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

Endless Rise Investor

Can an interview published on endlessriseinvestor.com be used as a reliable source? Specifically here with Jacob Wlinksy, founder and CEO of ValueWalk. Meatsgains (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• To source what? That he spoke to a contributor? As a whole, the site describes itself as "Endless Rise is a community based site, and you are encouraged to engage in a number of different ways:"..... Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

To provide additional background information on the company. Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Such as? The site itself doesn't appear to have editorial oversight and works on member submissions. So we really end up with the CEO talking about his company some more. What specific information from that primary source do we need in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To verify existing content and pull from some of Wolinksy's responses such as:

• "We’ve never taken VC funding"
• "I saw some pretty bad advice about asset allocation on the internet. And I really thought it was interesting, I made some comments and analysis. And the person that actually contacted me was Alice Schroeder, and said she liked it. At that point I was trying to get a voice for myself. And I was initially doing it as a hobby."
• "I also worked at SumZero for a period of time."

Meatsgains (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since the last factoid is already sourced by another source, why would we need this one to support it? Also, keep in mind that this article is about the company, not Wolinsky, so whether his previous employment matters is a question. That leaves two. How important are those? Honestly, neither statement looks like something that really improves the article. It looks more like a way to put another source on the short list. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this post was to determine if the source is reliable, not to get into the weeds of what can or should be added. We will cross that bridge when the time comes. The reference list is short so how does providing an additional source, which is an interview with the CEO, not strengthen the page's verification and improve quality? Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• RSN doesn't just say "reliable or not reliable". Often it deals with context and what specifically is being referenced. What can/should be added is part of the discussion. Merely adding references doesn't make the article (or topic) notable. Adding a second source to verify an uncontroversial, already sourced fact doesn't improve the article. Adding something trivial like never taking VC isn't really improving the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I provided context and am asking whether or not endlessriseinvestor.com can be used as a reliable source. Again, whether or not the content should be added to ValueWalk is another discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• As a site that doesn't appear to have editorial oversight, I'd say no. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Additional input sought for a GAR re sources

Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1. The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable for military biographies. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to specify the issue a bit. One of the works in question is

• Taghon, Peter (2004a). Die Geschichte des Lehrgeschwaders 1—Band 1—1936 – 1942 (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-85-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) VDM Heinz Nickel
• Taghon, Peter (2004b). Die Geschichte des Lehrgeschwaders 1—Band 2—1942 – 1945 (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-88-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

@Sturmvogel 66: argues that he owns a copy of the work in question, that it is not pro-Nazi[1], that it is "RS by every stretch of the imagination", that the author has published "several books on WW2 history in Dutch, French and German with a variety of publishing houses" and that this is a "specialized topic" which needs examination "on a case-by-case basis".[2] He claims, that "in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source."[3]

First, I would disagree that this is the general policy on Wiki. Regardless of whether it has been written by an academic or a non-academic author, if a book is to be considered reliable, it should be easy to substantiate that with some references. If you reverse the burden of proof, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide such an "authoritative source" (I imagine that this does not include fellow Wikipedians), the more esoteric the source is and the less attention it has generated.

Now to that particular case: The author, Peter Taghon, is a Belgian jurist. He claimed to have worked "utterly factual" (ganz sachlich) and to provide a "plain and objective presentation of the events" (eine nüchterne und objektive Darstellung der Ereignisse). He calls his work a "documentary" (Dokumentation) and a "chronicle" (Chronik) He also professed to have purposely refrained from any judgement and his intentions were, according to his own statement, to provide a "source" and "treasure trove" for later historians. (So ist dieses Buch denn auch als Quelle und Fundgrube für spätere Geschichtsschreiber gedacht.) As the Luftwaffe had, on orders by Göring, systematically destroyed its own documents at the end of the war, Taghon used documents provided by veterans of the LG 1. Among them were documents from a collection by former commander Joachim Helbig (Sammelkiste Helbig), an unfinished manuscript by Helbig on the LG 1 and the papers of Oberst Gerd Stamp. Taghon was assisted by veterans Wolfgang von Bergh and Gert Winterfeld, and historian Ulf Balke has worked on the manuscript. Taghon also used documents by the Allies to assess the damage inflicted by the attacks. On the whole I consider that to be a primary rather than a secondary source. It should be used with extreme caution, but not be considered a RS as such. I might also note that it is not in wider circulation. As to Germany, not very many libraries hold a copy of it. --Assayer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments to open with.

There is some misrepresentation of the facts here (I'm not saying this is deliberate). Firstly, there was an order by Goring to destroy Luftwaffe records in the last week of April 1945. This was carried out imperfectly in the first days of May, to say the least. In fact, in some cases the order wasn't carried out at all and a lot were lost in the general chaos in Germany at that time and rediscovered in later years.

If we were, for whatever reason, to reject studies in history based solely on the fact they were based on primary sources (the opinion of Assayer who hasn't seen the book), or as you say, vet them using "extreme caution", whatever that means, then where does that leave the study of this field?

Thirdly, cross-checking with Allied sources (particularly the British whose records on these things are exceptional), is an entirely sensibly thing to do.

Finally, what is notable is the complainant hasn't presented any evidence from other sources that contradict the validity of the Taghon book.

I see a lot of "I think" in all this. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

For matters of clarification: It is Taghon himself who notes that only about 5% of the Luftwaffe files ended up in German archives, and it is Taghon himself who notes that his work is not a historiographical study. Thus I consider it to be a collection of primary sources and not a "study in history" based on primary sources. There's a difference between a chronicle and a historiographical study.--Assayer (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pinging the editors who participated in earlier discussions involving sources for WWII biographies (mainly Franz Kurowski); pls see:

• Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII) (frm RSN archives), and
• WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles (from MilHist archives).

@Darkfrog24, Nick-D, Nug, Stephan Schulz, Sfarney, Peacemaker67, Dimadick, Thewolfchild, Irondome, Coretheapple, Keith-264, ÄDA - DÄP, Woogie10w, Maunus, EnigmaMcmxc, and Calistemon:, in case they'd like to comment either here or at the GAR. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have had a short wikibreak, to clear my mind. We all know how it is occasionally needed. Appreciate the ping. Will be over to join the conversation later today. I have not read the thread yet, but I should be inputting later tonight London time. Regards all. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the proposed source, I have two observations on the matter. First, collections of primary sources are often useful sources themselves and offer details missing in more general histories. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire offers biographies of thousands of major and minor figures, listing which primary sources mention them and what the sources claim about them. It generally keeps modern opinions to a minimum.

Second, if Taghon's books are relatively obscure and out of circulation, how can we verify their content? While it is not necessary for a Wikipedia source to be available online, they should be within reach of editors who want to check their content. Any vandal can claim that a source verifies their made-up fact. It is usually up to editors to check the source and verify. We can not do this with sources that are unavailable in libraries or have not been translated in more than one language. Dimadick (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@ -Assayer: Whether it is a chronicle or not is irrelevant. And five percent of the remaining records is a huge amount of data.

