Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 243

The article in question is Jewish partisans, the content is this diff, and the sources in question are:

1. Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews, edited by David Cesarani & Sarah Kavanaugh, Psychology Press, 2004, page 66 quote: to the Home Army, the Jews were not part of "our nation", and that action to defend them was not to be taken if it endangered its other objectives. Certainly the Home Army was not willing to absorb the Jewish partisan groups..... (... there was one exception, in Volhynia .... ) The Home Army was also not very willing to accept Jews as individuals, though here too there were exceptions
2. Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp, Christopher Browning, W. W. Norton & Company, page 252, ISBN 978-0-393-33887-4, quote:While a few partisan groups ... would accept Jews, those associated with the AK (the conservative nationalist underground Home Army) usually rejected them. More dangerously, some AK units and especially extremist units associated with the notorious National Armed Forces (NSZ) would either rob Jews or simply kill them outright

Christopher Browning is a historian specializing in the Holocaust, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, formerly (retired 2014) Distinguished Professor at Pacific Lutheran University and chaired at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. David Cesarani (deceased 2015, aged 58) was a research professor at Royal Holloway, University of London specializing in the Holocaust. Sarah Kavanaugh is a history PHD (2003) and has held a number of academic positions since 2004.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Correction/Addition - the book chapter in the work edited by Cesarani is by Antony Polonsky - whose credentials in Polish Jewish history are quite established.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these are reliable (despite the fact that Browning does write some grade-A nonsense) but the question isn't over the reliability of these sources, it's over UNDUE. And your attempts to remove other reliable sources. Also, you're suppose to notify others who are involved in the discussion about these postings of yours.Volunteer Marek (talk)

VM seems to be notified. I will note that VM hasn't raised UNDUE as an objection (which is an odd objection here) in his reverts or on the talk page, but has rather challenged this as "dubious, as discussed elsewhere. Several Jewish individuals were part of AK's leadership", and has called Christopher Browning "garbage". The "other reliable source" is a document in Polish which doesn't seem to say what is sourced to it (though factually it is correct there were a few Jews in some parts of the Home Army despite its overall antisemitic outlook, and that there was limited Jewish-AK cooperation in some areas - despite fighting and persecution of Jews in others), that was published by an anti-communist lustration agency with various reputation issues - it is controversial,^[1] "is engaged not in protection of national memory but rather in activities that ‘destroy this memory’",^[2], having a political role,^[3], "a government agency and not a recognized Holocaust center" - with "worry due to its orientation" "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity" "These incidents suggest IPN serves not merely as a historical repository but an institute that responds to slanders against the Polish nation and engages in Polish apologetics".^[4]. However regardless of all the doubts and reservations (in the academic literature) on the IPN as an institution - we have higher quality English sources which should be preferred per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t believe anyone disputes these are reliable sources.

However they offer very general and stereotypical sweeping statements. The Polish sources have more in depth analysis of the subject and more detailed information. We have in fact one dedicated source and two very general ones. Therefore sources aren’t of equal weight, as one is more detailed scholarly study of the subject. This is in fact a content dispute as Icewhiz wants to delete a more detailed information and present a very general pov statement based on cherry picked sources, which in fact is incorrect-for example Home Army and Jewish partisants cooperated in other areas than Volhyn--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Both English books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field . The section from Browning is from the chapter on escapees. The chapter from Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews is by Antony Polonsky, an eminent expert in the field, and is titled Beyond condemnation, apologetics and apologies: on the complexity of Polish behavior toward the Jews during the Second World War. Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army, as "stereotypical", when it is present in most serious unbiased sources is highly offensive. I'll note that the Polish language source from a government agency (which as per sourcing above "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity") by a researcher not particularly known (though he has been in the press lately after the Polish government agency decided to remove him from research and bar publication of his habilitation thesis -[1][2] - demonstrating IPN's bias) - does not seem to support the text it was sourcing in the article per my reading - however such a source from a highly biased government agency and in a language other than English is not appropriate when we have several high quality sources in English which we prefer per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field" - the second one certainly isn't and the first one is "detailed" about a different topic. So false.

And statements such as "Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army..." merely serve to show your extremist bias, and illustrate why you should have no business editing this topic area.

And one more time, drop the nonsense about IPN ("government agency"). It's reliable. It's academic. It's scholarly. It's reliable. You haven't been able to convince a single person otherwise. Live with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And just because YOU haven't heard of a particular researcher, doesn't mean he's "not particularly known". On top of everything else, your persistent BLP violations and attacks on any historian who might disagree with your extremist POV are getting too much.

Finally, you try to bring up WP:NOENG again. Why weren't you bringing that up when you were trying to use Polish anti-semitic far-right sources in other articles (to commit BLP violations)??? This argument is just pure cynical hypocrisy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• After taking a look I agree with VM & MM here. The two other sources are very general in coverage VS a much more detailed one. As reliability of none of them is really in question, proper use would indicate using the detailed source for specific details, the general sources for general non-contradictory information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sources Icewhiz mentions are above suspicion, and so cannot be removed. VM's point is also fair: detailed studies that deal with the nitty gritty are intrinsically more important than generic material, even from experts. In this case, if the generalizations are contested by the detailed studies, one should privilege the latter, and either in a note, or with attribution, succinctly cite the generalizations as a minority view.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: one of the sources I am citing is a book chapter titled Beyond condemnation, apologetics and apologies: on the complexity of Polish behavior toward the Jews during the Second World War is by Antony Polonsky - this is a detailed study on the specific topic. The document VM is citing has not been reliably published in an academic setting.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that the Polish government agency document is being mosrepresented - it actually mainly agrees with Polonsky. You can see it via google translate here. Some translated quotations:

1. The problem is wider. In Jewish historiography, there is a view that if Jews were admitted to AK units, they were only individual - they were few cases. In the article Poland after the Holocaust, Iwona Irwin-Zarecka wrote: "The Home Army, the largest underground organization, had some [some] Jews, some were even officers, but did not reveal that they were Jews." According to this historiography, as wrote Yisrael Gutman and Shmuel Krakowski in Unequal Victims. Poles and Jews During World War II"Both the Office of the Delegate and the Home Army considered themselves authorized to represent and defend only ethnic Poles." .... Recently, also Polish historians have stated that the Polish Underground State "did not include other national groups", was "ethnic in some sense", or otherwise - "apart from certain exceptions - the state of Poles", but they derive it from a different reason than Jewish historians. For some historians, this was the result of poor identification or lack of links between some Jews and the Polish (underground) state, as well as the Polish authorities' lack of trust in the Jews because of their attitudes at the beginning of the war: The author goes on to discuss a roundtable of Polish historians at the IPN who mainly agree with him. He summarizes with Jewish units, as a rule, did not receive proposals to join the AK structures. The exception is probably a combat unit made up of Jews, subject to AK, which was formed near the Polish village of Hanaczów (in Eastern Galicia), where there was so-called self-defense.
2. It seems that the central bodies of the Home Army and the Delegation saw Jewish units as "bands" as "foreign" groups, and considered them to be communized. It certainly affected the way of looking at AKPs at lower levels. However, it had to be a conjugate process: the perception of "Jewish units" by local AK members shaped the "upstairs" perception. He goes on to list various examples.
3. The conclusion may be drawn that, although a Jew who was in hiding was not always considered a "bandit" at once, being in a partisan unit qualified by the Home Army as a "gang", he became such a person. The aforementioned Tomasz Toivi Blatt continued his conversation with a fellow Home Army friend: "» A true Home Army soldier, "Tadek replied," he does not kill Jews unless they are caught with weapons. "Although it may happen that some Poles who rob members of the Home Army are robbing and murder Jews. "
4. There are also known cases of AK co-operation with Jewish units in other occupied areas of the Second Polish Republic - in Eastern Galicia and in Volhynia. The AK and Jewish partisans approached the "common enemy" - partisan units of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army - which is the same exception noted by Polonsky.
5. conclusion of article: It seems, therefore, that the perception of Jewish troops by the Home Army and the Delegation as "band", "alienated" and "commmonised" has developed in a complicated, complex process and resulted from the way of thinking and strategy adopted, from prejudices against Jews, and partly from the objective phenomenon of banditry of partisan units.

In short, the Polish document does not contradict Polonsky, and in fact to a large extent agrees with him. This misrepresentation of this Polish language source demonstrates why WP:NOENG is policy - many editors will not vet a non-English source, leaving Wikipedia to AGF with those who introduce the source - which is not the case with an English language source which one can verify readily.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but the above passages and sentences have been severely mistranslated and nowhere even in this form can support a claim that Home Army were "murderous antisemites". Even here, they support what I already stated that they worked in other areas than Volhyn with Jewish resistance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall note that a similar misrepresentation (or rather, more often and varying by document version, quotation from other sources cited via Puławski) of Puławski appears in a couple of WP:SPS documents by WP:QS Mark Paul discussed previously Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That appears to put a decidedly different complexion on things. Icewhiz’s sources are from 2004, and 2011. VM‘s source, Adam Puławski writing for the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, is from 2003. In short Browning one would expect would be familiar with Puławski 's work, yet made that generalization. Puławski is not regarded as a controversial author, as far as I can see. I.e. Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 Cambridge University Press, 2015 p.104 notes 54,57, and Michael Fleming in Paolo Giaccaria, Claudio Minca (eds.) Hitler's Geographies: The Spatialities of the Third Reich, University of Chicago Press, 2016 p.292 cite him, also on Jews, and this suggests to me Adam Puławski is eminently acceptable for by fellow Polish-history experts of any persuasion. One problem might be the institute journal he published his results in.

