Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").

A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?

@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.

This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Wikipedia and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

• "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?

So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one wikipedia fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.

And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Wikipedia shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.

It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.

The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.

Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

• this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
• It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
• He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
• I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
• I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told, that you don't get to decide whether a source is reliable. Neither does anybody else, unless they can provide good cause.

The personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are useless. Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I was able to clarify that evaluation of sources is not original research; please see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You were not evaluating a source. You don't like it. You made a decision it had to go, then scoured the internet for anything that would support your pre-existing prejudices against sources that write about German military personnel and that don't label them Nazis or falsifiers of their own records. Using anonymous reviews, from non-experts to ban sources about which they offer only the very slightest of criticism is tendentious AND OR. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources and engage with the editors there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to. You're behaviour encompasses more than OR, also Tendentious and selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The above comment incorrectly identifies historian Horst Boog as a "non-expert". He was the pre-eminent expert on the Luftwaffe operations during World War II, having contributed to three volumes of the seminal series Germany and the Second World War.

General note: this is a noticeboard to discuss reliability of sources, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Second summary on Heaton

• This discussion has been going on for more than a month now. It is fair to say that no consensus has developed that this source is unreliable. Let's close this discussion per WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see it this way.

• Three editors expressed concerns about the source (see above).
• The nom expressed concerns.
• I've not considered Heaton to be reliable since encountering content cited to him at SS Division Das Reich.
• One editor stated that Heaton is probably RS and expressed concerns over OR in evaluating the source, but have not come back to the discussion.
• One editor has expressed an opinion that Heaton is RS.