@Dimadick:Don't be misled. It is a false assertion that Taghon is not available, it is on Amazon! And because something is obscure doesn't qualify it for deletion anyway.Dapi89 (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out, it could be in Esperanto and only currently available in one library in Slough, but that would not per WP:V make it unverifiable. The relevant sections are WP:NOENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. If its in another language and/or not easily available, WP:V allows for requesting a quote from someone who does have access to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are several thingh I feel that are going against Taghon:

• It's published by a small-time right-wing publisher VDM Heinz Nickel, which does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking
• It's based in part on Joachim Helbig's writing, which makes it a non-independent source for the article on Joachim Helbig
• The post-war accounts by Wehrmacht soldiers and generals were by nature apologetic, and are not held in high regard by today's historian. Using such sources for articles about these very same soldiers and generals is WP:UNDUE and leads to articles that do not meet the WP:NPOV requirement. See Clean Wehrmacht. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I mentioned that these two volumes are not held by many libraries at least in Germany is not because I would distrust the editors who used them, but to underline that this is a work on, as another editor put it, an "esoteric subject" and thus a somehow esoteric source. Be that as it may, its reliability has to be carefully evaluated. Some seem to aliken such an evaluation to a trial where the source is the defendant and to be disproven on every count. Instead, if we want to stay in the court room, the source is the witness to help us reconstruct an historical event and thus subject to appropriate scrutiny. In history that's called source criticism. The historiography of WW II works differently than the historiography of ancient Rome, especially in regard to primary sources. And if Taghon's book would have been published with Cambridge UP instead of VDM Nickel, there would certainly be less concern.

Once again I quote Taghon: "I have only tried to preserve and make avaiable for posterity the testimonies of the last witnesses, the many reports of personal experience and the log book entries of one of the oldest fighter squadrons of the German air force". (Ich habe nur versucht, die Aussagen der letzten Zeitzeugen, die vielen Erlebnisberichte und Flugbucheintragungen von einem der ältesten Kampfgeschwader der Luftwaffe der Nachwelt zu erhalten und zugänglich zu machen.) Thus the book is to large degree written from the veteran's perspective, i.e., it is WP:BIASED. As to reliabilty, I do not put much trust in such sources and I simply do not trust many Wikipedians to handle them with proper care. So the question is, to what extent can Taghon's work be used? Can it support claims as to what the squadron have attacked and sunk? Can it support information about clashes between Helbig and his superiors? There may be more issues, but that is subject of the current discussion.--Assayer (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

More opinion. Speaking of WP:BIAS, these last two posts, taken as one, would like us to believe that all former serviceman and women of the Wehrmacht were liars or at the very least inherently untrustworthy. There is a palpable sense of "I think" in all of these excuses. Every source, academic or otherwise, uses testimony from veterans or historical actors to supplement other research. In this case, the other research is done through Allied sources to help cross-reference the effectiveness of this particular unit. That point has already been dealt with. Dapi89 (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, for what it's worth, I quote Taghon: "Furthermore, I had access to extensive archival records of the former enemies, which show the effectiveness of the attacks." (Außerdem stand mir umfangreiches Aktenmaterial der ehemaligen Kriegsgegner zur Verfügung, aus dem die Wirksamkeit der Angriffe hervorgeht.) I would have liked some reviewer tell me, how thorough Taghon's research has been.--Assayer (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Other research will tell you whether it can be verified, it doesn't even require input from Taghon to do that. I put Hooton, Goss, De Zeng and co on this article for precisely that reason. HMS Jackal and her accompanying destroyers did not just vanish. They were sunk. And they didn't sink themselves. The Italians did not attack them, and the British sources say it was Ju 88s. In fact, RAF Y-Services monitoring Luftwaffe radio traffic came to know their attackers as the "Helbig Flyers". Dapi89 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The publisher, VDM Heinz Nickel (de:VDM Heinz Nickel) is not reliable - it publishes low-grade military history and technology books, often with a revisionist bend. Any reliability of the source could only come from reliable third-party reviews or from the author's expert status, not from the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What an extraordinary thing to say. The author writes the book, not the publisher. Dapi89 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What is extraordinary? If a book is published by Oxford University Press, the publisher performs quality control, by vetting the author and by having expert editors or outside peers perform a critical review before the book is published. We therefore assume that such a book is a reliable source. For books published by VDM Heinz Nickel this assumption does not hold. The book may still be ok (or not), but it does not gain any reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" from the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The three basic reasons we can assume a book is reliable is its author, its publisher, and its reception. The publisher is critical because of the editorial review it is expected to provide. At one extreme, books from the major academic presses are considered probably reliable, though the other factors have to be taken into consideration also. At the other, self-published books are considered to rest only on the personal authority of the author, and unless the author is known to be a generally accepted authority, are not considered reliable. Book from a general publisher rather than an academic publisher need to be considered publisher by publisher, and within each publisher, according to what line of imprint or series. Their serious non-fiction books can be reliable also in many cases. Books from a specialist publisher need evaluation similarly. If a publisher primarily publishes ideologically oriented material, the books will usually be presumed to be of only limited reliability, except as a statement of that ideology. This may of course not be true of any particular book, but it must be taken into consideration. The notion that all printed books are reliable is extremely naive or misleading--it is the sort of judgmenet usually encountered in the totally uneducated. I cannot imagine that anyone who understands history would think that way. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Firstly I said no such thing, and if I were you I wouldn't make assumptions about my credentials unless you'd like to be embarrassed.

Stephan, you've already made the assumption that the said publisher is unreliable and cannot examine anything objectively, even though you cannot, by definition, show that. My point is that the employees of HN didn't do the research or write the book. It stands to reason that their world view, whatever that might be, is not reflected in the book. The work is a product of Peter Taghon only. Dapi89 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: "What an extraordinary thing to say. The author writes the book, not the publisher", i.e. the statement that publisher has no role in whether or not a source is considered reliable. Here's a quote from WP:RS:

Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The statements that that the publisher has no bearing on the reliability of a source or that any published book is considered RS by default are not accurate interpretations of WP:RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is assumption once more. We have a clear divide here between fact and fiction. Can you show HN was involved in the research process or even perhaps directed or had control of what Taghon wrote and researched?