Adam Michnik On the Side of Geremek New York Review of Books 25 September 2008 cites a remark by Bronislaw Geremek regarding that organ, i.e., the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, which runs (2008):

The Institute of National Remembrance, supposed to protect national memory, is today engaging in activities that destroy this memory. Today’s memory police resort to the hateful methods of the communist secret services and direct them at a victim of this very secret service. These policemen violate the truth and fundamental ethical principles. They do harm to Poland

So, while following earlier Only in death's usually acute and balanced judgements, it would seem, if the googled pieces Icewhiz cites are a fair indication, that Icewhiz has a strong point here. Since the document is one written in a language external observers like myself cannot verify, it seems clear that the editor using it is under an obligation to provide thorough translations of the relevant paragraphs, all those dealing with Jews, at a minimum.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Geremek thing has more to do with the political infighting among the post-Solidarity camp in Poland in the 1990's and actually pertains to the subject of lustration (holding former communist officials accountable for any crimes they committed before fall of communism, and publishing documents on who collaborated and in what capacity with the Polish Communist Secret Services (the Polish version of the Stasi). Since IPN was in charge of the documents relevant to lustration, they came in for criticism from both sides (one side arguing they did too much, the other that not enough). So that criticism by Geremek, himself not a disinterested party, is about something else, not this particular topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani. There is no problem with translating passages if required. Note that in the above quote block Icewhiz has wrongly translated several sentences that completely change their meaning and omitted several important paragraphs. For example Pulawski writes that Jews were accepted on "case by case" basis due to security risk some of them posed due to their involvment with Soviet affiliated units that were actively hunting down Polish resistance.It's not a problem to provide translations, and if there is a conflict about interpretation ask a neutral translator-there are many here on Wikipedia that can do this. Note that Pulawski, noted for his very crticial views about Polish attiude to Jews, is a far as possible from the claim that Home Army were "murderous antisemites"-he presents a much more nuanced and detailed view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The additional twist on Pulawski is that in 2018 (15 uears after the article in 2003, and I will note that the 2003 IPN was much better regarded internationally than the 2008 or 2018 IPN) has been rubber roomed by the IPN due to his research on Jewish-Polish relations not being in line with current politics.Very worrying’ that Shoah historian forced from job by new Polish lawPolish historian says he was forced to switch jobs because of his Holocaust research. But in any event, his 2003 piece only supports Polonsky, though written from a Polish vantage point.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For the purpose of this discussion the question seems to be resolved.

Both sources are reliable and nobody disputes this. If Icewhiz wants to remove other sources and information then it is a question for completely different discussion. it is worth noting that here we have a situation in which the user seems to chase his own tail so to speak(for lack of better metaphor by this non-native English speaker). The source was first questioned as being from IPN and then defended as being criticized by IPN for being too pro-Jewish in views. I am afraid that this demonstrates if a source as pro-Jewish as Pulawski does go into detail and provides examples of cooperation between AK and Jewish Partisants it just demonstrates how radical and extreme the claim that Home Army were murderous antisemties is. Pulawski is critized as being pro-Jewish and highly critical towards Polish resistance and even he is attacked by Icewhiz for not being too radical in his assesments while using his figure to attack other Polish scholarly institution. However this goes beyond the scope of this discussion--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The content in question is The Polish Home Army provided some training to Warsaw Ghetto's Jewish Combat Organization, but generally did not accept Jewish groups (with the exception of Volhynia, where a Ukranian-Polish conflict raged and the Home Army was eager to cooperate with Jewish groups) and was reluctant to accept Jewish individuals. Antisemitism and killing of Jews was also an issue in the Home Army as made clear by Browning and most other sources - however that is not what we are discussing sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I did not "attack" Pulawski (who seems to be rather well like in academic circles outside of Poland per the support letters he received) - I asserted that the government agency via which this was published is a marginal source at best (with various severe political issues) - and provided sourcing for that assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"I did not "attack" Pulawski" <-- You most certainly did, in fact you tried to dismiss him as "a researcher not particularly known" among other things, until it was pointed out who he was. Then you were like "oops, did I attack this guy? No, no, no, he's great! I never said the things I said, what are you guys talking about?". Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That is factually accurate. He was a new phd in 2003, a cursory examination of citations and positions of Polonsky or Browning shows they are better known academically.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your own translation contradicted what you are saying.It says Jewish units within Home Army operated outside Volhynia. Please note that there was a Jewish unit in Warsaw uprising as well and Home Army also provided intelligence and military equipment to Jewish resistance. However this is isn't really that big part of Home Army's operations-Jewish resistance in Poland was very, very small and counted barely couple of thousands of Jews out of 3 million or so. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pulawski (which a low quality source due to publication venue) also mentions Eastern Galicia which is in present day Western Ukraine and adjacent to Volhynia - with the same Jewish-Polish-Ukranian triangle (where Jews at times allied with the AK - this in contrast to Western Belarus where the AK collaborated, much of the time, with the Nazies) - which is a small geographic nuance. The AK did accept small amounts of surviving Warsaw ghetto fighters after the ghetto uprising. However - all of these limited instances of cooperation, as noted by any serious source, are exceptions to the rule, overshadowed by some AK units engaging in widespread killings.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "low quality source". Quit making stuff up. The source is perfectly fine and so is the author. It's also complete and utter nonsense that "AK collaborated, much of the time, with the Nazies (sic)". You either absolutely have no clue as to what you're talking about, or you're purposefully saying offensive shit in an attempt to provoke other editors, maybe so you can then complain about incivility or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Government agency with serious reputation issues is an inferior source to an academic publication. And I said in Western Belarus, where this is well established there was Nazi weapon supply and coordination with the AK.[3]. Simple fact, elsewhere AK's actions were different.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no "serious reputation issues" except in your head. And I have no idea what your source is or who the author is, but there's some grade-A stupidity and nonsense in it. The author seems to sincerely believe that a regional partisan commander (a colonel) and a Abwehr major had the authority to negotiate over Poland's postwar borders! WTF??? Where the hell did you dig this piece of junk up?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Well this discussion seems to be settled then, since none of the sources mentioned in the headline are in doubt as reliable.If you have doubts about others, feel free to start a seperate topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, if so I shall cut out the non-representative examples from the article, as well as the serious misrepresentation of Pulawski and restore text sources to Polonsky and Browning.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We already have a much more in depth cover of this relationship, and with different sources.I see little value in replacing detailed information with sweeping and inaccurate generalizations. If there are any mistrepresentations of Pulawski-feel free to point them out on appropriate discussion page for the article. As this discussion has run its course I suggest moving your comments to the article talk page if you have any.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, sources making general stmts are preferred to anecdotes and OR based on them. The article severely misrepresents mainline sources (and following latest anecdotal additions is using non-academic sources) when it states Polish Home Army provided training to Warsaw Ghetto's Jewish Combat Organization, and included in its ranks Jewish individuals and Jewish units, such as Lukawiecki Partisants commanded by Edmund Łukawiecki and working under the umbrella of Home Army[16][17], and Jewish Platoon Wigry which took part in 1944 Warsaw Uprising[18]. It also collaborated with Jewish units in self-defence operations[19] - which per sources discussed here are rare exceptions to the rule, and are not presented as such. Finally, WP:NOENG and use of (yet more) low quality non-English sources is a RS issue.Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me say this again. Somebody - that'd be Icewhiz - who tried using Polish language far-right antisemitic publications in a BLP because it suited their POV, and tried to pass these off as RS, has no business bringing up WP:NOENG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF situation.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's another falsehood. The source you used, prawy.pl was not BY the BLP subject, it was a commentary ON the BLP subject. And you know this of course, since it's come up previously. So why are you knowingly pretending otherwise?

As is adding yet more citations (or mis-citations as the case may be) that appear in Mark Paul's SPS A Tangled Web - e.g. Jewish Hit Squad: The Łukawiecki Partisans Unit of the Polish Armia Krajowa, 1941-1944 Przednia okładka Simon Lavee Gefen Publishing House Limited, 2015 - 308.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to positively surprise you. I am not using Mark Paul, nor have I read him at all. Frankly I avoided being engaged in this discussion.If that person used the same source, good for that person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cesariani accuses the NSZ to be fascist, p. 67. It's not exactly academic.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Any underground is based on paranoia. The Home Army was infiltrated by Germans and Communists. Guerilla commanders executed foreigners rather than organised auditions. It's ahistorical to criticize 1943 people on the basis of 2018 knowledge.

