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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 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, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

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

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)

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is [also] guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Is ISIS "usually accurate when it claims attacks" ?

Text and sources: According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks.

References

Text is used in 2017 Brussels attack article, here

The immediate disagreement is on the 2017 Brussels attack article.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack via one of its standard channels Amaq News Agency, (that ISIS has claimed the attack is not disputed).

The dispute is mainly whether the three sources above support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I contend that even if attributed to NYT and the Independent and the expert named in the third source, the sources support several conclusions, including that ISIS' "track record .... suggests a more rigorous protocol" (than the "widespread view" that it "opportunistically claims attacks"), that the (unspecified) "gist" of their claims is "typically correct", that "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" and that ISIS "always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit". However, IMO it is a gross over-simplification to render this as ISIS is "usually accurate".

The same sources have been used in several other terrorist-related discussions and I am keen to establish WHAT these sources support, since this affects numerous other terrorist-related articles and the credibility of ISIS claims across a broad, and very contentious, subject area.

There is a seperate issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss ISIS credibility in THIS article, (as opposed to somewhere in the Amaq/ISIS pages) previous discussion on talk is here. Thankyou Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Please ping if any response is needed from me.

• Seems a bit like a troublesome conflation. The issue is not whether or not they get the details right: journalists and criminology professors can compare these details only to details that have been communicated about the incident, the same details which Amaq/ISIS can "analyse scrupulously" before vindicating the crime (and even then they appear credulous towards some fake news circulated together with the true details). So the reasoning is largely circular. The issue is whether or not their central claim, i.e. whether or not the organisation is responsible for the crime, can be believed. Getting all the details wrong, but saying something which only they could know, would be more convincing regarding their credibility on the central issue. Anyhow, as long as there is "a handful of" cases where they got the details wrong, they can not be admitted as a WP:RS (if that was the question): they don't publish rectifications following a reader's complaint afaik.

As for the sentence with three references currently in the 2017 Brussels attack article: seems too conflated from pieces of different origin and weight to be viable as is (i.e. seems rather a case of WP:SYNTH), as it confuses "reliability on the details" with "reliability on the central claim of having committed the crime". For starters, I'd throw out the sources that don't say anything directly about the 2017 Brussels attack: so if the ULG professor doesn't say directly that according to his analysis ISIS might be correct in vindicating that crime, the Le Soir source can't be used in this article. I suppose the two other sources can be dismissed out of hand as not relating directly to this attack in Brussels. That would also impede a sentence being constructed out of different quite unrelated scraps of information, and thus prevent the SYNTH/OR situation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, The dispute is mainly whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I acknowledge that there is a secondary issue of 'implied synth' by juxtaposing the specific claim made by ISIS this time about this attack, and the general proposition of ISIS's ordinary level of accuracy. Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the question whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks" should be "no":

• When Amaq/ISIS claims an attack it is usually fairly accurate on the "details" in their claim (apart from some obvious bloopers).
• Nothing can be said about whether or not their actual claim (i.e., Amaq/ISIS having committed the attack) is anything near to accurate, unless corroborated elsewhere (sometimes it is, e.g. assailant–ISIS communications about the impending attack recovered from the assailants laptop etc., and for other attacks it can't because Amaq/ISIS only gives details available to anyone at the time when they sent out their claim report and no other corroborating evidence is available).

Taken together, no, the sentence with the three references given above can not be used in that article, nor in any other: it is a mish-mash that mixes two things: Amaq/ISIS usually being by and large accurate/correct on "details" in their claim reports and on the other hand that this would mean that Amaq/ISIS would have been "correct" when they say they claim the attack. The "details in the attack claim" and the "claim of having committed the attack" are two different things: the word "claim" is used in two different senses, i.e. "making claims that contain a lot of correct details and thus making a lot of correct claims" vs. "claiming an attack". Some of the reporting plays on that ambiguity (always compare the headline with the content of the report...), and Wikipedia should rather defuse such ambiguities instead of furthering them by clobbering a sentence together that is WP:SYNTH. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Although the challenged sentence is no longer what the original editor added to the article, plus the additional academic source is also subsequent to his contribution, I think it is only fair to ping him @User:E.M.Gregory. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is not about the original text, which is an even grosser distortion of sources IMO, since none of the sources mention "affiliation". I have no objection to E.M,G being pinged, but the main purpose of this noticeboard is to get 'fresh eyes', not to extend the talk page. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, my wording "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack." is materially different from the text now used in the article, and was more accurate. Pincrete's wording is something of a straw man. The straw man nature of Pincrete's query is invisible to Francis Schonken because Pincrete has omitted the money quotes from the New York Times article, which I first used in 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, an article I was prompted to write by the remarkable New York Times article that Pincrete cites highly selectively above. What the June 2017 Times article revealed was that German prosecutors had just made an arrest that upset the conventional analysis of Amaq attributions of ISIS responsibility, discovering that Amaq News Agency was not merely frequently reporting attacks with remarkable speed and a puzzling familiarity with details not released by police or by the press, rather, it revealed that the Amaq agent just arrested was in contact with the perps before they made the attacks, and, in at least some cases, instigating attacks. The Telegraph was reporting on the same material from the German prosecutors. Here are two breakout quotes along with a bit of the text from 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson for context:
  

In June 2017, German police arrested a A 23 year old Syrian man identified only as Mohammed G., accusing him of passing on information to the Amaq News Agency about this and other events since 2014. German police accused Mohammad G. of communicating with the alleged perpetrator of the Malmö arson attack on social media. According to the German prosecutor’s office, “One day after this attack, the accused demanded from his contact person (in Sweden) a personal claim of this deed..., The background was that Amaq did not want to issue a report about the attack without such a claim”.
Following the arrest of Mohammad G., Shiraz Maher, deputy director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College, London, said "We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name”.
And, yes, I think it does support these article do support the claim as I phrased it:"According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack.", albeit not the statement now in the article as cited by Pincrete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If I remember the chronology correctly:

(note: added refs to the VRT news website to support the chronology outline below – sorry for it all being in Dutch (VRT, unless indicated otherwise) and French (language, except for the Le Soir, RTBF) but these are the two main languages in Belgium – Brussels being the capital of Belgium message, ref #3 above, which I inserted here at its chronological place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC), updated 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC))

• First there was the attack, with some immediate speculation in the press on whether or not it was ISIS-related (25 August 21:01–23:23; RTBF 25–26 August; RTBF 25 August 21:53; RTBF 26 August 2017 07:39; 26 August 08:14; 26 August 09:52–12:20; RTBF 26–27 August; RTBF 26 August 10:15; 26 August 11:22; 26 August 16:35; 26 August 17:33)
• Then ISIS claimed the attack, with the press (and some politicians if I remember correctly) generally reacting "why would we believe those guys?" (26 August 22:15; RTBF 27 August 11:57)
• Then there was the ULG professor (and some similar experts in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium where I live) countering that scepticism by saying that the ISIS claim should not be rejected out of hand, while circumstantial evidence was up to that point still aligning with it being possibly true, and for being part of their warfare MO (Le Soir 27 August 17:32; RTBF 28 August 13:25)
• In general the assailant having been psychologically unstable (considering the prior incident at his working place and other circumstantial evidence pointing in the same direction) seems more probable as a direct cause of the attack than the assailant having been steered by ISIS, if I summarize a host of subsequent press reports (with other academic experts explaining the psychological state of mind of the assailant) correctly (28 August 18:11; RTBF 28 August 22:26). Maybe this line of reporting, less exploitable for its drama to attract an international readership than the "ISIS" keyword, didn't hit international news reporting all that much.

In sum, no, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack" is not suitable content the 2017 Brussels attack article: it gives too much weight to the ISIS speculation (which can neither be proven nor disproven at this point), and which is maybe no more than 10% of the speculation about the attack's causes in reliable sources (there being more than one reliable newspaper in Belgium of course). Especially the New York Times and The Independent, not speaking about this incident, should not be ushered in to give that minority view WP:UNDUE weight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• My take on this... the entire issue is irrelevant information in the context presented (an article about a specific attack). Discussion of the accuracy of Amaq belongs in an article about Amaq... not in an article on any specific attack. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Le Soir article of 27 August 2017 (3rd reference in OP) probably speaks about the attack so may be germane to the article, if someone can read it entirely (I wouldn't quote its headline though which may or may not be a suitable summary of the key points of the journal article, as far as it relates to the August 2017 Brussels attack topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access the full Le Soir article either($$), but would also be grateful if someone could confirm what is has to say about the Brussels event, if anything. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In the scheme above I added the RTBF report about the same: note that the RTBF report rather focusses on "we should take this serious for its psychological warfare aspect" than on "we should take this serious while it might be true"; I wouldn't be surprised that the Le Soir article takes a similar approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to E.M.Gregory, I did not select any of these quotes, they were the ones presented by XavierItzm as part of the discussion on talk, which he claimed supported the text in the quote box above. If some other part of the sources given supports the claims, rather than accuse me of being 'selective', please point out where such support can be found. Please don't 'explain' the momentous significance of the arrest in Germany, since the 'significance' is patently your own invention.