In any case, there is a raft of prior work published that complement and buttress Taghon's work. How much longer is that fact going to be ignored ? Dapi89 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

HN was probably not involved in the research phase, nor did it have control over what the author wrote. It did presumably have control over what the author published at that firm. A publisher that does not have such control & prints whatever the author writes, is what is known as a vanity publisher. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't automatically disqualify the research from being respectable. Taghon is supported by work published before and after. Dapi89 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if there are unquestioningly reliable sources supporting the same statements, why not use them instead of Taghon? I managed to locate the books on Google scholar, and the only two citations to either volume seem to be to mirrors of our own article Joachim Helbig that started this discussion. So no-one (known to Google Scholar, which is extremely inclusive, if sometimes spotty) relies on books by Taghon, except via the very article under discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We have. There would be no sense in taking Taghon out. It acts as confirmation Taghon isn't an agenda-driven bull shitter. I agree that Scholar is spotty, as is evident by Taghon's work being endorsed and used by Christopher Shores (a reliable titan of the air war literature) and the search engine's exclusion of that fact. He as been used in other reliable works as well. Taghon has been treated in more or less the same way Florian Berger. The Austrian State Archive's (examined by Dr Gerhard Artl) commended it and it's "dark chapters", for bringing to light war crimes and other criminal activities some of these people were involved in. Misterbee1966 brought that up but K.e.Coffman was not interested in that fact and agitated for his deletion anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that Taghon has also written on the German occupation of Brussels and Nazi war crimes in that country (see his book Brussels 1940 to 1945). He assisted Hugh Sebag-Montefiore (a non-academic writer) with his research on Dunkirk with sources on Nazi crimes against the Belgian Army in May 1940 by supplying him with archival data (Les Crimes De Guerre commis lors de l'invasion du territoire national Mai 1940: Les Massacres De Vinkt) (Vinkt War Crime Report). Taghon has also been used by Professor Jonathan Andrew Epstein (University of New York) in Belgium's Dilemma: The Formation of the Belgian Defense Policy, 1932-1940. He has also been used as a source in Dr Jean-Michel Veranneman's (from the University of Brussels) Belgium and the Second World War. The work on LG 1 was used by Frederick Taylor in his work on the Coventry raid in November 1940. Dapi89 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Shores "endorsed" Taghon's work? Historians routinely use unreliable sources to either (1) point out their deficiencies; (2) compare and contrast with other sources they are using. So far the claim that Taghon is reliables appears to be the result of original research, and no 3rd party evidence has been presented as to Taghon's reliability. Is there any available, such as Shores reviewing Taghon's work? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

How do you think? He used it in his Mediterranean air war book. And it wasn't to attack it.

Really? Are you really going to claim any defence of Taghon relies on third party original research when that is precisely the approach you've taken to denigrate him? So far you've given nothing to this debate that tells us Taghon is unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact it's worse, your attacks on his character don't even directly address him. Dapi89 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, it has repeatedly been claimed, that it would not be fair to draw conclusions from the publisher's reputation. Each work had to be assessed for its own worth. But now we are asked to believe, that the reliability of a certain publication can somehow be delineated, not even from the reputation, but from other publications by the same author. As to Frederick Taylor's book on the Coventry raid: He does indeed use Taghon's book just once. From it he takes a lengthy quote from an observer of a bomber belonging to LG 1, who described the use of the Knickebein system for the final run to Coventry that night "to his unit historian" (i.e. Taghon). That's exactly what I keep saying: This is not a secondary source, but rather a collection of various primary sources by the unit's historian. At least it is used as such by others.--Assayer (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ISAN as a source for future television episodes

Reposting since this post didn't get any response before it fell into the archives: On the article of the Australian television series The Secret Daughter, another user claims that these references [4] [5] [6] [7] to the ISAN database are reliable sources that there are a total of 10 episodes in the program's first season. I have disputed this in a (now lengthy) discussion on my talk page, pointing to multiple other sources [8] [9] [10] [11] as well as a post on the production company's Facebook page noting an episode airing 7 November (episode 6) is the season finale.

The other user claims that episodes aren't added to the ISAN database until "after production concludes" and that ISAN "doesn't accept un-produced material" but has not provided proof of this despite multiple requests. So, is ISAN a reliable source of how many episodes in a series despite multiple sources to the contrary? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I read through the following two documents on the ISAN web site and found no mention of any such requirement: [12] [13] Considering that one of those are the official rules of ISAN, I'd say the other editor is just plain wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I also couldn't find evidence. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ISAN codes are not evidence something exists. They are applied for at various times (pre, during & post production) so merely having one allocated is not evidence by itself of a show's existance. In this case I suspect the production company applied for 10 and only ended up producing 6. Its also possible they had 10 episodes planned and/or produced, but decided to push back the last 4 episodes into a later series due to production issues etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Whats new?: I just looked over the previous discussion, and I have to say that the IP's attitude seems rather poor. My advice to you would be to edit the article appropriately and disengage, as arguments only seem to be fueling the fire, so to speak. If the IP insists upon edit warring, you can request protection on the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks, I will take your advice. I was trying to encourage constructive discussion, but I agree that disengaging may be a better option for now. I've already put forward all the points I can on the issue anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Need help to fix an article that is seen as NPOV by several editors

I work on the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article and it has been criticized as having a biased POV (in favor of the protesters). I would like very much to present a NPOV article but have not found RS to present what some editors feel is needed in the article. Some editors have suggested the following sites as usable for the article. I'm not sure. What do you think? 1, 2, 3, 4. BTW, there is also a Dakota Access Pipeline article that contains both more technical information and protest information from Iowa where both Native Americans and land owners, and others have protested the pipeline. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. :) #1 and #3 both fail a whois test IMO. Both are registered at godaddy.com & a whois search does not reveal who is responsible for the site. Concerning #2 VOA (Voice of America), I listened to them through middle school, you can count on them for a pro-Establishment perspective. If you wanted to source the question of the problem of sovereignty and the necessity of consultation to this article, I suppose one could, otherwise I don't really see what it adds to the existing article. Concerning #4 The Hill... I stopped forwarding the Hill on FB because it was a bit too pro-Bernie, but I'm pretty picky and haven't yet read this article (but will) SashiRolls (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I wouldn't see any problem with citing Craig Stevens as long as it is made clear that he is "a spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now Coalition [14]. MAIN is a project of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council, with members in Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Illinois – the states crossed by the Dakota Access Pipeline." Strange that this is not signaled as an op-ed by The Hill, though they do indicate who he is (which isn't really the case for #1 or #3). MAIN has a whole host of links on their blog... [15] SashiRolls (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:, @Gandydancer: I've edited your comments above to fix the references to the links. Feel free to revert me, I was just getting confused about what was being referred to until I checked the diffs.

I'd like to add that I'm seeing a phenomenon here which is becoming more and more common; fake fact-checking sites. From thinly disguised blogs with 'fact' in their titles claiming that snopes.com is owned by George Soros to these highly specialized sites that only sometimes clearly identify their POV on their about pages ("The Dakota Access project, when operational, will be among the safest and most technologically advanced pipeline in the world helping to bring needed energy to communities across the country."), this is becoming an issue here. Hence, this thread. My advice to you is anytime you see a suspect (or hell, even a new) fact checking or information site, immediately check it using https://www.whois.net/. As Sashi mentioned, the two 'fact checker' links you provided here both obfuscate information about who owns and operates them. Compare the results of that (sorry, I can't link directly to the results) to, for example, the results from running a whois search on factcheck.org. I rarely advise people to follow simple rules, but this is an exception: If a fact checking site does not practice extensive transparency, do not trust them. But just because they don't obscure their identity doesn't mean they can be trusted: I wouldn't trust a fact checking site hosted by the Democratic party for any claims about the GOP, for example. Not even a little bit.

