that can be found, why is the point important?

I skimmed through some of the articles in that category and saw a lot of sentences describing an incident that occurred on some bus route, usually supported by journalistic coverage. For points like that you wouldn't need a self-published source, unless the incident was non-notable and shouldn't be included. I know your question is not about notability, but bear in mind that to meet the notability criteria, then it must have some coverage from a reliable third-party (not self-published) source.

Let's say for example the eplates.info author makes the claim that "Route 9 is the most dangerous bus route in London" and you want to include that in a Wikipedia article. Is that claim directly supported by any of his sources? If the answer is yes, cite that source and not eplates. If the answer is no, don't include it. If instead he says "Route 9 is a bus route" then obviously it is a general fact and does not require citation. If there is some point that you just have to include in the article but can't be attributed to any source with an editorial process, first ask yourself if it really is important, then you can use eplates cautiously but remember that it is subject to challenge and removal at any time. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. A good summary of how this should be handled. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonably good summary, with the caveat of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If the source says "Route 9 is the most dangerous bus route in London" and attributes it to a reliable source, then you must have read that source yourself to use it. You can't attribute it to the source based on the say-so of http://www.eplates.info/ Jayjg ^(talk) 07:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article (http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Russian-Holocaust) on Sturmkreig has information that would be useful for Rape during the occupation of Germany. It is well cited, uses reliable sources, (also used on our article) and is frequently monitored by Sysops, which increases the reliability of the content and reduces the vandalism risk. There should not be any reason why the information there is not reliable.

--Нэмка Алэкс 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an open wiki and hence unreliable. In addtion, the main page http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Main_Page states that "Sturmkreig was created as a place to tell the story of the Sturmkreig Sub-Empire, a fictional network of planets created as part of the fictional history for the 403rd Army Group, and the Tiger Legion." How could a wiki devoted to a work of fiction possibly be a RS for real life? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is restricted to registered users, and the German History (nonfiction) pages are well monitored, especially this one. As for the fiction on the site, Sturmkreig was originally created as a place for information about a futuristic Germanic civilization. Later it was decided to expand into non fiction German history, which is categorized completely separately.

--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 01:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. While you are correct that it appears to be "monitored", most internet forums have some form of moderation and restrict posting to registered users - this does not make them reliable. In fact this encyclopedia is not a reliable source, nor does it claim to be, but anonymous editing is not the only reason behind this. In the Sturmkreig Wiki, as with Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that anything you see has been subjected to editorial process before the reader sees it. There may be a system of monitoring of the encyclopedia, just like there is here, but there is no reasonable guarantee of fact-checking before publication which is the hallmark of a reliable source.

Let's say registered user "CAPTAINCAPSLOCK" makes a post about the Widget Empire that is completely made-up from the user's own imagination. At some point later, administrator "revertor-5" is monitoring the pages, notices the edit without proper citation, and reverts it. What if you happen to cite that information before it was reviewed by the administrator? The result is that you would be basing Wikipedia content on a user's imagination. Any information published through that source is not subject to an editorial fact-checking process before it is made public, and so the source is not a reliable source for either fictional or real life articles.

If there are reliable sources on the Sturmkreig wiki, as you pointed out, then why not use those sources for the article? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website has a permanent link feature for the pages. Here's the permanent link to the current version of the page: http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=Russian-Holocaust&oldid=560. If a permanent link was used, and the cited information was checked first, would that be a reliable source since it wouldn't be subject to change?

--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography for the page linked is incomplete, and of little use in finding the sources cited - no page numbers, publisher etc, it cannot be WP:RS. I'd say that if the relevant citations from Beevor and Bessel can be found, use them directly. Why go through a questionable website? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I could use the website, I'd be able to use brief quotes from it, which could be useful in addition to the books.

--Anonymiss Madchen ^Talk 03:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you cannot do this, for exactly the same reason you can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source. There is insufficient information provided on the page cited to determine it's validity, even ignoring the fact that it is a tertiary source. It cannot be used as a reliable source in itself. Find the books. If they say what the page cited says, cite the books, with the relevant details (page numbers etc). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Not reliable. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not reliable. "Untermenchen"? What editorial review did that pass? Einstein is "the inventor of the Atomic Bomb"? Holocaust is mostly copied from (and attributed to) our article Holocaust). "Autism is a disorder that affects most of the Germanic population. [...] Because of Autism, Germans have been able to achieve many historic, scientific, philosophical, and artistic accomplishments"? Sorry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki, much like any other. Clearly fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even less reliable than a normal wiki. Here is the main page description of that wiki: Sturmkreig was created as a place to tell the story of the Sturmkreig Sub-Empire, a fictional network of planets created as part of the fictional history for the 403rd Army Group, and the Tiger Legion. The wiki is also for other aspects of the Sturmkreig sub-empire. It's a wiki for a fictional world, not the real world. --Habap (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used this document: [10] submitted by the plaintiff in a legal dispute as a source of biographical detail about said plaintiff.