The most that could possibly be claimed from the sources discussing the 'German' arrest is that since the arrest, some commentators have speculated that ISIS/Amaq is probably/possibly more careful, and sometimes more reliable about some matters than widely thought and may have checking mechanisms, or fact checkers in place in Europe. It takes an inordinate number of logical 'leaps into the dark' to get from that to Amaq/ISIS is "generally accurate about" .... anything, especially about ISIS involvement in a different attack, in a different country, not even mentioned in the first two sources.

Equally, if, in your opinion, the sources endorse 'your' reading (namely, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack."). Perhaps you can point to where in the articles, claims of "affiliation", are discussed AT ALL, let alone such a huge 'dragnet' claim as 'your' text represents. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) … … ps The quote you supply above from Shiraz Maher, which ends: "getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our (ie ISIS') name” is immediately followed by, Maher "cautioning that the (German) news release mentioned only a single example" (ie Malmö, not Brussels nor anywhere else). The very expert quoted above is specifically cautioning against reaching any 'general' conclusion based on such scant evidence. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The text at the top of this section is "According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks". That text is properly sourced and should be allowed. Any additional claims about the accuracy of Amaq when claiming affiliation outside of particular attacks needs equally good sourcing. Also, our article on Amaq News Agency says "Amaq functions much like the state-owned news agency of ISIL, though the group does not acknowledge it as such", so we should not treat Amaq as speaking for ISIS/ISIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, sorry I would just like to clarify what you mean. The clear implication of an Amaq claim being "usually accurate when it claims attacks", is that those attacks WERE carried out by ISIS, (or "a soldier of the caliphate", or one of Amaq's standard phrasings), since "an ISIS soldier did this" is the actual content of the Amaq claim. I don't understand how you square that with us not treating Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece. Also, is this content appropriate on any individual 'attack' article, or should it be confined to a page discussing Amaq and/or its credibility in full? Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Guy Macon: these are all WP:RS. Disagree with Francis Schonken's characterization that «psychologically unstable [...] seems more probable as a direct cause of the attack». The VRT article he cites clearly states that a legal court wanted to see if he could be forced into a psychiatric hospital, and failed, as the doctors ruled the guy was OK, so he was free to go. The fact the guy was legally found to be of a sane mind eviscerates any innuendo and speculation otherwise. Besides, it is not as if being an Islamic State terrorist and having psycho issues are mutually exclusive!
But these innuendos are unfortunate detours from the issue here at hand in the RS Noticeboard, and we should not waste our time with that.
The important thing is that the statement is well supported. In fact, here is an additional WP:RS: «the terrorist group Islamic State (Daech) claimed responsibility for an attack by Haashi Ayaanle, a Belgian of Somali origin, on Friday night in Brussels [...] Credible, this claim certainly is, assured Michael Dentinne, insofar as it emanates from the official agency of communication of the Islamic State». XavierItzm (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

XavierItzm, the disagreement is not whether NYT/Indy/Le Soir are RS, nor is it about whether the the perp. was "psychologically unstable", nor about what the perp.'s motivation was at all. nor about whether Amaq claimed this attack.

This discussion is simply about the use of these sources to support the claim that ISIS is "usually accurate when it claims attacks" and whether the use of that text is apt on an article about Brussels, when at least two of the three don't even mention Brussels and were written months before it occurred. Don't muddy the water, either you are able to point to where in the sources the "usually accurate about attacks" claim is supported or you are not. Introducing red-herrings helps no one. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC) … … ps (responding to newly added source), how on earth does a single expert saying a claim about a single event is "credible" (ie believable, could possibly be true), support the assertion that experts (plural) believe that Amaq/ISIS is "usually accurate when it claims attacks"? Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words Dentinne says it can be believed that ISIS really claimed the attack when Amaq says ISIS claimed it; Dentinne says nothing about whether or not it can be believed that ISIS committed the attack.

Returning to Pincrete's question(s): no, the hotchpotch WP:SYNTH sentence, or its earlier variant, can neither be used in the Brussels attack article, nor in any other article (it remains SYNTH in all these circumstances). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Belatedly, one thing that bothers me about this is that two of the three sources presented are worded as debunking a widely-held view (ie. they're worded to say "most people say that ISIS frequently makes false claims about attacks, but this is not true.") Sources like that usually bother me because they imply that what they say is atypical - ie. the wording here implies the existence of many other sources accusing ISIS of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks, which these sources are a response to. I would want to be certain that we'd searched for that and represented the opposing point of view before relying on these for anything. (Even putting aside the WP:SYNTH issue, which I think is obvious.) And if we do use these sources for anything, it would have to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims, since two of the three sources talk about it - eg. "Although it is popularly perceived to make opportunistic claims of responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, ISIS actually..." Taking the first two sources and parsing them into just "ISIS only claims responsibility for attacks it actually did" without that first part is stripping away vital context. (And it's better for readers, who - if we don't have the first part - will probably say "wait, that can't be right, can it?" Explicitly saying that a commonly-held view is wrong is important.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the honesty of their reporting will reflect their current military position. That is, when they were in a powerful position, there was no need to lie, and doing so may have caused them to lose credibility. But now, with them on the run on most fronts, there's little to lose by lying. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece, let's say I create a webpage that documents attacks by North Korea. Things like the assassination of Kim Jong-nam. Let's say that my research is so good that The New York Times compliments me on my track record of accuracy. Would that make me a mouthpiece for Kim Jong-il? Or let's say I documented CIA assassinations. Would that make me a mouthpiece for the CIA? You are suggestion that we accept WP:OR. If you want to claim that Amag is a mouthpiece for ISIS, find some reliable sources that support that claim. Don't ask us to draw conclusions. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Par un communiqué d’Amaq, le groupe terroriste État islamique (Daech) a revendiqué l’attaque commise vendredi soir à Bruxelles par Haashi Ayaanle, un Belge d’origine somalienne. L’assaillant était l’un des soldats de l’État islamique peut-on lire dans ce communiqué. Cette revendication est-elle crédible ? C’est ce que nous avons demandé à Michael Dantinne, criminologue et coordinateur du centre d’études sur le terrorisme et la radicalisation à l’ULg. – (Le désir d’être crédité des attentats commis) – Crédible, cette revendication l’est certainement assure Michael Dentinne, dans la mesure où elle émane de l’agence officielle de communication de l’État islamique, ce qui est une de ses particularités. "Mais il faut bien réfléchir à ce qu’est une revendication. C’est un acte de réclamation. Si on définit simplement le terrorisme comme le fait, pour un groupe terroriste, d’essayer d’infliger des dommages insupportables à ce qui est identifié comme un adversaire pour qu’il cède ou qu’il crée lui-même sa propre perte, il faut le signer et c’est ça la revendication. Ça l’est à un point tel dans l’histoire, par exemple, qu’un certain nombre de groupes indépendantistes allaient jusqu’à donner les identités des assaillants, les numéros de série des armes ou les projectiles utilisés dans un attentat pour que l’acte leur soit bien crédité." (excuse my French); The quote is partially translated above; The reply to Guy asking a reliable source is contained in the above quote: "... Amaq ... l’agence officielle de communication de l’État islamique ..." ("... Amaq ... the official communication agency of ISIS ..."). So, Guy, in your North Korean & CIA comparisons above: if you can get a professor of a reputable university get published in a reliable source that you're the official communication agency of either of them, the contention might end up in Wikipedia's mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Excuse me guys, but this has gone slightly off-topic. The original question is do the sources support the claim that Amaq is "usually accurate when it claims attacks" (have been made by ISIS). I realise that I invited Guy's response, but I did so only because I could not see how "generally accurate" could be squared with NOT having 'inside info' from ISIS. I think that most sources endorse that some 'priveged relationship' exists between the two, though no one is able to pin down exactly what that relationship is.