Thus, the rough consensus seems clear to me that Heaton is not a suitable source for the claims in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Expressing a concern isn't the same as declaring it unreliable. You have misrepresented what the various editors have said in your summary. For example you quote Itsmejudith: this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure but omit her next sentence: I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." --Nug (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He's a reliable source for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. This does not suggest that his interpretations are reliable for the sort of judgements that are being made about "anti-Nazi" attitudes in the early 1940s. He is on the margins of usability, and then only when appropriately framed and very carefully used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I started this debate to get some additional input whether this particular source is reliable for the content it supports and I would like to thank you for the input. As a reminder: In the article in question Heaton's biography of Marseille is not simply used to present Heaton's opinion. Instead numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him at length are presented as facts.(Perma) It seems fair to summarize that Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion and for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. Thus the consensus of this debate is that these opinions and reports are to be carefully attributed.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think that is a fair conclusion. While Heaton's opinion with respect to Marseille's anti-Nazi sentiment should be attributed, there is nothing to suggest that the numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him are unreliable. In fact a review of his book by the journal Military Review in the March-April 2015 edition states "A well-written, insightful, quality book, it entertains while it educates; it is highly recommended."[1] --Nug (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Since you seem to offer dissent to my conclusion that opinions and "decades-later reports" were to be attributed, please clarify: Do you argue that the anecdotes and stories that can be found in Heaton's bio are to be accepted as fact and presented as such in a Wikipedia article? Because my argument is that anecdotes and "decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view" are in general biased and opinionated and thus should be dealt with according to WP:BIASED, i.e., with WP:INTEXT at the least, although in regard to the details I would point to WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. That anecdotes by former Nazis and comrades are quoted at length by Colin Heaton may add color to the picture, but does not transform their anecdotes into truthful, objective, reliable, and accurate representations of historical truth. I have specified my concerns on the talk page of the article, so you might look for examples there.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs your conclusion? I've provided a review published in the journal Military Review that highly recommends the book. I see you have ignored that. This discussion has been going on for weeks here, perhaps time to accept there is no consensus for your opinion and WP:DROPTHESTICK now? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. So I'll take notice, that because of a review by Major Chris Buckham, a Logistics Officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada with a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations, you think that "first-person anecdotes and interviews with many of [Marseille's] former commanders and colleagues" (Buckham) conducted by Heaton are to be considered factual accounts and can be presented accordingly. Since you are asking for sources, please take note of the extensive material I have presented here and on the talk page of the article. I may remind you, moreover, that Dapi89, who is also very much in favor of those anecdotes, has already thrown out a slightly less favorable review of the book in question by stating, and I am quoting only his more civilized words, It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. He considers this as OR and Tendentious. By that logic Heaton cannot be labelled reliable because of some praise he may have received by a non-expert, or can he? Unless, of course, this is not about sorting reviews by pre-existing prejudices in favor of Heaton. Consensus does not necessarily mean that every editor agrees on every issue. It is the quality of the argument that matters.--Assayer (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, are you saying that the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor of unknown academic qualifications, self-published on this notice board, carries more weight than the opinion of an identified academically qualified military officer published in the leading professional journal of the US Army? Seriously? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't say that Dapi89's opinions carry a particular weight, in fact, I find most of them unsubstantiated and focused on personal attacks rather than content. I would not summarily label any reviewer as unqualified, but wanted to point out, that you cannot choose reviews to your liking. I have done what is essential for any historian as for any Wikipedian, namely checked the source against other research sources. In view of the expertise by the MGFA and other evidence I consider Heaton's narrative to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is almost exclusively based upon anecdotal evidence, which, as any textbook on the methods of oral history will tell you, is factually unreliable. As Marc Bloch has famously put it: "The most naĩve policeman knows that a witness should not always be taken at by his word, even if he does not always take full advantage of this theoretical knowledge". (The Historian's Craft, 1954ff.)--Assayer (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your opinion, you seem to be saying that we should place more weight on your opinion than the opinions published in reliable sources like Military Review. Indeed, you cannot choose reviews to your liking, but you have not provided any other review of Heaton's book. MGFA does not mention Heaton's book, so where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? --Nug (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, in his short and broad review Major Buckham does not address the specific issues I have raised. (I might add that he finds nearly every book that he reviews to be "insightful". See his blog, The military reviewer.) Second, above you'll find another reviewer being quoted, who asks how exactly the authors found out about all the details. That review has been discarded by Dapi89 as non-authorative with an argument which basically discards any review as non-authorative. Third, it remains undisputed that Heaton's evidence are anecdotes and interviews. He has somewhat routinely used this "oral history"-method in other books, too, and reviewers have been critical of the reliability of those interviews. And rightly so because, fourth, as of January 2013 the MGFA has denied that any serious historiographical study of Marseille existed, and did not bother to even mention Kurowski's, Tate's and Wübbe's earlier works either. It noted, however, that attempts by popular literature to suggest an ideological distance between Marseille and Nazism are misleading. Thus Heaton's claims are exceptional and should be backed up by multiple high-quality sources, before they are being accepted as plain facts. But I keep repeating myself and would suggest to take further discussion to the talk page.--Assayer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You would. More opinion, no proof. Again, lots of "I think" in all this. I am going to repeat Nug's question: where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? I don't want more elaborate complaints and opinions as to why Heaton should be banned from wikipedia. I want you to tell me where there are concerns from other parties - preferably by published authorities on the Luftwaffe and Marseille. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: that Heaton is "directly contradicted by the military historians at the [[Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr" is false. They do not say that he was or he wasn't a Nazi. They say they are not aware of any 'outstanding' deed to show he wasn't. One doesn't have to show any act or "deed" to show they are/were not a Nazi. Heaton's book is based on those who knew him. And they say his politics were in sharp contradiction to everything National Socialism stood for. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heaton's book is based on decades-later anecdotes related in a deeply-changed political climate. It is at best on the very margins of usability, if carefully attributed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for your claim? Or is this another opinion? Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to comment on this issue, but can better make only a general comment about sources in this area:

Essentially all biographies emphasise the importance of their subject

All biographies contain quotation about what the subject has themselves said at various occasions. It can be assumed that all such statements are self-serving. There will be various statements at various times , and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired..

All references to an author's work are intended to appear balanced, unless intended as an attack piece. They will therefore contain both positive and negative statements, and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired.

All members of an organization involved in immoral or illegal behavior will try to minimize their personal responsibility. In particular, all members of the German army in world war Two writing for an external audience will claim to be anti-Nazi, at least as compared to other people. (though there are a few who will instead glorify their past actions)

It is almost impossible for an historian or biographer to avoid developing a bias about the period or events or people they are describing. Some do this more successfully than others, but bias always exists. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested a close

I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been open for long enough and I would say that no consensus has occurred. But with that said, leave the finial word to the closer. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.^[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Express RfC