The source is used to cite four items of biographical detail only, and the legal dispute is not referenced to it; the four items are:

• the museums he has worked with/in
• the fact that he spent 37 years photographing butterflies in the Natural History Museum
• the number of images and species he has photographed
• that he has described over 100 new species and subspecies and several new genera

It seems to me that court documents submitted by someone constitue a WP:SPS, and should be considered in that context. For example if a document is submitted to a court by John Smith saying 'I, John James Smith, born January 1st 1952 in Aruba' then that is a reliable source for that biographical information for the Wikipedia article about that John Smith.

I have suggested that court-submitted documents are perhaps more reliable than other self-published sources - for instance an ageing popstar might claim to be 35 on his website, whereas in court he is unlikely to lie if he is in fact 43. Whether they are more reliable or not is perhaps unimportant - the issue is they should at least be considered a perfectly good WP:SPS for an article. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty unequivocal about this: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I'm not talking about 'assertions'.

If I make a court submission saying 'I, John James Smith, was attacked by Fred Jones', then it would clearly be wrong to cite 'Fred Jones attacked John Smith' to that submission, because it's an unproven assertion.

What I am talking about here is uncontroversial biographical detail - for example the fact that John Smith's middle name is James. I do not believe such things fall under the category of 'assertions', nor indeed do my examples above.

And right below WP:BLPPRIMARY it's acknowledged that it *is* ok to use primary sources in some circumstances about the subject of the source.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. What someone says about themselves in a court document would not be considered a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me, but if I say it about myself in a court document it's not? Would you care to explain your logic? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me" No, not necessarily. As for explaining my 'logic' - I'm not using any convoluted 'logic' that needs explaining, rather, I am simply reading the simple, plain, clear-cut language of the relevant policies. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The policy, as written, does not differentiate in the manner you describe, in part because what to you is uncontroversial may in fact be disputed by those on the other side of the court case. The section about self-published sources that you describe does not include court documents, which, as Nomoskedasticity, are excluded as sources in BLP. If it is important information about the man, then it will have been published by a secondary source. --Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, someone's name and date of birth may be precisely what is in dispute, as in the case of the Tichborne Claimant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources. If the case has been covered in published secondary sources, then you can use the court documents for additional detail. One exception being accusations against another person; we would need a secondary source to mention those allegations before we could pull them from a primary.

The idea expressed above that a court document, handled by judges and attorneys and sworn under the pains and penalties of purjury, is somehow less reliable than an off-the-cuff remark made on Twitter, is a pretty bizarre one. I understand the reason for BLPPRIMARY, and I know that we don't want Wikipedians looking up things in public-record databases that may not be the same person and so forth.

It seems to me that the crux of this is whether a secondary source reported on the case. If that's so, then we'll know this is the right person and it's a proper use of primary sources. If no secondary sources reported on the case, then we're just fishing through raw data and BLPPRIMARY applies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general thrust of this is correct but the issue is more than just the correct identification of the person involved. Yes, a secondary source about the case is an important criteria. However, just because the case has been mentioned by a secondary source, doesn't mean that the court documents suddenly become fully usable for pretty much anything. The policy is much more cautious, noting that the material needs to have been discussed for the primary source to augment it. From BLP: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies".--Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to avoid court documents, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And frankly, if secondary sources haven't reported on it, it's not clear that Wikipedia needs to list someone's middle name either. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1, I would say that when an RS mentions the case, the filing of the case is the material. Something like "I, Mr. P, a plumber from Peoria, am seeking damages of X for torts Y and Z." should be OK to use in an article if the case is mentioned in a secondary source. Whether that extends to every exhibit in the case and the testimony of every witness is less likely and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Also, I would suggest that an individual's court filing is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The sorts of things that would be allowable under SPS, like basic biographical details, would still be allowed. Filing something in a court of law does not make it less reliable than filing it on Facebook. Of course, some parts of a court claim would be too contentious to meet WP:ABOUTSELF, and that information would have to satisfy BLPPRIMARY. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are fairly close to holding similar views in some things. A secondary source mentioning a court case would like be summarizing the reason for the case, so yes, your plumber comment would likely be useable. However, I think WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear that we should only augment what is in the secondary sources, not trawl through the exhibits and testimony of the case for information that has not been published elsewhere.

As always, it is easier to deal with specific cases. The questioner above wanted to know if a filing by the subject of a BLP could be used in that person's article. As there is no secondary source mentioning the course case, it appears that the court filing fails BLP policy, so the answer is no. But even if there were a secondary source mentioning the case, we should not be using the material. In this case the very practical reason that we should not, is that the filer is literally making a case about what an eminent butterfly photographer he is (and thus why he should win the case). We need somebody else to make this point.