So, to follow your analogy Guy, has NYT + the Indy + experts said that your website about N.Korea is "usually accurate about attacks", or simply that your website is "more accurate about some N Korean attack subjects than most commentators have usually thought"? Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... no one is able to pin down exactly what that relationship is" – ???? "the official communication agency of ISIS" (as quoted in French and translated to English above) seems pretty exactly pinned down to me. Again, your OP sentence is *no good* (SYNTH, mishmash, and whatnot), so can we please stop talking about it? The question has been replied to multiple times: no, not good enough for Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic seems to think Amaq is usually reliable in this regard, and tires to maintain its reputation (to b avoid being ignored in the future) [1]. According to them false claims are rare.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So do we use them as a source for the LAs Vegas shooting?Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As an example that they were wrong? Doug Weller talk 08:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To early to tell. With Omar Mateen there was the exact same state (Amaq claim, US authorities expressing skepticism) at this point (event+1day). Amaq is claiming "inspiration" (i.e. that the perp was loosely affiliated with them and acted in accordance to their doctrine) - not actual direction - which means that sorting this claim out will probably take a while. If it turns out that he actually converted (or did not) to Isalm this would corroborate (disprove) Amaq's stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

May I see a link to Amaq making a claim about ISIS involvement in the Las Vegas shooting? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They made 2 stmts. You can coverage of this claim here: [2] [3] [4]. As yet - it is met with quite a bit of skepticism, but hasn't been disproved to the best of my knowledge.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A better analysis: http://www.snopes.com/2017/10/02/isis-claim-of-responsibility-for-las-vegas-shooting-confounds-experts/ --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The general point made above is that 'general' comments about the reliability of Amaq, belong on the Amaq pages. Comments about the likelihood of being accurate in any individual case might be OK on the individual articles. Apart from any other consideration, if we don't stick to this, we are going to 'clog up' all related articles with sometimes/often/usually/always' quotes. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Aquillion that the sentence should be amended «to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims». Are we closer to a consensus? XavierItzm (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because it is obvious that this material does not belong on individual attack pages, and that no one gives any reason above for endorsing, or points to text that endorses "usually accurate about claims". It is wilfully perverse to ignore that the general opinion expressed above is that this is SYNTH, which would not even belong on this article if it were not. Aquillion: (Even putting aside the WP:SYNTH issue, which I think is obvious.) ... What there implies that Aquillion, or the majority above endorse this text, particularly used on individual attack articles? Pincrete (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I simply agreed with Aquillion that «it would have to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims». With regard to the rest, this not a majority vote and some have expressed their views one way, some other way, and some have been refuted. Me, I'm just trying to see if a consensus can be developed and move the discussion forward. XavierItzm (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The most commonly expressed point of view above is firstly, that the proper place to discuss Amaq's reliability is on the Amaq article, and that this is a much more nuanced subject than either normally accurate/inaccurate. Secondly that the claim is not supported by the refs, you cannot turn "often more accurate than widely thought" into "generally accurate about attacks". Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is not a vote, as WP:NOT#DEM. I don't think your vote counting is productive. Instead, we should try and see if common ground can be found. XavierItzm (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem (ARIJ) a WP:RS?

The question arises on Itamar, an Israeli settlement on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. ARIJ states which Palestinian villages have had land confiscated from them, to be given to Itamar.

I added the info, link, but it was removed, with the edit line "A polemic think tank is not a RS." As people can see: The webpage I tried to add is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation.

Needless to say, this is straight in the middle of WP:ARBPIA-land...

Feedback from outsiders will be appreciated, thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunno about that but you can use human rights watch and attribute it as a Palestinian claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that source says noting about where the Itamar land was taken from, AFAIK. The ARIJ have made studies of most of the Palestinian villages on the West Bank (There are one or two Governorates which are not yet finished), on each of them they give the amount of land which has been confiscated for which Israeli settlement, or other Israeli purposes (like checkpoints, military bases, settlement infrastructure, etc). So yeah, the answer here could potentially be important for a lot more articles than only the Itamar one, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been nothing advanced to show this small (they do list the entire staff on their site, including janitors) Bethlehem (despite the name, it is not in Jerusalem) org is anything but propaganda. They do not provide citations or even specifics (when, what, how, why) of their claims in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure the size is relevant, after all, single scholars can be WP:RS. That they do "not provide citation" is a rather strange objection to someone who thanks "Palestinian officials in the ministries, municipalities, joint services councils, village committees and councils, and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for their assistance and cooperation with the project team members during the data collection process". Now, I can understand that some don't want to trust Palestinian statistics, but we have no more reason to distrust that, than we have to distrust Israeli statistics. Huldra (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An NGO with 37 employees, many with relevant university education, is not "small". Icewhiz' argument, basically "they didn't tell us how they know, therefore they don't know or are lying", is simply bad logic that would exclude a large fraction of all sources that we use. I think that all NGOs in the I-P domain should be attributed as a matter of principle, but no valid reason has been advanced to exclude it altogether. Zero^talk 03:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable for their own words like any WP:SPS and maybe for Palestinian POV but If they claims were notable they would be reported by WP:NEWSORG.--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ARIJ is not a WP:SPS by any stretch of definition. It is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, for a start. And the claim "If they claims were notable they would be reported by WP:NEWSORG" is completely unreasonable. If it had been true, then we could not, say, publish population numbers from the Israeli statistics, unless they had been reported in WP:NEWSORG. "What's Good For the Goose Is Good For the Gander", etc. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the use by others? Not finding much on Google News. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I get 365 hits for "Applied Research Institute" Jerusalem, including ABC Online: [5], The New York Times: [6], The Christian Science Monitor: [7]. Also often used by Ma'an News Agency Huldra (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mainly Ma'an, which is the Palestinian official news agency. Sparse apart from that. Seems like a POV source, I think we can and should do better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you any indication that the statistics they have given have ever been wrong? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to investigate whether sources convey "the truth." We evaluate sources based upon the criteria set forth in the policy, and I just don't see this cutting the mustard. Giving the sensitivity of the subject matter I think we have to reach for the highest quality sources, and not use ones that appear to be pushing an agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, though, is it possible to have a source which spells out who the Israeli settlers land used to belong to, without it being challenged as "pushing an agenda"? Sorry, but I cannot see that. This is a work funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, is it a partisan source? Again, I cannot see that. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Huldra hit the nail on the head. Every source that has negative information about Israel is judged as pushing an agenda and therefore unusable. Every Palestinian source is subject to such attacks. Fortunately, NPOV requires us to use sources with multiple viewpoints. If Coretheapple can point us at a higher quality source that examines the same issues, we'll be happy to use it. Zero^talk 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a subject-matter expert by any means but I believe that better sources track settlement activity and would be usable. If this is the best we can do, I would omit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue can be handled by careful phrasing and attribution. Itamar, like all settlements in the West Bank, is illegal under international law. We don't need the ARIJ to tell us this part. We can attribute to ARIJ the claims by Palestinians that it took over land from nearby villages. Other sources which flesh out the details are this B'Tselem source, and this article (from 2003) might also be useful to describe the evolution of Itamar: according to the story, until the Second Intifada, Itamar existed alongside Palestinian villages, but didn't directly take over the land from Yanun. However, after the violence after 2000, the situation changed. It quotes some Palestinians as saying that armed settlers prevented them from harvesting olives. It also quotes a spokesperson for Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This book also goes into a little bit of detail on Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I might be missing something, but those 3 sources while mentioning various other issues (e.g. building permits issued retroactively) do not mention, per my possibly flawed reading, land confiscation in regards to Itamar and the adjacent villages.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiWhat redux, specific instance

Following on this now-archived thread...

This is about a specific use of the "wiki what" ref in the T.J. Miller article as follows:

Todd Joseph "T.J." Miller (born June 4, 1981) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and writer.

References

This is citation #1 in the article. It is putatively a source for the spelling of the initials without a space ("T.J." not "T. J."), but as the NYT ref shows - which is already provided and plenty enough reliable -- the name is spelled without a space. Similarly every other ref in the article spells it without a space - a fact also noted by BrillLyle here. So this brings no value and is just refspam, and we should not cite it here.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no dispute about how the initials in the name are stylized, I see no benefit to adding a comedy show as another reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What Cullen said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think this specific instance is resolved, based on the above and this and perhaps this.

More generally, User:Kingsindian kindly offered to tee up a neutral RfC on "whether the many Esquire sources come under REFSPAM".

My sense of the RSN outcome was: a) telling me not to have a cow over this; b) the ref is a primary source, and ~might~ have utility as such, but secondary sources are as always preferred for WEIGHT and everything else; and c) it depends on the specific use. (I was kinda disappointed that more people were not as disgusted by this manipulation as I am... but I also can hear it that other people are not and that folks have been at least a bit put off by my intensity.)

This instance was in my view a clear instance of REFSPAM that added no value, which is why I removed it and felt pretty confident that most folks would agree with that. I've reviewed the other instances and had decided to let them be for now.