I know the Daily Express is to be "treated with caution", but if The Daily Mail is to be banned as "unreliable", I feel that a newspaper that publishes articles like this should follow suit: https://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122435/Jon-Austin (Example headline: "Aliens CREATED GOD… and now they want him back - shock claim of how religion began") Thoughts? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author specifically covers aliens/conspiracies etc and most of the articles are posted in the 'Weird' section where you would expect them to be. As an example this article labels claims 'bizarre' and 'shocking', attributes them to 'conspiracy theory' websites, uses scare quotes around 'evidence' etc as well as 'alleged translations'. Its clearly not even pretending the story is real. Its just covering weird conspiracy junk in a tabloid manner. The problem with the Daily Mail was that it presented its fake crap as real, while *making stuff up*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the Express does publish made up stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Daily Mail it doesnt systematically present it as true. Covering conspiracy theories and made up gumpf *while calling them conspiracy theories* etc etc is fine. Per parity you could get away with citing the express when it calls something a conspiracy theory! Look, we get that people who like to read the cancer-scaring, immigrant-hating, tabloid rag-of-choice of small-minded people are upset because wikipedia has said its not reliable. Pointing out that other organisations are sometimes also not reliable is not going to make the Daily Mail look any better given its sustained track record of shite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author is credited as "Online science reporter" for the Daily Express. Although these articles are published in the "Weird" section, they are pure fiction presented as fact. I don't know of any other "serious" newspaper that does this, but maybe I'm not paying enough attention. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They are not presented as fact. They are attributed 'claims' and clearly labelled as such. Granted they do not have a giant banner stating 'THIS IS ENTIRELY MADE UP' but then most people do not actually need that to understand when someone writes 'it is claimed' it does not mean 'this is a fact'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything you've said is true about every other news article that features quotes from someone. It's how the Express, and every other newspaper, reports stories. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Mail is probably the bottom of the barrel, but the Express, Mirror, and Sun aren't far off. If we see a cite to any of them, it is generally a good idea to replace it to a cite to more reliable source. If no such source exists, and if a given statement is only seen there, then editors should carefully consider whether to remove the text at issue entirely, because coverage only by low-quality tabloids that's a pretty strong signal that something is not encyclopedic, would be given undue weight, etc. But of course a lot of this is based on context / case-by-case. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• What sold the Daily Mail "ban" was numerous examples of egregiously made-up articles (fabricated stories/interviews/etc.), not mere clickbait/poor fact-checking, and none could provide another reasonably widely-read newspaper with such a track record. Unless you have the same with the DE, I doubt a similar "ban" would pass. (This is a comment on the politics, not on the merits of banning the DE.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • From my experience the Daily Express has a *worse* record of making up stuff than the Mail. AusLondonder (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• for pete's sake. The RfC on daily mail happened because we kept having the same discussion over and over (Q: "is (article X) from Daily Mail reliable to support (content Y)?" A: "No") and all that the RfC did, was confirm what every editor with a clue already knew from those many discussions here -- namely that the Mail is rarely a reliable source for encyclopedic content. That is all that the RfC did. Clueful editors also know already that Express etc are also rarely reliable. If there is a better source, use the better source, and if there is no better source, think five times before using Express et al and be ready to explain why the content is DUE and the content is reliably sourced. Enough with these efforts to legislate clue. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a firm view personally on whether a RfC is necessary. I agree most editors would already approach the Daily Express with caution. However, I disagree that the Express has a better record than the Mail when it comes to fabricating stories. For example:
  • In late 2015 the Express was forced to issue a correction by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) after it made up a story alleging that the English language was "dying out" in schools in England. However, IPSO found the allegations were "completely unsupported by the data the newspaper had cited" which meant the paper breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
  • The paper has been criticised for making up numerous fake and contradictory stories concerning the weather
  • Our article about the paper notes the conspiracy theories the paper has published suggesting that Princess Diana was murdered
  • Our [reports] the paper was successfully sued for libel for alleging Madeleine McCann was murdered or her disappearance covered up by her parents
  • In February this year IPSO again ruled against the Express twice. One incident related to a misleading "poll" another related to a misuse of statistics to present an entirely false impression

This is just a sample - whether a RfC happens or not, I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. Well, I suppose if they made up a bizarre enough concoction that it captured the public interest, they'd be useful for sourcing the things they wrote about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Toward the above evidence by AusLondonder, while I do see some evidence of a cavalier attitude toward accuracy, I am not seeing quite the same level of blatant fabrication that we saw in numerous examples in the Daily Mail RfC. Speculation taken too far (such as the Madeleine McCann article) or hyperbolic exaggeration (the English schools incident), are not quite the same as having a reputation for blatantly fabricating entire interviews, as the Daily Mail has done on numerous occasions. It isn't a great source, but largely the Express can be dealt with through editor judgement with regards to reliability of a given article. The problem with the daily mail is that outright fabrication of otherwise plausible stories made it impossible to judge if they were lying or not in some cases, which was one of the primary reasons for the 'ban'. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, the Mail Online and their celebrity "churnalism" is probably part of that. Given questions about the suitability of BuzzFeed I was amused to see an article by them pointing out an instance of the Express taking stories without attribution and then drawing their own rather malicious conclusions from the statistics - not to mention actually stealing and taking interview quotes completely out of context. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

InPublishing website and magazine: a reliable source?