BTW, nobody has suggested that Facebook or Twitter are reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II. J Robert Lilly. ISBN 978-0-230-50647-3 p.12

This book was passed off as a source at Wikipedia, to claim that Americans raped 11,000 German women during WWII. Based on the facts contained in Germany 1945, Taken by Force is claiming that the Americans were worse than the French. Also according to Germany 1945, this is completely inaccurate. This seems to be another implication that America is was not much better than the Nazis.

--r005k13 ^Talk _{That is Russian for Russian.} 21:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book, published by Palgrave, is written by an academic sociologist and qualifies as a reliable source without the slightest difficulty. Wikipedia ought to draw much more heavily on peer-reviewed scholarship of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let me add that I don't find the number implausible. The current rate of rape in the US is 0.3/1000. Exclude people to young, too old, and too female to contribute significantly to that rate, it's about 2/1000 for military age men. And that's in peacetime. The US had several million troops in Germany, so 11000 rapes is not outrageously more than the current peacetime rate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figure sounds entirely plausible, and in no way could be seen as implying that American troops were "not much better than the Nazis". If you've got a reliable source that indicates the figure is incorrect, let us have it.

(And what the heck is a 'liberal extremist' anyway?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since reality has a well-known liberal bias, basically every academic who works in a field where reality does not agree with the perceptions of non-liberals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not in anyway think that it would make the US equivalent to the Nazis, however, there are people who are not considerate when pointing out US crimes, and they do not seem to be aware of the remaining differences between the US and the Nazis.

The problem with this source is that Germany 1945 gives detailed descriptions of British, US, and French occupations. According to the book, the French committed more crimes than the Americans, and the Americans committed few crimes and the only way that the Americans were "bad" occupiers was through being heavy handed administratively, although this was justified because of the situation.

--anonymissmadechen ^Talk _{That is Russian for Russian.} 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you are saying. Is Germany 1945 another book on the subject? If it is, can you give us some more details so we can find it. Unless you can actually show us somewhere in Wikipedia where the book is being used to compare the US actions in WW2 with the Nazis, I'm not quite sure what you expect us to do anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should mention here that we have an article on the book in question Taken by Force (book). Also, for the record, a book by a sociologist that has done the heavy work of going through court records and testimonies and what have you, in a narrow topic such as rape where he is an expert, is far more reliable on the specific topic of rape than an author who tries to make a broad overview of as much as possible of an occupation.

Also, I do not want to blur the topic, but if the French allegedly were so much worse than the Americans, then why did they allow the Red-Cross to send food to their prisoners so many months before the Americans rescinded their prohibition to Red-Cross food?[11]

