Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Per Anders Rudling

Time for Per Anders Rudling to be taken to the WP:RSN believes User:Iryna Harpy.

1. The article Per Anders Rudling has been described as multiple issues: POV and too few opinions.
2. A revert has been made [1]

Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See both the Per Anders Rudling article and discussion on the Per Anders Rudling talk page as to how a relevant historian is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But what about Volhynia? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for this. I just made a few touch-ups here and there because that's how Wikipedia works. See my comment at Talk:Per Anders Rudling. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This conversation provides an overview of Rudling's "objectivity": [2]. He's a credentialed historian but has a POV and has been caught with inaccuracies and perhaps dishonesty. He should be avoided when he makes controversial statements or claims. There are some pro-Ukrainian nationalist historians who should be treated equally carefully.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Yes, I appreciate that you've modified his bio a little, but I am still concerned with the use of Defending history com as a reliable source. It certainly presents as being an interest group WP:INDY. See authors, about us and even their indictment Wikipedia's article about them from when it was purely sourced from their own site information to being reworked with other sources. Their indictment of Timothy Snyder is a thinly veiled attack on his works and him, as a person.

In other words, while you've toned down the language to an extent on the Per Anders Rudling article, considering that the "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism" section is based on information paraphrased from the Defending history page, I don't even see the section name as actually being relevant to the information it carries. Members of Canadian-Ukrainian community groups objecting to Rudling's public announcement infers (very, very strongly) that they are automatically "Nationalists" per Defending history's hysterical definition of 'nationalism', reflecting in that section as WP:LABEL. If Defending history org can be considered to be a WP:RS (which I don't believe to be the case), it should only be used with "according to" prefacing the opinion in the body of the article, not hidden in a footnote as has been done. Anything less can only be understood as being extremely misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that at least one community group isn't nationalistic, which one?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Poeticbent has already addressed that issue in modifications to the article. The remaining issue is that of Defending history com (represented by the The Seventy Years Declaration article in Wikipedia) as a reliable source from which to base the major portion of an article (being the Per Anders Rudling biography) without questions of neutrality or a highly problematic imbalance in the content being raised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I see how Rudling is Swedish, but how is he "Swedish-American"? --Hegvald (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as to where that came from, nor can I see any sources for it. I can see that he's was educated predominantly in Sweden and has credentials from Canada and the US (although that doesn't actually even mean that he's had to spend any time there as primary postgrad supervisors aren't even necessarily in the same country as the candidate). Being published by the University of Pittsburgh means nothing as it's simply a matter of having an honorary position for the research quantum - a byline. Cheers for pointing that out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he does have dual citizenship, Hegvald. Poeticbent has pointed it out as being on his CV: Citizenship - Sweden/ USA.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

" has been caught with inaccuracies" by whom? I think he should be criticized by historians, not only Wikipedia editors with special POV And article mentions "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." So, you have to deal with all these researchers to prove Rudling POV. Cathry (talk)01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

His own words are contradictory:

Here: [3], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."

• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [4] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities. By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.

• The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. Himmler's involvement with the Division was almost nil. He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war. Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.

Rudling: "In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."

• This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias. Rudling just gives the ceiling figure, demonstrating that he is biased.Faustian (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read this, but you tell your own conclusions, do you find same in academical works? Cathry (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cathry, have you actually bothered to read the entire discussion so far, or have you just not understood it? You've just re-quoted an article from a site being discussed as being unreliable. "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." is from that very site: Defending history com. In other words, you are presenting Rudling as being 'right' according to the interpretation of a spurious site. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "spurious"? Well. this is ok site? http://hnn.us/article/155618 And here (http://www.academia.edu/2763263/_The_Honor_They_So_Clearly_Deserve_Legitimizing_the_Waffen-SS_Galizien_The_Journal_of_Slavic_Military_Studies_26_1_2013_114-137) Rudling also mentions Tarik Cyril Amar, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, JaredMcBride, Andreas Umland, who co-work with him. Cathry (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point being? Has anyone contested that he is an academic whose area is Eastern European history? You're presenting an article written by Rudling and an Assistant Professor Amar discussing historical questions in relation to current affairs in Ukraine, plus another demonstrating that he has been published. How does that attest to his reliability when he holds extreme views you consider appropriate to the article on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (and Romanovsky doesn't show up on the map of historians of any repute other than through Rudling's citations)? Look up any contemporary historian on the hnn.us site. In fact, you'll find articles citing Professor Peter J. Potichnyj. History News Network is essentially a mirror site pulling in articles surrounding the discussion of history, and has no POV as to whether the historian is credible, extremist or fringe. Faustian has provided reasons why, per WP:COMMONSENSE, the use of material from some scholars should be treated with caution. You've merely confirmed that Rudling and Romanovsky exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He is academic historian http://search.lu.se/search/lunduniversity/?q=Rudling%2C+Per+Anders&i=en Why do you think his views are extreme? Faustian has provided reasons based on his own original research, I asked him to give similar reasons frome reliable sources. At example he says that 100 000 it is not correct number of deaths, but Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia page says that other historians also speak about this number ( John-Paul Himka), and extreme number is up to 300 000. Daniel Romanovsky is cited by different authors. Cathry (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you citing another Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is amusing Faustian cites the same article Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of a source that states two different things, particularly about a serious charge such as participation in the Holocaust. Also, I did not claim that 100,000 was not the correct number of deaths at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider (300,000 is not considered to be a legitimate figure by scholars, it's false, like 10 million victims of Holodomor). By listing only the absolute upper limit as a fact, rather than providing a range that scholars claim is between 60,000 and 100,000, Rudling demonstrates bias.Faustian (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And a further note: the open letter did not support Rudling's specific scholarship: [5] but rather his right to engage in scholarship and his criticism of some Ukrainian nationalist "scholar": "We, the undersigned, declare our solidarity with Dr. Rudling. We find his criticism plausible and extremely valuable. We also endorse his call for rethinking some aspects of the field of Ukrainian studies. We reject entirely any attempt to denounce Dr. Rudling, to exert pressure on him, and to obfuscate the issue by presenting Mr. Zabily and the organizers of his tour as victims."Faustian (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it. " rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider" reliable source, where is such conclusion? Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

""I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it." See earlier in this section:

• Here: [6], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes: "Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."

• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [7] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities. By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.

Actual numbers of victims are of Volhynia massacre are here: [8]. While wikipedia articles alone are not a good reliable source, the figures in this section have references to reliable sources. Note that 100,000 is the ceiling figure among the reliable sources. By only including the ceiling figure within the range, and claiming it to be a fact, Rudling is demonstrating bias.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1)- John P. Himka: 100,000. 2) I think there not all reliable sources listed in wiki-article 3) It was debates, not work 4) 100 000 here and here

5) Dachau "The units were trained in facilities linked to concentration camps" "Veryha recalls how the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to remove their hats for the Ukrainian SS recruits.5" "It would not have been unusual for Waffen-SS recruits to have helped with guarding or being trained in prisoner escort in the camps.5" from his work ‘They Defended Ukraine’: The 14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS(Galizische Nr. Cathry (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You should have read the footnote, pg. 342: [9] "Veryha, Pid krylami, 27. There was a network of camps at Dachau, known as the Kauferingconcentration camps. Hannah Arendt writes that Eichmann in 1933 attended an SS camp in Dachau‘which had nothing to do with the concentration camp there.’ Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Revised and Enlarged Edition, New York: Penguin Books, 1994, p. 34. While Veryha’s 2007 reminiscences do not specify the details of which of the subsidiary camps the training took place, they demonstrate that, at the very least, he was aware of the concentration camp system and the nature of the National Socialist system."

So in an interview Rudling states they trained in the vicinity of the concentration camp, in the article he states that they trained in part in a subsidiary camp, not concentration camp (see footnote, which contradicts his words in the body of the text), and elsewhere he claims that they worked in the concentration camp. The books you listed with 100,000 weren't by specialists in the massacres, such as Motyka (who gives a range of 80,000-100,000).Faustian (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rudling article linked above includes the following falsehood: "ts previous incarnation, the Nachtigall battalion, took part in mass shootings of Jews in the summer of 1941." Although the OUN did slaughter Jews, Nachtigall did not - as noted by scholar John-Paul Himka: [10]. and here: [11] In February 2008 the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) revealed documentation that demonstrated clearly that the KGB had “cooked” the evidence against Nachtigall."

So now we have clear evidence of Rudling repeating a Soviet fabrication. He is biased.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Himka thinks he can believe SBU, maybe Rudling do not believe in their "evidence". And I think that paper about Nachtigall can be fake, as it was published when Shuhevich was claimed as hero, And there was not only Lvov massacre, " It is true that Nachtigall executed Jews on its subsequent march to Vinnytsia,8" Himka. The Lviv Pogrom of 1941: The Germans, UkrainianNationalists, and the Carnival Crowd https://www.academia.edu/1314919/The_Lviv_Pogrom_of_1941_The_Germans_Ukrainian_Nationalists_and_the_Carnival_Crowd So, now we see that you should be careful in your claims Cathry (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um..Himka did not only state that SBU debunked the lie. He stated ""n 1959-60 the Soviets tried to embarrass the Adenauer government in West Germany by linking one of its ministers, Theodor Oberländer, with the Lviv pogrom. Oberländer was the German liaison to the nationalist battalion Nachtigall that fought along with the Wehrmacht. The Soviets produced “evidence” that it was Nachtigall that perpetrated the atrocities in Lviv in early July 1941. That something was fishy here should have been apparent from the start. Competent people who made it their business to know about the Lviv pogrom in the immediate aftermath of the war and who were aware of Nachtigall’s presence in the city at the time did not link the pogrom with Nachtigall. Particularly I have in mind the Jewish historian Philip Friedman and the Polish chronicler Tadeusz Zaderecki. A preponderance of evidence pointed to a Soviet fabrication."