I wonder if anyone could advise whether this website (the publishers also produced a bi-monthly magazine, would be considered and independent, verifiable source for notability of a specialist publishing company?

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk

The references I wish to use to support a profile of my company Green Star Media Ltd are as follows:

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/media_innovation_awards_2014_green_star_media_1366.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_secures_venture_capital_funding_7539.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_acquires_two_brands_from_electric_word_7609.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/trevor_goulwheeker_joins_green_star_media_as_chairman.aspx

All assistance gratefully received Rugbyboy2 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are all blog postings on the website of a trade rag. People are not going to find them very compelling with regard to notability; they may be OK for content once notability is met but use with care. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can other reliable sources make an unreliably-published source reliable?

Sometimes scholarly content is published on web sources that we would normally consider unreliable (for instance, questions or answers on MathOverflow by people who would not necessarily pass the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS). And if it stopped there, those sources would clearly not be reliable. But in some cases, later reliably-published scholarly literature (e.g. journal papers) cites that web content as the definitive reference for a certain fact or claim. When this happens, can we then consider the original web source as becoming reliable? And if so can we include language in WP:RS to allow for this case? (Of course, there's still the issue that the original source is primary and not secondary, but that's a separate issue. My general feeling on the primary/secondary distinction in mathematical subjects is that we need to include both types of sources: secondary sources to provide appropriate reliability and verifiability for our subjects, and primary sources because failing to cite the originators of ideas is just bad scholarship.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources occasionally fall for unreliable information. That's a strike against it. On the other hand, other reliable sources verifying and using information from a normally unrecognized source can add credence to that unrecognized source. WP:USEBYOTHERS is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS is what I was looking for (and I don't know how I missed it before posting this). Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

David, I agree entirely with your last sentence. Scientists (and presumably some other scholars) are taught the reverse of what is recommended on WP. We are taught to go back to the original, primary source for fact checking, and this is the source we cite in journal papers, not a textbook or a web-page. On WP, I tend to rely on primary sources, probably more than some editors would like. However, if I use a secondary source, I trace back to the original source and if I can, I cite this as well. I feel this is only fair recognition for the scholars that generated the knowledge. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with David, but when I discussed a particular source finding only positive reviews (with none offered suggesting otherwise), I was subsequently taken to ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, and topic banned. It seems that consensus trumps WP:USEBYOTHERS and all the sources available. --Iantresman (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• David, I would be slightly careful of taking Dr Chrissy or Iantresman as authorities, since both have a history of sanctions for promoting pseudoscience. MathOverflow and ArXiv are both interesting edge cases for WP:RS and I think would need to be taken case by case. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ouch Guy, resorting to comments that try to discredit other editors? Why don't you WP:AGF, try being more constructive, and make Wikipedia a happier and more professional environment per WP:CIVIL. --Iantresman (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• No. Sometimes source analysis can require some sophistication but this sort of "reaching back" through an RS to an SPS is not OK in my view. Why not just cite the RS itself instead of reaching back to the SPS? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

MLWERKE

• mlwerke.de: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This site is very web 1.0 and looks like a personal project to me, but my German is not great (I only know about trout, the Lutheran Bible and linden trees). Is it an appropriately neutral resource or should we be pushing to get these replaced by links to PD texts on Gutenberg and the like? Guy (Help!) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Marxist Internet Archive

• marxists.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

We have over 5,000 links to marxists.org, many of them as sources in articles, most of them on the face of it being hosted copies of PD books. I believe there is consensus that linking PD books on websites promoting an ideology is poor practice, and we should cite the book not the website, and if people want an online copy they should copy to Wikisource.

There is some content such as works by Lutsky, e.g. from 1969, which are probably still in copyright. I can't find evidence of release. That's a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion, from only a week or so ago here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Marxists Internet Archive is not a political organization promoting a particular ideology, but rather an independent, non-profit archive that collects and preserves historical primary sources on Marxism (largely texts by deceased writers). Some parts of the archive do include some contemporary synthesis and analysis, though the Archive's charter requires this to be "clearly differentiated from primary sources". The Archive is independent of any political party, and its volunteers come from a variety of ideological backgrounds, including many that are unrelated to or even opposed to Marxism. It has been operating for nearly 30 years and has a volunteer staff larger than many traditional publishing houses.