For amusement you could read also this[12], it indicates that in some respects the Americans were deliberately "bad" occupiers. And here there is another interesting analysis[13]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not get into petty arguments about who was worse than who? I don't think any of the participants in WW2 came out of it entirely smelling of roses, but that isn't what we are trying to deal with here, which is the reliability or otherwise of a cited source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II and Germany 1945 (by which I presume this book is meant) are reliable sources. If they say different things then the relevant article(s) should cover both views. If the arguments in either book have been criticizsd in other reliable sources then these views should also be covered in the relevant article(s). Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may both well be reliable sources, but if one is a general depiction of Germany at the relevant period, and another is a study of the particular topic in question, are they equally 'reliable sources' for the particular topic? I don't see any easy answer here. As Nick-D says, we really need to see reviews etc. I think it's worth mentioning that any statistics need careful comparison: are they from the same period, and using the same criteria? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are generally reliable; whether they are being used properly is a different question. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first book was published by Macmillan, the second by Sterling I believe (owned by Barnes & Noble). Both are reputable publishers with a known history of fact-checking and careful editorial process. As this is the key measure of a reliable source, both sources should be considered reliable. Whatever we personally think about the figures is irrelevant. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both books are written by experts, both are published by reasonable publishers, and, as far as I can make out, both books don't even disagree. As pointed out above, the number of rapes reported by Lilly is not extraordinary. According to the OP, Germany 1945 only talks about generic "crimes", which presumably in post-war Europe would be dominated by theft, not rape. Lilly covers invasion and occupation, Bessel (at least according to to OP's description) only occupation. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose, since I was the one that significantly expanded the Taken By Force article, I should put in a word here. While I certainly believe that Taken By Force is a reliable source, considering the incredibly extensive amount of reports and figures that the author had to go through to ensure that the numbers were practically irrefutable, I also believe that Germany 1945 is a reliable source. However, I would take the same stance that Stephan Schulz points out just above this comment, that the two books are not necessarily considering the same fact and figures in their numbers. Taken by Force does consider rapes during occupation, especially in England and a good amount in France, but it also considers rapes done during invasion to an incredible degree. Especially when we're talking about Germany, a majority of the rapes were committed during and by the invasion forces, not the occupying forces. Because Bessel does not consider rapes from invasion forces in Germany 1945, I do not believe the two authors' numbers are necessarily mutually exclusive. Bessel could be correct for his numbers in terms of occupying forces and Lilly could be correct for his figures that includes and adds in the invasion forces. I personally don't see the problem here. Silverseren^C 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source mentions Lilly's methodology on page 218.[14] Lilly assumed only 5% of all rapes were reported, while other analysts assume significantly larger percentage was reported. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had provided an academic book-review that challenged Lillys methodology then that would have been interesting. As is I don't see the motive for bringing in that book-footnote, nor any real value in it. I also think you are slightly misreading that particular footnote. Where is says "other analysts estimate that approximately 50% of actual rapes are reported" there is no indication given that the author is referring to the WWII military rapes Lilly analysed, and neither is a cite given for the number. This is hardly surprising since most estimates of the current peace-time underreporting of rape is 40%-60% percent, hence this modern peace-time figure is the one being referred to in the footnote. The 5% figure instead comes from "Sexual Offences. A Report of the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science". Preface by L. Radzinowicz, LL.D. 1957. Note also the text a bit further down in the footnote you linked to re. the situation of military rapes that Lilly looked at. "it was the commanding officer - not the victim - that brought charges, a situation that would make unreported rapes more likely." Personally I would also hazard to guess that language barriers (English - French - German), and the fact of being considered an enemy with which even speaking to children was prohibited, might have further contributed to underreporting. Either case, if there was any doubt against Lillys methodology it would doubtless have turned up in a review by now.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put the period into context, both regarding number of rapes, and the under-reporting of them, this is a quote from Peter Schrijvers book "The GI War against Japan", p.212 " Exactly how many Okinawan women were raped by American troops will never be known, as the victims were either too ashamed – or too frightened – to report the crime. The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000."--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an AfD discussion going on on the article Communist terrorism, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd nomination). The claim made in favor of deletion is that no sources have been found to establish the existence of this concept in academia. This follows an extensive discussion and hunt for sources at Talk:Communist terrorism. A number of new sources have now been presented in the AfD discussion. Help is need in evaluating if the sources are reliable and can be used to establish the existence of this topic. New sources are naturally also asked for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the sources in question and their context within the article, as outlined at the top of this page. Also try to avoid announcing an AfD discussion on this page - I'm not implying that you were seeking support on the delete debate, but it could appear that way...you want to avoid that perception lest it result in backlash. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since a multitide of reliable sources have been deleted in a wholesale excision from the article, making this particular post a tad outre. Collect (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• please follow the rs/n instructions at the top of this pageFifelfoo_m (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Just wanted to know that if Google News includes a news source in its search, shall we consider it reliable too.? Xavier449 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean are news stories on google RS then (if they are for example from AP) yes. If you mean is the search RS I would have to say no (for example doing a search for Thatcher + evil might bering up a lot of hits but would not be RS for her being evil).Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, I would guess that most are not reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, most are reliable enough, but it depends on the nature of the assertion being sourced, and the particular source. Xavier449, can you be more specific? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what criteria Google use to include a source in their News searches, but I doubt they are the same as our reliability criteria. If Google takes you to a specific source, then that source needs to be evaluated individually. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am reviewing a GA. The users claim there that IndiaGlitz is reliable, because it has been used as a source in Google News. No "About Us" page, who runs it, nothing. Xavier449 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news is just a news search engine. It does not differentiate between the silly and the sensible. So not a google news search hit is no more an establisher of RS then a google search hit would be.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... the simple fact that something appears on Google has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is (unless they've changed it recently) human intervention in deciding which sources (NB not which individual articles) Google News will search, so it does exclude the "silly" to an extent. However it also does include a number of press-release distribution services, so you definitely cannot assume a Google News-indexed page is a reliable source for all purposes. Barnabypage (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is a question that is decided on a case-by-case basis by consensus guided by the criteria spelled out in WP:Identifying reliable sources. Whether or not something shows up in search engine results is completely irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think this has been resolved. Xavier449 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD discussion, I provided numerous sources – some online, some references to academic journals etc. – to demonstrate the topic's notability. One of those arguing for deletion has objected to these citations, partly on the basis that "the supplied links [...] cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase." I was not aware of any rule that published books and so on are inadmissable in such cases, and would appreciate some guidance on the matter (either here or on the page itself). Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. However, if it is online but not free (registration or pay or subscription), it is appropriate to so note in the citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hmm, thanks: this largely confirms what I thought was the case. I wonder why LibStar, who is fairly experienced, thought otherwise... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the relevant policy: WP:PAYWALL. In such cases maybe it's a good idea to quote the relevant material so that otehr editors can at least check your interpretation. My personal view is that sources should be accessible for free somewhere, even if that's just limited to libraries. If it's impossible to access something without paying (such as IMDB pro for instance) then in practice it makes verifiability unlikely. There shouldn't be any problems with books because most of them are accessible somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be accessible, by someone, somewhere, at sometime, at whatever cost. When presenting quotes from the text supporting your position, remember copyright law and the problems of excessive quoting. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific articles are generally available via research libraries. Online availability, wether for free or for a fee, is a bonus. Also consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Scientific articles are frequently in pay-for-subscription journals that one can access through an institution or public library, so they still meet WP:IRS. Generally if it is available online under subscription, there is also a print version that could be cited. Even journals that have switched to online-only tend to publish a bound print version a year later for libraries. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent 2009 study was deleted from Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Section: Causes of Adverse Effects from Chiropractic Techniques for the discussion.