The Jewish Combat Organization was leftist, it cooperated with Communists, which made the HA cautious if not hostile. There exists a controversy regarding Jewish Military Union.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Adam Puławski cooperated with and was accepted by the Center [4]. Recently he has been removed from the IPN. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable for the statement listed. Recognised scholars in the field; professionally published. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am writing to ask someone to take a closer look at Meetup (website). Specifically, the part that says “and lacking the funds necessary to compete against rising competition.” I cannot find a cited source for that statement. The citation in question is here (https://www.wired.com/story/why-wework-is-buying-meetup/).

I've previously posted about this on the Talk page here

As indicated in my profile, I work at Meetup.

"Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)"

Is this source reliable to include the following sentence in the article People's Mujahedin of Iran?

The CIA's former Chief of Station in Tehran, George Cave, described the attack as the first instance of a remotely detonated improvised explosive device.

— Peter Earnest (June 21, 2012). "Our Man in the Middle East (Part 1)". www.spymuseum.org (Podcast). International Spy Museum. Event occurs at 34:21-35:07. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

–Pahlevun (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I am currently using the following source (AfterElton Briefs: A Year Of Father Hotties, Britney Gets The Axe, and Tom Daley Wants a Kiss) in the Lady Blue (TV series) article. During the FAC for the article, a question on whether or not NewNowNext.com is "a high-quality reliable source" was raised during the source review. Here is a link to the about page (About Us), which includes a list of the editors, and I believe that it shows that the site has editorial oversight. The source used for the article was written by the site's managing editor. My question is: would this source be acceptable for a featured article? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Are “true crime” books considered a reliable source for biographies of mass murderers or serial killers? Obviously, these books are mostly factual, but contain a significant degree of fictionalization, mostly to add drama to the story, as well as to protect privacy and confidentiality, so they aren’t as reliable as academic/scholarly sources about the topic. Would they still be considered a reliable source?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MBridges1996 (talk • contribs)

As our True crime article says, this genre is highly variable. The specific information will have to be assessed against the particular book used. Thincat (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been trying to edit the article Hadith of Najd by removing content from websites that clearly fail WP:RS. I would like confirmation that the sites are unreliable for Wikipedia. The sites in question are:

• ayha.org
• danielpipes.org
• en.islamtoday.net
• systemoflife.com
• ahlalhdeeth.com
• islamhouse.com

Most of the material for the article has been taken word for word from this page [5] and seems to be a clear violation of WP:COPYRIGHT and also seems completely unreliable. Also, the author seems spurious (who on earth is Abu Rumaysah - hopefully not this guy). Thank you.2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:DCC7:6D14:2026:586D (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I will look through them all

• ayha.org currently a parked domain, archives at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ayha.org/ suggest is a hospital website in some other country so not reliable for claims about Hadith of Najd.
• danielpipes.org Daniel Pipes has controversial views on Islam but is an academic, need context to determine reliablity
• en.islamtoday.net, English version is down at time of writing Arabic site is still up though
• systemoflife.com, no proof of reliability looks like a site started by a random person
• ahlalhdeeth.com, forum so not reliable unless it is from a reliable author
• islamhouse.com, looks it just hosts content by others

Copyright problems should be reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Two editors are removing (here and here) the following source:

• Hind Khoudary, 'My daughter was a target': Gaza grieves for paramedic killed by Israel Middle East Eye 6 June 2018

The content comes from an interview given to this Gaza-based reporter by the mother of Razan al-Najjar, concerning the life of her daughter before she was shot dead i.e.

According to her mother, Najjar attended every Friday event from 7am and 8pm, and would return home spattered with the blood of those whom she had tendered care to.

There are two arguments in the edit summaries against this, WP:Undue, and Middle East Eye is not RS. This board has never determined that. A brief discussion with one of the reverters took place here.

The source Hind Khoudary (22) is one of the few female reporters used by foreign media for what’s going on the ground there. (Hamza Saftawi and Miriam Berger To Be a Palestinian Journalist in Gaza Is to Be Always Under Threat The Nation 27 April 2018) She works as a translator and journalist for outlets like Kuwait’s national channel, RT News , the Electronic Intifada, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss and Libération. There’s no doubt RT is viewed with a dim eye, and I would never use it. But as for the others, they are reasonable outlets for a journeyman reporter in this context, and her work on Gaza fishermen’s plight for the Electronic Intifada was recommended by The Jerusalem Fund; her work on Hamas-Fatah reconciliation has been cited in the Council on Foreign Relations daily news wrap up as a useful analysis; Libération also cite her for what’s going on inside Gaza.

I believe in strong sourcing where possible, but where conditions on the ground make coverage extremely difficult, and the material happens to be, in my view, innocuous background detail from a local reporter interviewing someone, then I cannot see good reason to exclude it. I would exclude MEE if we were dealing with extraordinary claims or otherwise unattested facts. Neutral third party input would be appreciated. For involved editors, please refrain from turning this into another I/P bagfight.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I will not comment on the source per your request but the undue question is for WP:NPOVN Shrike (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont think this is even the right question. Middle East Eye, here, is used as a source for an interview with the victim's mother. There isnt any indication that they did not faithfully and accurately report what her mother said. Even if one wanted to say that MEE is generally not a RS, which I would dispute, the idea that they shouldnt be sourced for an interview they had is absurd. What evidence is there that they did not conduct this interview? None, this is strictly an effort to deny a voice to the mother of the subject of the article. If I werent already so jaded from my years here ... nableezy - 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a small fringe website with alleged links (per some Arab states and other sources) to the brotherhood. It does not have a reputation for accuracy. The question to be asked of the interview is not whether there is evidence it is bogus - but rather whether there is evidence it is legit. We do not source BLP stmts (the mother is a BLP, the subject a BDP) to questionable sources per BLPSOURCES.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Unequivocally not true. Read WP:FRINGE, this is not that. And so what if people who work there are members of the Brotherhood. This isnt some McCarthyist paradise where only people whose politics you like count. And really, evidence that it is legit? How about the picture of her mother and the transcript of the interview? And what negative statement about her mother is in this source that you would remove per BLP? Get off it. nableezy - 19:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And to the point on reliability, here are other sources citing Middle East Eye:

• NYTimes
• NYTimes
• BBC
• BBC
• Guardian
• Independent
• Independent
• Independent

This is a source often cited by other reliable sources. Nothing has been given as evidence that it is "fringe", that is a completely baseless claim, made only to remove what a victims mother said about her daughter. nableezy - 19:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Widely respected sources consider Middle East Eye reliable enough to cite it. The personal ideology of a news organization's employees is irrelevant as to whether their reporting is reliable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• 2602:306:8b8c:29a0:9c33:ba9d:d7d6:172f (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:BD3A:4340:C9DD:3FEB (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ZTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Milhaupt, Curtis J.; Zheng, Wentong. "Beyond Ownership: State Capitalism and the Chinese Firm". Columbia University. Retrieved 19 April 2018.

an ip user keep on censoring the wikipedia content in ZTE, at first he claimed this is WP:original research (but it actually an article by Curtis J. Milhaupt), then claim it is not an approved source. Please revert his edit Special:Diff/846126374 if it really an reliable source. Matthew_hk tc 14:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

other source http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2150979/china-us-zte-deal-calm-storm. Matthew_hk tc 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2.15.12drake_testimony.pdf

https://www.ft.com/content/24c998b4-416c-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b (quoting National Cyber Security Centre) Matthew_hk tc 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the content issue, but the article linked is a shorter preprint of the final article, which was published in the Georgetown Law Journal and is available as a full preprint. I'm not an expert on law, but I do think that the published version is an impeccable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like the source is reliable. While (arbitrary) university hosted webpages as such are not reliable sources and are often to be treated as self published sources, you can nevertheless argue the established expert exception here (Wikipedia:USERG). Moreover if the content of that webpage is just a copy of an article, that was properly published in an (reputable) academic journal as Stephan points out above, then it is indeed at formally an impeccable source and hence at first glance no grounds for exclusion from the WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider an FBI case file to be a reliable source for basic biographical information? Radical activist Robert F. Stern's article uses his FBI casefile as a reliable source. I think we can all agree that it is not necessarily a good source for someone's views, but I believe it should be used to substantiate basic biographical information.--TM 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. FBI files are compilations of allegations. They are not compilations of fact! There's nothing factual in FBI files that can't be confirmed from actually reliable sources—because if it can't be found in a reliable source it's not a fact. - Nunh-huh 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I actually think such case files are highly reliable in some cases, and they can be a superb source if you are doing research (and this is true of totalitarian regimes as well - e.g. the Soviets - such case files are often very detailed and more "honest" than censored public documents). However, they are primary sources and if the subject is a BLP as he seems to be here, then they are (with minor carveouts for augmentation) disallowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