So ... I don't know that an RfC is necessary to prevent future drama and don't want to waste people's time. That said, i would be delighted with an outcome that said "yes this is refspam" and if folks feel like an RfC would be useful or interesting I certainly wouldn't oppose it and am willing to risk it. OK that was a lot of words. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you said, seems resolved for now, we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever. As I read it , you´re not the only "intense" one on the WikiWhat related editing. This "thing" has gone a little global BTW: [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - yes I shouldn't have made it like i am the only one troubled by this. Do you think an RfC would be useful and not a waste of time? Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever Is this going to be a weekly issues or whatever time period the show is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It could happen, good point (that makes me a little pro-RFC). AFAICT, every episode so far has led to edits of the articles in question.[9] One response I read somewhere was something like "Treat it (WikiWhat) like we would any primary source/interview with subject in a BLP". That means, IMO, "not very useful in general, but if they provide a nice(r) picture, why not?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW Jytdog, do "they" still do during-the-show edits? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This "Wiki What" appears to be a glorified conduit for the subject and should be treated as such. It should only be used as a source if there is no alternative. I'd suggest not making a fuss, lest this organized, commercial trolling be fed in a big way. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• the trade rag article about the series says two things. ..."the weekly, five-episode show features an array of celebrity guests" but also says "by releasing these episodic series on Facebook Watch, Hearst is hoping to turn them into brands of their own." They have done five now -- Kate Upton, T.J. Miller, John Bradley West/Samwell Tarly, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., and Adam Conover. So maybe it is done. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, Jytdog: [10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks for catching that. just some ick. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Paromita Das (2005) comments on origins of king Naraka

The issue is there is academic consensus that king Narakasura's is of Mithila (region) (Videha)(India) origin. Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before. In her chapter "The Naraka Legends, Aryanisation and the "varnasramadharma in the Brahmaputra Valley" in 'Proceedings of the Indian History Congress' of 'Indian History Congress' she wrote that king Naraka is a local chief from Brahmaputra Valley region of India and not from Mithila. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Bhauma_dynasty#Naraka's origins.

My question is how wikipedia treats isolated studies by non-experts when it goes against long established scholarly consensus among mainstream academicians. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent contributors to this noticeboard such as A Quest For Knowledge, prokaryotes, Icewhiz, Darkness Shines and others consider commenting here, because this and similar issues involves multiple articles including current mentioned one, which will be helpful in near future also. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Recuse I am currently topic banned from articles related to India/Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Responding due to ping - I usually do not go into this topic area - but I will leave you with a metacomment after briefly looking both at the source, your comment, and the artile talke page. I believe the question you are raising is no so much a question in whether the particular source is reliable (it seems it is a peer-reviewed journal... but bear in mind that reliable does not mean infallible - premier sources do make mistakes and may be biased) - but what to do when different sources offer different opinions, speculations, or facts (and as a general note - in ancient history or mythology - one typically has opinion, conjecture, and scholarly consensus - but not hard cold facts) - this is a WP:WEIGHT issue, and the way to tackle this is assemble sources of the counterview(s) - and assess the notability of this particular claim. If you have one researcher saying X, and everyone else saying Y - X might not bear mentioning and in any event the scope would be limited even if mentioned. If it is a 50-50 split - both should be mentioned equally, 80-20 - you still have to devote some space to the 20, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines Oh i see, no problem. @Icewhiz You have made some important points which is interesting. Thank you. Your comments are helpful. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Washington Times

Is the Washington Times RS for the following, the article in question is Patriot Prayer

Valerie Richardson writing in the Washington Times has said that critics of Gibson have argued that his rallies, even though they are not sponsored by white nationalists do attract those with racist outlooks. The SPLC have noted that the organizers of the 7 August 2017 rally had “promised the critics who talked with them that racist elements had been denounced and uninvited from the rally.” but that the Proud Boys, and members of Identity Evropa (IE) as well as local IE leader, Jake Van Ott were seen at the event. Gibson says that people who are affiliated with IE have appeared at his events, but has made it clear they were unwelcome and has ejected them when possible. Gibson also says “It’s a constant problem because we get these random people that are trying to provoke and they’re trying to agitate,”

Given I have attributed it to both the article author as well as the newspaper I'm not seeing an issue with it, thoughts please Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the Washington Times article that you are citing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that it's reliable but I think the paragraph isn't WP:NPOV. The Washington Times article paints a much more positive light on Patriot Prayer than the paragraph above. I'm curious what other WP:RSN regulars think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't split hairs. It is a reliable source; however, cite it in a neutral way. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I'm curious as to how you would change it so it is more NPOV, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If you google "Washington Times climate change", you can see that the WT regularly publishes fringe theories on that subject at least. prokaryotes (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to ask a different question: What is it you are trying to use it as a source *for*? To indicate Patriot Prayer isn't racist? Or to indicate that Gibson has stated he rejects Racism? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm using it for the text above, that critics say nasties are drawn to the rallies, but Gibson responds with his words to these allegations, saying they ain't welcome and are asked to leave when identified Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ah my bad, I didn't realize you meant that paragraph as a direct quote of what you intended to include. No I don't have any issue with it. You have covered that undesirables are going to the rallies and also the organizer's response. Seems neutral enough to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the proposed paragraph is meant to be the opening paragraph in this section. While I agree there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the paragraph as representative of Gibson's response to criticism (and the paragraph adequately cites the response as Gibson's own words), a few editors (including myself) have objected to DS's proposal to open the section with it as there are many, reliable secondary sources that comment on what Patriot Prayer is. Publishing Gibson's response to the portrayal of the group without first giving an accurate portrayal of the group seems both nonsensical and undue. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page where I would invite DS to address the point, as I don't think RSN is the appropriate place for it, nor should consensus here that the sourcing isn't problematic lead DS to believe that his suggested placement within the overview is supported by it. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well DS has moved it to the end, so that satisfies the placement argument. Unless there is an actual argument as to the reliability of the content, I don't see there is anything further to really discuss. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there are now three sections on the TP covering the overview section. DS pointed out that his latest revision actually moved the paragraph to the end, but I see another editor reverted that with some other contentious edits. It seems like there might be one more editor who questions the reliability, but with the correct placement I believe his concerns will be in the minority. We'll point him here to post a counterargument if he feels strongly enough. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is a major issue with giving so much weight to Joey Gibson's words as the actions of the group do not match those words. Since the hate crime violence from someone drawn to a Patriot Prayer rally, Gibson began to speak against neo-Nazis and white nationalists; but then the group constantly has Proud Boys in their numbers and gives a platform speeches by the likes of Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”, Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman. Kyle Chapman gave his "war on whites" speech on Sept. 26th[11] so it seems this disconnect between Joey's words and the actions of the group is longstanding and consistant.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recent discussions are here and here. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

While no doubt the WT meets the low standards of rs, it is a poor newspaper and should be avoided. I can't see anyone researching any current events using it. I think though that weight comes into play. If the WT is the only reliable source reporting something, then it is insignificant. If major media are reporting it too, them use them as better sources. TFD (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

^^ This. WT uses the fonts and style of a reliable source, but the content is frequently quite poor and it's best avoided in most cases (at least in my experience, having come across it many times, my impression is that, among the sources with an obvious ideological filter, it's a little step up from Breitbart and AddictingInfo, and a big step down from, say, National Review or Salon). Best avoided in most cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Blue

To settle a difference of opinion on blue, some opining is requested. SiefkinDR (talk · contribs) is insisting that we need to provide a citation for blue being the colour of the sky, and referencing it with a dictionary. I am insisting otherwise. I also have a problem with the phrase"[blue] the colour of the clear sky" as it isn't at sunset or sunrise or night for that matter. Using a dictionary to cite this I am not thrilled about. The colour pages are deathly quiet so more opinions would be good. We have similar issues at white and red.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well given that the sky being blue, and the reasons for that in the second para, mentioning it twice is pointless so I reverted that addition. But this proves that people will argue over anything 😅 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful source - Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Smith, Glenn S. (2005). "Human color vision and the unsaturated blue color of the daytime sky" (PDF). Am. J. Phys. 73: 590–597. doi:10.1119/1.1858479.

