Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 158: Line 158:


== World News Media ==
== World News Media ==

Link to article: [[World_News_Media]]


===Background===
===Background===
The article should be about the company, but is instead a coatrack for the awards of one of the company's publications. As such, most of the sources are awards related (PR, and pieces fleshed out from press releases).
The article should be about the company, but is instead a coatrack for the awards of one of the company's publications. As such, most of the sources are awards related (PR, and pieces fleshed out from press releases).


I list sources below:
I list sources below:

Revision as of 16:11, 6 September 2017

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

    Additional notes:
    Shortcuts
    • 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:

    • "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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

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

    Balfour Declaration

    I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

    https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

    & (for comparison)

    http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

    Highsnobiety

    This website have been added in several articles lately, the website state that it's a blog, but it appears to have a team of people working for it, and it's appeared in print. Do this website counts as an reliable source or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See at the top of the noticeboard, what article and what information is being sourced to this website? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It might also be helpful to get a proper translation of http://www.highsnobiety.com/imprint/ , because it looks like they may disclaim accuracy. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean where "the author" reserves the right not to be held responsible for the completeness, correctness or quality of the information offered? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: @Ronz: @Orangemike: I didn't add a source to the website, this is my first time to post something here and I didn't read at the top of the noticeboard, so sorry for the confusion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To properly assess if a site is reliable the information on what it will be used for and in what context is required. Some websites may be unreliable in general but be reliable for a specific use. Likewise some otherwise reliable websites might be unreliable in some cases. From a basic look (as Ronz and Orangemike point out above) it looks like the author is disclaiming any responsibility for the accuracy of the material. This indicates the site would be generally unreliable for almost all uses Wikipedia would want to use it for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: So you saying this website is unreliable for Wikipedia? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a specific example I cannot say it could never be used, but it is highly unlikely to ever be reliable for anything other than as a primary source on itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: An editor add this to the Luv Is Rage article, is it okay to have this source in the article or remove it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dailyxvideos.com

    Hi, based on discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents I have started this topic. Problem was, if website for men (sport articles and porn) is reliable source for wikipedia. One look is when site contains porn, it cannot be used as a source. From the other side, it is not primary porn site but also sportnews aggregator, and only ONE known Slovak sport news provider in English language. So in my opinion for English version of wikipedia it is more usefull linking sources in English (not Slovak). In addition when you use link link this [dailyxvideos.com/michal-obrocnik-loan-sigma-olomouc/] nobody knows it´s porn site. Thanks for clarification. Svk_fan (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2017 (CET)

    Um... a quick google search shows me multiple English language websites with news and stats for Slovakian sports ... so I really don't think we would ever need to use one that also has porn. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    some examples? When I found something, it´s not so detailed as needed. Svk_fan (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2017 (CET)
    Given that wikipedia is sometimes used by kids, and one must look at the references to determine validity of info, I would oppose considering any site with porn an RS (not sure weather there is an official policy on this or not). Tornado chaser (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a content farm that is running foreign language articles through google translate and re-posting them. It's absolutely not a reliable source for anything. If a piece of news is so obscure that this is the only source you can find for it, it probably isn't notable enough to report anyway. It looks quite a bit like spam. Nblund talk 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. It is clearly an attempt to generate traffic. The news Items are actually in the same data structure as videos - though they are classified under a different porn genre (sport news). If you search for "sport" in the search bar (there is no actual way to navigate to the news other than searching or going into the sport news porn category) - or any other relevant search term for that matter - you get a mix of sport news and porn (including "Tennis orgy two guys and four ladies"). I don't see an editorial board mentioned anywhere. Content is translated items (or summaries) with links to the actual source. Even without taking into account the issues of linking to a porn site (e.g. minors being led their from Wiki - which would be a discussion with a source such as Playboy magazine) - this source fails just about everything required from a WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A 13th-Century Darwin? Tusi's Views on Evolution

    It seems to me that the existing section in History of evolutionary thought may be in undue weight. Moreover, I question the supporting source's accuracy, I have the impression that it is a type of national puffery. Compare this article to another review of his work: umir.umac.mo/jspui/bitstream/123456789/15180/1/4511_0_2008%20JIE%20Offprint.pdf. He appears to be notable for his work on economics and ethics and although there are references to organisms and species these are in a context of economic cooperation. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding: The end of the same source could however still be used to adjust the weight of the existing article section, which should probably also be shortened... I'll continue to look at this when I have time, it's been on my TODO list for a while. We still have to deal with the grandiose claims of the article if we keep it as a source. Input and/or help welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Check123 video encyclopedia

    There seems to have been a minor influx of external links to Check123 over the past few months [1]. I seem to vaguely remember the reliability of that site coming up for discussion previously, but can't find it right now. Basically crowdsourced, isn't it? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    International Mission Board (IMB) Global Research (peoplegroups.org)

    Is peoplegroups.org a reliable source for population figures in article Bengalis? For example:

    • Malaysia: 500,000 Bengalis [2]
    • Myanmar: 347,000 Bengalis [3]
    • Oman: 155,000 Bengalis [4]
    • Singapore: 113,000 Bengalis [5]

    Their FAQ says:

    The Global Research Department (GRD) of the International Mission Board, SBC gathers and analyzes information collected through a global network of research coordinators. These coordinators obtain information from approximately 3,700 IMB field personnel, local evangelical partners, and others. Much of the information reflects primary research among people groups. In some instances, secondary sources are used.