This specific proposal is to restore the text. "A 2009 study to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries sustained by chiropractic students receiving and/or administering manipulation while attending a chiropractic college found the prevalence of injuries sustained was 31%, 44% of which was exacerbations of preexisting injuries. Injuries from receiving manipulation were most prevalent in the neck/shoulder at 65%, while hand/wrist injuries were most common when administering manipulations at 45%. Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations methods were considered to be the most related to injuries.^[1]"[15]

See WP:VERIFYRELIABILITY: "Where a topic is subject to academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should include the current status of research." QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent study, but it's a primary source, so I think it's use should be avoided. Are there no secondary sources treating this issue? One would assume there are. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other sources treating this issue. According to what in V policy this source should be avoided. This is the best source available.

The WP:VERIFYRELIABILITY shortcut was deleted: "Where a topic is subject to academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should include the current status of research." was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include every primary source that relates to chiropractic, and I feel that this one fails WP:UNDUE. Let's abide by the consensus at the article to stick to review articles/secondary sources, and wait and see if a secondary source mentions this topic. DigitalC (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly the 'current status of scientific research', QG. It's one study which is barely relevant to the section. The section is Treatment Techniques, but the article is about the risk of injury faced by chiropractic students at a chiropractic college (who are worked on by other students). Moreover, it's not only a primary study but a primary study which relies on self-reported surveys. It's pretty close to the bottom of the study barrel. You've also been somewhat inconsistent in your tolerance of primary sources at this article. Why are primary studies which are less critical of Chiropractic excluded or minimized, but this primary study deserves its own paragraph? Last, where sources are in dispute, it's customary to leave notice either at the article talk page or the talk pages of involved editors, so they can weigh in. I think you know this already, but please do so. Ocaasi (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share DigitalC's and Ocaasi's concerns and POV on this one. We'd need secondary sources that address this issue specifically. This all borders on OR using a primary source. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue or a subject, but it needs to be dealt with in a better manner. Until secondary sources do that, we're left with the option of simply not mentioning it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the concern about too much weight given to a single research study. This is a very general article. All content aside, and all personal opinions about the content aside, is this study really so important that it must be included in the encyclopedia despite no third-party coverage? This isn't a reliability question, it's one of notability and shouldn't be decided here. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, a shortcut created six weeks ago by QuackGuru, to point to a sentence (not currently present in the policy) that he's been trying to edit-war into WP:V for about as long. I don't think that is really the best expression of the community's consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and FWIW, a quick search undercovers a number of books that could serve as reliable sources on the general issue, although they may not say what a particular editor might wish them to say. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can IdleBrain be considered reliable for Telugu movie review, news etc...A reliable news source [16] says its a very successful site. Additionally, it has been named as the Best Telugu Film website [17]. It has also been praised here Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a reliable source. It is basically a SPS - a film fan website that started as a hobby and is now making some money. The cited articles don't say that it is a reliable source, they say it is popular. Big difference. Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Naimark is a respected historian in the USA and partially in Germany, he isn't quite popular in several other countries. Hubert Orłowski [18] quotes E. and H.H. Hahn's critics, a summary of their 2007 article [19] uses the word "völkisch". Norman Naimark has obtained a number of German distinctions and prizes. Compare also "Bloodlands" by T. Snyder. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question, and does it have anything to do with RS? I don't even see any discussion at the article talk page or recent edits to the article itself which would enlighten me as to why this is posted here. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is about citations in Rape during the occupation of Germany, particularly Rape during the occupation of Germany#Analysis. Discussion at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany#Nazi attempt to portray Poles as perpetrators --Habap (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources above, and the essays they are referencing are not the sources being disputed in that Rape/Germany article. Nothing in these cited sources say anything about "bias", whether Naimark is or isn't respected in one country and not another, nor or about his popularity or lack thereof. The cited sources concern a strong disagreement between two academics - Naimark and Hahn over an essay about a different, though certainly not totally unrelated question. So, I am left still wondering what the question is supposed to be for RSN. Fladrif (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Naimark is involved in "Expulsions" debate on German side, in another words he is "biased". An example From Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II "Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." The main Polish war aim was to survive and to regain independence in stable Europe. Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda. I don't use the word "lies" because I believe that Naimark ignores elementary knowledge of Eastern Europe. Quotes from Naimark aren't accidental, the neutral part of his texts isn't interesting, the quotes are selected to support anti-Polish BDV-type propaganda. About the rapes: there are plenty texts about Polish men raping German women, Naimark is quoted even if he doesn't directly write about the rapes, why?Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Naimark appears to be a reliable source, and sometimes reliable sources have bias. Historians are known to disagree, so I see no fundamental problem with using Naimark as a source. I also see no support in the article for "Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda," what is your source for that statement? Where is Naimark quoted regarding rapes, and what does that have to do with the quote you provided, ""Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." --Nuujinn (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I have no idea from any of these posts what the "Explusions" debate is; what "sides" there may be to that debate, assuming it exists, on what basis one would conclude that Naimark is on one or another "side" assuming there are sides; and why, assuming he is on one side or another, that constitutes "bias". I am completely baffled about how the quoted language from the Expulsion article sourced to Naimark is supposed to demonstrate any of the foregoing, even assuming Xx236's unreferenced assertion that Naimark is wrong about the Polish government-in-exile's war aims (realistically achievable or otherwise). I am likewise baffled as to how the two articles cited in the original post, in which Hahn disagrees with one of Naimark's essays on historical roots of ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe have anything to do with bias. But, more to the point, as Nuujinn points out, even if Naimark is "biased" as alleged, his books and articles are reliable sources, and that is the limit of RSN's scope. Fladrif (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations Regional Groups is a geopolitical grouping of the United Nations. According to the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, Palestine was accorded full membership in the group on 2 April 1986: "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member", (Source).