Thanks - that is interesting! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A dictionary is a terrible source for that fact. I see no reason to cite this in the lede; the implicit citation through the hyperlink to Rayleigh scattering and discussion in the article body (under "Why the sky and sea appear blue") is more than sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And yellow

This is a problem on some other colour pages - e.g. yellow, the same user has prominently "[yellow] is the color of ripe lemons and many egg yolks" cited to the OED...which I am concerned is too general and is possibly incorrect (some eggyolks are more orange..as are some ripe lemons I've seen too...and I have no idea about eggyolks of other animals other than chickens). Hence my preferred is "Many fruit are yellow when ripe, such as lemons and bananas, their color derived from carotenoid pigments. Egg yolks gain their color from xanthophylls, also a type of carotenoid pigment" which doesn't go so far as to assume all eggyolks are yellowbut does discuss them. Anyhoo...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And red

The OED apparently says red is the colour of rubies, blood and strawberries, but I am not happy with the inaccuracy as venous blood can be more purple blue..crustacean blood is blue, many rubies are more pink than red and strawberries have little tan seeds all over them and white bits too. Again, my response is talk about pigments etc. in para 3 of lead...what do others think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as this thread is concerned, I can see a source supporting one version and your preference (supported by your original research) for another. I'm sure you can see where this rationale is leading. Try bringing alternative sources to the discussions on the talk pages of the associated articles and your proposals to modify the article contents will likely be expidited. Edaham (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

some articles of Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi everyone. i wanna ask for this article, despite we don't know names of writers of this article, is this article reliable for Sarmatians studies ? can we use it for articles in wikipedia ? does president of Encyclopædia Britannica give permission to everybody (whom didn't passed academic course) to edit and change content of such this articles? --Rostam2 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally considered RS, and I would assume for Sarmatians as well. Britannica articles are edited by Britannica editors. It is, however, a WP:TERTIARY source.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ken Norton / Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but it's ref-related nonetheless. At Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton, an editor has inserted content—sources, apparently—but none of it is formatted correctly, or at all for that matter. It's just bare text, and some of it even instructs the reader to use Google of all things: [12], [13]. It shouldn't be up to others to fix formatting for mass edits like that. Should I revert and point them to a guideline? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

yes. prokaryotes (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

InTech - Open Science

I am a mite suspicious that the publisher of this article may be an unreliable publisher, considering that it was considered a potential predatory publisher. On the other hand this particular item is also on ResearchGate. Some additional uses exist (one of which states that the group may be self-publishing). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

See remarks here. Also note that appearance on ResearchGate carries no implication of reliability -- registered members can upload pretty much anything they want. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Daily Kos

Hello. Is Daily Kos a reliable source please? I'd like to add some content about Wharton professor William T. Kelley, but I can't find a better source than this so far. So if it's not reliable, it could be "fake news"!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not being a reliable source is NOT the same as being "fake news", not even close, since "fake news" means things that the creator recognizes as being -- or at least is completely indifferent to whether it is -- untrue. Daily Kos is, essentially, a partisan political blogging platform, so not reliable for statements of fact: what they say may be true or it least the writer believes to be true, but we can't rely upon that. Statements there can be primary sources: reliable for expressing the opinion of the writer his/herownself.

In this case, no, it's not usable since it's secondhand information reported from a single source -- the writer -- allegedly coming from someone who is no longer able to confirm or rebut it, disseminated from an unreliable source. I'm not sure it would be reliable even if had been printed on the front page of the New York Times. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page content at Daily Kos is often partisan, but has at least some amount of editorial control. User diaries (such as the OP's link) on Daily Kos are entirely unreviewed and are not reliable sources. The links in the article may be to reliable sources, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

James Craven

A new editor has been persistently editing James Craven (American actor) to insert and reinsert unsourced information that contradicts the article's only existing source, such as that he was born in Canada rather than Pennsylvania and that he died about 20 years later than claimed — and their only "source" for the changed information is "I knew him" (which isn't convincing if we can't prove that who the editor really knew isn't some other person who merely happened to have the same name). But conversely, the article's only existing source is his IMDb profile, which isn't considered a reliable source either because it can also contain errors.

I've protected the article for the time being, but since the vast majority of his roles listed in the IMDb profile seem to be either minor guest roles or entirely uncredited appearances as unnamed characters, it's not even clear that he would pass WP:NACTOR at all — but a proper WP:BEFORE test would require checking American media of the 1940s and 1950s, which is not a type of resource I have access to at all as I only have access to Canadian newspaper databases for that era. So could somebody with historical US newspaper access run a sourcing check to see if the article's an WP:AFD candidate or not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is an SPLC report a reliable source for List of Confederate monuments and memorials?

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.

---

Source: Gunter, Booth; Kizzire, Jamie (April 21, 2016). Gunter, Booth, ed. "Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved October 6, 2017

Article: List of Confederate monuments and memorials

Content: This report is composed of two parts which are cited in the article, a compiled list of Confederate monuments and an analysis of their effects and purpose. Two separate issues are being debated at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials:

1. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for the name and location of a monument, without verification from another source?

2. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for analysis such as "Most of these (monuments) were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension"? –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note: - the SPLC is NOT the only, or even the main source for the second part. Here is a non-exhaustive list of other sources which say the same thing: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. This shouldn't even be contentious, especially since those who don't like this text haven't bothered to present a single source to the contrary. Volunteer Marek  23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's off topic. The question posed is whether SPLC's reliable for these particular (and well articulated) claims, NOT whether other sources exist, which is discussed on the talk page. D.Creish (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not off topic. The fact that other reliable sources say the exact same thing is certainly pertinent. Also, you seem to edit Wikipedia only when this topic comes up. Why? Also also, when are you going to answer the question concerning the fact that your very first edit on Wikipedia quoted obscure Wikipedia policy, and whether or not you've used previous accounts before, and what where they?  Volunteer Marek  06:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So the National Enquirer becomes RS if they repeat something reported in actual RS? That's just stupid. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That analogy makes no sense. Are you going to answer the question? What are you previous accounts and are they under any sanctions in this topic area? You have refused to answer this question in either affirmative or negative, which pretty much confirms you are sock puppeting. Volunteer Marek  22:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek Again, not a useful list: That you have 7 news reports criticizing Trump that mention SPLC, or can google books for Jim Crow, is neither surprising nor anything that makes the advocacy group SPLC look like a knowledgeable historian source. Their own report says they filtered out memorials and were doing casual analysis from other sources about symbols -- not that they are themselves a source of info. Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett Could you elaborate on what you mean by "casual analysis from other sources"? Are you saying that the list is unreliable because it is compiled from other primary sources? –dlthewave ☎ 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

dlthewave 'Casual' as in no professionally-accepted or rigorous method was stated, nor a presented criteria. Also not produced to a professional journal or peer review level. It describes the effort as several of their staff (not apparently experts in history or data research or analysis) pulled some public sources and parsed out things they thought possibly of interest for addressing as a SPLC concern, as an amateur effort done with modest self-checks intended for public recommendation of name changes and other items and PR. From an advocacy group viewpoint a decent start and got notable press, but not high quality or scholarly work. Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some serious misrepresentations but this one takes the cake. The methodology section does not say ANYTHING of what Markbassett says (neither "casual", nor "non-expert" nor anything of the sort), no matter how many times he tries to smear the SPLC with the sneerword term "advocacy group". In fact, the methodology statement is "In researching publicly supported spaces dedicated to the Confederacy or its heroes, SPLC researchers relied on federal, state and private sources. Each entry was verified by at least one other source. When possible, preference was given to governmental sources over private, less-reliable ones...Each entry was cross-referenced with municipal, county or school district websites in an attempt to confirm that spaces were named for the Confederacy or its heroes and did not coincidentally share a name.". That second part appears to be what Markbassett is 'grossly misrepresenting when he falsely says "they filtered out" memorials. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes to both. The SPLC is extensively cited as a reliable, factual source in academic literature and reliable news sources. This particular report has been widely cited as factual by many different news sources.[25][26][27] There has been a push-back against the SPLC's hate group listings from some conservative bloggers and opinion writers (at least some of whom have ties to the groups listed) and from alt-right types lately, but this does not alter the fact that SPLC's reports are generally considered reliable by academics, major newsorgs, etc. Its getting old (some might say disruptive?) that their reliability is getting challenged so frequently across so many article + project pages. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• No On questions of law and race the SPLC may be experts; on questions of history they have no established expertise. If an overwhelming number of alternate, expert sources do exist there's no reason not to use them instead. (I'm disappointed Fyddlestix felt the need to resort to personal attacks when the OP did an excellent job of presenting the question neutrally.) D.Creish (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Fyddlestix more than adequately explained why. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so once again Politico and the Atlantic Magazine are...what's it eactly this time? Oh, yeah:conservative bloggers and opinion writers (at least some of whom have ties to the groups listed) and from alt-right types lately. Anmccaff (talk)