One final note is that it's perfectly possible to have an article about a protest, movement, or political/social issue that paints one side in an extremely positive light and the other in an extremely negative light without violating NPOV. It's possible that one side makes objectively good arguments and the other doesn't, or that one side engages in objectively unethical behavior, and the other doesn't. I'm not saying that this is the case here, I'm just saying that "neutral" with respect to the two sides and "neutral" with respect to reality and verifiable sources aren't always the same thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not think those are reliable sources. They include a company website and opinion pieces. Note that neutrality does not mean presenting both sides equally but presenting them as reported in reliable sources. It could be that coverage of the protests emphasizes their view while ignoring that of the industry, but that is what protests are supposed to do. Readers can always go to the articles about the pipeline if they want to know more about the issues. TFD (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL OF YOU! Opps, sorry for shouting but I really am so thankful for this help. A problem with this article is that I wrote most of it and the people that have been editing seem to be sympathetic to the movement, as am I. So this is a situation that could well produce bias that the editors, myself included, just did not pick up on. But as I said, actually its quite a simple story with the builders saying it safe and the tribe saying well we're the boss of our land, or should be, and we don't want it here. It's not really an argument about whether or not its safe. I think that that is what the editors that have criticized the article are expecting to see. At any rate, yesterday the CEO of the builders spoke at length on PBS so I can add a lengthy statement by him. Again, thanks to all. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: No, thank you for making good faith efforts to account for your own possible bias. We need more editors willing to do that. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

organizational behavior

on the organizational behavior topic there is a big messy un-sourced list of disciplines and then even sub-disciplines. not sure if here is the place to ask questions and sorry if not but there are no reliable sources in the list in the article and my understanding of OB is not what someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines. i thought we could removed un-sourced junk. am i in the right place? could someone lend a hand over there.Happydaise (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Happydaise is snidely referencing me when he/she writes "someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines" although I had nothing to do with the composition of the list of disciplines and subdisciplines. They were probably incrementally added by several different editors over time. I only asked this newcomer to Wikipedia not to make wholesale changes. When Happydaise challenged me after he deleted social psychology from the list and I restored social psychology to the list, I pointed out various sources in the article that referenced social psychology, something that Happydaise could have done himself/herself. Iss246 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

hey wasn't talking about you per se with the favorite group of disciplines comment. sorry anyway. look i just want to resolve this. but don't we need to have reliable sources. still there is none. you have not included any reliable sources. you just said doesn't need any sources and most articles are like that. thats my point and we are asked to boldly remove un-sourced material. That list is un-sourced. anyway hope someone else can help out. sorry if you were offended or misunderstood but its just that the list is un-sourced. could you add your sources here?Happydaise (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like the issue is that sources support the list, but no in-line citations are provided. Well, that's an easy enough question to answer: add them. I know this seems a bit like humoring the new editor, but really, since the new editor is the one who takes issue with it, the onus is on them to get it done. Does that require a lot of hard work, painstakingly going through every single reference looking for places where the inclusion of a list entry is sourced? Yes, yes it does. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you user:Happydaise were referencing me despite the pallid denial. Many, many encyclopedia entries of sections devoted to concepts such as "Also see"sections. These sections are not footnoted. Editors use their judgment to indicate what should go in such sections. That is the way it is throughout Wikipedia. However, elsewhere in the article, wherever there is text, the text is sourced. For example, the abnormal psychology section has a "see also" list that isn't footnoted but the rest of the text is footnoted. It is also common to see two or more ists that aren't footnoted as in mathematical psychology. Iss246 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iss246: I suspect you were replying to Happydaise. If that is the case, you should probably reduce the indent on your response one level to make it clear. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:MjolnirPants, I was responding to user:Happydaise.Iss246 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The list of contributing disciplines we are talking about is found in section 2 within the article body itself. it is not a see also list at the end of the article page. these are totally different. it is smack bang within the article body taking up a separate heading. can someone here please look at the Contributing disciplines heading right in the thick of the organizational behavior article body itself under heading no. 2.

Psychology

Social psychology

Sociology

Human Resources Management

Anthropology

Political science

Economics

Mathematics and Statistics

Doesn't this section actually need to be sourced despite iss246 saying it does not need any sources similar to the see also section at the end of an article?Happydaise (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Happydaise: Why don't you stop arguing about it and start putting in the work needed to fix it? If you're contending that others need to fix it for you, then I'm afraid you don't understand how WP works. What you need to do to deal with this is as follows:

1. Read the entire article. Note down which sources appear in which sections.
2. Starting with the sources most likely to mention one of those disciplines as contributing, begin reading all the sources.
3. Every time you find a source that mentions a contributing discipline, get the name of that source by editing the article. You'll see the references appear like this: <ref name="refname">{{cite|web|url=http://www.reputableinstitution.edu/expertscholar/pubs/reliablesource.pdf|title=Ponderous Essays on the Minutiae of Boring Subjects|first=Joe|last=Blow|Publisher=University of the Dude School of Chillaxing}}</ref>; or perhaps like this: <ref name="refname"/>.
   1. If you don't see the name="refname" part, then just add it inside the opening <ref> tag.
4. Then all you have to do is add <ref name="refname"/> after the entry that the source supports.
5. Repeat as necessary. If you go through all the references, and there are still un-supported list items, then feel free to just delete them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

after reading over the Wikipedia:Content removal article my opinion is to remove the un-sourced list. i do not believe there are sources for this list. i think it is pretty well part of how wikipedia works. remove un-sourced material i put it here out in the open before i do so. no point including a list that has no sources.And iss246 believes no sources are even needed? whats that about. and then i'm lectured here on how wikipedia about how it works. may not but i can certainly read and from what ive read in the Wikipedia:Content removal article it is certainly clear that removal is the gold standard option here in this instance. so i am going to make a bold edit and remove the un-sourced content from wikipedia.Happydaise (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Happydaise: i do not believe there are sources for this list. What you believe is really irrelevant. If you remove items from the list that are sourced elsewhere in the article, then you are disrupting the article, and that is not acceptable. If you believe the items are not sourced elsewhere in the article, then you should confirm it by actually putting in the work to do so. At best, you may add a hat tag to the page about the lack of in-line citations.