In 1998, the General Assembly Resolution 52/250, which conferred upon Palestine further rights and privileges in the General Assembly, noted that: "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia". Other official websites, such as the Conference on Trade and Development website, also make the same statement (source): "At present, the PLO is a full member of the Asian Group of the United Nations, ...". Last year, an article by Jurist (published 27 November 2009), on the prospect of Palestine gaining full membership to the General Assembly, stated: "Palestine is already recognised as a full member of the Asian Group of States in the UN, and often thereby submits and influences UN resolutions. Being a member state would also give the Palestinian representative to the UN the right to vote on General Assembly resolutions, among other UN decisions." This is just one example of a secondary source that supports the resolution.

However, a user has recently called this claim into question, citing the following sources, which exclude Palestine from their lists:

• Document, "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups"; (uploaded 11 May 2009).
• Document, "Part VII: Statistical Annex", which contains (p 329), according to the footnote, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups"; (uploaded 13 November 2007).
• Document, "UNAIDS Governance Handbook", which contains (p 28/30), according to the heading, the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board"; (published January 2010).

However, I identified these sources as unusable, because none of them contain any explicit statement regarding Palestine's membership in the Regional Groups, and each of them could be argued to be unrelated to the topic. The first two documents, as is stated above, contain lists of Members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. The last document, as it says on the above-mentioned page, outlines "the composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups.

So the questions are: do the second group of sources conflict with the first group, or is further research needed? Are they relevant to Palestine's membership in the Asian Group? Can the first group of source be used in the article as they are, or is further research needed?

A preliminary discussion took place on the article's talk page. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Night w forgot to add a fourth source: a resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25) of May 2009, which determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. Additionally, User:Night w ignored other quotations, which are taken from footnotes in these sources, and which prove that Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group. For more details, see the section about Palestine in this old version. The issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations Night w ignored. Eliko (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. I'm assuming you're referring to point 25: "A Member State that is not a member of any of the regional groups may participate in a round-table session to be determined in consultation with the President of the General Assembly. The Holy See, in its capacity as observer State, and Palestine, in its capacity as observer, as well as organizations with observer status in the General Assembly, may also participate in different round-table sessions to be determined also in consultation with the President of the Assembly."

This does not state that Palestine is "not a member of any Regional Group"; it instead makes a note about member states which are not members of any regional group, that they "may participate" in accordance with what the President determines. And then, in a separate sentence, says that entities with observer status (such as Palestine), "may also participate" determined also in consultation with the President. It does not state anything about Palestine's membership in Regional groupings, so it's irrelevant in this context.

And the quotation that supposedly "proves" that "Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group.": "By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates", doesn't say anything about Palestine's membership in a Regional group. You're using that statement and its placement with statements about other states to come to the conclusion that is not backed up by any secondary source or any statement of explicit nature. That is Original research. Nightw 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No original research, because, as I've explained in my last responses on the talk page of the article mentioned above, the limitation against original research refers to claims apearing in articles rather than on talk pages. Additionally, I've already proved, on the relevant talk page mentioned above, that these foonotes consider Palestine to be a non-member, but User:Night w has ignored my proof ibid.

As I stated above, the issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations.

Additionally, next time, when coming to the Noticeboard page, user:Night w should try to present all sources and all quotations about which both parties disagree, what User:Night w hasn't done.