@Anmccaff: You didn't link the sources you're referring to, but it sounds like you're referring to opinion pieces that Politico and the Atlantic published. Meanwhile here is politico using the SPLC study as a source for facts in an actual news report, and here is the Atlantic doing the same. Anyone can write an editorial, but apparently these publications are just fine using the SPLC study in a news report (which, unlike most op-eds, is actually subject to rigorous editorial oversight & fact-checking, and actually a RS for facts). Whatever their (or their op-ed contributors') opinion of SPLC more generally, they seem to have no problem relying on the report for factual information.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone interested in the context, searching this noticeboard for "the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC" will bring out the context; this isn't the first time that Morty tried poisoning the well here, nor the first that Fyddlestix acquiesced to it. Anmccaff (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Which does nothing to refute the point I just made (that both Politico and the Atlantic treat SPLC, and the report under discussion, as a RS). What was your point again? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And btw, why not actually link the discussion you're referring to so that everyone can see how inaccurate your description of it is? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...which, of course shows that neither article is an op-ed, and that Morty did, in fact, try to poison the well against anyone questioning the SPLC, and you responded to his characterization of anyone questioning the SPLC as the extremist hate wing's hard-on for slandering the SPLC with "well said." Anmccaff (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Annmccaff loves to make the false allegation that I said anything close to what she claims (and generally, try to put words in people's mouths that are nothing close to anything they've ever said). But it's her, not I, "poisoning the well" with false allegations. I'll dignify her no further as it's clearly a tactic trying to provoke an angry reaction in order to then complain about Fyddlestix or myself acting angrily towards her. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can read what you wrote Morty, and ist shows you a liar, twice over now. Anmccaff (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thankfully, Fyddlestix provided the link (you weren't honest enough to do so) to the discussion itself, which disproves your disgusting personal attack. If you were hoping for an angry reaction to your gaslighting, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. But, as per VM's post, the question appears moot. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Due to recent events I consider SPLC a controverisal source for listings on hate groups - (If they are cited in academic literature the analysis in the literature itself should be cited as a secondary source, not the primary opinions of SPLC). For a list of Confederate monuments, I think it would not be too difficult to find a better source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, for simplicity's sake, but effectively what Marek said re: many other sources also saying this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes (1 and 2) Gunter is a professional journalist with an MA in journalism and significant post-grad experience. Similarly Kizzire has journalistic experience including with AP. SPLC articles are used as sources in news media and academic writing. The only controversy that exists is in fringe media read by supporters of groups investigated by the SPLC. TFD (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: Did you intend for this to go under the newly added #3 or under #2? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Now added. TFD (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - As discussed extensively here, the SPLC exhibits all the hallmarks of a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes on both, and other equally reliable sources can be used as additional citations, but there is no cause whatsoever to remove or disallow this very reliable source. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes to both questions, per WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• yes to 1 and a qualified/restricted yes to 2. Strictly speaking you need academic sources for 2, that is ideally assessments by reputable historian or academics in related fields. However if the SPLC cites/refers to those you might as use the SPLC as a (temporary) proxy source. Also if such an academic writes for SPLC directly than that particular piece might be acceptable as source. However note the SPLC as surce for 2 is more of an "acceptable" workaround and basic large sections of an article on it is not a good idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: # 2, take a look at the "Academic commentary" section of Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and it should be clear that this isn't really an issue. There is extremely broad agreement about this among historians, the statement is basically uncontroversial (in historical terms - obviously politically this is a controversial topic). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing with that but nevertheless the according academic sources should (ideally) cited instead the PLC. I mean the essential argument "because there is an academic consensus on topic X, I'm citing an non-academic source for topic X" is not a good one. It is ok as a (temporary) fix, but no means means an optimal sourcing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes to both questions, having now checked some of the supposed errors they seem pretty reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes to both questions, per Fyddlestix. The continued failed attempts to cast doubt on the SPLC's findings -- as if locating a single error will somehow utterly destroy their credibility -- have the smell of bad faith about them. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• No to both questions, as an otherwise unsupported standalone source. As it itself makes clear, this isn't a scholarly or even archival work, but an activists hit list, complete with a catechism of supporting arguments for monument removal. It is also admittedly not stable, with a mechanism for adding or removing data. It's not down to open wiki level, but neither is it a fixed work. All that said, it's a good starting point, much like, say, findagrave. Anmccaff (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not the best source - the SPLC is an important source for designating hate groups and is generally regarded as reliable (though it has been attacked of late) though polemic. The SPLC is not a high quality source regarding history - it is probably better to rely on academic journal articles or books who study the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and monuments, and not a polemic outlet who is covering this with an angle to advocate current action. Is it reliable? A qualified yes, though biased. It definitely is not the best source for this subject matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and yes The SPLC analysis appears to be generally viewed as credible by other reliable sources, and the findings are in line with the views of historians and academics. Nblund ^talk 17:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1 - No - not that broadly stated, no, and the article makes no such use of it. (The article actually cites only the cover text, at three places: one cite in hat, one in text under a editor-created NPOV disputed image, and one for the flag of Alabama which has no location stated.) The report internally indicates it is non-comprehensive and was done by non-expert staff parsing public records to include symbols and exclude memorials so something listed is not necessarily a monument and lacks thousands of items otherwise reported as monuments and memorials. Also WP:SOURCETYPES is a self-published item from an advocacy group. Also it has been shown as WP:QUESTIONABLE by numerous anecdotal challenges for accuracy or insufficient fact-checking on factual errors have been reported (e.g. "Lee Park road" in Wilkes-Barre ties to local businessman not to General Lee), items missed have been mentioned (e.g. the 10-foot obelisk of farthest North CSA reached, under Gen. Jenkins) and challenges of their interpretation for what constitutes 'Confederate symbol' (e.g numerous military bases). Finally, I note that since the report done in 2016 mentioned using Smithsonian data of the 1990s, in some cases the location may have changed -- particularly with recent events. Also - I have seen no reconsideration by SPLC or retraction as is the norm for sources to be regarded as higher quality. I believe this report is simply a notable advocacy item which might be a lead but should not be taken as a scholarly item from an expert source.

2 - No - as that line is not from the report, it is an editors re-interpretation. The report in its findings says instead "4. There were two major periods in which the dedication of Confederate monuments and other symbols spiked — the first two decades of the 20th century and during the civil rights movement." The SPLC report is not a RS for the Jim Crow line shown simply because it did not say that and does not show such a block on their diagram, and notes that Jim Crow lasted 7 decades rather than the 2 in question. The report highlighted the 1900-1920 building more to the 'Lost Cause' and Daughters of the Confederacy, although there are additional sources of monument building from this being the 50th (and later 100th) anniversary of the war, the City Beautiful period of monument building, and technical advances in bronze works at that time which enabled such statuary. Also, since the SPLC is an advocacy group, it can be used in a limited manner to present this as a WP:BIASED POV and not as a fact or as conveying the dominant opinion of historians.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: The SPLC report is not a RS for the Jim Crow line what's wrong with the passage on page 11 of the pdf, which clearly says there were two distinct pikes in monument building, and that "the first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society." The same paragraph also says that the spike lasted until about 1920, and also says that the second spike coincided with the civil rights movement, as it "led to a backlash among segregationists". That paragraph would seem to verify the sentence under discussion here just fine.

More generally, sorry but the anniversaries, city beautiful movement, bronzeworks explanations are clearly much much less frequently highlighted in RS. They might have played a role but the many historical sources cited in the article make it clear that the SPLC's explanation for the monument building is the dominant one in RS by far. Finally, you're obviously entitled to your opinion that SPLC is self-published or that their research is questionable, but the numerous RS which have run news stories or other analysis based on the SPLC report suggests that many major newsorgs disagree. WP:USEBYOTHERS suggests that its fine, especially when you haven't actually produced any evidence to support the many assumptions/assertions that you've made here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional question

3. (Added by request after previous comments were received) As an organization that relies on donations, does the SPLC have a financial interest that may cause it to present the material in a biased way? –dlthewave ☎ 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) BOLDly moving this question to its own subsection. Feel free to revert. Pinging @Dlthewave:. Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's any actual evidence that the material is presented in a biased way, this question is simply poisoning the well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