You may add that to the page by inserting the text {{No footnotes|section|{{subst:DATE}}}} at the top of the section. This may encourage other editors to help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I concur. The article should not be subject to disruption. The entry, however, could benefit from further editing. Iss246 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

LA Times and Biocom

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom, an experienced user has made a broad claim that they "do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment."[16] Thus the question for this board: Is the Los Angeles Times a reliable source for coverage of business-related topics? Specifically: is the article Biotech trade group Biocom expands to L.A. a reliable source in relation to the Biocom article? Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I read 2 references on that page, the LA Times and one from a 2006 Pulitzer prize winner (at Xconomy). No, the article in question does not appear local at all (given that it speaks about rivalry between N. California and S. California NGOs / advocacy groups). The jab at the LA Times seems to be just that -- a jab. The article on Biocom seems to me like a "snow" keep... this article should be expanded and fixed. SashiRolls (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In the budget-cutting tronc era, the Los Angeles Times may not be quite the paper it once was, but then again you could say that about nearly all American newspapers. It remains one of the top newspapers in the United States and certainly a reliable source on the same basis that we would use any other major newspaper. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ValueWalk

Is ValueWalk.com a reliable source? I was under the assumption that it was and have used it many times as such and am now being told that I "don't seem to understand WP's policy on Reliable Sources". Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Many sources that don't pass RS get used on Wikipedia. Often they stay there until someone challenges their use. Value Walk is probably a bit like Examiner.com has been treated. While something like the NY Times is always a RS, Examiner was generally not well regarded and only specific articles could be used. Value Walk accepts guest contributions, so it would also depend on who actually wrote the article being used. From what I've seen, much of what this site is being used to source on Wikipedia could be sourced with reliable sources that aren't as questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Would still like to hear other users' input as to whether or not it can be considered a reliable source. As of now, it seems it can be used as an RS depending on the article and the content it is supporting. Meatsgains (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's what I just said. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Niteshift is right. A source's reliability isn't a question that applies to the source itself, but to the specific claims it is used to support. So if you tell us exactly what page on valuewalk.com is being used, and the exact language it's used to support, then we can weigh in on that. But if you just want to know what other Wikipedians think of the site, you're going to get mostly noncommittal answers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources at Artur Phleps article

A disagreement has arisen on whether the two sources below are used appropriately within the Artur Phleps article, which is currently at Featured Article status:

• Kumm, Otto (1995). Prinz Eugen: The History of the 7. SS-Mountain Division "Prinz Eugen". Winnipeg: J.J. Fedorowicz. ISBN 978-0-921991-29-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kaltenegger, Roland (2008). Totenkopf und Edelweiss: General Artur Phleps und die südosteuropäischen Gebirgsverbände der Waffen-SS im Partisanenkampf auf dem Balkan 1942–1945 (in German). Graz: Ares Verlag. ISBN 978-3-902475-57-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Statements that the sources support:

• ....despite his disdain for the corruption, intrigue and hypocrisy of the royal court.
• After (...) publicly calling King Carol a liar when another general tried to twist his words...
• Otto Kumm claims that the 7th SS Division (...) killed over 2,000 Partisans and captured nearly 400 during Case White,.
• The division was committed to Case Black (...) and killed, according to Kumm, 250 Partisans and captured over 500.

References

I believe that WP:FRINGE applies, i.e. statements from fringe sources should be reported only if they are noticed by independent reliable sources. In Kumm's case, I consider his account to be a primary, non-independent source. Kumm's statements referring to "partisans", given the overall behavior of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS in Yugoslavia, most likely includes non-combatants, i.e. murders of civilians.

Some of the material cited to these sources is (in my definition) "intricate detail", such as:

• After finishing at the Lutheran Realschule school in Hermannstadt...
• In November 1940, with the support of the leader of the Volksgruppe in Rumänien (ethnic Germans in Romania), Andreas Schmidt, Phleps had written to the key Waffen-SS recruiting officer SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS (Brigadier) Gottlob Berger offering his services to the Third Reich. Phleps subsequently asked for permission to leave Romania to join the Wehrmacht, and this was approved by the recently installed Romanian Conducător (dictator) General Ion Antonescu.
• ...was presented to his son, SS-Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant) Dr.med. Reinhart Phleps...

References

More on these sources:

• J.J. Fedorowicz has very low reputation within Wikipedia for accuracy, fact checking and reliability, as it predominantly publishes Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS apologist literature.
• According to de.wiki article on Ares Verlag, the imprint publishes "right-wing literature with extreme-right tendencies" link.
• Otto Kumm was a high-ranking Waffen-SS commander closely associated with the subject of the article; following the war, he was a leading figure in HIAG, a lobby group and revisionist veteran's organisation founded by former high-ranking Waffen-SS members. The organisation focused on economic, legal and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, to which end it published scores of apologist and revanchist materials. Please see HIAG#Waffen-SS_historical_revisionism.

Additional discussion: Talk:Artur Phleps#Roland Kaltenegger and Otto Kumm, with commentary from a German speaker:

• "This featured article uses Otto Kumm's history of the 7th SS-Mountain Division and Roland Kaltenegger's Totenkopf und Edelweiss (2008) as references. Both are well known apologists of Nazi war crimes. (...) I may quote how Michael Wedekind, in his study of Nazi occupation of Northern Italy (Nationalsozialistische Besatzungs- und Annexionspolitik in Norditalien 1943-1945, Munich 2003), characterized a Kaltenegger book of 1993: "The explosiveness of this work with its striking proximity to National Socialism lies with the intended downplaying-apologetic defibration of historical events up to a sometimes redundant-episodic degree, thereby overriding central and characteristic aspects of not only the national socialist policy of occupation and annexation, but also of the fight against partisans, which is the central topic. (Die Brisanz der Arbeit mit ihrer auffälligen Nähe zum Nationalsozialismus liegt in der verharmlosend-apologetischen intentionierten Zerfaserung historischer Vorgänge ins bisweilen Redundant-Episodenhafte und damit in der Überspielung zentraler und wesenhafter Aspekte der nationalsozialistischen Okkupations- und Annexionspolitik ebenso wie der thematisch in den Mittelpunkt gerückten Partisanenbekämpfung. (p. 8))"

I would appreciate uninvolved editors having a look into this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Half of this has nothing to do with the sources themselves, it is about coffman's personal idea of what "intricate detail" is, and, as I have pointed out at the article talk page, a similar level of personal biographical detail is provided in the (randomly selected) George S. Patton article, which is also Featured. The material used from Kumm and Kaltenegger has been used with care, and is almost entirely unexceptional biographical information about Phleps' career, promotions, how he joined the Waffen-SS, the fact that his son was handed his posthumous award etc, and they are not used to downplay or apologise for Phleps' actions or inaction in any respect whatsoever. The article can in no way be described as apologetic towards Phleps, his crimes are detailed in the lead, in the body and in a separate section. Every author gets criticised, and the above criticism of Kaltenegger is not about the book in question, so far as I can tell. I acknowledge that Kumm was later the commander of the division that Phleps raised, and served under his command, but I don't think that disqualifies his use for such unremarkable and uncontroversial biographical information. I believe they are both reliable sources for the material they support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

How is Kumm's statement on killing "over 2,000 Partisans and captur[ing] nearly 400" not controversial? Same goes for Phleps's "disdain for the corruption, intrigue and hypocrisy of the royal court". I do not find this to be "unremarkable and uncontroversial biographical information", and would appreciate a clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on you, because you are questioning them. In what way ARE they controversial? On what basis do you question that material? Do you have any sources that in any way contradict those specific statements? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on those who want to use the source to demonstrate that it is reliable. When the burden of proof is reversed, it's often impossible to prove a negative, as not other author is likely to have covered the subject in such detail. Comparing Phleps to George Patton is not helpful, as the latter commanded several armies and is pretty much a household name in the English speaking parts of the world. The former's highest command was a corps consisting of two divisions. WP:EINSTEIN is applicable.