"Executed Jews" is not the same as "mass shootings." The mass shootings were conducted by OUN militias not Nachtigall in Lviv. When Rudling mentioned mass shootings he was referring to mass shootings, and Nachtigal's ties to those was a Soviet fabrication.Faustian (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vinnytsia is not Lvov, i shall try to find about this episode. Cathry (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i found it, it is from fighter memoirs ЦДАВОВ. Ф. 3833. Оп. 1. Д. 57. Л. 17; Патриляк I.K. Легiони Украiнських Нацiоналiстiв. С. 26. "But there is compelling evidence of the participation of soldiers "Nachtigal" in the extermination of Jews in Vinnitsa region. In the diary of a soldier reconnaissance company "Nachtigal" we find the following entry: "During our trek, we saw firsthand the victims of Jewish-Bolshevik terror, so this kind of sealed our hatred of the Jews, that in two villages, we have done some shooting all counterclaims Jews. I remember one episode. During our transition to one of the villages we see a lot of people wandering around. To answer the questions that the Jews threaten them and they are afraid to sleep in the huts. Because of this, we all met there they shot the Jews. " cited here http://scepsis.net/library/id_2175.html#a34 Cathry (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cathry: You're citing an article by Dyukov? Precisely how far do you intend to go in cherry picking in order to get POV content included in an article? Becoming an autodidact by sourcing blogs and zines dedicated to revisionism certainly reflects on where you've gleaned your knowledge and formed your opinions. It most certainly refutes your ability to approach the subject matter without treating it as a soapbox. Seriously, you're expecting that a biased blogger lacking in academic credentials should be considered a scholarly source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyukov is citing book by academic historian Патриляк I.K. I know that academic historian Dyukov is hardly criticised by pro-OUN historians) You have strange opinion about revisionism, as far as I know, revisionism - it is when someone rejects crimes of nazi. Cathry (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to convey. Dyukov is cited by Патриляк, or he cites Патриляк? Either way, all it's established is that he's been cited by some scholars who have a particular and extremist opinion of the OUN. Your use of language appears biased in itself: pro-OUN? What's the other side: anti-OUN? I haven't encountered any such expressions before. Are you, therefore, asserting that Faustian and I are somehow promoting a 'pro-OUN' agenda, or are you confusing the use of politically motivated nationalism as per Right Sector with the historical entity known as the UIA? As for revisionism: you appear to have a very, very limited understanding of its multitude of meanings and the question of whose nation-building objectives it serves (the Soviet narrative of 'Benderivtsi' still being touted now, or Polish national narratives)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You demonstrate rather corrupt logic. If Hitler used multiplication table, multiplication table is not known only as "something, that was used by Hitler". And Dyukov has mainstream opinion of the OUN. Еxcept historians, I met exactly the same stories about Bandera units in the memoirs of Canadian-Ukrainian writer Podworniak http://www.antiqbook.com/books/bookinfo.phtml?o=intern&bnr=12889 Cathry (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is Podworniak? All I've found on him is an obituary "Michael Podworniak, author, editor of Baptist publications". Author of what, and what are his qualifications in the field? This is the only biography I've found, and it doesn't suggest any credentials other than being a theologian (although it doesn't indicate that he actually completed a degree at the seminary he was enrolled in. I'm sorry, but your English is weak and I find it difficult to comprehend what it even is that you're trying to convey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Podworniak had not qulification, Himka, Patrylyak, etc. have. It is one example about real person who wrote his memoirs from Canada and had nothing with "Soviet propaganda"Cathry (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this really feels like talking to a brick wall. You brought Podworniak up. To what end? "Himka, Patrylyak, etc." are not being discussed: the use of Rudling is. Again, I'm sorry but I don't think your English is good enough to engage in a discussion here as you are unable to express your arguments properly. There's no point in prolonging this any more. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org. Again

Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If so, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been argued that Westeros.org meets the WP:SPS criteria for an expert source. About Us. Its authors, Antonsson and Garcia, have co-authored a book on the tv show's source material with series creator George Martin [12][13]. They have produced articles about the series for MTV Geek, Tor, and Suvudu. Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman referred to Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource." [14] Garcia responded to a request for information[15]. He said that he and Antonsson have worked as "informal and unofficial" consultants on the show but that they are not employees of HBO. Further details upon request.

This page from Westeros.org is being used to support this text in the Wikipedia article Oathkeeper. Garcia confirmed that he and Antonsson wrote that page themselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: Jack Sebastian and Darkfrog24 are two participants in a multi-editor content dispute. Consensus was reached to seek outside input on the RS noticeboard.

I'd point out that this material exists solely via user-created sources. No single reliable source has noted all of the aforementioned links to the book except in passing. This also highlights the concern that the material is but crufty details. I am sure that the good folks at the fan forums for Harry Potter, Star Wars' Expanded Universe and the Doctor Who series are of use to the writers/directors/producers of those series, but it is the latter that creates the material. We don't start out with a preferred phrasing and spend months trying to find barely adequate sources to protect them - that's backwards. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Off the top of my head, I've seen it in 538, Slate, AV Club, i09, and other sources. There's similar content in Spark Notes. It's also in the books itself, which is where I originally found it. That's not backwards.

All GA-rated Game of Thrones articles have single-line chapter lists and they all use phrasing very similar to this. All of them.

Jack, I request that you remove your most recent comment so that newcomers feel more comfortable adding their opinions here. You were the one complaining about walls of text. If you do so, I give permission for you to delete this comment of mine at the same time.

This section needs an unbiased header. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site?" then suggest one in the appropriate thread at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject of Westeros.Org has come up twice before (back in May and again earlier this month). I should know; I've submitted both queries. The title accurately reflects the issue, and I apologize for not previously linking the earlier conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This header is a complaint. It biases newcomers and poisons the well. We want the regulars here to think that this thread is worth their time, and complaining suggests that it is not. If you want this RSN to count we have to do it right. If you don't like "Fan or expert," then we should just delete the "again" and say "Westeros.org" by itself. Doniago would probably appreciate that; he says he likes things concise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:Can you please expound upon that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, i dont know what i was looking at when i wrote that. When I went back to find what had triggered my response all i found were things that lined up with what's outlined in the requirements for using a WP:SPS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, @TheRedPenOfDoom:, are you saying you do think the source meets the SPS criteria or just that you were talking about something else?

Either way, now that you're here, could you guys take a look? WP:SPS is actually the policy in question. Do you think Antonsson and Garcia's other published work qualifies their self-published website as an acceptable expert source? If your concern is a reputation for fact-checking, they did do some fact-checking for the guy who wrote the books. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it this site may be an authority on matters of continuity. However, there are other issues, such as due weight. Fan sites will spend inordinate amounts of time analyzing trivia and other minor details; these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. That issue can be resolved with other forms of dispute resolution, such as the NPOV noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We could certainly deal with those issues if need be, but I'm pretty sure coverage of this particular material in other secondary sources and the treatment of this material in GA-rated articles would address them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm mostly in agreement with NinjaRobotPirate. It is a reliable SPS for issues of continuity, but care must be taken not to confuse coverage by Westeros.org with making a subject notable.--v/r - TP 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So if the text in question were supported by, say, Westeros.org and an article in Slate or AV Club... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The non-Westeros.org sites would be preferred. I'm not sure of the reliability of avclub. Higher quality sources are always preferred above SPS.--v/r - TP 01:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

AV Club was used elsewhere in the article without incident, but there have complaints have been made about it and about Slate in this specific case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club has passed FAC reviews before, though generally for their reviews (see, for instance, the featured X-Files episodes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The complaint that Darkfrog24 alludes to regards the use by Slate, AV Club and another source of a Reddit table that some (unidentifed) fan put together that shows all the chapters per episode. The sources were not making the statements; they were simply discussing the phenomenae of how involved in the series that fans were. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[This issue is rebutted and discussed further in the sub-section below the break. Please post comments on that issue there and comments on Westeros.org in the main section. Thank you.]

break

(edit conflict)TParis has noted a point of view that has come up repeatedly in the Oathkeeper discussion (not by me) that, were the information about chapter-to-episode comparisons truly noteworthy, it would be covered by someone outside of a fansite. While there have been sources that comment on a similarity here and there, those sources were not fansites. And they weren't these somewhat crufty lists of synthetic comparisons, either.

The continued request for reliable, secondary and explicit sources from Darkfrog24 was to help her learn that not everything is noteworthy. Four months later, she has not learned this lesson, nor of following a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually is covered at other sites. Please acknowledge that there is a difference between disagreeing with you and "not learning a lesson." It is no more your job to teach me than it is mine to teach you. One of the problems with this content dispute is that you keep expecting me to not only take your word for it but to prefer your opinion to what I can see for myself. But you shouldn't have to take my word for it either. Since you brought it up, here is a list of people who thought chapter information was important enough to cover:

• AV Club
• Slate (they actually thought it was important enough to write up twice; here's the older one)
• i09 (also twice; one of these is a chart and one is not)
• Forbes (partial, Breaker of Chains)
• FiveThirtyEight (partial Oathkeeper specifically, concept generally)
• the reviewers of every GA-rated article about a Game of Thrones episode: Baelor ([16]) ([17]) Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things ([18][Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)] ([19] [20]) A Golden Crown ([21]) The Kingsroad ([22]) Lord_Snow#Writing ([23]) The Pointy End ([24]) Winter Is Coming ([25]) The Wolf and the Lion ([26]) ([27]) You Win or You Die [28]) (Links in parentheses are the versions at the time of GA listing and reassessment, if any; chapter information was always retained.)
• Just found this other site, PandaWhale, while I was looking up the Slate link. Never seen it before, but it seems to be the older version [29].