About the bias, there are questions. For example, they collected something like 1500 memorials & monuments, though less than 900 appear on the graph. What would the graph look like if all the material was there? Who knows. It is known that there are many more monuments & memorials that were not included. What would the graph look like if they were included? Who knows? I would like to see the graph go until there are answers. Carptrash (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Original Research. Also, a reliable source is not required to satisfy some arbitrary criteria that you pulled out of your thin air as a justification for your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: that's not quite accurate. The study reviews sites that show confederate symbols, and excludes 2,600 "markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols" from the tally and analysis because those sites "are largely historical in nature." Of those sites they do tally that pay homage to the confederacy, 1,503 are (or were) publicly sponsored, and 700 are monuments on public property. The graph also includes schools, of which there are c. 100 tallied. -Darouet (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @Darouet:, which part of my post above was not quite accurate? So here is another of their recent (2000, I think) entries. Here is one in Virginia. In the SPLC accounting is, “Nickelsville Nickelsville Spartan Band, Monument 2000”. What I found when looking for that particular entry is Keith Memorial Park, Nickelsville, Va. where I read “ At the entrance of the park stands the War Memorial, a magnificent African black granite monument honoring all Scott County soldiers who have lost their life in battle - dating as far back as the Indian wars.” The “African black granite” is interesting, but beside the point. But to call this a monument to the Confederacy seems to be missing the point of the monument. It is to the locals who have been killed in various wars. What are they supposed to do, even in a perfect world where the untold horrors of slavery are openly acknowledged, leave off the locals who died fighting for the CSA? Why does this not fit under the "are largely historical in nature" clause? What does "largely historical in nature" even mean when we are talking about monuments from 100 or 150 years ago? Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not, they dies fighting the USA, not for it. To me it sits oddly with a list of those who fought for the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Carptrash, the "Nickelsville Spartan Band" was the local name for a unit (Company E) of the Virgina 48th Infantry [28]. That's a memorial to a unit of the Confederate Army. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And the memorial to the Confederate soldiers is not simply historical, it is laudatory [29], appearing to confirm it does belong on the list. -Darouet (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"But to call this a monument to the Confederacy seems to be missing the point of the monument." - At the top of the monument it says "NICKELSVILLE SPARTAN BAND / CIVIL WAR / THOSE WHO SERVED". At the base of the monument, the text says "LIKE THE CITIZENS OF ANCIENT SPARTA, THEY OFFERED THEIR LIVES IN DEFENSE OF THEIR STATE. THEY MARCHED TO ABINGDON JULY 13, 1861 AND JOINED GEN. STONEWALL JACKSON ARMY OF VIRGINIA 48TH INFANTRY, CO. H. THEIR BLOOD WAS SPILLED TO REPEL THE INVADERS IN EVERY MAJOR BATTLE IN VIRGINIA.". To not call this a monument to the confederacy seems to betray a serious lack of perspective. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I had not read the text on the monument. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Possibly, but I have to research it further. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But the material is obviously presented in a biased way; it's persuasive writing, bordering on polemic, not simple reportage or historiography. Someone putting up a statue of Bobby Lee in 1895 wasn't thinking of Dylan Roof, but that's where the piece opens, on a mass murderer. It uses correlation to imply causation: The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Yup, that had something to do with it, alright, but it also reflected the recovery of the southern economy, the fact that aged veterans were looking back to their youth -a sort of "we were rebels once, and young." It also reflected the universal self-justification of old fights that Lifton captured in "Revolutionary Immortality;" survivors assuage any guilt with the knowledge that their friends must have died in a great cause; only the next generation can ever widely question that. Finally, it ignores both the fact that several namings were simple memorials to the dead, and others also reflected later actions. Consider, for example the William F. Perry Monument. Is this an celebration of white supremacy? A monument to an old soldier? an memorial of a well-respected teacher? Nahh, it's an effin' gravestone is what it is, when you get down to it. Is the John B. Castleman Monument about a Confederate officer...or a United States one? Or is it about the man himself, damned if he isn't wearing civvies, by the look of it. Is the Palmyra massacre memorial possibly just partly about people seen as killed in an unfair sort of way? is the Fayetteville Arsenal marker only about the Confederate history? Are all the things in Lee County, SC named for Marse Robert, or are perhaps a couple of them named for the county itself?

Next, far from being a reliable list of sites, it cites no sources, and openly invites public additions or suggestions for deletion. That suggests neither expertise nor stability, in fact it looks a bit like a wiki there. Anmccaff (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

All that said, of course, in several senses it's a reliable source, as wiki uses the term. There might be better ones, though. Anmccaff (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And this misrepresents the source, as it makes no claim that any statues were erected in Roofs honour or at his request. It makes the point that his actions galvanized those who think these images are just symbols of racism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, it exactly represents the source, which equates Roof's portrait with a rebel flag with, say, Confederate cenotaphs. So, to ask again, do you think Perry's gravestone is a "confederate memorial, in any meaningful sense? Is Castlemans's statue? Is the historic plaque at the site of the Fayetteville Arsenal a "confederate memorial," any more than a memorial to Sherman?

To add another, is the cenotaph at Fort Warren a hateful symbol of white supremacy, which requires removal? Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Are these on SPLC's list?Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep....or, at least they were yesterday, the list may be dynamic. Take a look at 'em.

Palmyra Massacre Monument - One look at the backside shows you yes, it's a confederate monument[30]. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

William F. Perry Monument - The Monument sits behind a set of gravestones. It is not "an effin gravestone". Even the wikipedia page linked to puts it in . It's on the register of historic places in the same category [31].

John B. Castleman Monument - another misrepresentation. From the wikipedia article itself, "The monument was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 17, 1997, as part of the Civil War Monuments of Kentucky MPS"

I note at this point that if you look at the methodology section, one key source used by the SPLC report is the national register of historic places.

All of this, however, is a moot point because Wikipedia WP:RS policy has something to say about it, and that is that a sign of an RS is openness to correction and fact-checking. EVEN IF the SPLC-haters here were able to find one entry that they didn't think belonged, the SPLC actually requests that people send them requests for review. "If you see a missing symbol or disagree with the inclusion of one please let us know using this form." Morty C-137 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"in any meaningful sense" is an operative phrase, Marty. How is this marker at Palmyra glorifying the lost cause, exactly? Wikipedia categories are made by wikipedians. They are never reliable sources in Wiki's sense, and are sometimes not even so factually. And many of the "merely historical" items the SPLC gave a pass to were undoubtedly classified as "civil mar monuments" or something similar. Anmccaff (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Anmcaff, here's a picture of the Palmyra monument (sure looks like a Confederate Monument to me) and here is an academic source that says the monument was part of a broader, early monument building spree that "anticipated subsequent Lost Cause commemorative politics" by building "martyr monuments." If you take the time to read that chapter, it's specifically about how monuments like the Palmyra one were part of a broader effort to "transform military defeat into political and cultural victory." (Again, sure sounds like "Lost Cause" iconography to me). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

here's a picture of the Palmyra monument Really? the Palmyra monument is a big, nearly blank white thing - I guess that might be the white supremacy angle? - with the words "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book?" Delphic, that.

Looking at what pictures I can see, though, I see a dead-standard Confederate Dead Guy -these statues were stock items, sometimes with surprisingly minor differences between blue and grey - standing on top of a base that lists the names of specific confederate dead guys, displays crossed sabres, the date of the event, and the sponsor. I also ran across several cites which claim it went up on 1907, hardly the leading edge of lost cause iconography -in fact, Philips describes it as the -last- "martyrs monument" put up in the area on the page you linked. Still, the Dead Guy probably does make this count as a pukka "Confederate monument", although, again from your own cited source, the monument was partly funded by the local GAR. Still sure this was just Grit agitprop?

BTW, "Arcadia Publishing" and "academic source" have a very tenuous relationship. Some of their stuff is excellent; some complete crap. Pictures are usually good, though - and this one is literally built around postcards. The author has some work as a newsie, a couple self-published things, and something from a local press (in someone's garage, by the look of it). Strange bedfellow for the Oxford University Press. Anmccaff (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Google books allows different previews depending on where you are, obviously I would not have linked you a blank page. You are right that it's a statue of a confederate soldier on a pedestal, but if you're still trying to somehow conclude that that makes it not a Confederate monument I'm afraid I don't follow you. You also appear to be confused about the significance of the publisher - the Arcadia book was linked solely for the picture of the monument, its the other, published by Oxford and multi-award-winning book that I called an academic one (which it is - peer reviewed and the author is a tenured professor). That's the one that clearly calls the Palmyra monument a Confederate monument to the Lost Cause. The fact that Phillips calls it the "last" such monument erected in the border states doesn't really alter the fact that that's what he calls it, so I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish with the comment above. Are done with picking monuments at random off SPLCs list and (having apparently done zero research) trying to pretend they're not confederate monuments yet? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Then Perry monument says

"Gen. William F. Perry Mar. 12 1823 - Dec. 7, 1901 Born in Georgia...Education for Alabama...Colonel of the ...A Brigadier General in the Army of Virginia.... Conspicuous on Many Bloody Fields The South had no Braver, More faithful Son He spent forty years in the Professors Chair where his kindness, firmness, wide learning, Rare Eloquence And the Beauty of his Christian character stirred many youths to high resolves and noble purposes "and as the greatest only are, in his simplicity sublime" erected by his Ogden College Students"

So yes it clearly mentions the civil war (in fact glorifys his actions in it). By the way, then parks service calls it a civil war monument as does the national register of historic places.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. This question seems to be an effort to subvert the answers to questions #1 and #2, when in fact this is just an opinion that should be part of a/this discussion, rather than a statement thinly disguised as a question. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• The question I have is this: how does the SPLC define a "Confederate" memorial or monument?... we need to ask why a monument or memorial was erected, and by whom. for example, Albert Pike has a statue in Washington DC and, yes, Pike was (briefly) a general in the confederate army... but when you look into the history of the statue - why it was erected, and by whom, you discover that it has nothing to do with the confederacy. The statue was erected by the Freemasons, to honor Pike's contributions to Freemasonry. So, does the SPLC list that statue as a "confederate" monument? If so, I am hesitant to call it reliable on this matter. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that I can find.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the same issue I have with the questions. The SPLC are well known to "overcategorize" due to their mission (to the point of criticism), so unless they state what is an objective definition of a "Confederate monument" is, we're using their subjective definition. Their list is certainly far from being an "independent" source given their mission; other works (even if RS) parroting what the SPLC has said doesn't change this fundamental issue. It's not that we can't use that list, but it definitely would need to be flagged as attributed to what the SPLC came out with, assuming no other source has separately collaborated the list. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can provide evidence that they have listed as Confederate monuments items that are objectively not Confederate monuments, this whole line of questions and comments in this section seems specious. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Freemasons built the statue after the Civil War. But, does that mean it wasn’t a Confederate monument? He was a Confederate general. His tenure was not that long as he was later charged with various crimes. Jefferson Davis pardoned him. He wrote lyrics for Dixie. He was adamantly against mixing of races and pro-slavery. Yes he wrote some Freemason rituals; but it is claimed he also wrote KKK rituals in the same period and was a KKK founder. I see this from ten minutes of poking around. I’m sure the SPLC spent a great deal more time evaluating the statue than we. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The SPLC does not list this as a Confederate monument. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