Regarding the sources, my contention is that they are unreliable, due to the author's ideological leanings and the publishers' lack of reputation for accuracy and fact checking (these are fringe publishers). There's a requirement on Wiki that the articles should be built on independent reliable source, but I don't see any proof of reliability in this case, and none have been presented either here or on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The casualty material you are questioning from Kumm is attributed to him in-text to offset any bias, and Casagrande's overall view of Kumm's book has also been noted when Kumm is introduced to ensure that the reader understands that Kumm's divisional history is strongly apologetic. However, none of Kumm's apologetic material has been used in the article. I have even added an explanation that Kumm later commanded the division, to reinforce the point. I believe those points inform the reader about where the information comes from, and allow them to understand the implications of taking his word for it. You have produced no material to challenge anything said by either author, all you have offered is sweeping statements, your personal opinion about the publishing houses, a WP:CIRCULAR reference to de WP, and a review of a different book by Kaltenegger. In other words, your opposition to these sources is based on your opinions, not any evidence. The inherent bias in Kumm has been mitigated by in-text attribution and by clearly explaining that Kumm's book is strongly apologetic. As I have pointed out, they are used for entirely unremarkable information about Phleps' career, nothing extraordinary has been cited to either author. I believe that addresses any concerns with their use in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that Kaltenegger's work has been used as a reference in scholarly articles and books, including his Zona d'operazione Litorale Adriatico in an article by Gianmarco Bresadola in Contemporary European History Vol. 13, No. 4, and in an article by Boris Mlakar in Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains No. 234. And his Deutsche Gebirgsjäger im Zweiten Weltkrieg has been used as a reference for quite a number of books published by respectable presses. They include: Swastika over the Acropolis: Re-interpreting the Nazi Invasion of Greece in World War II, Scraping the Barrel: The Military Use of Substandard Manpower, 1860–1960, and Prelude to Blitzkrieg: The 1916 Austro-German Campaign in Romania. Kumm's book has also been used as a reference in several books, including Scraping the Barrel: The Military Use of Substandard Manpower, 1860–1960 and Britain, NATO, and the Lessons of the Balkan Conflicts, 1991-1999, and his book was positively reviewed in Military Review in 1997. His book was also used as a reference in an article by Anne Wittmann in East European Quarterly in 2002, Mutiny in the Balkans: Croat Volksdeutsche, the Waffen-SS and Motherhood. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A comparison of this article to the one on Patton was mentioned. Comparing their careers, I suggest a reading of WP:EINSTEIN The question naturally occurring to me is whether the intricate detail is based solely on extreme right wing-oriented sources, and whether anyone not in this orientation has bothered mentioning it. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:EINSTEIN tells us nothing about this matter, and is an extremely short and one-sided essay that doesn't reflect any community consensus. Patton was just randomly selected from a list of FA biographical articles. Other examples are George Jones (RAAF officer), Henry Wells (general), and Raymond Brownell, all of which mention where the subject went to school. It is pretty clear that isn't "intricate detail", it is just biographical information about the subject which may be of interest to our readers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues at stake here. One is the question of RS. I started the discussion on the talk page and added some information on Otto Kumm's exonerating divisional history and on Kumm denying war crimes.[17] So far I was not able find other sources on the casualties inflicted on the "partisans". That's why I kept him. On the whole, however, Kumm's work is by no means reliable. His work is not scholarly, but highly biased. It has been used, naturally, by trained historians for their own works, where they often point to its shortcomings (see Lumans, p. 238). But to see him being cited on Wikipedia alongside George H. Stein and Vladis O. Lumans, lends an aura of reliability to his work that it does not deserve. I would be inclined to keep citations, where it is not possible to replace them, as long as Kumm's bias becomes clear to the reader according to WP:BIASED. If that concern is by now consensus, however, I will greatly appreciate that.

Since 1980, I think, Roland Kaltenegger has published a row of books mainly on German mountain rangers and their warfare against partisans. Anyone familiar with his works can see that he has always been consistent in his intention, as he put it, to "create a literary monument" to these troops, including the Waffen-SS. He is known to criminalize the resistance movement while uncritically adhering to the judgements of the Germans. In Totenkopf und Edelweiss Kaltenegger subscribes to Paul Hausser's ("Soldaten wie andere auch") ambition to "enlighten" (aufklären) about the differences between SS and Waffen-SS (p. 10). Kaltenegger was assisted by veterans of the 7th SS Division, among them Otto Kumm and Phleps' son Reinhart. Because of his closeness to the veterans' cause, Kaltenegger had some exclusive access to sources from private archives, but that's about the only thing that makes his works noteworthy.

The second issue pertains to the question of "intricate details". From my perspective that does not necessarily depend on the sources used. For example, I do not consider the details of the "Waldheim as translater"-episode as merely anecdotical even though they are told by Vladis Lumans. Such anecdotes blur over the tensions between Italians and Germans on the Balkans shortly before the Italians capitulated. But I do support the notion that details which are only to be found with sources of a certain bend are likely not notable. --Assayer (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kumm's inherent bias is now clear in the article, I cannot see how it could be made more obvious. What you fail to recognise is that not all sources are equal. In any given article there will be books by notable academics published by university presses alongside less worthy sources from less worthy publishing houses. That is in the nature of drawing from a wide range of sources to make sure our articles are comprehensive. Suggesting that Kumm is somehow made equal to Stein by using him in the same article is frankly ridiculous, and doesn't reflect WP policy. Elsewhere you have told me that Stein is trumped by Wegner, so do we then remove Stein from that article because Wegner is better? Of course not. Wegner doesn't provide some of the information we obtain from Stein. We compare and contrast sources where they differ, and note where there might be bias by using in-text attribution. In any case, it is about what is being used in the article, which, apart from the casualty information (which is now highlighted by reference to Casagrande) is completely unremarkable. What possible harm can there to WP be in saying where the man went to school, or how he arranged to be enlisted into the Waffen-SS? The information is available, and it is of relevance to his biography. And BTW, details don't have to be notable in themselves, the subject of the article is what needs to be notable. You are conflating the two here and elsewhere, to the extent that I am not sure you understand notability at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Again the point that articles are to based on reliable rather than fringe sources is missed here. Comparing Stein to Kumm is a false equivalence. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't draw that "false equivalence", if that is what it is, Assayer did. The reliability of sources varies. That is a fact. The point is germane. In any case, it is you who claim they are "fringe" sources, despite their use in books and articles. Few if any of the books or articles I listed make negative comments about them, despite Assayer's unsupported claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion is already far too long for something which should have been able to be handled as a minor editorial issue. As such I’ll try to be brief with my cmts:

1. I disagree that the information included is "intricate", to me the details included are similar to those expected to be included in any biography of a military figure (I’ve certainly included them in some of the ones I’ve written). Much of this information is not at all controversial either so I see no issue in the sources in question being used for those purposes.
2. Regardless, just because a source may be considered "questionable" does not mean it must be avoided completely (or excised from the Wikipedia for that matter), it can be used carefully for non-controversial information as they seem to be here (for instance WP:RS only states "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims"). If such sources are the only ones available to provide this information then I see no issue with their careful use per my cmts above.
3. Recent changes have addressed the issue highlighted with Kumm (which the article now clearly warns its readers about, i.e. describing it as "his strongly apologetic divisional history").
4. Kaltenegger seems an appropriate source to me. Indeed as a biography on the subject in question its usage would seem to be required in order for the article to be considered reflective of the sources available.
5. Neither Kumm nor Kaltenegger seem to be excessively used to me at any rate.
6. The article seems balanced and includes relevant criticism of the subject where appropriate (i.e. mention of the crimes committed by units under his command etc) so honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. I could understand this level of concern if that were not the case, but that is not an issue here as far as I am capable of telling. Consequently I'm struggling not to view the points raised as being exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Anotherclown (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kumm's bias is now clear in the article. I argue that the bias of books like his is glossed over as long as WP:BIAS is not followed. I have also argued elsewhere, that a 50 year old study (Stein) is not the latest research, and that more recent studies should be consulted, because historiographical knowledge progresses.[18] In respect to bias, however, it does not make a difference when the biased study is published, be it 1979 or be it 2008. And this becomes a problem if other sources are not used for comparison. By "notable detail" I mean that details should relate in one way or another to the subject's notability. For example, while the military education of a soldier might be relevant information, details concerning his general school education might not.

As to Kaltenegger, I haven't found a serious historian who did not note Kaltenegger's bias (according to de:Winfried Heinemann an Unbelehrbarer = an "unconvincable"). Is it "required" to use his work "in order for the article to be considered reflective of the sources available"? Maybe, if his work would be put into historiographical context. But the article only uses a fraction of the sources available. Since the article nonetheless appears to be "balanced", I might illustrate my concern by mentioning that Phleps' secret basic guidelines how to lead a guerilla warfare of 27 April 1942 are not mentioned. Here Phleps makes it very clear how pitiless he wants his men to deal with the civilian population. ("If the population participates in partisan warfare, it is to be executed completely without sparing and the place is to set ablaze" = Beteiligt sich die Bevölkerung am Bandenkampf, so ist sie ohne Schonung zur Gänze niederzumachen und der Ort anzuzünden. emphasis in original, see Casagrande, 2003, p. 224ff, quote p. 227.) You do not find such documents with Kaltenegger. The same applies to the article on the 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger, where Kaltenegger is used, but not Michael Wedekind's study (cited above). But, as I was told, Wikipedia is about contribution and improvement. Yet I hope that some of my concerns get across. Publishers like Fedorowicz, Munin, Stocker/Ares, Vohwinckel, Druffel, Pour-le-Mérite, Arndt, Schild, Flechsig, you name it, should not be considered reliable as such, even if they are only used for "unremarkable biographical material". --Assayer (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As you have mentioned them and have access to these sources, why don't you add the information you are talking about? No-one is stopping you from addressing your concerns, in fact your additions to the articles are welcomed. What is not welcomed is this campaign to remove unremarkable biographical material. So far as your idea of what is a "notable" detail, it is frankly wrong-headed and shows a lack of understanding of notability, the comprehensiveness criteria and WP practice for biographical articles. This is a biographical article, and we provide information about the whole person, not just narrow military-related bits. As I have pointed out with examples from other biographical articles, it is established practice on WP to include such information in order to ensure we meet the comprehensiveness criteria, which reflects community consensus built up over the years. You are essentially trying to limit what is in biographical articles based on your extremely narrow view of what should be in them, meaning that only military-related material should be in a military biography. Frankly, that is ridiculous and contrary to the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Purvis Family Tree

I need an expert opinion on if the following sources are reliable. I am trying to make Edward William Purvis an A-Class article but a lot of the stuff about his family background, why they are in the East Indies, the regiments he was in, and other early life, which can only be found in the sources below. Please let me know so I can go ahead and include them or should I remove them and the information associated only with them. Need for the next step for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward William Purvis .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "William Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Robert Raaff Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Robert William Theodore (Theo) Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Edward William (Toby or Ukelele) Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.

Generally this type of source fails rs as selfpublished, unless the writer is an expert who has had his or her work on the same topic published in reliable sources. With modern genealogy, we know far more about people's ancestries than ever before. But unless biographers find it important, it should not be included, per weight. TFD (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The weight of his family tree is certainly questionable, but I don't think it's undue to include information such as why his family moved to the East Indies , what regiment he served in and details about his early life, so long as they're not the focus of too much attention (for example, one or two sentences about his early life seems appropriate).

With regards to the source: So long as the information taken from it doesn't violate the guidelines at Self-published sources (the link you provided was the MOS about self-references in the article), it's perfectly acceptable. So for example, as long as he doesn't claim to have been promoted to Colonel on his first in the army because everyone could see he was destined for greatness, there shouldn't be much of a problem with citing a source he wrote himself. Honestly, if you were to find a secondary source that discussed his early life and childhood, that source would probably be based on Purvis' autobiographical material, anyways. At least in part. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I would not include this information, since it's only available from a self-published sources. This indicates to me that this information has not been noted by 3rd party sources and is thus inconsequential/ K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh, London Review of Books