RSN regulars—if you feel this is too off-topic, I'll remove it upon request. But the claim that this material isn't covered elsewhere is not valid. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll point out the problems that others (this isn't about me) found with each of the listed links, not the least of which is that one or two of the sources do in fact note a chapter connection to an episode. That was in fact added to the article in prose form. That said, I'll avoid the wall of text eventuality that inevitably occurs in any conversation where Darkfrog24 is a participant, unless asked by someone else here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is my take on this: Westeros.org is a fansite, run by two people who sometimes (and quite unofficially) act as helpers in terms of fact-checking for the writers of the series. This is an SPS. Overlooking for a moment that fansites are very often rife with speculation and outright false wish fulfillment, we are overlooking the main point that fansites contain crufty information that wouldn't be considered noteworthy to anyone who isn't a fan. Our readers cannot be assumed to be huge fans, and those of them that actually are know where to go to get that sort of information. We do not write for them; we write for the average reader.

Sidestepping the forum-shopping, my other problem with this effort by the only other user truly interested in adding this information is that he is working the process backwards. She saw the chapter-to-episode connection early on, and was reverted when she sought to add it. She has been looking for references to cite it ever since. Most of these sources are unsatisfactory according to our own policies and guidelines. My frustration with this is that a fairly solid consensus of users do not think this material is important enough to include. The reasoning behind this is that most of the references in support of this information are from forum sites, or fanclubs, or blog posts from reviewers who wouldn't pass the sniff test for fandom or fakery. I am frustrated with Darkfrog's continued shouting that the consensus is wrong, and she is right - pretty much counter to WP:CONSENSUS. Towards that end, she has spread her concerns far and wide. She didn't get approval through DRN. She didn't get approval through not one but two RfCs. She inundates noticeboards like this with walls of text talking about how horrible everyone is for not appreciating her efforts. So yeah, I find Darkfrog24 a net negative to the Project, and I am not alone in that assessment - at least three others have all but given up on working GoT articles because of her insistence that we are all stupid for not agreeing with her.

At least one of the owners of Westeros.org are maybe noteworthy when they are cited outside of Westeros.org. But citing them within their personal blogsite for factual information is like deciding our content based on Twitter feeds. It is contrary to our role as an encyclopedia to pander to fansites. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the refs provided? We should take a closer look at those, too:

• AV Club, Slate and Panda all use the same Reddit user-created table to point out how fans are deeply involved in the series. The references do not represent the content.
• io9 has some pretty useful content in their main area, despite the previous concerns raised in RSN archives about their parent company, Gawker Media. However, the noted reference comes from their forum, called Observation Deck.
• Forbes has a great write-up about another episode, "Breaker of Chains". The partial information about a chapter fromt he book used was incorporated into the article. I know, because I am the one who did it. There is no chapter listing there, and no reference to Westeros.org or "Oathkeeper" at all.
• FiveThirtyEight's mention of a single chapter usage in the episode was incorporated into the article, again by myself, even though I missed it when someone else introduced it.
• The GA articles which contained information from Westeros.org must have slipped through the cracks during the nomination process, as they fail WP:GACR, most notably, the refernce information (several of the references in these articles do not reflect the content they are citing). But then, they are GA, not FA. I am somewhat convinced that a fansite reference wouldn't survive the FA nomination process -and that's why we edit, right? To make the best, most neutral articles we can. Usiong a fansite isn't neutral; its pandering. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Post to which Jack is responding below was moved due to edit conflict; see below.]

Err, are you equating Stephen Hawking talking about rock hard science with the whimsical Sherlcoking of a fansite owner? Really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if you don't want "walls of text about how horrible people are" then stop writing them. You don't want long responses to accusations? Stop making accusations. Don't attack me and then complain when I defend myself. I'm also not sure that this is the right place for you to be making these claims. If you agree to delete this post you've just made, then I give permission for you to delete my response here at the same time.

It's possible that not everything on Westeros.org is suitable for inclusion here, but this content is. Reasons above in my last post.

I did start from a source—the book. Just because I started from a source that Jack doesn't like doesn't mean I'm doing anything backwards.

The consensus on talk:Oathkeeper is not that the content is "not important enough" to include but that more sources are required. So I've been finding more sources. I have also repeatedly asked other participants if they have any objections to this material other than sourcing. Verbatim upon request, but I keep getting "No" from them, including from Jack. Jack, it's one thing if you're changing your mind about why you don't like this content, but do not claim that this has been your position all along. Or you can admit that you lied to me when I asked you about your objections and apologize for wasting our time by keeping this dispute going in the wrong direction. Don't complain that I keep finding new sources when you repeatedly demanded that I do so.

Most of the eight or so sources I've provided are from news outlets. Two, including Westeros.org, were from fansites.

I have never called you or anyone in this dispute stupid. I have never implied that you were stupid. I haven't called your edits or reasoning stupid. The harshest term I had for DQ or Doniago is "guys who don't agree with me."

Back to Westeros.org: That's not how WP:SPS works, Jack. Say Stephen Hawking writes his own website about physics. Because Stephen Hawking is an established expert who's been published elsewhere, the things that he says about physics on that web site are usable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club, Slate, and i09 all cite the content; they all thought chapters were important enough to list ant talk about. Ergo, it is important enough for Wikipedia to talk about.
• Forbes and FiveThirtyEight also thought that chapters were important enough to name and talk about.
• "GA reviewers must have made a mistake" is an assumption. There are three possibilities: 1) GA reviewers saw this content, thought it was appropriate and deliberately kept it. 2) GA reviewers would have deleted it if they'd noticed it but missed it (which indicates that it's at least not taking up inordinate space). 3) GA reviewers did not care about this content one way or the other. This isn't a huge unsolvable mystery: If this is really an issue, we can just ask them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Response to Jack's post; see above] Elio Garcia is no Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman, but Game of Thrones isn't theoretical physics or rocket science. (Similarly, I wouldn't call Feynman an expert on GoT, not unless those zombies are way more awesome than I thought!) If you would like a non-hypothetical example, the blog Language Log gets cited a lot on Wikipedia. Because its authors have PhDs in linguistics and have been published in the journals of their field, their blog posts are also usable on Wikipedia. The other publications (linguistics journals; Garcia and Antonsson's books and articles) prove that they are experts, so what they produce is expert content. In that case, "the field" is publications that talk about linguistics. In this case "the field" is publications that talk about Game of Thrones. Have Antonsson and Garcia produced third-party content that is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? Yes, their book and their outside articles. So their self-published content is acceptable too. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can always ask ...well I guess that's what we're doing now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack I have a request. I've separated our back-and-forth into a subsection. I think that the two of us should keep it in here (or even delete all this entirely) so that new people will not be discouraged from adding their input above. Considering that both respondents so far have said that Westeros.org is reliable, this may be in your interest. Repeat: Jack, if you see fit to delete this whole sub-section, you have my permission.

If you would prefer that the subsection have a different header, feel free to suggest one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just realized a collapse might be appropriate here. Anyone who doesn't like that has my permission to revert. If anyone wants their digression posts to be more visible, put them below the bottom of the collapse, and move the bottom tag after say 24 hours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, replacing it with an 'arbitrary break' subsection. It has the virtue of concealing no one's post, but allowing it to be cordoned off if others don't want to see it.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I still prefer the collapse and reference to digression. The break isn't arbitrary, after all. I feel this ranty back-and-forth we've got going here may be discouraging new participants from taking this matter seriously. I don't consider these matters we're discussing trivial (in case that's not clear from all the attention I've paid them here and elsewhere), I don't feel this is the place for them. The instructions up top say not to talk about issues other than reliability here. Besides, most of this stuff is covered in your second post and mine at the beginning of this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that you don't have to respond with a wall of text. Physician, heal thyself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you post a long rant accusing me of misconduct, then yes, I have to respond. You don't have to post long rants accusing me of misconduct.

Similar note: Since you clearly don't have a problem with changing headers that other people wrote, please remove the biased "Again" from the head of this filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a post of mine there, Jack, probably by accident.

There. I hope we can both agree that "break" is both neutral and implies nothing false. I chose this site by topic but also because it gave you both the last word one one thread and the first in the next. Like I said, I'm trying to keep things fair. If you'd prefer it somewhere else, then where? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave it in keeping how other people use breaks. Arbitrary in this instance doesn't refer to being argumentative, but instead, without any real reason. Break by itself is insufficient.

And you don't need to "keep" things fair, Darkfrog24. They are fair. Now, lets see if some of this newfound collaborative spirit carries into someplace else. Are yoiu prepared to stop arguing against consensus and recognize the fact that the material doesn't appear to be notable enough to list in the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I just realized that there is a better place to discuss the wording of this thread: The talk page. Kindly join me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: In a nutshell

Apart from the personality hurdles that often arise when two or more editors differ in opinion, the problems I see with considering Westeros.org a usable source are as follows:

1. It is a theme park slippery slide: allowing content from largely user-created sources sets us up for wide-spread problems in both the short- and long-term. While one of the owners of the website has in fact written a book on GRRM's world, we have no proof (apart from the one person favoring it) that it is he who is writing the articles in Westeros.org that some are seeking to draw references from. How about when further comparisons come up between GoT and Star Wars? How bout who the different characters should have been cast with? Who should end up with who at the end? Where do we draw the line?
2. It is also a question of noteworthiness: one of the problems with starting out with a statement that you desperately want to have in the article is finding a source for it (which is actually backwards). When that source largely does not exist in any other source but fancruft, that should be a large-type warning sign that your information isn't considered noteworthy.
3. WP:IAR is not a suicide pact: Just because the fansite has been used in a small number of GA articles doesn't mean that those articles should have that info in there. Looking at the information that was sourced to Westeros.org indicates the large amount of cruft and relatively useless information that was crammed in for no other purpose than to pad the article. I suspect that they won't make it through FA candidacy with them there. Ignoring or bending our sourcing policy to the breaking point is counterproductive.
4. Most of this problem could be resolved with an external link: The strongest advocate for inclusion of fansite info claims that the reader might want to know this information. If this is truly the case, then we provide a link to Westeros.org where the ep is crufted about in detail and be done with it. If the reader is indeed looking for that fine level of detail, it is our responsibility to point them in the right direction. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan-source warehouse.