They superb documents for research and to assemble a picture or biography of a person - yes, but that activity is in WP usually a violation of WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That very much depends what the basic infrmation is that is supposed to be sourced here. For stuff like place of birth, attended schools, occupation/job using an FBI file might be unproblematic. But other than that their use is often highly problematic. It is also highly depended on the context. For instance basic biographic information about foreign national might much less reliable (and potentially speculative), whereas the same basic information about an American where the FBI has access to the birth certificate, social security number and other public records is much less problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue at hand is whether it is a reliable source for stating which high school the subject attended.--TM 12:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well assuming the identity as such of the person is not in dispute and that fbi file is publically accessible then sourcing with it to which highschool the person went seems harmless enough, so imho ok. However looking that the article in question it seems there was about 10k of text associated with fbi file as source rather than just the highschool name. While you may use the FBI file as source for the highschool name, you may not use it for for most of the other stuff, the removal of which hence seems appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The question that immediately comes to my mind is whether the file has been reliably PUBLISHED. How did you obtain the file? Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who sourced the article. I believe they found the information here. It seems to have been part of a government publication in 1975.--TM 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Title is pretty self explanatory. Anyways, I know that people regard these sources as the most reliable and objective news sources, but can they ever report information that is inaccurate, misleading, or false. (This is mostly by accident because the information was believed to be true at the time). Or report information that we cannot really confirm or deny because it’s just so vague and they don’t give a lot of background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBridges1996 (talk • contribs)

• Of course they can... No media source gets it right 100% of the time. Which is why we should always check to see if a news outlet has issued a retraction or correction (Indeed, issuing retractions and corrections when errors occur is one of the signs that a media outlet is reliable). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wire sources are not acceptable for medical claims, many historical claims, claims about engineering, etc. Sources are only reliable in a context for a claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well-established wire services with a good track record for reliability and an explicit editorial presence are generally considered WP:RS, but no source is infallible. And as said above, different sourcing/evidence criteria apply for different topics. -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And when they do make errors, they publish corrections. In fact, the regular appearance of corrections is a key indicium of reliability. EEng 01:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

+1. They do on occasion publish content in error, but they (rarely, and normally in a timely manner) publish corrections to that effect. Non-corrected content is reliable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how the AP, et alia is cited. For example, assume the fictional case where a wire story reports that researchers at X organization discover ABC is a cure for Made-up disease. The problem is taking this article & writing "ABC is a cure for Made-up disease", which is a blanket, absolute statement & asserts a fact that may not be in evidence; many preliminary reports of discoveries or cures later prove not to be the case. However, using that wire story to write, "Researchers at X organization reported success using ABC to cure Made-up disease" would be acceptable, since it is a fact that people reported that success. And while some would prefer to use a more specialized publication to cite for this statement, at least the fact of the statement has been corroborated, & someone else with better knowledge of the subject can then replace the wire story with a better citation. (This careful handling makes this a case of the perfect is the enemy of good.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur-Young Earth creationism-cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.

Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).

In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.

This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(FYI, I have a thread on this at Talk:Mokele-mbembe#Cryptozoologists,_creationists,_and_"living_dinosaurs".) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been years since I really researched this subject, but I do seem to recall a fairly famous paleontologist cynically noting in some book that that the brontosaurus-esque descriptions first appeared shortly after an outspoken creationist went on a missionary trip to the Congo around the time of the Scopes monkey trial. It stuck out in my head because the notion made me (creationist as I then was) rather angry, and I wasn't able to easily disprove it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but my library of the mysterious has long since been lost to time, curious former friends and vengeful ex girlfriends. Hopefully this will help point you in the right direction, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. It seems there's been a significant amount of money involved in all this, so perhaps there might be a lot more coverage beyond Prothero and a few other scattered sources I've found out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1:

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. This is the chart: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/presidentes-desde-1823/Paginas/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk • contribs) 14:01, June 19, 2018 (UTC) (and another dozen or so unsigned comments further down)

Well the BBC say 1st June [6]. One issue may be that a source saying that Pedro Sánchez was sworn in on the second does not mean that Rajoy term ended on the second. It is often the case a post is unfilled until it is filled. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And government does not mean "Prime Minister". You need a source saying he was still PM.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/06/02/actualidad/1527918278_189826.html https://www.eldiario.es/politica/BOE-nombramiento-Pedro-Sanchez-Gobierno_0_777972243.html http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2018/06/02/5b1237ad46163f8b2a8b45e8.html http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20180602/444002616755/boe-pedro-sanchez-presidente-cese-rajoy.html http://www.abc.es/espana/abci-publica-cese-rajoy-y-nombramiento-sanchez-201806020830_noticia.html http://cadenaser.com/ser/2018/06/02/politica/1527924001_915647.html

LA SER: El Boletín Oficial del Estado publica este sábado los tres Reales Decretos que oficializan el relevo al frente del Gobierno. El primero de ellos es el que nombra como presidente a Pedro Sánchez. Los otros dos recogen el cese de Mariano Rajoy y de todos sus ministros.

Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece "El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones.

The Government does include the Prime Minister: art. 98 of the Spanish Constitution: The Government consists of the President, Vice-Presidents, when applicable, Ministers and other members as may be created by law.

First new source "The royal decrees, signed on Friday by the King", so he was dismissed on the first. And the above quote does not say that the PM is the government, it is just the announcement of the publication of the royal decree signed on Friday 1st. stating that Sanchez took office on Saturday, well that could mean at midnight, thus meaning that Rajoy was PM up until 11:59:59 on the Friday.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I already tried to explain this IP user before. He tries to collect and re-interpret the wording of the Constitution and various laws to imply that Rajoy was acting PM from 1 to 2 June, even when La Moncloa's website itself did not show Rajoy within the acting government's composition, nor did he act as acting PM or as PM at all from 1 to 2 June, nor there is any source pointing out that Rajoy was indeed acting PM until 2 June. All sources point out Rajoy's term ended on 1 June. Re-interpreting sources to try to imply things not stated by the sources themselves is an exercise of WP:SYNTH. I hope the issue is finally solved now. Impru20^talk 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

They were signed on Friday, but can't enter into force until they are published. Please read carefully from LASER's source: Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece "El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones I think it's pretty clear.

It does not say that Rajoy was still in office on Saturday, it says only that Sánchez took office on Saturday. We can only say what sources say, not what we interpret them to say. None of your sources say he was PM on the second, only that someone else was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I'll translate. It literally says that, in order to avoid a power vacuum, the Constitution establishes that the outgoing Government shall continue in office until the new Government is sworn in. So, since Pedro Sánchez has taken office on Saturday, Mariano Rajoy has been the acting Prime Minister only for a few hours. I think it's utterly clear.

That's your own interpretation of the law, combining material from different sources to reach conclusions not explicitly stated in them. The sources you provide establish 1 June as the end date for Rajoy's term. You asked for comments from other users, and now you have them. Seriously, there is little else to discuss here. Please, refrain from engaging in further disruptive editing at Mariano Rajoy. Impru20^talk 16:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It also does not say when those few hours were, Saturday evening, Friday morning or sometime in between.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is time for others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018

I agree. Thanks a lot for listening and giving your opinion. However, I would be extremely grateful if other users who know about law expressed their own viewpoint.

It is not knowing about law, but knowing about WP:SYNTH. Unless you can show a source that explicitly confirms Rajoy was still PM on Saturday, 2 June, there is little that anyone, we or others, could do here. Also, please stop spreading the discussion everywhere throughout Wikipedia. You're repeating the same arguments here, at Talk:Mariano Rajoy#End of term and now at Talk:Pedro Sánchez (politician)#Date as well. Please, respect WP:TALK#USE. Impru20^talk 16:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep quiet until other users answer. Primary information sources are obviously more reliable that secondary information sources, which are the ones you're using - but newspapers obviously don't deal with subtle legal questions like this, so it's difficult to find an article stating that Rajoy's term ended on June 2, even if I have found one - LASER - that suggests it did, and you insist on rejecting its validity -. If we find someone who knows the actual effects of publishing a decree in BOE, our dispute will be solved.

https://www.uv.es/legalskills/validez/cundo_entran_en_vigor_las_normas.html

This is a legal source where it is explained that decrees must be published in BOE before entering into force, so Mariano Rajoy can't have stopped being PM before the decree ousting him from office was published.

You have been already told that reaching conclusions not explictly stated in the sources you provide is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You have been already shown that even your own sources do show that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, and you have been so far unable to provide a source which explictly confirms that Rajoy was still PM on Saturday 2 June. So far, you are flooding Talk:Mariano Rajoy#End of term, Talk:Pedro Sánchez (politician)#Date and Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Spain#Rajoy's term end date with the exact same argument over and over again, unwilling to accept that others may think against your criteria. This is overtly disruptive. It is obvious you have nothing new to say, so await until others come on and comment but 1) do not try to impose your will as you have tried to do at Mariano Rajoy, and 2) surely, others may be hampered from giving their thoughts if you do not stop copy-pasting your walls of text over and over again throughout multiple talk pages. Impru20^talk 17:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but please wait until others read the discussion and answer. If we keep discussing they will not read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk • contribs) 17:41, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

@93.156.8.194: Please add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after each new comment of yours, so they are identified and timestamped. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

At 2018 Gaza border protests a revert specialist excised a piece by Norman Finkelstein stating unreliable sources, not an historian Norman Finkelstein Gaza:An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press 2018.