:) That's what I get for AGF. Following a red herring. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Masem, Blueboar - did you guys see the "methodology" section on page 18 (in the pdf version) of the report? They do have clearly explained criteria, which are outlined both there and in other parts of the report. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That then all seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So now we have established they do not list Pike as a confederate monument can we now drop this? Can anyone give one example of a monument they do list that is not clearly a monument to the Confederacy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. The question itself looks like an attempt to poison the well. Also, I can find no place where this question was actually "requested". Morty C-137 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I brought #1 and #2 to RSN to end an unproductive talk page discussion. Since I don't have any objection to the reliability of the source, I asked other editors for suggestions in case I missed anything. Carptrash suggested #3 at my talk page. I didn't want anyone to potentially discredit the RSN outcome because I left out their pet argument. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the Haywood Shepherd monument in WV, memorial to a man killed on October 16, 1859, before there was a CSA? It was erected by the notorious UDC, does that make it a memorial to the CSA? Also you really are not concerned that the SPLC graph, and thus ours, only uses a bit over one half of the monuments they collected? And that they did not collect many others? Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because it was erected by the "daughters of the Confederacy" & "the sons of confederate veterans". It also explicitly says

"exemplifying the character and faithfulness of thousands of Negros who under many temptations throughout subsequent years of war. So conducted themselves that no stain was left upon a record which is the peculiar heritage of the American people, and an everlasting tribute to the best in both races."

It says it is about the American civil war, as well as (in essence) saying that these were good blacks as they did not stain their character by revolting against slavery. It is both a monument to the civil war and to slavery.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Calhoun Avenue in Virginia. Calhoun was dead before there was a CSA. He might have been a racist, and the Haywood monument is to me a nasty bit of racism, but this is not a list of monuments to racism or memorials to racists. Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Here you may have a valid point, I cannot find out when it was named or by whom.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Except [32], so who was it named after? this [33] says Major J. Lawrence Calhoun.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And in case there is any doubt [34], so the government of Alexandria say it is named after "J. Lawrence Calhoun, Major, CSA". So we can also say this one is a civil war monument. So can we stop this now?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And here I was writing up the number of reasons secessionist white supremacist John C. Calhoun was (and in modern white supremacist circles still is) considered a confederate hero, name-checked widely in speeches by Confederate leaders as well as white supremacists promoting nullification doctrine well past the civil rights era including modern white supremacist nullicationers like Roy Moore. Good catch, Slatersteven! Morty C-137 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See, this above represents part of the problem here. Faced with a question about a source he liked, Morty began concocting an explanation (needless, as it happens) about why something it was (wrongly, as it happens) seen as mistaken was somehow, in some larger metaphoric sense, true. That's not evaluation, that's advocacy. It doesn't belong here. Anmccaff (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that both his response and what he responded to was based upon lazy research. The difference is that whereas his assumption (SPLC is right about this stuff) was in fact correct what he was responding to (SPLC is wrong about this) was not correct. I would agree it is advocacy, just as much as making false claims about them being wrong. Hence the reason I think this should be closed. One side is wholly engaging in advocacy whilst a few on the other side are. It is clear that it has not been demonstrated that SPLC are unreliable over this matter. So this should now be accepted.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. That's assuming the conclusion. Politico had a rather good article suggesting that the SPLC has "lost its way" and was "overstepping its bounds," making questionable statements in search of support, monetary and otherwise. That's a source, Morty isn't. Anmccaff (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh, they same Politico article you're touting as denigrating the SPLC as a reliable source also says

But today, the group is best known for its “Intelligence Project,” which has essentially cornered the market on identifying and tracking hate groups, as well as extremists and “hate incidents.” The Intelligence Project’s 15 full-time and two part-time staffers (it’s in the process of hiring five more) pump out reports that are regularly cited by just about every major mainstream media outlet, including Politico, and their researchers have become the go-to experts for quotes on those topics.

which sounds like Politico is confirming them as a reliable source, it seems to me. --Calton | Talk 12:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: A look at [35] this. I guess Harvard is also a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC? Anmccaff (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun is regarded as a hero by confederates, that's clear. Anmccaff is waiting for anything to misrepresent to attack me dishonestly, that is also clear. I took the claim that the Calhoun monument was about John C. Calhoun at face value - and I was incorrect in that, and I thanked Slatersteven for correctly identifying that the whole thing had started from yet another false claim by Carptrash.Morty C-137 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Does it mention this list?Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What angers me here is that I had to do 6 minutes of research and typing (including looking him up inn the SPLC catalog) that should have been done by those who are trying to claim it is not a civil war monument. If you are going to make a claim at least check it first. This is why I say we should close this now. It is clear (to me) now that this is just a case of "i don't like it" rather then an objection based on some objective data.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The answer is pretty self-evident, I agree. Only reason this is being raised here is some editors' chronic refusal to drop the stick at the article talk page. We should probably wait until some of them have commented before closing, just so that they can't then turn around and claim that the result is invalid because they didn't get to say their piece. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean the Faithful Slave Memorial? Yeah that's totally unrelated to the Confederacy. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we going to examine every monument, whether or not mentioned by the SPLC? One red herring is enough for my diet. The SPLC is far better equipped for this than we. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not just one but two now... and Fyddlexstix nailed it perfectly. This is only running on because some people, having been unable to push a false narrative attacking the SPLC, are just re-listing complaints like this every couple of weeks. I personally suspect this one has been triggered by right-wing freakouts over the fact that Newsweek rightly reported that the "Family Research Council", parent organization of the "Values Voter Summit" (at which Trump gave a bizarre speech the other night), is listed by the SPLC as a hate group for doing stuff like this. Scratch a group complaining about the SPLC, and there's a 99.9% likelihood you'll find a hate group. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe it is time that this was taken elsewhere, rather then cluttering up this board.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Scratch a group complaining about the SPLC, and there's a 99.9% likelihood you'll find a hate group." Let's see. I am complaining about the SPLC therefore there is a 99.9% chance that I'm in a hate group. Okay, I'll go somewhere else and thanks for the textbook example of on-line bullying. Another shining wikipedia moment. Carptrash (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey look, a false misrepresentation of my statement. You may color me unsurprised. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

False in what way? It's a direct quote, I do believe. Carptrash (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see where Morty c-137 wrote [you are] complaining about the SPLC therefore there is a 99.9% chance that [you are] in a hate group. Mind pointing to that? You DO know the meaning of direct quote? OR do you think that we don't? --Calton | Talk 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. This isn't a question, it's a bad-faith FUD attempt. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: Please read, or just glance at this [36] and then tell me the SLPC is a neutral voice in this. Carptrash (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, yet another garbage rationale from Carptrash. This discussion is regarding whether a reference is a reliable source regarding something factual: the SPLC's motivations or whether they fit your version of neutral means, basically, fuck-all with respect to that. Thanks for adding more evidence of POV-pushing bad faith. --Calton | Talk 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I see in this thread alone that Carptrash has made at least three factual claims, all of them factually wrong. So spare me any more rationales, because your credibility has been shot. --Calton | Talk 09:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty standard "attack the messenger not the message" stuff, so please address "three factual claims, all of them factually wrong" I made rather than just reminding me (and everyone else here) that you don't think much of me. As long as you are comfortable with using the information provided by a group that open and notoriously is advocating removing monuments as neutral and what we want as the centerpiece of the article, just say so. Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Other people have thoroughly addressed your collection of nonfactual claims here already (as well as the straw-grasping of others doing the same thing you're doing). Demanding that Calton address what already has been addressed, as if it hadn't, is a gaslighting tactic. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• My goodness -- reading all the above, does this need to go to WP:DRN or somewhere? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

well it is going nowhere fast, yes I would support this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 15 October 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.

Gezitter.org

I've been using this website quite a bit for the Bakyt Torobayev page. It's a news agregator -- so it collects and reposts newspaper reports online from various sources in Central Asian countries. What do folks think about the reliability of such website? It is hard to examine the reliability of the content behind what has been posted. Per this, I also just found out that it translates Kyrgyz articles into Russian for the sake of accessibility. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)