I wanted to take a moment to apologize for the strongly negative reaction I presented last week here. While I personally feel that the advocate for this information has been gaming the system for four months to get what she wants, it isn't my place to point it out. If you can't or won't see the truth of it, there is little I can do about it. In my defense, I am one of the few remaining editors (there used to be at least 8 of us) who endured for four months this editor ignoring consensus, offering fan forum blogs or fake sources. I watch her schmoozing it up with key editors and am frustrated that you can't see the game she is running on you. That is as much a part of the problem as the source being provided, but I should have presented it in a calmer manner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years, usually very stably. If there were a slippery slope, we would have seen some slipping by now.
2. Noteworthiness is addressed by the treatment of this material in other reliable sources such as Slate, AV Club, and Forbes. Its presence in every other GA-rated article on this subject suggests a wider Wikipedia consensus for its inclusion.
3. IAR is not in play, nor has anyone advocated for its use. Please do not argue matters that are not in dispute as if they were.
4. Those actions are not mutually exclusive. We could provide the information and an external link. While a single sentence listing relevant chapters is sufficiently important for inclusion on Wikipedia, Westeros.org also contains a great deal of information on the subject that may also be of interest to readers but does not meet that threshold.

You keep saying, "Find more sources." I find more sources. If that's gaming the system, everyone should play.

Please check your numbers before you post, Jack. It's advocateS, plural. This dispute has five longstanding participants, three against inclusion and two for inclusion, not eight against one.

I'm pretty sure the bot archives discussions based on the date of the last post, so posting here has artificially prolonged the life of this thread. I will support deletion of this post of mine if you delete that post of yours at the same time.

Please make no further accusations against me here. If you truly believe that any of this holds water, then go through proper channels. I have many complaints about your conduct as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In favor of using the statements (and therefore of using references that support them): DonQuixote, Donlago, Balaenoptera musculus, FormerIP, Scoobydunk, NinjaRobotPirate, TAnthony, TParis, Crisco 1492, Tutelary and myself.

In favor of using the statements: Diego and Darkfrog24.

As has been said before, Darkfrog24 did indeed keep bringing sources: fanblogs, forum reviews and even one faked source. There was one or two good sources, and they were incorporated into the article. When I suggest that you are gaming the system, I am stating that running to RSN, DRN or ANI every time your latest blog source isn't allowed seems designed to wear down the dissent to the content you have been trying to add for four months.

And its working. Of the five original active editors in the article, only three remain (Donlago, Darkfrog24 and myself); the rest chased away by your constant bickering and text walls and forum-shopping. I think the only reason I remain is that by allowing a fansite to be given equal footing with the sorts of sources we normally allow, we are allowing the trivial to replace the substantive. I think this is important.

That said, I would support an external link to Westeros.org, for those readers who want to delve more into what fans are saying. I do not support using it as a source for claims made within the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not bring in a fake source. I brought in a source that you didn't like. I also brought in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, Slate, AV Club, i09 (two from i09, actually) and others, and yes, one of them was a blog, which I posted here for evaluation.

"Running to RSN" was Doniago's idea. You also insisted on it. You also posted several filings about sources here on your own.

Please do not misprepresent things. Scooby and TAnthony and most of the others were not weighing in on whether the article should include the disputed text at all, only on whether a specific source to do so (in which case leaving out people like InedibleHulk and others who supported inclusion is misleading). You have similarly misrepresented other people's positions. If you want to know what these people think, go and ask them.

As for ANI, I reported you exactly once for repeatedly referring to my contributions as feces after you'd been asked to stop twice and for making misleading edits on GA-rated articles about the use of Westeros.org.

This thread has gotten off-topic. If you have anything else to say that is not about the reliability or unreliability Westeros.org, please post it somewhere else, like the Oathkeeper talk page, my talk page, or the talk page of this noticeboard. If you are serious in your belief that I have engaged in tendentious editing, then go through proper channels. Accusations about me do not belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

They do if you are gaming the system. Now, you have a choice: you can throw yet another wall of text of slightly reworded, identical text of how you are bringing in all these sources which we unfairly consider to be useless, or you can be silent, and trust the others here to make a solid evaluation, or post another wall of text-y drama. I personally do not believe you can stop yourself, but we shall see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the bickering is distracting, but it would be nice to get some informed, neutral inoput on this matter. One of the reasons that two users are so vocal in their opinions is that so very few others have offered their input. Please help out a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

5 points:

• I am participating in this thread in the desperate hope that one or both of you will return the favor and dig into my own thread below about the Lucy Burns Institute, which also has been languishing. Interestingly, even though they're in completely different article spaces, there's some overlap on the RS issues.
• A major reason this thread hasn't received more attention from uninvolved editors is that both of your posts are too long. Please keep them short and confined to the subject of the discussion.
• On the reliability of Westeros.org, I agree with TRPoD and NRP that Westeros.org is, per the "expert" exception to WP:SPS, a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series. I also agree that, as a fansite, it's not an independent source and is therefore not a reliable source for (1) anything appearing to promote the series, or for (2) determining the notability of the article subject. In other words, Westeros should be treated as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Following from this:
• Any material appearing in Westeros.org that also appears in an independent reliable source (such as Slate), should be sourced to the independent source, not to Westeros.org.
• Material that only appears in Westeros.org may be included and sourced to Westeros.org as long as (1) it appears to be noteworthy and does not violate WP:BALASPS and (2) the article as a whole does not rely primarily on any combination of Westeros.org, other fansites, and/or other ABOUTSELF sources.

I hope this helps, now please, if you will, consider looking at my thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, DrFleischman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Other viewpoints? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Genetics: Are these 3 sources reliable?

Cany I use these sources at Wikipedia in genetic parts?

• I. A. Zhakarov, "Central Asian origin of ancestors of the first Americans." 2003. pp. 139-144. In: Zhamilya kova, Assel Berdigulova: Ornament as a Universal Language of Peace (Basee on Comparative Analysis of Cultures of proto-Turkic Peoples and Indian Tribes of North America)." In: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 6. Okt. 2012. pp.7-9.
• A. F. Nazarova, "Biological, archeological and cultural evidence of Paleo-Asiatic origin of northern Mongoloid, Caucasoid and American Indians", Academy Trinitarizm, Moscow, No. 77-6567, publ.14446, 2007.
• V.V. Pitulko, P.A Nikolsky, E.Yu. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E.Yu. Pavlova, and M.A. Anisimov, "The Yana RHS Site: Humans in the Arctic Before the Last Glacial Maximum", Science, 2 January 2004, Vol. 303, #5654, pp. 52-56.

--82.113.99.169 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Science is the second most reputable scientific publication in the world. That's a definite RS on your third.

The other two look all right to me. However, I've never heard of them before. There are publish-for-pay "journals" out there that deliberately mimic the look and feel of journals with true reputations. It shouldn't be too hard to check. The key would be whether and how often they're cited in other journals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to follow the instructions that appear whenever you add or edit a section on this noticeboard. There are three parts which should appear in any request: 1) the identity of the source; 2) the article where you wish to use it; and 3) the exact statements or content you wish to add to the Wikipedia article. You've nailed part 1, you've given a vague wave at part 2, and you've completely omitted part 3.

No source is absolutely, inherently, or intrinsically "reliable" or "unreliable"; the reliability of a source depends on the way in which one intends to use it. Could you give examples of the articles where you would like to use these sources, and the specific text you would like to support with them? Please also provide any information about prior talk page discussions, if you are aware of any, relating to these sources or their usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Further, I've just quickly skimmed the Science paper. It doesn't seem to directly address any specific points regarding genetics, so I'm now quite baffled as to how you would intend to use it in a genetics article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One is only in Russian, I don't see how the general editor could sign off on it by looks alone. The "Boldykova" paper is written by a pre-PhD student of art who is making a connection between people of 10,000 years ago on the basis that their current descendants both like "geometric patterns". This doesn't look that promising.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The art student one has nothing to do with genetics and shouldn't be used for any "genetics" material; it's speculation about ornamentation in art.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide the information TenOfAllTrades, otherwise it becomes a free-wheeling discussion. Also, are you using them as primary or secondary sources or sources for facts or opinions? TFD (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(TenOfAllTrades already asked this of the editor who first posted.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A. F. Nazarova, "Biological, archeological and cultural evidence of Paleo-Asiatic origin of northern Mongoloid, Caucasoid and American Indians", Academy Trinitarizm, Moscow, No. 77-6567, publ.14446, 2007. Trinitarizm Academy is a group of the followers of a peculiar esoteric concept named "Trinitarizm". Scientific theories published by this entity may be (and in my humble opinion are likely to be) fringe ones. In Russian Wikipedia Trinitarizm Academy is cited in the text of rule about Reliable sources as an example of a source with false signs of reliability. Эйхер (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku, other gaming news sites

Due to recent controversies (GamerGate look it up), it is felt that all gaming press websites should no longer be considered WP:RS Reasons:Proof (non RS) If you think the source is not reliable enough, the reliable sources usually used are biased. Retartist (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A Google search yields only a company called GamersGate. You might want to be more specific.