I know the answer, which is obvious for technicians of RSB issues, but I would like external neutral confirmation. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A book by a visible activist and self described as Finkelstein’s magnum opus is both a monument to Gaza’s martyrs and an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history. is definitely a WP:BIASED source, and would require balancing at the very least.... Note the diff you are linking to is soirced to a Mondoweiss opinion piece, which would not be RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So you think s scholar who writes to resist our tendency to forget history is 'biased'? Don't we read, for our moral sanity, numerous works on the Holocaust, lest we forget, and is to do so proof that the historians who keep our sensitivities alive are biased???? Every journalist writing for the newspaper sources we base our articles on is an 'activist' or 'partisan' by your criterion. Please also note that the massive coverage of the 2018 Gaza border protests article's content we use comes from newspaper reports overwhelmingly written by journalists rewriting army press reports, as has recently been admitted, and no Israeli journalist was permitted to get within viewing distance of the snipers operations. Notwithstanding this, we duly cite those newspapers. The University of California Press is one of the world's major peer-reviewed academic publishing venues. You don't get published there unless peers in the field scrutinize your manuscript and approve its quality. That Finkelstein chooses to write for Mondoweiss is none of our business, and what he is writing about is what the Israeli press admits: the problems of reporting details on an event no one was allowed to directly witness from the safe Israeli trenches and berms. The RSN board has never decreed that Mondoweiss is off-limits. Its usability depends on who is writing the given piece. Thirdly, I added a balancing piece to Finkelstein's views.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The diff of the revert you linked to above is the removal of a sentence sourced to a Mondoweiss opinion piece by Finkelstein. Where does the book come into play?Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS#Exceptions: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims.

Even if this were self-published Finkelstein clearly meets the threshold for established expert in the field as his works on the topic has been published by highly respected academic presses. And really, is that an exceptional claim? Somebody is actually challenging Media coverage of the events has been the object of controversy? That is literally the most mundane fact about any topic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 05:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I frankly do not understand why the controversy of media bears mentioning - it is indeed par the course. However it seems this opinion source is also used elsewhere in the article. As for Finkelstein's opinion piece on the New York Times reporting (an actual RS) - it is RS for Finkelstein's opinion only, which is probably UNDUE if only published by the small and polemic Mondoweiss.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, again, what WP:RS actually says is when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications a source may be used for non-extraordinary claims. You are inventing these thresholds, small and polemic are a. untrue, and b. irrelevant. If this had appeared on Finkelsteins geocities blog it would meet the requirements to be used, because Finkelstein is an established expert in the field? Why is he an established expert in the field? Because his works in the relevant field have been published by highly respected academic presses and journals.^{[7] [8][9]} Im sorry you dislike his politics. He however without question meets the requirements as an established expert on the topic for statements he writes anywhere, including a small and polemic website. You disliking somebody's views is not license to silence them on Wikipedia. nableezy - 06:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Though this board is not for discussion of information of WP:UNDUE his opinion is WP:UNDUE and also who decided that he such expert on Gaza matters and facts?--Shrike (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The University of California Press when they published his book on Gaza. nableezy - 07:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we have input by neutral editors now? All that is required is to measure the status as an informed political scientists/historian of the I/P area, Norman Finkelstein, whose book on Gaza was peer-reviewed and published by the University of California. It's not a hard call.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are not sourcing to a UCL book, but to an oped on Mondoweiss. Calling expert on an oped by an activist, who is also an academic, is stretching it.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Mondoweiss in these case are WP:SPS platform.Does every word of Finlelshtein about Gaza is WP:DUE?--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop repeating things you know to be false. Mondoweiss is not WP:SPS. RSN boards consistently state that the outlet for an established historian or writer (himself RS) has nothing to do with the outlet he choses to publish in.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, this habit of completely ignoring what people write is a bit tendentious. Last time hopefully, WP:RS says that when an established expert in a field writes something that can be used as a source even if it is self-published. And this isnt even self-published. But even if it were it would still be a fine source. He is an established expert because he has been published on this specific topic by top quality academic presses. If you have any reply to that feel free, otherwise you are simply playing the I did not hear that game. And hello, you arent even disputing the accuracy of the content. nableezy - 18:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

RSN reports should be specific on the source - which in this case is not a book (though looking at the post above one might be confused) but an oped. As for content - ssome of the other content - which is Finkelstein's oped critique of the NYT - is most definitely not a RS for anything but Finkelstein's opinion. The NYT piece, on the other hand, is a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am being specific on this source. Finkelstein is an expert in the field. This specific source is written by an expert in the field. WP:RS specifically allows for citing established experts in the field regardless if they publish that statement on a blog or on a third party website. Again, stop ignoring your interlocutors when they cite policy. It is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

One of Finkelstein’s books was published by the University of Minnesota Press (1996), another one (1998) by Henry Holt and Co., a third and fourth (2008,2018) are published by the University of California Press. That establishes his credentials as a reliably published expert beyond contention. Despite the severe external pressure put on Ucal not to publish his 2008 book, they went ahead with it, after a three year delay. While Finkelstein was forced out of academia and the academic press, he produced several works I don’t cite because he could only get them into print by OR Press. I never even try to argue for their use here because that would be easily challenged. This year he came out with an extremely close reading of I/P reportage, and Ucal had it peer reviewed, and went ahead and printed it, breaking the informal taboo. Proof, if any if needed, that his status as an authority on these matters now is not questioned. Could we please have external neutral input here? Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Could neutral external editors, for the second time, please spend a few minutes reviewing this? The I/P are is notoriously a toxic zone, and I understand no one wants to comment there. It's precisely for this reason that we have recourse to forums like this, to get assistance from some sane independent and policy-competent people. Please, whatever your views. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You aren't going to get input blessing every op-ed by Finkelstein (which is what is being discussed here) as a reliable source for anything other than Finkelstein's rather strong opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop the prophecy, and exercise restraint and patience.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He is RS, he is a noted commentator and recognized expert and it was published by a reputable publisher.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perfectly useable. Even if it was self published it would be useable. If it was sourcing something particularly contentious I might ask 'is this undue?' but for the material it is being to reference its fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable: a scholar & a recognised expert in the field; has studied the topic and published books on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• He's a Princeton PhD who has published in multiple university presses. He should be considered a recognized expert on Israel-Palestine given that he's published in academic outlets on that topic. Given that he's offering expert commentary on a highly controversial issue, his assertions should preferably not be in Wiki voice but instead be attributed to him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the content provided by sources referenced in the article satisfy the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies? Per recent feedback from a wiki contributor, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I would like to get other opinions on this topic.

Article: Draft:SenRa — Preceding unsigned comment added by TekJunky (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Input requested on this: Naliboki Forest: Historical outline and ethnographical sketch, pages 1024-1026, by Prof. Dr. Vadim Sidorovich of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The article in question is Naliboki massacre (which at present uses rather poor sources (mainly interim reports by a prosecutor's office) and for which this is a distinct lack of English RS (there is some newspaper reporting on the outrage of the prosecutor's actions - but little on the historical events themselves)) and incorporation of material from Sidorovich regarding Naliboki village in the months prior to May 1943 and May 1943. The publisher is Chatyry Chverci from Minsk. The work has been peer reviewed by Prof. Dr. Mikhail Nikiforov (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus), Prof Dr. Uldazimir Bahinski (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus), Prof. Dr. Frieder Luz (Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Science), Prof Dr. Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski, and Prof Dr. Annick Schnitzler (University of Lorraine). The author is an expert on the Naliboki forest, and the work itself is a 3 part anthology - the first part on land and plant communities, the second on wild animals, and the third is this volume which is a Historical outline and ethnographical sketch.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reasonably reliable / acceptable: the author is not an academic historian, so I would classify this (3rd) volume as "popular history". The work has been published with a third-party press and peer-reviewed, and we can reasonably expect that the author has handled his sources with care. Popular histories are not excluded per policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman really? look at your comment and vote here -->[10] Why change of the opinion on the matter of non-academic historians now? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Poray is a WP:SPS by a non expert, and mentioned unfavorably (briefly) in RS. Sidorovich on the other hand is an established academic in a different field who published a peer-reviewed scientific-popular history book via a reputable publisher. Would a journal article by a top notch historian be better? Yes. Sidorovich is however much better than media reports or interim prosecutor reports (or media reports of prosecutor stmts) - with bias issues and beyond that a much less robust review process.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Ice, but this question wasn’t addressed to you so please don't respond for somebody else. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@GCB, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Poray was a deletion discussion; it's not relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable source, this is an environmental book “Land, Wildlife and Human” by biological studies professor Vadim Sidorovich (not a historian). All his books are about wildlife like this one for example “Guide to mammal and bird activity signs” [11] This author can’t be used as a reliable source on historical subjects. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable as a source about Naliboki massacre It is not clear what sources the author used for description of the massacre (there is a "Literature" section, but no references), and most sources seem to be geography or biology monographs. The author also cites some obscure web sites, and it is quite possible he used some of them (uncritically, because he is not a historian) to describe a massacre story. Moreover, I see the author used the Wikipedia article "Армiя Краёва" (Home Army), so it is quite likely this author tells the story he read ... in Belorussian Wikipedia.

Unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

He does mention Musial 2009 as a source in the section. Most of the sources in the literature section are legit. The section is most certainly is not based on the Russian, Belarussian, or Ukranian wikis - I have scoured all looking for sources - and the accounts there for this obscure event (covered mainly as a post-2000 memory politics issue in poor non-academic sources) are scant compared to Sidorovich. If we were to disqualify every book that has a couple of mentions of Wikipedia in the literature section (with 99% being non Wiki) we will be disqualifying a very large chunk of post 2010 books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

He cites many reliable sources, but they all seem to be geography or biology books. It seems he is a specialist in this subject. However, I found no historical documents in the literature section, but there are many blogs (see below), or dead links to a highly questionable narod.ru. By no means these self-published blogs are reliable sources. My conclusion, a history related part of this book was written by non-specialist, and it is based on unknown or obscure sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, the author cites this local blog as one of the sources. This page describes the massacre. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ice! Since March 19 you started to criticise Bogdan Musiał with a massive attack on critique of his work [12] with 16 edits nothing but negative additions about his work [13], [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] that ended up with an article being tagged with and UNDUE tag[29]Why are you giving an example of Sidorovich refering to Bogdan Musiał now???? Can you explain that to us? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I added well sourced info, I did not "attack". Certainly Musial's work (and public stmts on the Jewish religion) has been much criticized. I would say that some of Musial's work is not RS (depends on when/where it was published). However, there are very few (or rather - none or close to none) academic quality sources on Naliboki in 1943. Musial was published, and the cited work does contain a rather large collection of PRIMARY materials that are usable even if one views Musial's analysis as questionable. I do not fault Sidorovich for citing Musial on this subject - as Musial is really practically the only other borderline academic source available - however, use of Musial is attributed in Sidorovich who also takes a rather NPOV stance (Sidorovich does not assign "blame" to any of the sides and sticks to a factual description of events).Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable for text on Naliboki's wild animals and flora. Not reliable for historical stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Science/About
• Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Science/Editors

The first issue of the WikiJournal of Science was published recently; it can be seen here. This is a Wikimedia project, hosted at Wikiversity. Is it a reliable source?

A discussion has been taking place at Iridescent's talk page, and the majority opinion there seems to be that it is not. That's not really the best place to get visibility for a community consensus, though, so I am posting here in the hope of getting a discussion that we can point to in the future.

Disclosure: I am the author of one of the articles in the first issue of WikiJSci and plan to abstain from !voting below as a result. I had assumed it would be considered a reliable source, but I have no problem if the consensus is that it is not.

Pinging those involved in the earlier conversation, including the lead in to that conversation: Iridescent, Anthonyhcole, Evolution and evolvability, EEng, Ealdgyth, Mikael Häggström, Sylvain Ribault, Izno, Noswall59, Hawkeye7, Only in death, Floquenbeam, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sitush, TonyBallioni, Johnbod, Rachel Helps (BYU), Natureium. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'll let others address WP:RS and WP:MEDRS issues, if any. It's been a while since I've read them. I'd like to address WikiJournal in the general context of academic publishing. The traditional science and medicine publishing model relies on the reputation of the publisher, whom the reader trusts to run a high quality review by anonymous peers/experts, and the reputation of the authors, whose names are all disclosed. Both elements - the reputation of the publisher and the reputations of the authors - are essential. Humans - with careers and personal reputations and egos to protect - put their names behind an article. Wikipedia permits authors to remain anonymous and Wikijournal allows the reviewers to remain anonymous - leaving only the reputation of the publisher as a guarantee of reliability, and WikiJournal has no reputation yet.  --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the top two links for additional information. So, let's first discuss this issue as if we are to keep the option for peer reviewers to process articles anonymously (which it can possibly deny depending on this discussion). This is the prevalent system for scholarly journals in general. The journal does have WP:SCHOLARSHIP in that an editorial board invites independent experts on the subject to perform peer reviews. Still, it depends on trusting that the editorial board of the journal does indeed accept only experts in the field. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh, for my own editing purposes this journal would need some kind of accreditation or reputation before I'd consider it a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: I have to disagree with your views on The traditional science and medicine publishing model relies on the reputation of the publisher. This is placing one's blind faith on the publisher. For all we know, even Elseiver has done really sketchy stuff (see Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine and 5 other journals that are ghost written by big pharma). I'm not saying that all Elseiver journals are sketchy, but it should be judged independently and not with blanket assumptions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right about my use of "reputation of the publisher", OhanaUnited. That was approptiate language decades ago, when many more journals were published by academies, professional associations and learned societies. Nowadays, with the growing dominence of large corporate publishers, I should rethink that. I'll do some more reading and thinking about the issue, and in future may find myself refering to the reputation of the journal itself - rather than the reputation of the publisher. Notwithstanding that, reputation is the bedrock of sound medical and scientific publication - and has been since its inception in the 17th century. For instance, in this joint statement from the UK Royal Society and the national academies of France and Germany (outlining best practice for high quality science publishing), see the emphasis they place on the reputation of a journal's editor-in-chief, editorial committee and assistant editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No one said anything about blind faith. He just said that the model relies on the reputation. He didn't say blindly. EEng 17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Rewind to the previous line and he said in the general context of academic publishing. That's clearly generalization. And I have provided an example where even reputable publisher does sketchy stuff in the name of profit. Then he said Wikijournal allows the reviewers to remain anonymous. As Mikael Häggström pointed out, most journals don't reveal who the reviewers are, or even the peer-review reports. What I am seeing right now is that quite a number of people flatly saying "no" rather than "wait and see" as other new, nameless journals are afforded to out of courtesy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A general statement doesn't imply blind application. And yes, I'm saying flatly No. EEng 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• At a minimum, I would say “Not yet”... an important aspect of reliability is “reputation”, and Wikijournal is still too new to have earned any reputation (good or bad). Blueboar (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar and the others who have mentioned reputation. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'd disagree with Anthonyhcole's assertion that WikiJournal has no reputation yet; as a WMF project it has the reputation for accuracy that every other WMF project has, which is—for good reason—extremely low. I would be willing to bet a fair amount that few other journals have a disclaimer of this nature prominently linked from every page (and subject-specific disclaimers such as There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date linked from the relevant pages as well). There are some scientific journals—particularly in specialist areas such as engineering and animal husbandry—where individual writers have such a reputation for accuracy that peer review isn't even considered necessary (the London Railway Record is pretty much a one-man operation published from the editor's house, but if anyone tries to tell me it's not a reliable source on urban rail design and planning I'll laugh in their face) but that relies on the author(s) in question having built up a reputation over decades for accuracy and (equally importantly) for prompt corrections. Wikimedia is never going to develop a reputation for accuracy—if anything, the WMF would probably summarily close the Wikijournals if it did look like they were developing a reputation as independent sources in their own right, since it would destroy §230 protection if we abandoned the "we're just repeating what other sources say" defense; consequently the only path to RS-hood is by way of contributor reputation, which it's hard to imagine developing on a project where it's a matter of faith who is operating what account. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• While I agree that a new journal, based on a new publishing model, with no track record and no substantial body of outside evaluation should not be considered a 'reliable' source for most Wikipedia purposes, the presence of a content disclaimer is a red herring. Finding a content disclaimer on a website is regularly held up as some sort of Gotcha!, by editors who really ought to know better by now. A content disclaimer doesn't say anything one way or another; it just means that the publisher probably consulted a lawyer.
  If, for example, you visit the website of the Nature Publishing Group and read any Nature article, at the bottom of every single page is a link to the Legal Disclaimer, in part reading NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE, OR ANY WEB SITE TO WHICH IT IS LINKED. (That's their all-caps screaming, by the way.) The New England Journal of Medicine has a similar disclaimer, under the Terms link at the bottom of – you guessed it – every single page: The [publisher] makes no warranty that the operation of the Services will be uninterrupted or error-free or as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or result obtained from the use of the Services or any content included therein. That's just a taste; both pages go on at rather more length about how you absolutely should not rely on them. You'll find similar disclaimers on the websites of the New York Times, and the BBC, and just about everywhere else. (If anything, the absence of a content disclaimer should probably be seen as a mild warning signal.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's a straw man argument (as I suspect you know perfectly well). The disclaimers in Nature et al exist because their editors are aware of and are acknowledging the possibility of errors and omission and the fact that the paper may continue to be cited even after its assertions have been disproved. The WMF's disclaimers are because we are aware of and acknowledge the near certainty of errors, omission and statements based on dated sources in Wikipedia/Wikimedia content, even at the highest level.