Is this LRB article by Seymour Hersh a WP:FRINGE source, as @Guccisamsclub: has suggested? In particular, can we assume that Hersh is accurately quoting W. Patrick Lang and Michael T. Flynn?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: You can quote Flynn if you like, but in that case we'll have to quote him as saying what appears to be opposite too. Consistency is not his hallmark. But giving this much space to Hersh's hand-picked interlocutors—all to bolster his own theories about the US role in Syria—is highly undue. Hersh's conspiracy theories on who supports ISIS and Al Nusra, where they get their arms (its overwhelmingly the Syrian and Iraqi armies, regardless of what Hersh says some German traveler says ISIS says), who's responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack (a false flag in Hersh's world), US military's conspiracy to work with Assad and Russia to stop Obama's alleged warmongering in Syria (all because some anonymous source says so) are all largely fringe. I don't have the time or the expertise to dredge up and debunk all of Hersh' claims, but his collegues typically think they reek, and if you google [anything Syria]+Hersh you will find very few RS' that with anything positive to say (but you will get thousands upon thousands of hits from RT, globalreaseach, Assadist and alt-right blogs etc). My general advice would be to wait a bit. Establishment sources which today reject most claims coming from the Trump camp, will probably become a good deal more indulgent once Trump gets more firmly into the saddle. Then these claims can trickle down into Wikipedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears the issue is not whether it is a reliable source for what Hersh said (it is) but whether presenting Hersh's view is due or undue. I suggest closing this thread and taking it to NPOVN. TFD (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean a reliable source for Flynn's verbatim quote? Probably, since that's a very low bar. But you'll note that Hersh spins the Flynn firing to advance his own theories about US policy in Syria: sharp conflict between the WH and the dovish military, US and US-allied support being the key factor behind the rise of ISIS and Al Nusra, Assad representing the best possible future for the Syrian people and so on. So of course, according to Hersh, Flynn's firing had everything to do with Obama's destructive agenda in Syria. Problem is that only Hersh and Lang actually say this point blank, and this is a theory that contradicts the majority of sources on this particular issue. Hersh's verbatim quotes of Flynn are spliced with Hersh's paraphrases of Flynn and Hersh's own commentary. How do we know Hersh's chopped up rendition is accurate? And what does it say about Flynn's firing? All Flynn himself says is that his intelligence on jihadists in Syria and Turkey "looking the other way" got "a lot of pushback from the administration". That's not really the same as him saying "I was fired for my opposition to sending weapons to the rebels", which is what Hersh would have us believe. Given all this, it is fair to ask how mainstream the rest of Hersh's analysis of US policy toward Syria is. The examples I cited (though there are more) indicate that it is about as far away from mainstream views as you can get (textbook FRINGE). Moreover, Hersh's evidence is much too sparse for what he's trying to demonstrate. So we can quote Flynn, but parroting Hersh is probably a bad idea. The only reason we are even discussing this is because the Trump supporters dredged up this Baathist analysis during the campaign. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Parrotting" Hersh is not the same as reporting quotes from his sources, or reporting on Hersh's own views. Textbook fringe is UFO conspiracy. Hersh is an opposition journalist. There's a big difference. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hersh is not simply quoting: he's also paraphrasing Flynn and tacking a quote from Lang at the end to advance his own marginal ideas about Flynn's firing, and by extension, his ideas about Syria (which are fringe to the extent that the concept can be applied to political issues at all). I see no reason to simply assume that he's reproducing Flynn's meaning accurately (nevermind that he is looking at all the evidence, not just the occasional bits that support his view...but this is more about WP:DUE). I have no objection to quoting Flynn verbatim. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, the LRB is a citable source with in-line attribution. "Writing in the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh ... " Agree with TFD above, the question is more one of due or undue for NPOVN. SashiRolls (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The text that Guccisamsclub removed was non-neutral: for instance placing "moderate rebels" in quotes projects the editorial opinion that the rebels are not moderate. Whether that's true or not, Wikipedia doesn't need snark quotes in text. On the other hand the remainder of the material is perfectly reasonable and used with attribution. Guccisamsclub's assertion that "Hersh will say just about anything these days on Syria" is itself a very biased comment, and wholesale text removal, rather than correction, is also non-neutral. -Darouet (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of POV to go around—compare the original edit, er edits. I think someone who thinks Ghouta was a false flag (and not only that) will indeed say just about anything, regardless of where he's published. The fact is that the whole paragraph is largely based on Hersh's interpretation and paraphrase of Flynn's recollection, not Flynn's on direct words. That interpretation is, once again, that Flynn was fired for his opposition to the alleged policy of arming "moderate jihadi terrorists" to get rid of Assad (by consistently and massively bombing them instead of Assad I imagine). Don't know if it's properly fringe, undue, or whatever, but it certainly advances an extremely marginal view. You are welcome to make changes and continue this discussion on the article talk page.Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Is Breitbart generally considered a RS? KINGOFTO (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As in many other examples discussed here, Breitbart is RS for opinions properly sourced and ascribed as opinions. It is very rarely usable for claims of fact where any better sources exist (I suspect statements about its editors, ownership, etc. fall into that category, for example). Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While what Collect says is absolutely correct, I think it also needs to be noted that while Breitbart fails many "reliable for fact" checks, it is known as an authoritative voice for right-leaning topics, and thus when considering opinions on a topic, using Breitbart's staff writers' opinions should be considered in fair weight to opinions from other sources. That is, just because Breitbart is not going to be used for facts, doesn't mean that differing document-able opinions that are spearheaded by Breitbart should be ignored when considering NPOV/WEIGHT/FRINGE issues when covering media/authoritative opinions/reactions about a topic. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree almost completely with Collect. Breitbart cannot be used for any factual information whatsoever, but if (for example) a Breitbart columnist or other alt-right type expresses the opinion that all Hispanics should be forced to have their pets euthanized, they can be cited as a source for that view. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If Breitbart says "John Droe" is one of its editors, then as a statement of fact, it should be usable. And any fact with "should" in it, ain't a "fact" <g>. Collect (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

John Droe might disagree and I'd be inclined to believe him over Breibart. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Primry sources are (except in some contentious areas) valid reliable sources for themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Glory Days (Little Mix album)

Some IP who actually confirmed the third single album with a source indcated from http://directlyrics.com and does this source is reliable? it may be I think in my opinion. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not so sure. And I can't find another suitable source, either ... richi (hello) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Twitter on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9)

Is Twitter used in this context a reliable source? (Note that this is not the current version, but is similar to the current version). I removed it as unreliable, but am I wrong? I do apologize if I am. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

thepoliticalinsider.com/

Besides being reliable for only its own opinion, do we ever consider this a RS?

• http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/

Please ping me when you reply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

AINA (Assyrian International News Agency)

Some user Ferakp is claiming that AINA is not a reliable source [19][20] [21] [22] [23].

AINA is the largest and most well known news Assyrian organization. AINA is used in articles dealing with Assyrians, and also on human rights abuses against the Assyrian Christian minority in Iraq and Syria. Also hundreds of articles cite the Kurdish or Arab counterparts (Rudaw) of AINA.

AINA's reports were used by the US Department of the State [24][25][26], in social science books [27], by Human Rights Watch [28], by Amnesty International [29] [30], and by New York Times[31] and so on. --87.189.131.200 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)