If you're referring to the event in which one journalist allegedly slept with his subordinate and then she falsified a review or whatever it was, then no I don't think that two people's conduct, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the events, justifies the automatic rejection of an entire class of sources. If you are suggesting that gaming press websites be reevaluted on their own merits, then please list your specific reasons. If the falsification of reviews is a systemic problem in gamer press websites, then that would be another matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What this is is evidence of a systematic problem in gamer press websites where they break journalism ethics (accepting money, close relations with subjects etc.) and also suppress criticism. They also harass and insult people who have differing opinions who in this case seems to be their usual audience. summary of what is going on with links

The Jayson Blair scandal did not make the NYT non-reliable, and this scandal does not make Kotaku non-reliable. Unfortunately for all of us, the arbiters of taste still regard them as a leading source of information about games. Individual gamers may feel differently. Shii (tock) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. One manufactured controversy isn't going to destroy the entirety of gaming journalism. I don't cite Gawker properties, as I consider them to be clickbait nonsense. You can do the same and refuse to cite souces that you find to be substandard. 90% of everything is crap, and tech journalism is no different. Sift through the worthless, biased, and obvious shill articles to find what's useful. It helps to look for reviewers who do not accept advertising or keep reviewed products, but that's pretty rare in tech journalism, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, due to the fact all the gaming press websites have launched about the same story, completely one-sided, for Gamergate EVERY source should be met with scrutiny. It's an one-sided story being told, one where also a lot is missing that has turned up in blogs etc but for some reason isn't being picked up by 'regular' reporters while the one-sided story is, either out of incompetence or malice. I wonder what happened with 'checking the story' - because hearing the other side of the story is completely absent so far, and the articles themselves are hating and inflammatory. MicBenSte (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity sources independent of the Lucy Burns Institute?

1. Source. Palmer, Kevin (2-1-2013). "Local Ballot Initiatives: Learn How To Promote Democracy In Your Community". Watchdog Wire. Retrieved 11 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Article. Lucy Burns Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Content. "LBI published a guide called Local Ballot Initiatives: How Citizens Change Laws with Clipboards, Conversations, and Campaigns, in November 2012. The booklet provides an overview of how individual citizens can use the initiative process at the local level."

The talk page debate was about whether the source has a conflict of interest and should therefore be treated as questionable. To aid in this discussion, consider the following evidence gathered at the article talk page. It is also worth mentioning that the source uses strongly promotional language. Just read the last 2-3 paragraphs. IMO this source is more or less a press release masquerading as legitimate journalism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that Watchdog.org is closely affiliated with LBI

click "show" to view evidence ---->

Watchdog.org and LBI were launched by a husband-wife team Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from the Sam Adams Alliance Sam Adams' chairman and CEO was Eric O'Keefe LBI's president and founder is Leslie Graves Graves and O'Keefe are married Watchdog.org and LBI have shared key personnel Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009 Before the change in control Jason Stverak was the Regional Field Director of the Sam Adams Alliance Also in 2009 Stverak became president of the Franklin Center (which runs Watchdog.org) Stverak is also the president of Watchdog.org Watchdog.org and LBI have shared common funding Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009 The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from husband's Sam Adams in 2009 Also in 2009, the Franklin Center paid LBI $43,413 Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center Husband's Sam Adams also funded wife's LBI References

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you wish to make specific claims in articles, find sources making those precise claims, and seek consensus on the appropriate article talk pages for inclusion of such claims. This board is not the place to set forth an extended argument about any topic. Individual articles already include appropriate (apparently) information about any connections with other organizations. From here, it is clear that the publications of each group are independent, and that your apparent cavil would require specific agreement on article talk pages and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I do not "wish to make specific claims in articles" as you suggest. Rather, I'm seeking to establish the unreliability of a specific source listed at the top of my original post. This issue has been discussed at length on the article talk page and no consensus has been reached. RSN would therefore be the appropriate place to go to resolve the dispute, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you will not find this board issuing an "unreliable" label for any organization - especially one routinely cited in major media. [30] states the employment of statehouse journalists by the center. It is regularly cited in the Opinion pages of the NYT. More to the point, this is the first time anyone has questioned it as RS here.

I see no reason to deem LBI as less than RS for material written by identified authors. The theory of "conflict of interest" is interesting but invalid here.

Watchdog Wire is much like "Media Matters for America" - better as a source for its own opinion than for matters of contentious fact. Saying someone published a pamphlet is not exactly a "contentious claim" IMHO.

"Ballotpedia" is a different matter. It is used in many places, but due to its intrinsic nature, I would not use it as a source for any contentious facts about a living person. It is a wiki, and no wikis are "reliable sources."

WP:RS states among non-RS groups: This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

So the reliability has naught to do with anything about parentage of a site, but the nature of the site. Material which is generated by outside users fails, material which is provided by staff of a site may well be RS. All the stuff about sites being connected in some way is actually irrelevant on this noticeboard with regard to deeming a site RS or not RS for a particular claim. Is this expansion clearer?

Checking online sources, I would wager a great deal that the pamphlet exists and was, indeed, published by the LBI. If you consider that particular claim "contentious" I fear I would demur. Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:QS? The conflict of interest issue isn't my "theory," it's actually WP policy. (Even the most otherwise reliable sources have conflicts of interest.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- are you asserting that the claim that the organization published a pamphlet is "contentious"? If not, then WP:QS simply does not apply. Are you asserting that the claim is "extremist" in some way? If not, then your cavil fails. Are you positing that the source is "gossip or rumour"? What "conflict of interest" is there in a statement of fact that an organization published a pamphlet? None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? Per WP:V, questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, and WP:3PARTY#Conflicts of interest suggests that the conflict should be disclosed in our article. Regardless, if the content is both non-contentious and noteworthy then there should be independent sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is Reliable for the (unimaginably bland) factual content presented above. The supposed conflict of interest, isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't what? A conflict of interest? Why not?--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No conflict of interest has been established with the supposed evidence above. The theory of COI proposed does not, in fact, match WP policy even if broadly stretched past its ordinary understanding. The evidence of "shared staff" failed verification. The conflict of interest isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly the source is certainly and painfully obviously RS for the specific content under discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO your comments are uncivil and inflammatory and completely ignore what the WP:QS policy actually says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the line you took as uncivil. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is apparently little disagreement that the actual (modest) content is fine. The discussion is revolving around a meta-narrative or greater idea related to conflict of interest. Is this "SELF PUBLISHED" because of a conflict of interest between spouses. One spouse runs an organization. The other spouse runs an organization which once gave a grant to a third organization that employs a journalist which has written an anodyne piece about the first organization. Is there a conflict of interest that rises to the level of "Self Published" under our policies? Having closely read the policies (and footnotes), I think no. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is a partisan advocacy group, and thus should be used sparingly, if at all, as a source for factual material. Its products may be appropriate if used under the constraints of WP:RSOPINION, to illustrate their ideological take on a subject. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not an advocacy group. It advocates no policies, it lobbies for no legislation, it runs no rallies, it has no conventions or policy meetings, it produces no policy white papers. It is a non-profit journalism organization with a focus on statehouse reporting. It is explicitly non-partisan. It is, no doubt, conservative. That doesn't make it an unreliable source or an advocacy group. From their mission statement: "We conform to the Society of Professional Journalists standards, follow AP style and are not partisan or political " Capitalismojo (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, this is surely a biased source but not an opinion one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, I'm not saying this is an ABOUTSELF source, I'm saying it's a WP:QUESTIONABLE one (same policy, different section) due to the pretty blatant undisclosed conflict of interest. This easily falls under the policy language of WP:QS and the footnote there about what constitutes a COI. (Read the quote from the NY Times about spousal COIs in particular.) And WP:QS applies regardless of the "controversial-ness" of the content. We shouldn't condone this kind of unethical/quasi journalistic behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue then. From a close reading of the research above: The author does not work for the Lucy Burns Institute or the woman who runs it. He is apparently a professional journalist working for an project entity of a non-profit that is not run by the spouse of Lucy Burns Institute. The spouse's connection is apparently that the non-profit organization he (formerly) headed (one that no longer exists) gave a grant of less than $50,000 to the parent organization of the author's entity five years ago. While that grant may or may not have been important five years ago, I see that as tenuous as far as conflict of interest/COI is concerned. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the relationship among the organizations. The $43,413 that the Franklin Center gave LBI was only a small part of it. Before that, the husband, through the Sam Adams Institute, launched the Franklin Center with a much bigger seed grant of an undisclosed amount. So, the author of this source wrote about an organization run by the wife of an individual who was responsible for creating the author's employer. Not surprisingly, the language is pretty plainly promotional. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Insert There is nothing in the evidence above or elsewhere that suggests that there was ever any larger grant beyond the initial $43,000. No sources talk about undisclosed amounts. Given the requirements of 990 reporting, it is expected that the seed grant was just that. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, the author of the source, Kevin Palmer, is not a professional journalist, but is instead on the Franklin Center's public affairs team and is responsible for writing op-eds and press releases. (None of this is apparent from the source article itself, which calls Palmer a "staff writer." An article in the Columbia Journalism Review criticizes the Franklin Center and Palmer's lack of transparency.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And here's an instance of Mr. Palmer (the source's author) explicitly promoting an LBI event to "learn to use LBI’s tools." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC is not independent from GE, that does not mean it is not rs. It does mean we need to address whether its reporting on GE is independent of GE and we have determined it is. So I fail to see the point of this talk thread discussion. TFD (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is exactly what you suggest, to determine whether Franklin Center projects such as Watchdog Wire (the publisher of the source) are independent of LBI. As WP:V indicates, a source with a conflict of interest is generally considered questionable and is only reliable for use as a source of material on itself in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And it seems clear that the claim of conflict of interest has failed verification. The husband is not the writer. The husband is not an employee, officer, or board member of the publishing organization. The husband once ran an organization (now defunct) that once (2009) gave a grant to the organization. So what? The claim of conflict of interest does not meet any reasonable standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The husband provided the seed money to launch the writer's employer. That's a COI all by itself even without the additional connections. An apparent COI (the standard imposed by WP:V) exists whenever someone would be justified in thinking the author's loyalty is likely to be divided. That can't be boiled down into a short list of checkboxes. Not this particular kind of COI, not that particular kind of COI, check, there must not be a COI. That's just not how it works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A small one-time grant from one non-profit to another five years ago (seed money or not) hardly qualifies as a COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get "small?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I would question the definition of 'small'; Swift Boats Vets for Justice started with less than $20k, and they were monsters. I find the interconnectedness of the sources and recipients of their reporting disturbing, to say the least. While - as TheFourDeuces points out - NBC and GE are connected, NBC always notes that when reporting on issues regarding its affiliates/corporate partners. I am not seeing that here, and the failure to list that relationship adds to my concern. Add to that the fact that Columbia Journalism Review criticizes them for their lack of transparency, and you end up with a maze of co-congratulatory and reciprocal support. We are being gaslighted, as prior attempts to subject the wiki have indicated a growing sophistication and complexity of these astroturfing legitimacy exercises. Its' best to simply walk away from them. This isn't a case of Imdb being a user-created source (though Watchdog is precisely that); imdb isn't slanting any given part of a movie. Another source would seem to be in order. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hey, can anyone poke their head into Talk:ContentBridge and help me with looking over the sources proposed by an editor? They've posted some links to places that don't appear to be usable as RS and one only mentions the company very briefly in relation to something else. There are some RS policies thrown around, but I believe that they're misquoting them. I've tried to help explain stuff, only to be told that I am misunderstanding policy, so I have a feeling that any further explanation from me will be met with the idea that it's only me that has an issue with the sources. Anyone want to help out? I'd like to keep the article, if possible but I'd like some help with explaining trivial sources and the like. I'm just concerned since most of the links are to articles that look like they're lifted directly from press releases (Home Media Magazine) or bloggish-feeling sources (Advanced Television, which also looks to be taken from a press release), trivial mentions (Variety), and in places that just feel a little skeevy as far as RS goes (MESA). The last one feels like it'd be primary at best, since it's posted by an organization that is set up to promote businesses like ContentBridge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• So far I'm leaning towards nominating it for AfD myself. I did find this source, which was written by SPIE, but mostly what I'm finding are brief mentions and articles in trade papers that read suspiciously like press releases. There just doesn't seem to really be a lot of coverage out there. I don't want to be the Debbie Downer that nominates the article, but I have a feeling that I probably will have to be that person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yep, MESA is primary since ContentBridge is a member of the alliance. I'm also in the process of opening an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is wordspy.com RS for identifying language as Fedspeak?