  As others are alluding to, but I may as well say directly, I can't imagine any circumstances in which it would ever be legitimate to cite anything from Wikipedia/Wikiversity other than as a primary source in an article about Wikipedia. If the statement being cited includes sources, we should be citing those sources and not the Wikipedia page; if the statement being cited doesn't include sources, it has no place being cited on Wikipedia. Unsourced statements published in reliable sources we can use, since by footnoting it we're de facto saying "according to Foo" and consequently allowing readers to know where to go to query the source's credentials. The Wikijournal model, not so much, as we have no way of knowing whether either the authors of the page, or the people conducting the peer review, are Nobel laureates or Joe Blow from Kokomo; we've had high-profile problems with Wikipedia editors impersonating academics to try to give their views extra weight in the past. (As an obvious example, the thread that prompted this thread came about as a result of my being invited to contribute to WikiJournals; I very much doubt that any of the Wikijournal people have more than the faintest idea of who I am, let alone of what my qualifications are, whether I hold any particularly eccentric or objectionable views, or indeed whether I'm in fact a twelve year old child, a committee of twenty people who take turns using the account, or editing Wikipedia from a terminal in a secure psychiatric unit.) ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Basically, per Iri. No reputation for accuracy basically means no reliablity in wikipedia terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• No, at present. Wait until unquestionable peer reviewed sources from publishers with reputation in the relevant field, cite it, then you can cite those RS in Wikipedia articles, and perhaps open a new discussion, here, where you try to actually demonstrate reputation using number of citations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not yet, for the reasons others have given. Possibly never. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the journal doesn't yet have much of a reputation for anything because it is so new. I think it's important to consider the context of a citation. Most pages on medicine shouldn't be citing a single research study. I think a citation to a study in the WikiJournal of Medicine could show that a topic is undergoing research, but should be presented differently than a meta-study or overview study. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• No for the reasons above, and I'd be surprised if it ever is. If the issue is significant there will be other sources in any case. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• There are two basic types of articles in the journal. The first is a Wikipedia article that has undergone peer review such as Radiocarbon dating. There's really no RS issue here, since there is no original research and all content is attributed to another source. We can, and do, copy-and-paste this content into our articles along with the references.

The second type of article includes original published research. The only example I found in the inaugural issue was A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes, in which the authors present the new concept of a card game based on a number of reliable sources. I would agree that this is not a reliable source, unless the journal establishes a reputation of reliability. It's certainly possible that this type of research would eventually be republished in a reliable source which could then be cited.

I noticed that WikiJournal articles have the same "Edit" button as any other wiki article. I won't test this, but it appears that anyone can modify these articles after they are published. The Bell's Theorem article was accepted on 31 May 2018 yet its history shows that the author has edited as recently as 10 June. Have these subsequent edits been subjected to any sort of peer review or editorial oversight? –dlthewave ☎ 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A pdf is available for each article of the version accepted by the journal; that version never changes, and if the journal were ever to be regarded as a reliable source, that's what would have to be cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournals allow technical edits, as well as for example spelling corrections that do not alter the meaning of the text. A significant change to the meaning would necessitate a new peer review. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Also worth noting, that there are recommendations for how to handle this in journals, best summarised in the COPE recommendations. Updates or corrections that change the meaning can be done, but will require a corrigendum or erratum notice as appropriate and CrossMark update to a new version of the doi. Any significant changes would require peer reviewer re-checking and would generate a new version. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there technical measures in place to prevent edits that would require peer review? –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: The WikiJournal template which is used at the bottom of Wikipedia articles and the "suggested citation format" at Wikijournal both point to the edited Wiki version, not the PDF. This is something that could easily be corrected. Currently there is no notice anywhere that advises journal readers to click through to the PDF to access the accepted version. –dlthewave ☎ 14:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

At Frankfurt (Oder), an editor has inserted the following sources, to support the fact that supposedly the city's name in Polish is "Słubice":

• Mapa Polski 1:500 000 Wojskowy Instytut Geograficzny Sztabu Generalnego W.P., Warszawa 1947 [30]
• Koleje Pomorza 1:1100 000, marzec 1946

This conflicts with what appears to be actual Polish usage (looking on the Polish wiki, pl:Słubice clearly refers to the city on the east side of the Oder (in Poland) while a translation of the German name is used for the part that is in Germany (west of the Oder), pl:Frankfurt nad Odrą. The sources seem to be obsolete, too, since they're over 70 yrs old - way too old to be used as sources for current Polish usage. At best, the sources could be used to support the historical name of the city having been "Słubice" in Polish. Despite this being brought up on the article talk page, in edit summaries and on the other involved editor's talk page, I have no reply from the other party on the matter (except something which looks like WP:ABF). So, simple question: are these sources acceptable, or would they be disqualified under WP:RS AGE? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I began a discussion at 'Template_talk:Convert#Reliable_sources?' regarding the sources used for the template computations. Since this template is widely used for presenting data conversions, including on FA articles, I think the need for reliable sources is clear. Am I out of line on this? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Over at the article Mami Kawada, no age is given as she as, as far as I can tell, she has not publicly stated her year of birth. However, this article by Sports Hochi gives her age as 37; the article was published on February 4, 2018, and for reference, her birthday is February 13. Based on this source and the circumstances, what would be the best option here: list her year of birth as 1980, give a range for her year of birth (i.e. born 1980 or 1981), or omit the year of birth entirely (i.e. status quo)? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a source for her birth date of February 13. The article text mentions an album called "Best Birth" that was supposedly released on her birthday, but the cited source only contains the album track list. On that basis, I would suggest to remove the birth date entirely unless a RS can be found. Regarding the approximate birth year and age, we have a template specially made for such cases: use {{Birth based on age as of date}}. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The source for February 13 is her website ([31]). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, then add it as source. Birth year is still hard to define, because the February 4 article may have anticipated her birthday a few days later, and we must not perform synthesis if date and year are not found in the same source. Must cite both sources anyway, and would still use the birth template I mentioned. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Age in newspaper reporting is often off by a year between outlets - you often see this when different outlets, on the same date, report different ages - some round, some truncate, and some report an out of date age (e.g. quoting age off a prior report on the same person that is a few months old), in some cases (less relevant here) an approximate age from a police report, or hearsay (e.g. based on a friend giving the age - which can suffer from the aforementioned issues). In short - any news report needs to be assume to be a range (and for a close bday - the truncate/rounding issue is very much in play).Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1: Art. 101 El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. This is the chart: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/presidentes-desde-1823/Paginas/index.aspx

However, Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days (Pedro Sánchez's term is already said to begin on June 2). The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf

So what do you think? Could someone answer please? Hello?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018‎

All of what you're saying might be true (I'm no expert on the matter), but it lacks a source which directly supports your statement, and thus appears to be your own conclusion. Finding a WP:RS (or actually, multiple ones) which gives the end of Rajoy's term as being on the 2nd of June would be a better start than arguing this based on the text of the law. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I started the Del Barber article a number of years ago. Recently, I've been adding more information and more sources. There are lots of sources on Del. Now, there are certain parts of the article in which I've sourced with lots of sources. Some of his influences have four sources. You always want to source information, but can you over source? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an essay, but WP:OVERCITE seems applicable here. --tronvillain (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the section on influences looks like a cite farm designed to over emphasis a subjects notability by cite spamming. Also there is an over reliance on primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What primary sources? I've removed some dead sources. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DelBarber.com (the clue is in the name), Del Barber. Kickstarter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Have you bothered to actually look at the website? It's been changed. Those sources will be changed as well. Kickstarter is only used three times, even than the one instance is not applicable because you can't reference him hitting $13,000 in less than a week with the Kickstarter reference. Primary sources are not a problem. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

A question as asked it was answered, the fact you are now altering the sources does not make the answer wrong when given. As to the website being changed, changed in what way? It is a website for the promotion of his work, and is thus a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: They were never a problem. That's the point. If you bothered to look, the website has been changed thus the things they sourced are no longer there. You can't just leave a source there if the source has changed or it is dead. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is no, as long as the sources are reliable and useful. People who want to begin studying a particular issue can use the sources as good starting points, so they are of value. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I was wondering if I could use the following source (1) for the The Beautician and the Beast article. I would be using to expand information on the film's soundtrack. However, I am assuming that this site would not be usable on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure. Thank you in advance and I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not notable since it is a forum. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, that seems like a personal website run by a few individuals. There are some articles and interviews that could be considered, but yeah if the material you're looking to cite is from a forum posting, then no it wouldn't be acceptable. This is explained at WP:USERG. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Understandable. Just wanted to make sure. I figured that it was not acceptable. I already have enough sources for the soundtrack either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute regarding the Syrian Turkmen population on Talk:Syrian Turkmen. I am seeking advice on whether the claims on Harvard Divinity School's website are reliable (as it suggests a population of 100,000 for the Turkmen see here and 160,000 for Kurds in Syria see here - which I have not found in any modern academic source). There is no publication date, author, or references. Is this a reliable source? Does it actually count as academic? Thanks in advance for any insight. O.celebi (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm. It definitely is not up to date, since any up to date estimate says pre-war, since the current population by demographic in Syria (deaths and more significantly refugess) is very difficult to estimate (and is done with a bracket). Another issue, is that if this is not an official census bracket (in which case it would be reported as such - and there are issues with the official census as well) - usually one has a range of estimates (particularly since both communities are partially assimilated and many speak Arabic - you would get a different number for Turkmen-origin than Turkmen-identifying).... This is definitely a very low quality source.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked wayback.... and the Harvard numbers do go back to at least April of 2016 (See: here). I would hesitate to call anything from Harvard "low quality"... but given what has occurred in Syria since then, I think we can deem it "outdated". Then again, I don't know if any source could be up-to-date given the situation. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 28 June Here, you can2018 (UTC)