    My own feeling is that peoplegroups.org presents the same problems as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Joshuaproject.net, and that it is preferable to show no data than to show questionable data. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    geopostcodes.com

    Hi,

    Any idea about the reliability of this site which is often used on WP but which is rarely mentioned in reliable sources ?

    Apokrif (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    World News Media

    Link to article: World_News_Media

    Background

    The article should be about the company, but is instead a coatrack for the awards of one of the company's publications. As such, most of the sources are awards related (PR, and pieces fleshed out from press releases).

    I list sources below:

    Please feel free to read my bio for info on my COI, and thanks for your help. Scottrouse (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello Scottrouse -- Thank you for disclosing your professional position. WP has a position that the subject of an article does not inherit notability from its subsidiaries, customers, products, or shareholders. Likewise, but not explicitly mentioned, is that a press source does not gain notability from the topics of its articles. There is room in this world for many incarnations of a free press. The National Enquirer sells pictures and spicy headlines at the checkout counter. The New York Times sells double-checking of sources (and firing writers who don't comply). TechCrunch reprints every tech press release that comes across the transom. And World News Media gives out (some say, vanity) awards. Those awards, by their nature, are oft mentioned by the recipient of the award, an operator of an organization in a press-poor nation. You cannot blame them. But that should not translate to notability for WNM. It is, intentionally or not, gaming the WP system. Two of WNM's publications have been deleted for what appears to be a process of self-promotion: citing a WNM award mentioned in other press articles as an indication of their notability. There is one editor who incessantly adds text and awards to the WNM article, despite the lede that describes the vanity award process. Eventually, someone will AfD World News Media too. As far as I'm concerned WNM is an interesting WP article, but the news and awards from its subs are not. I would go out of my way to not to use them in any articles I edit. We'll see if others agree with me. Rhadow (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the sources, the company's principal business is charging to give awards and the magazines it publishes are fig leaves for the awards in which winners may buy coverage. Multiple people who are probably connected with the company have tried to censor, dilute or repurpose the article (including creating all the now deleted articles) one assumes probably not because the article is inaccurate but because it is correct. BTW, it was AFD'd by Scottrouse and kept less than a week ago after a long discussion of the sources. Most recently there has been what can only be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation by Prebenlarsen on the talk page that a "group of journalists" are looking into the article. This user says they are not connected with the company but it is the only article they have ever edited. It was me that expanded the list of awards as the original article, which I did not create, lacked balance and only listed winners who had turned out to be crooks. It was necessary therefore to include a more balanced list of winners as obviously the majority of the companies that buy awards from the firm are not dishonest. The expansion was not promotional. The list also shows the variety of companies and types of awards made and particularly the geographical spread which is worldwide with many in the developing world. The characterisation of the sources given above is misleading, all sources used in the list are RS, most with their own articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This amounts to an attempt to rerun a recently-closed AfD, by a paid editor who would rather have a business directory type article on their company, or none at all. The company's business is charging for awards, and their other activities appear to be subservient to that purpose. The sources used are reliable and support that conclusion. Looking at the article history there appear to be a number of editors who have only contributed to WNM and related articles. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also a WP:FORUMSHOP issue here, as in addition to the AfD, Scottrouse has raised concerns at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_issues_for_entry_at_World_News_Media. Edwardx (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should state for the avoidance of doubt that my involvement is singular in nature (I have of course had conversations at work about it, but all comments I make are very much my own). I cannot rule out other interested parties and cannot speak for them - but I do welcome additional discussion in what has become a dance around semantics for Edwardx and Philafrenzy (hence the shout-out on this noticeboard). The article is a poor one, on the basis that if you take out the critical sources you are left with something that looks promotional, and if you take out the award mentions, you are left with something that is unbalanced in the other direction. Please be aware (again for the avoidance of doubt), that this is not a direct criticism of the editors, but the evolution of the article has occurred in this way. I think that as Philafrenzy has suggested, the editors in question have reacted to undesirable edits to their work (understandable) and have attempted to fix the article following lengthy discussion, by trying to balance their article with award mentions and what limited information they can find that actually addresses the topic. And it hasn't worked. Perhaps that is good enough for a Wikipedia Administrator taking a glance at an AfD discussion, but it's not good enough for me. I'm not sure I'm the best person to have a stab at writing a neutral article given my COI, but equally, I don't think Edwardx or Philafrenzy are qualified either, given their treatment of this article and the articles of several other companies. Edwardx, if this were the place for a business directory type article, then sure, but as it's not, I think I'll go with none at all please. You started out with an unbalanced article, I appreciate Philafrenzy's attempts to help out, but ultimately you have an article which serves your opinion rather than producing a dispassionate Wikipedia entry. I'll forgive you both the wild conjecture in your above statements, I understand you have strong opinions on this. Scottrouse (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=799253473"