The MIA's goals, operational structure, and editorial/quality controls are not unlike those of Wikisource, and for this reason I see no problem linking to the archived, free-content, primary sources it contains, particularly when those sources are not already available on Wikisource. (In fact, it may be even better to link to MIA than to Wikisource, since it may give readers easier access to related primary sources that Wikisource lacks.) With respect to the original material it contains (such as its Encyclopedia of Marxism), I think that it's sufficiently reliable to use as a source for basic factual and statistical claims. I'm not sure that I'd use it as a source for contemporary analysis, except when such analysis is contributed by a named subject-matter expert. (This is the same exception given in WP:SPS, though I hasten to add that I don't consider MIA to be a self-published source.)

I should note that this RSN entry arose as a result of my objection to the OP removing references and external links to the MIA from several articles. Even if the outcome of this discussion is that the MIA is not a reliable source, it is not appropriate to simply remove existing references to it wholesale—these need to be replaced on a case-by-case basis. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather have the link to the PD text, and choose whether to look at the source, than have someone decide for me. To call a link to a source "promotion" is somewhat cynical. Every source and every article could be considered "promotion", but public access to information is far more than that. --Iantresman (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a link to a source, it's a link to a copy of a document on a website promoting an agenda. There are three reasons why this is in appropriate: First, it misrepresents the source (some of the links identify MIA as the publisher, for example). Second, there is an editorial bias in what is presented around the content. Third, FUTON bias means that the documents the site selects to promote because they find them ideologically pleasing, so this produces an imbalance between easily available ideologically consonant sources and less accessible sources that may well be more representative of the preponderance of opinion. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Two of your reasons have nothing to do with whether or not MIA is a reliable source as we define it. Only the editorial bias issue is relevant. It's one you keep repeating, though it's one which runs counter to the archive's charter, and one for which you haven't yet offered any evidence. Are you sure you are not confusing editorial bias with objective selection criteria? Did you ever submit to the archive a historical article by a Marxist writer, and have it rejected on the grounds that the editors found it ideologically displeasing? If the site promotes a particular ideology through the selection of its articles, how do you reconcile this with the fact that archive contains articles that are ideologically incompatible with each other? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Psychonaut That's nonsense. Wikisource is politically neutral, it has no ideological bias. MIA only includes sources it likes. Some are by authors whose opinions should not be on Wikipedia at all because we have no evidence they are considered reputable scholars. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guy, if the document/book is mentioned, we should link to it so we can check the facts (statements) being presented. --Iantresman (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Marxist.org is probably not a reliable source in the sense that it would lend reliability to something simply by publishing there; however, AFAIK we don't apply WP:RS to sites like these that host things that were originally published elsewhere - Google Books is absolutely not a reliable source in the sense WP:RS cares about, for instance (it makes absolutely no effort towards fact-checking whatsoever), but it's fine to link to something hosted there provided it was originally published elsewhere and can satisfy WP:RS via that publication. The only reasons I can see to bar something from being used as a host in that sense are if we're so skeptical of them that we feel they might misrepresent or modify stuff they're rehosting (which I don't think is the case here); if there's a better host available (which often isn't the case for these); or if people are concerned that a host's bias or reputation could lead to WP:NPOV issues simply by linking to something hosted there, which isn't really a WP:RS issue. Either way, if the document passes WP:RS by being published elsewhere, it is absolutely not appropriate to remove a reference itself simply because the cite linked to marxist.org as the host - at the absolute most, we would remove the link and leave the reference intact. The only time you could remove a reference entirely over this was if someone tried to reference something published directly by marxist.org (which I tend to agree wouldn't pass WP:SPS, but which I don't think is what we're discussing here), or otherwise cited something that obviously wouldn't pass WP:RS irrespective of whether it was hosted on marxist.org or not. Regarding it being used for external links, which other people have mentioned, I don't think it hits any of the obvious points on WP:ELNO, so I don't think removing it wholesale is appropriate, provided it's not being over-linked or over-represented or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The site is non-partisan and a great resource for students of Marxism. Whether or not a source should be used depends on the original publisher. Linking to MIA allows readers to see cited text in full, which is a benefit. TFD (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Washington Exec

Washington Exec is used as a bio/corp source in articles about some topics I'd consider marginal. Inspecting the source, despite sounding like a print magazine title, it appears to be in fact a two-person blog: https://www.washingtonexec.com/about/. Examples:

• Andrew Sherman (lawyer) - softball interview Andrew Sherman Publishes His 21st Book, Harvesting Intangible Assets: Exclusive Interview
• Intelligence and National Security Alliance (lobbying group?) - EL Ambassador Joseph DeTrani Named President Of INSA
• Leslie Bradshaw (advertising exec) - softball interview Q&A With Leslie Bradshaw of JESS3: Data Visualization At Its Best
• NJVC (IT "solutions provider) - charity giving NJVC Brings In Over $25,000 In Golf Tournament For USO
• Sanju Bansal (IT exec) - charity giving Global India Fund’s ‘Invest in Girls, Invest in a Stronger Future’ with Ashley Judd Raises $150K

All in all this looks indistinguishable from paid placement I've seen in promotional articles before. What does the community think? - Bri (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not count this as an RS with regard to notability; interviews generally don't count. Would not source anything beyond simple facts from it - no great achievements. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Maxirmilien de LaFayette for a source - for just about anything

Maximilien de LaFayette claims to have written over 2500 books .[2] His own website[3] shows that he specialialises in UFOs, Sitchin type fringe, etc. His 'dictionaries' and many of his other books are self-published by Lulu or CreativeSpace. He doesn't seem to claim any credentials (saying this on the basis of his Amazon site where he dismisses them) but does say "In 2004, as an expert linguist and a lawyer (Int'l law, French Law, Comparative Arabic Laws, and Islamic Law), de Lafayette was commissioned by Yale University, School of Law to translate from English to Arabic, The White House Draft of the New Constitution of Iraq. He is internationally known for his expertise in the history and languages of ancient civilizations & social-legal studies of the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on tribal dialects, comparative social systems, laws & Islam. In addition, he wrote & produced numerous musicals, screenplays, documentaries & world premieres around the world. He wrote about so many subjects, encompassing Opera, Divas, Hollywood, Cinema, Jazz, Afro-American influence on American music, pioneering work of legends in showbiz, cabaret, fashion, history of art and civilization from 7,000 BC to the present day, extraterrestrials, aliens spaceships, UFOS, mysticism, spiritism, channeling, earth energy, healing, metaphysics, quantum physics, parallel universes, languages, Mesopotamia, international law, Islam, religions, cubism and abstract art, theology, anthropology, world literature, French history, American history, food and beverage, leadership, you name it." I think he may have some books that aren't self-published, but I can't see him as a source for anything. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kinda Hanna

Some of these sources (which can be translated easily by those using Chrome) seem dubious. The one about her nickname is a blog. But I'd like a 2nd opinion. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

expo.se

Is this a neutral, reliable source without serving a political agenda? The organization behind claims to be "informing the population about racism and xenophobia". The magazine publishes content criticizing right-wing political parties and politics, e.g. [4]. Its founders and editors, i.e. Tobias Hübinette, Stieg Larsson et al., are public far-leftist figures in Sweden, Hübinette being notorious, for instance, for stating that "to feel or even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering." --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:QUESTIONABLE. The quote you attribute to the founders doesn't necessarily mean the publication exclusively reflects their views, but if it does, this would squarely fall under the category of "extremist". General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Can this citation be used to cite a person's surname in an article?

Over at the article Kotoko (musician), no surname is given as she has not publicly disclosed her surname. However, this Chinese government source, which apparently is some form of permit to perform in China, gives a surname for her. Assuming good faith, is it advisable to include the surname in the article with the link I have given as a source, or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be extremely reluctant to use it. Even if that's completely reliable, it's still a WP:PRIMARY source at best, and if it's the only place to report that, digging through someone's official records to discover their surname, when it has not been covered or published anywhere else, feels like extreme original research. If some other reliable source were to reference it, we could cite that, but I don't think we should cite it directly ourselves if nobody else has done so. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. Oddly, I would be okay with this source if her surname were widely attested because at that point, it's just a relatively minor detail. But if that's the only source, then I'd hold off on adding a surname to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a BLP issue to some degree. WP:BLP tells us to give "due regard to the subject's privacy" and "Material from primary sources should generally not be used" and "include only information relevant to their notability". It's mostly talking about stuff like what they paid for the house or their DUI, and actual legal name is different, since it's a basic vital statistic that we or any any encyclopedia usually include. But still. I would at least wait for a good secondary source to put the cat out of the bag first, and even then it'd something to discuss from a BLP angle. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What they said. We went through the same circumstances with the somewhat higher-profile case of That Poppy—while it's trivially easy to find primary sources confirming that this is a stage name of Moriah Pereira, because the secondary sources don't exist the real name doesn't appear once in the article. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

When Trump dropped the MOAB, print media dropped the Mother of all Lazy Journalism

Last week "credible," fact-checking outlets including the The New York Times claimed that the Mother of All Bombs dropped in Afghanistan costs $16 million. Still others claimed it was $314 million. Actually, as Business Insider first reported, the bomb costs a mere $170,000. The $16 million and $314 million figures cited by mainstream media evidently came from an older report by The Los Angeles Times which was reporting the program cost of a different bomb. The NY Times and most other outlets did not cite their source - and, as of today, two days after the news broke, The NY Times has not issued a correction.