Eliko (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous

This source is in question, it is unpublished, with unnamed authors, questionable math, and certainly pov Arthur S; Tom E., Glenn C (11 October 2008). Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. Archived from the original on 2009-12-19. http://www.webcitation.org/5mA3r6hSn. Retrieved 2009-12-19. the pdf link attached here. http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf

Basically what they are trying to do is make results that look really bad and make them not so bad. When you get a group of people for example: a trait lets say IQ. There is a gamut of people from dumb to smart. On a normal curve the smart people would be on the right side of the graph. What they are trying to do is only include the people on the right side and say look at what geniuses we are. The normalization factor is used wrongly to bring the total population up to 100 so you can count retention. You can't do this, that 100% of the population is already included in the graph so you cannot multiply anythiing to come up with a retention rate. Jayseer (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you are doing is trying to argue that a graph which clearly shows attrition of 26% (from 19% to 5%) and pretend it shows attrition of 95%. A question, where is 100% on the graph? Mr Miles (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a classic example of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The site cvannot be considered a RS. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [20] where a source has been removed as unverifiable. A quote was requested in June 2009 but has not been found. At Talk:Vile Vortices#Refutation by Paul Begg there's a bit of discussion about this also dating back to last year. It is available in a number of UK libraries [21] and easily available from Amazon, so I don't think that the statement that it is "only held by a very few, generally obscure, libraries" is correct. Is the issue the supposed difficulty in finding the book (the editor who removed it wrote "is there anywhere where this material is accessible by Wikiepdia's readership/editorship?" or the lack of a quote? Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vile Vortices? Not notable. AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the quotes can't be verified, AfD for lack of verifiability. --Habap (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the article fails WP:N miserably, regardless of the verifiability of the disputed source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy (and cheap) to get hold of this book [22]. I can see no reason for deleting a source that anyone who is not penniless can access if they want to. Paul B (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say the book is easily available. Does it pass WP:NBOOK though? I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOTABILITY of a book is irrelevant to its reliability. There are probably millions of books that are perfectly valid reliable sources that aren't notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Which I don't mean as an argument in favor of this source. And I doubt this crackpot theory deserves an article either. Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crackpot theory, but see [23] - it's easy enough to source and to debunk. I'd argue against an AfD, we just need a better article. Larry Kusche's book on the Bermuda Triangle, for instance, has a short chapter debunking it. And although I don't know if it was specifically mentioned in Lost (TV series) it was discussed a lot by its fans, eg. [24], A good article would be a service. And I see no reason why Begg wouldn't be a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book series appears to be readily available, so it can be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for it via inter-library loan. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing on the page for the Transformers: Timelines comic book series. The company that published that comic book posted a video on their youtube account which was the lead-in to one comic story book mentioned on the page. So I posted an external link to it. I have another editor upset because he says you can't link to youtube as a source. I'm not using this a proof of notability, just as an external link. What's the best way to post this link? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were posting it as an external link, it needs to follow the external links guideline and you should post your question at the external links noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the company that owns the content put up the video, it should be no problem. And an EL is not a source and doesn't have the same rules that a source does. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually might be possible to use as a self published ref but keeping it as an external link shows some good restraint on your part. Why do you need an external link though? How about just pointing to the official site if there is one. Or in the body, use a ref from a reliable secondary source. Although there may be better options, there still could be precedent to use the EL as you are trying (you need to verify that it is the official channel). And see WP:VIDEOLINK for more info (disclaimer: an essay I wrote).Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous

On the AA page pro sentiment appears strong, information is be nixed by group consensus much like an AA meeting. Need clarification for editing purposes.

Issues with what is reliable and what is not for wiki purposes. under the heading AA Data:

A source Loran Archer is being cited and has been quoted verbatim from the reference source here:

this:http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/4447n Reliable source??

When I researched Lorne Archer I discovered a review by Stanton Peele that had been published earlier in a Journal.

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html

The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980

Peele sources previously published in psychjournals. Are they a reliable source , would he be considered fringe.

Bankole Johnson http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html t again He was deemed unreliable and quickly edited off.

Reasoning for Peele not reliable cited here:

Peele's self-published criticism of Archer and Deluca is vague, general, incomplete and seemingly out-of-context. Just what are the "honest differences", and how have the Rand researchers "called out [Archer] for fudging research data"? Peele is mute on the particulars. If we had reliable and relevant sources, they would be welcomed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Archer being considered reliable cited here:

Removed primary sources and replace them with reliable secondary sources. See edit summaries for explanation of restoration and additions. Unless there is a RS to counter the validity of the Triennial Surveys, there really should be no discussion of the analysis of AA's data. This talk page is not a forum to argue about AA. or editor's opinions of AA's data unsupported by RSs. Also note that a valid self-published source is used. I've seen editors summarily dismiss any self-published source, and in this case, that would be a mistake. Finally, The talk page is the place for further discussion, not edit summaries via a revert war. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous

for reference purpose only:

Previous source deemed by group consensus as reliable has already been ruled on

http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf which I verified earlier a decision was made on the source earlier on