This page[31] from Paul McFedries website Wordspy is being used as a source to identify language as Fedspeak. Shouldn't we be using secondary sources rather than this tertiary source? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

"333 Årsboken", assembled by a Scanian foundation in Sweden

Source "333 Årsboken", 15 different authors from the most part of the 20th Century, assembled and published by "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" (a litterar translation for these three words are "the foundation, Scanian, future"), published in 1991, Swedish ISBN 91-7586-384-7. List of authors:

• Lars Larson
• Carl Liljenberg
• Stig Larsén & Ingvar Rydzén
• Uno Röndahl
• K. Arne Blom
• Berndt David Assarsson
• Helmer Lång
• Wilhelm Moberg
• Werner Persson
• Peter Broberg
• Arne Källsbo
• Göran Hansson
• Johs. Christensen
• Victor Andreasen
• Richard Willerslev

Most of the authors has no involvement in SSF, some of them were dead long before this foundation even was started. Most of them are/were Swedish citizens, but some contributers are Danish.

It was published 333 years after the Treaty of Roskilde 1658, in which the Swedish Crown took over the three Danish provinces Scania, Halland and Blekinge aswll as Bornholm island. (Several wars followed and the Danish armies was then supported by Scanians. Some enlisted for the Danish Army, while others , especially in the areas around the former Danish-Swedish border acted alone. They were labeled Snapphanar by the Swedes) While Bornholm returned to Denmark in Treaty of Copenhagen 1660, the three provinces were included in Sweden in 1719 and the last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark was signed in Stockholm 3rd July 1720 it's sometimes labeled as the Third peace treaty of Stockholm.

The different topics of the book cover Scania, Scanian history, the enforced re-nationalisation of the provinces , known as the Swedification. Danish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Danish relationships, both as of 1991 as of times before. The Danish era, the wars, and the Swedish era. Some authors believes in a stronger regionalisation of Sweden, which is a rather centralised nation, and where Stockholm is "the natural core". Many of the authors describe historical events, like Uno Röndahl who contributes with "The bloodbath at Klågerup" in 1811, the last recorded military assult on the Scanian civil population. While f.i. Helmer Lång discusses the Scanian dialect. Primary - The official Swedish interpretation of Scanian history, as "natural borders", "Scania was lucky to became a part of Sweden rather than of Denmark" is challanged, from several perspectives and different times of history. Wilhelm Moberg shows how the history of Scania has been falsified.

Problem is that Peter find this book automatically "inappropriate" also in Wikipedia's Global perspective. And his reason for this is "the publishing SSF are political extremists. However this foundation isn't political. It's not a political party nor a movement, to me it seems most closesly related to a Gentleman's club, unrelated to left or right on the usual political scale. And besides - they have not written its contence. I can only give one concrete example of Peter's criticism, the mentioned article about "Klågerup's Bloodbath", here the author (Uno Röndahl) refers to official Swedish archives, regarding the number of killed civilians and later the public amputations (of right hand) followed by beheading, of convicted rebels at a square in Malmö.

Info about the assembly and publishing "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" and some history of Scania is available in English at

www.scania.org

The SSF foundation surelly cannot compare at the slightest of extremistic organisations or movements. The foundations primary aim seems to be enlightenment of Scanian history, and Scanian dialect.

I realise that the book, when and if, used as source, must be in line with the Wikipedia article topic and common criteria. But this request deals with Peter general ban of this book and his mentioned reasons why.

Possible articles where some of the book's articles and authors can be used - Scania, Skåneland, Scandinavia-history, Sweden-history, Denmark-history, Swedish language, Scanian dialect etc. Boeing720 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have never referred to SSF as "political extremists". Those are Boeing's words, not mine.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not during our debates the last week, but around a year ago or so.Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lemme know when you have the diff to prove it.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have confused You with and other user, but if it was You (perhaps a year ago or so), then I'm not "the detective" to attempt to trace it far back in time. If You honnestly can say, You have never stated SSF to be "political" or "extreme" , then I apologize, and believe You. But why do You then concider "333 Årsboken" and Uno Röndahl to be "unimpropriate as source", for instance about "The Swedish military Bloodbath in Klågeröd 1811" ? You have written "do not use such inappropriate sources as "333 Årsboken", have You not ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You can simply search talkpages if you want to find stuff. I have no reason to call an organization like SSF "extremist", though. They merely have a political agenda (claiming to be unpolitical doesn't make you that) that is clearly separatist. That's problem number one, and here's a clear example of it taken directly from the introduction to 333-årsboken:

Stiftelsen vill peka på att det i en stat som den svenska inte finns plats för kulturell regional mångfald. Det skånska problemet lever vidare genom mediatystnad, förlöjligande och ständiga ansträngningar att pressa saken ner på rännstensnivå.Det är kanske så att skånelandsregionen är vår världs bästa exempel på historiskt förtryck, långvarigt förtigande och modern kollektiv självcensur i ett välmående samhälle.

Translation: "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society."

In the same introduction they compare Scanians with everything from Catalans to Inuits, a very, very far-fetched idea since even Swedes and Danes are extremely similar culturally, socially, linguistically. The Inuit comparison (they're an indigenous people) is downright ridiculous and even the parallel to Catalans shows a serious lack of perspective.

And problem number two is that none of the writers appear to be recognized in the field of Scandinavian history. At least none of the texts actually represent mainstream historical research. It can be used as a source for separatist or strongly pro-Scanian (and anti-Swedish) opinions, but not for neutral descriptions of the region's history. It's an anthology that openly propagates a the POV of a small minority, not a generally acknowledged aspect of Scanian history. No Swedish historian denies the harsh assimilation of Scania, the brutal nature of the guerilla war in the 1670s and 1710s, etc. But they don't recognize the unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims about the uniqueness of Scanian culture. As far as I know, most Scanians today don't even share this view.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We are mainly discussing "333 Årsboken" as a possible soucre, not SSF. SSF has only assembled the book. As I have stated "333 Årsbokon" challanges parts of Swedish history, but its autors do it by mention things "forgotten" by other autors. I think SSF has made some good choices in exampifying such lacking parts. But in "333 Årsboken" or its at the world wide webb in English published there is no political agenda. Sweden has indeed during several centuries by force has attempted to re-nationalize the three former Danish provinces, Scania, Halland and Blekinge. This wasn't "a nice thing to do" and their success isn't full, which any reader of "333-Årsboken" will discover. This is especially true for Scania, where people often travels to Helsingør for shopping or to Copenhagen for its many attractions. And through Danish television, of which all DR channels are available. Also Danish TV2 is offered through analogue cable. You may not like it, or the parts that SSF published in 1991. I cannot see a problem in the statement You use as an example.

But this has no bearing on the question of the book is reliable as a source or not.