It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. When outlets with a mixed record for fact-checking like Business Insider do original reporting and correct the record, we should consider those reports to be generally reliable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

So, do you have any CONCRETE proof -- other than "an anonymous somebody told a reporter at Business Insider" -- that this is true? And no, putting the word "credible" inside scare quotes when referring to the New York Times doesn't make it true. --Calton | Talk 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious of the BI article as a definitive source. It's sorely lacking on detail. If anything, we should say that sources disagree about how much the bombs cost.- MrX 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cost of one bomb" is also a slippery concept. One way to arrive at it is to divide the entire cost over their lifetime of the various projects to design, develop, and manufacture the bombs (and you could also add some share of the overhead cost of maintaining the various organizations that store, maintain, and deploy the bombs) by the total number of bombs made to date. If you do that you will arrive at a high number. If you just look at the line-item for the amount paid to a contractor for just one bomb, you might get a lower figure. Neither figure is necessarily "better", they are different ways of answering the question "how much do these bombs cost us?".

The Guardian says "Each Moab... costs $16 million out of a total programme cost of $314 million which produced about 20 of the bombs". So there you have it. The $314 million is the total cost of the program (which presumably goes back years). The $16 million is the total cost of the program divided by the total bombs produced (so far). The $170,000 might be the check cut to the contractor for delivery of each bomb, ignoring millions of dollars of R&D subsidies paid to that contractor and others, and all other costs. Which one is "right"? Search me -- the $16 million I guess. (Note that the cost-per-unit is a variable figure and will drop quite a bit if a lot more are produced, which is normal with manufactured goods.) Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually this is one of those rare projects with no independent contractor. The bomb was produced in-house entirely by the Pentagon. The Atlanta-Journal says 15 were produced. which isn't too off. Still The Guardian is citing a figure that is identical to the program cost of a different bomb, as I said before. To me it sounds like just another circular reference, particularly because The Guardian doesn't cite its sources. The Daisy Cutter, a very similar bomb, costs $27,000 according to The Guardian. Business Insider's figure sounds just about right to me.

To be clear, this is a admonition of using sources that have a reputation for fact-checking in specific cases where the article isn't up to snuff, not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it was apparently built in-house, the cost is whatever the AF accountants decide to include in that cost; which is probably not a meaningful number. Probably cost more than $170,000 just to store it for the 14 years since it was built. No reason to include this in any article here. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

...not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider.. Yes it is. You started with the assumption that BI was right -- you explicitly chided the New York Times for NOT "issu[ing] a correction", then completely replaced the Los Angeles Times reference with a text not actually supported by the BI citation: it's not "the Air Force" that says this, it's a claim by someone at BI that an unnamed USAF person told the BI reporter this. You decided -- alone -- that certain well-known and time-tested reliable sources weren't "up to snuff" and that Business Insider -- without evidence -- was.

It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. Congrats, you just reinvented the wheel. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading the headline, I thought this referred to the blind repetition of US Army PR claims by press agencies and their customers - e.g. US-Megabombe tötet Dutzende IS-Kämpfer (US mega-bomb kills dozens of IS fighters), obviously without any fact-checking with respect to numbers or kind if victims - per the old adage "every dead Vietnamese was a Viet-Cong"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are sources that comments on press releases be considered as reliable?

In the article List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines, there's an issue whether news articles that comments on press releases be considered as reliable sources. These sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. These news articles use box office grosses that came from the film distributors. Here is my revision including these sources: Special:Diff/775469427/775468578. Another user disagrees with my sources and sees Box Office Mojo as the only source for box office grosses. My argument is that BOM doesn't track all-year round in the Philippines. To include highest grossing films that which were not tracked by BOM, I've used news articles that comments on box office grosses released by the film distributors as the primary references. Janbryan (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say what the actual figures were but just state what the producers said. So we cannot state as fact those were the actual amounts. It is possible that they were preliminary results, which could contain estimates, errors and omissions. You could exclude the figures and note in the list that it did not account for the most recent films or you could include them and add a footnote that the figures come from the producers. TFD (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan?

Recently, I started expanding the Etymology section of the "Pasha" page. Here I stumbled across the phrase; "According to Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan, the word is derived from Turkish beşe ('boy, prince'), which is cognate with Persian baççe (بچّه).[5]".