6 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a classic example of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The site cvannot be considered a RS. - Nick Thorne talk 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I would like a link to a wiki board that deals with information being posted being taken out of context. Once a decision ruled on, I assume I can safely edit. Regards Jayseer (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayseer, I don't really like being quoted in the way you have done so here - please link to previous disucssions, rather than lift one small part of it and place it in a different context. Secondly, the issue has not been "ruled on" as you put it. I have expressed an opinion, that is all, I have no authority to "rule" on anything. Wikipedia works by consensus and towards that end I am happy to contribute my opinion. But please do not ascribe to me any authority to make determinations on behalf of the ommunity. Until and unless enough other people also post on the point so that a consensus can actually be established, there is no such consensus. Certainly one opinion does not make a consensus, any more than one swallow does a summer make. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit war has erupted with a new user and discussion has been started here:

• Talk:William Harvey Lillard#Death

Please take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please follow the RS/N instructions at the top of the page Fifelfoo (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the talkpage being linked to does not make clear what is being sourced, and from where.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't for dispute resolution or anything related to edit warring. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was about the reliability of the sources NorCalGirl78 wanted to include, which were from two self-published chiropractic websites. I believe Brangifer was trying to assist a new editor who was unfamiliar with sourcing policy by bringing the issue here so that she could hear some outside input. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) that was me Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for details about the discovery of the burial place of William Harvey Lillard is this private, SPS, chiropractic website.

This is the section involved, which needs correction to remove dependence on information from this SPS.

Here is where the discussion is occurring.

Also here.

I have been searching for an independent source, such as a book or newpaper, but without any luck. All I find is duplication of this article in chiropractic sources and mirrors of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No luck. Can we use a source like this this private, SPS, chiropractic website, without independent confirmation in other sources? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. It's a personal account, published on a web site with no apparent expertise in the subject, there are no footnotes/citations to indicate source material, and it's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an opinion on Dr. Robert_Elsie page on Albania : http://www.albanianhistory.net/ Background is this discussion : This edit that I dispute : [[25]] and this unfinished discussion User_talk:Mdupont#.22Good.22_source Please tell me what you think about this source, and if any what problems are with it.

see his information here Robert_Elsie.

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky...this is all self-published which should be used with extreme caution, and generally dropped when challenged. The opinions of editors on who he is carries very little weight; what matters is the editorial process involved in publishing that source. First and foremost look for alternative sources - from his bio page, he appears to have many published books. Are any of those sources usable for the edits in question? If not, one needs to ask whether the information is notable if it can only be attributed to a website.

Key issues here: does Dr. Elsie cite his sources for what he puts on the website, or is it only from his own memory? One could assume that he is sitting at his desk with dozens of textbooks at hand writing away, but without citation we don't know that it's still a personal website. Realistically his professional achievements carry some weight, but SPS is still SPS. I looked around, but don't see any mention of peer review or editing help on his website - that means it's all on him. No matter who authored the website, it's better to err on the side of "delete" when it comes to taking one person's word for it. Even a distinguished expert such as Dr. Elsie can make errors, and if those errors are made in a book or journal there is a fact-checking editorial process in place for that reason. When he puts it on his personal website, any accidental mistake he makes would be propagated as fact on this encyclopedia, which is the whole point of WP:IRS guidelines. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we need to unpick a bit of what is going on here. The order of events is as follows. In 1913 the Bishop of Skopje made a report to the Vatican of ill treatment of Albanians by Serbs. This source was used by "Austrian Social Democrat" Leo Freundlich in his book Albania's Golgotha, published 1913. Then in recent decades, the historian Robert Elsie has used Freudlich's work in his Kosovo: In the Heart of the Powder Keg and his Historical dictionary of Kosovo. Elsie has also translated the original letter and put it on his website alongside many other sources for Albanian history. The solution is to use Elsie's books, as suggested above, as reliable recent academic history. A link to the original letter, reliably translated and hosted on Elsie's website, can be included alongside as a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get some opinions on the appropriateness of this site. It's currently found on the following pages, added by the website's owner or someone associated with him:

• Architects Registration Board (reverted from this page earlier today, based on previous reversions by two IP editors)[26][27]
• William H. White
• Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938
• Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom
• Architects Act 1997
• Chartered architect
• Architects Registration in the United Kingdom

Regards, Lara 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Website is not subject to editorial control; fails to meet reliability standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since the name of the editor adding these links is the same as the owner of the website whose links he keeps adding, it appears to be a spam and COI problem as well as a RS problem. Fladrif (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Lara 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question has arisen at Talk:Jamie Sorrentini about using this as a source. Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS. As the issue is now revisited again at this particular WP:BLP talkpage, essentially using the attempted argument "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", I thought it prudent to ask the community, here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The diff in question is this edit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, can you provide links to past discussions which show the consensus you say exists about this source? Not that I doubt you, but I am fresh to this and it might be helpful for us not to go over old ground. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was disputed in several locations and there was not consensus for usage of the website. Here is one example, from 2007, relating to another BLP: Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that the site is reliable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]