It seem to me, You wan't to ban not only SSF but also "333 Årsboken", which only is assembled by SSF. Now - please, I do not accuse anyone of being a Stalinist. But Your ban of "333 Årsboken" would I like to compare to a Stalinist that want's to ban Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", and who bases this on something he/she might have found out about the publisher. (Although the real troble is that the Stalinist doesn't likes what Montefiore has written). I say it again, I do not believe You to be a Stalinist, but the allegory is how I perceive you in this matter. And since You seem to reject all authors that SSF has assembled in "333 Årsboken", I presume You will put a ban to all history wrighting based at a Scanian, rather than Stockholm-Swedish perspective. I do not believe there is a Wikipedia policy of f.i. prohibit Scotish, Catalan, Kurdistan or Scanian perspectives in history wrighting. And again SSF only has assembled different kind of works related to the 333 year period between Treaty of Roskilde 1658 and its publishing in 1991.

Without any real knowlidge about SSF, in Your translation "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society" - I fully agree.

And I can give very good examples of this aswell. In my home town, at its northbound entrance/exit street , the street bends some 30 degrees. The area around this place is well-known as "Hvilan", there are (and has been) many shops that has used "Hvilan" in its name. But some years ago "Skånetrafiken" the regional collective coordinators labeled the bus stop as "Vilan" (not "Hvilan"). This spelling has caused a lot of harm in the town, and I would say that among 100 people that i born in Landskrona or has lived here a long time, all preferrs the spelling "Hvilan" in this case, though it has absolutely nothing to do with our Danish time (the bend didn't exist in 1720), but still the civil servant boss in Hässleholm won't listen to the local people and population and continues to spell the bus stop wrong. It actually looks bizzare, bus stop "Vilan" and right behind it, is an off-liecence store called "Hvilans Servicebutik" located, even the immigrant who ownes it, has adapted the local (and thereby true) spelling. I could give You endless similar examples that support what You have found out to be an "SSF-oppinion".

You can trace a certain Scanian oppinion, at the very few occations when the people has been given a possibility to vote in something which actually can be related to "Scanian issues" in any respect. Sweden has held a total of six referendums, I think. The matters of left or right side driving, ATP-pension and Neuclear power plants, were not of that kind. But the first ever referendum about alcohol prohibitation, in 1921 or 1922 was, if You have a look at regional numbers (in this very tight result ; around 49.5% Yes - 50.5% no nation wide) - Western Scania, or Malmöhus län as of then [and Stockholm City] voted 75% (or more) No. One explination is that generally Scanians, like Danes are liberal in alcohol related matters. And almost every Scanian finds the free sell of beer, wine and liquor in Denmark uncontroversial. Also in the 1994 referendums of Sweden joining the European Union, Scanians voted also around 75% for joining the EU (being closer to the continent, is my guess. Brussels isn't that far away, and just a little bit longer than what Stockholm is). And in the referendum about the Euro, if Scanians had decided alone, we would have had the Euro today (Sililar reason). And there were the local referendum in Sjöbo in 1988, about wether that municipality would host refugees or not. To the Stockholmian horror, some 70-80% voted no, and very soon the entire (some 15.000) population in Sjöbo was accused of being racists, it could not have happened anywhere else but in Sjöbo [actually a true TV-formulation], and for a while "Sjöbo" as such became an invective in the nation wide media. And also in the Stockholm-owned and controlled regional media. I'm not saying I would have voted as most did in Sjöbo in 1988. But the aftermath became a verbal terror on that small municipality. Also in 2006 when SD [party against immigration], in the local election in Landskrona got 22% of the votes, immidiatly the town got full of "explaining and examining" journalists from the central power in Stockholm. When the Swedish football cup final in 1984, between Malmö FF and Landskrona BoIS wasn't played in Stockholm, but at Olympia, in Helsingborg, not even the result was mentioned in the TV-sport news ! And I recall when 17.000 out of 30.000 (figure came from the Police)local people, in my home town, protested againt closing the Öresundsvarvet shipyard in february 1978, the "Rapport" TV-news mentioned nothing about it, but instead mentioned a demonstration at Sergels Torg, Stockholm, with 400 people (what about, I don't know) Clearly 400 Stockholmers were concidered more importaint than 17.000 Scanians. And don't You believe that I am the only one who has such oppression memories. The SSF statement is a Bull's eye of truth.

[By the way - When Denmark won Euro 1992 (in Sweden), I was watching the final (Gemany - Denmark 0-2) on great screen at Rådhuspladsen in Copenhagen. There were many other Scanians present, but at the ferry (Scarlett Line sailed from Tuborg, northern Copenhagen to my home town, Landskrona. Though it was the last departure, it was crowded by Swedish/Scanian people who all were very glad, and at home everywhere happy people in red-white colours sang and drank beer. Only very few appeared to be envious.] Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

his Further You resemble the historical Swedish oppression of Scania, and its language/dialect, culture and indeed history. To modern day Scanian life, this is no big matter, however it isn't forgetten either. In my oppinion You want to put a ban on all historical authors whose work You disapprove of.

References

San Diego Rostra

I am writing regarding a BLP article about Nick Popaditch. I am asking others to look at this source and see if it appears to be a reliable source:

• POPADITCH LEAVING SAN DIEGO TO JOIN TEACH FOR AMERICA CORPS

Thanks in advance for taking a moment to look at this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an RS; it's a collective blog with no editorial oversight (other than a restriction on acceptable handles[32]). Sources like that can however be good as gateways to other sources; your link references a post, apparently by Popaditch himself, on his Facebook page. But when I log on I can't find it. I'd guess that his Facebook page qualifies an RS as long as it's clearly his, but am not sure; if it is RS you might find something useful there. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Badassdigest.com

Would this source from badassdigest.com, written by Devin Faraci, be a reliable source? The site and author are cited all over Wikipedia, but I don't see there's been any real discussion of its reliability before. Faraci seems to be a fairly ubiquitous critic and is cited with some frequency in books about film and pop culture.[33] The site doesn't seem to be a personal webpage. It would be used to cite something along the lines of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been variously called a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series, a loose remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the addition would be for the article Planet of the Apes and potentially Rise of the Planet of the Apes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. For that site it very much depends on the author, but Faraci is fine. The site appears to be a group blog (see their "about" page), but it doesn't have editorial oversight (see disclaimer at bottom of page), so it's in effect self-published and falls under the third paragraph of WP:SPS. Since Faraci has been published elsewhere (in 3rd-party pubs), and fairly frequently too, no problemo. Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the input, Middle 8.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish source

Does anyone know if lainformacion.com is a legit news site? [34] Looking to see if this would count towards WP:GNG for the singer Ivan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

the bottom of the article looks like its an EFE press agency story, so i am thinking it should be ok? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Just to make sure, I did a search for EFE and part of the first sentence of the article, and got multiple hits for the same story. Go for it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

De Telegraaf

A user is attempting to add controversial content from the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf into a biographical article. According to sources (including our own Wikipedia page on the paper), De Telegraaf is notoriously unreliable. The Skeptical Inquirer accused them of "fraudulent reporting". Google scholar seems to say quite a bit about this source but I don't have acess to the data at this moment. But to get down to brass tacks...In this particular case, this article is being used to support the statement that Jewish businessman Maup Caransa survived the war because of his "non-Jewish appearance". However, that wording is especially problematic. In reality (and in another more reliable source) Caransa said his marriage to his Catholic wife and his blonde hair and blue eyes helped him survive. This is an altogether different statement, implying that the nutty theories of the Master Race were used against them, rather than the notion that he doesn't look Jewish. It is my contention that the De Telegraaf is unreliable (known for its sensationalism and gossip) for use in a biography article and we should stick with the more reliable source that describes his blonde hair and blue eyes. I don't see any good reason to claim that he looks "non-Jewish" when this was the claim the Nazis were making, which he ironically refuted by his very appearance. It seems very unusual for a neutral encyclopedia to argue from the Nazis POV, that there is such a thing as a "non-Jewish appearance", or that it can even be defined. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If it were just "De Telegraaf" reporting this, i might even agree with you. However, practically the same is reported by Het Parool and even "Jewish Amsterdam", with an additional, painful, detail. Arguing that stereotypes do not exist is plain silly. Like Dutch stereotypes (windmills, tulips and clogs), British stereotypes (having tea with bowlerhat, umbrella and "The Times") they do exist, regardless of their veracity (very close to zero). Nazi's in particular were quite big on those and that occasionally worked in favor of some. Sad, cruel, but nevertheless a fact. Kleuske (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You evidently did not read what I wrote. Het Parool did not report this at all, only De Telegraaf did. Please cite the passage from Het Parool. I already did in my initial comment, and I demonstrated that marrying a Catholic wife and having blonde hair and blue eyes is not equivalent to having a ""non-Jewish appearance", which is a Nazi Master Race theory. The fact that the person in question had blonde hair and blue eyes dispels the stereotype. I am not arguing that stereotypes don't exist, I'm saying that we do not represent them as fact, as is being done here. I'm also arguing that the De Telegraaf is not a reliable source, and we shouldn't even be using it. Saying that the person in question avoided death because he had blonde hair and blue eyes and married a Catholic wife is not the same as asserting he has a "non-Jewish appearance". The former appeals to known facts, while the latter to fictional stereotypes. Again, what do Jews look like? For every answer you give, I can provide ten that disprove it. Yes, the Nazis relied on stereotypes to promote their theory of the Master Race, and that's why the subject says he survived, because the Nazis saw him with blonde hair and blue eyes, which dispelled their stereotype of Jews. NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, not Nazi Point of View. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I await your comment on the document, linked below, from Beth Haim, the oldest Jewish cemetery in the Netherlands, which uses the exact same words. So you have a choice: either the terminology is not an endorsement of racism or the establishment of some mythical prototype (meaning, you're wrong), or whoever compiled that document and put it on the cemetery's website suffers from Nazi POV. On page 61 you'll see the colofon--it reads like a who's who of the Dutch Jewish community, so be careful with your answer. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever other sources might say, I wouldn't use an unreliable tabloid like "De Telegraaf" in a biographical article. The bar isn't as high for non-BLP bios, but still, I don't think "De Telegraaf" makes it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're not interested in the fact that other, non-Telegraaf sources used the exact same phrasing? Because that's the real issue here--not whether this one source should be accepted (and for the record, you can read that article, and the many other sources cited in the current Wikipedia article, and you will find that they all agree). Drmies (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Someone is forumshopping here. That someone knows fully well that the "non-Jewish appearance", the literal quote, is found not only in De Telegraaf (apparently that paper is one of many windmills that need fighting), but also in a fairly innocuous Belgian publication, a TV guide announcing a radio program by the Joodse Omroep. (Need we explain that such content is typically written by the channel that airs the program?) And of course there's Het Parool, the resistance paper: people died to deliver that paper during WWII, and its reputation is impeccable. This article says, "Dat hij overleefde, dankte hij, zei hij later, aan zijn gemengde huwelijk en zijn uiterlijk: blond, bijna rood, lichtblauwe ogen." One could translate that. And then one could, if one liked, tweak the article one way or another, to add "he later said" or something like that. Or one could escalate this all over the place and accuse other editors of having a Nazi POV, which is of course a personal attack. All these links, by the way, are on the talk page already, but perhaps someone didn't see that--see, I'm applying good faith. Also on that talk page is this link, where Caransa's non-Jewish appearance is also given credit for his survival, withou the "he later said" kind of modification.