According to the Wiki page of the gentleman in question, he is a "intellectual, travel writer, researcher and polymath". Apart from some information on his website, ("A graduate of Yale (BA 1979) and Columbia (MA 1983), he taught linguistic history at Istanbul’s prestigious Bilgi University. His Etymological Dictionary of Modern Turkish (first ed. 2002, currently in 3rd ed.) is the main work of reference in its field.") I couldn't really find more precise info about his relations to this field of scholarship.

I'm therefore wondering, is he a reliable source on matters pertaining to linguistics and/or etymology? Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of palestineremembered.org

Today I noticed while editing a page that a user @Huldra: was citing an odd website for many Palestinian villages. In fact, all Palestinian village articles Huldra writes cite this website. Now granted, this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere but, do you notice something off about this website?. Here's a picture of the front page of the website, I highlighted everything showing clear bias. And for the sake of being thorough, I went and checked some of these links.

• The piece called The Spartan Jew - which says the Holocaust is nothing but an excuse for Zionists to use to justify militarism

• The "Zionist FAQ" which is so disgusting I can't fit it into one image

• Numerous citations of straight-up lies, this one is my personal favorite.

• Obviously unfounded claims of ethnic cleansing, which speaks for itself in these pictures.

So yeah, I don't think this is a very neutral source. Yet, it's largely the sole ref for most of Huldra's pages. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The one information I use from the palestineremembered.com site is citing for the Village Statistics, 1945 data from this book:

• Hadawi, Sami (1970). Village Statistics of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine. Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center.

....which happens to be hosted on the palestineremembered site. There has never been any suggestion that the palestineremembered has falsified the Hadawi book. In any case, I also link to

• Department of Statistics (1945). Village Statistics, April, 1945. Government of Palestine.

....that is hosted by the Israeli National Library, so anyone can recheck that the info is correct. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Yeah, on that note actually, I really do want to stress the part in my initial post where I stressed "this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere", and it's clear Huldra cited this aforementioned legit info. So, IDK if this is really no issue or if the otherwise unfit info that can be found on the website somehow detracts from the legitimacy without exception. Again, IDK. Just wanted it brought to attention. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: If you search for palestineremembered up there where it says Search this noticeboard & archives you will find that this has been discussed many, many times. Generally, it is not a WP:RS site, except for the Hadawi material. We keep it as a WP:EL link, though (there are many great pictures there, which we cannot see anywhere else) Huldra (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rulers.org and Worldstatesmen.org

Are rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org reliable sources? I know this may have been discussed before but I cannot find a consensus or anything. They are currently used for a number of articles (Derog Gioura, Kennan Adeang, Government of the Ryukyu Islands, List of rulers of Kwêna among others), and I've been trying to use the latter as evidence William Worth is deceased. Although they may be self-published at least WorldStatesmen give the authors' names and the sources they got the info from in the Contributors page (and none of the sources are Wikipedia itself), so I'm not sure why it would be unreliable. In fact, if I remember correctly, WorldStatesmen requires more confirmation to add in info than rulers. EternalNomad (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Worldstatesmen does not give "the sources." It has a random list of related books that does not help you one bit find the source for any particular information, and indeed represents in no way the actual sources. And (in contrast to Rulers) it does most definitely copy from Wikipedia (which of course it won't admit) so for that reason alone it cannot itself be considered a valid source. (For one example, check how it lists a 1987 death year for Jack William Pithey - an error that clearly originated on Wikipedia.) There is really no reason why you would begin to consider it reliable; there are plenty of indications to make this out as an incompetent vanity project. It began by just ripping off the bulk of Rulers, then pilfering Flags of the World, and keeps just copying stuff from anywhere without distinction, just for "quantity," not being able to evaluate sources nor to interpret them correctly nor to even copy information without often adding errors. How can you take an informational site seriously that calls itself an "encyclopedia" while abounding in typos and randomly including a "9/11 memorial"? Mewulwe (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BBC One – Antiques Roadshow

Is BBC One – Antiques Roadshow a reliable source? It's cited on the Spandau Prison article as proof that there's a surviving brick from the prison that was demolished in 1987.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the specific context it is used, yes. It is used as a primary source for the statement that the brick appeared on the show. In fact, the most reliable source possible for the statement "X appeared on an episode of Antiques Roadshow" is the episode of Antiques Roadshow where X appeared.

That said... I am not at all sure that this bit of TV trivia is worth mentioning in our article on the prison. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; it's about to become history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning al-Masdar

Hello RSN,

We have an RFC discussion concerning al-Masdar at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), feel free to chime in. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)