  In de Tweede wereldoorlog was hij korte tijd geïnterneerd in kamp Westerbork, maar zijn huwelijk met de katholieke Rika Heijsteeg en zijn niet-Joodse uiterlijk redden hem van deportatie.

  Will someone claim this is also Nazi POV wording? Because the document comes from the website of the 400-year old Jewish cemetery where Caransa is buried. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I reviewed this and the original wording was never that Wikipedia was asserting he had a "non-Jewish" appearance but that he had an "apparently non-Jewish appearance". I think that any statement like "Jewish-looking" is a subjective assessment that requires attribution, but I don't think there was ever an issue here that Wikipedia was stating that a stereotype was true. This is a lot of ill will over what wasn't said.

I think the original "apparently" helped indicate it was not some empirical assessment of the "truth" of his appearance, (although I think the phrasing of the current version makes it even clearer that it describes a stereotype and is an overall improvement). I think that most of the time any phrase similar to "looks like a" should be clearly inline attributed when it involves contentious material or can be confused in this way. I don't really care what phrase the sources specifically use, unless you were using it within a direct quote. To compare, if a source said person X "looked like a hero", I might include the direct quote, or attribute to whom X looked like a hero, but we shouldn't have a blunt "X was heroic-looking" in Wikipedia's voice. (And, of course, that's not what happened here).

Shorter: Sammy Davis Jr. and Andrew Dice Clay look like Jews to me, so there's no reliable source for what a flatly-stated "Jewish-looking" means without clear attribution of who is making that subjective assessment in clear context. 2. Drmies's original text wasn't flatly stating that in the first place, and didn't indicate any endorsement. 3. The current text is fine.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Global Monitoring Division history in Earth System Research Laboratory article

Let me begin by saying I'm an editor with a conflict of interest. I work at NOAA's Global Monitoring Division (GMD), and the director of the division has asked me to clean up the Global Monitoring Division portion of the Earth System Research Laboratory article because I have some extra time. I fully respect the mission of Wikipedia and as such I will not edit the article directly, but rather make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to accept or reject.

I've been looking for articles on the history of my division, and unfortunately I have found a dearth of 3rd party sources. However, GMD has a number of self-published Summary Reports that reveal some of its history. Could these be acceptable sources in describing GMD's history? For instance, could I use the Introduction of the Summary Report 1989 to support a statement such as

In 1972, the Geophysical Monitoring for Climatic Change (GMCC) program was established as part of the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL), a division of NOAA’s Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL). "In January 1990, as part of an ERL reorganization, GMCC activities were transferred, along with those of the NOAA Climate Research Group, to a newly formed NOAA Laboratory, the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL).”

Please note that the second sentence is a quote from the introduction page. I have read that quotes can be useful on Wikipedia, however I do not know if quotes from self-published sources are acceptable.

Thanks in advance for any help. NickAtNOAA (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

a self-published source can be used for routine uncontested details about uncontroversial factual matters, or as a statement of an organization's philosophy. In some cases, such as a group's intended goals, it can be best to quote, but for routine material like this, the usual practice is to rewrite and give a reference. Propose your wording on the article talk page, along with a {{Request edit}} tag. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorial use at BlackLight Power

A discussion at Talk:BlackLight_Power#New_source.3F has erroneously been taken to DRN rather than here. The subject of the discussion is the use of the editorial in a fine journal (Eur Phys J D) at doi:10.1140/epjd/e2011-20455-x as a "secondary" source for the paper in the same issue that the editorial introduces. The editorial itself cautions that it "is in no way an endorsement of the authors’ “hydrino” hypothesis by the Editors of this journal". It continues

Despite the reservations about the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is admittedly a controversial postulate.

We would therefore like to invite the scientific community, opponents and proponents of the “hydrino” hypothesis alike, to send us their comments and views. All comments received that are suitable for publication will undergo the

standard review process for comments prior to publication.

The publication did draw one such comment, at doi:10.1140/epjd/e2011-20623-0, which concludes "Hydrinos as proposed by Mills and Lu are inconsistent with laboratory scale high pressure LTE hydrogen plasmas, inconsistent with the stability and structure of stars including the Sun, and inconsistent with the known Universe." The user raising the issue wishes to use the editorial as a RS for a statement to the effect that "the hydrino hypothesis is not nonsense, but has attracted serious scientific discussion" and an assertion that the editors "came down in support of" such serious discussion of that hypothesis. Anyone care to offer an analysis of its reliability for such statements? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this appeal is appearing shortly after the DRN moderator has found the article fails to meet the standards of WP:IMPARTIAL and has suggested parties work together in good faith to resolve the dispute. I think it would be useful to seek concurrence from the DRN moderator on the proposed change of venue before proceeding. Ronnotel (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Ronnotel, but you perhaps don't grasp the roles of DRN and RSN. This is the board where the question should have been brought in the first place, which is the reason I showed zero interest in it being pursued at DRN. In any event the DRN findings have no weight on the question here. Taking it there could itself be considered a failure of good faith. Warping a source reliability discussion into an article-BPOV discussion was even worse. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The DRN volunteer has recused himself because he was WP:INVOLVED. Second Quantization (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think 2/0 summarised the issue nicely here: [35] with using an editorial like this. "EPJ D is a fine journal (not first tier, but top quartile sounds about right), but the editorial in question is a good reason to continue treating the issue of hydrinos as outside of mainstream physics. Using this source as proposed would be to severely misrepresent it." Using a journal editorial to try and teach the controversy would be to give a false impression that there is any real controversy in the scientific community about this. It's a primary source, and using it would give a misleading impression, wait for the actual sources which if anyone respond to the editorial. In wikijargon, using a WP:PRIMARY source as a justification for content violates WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Meta discussion

I am the WP:DRN volunteer who is managing this case. On of our rules (see at the top of the DRN page) is:

"We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves."

If this had been open when the DRN case was filed, I would have closed the DRN case and asked the filer to re-file after the RSN discussion has ended. Because this was opened (without any discussion on RDN and without notifying me) during an ongoing DRN case, I am going to request that this noticeboard close this discussion as WP:FORUMSHOPPING, with an understanding that anyone is free to re-open it once the DRN case is closed.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests is the best place to start when deciding where to go with a dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Guy, considering LeadSongDog hasn't taken part in the RSN discussion your observation is irrelevant. It's not even clear to me why you accepted a discussion at DRN which is centred around reliability rather than directing it here in the first place. Fundmentally the question is about reliability. You also fundamentally misunderstand reliability in your comment at DRN as well. Anderson is completely reliable for saying what Anderson says. There is nothing unreliable about that. Are you seriously contending that Anderson didn't say that?

You are also (again, if I recall you did this years ago when I last saw you at DRN) using your position at DRN to give your own point of view prominence in a discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#BlackLight_Power_discussion (It's not like you weren't aware of Blacklight power before: Talk:BlackLight_Power/Archive_6#.22Such_states_would_require_non-relativistic_counterparts_to_remain_physical.2C_yet_they_don.27t_have_them.22, [36]

What I find particularly startling is that you appear to claim neutrality despite having made some of the edits you advance at DRN [37] while giving the impression of being fresh eyes. You explicitly support one side and have made recommendations along specific edits you made in the past but which were rejected. Second Quantization (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[38][39][40] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Books' Details vs Books' Author's blog

Some Tamil Wikipedians believed that if book of the author is not referrable in internet except in blogspot means then we can refer his blog with that book contents as reference.

But I beleieve that Book Details is enough.

Is it correct to cite a blog in wiki even the blog has that Book contents.?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever appropriate to cite Blogspot. See also WP:SELFPUB. If you can't find pages of the book available on databases like Google Books then I would not cite anything. Could you be more specific though? What blog are you talking about and what do some editors want to use as a reference? Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that a well-known author's blog is a reliable source for that author's opinions. But not for objective facts. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If the author is directly quoting word-for-word their own written work from the book on their own blog, that would probably be verifiable enough (I'm assuming the author has no reason to misquote themselves). If it's somehow different writing, different phrasing, or a different work, even if it covers the same topic, then there's no way it can be cited as if it was directly from the book. It has to be verifiable that the exact material appears in the book, if that's what's we're telling the reader of the article. But it's still unclear what the actual situation is here without a diff or article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC Notice - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own attributed film review?

There is currently an RFC on whether Breitbart.com is a reliable source for an attributed quote from its own film review. Input is welcome. VictorD7 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)