2016 is hardly outdated, in fact it's about as up to date as we can hope for. By the way, O.celebi is msileading you guys, many sources give figures of 100,000-200,000, e.g. New York Times, Associated Press, and others. Khirurg (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg, Blueboar is saying that it goes back at least to 2016 on wayback; he/she has not suggested that it was published in 2016. O.celebi (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct... April of 2016 is the earliest date that wayback captured an image of that specific page from Harvard’s website... not necessarily the date when the page was created. This means that we know that the numbers are AT LEAST that old. They could be even older. We don’t know. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Type of Constans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been suggested that sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers are not WP:RS for assertions about the Catholic Church in general and papal infallibility in particular, because they are not "independent". Apparently, the only way to document facts about Catholicism is by anti-Catholic sources whose agenda is refutation of Catholic doctrines? Just how "independent" does a RS have to be? I was under the impression that this was designed to exclude press releases, company blogs, and advertisements from dominating sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• It depends on the material being sourced. Generally catholic sources are reliable for non controversial information about Catholicism. They will also be generally reliable for the opinion/Catholic stance on controversial issues. What they sometimes (mostly) won't be is reliable for statements of fact about controversial Catholic based issues. Is there a particular discussion this is a problem in? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• There is also a time issue. JP2 and the current pope have challenged/refined/obsoleted a fair bit of previous dogma. So the Catholic encyclopedia for example is only going to be useful for a historical perspective. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine is not obsoleted or challenged. It is infallible, eternal, unchanging. The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated: there is much described that is based on pre-Code canon law, and discipline and liturgy that is no longer in universal usage. But as far as historical matters and scholarship, and doctrinal issues (it was published post-Vatican I) the Encyclopedia is a cornerstone of reliability, and that has been borne out by Wikipedia's heavy reliance on its Public Domain texts since the inception of our project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to, the only ones I can find do not use The Catholic Encyclopedia as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

added here 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not either of the sources you claim to be sourcing here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It is the Public Domain The Catholic Encyclopedia hosted by New Advent. Chapman, John. "Pope Honorius I." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 23 Jun. 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm>. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would you use a website rather than the Archive.org, Google Books, or Wikisource options? --tronvillain (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It's exactly the same text. Does the medium of publication have a germane effect on its reliability for certain facts as pertains to this noticeboard? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It would have made it more obvious you weren't linking to some random website (as would not simply using bare links), and at least in published versions one can be more confident the text hasn't been changed. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not good practice to use a privately hosted version because; a) there is no guarantee the text has not been modified b) the potential for WP:CITESPAM abuse c) private web sites are more likely to disappear and break the link than either Google Books and Archive.org. Jbh ^Talk 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All of this really has nothing to do with the question I asked and the issue at hand. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not need to be independent, they merely must be accurate. Note that in academic articles, writers will cite facts to other writers who may hold widely different views, but nonetheless accurately report factual information. Certainly articles published in respected theological journals are reliable even if the writers belong to various churches. However, standards of scholarship have changed over the past century and further research has changed much of what was formerly believed. "Race, Negro" for example says, "The negro has a religious nature. His docile, cheerful, and emotional disposition is much influenced by his immediate environment, whether those surroundings be good or evil. Catholic faith and discipline are known to have a wholesome effect on the race."[32] While that may have represented academic consensus at the time, it does not today. TFD (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Independence of sources seems to be intrinsic to WP:RS policy. It uses "independent" as a synonym for "third-party". Surely, you would not say that a company-issued press release is acceptable for building an article about a product. The essay I linked covers common situations such as a company and an individual with a biography, but it does not cover a situation such as the Catholic Church, which is both a coherent body as well as thousands of semi-autonomous entities, approved and unapproved, operating with the same mission. It would seem that establishing "independence" of a source from the Catholic Church would be fraught with inconsistency. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really as it would mean "not affiliated with the catholic church", having a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How would you define "affiliated"? Ian.thomson includes the 1911 CE in his affiliations, while I would hesitate there. Where is the line between affiliated and unaffiliated? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have recently been informed that we should not link to "privately-hosted" sources because they are not "published". With a "published" source, we can "be confident that the text didn't change". What is a "privately-hosted" source? How is that defined by Wikipedia policy? What is the term for a "non-privately-hosted" site? Why is Google, a private company, not a private host? Why can we be more confident that nobody changed the text of a Wikisource article? Where is the previous discussion and consensus for this preference? I have been unaware of the policy up until this point. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is really an extension of the above conversation, so I've merged the two.

I'm pretty sure only ever seen New Advent used when citing the Catholic Encyclopedia. The only times I can start to imagine someone not linking to New Advent would be if someone was trying to hide what the source was saying. While I can see Jbhunley's reasoning applying to something like a Geocities site, New Advent has been an internet institution for ages. It's like citing something hosted on the Internet Sacred Text Archive. Those sites are probably more stable than Wikipedia simply because we're more active and so more likely to cause some sort of legal trouble.

The Catholic Church's own sources (including the Catholic Encyclopedia) would be appropriate for statements they made about themselves that are not contested. For example, "Catholic doctrine holds that the Pope is infallible when issuing statements ex cathedra." There's no arguing that they don't teach that.

That said, your prior statement Apparently, the only way to document facts about Catholicism is by anti-Catholic sources whose agenda is refutation of Catholic doctrines suggests bias on your part. It's not because you're Catholic, any time someone says "so the only way we can write about (group) is if we cite (anti-group) sources that disparage (group)?" that editor almost always has problems editing neutrally. You could be an exception, especially if you severely adjust your attitude.

That said, there's no reason that "this has been a problem" cannot be presented alongside "here's how the Catholics believe they have fixed it." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The host of a document is analogous to a documents printer. The publisher of a document is the one responsible for its contents in dead tree or byte format. Only hosts demonstrated to have adulterer works by republishing them in emended forms without declaring that emendation are suspicious—but This is not a reliability issue as much as fraud. Linking to a particular impression of a source is dodgy link spam anyway. Again not a reliability issue: another kind of bad conduct, advertising. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "official" Catholic Encyclopedia, it has never been updated (and thus can only be used for history, not contemporary doctrinal positions). Moreover the New Advent version is not an exact transcription (unlike the The Catholic Answers one). So we would need to know what (if anything) had been altered.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

However all this may be moot, as the source does not say or support the statement " statements as defined by the First Vatican Council, and he was not in fact considered a heretic, as Pope Leo II described findings of the Council, that Honorius was merely negligent and should have done more to combat the heresy." because it says "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact" and in fact it has nothing to say about anti-Catholics.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: what are "the Catholic Church's own sources"? How are they defined? It would seem unusual to claim an independently-published American encyclopedia as the Church's own. What level of involvement by the Church would designate the source as non-independent? Are all books by saints "the Church's own"? What about books written by Catholic scholars? What about novels by Catholic laymen? If they seek and receive ecclesiastical approbation, does that make a difference? Where is the line?

I will readily accept that the Catholic Church has her own sources. Her Popes and bishops have written encyclicals and bulls and all manner of documents, published by the Church. She authorized and commissioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church among thousands of other books. Surely these are the Church's own sources. But now you say the 1911 CE is hers as well... where is the line? Does it matter, vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy and consensus, or only for a few pedantic editors? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not a fine line, it's always situational. In general, you might want to replace "Catholicism" with another religion and think "would I consider this a Jewish/Muslim source?"

A book about anything related to Catholicism that is written by a non-Catholic and published by a non-Catholic publisher would not be considered the Church's own source. This alone does not make it reliable, just (likely) independent. This doesn't mean that this is a source that "hates Catholicism," either -- I'm a Baptist but I love Catholics, Catholic history, Catholic mysticism, and look at the current Pope as a surrogate for my grandfather (who I'm currently living with, which should say something). I may have just enough disagreement to prevent me from actually joining, and those disagreements may include some historical incidents that I think the Church needs to say "ok, yeah, some of our members really fucked up here," but the few times I did not enjoy theological discussions with Catholics were anomalous exceptions with fringe individuals and I'll be angry if we don't both end up in the same place (whatever the arrangement). By contrast, whenever someone introduces themselves as a fellow Baptist, I go full Mentat analyzing their phrasing to figure out what point of theology we're going to end up arguing about (not looking for an argument, just aiming to end it as quickly and coldly as possible when it eventually starts). Now, I'm not a source, but I am proof that there's a whole lot more nuance than "Catholic" vs "hates Catholicism."

A peer-reviewed work from a secular university press by an author who happens to be (lay) Catholic but has received a degree from a secular university could not reasonably be regarded as the Catholic Church's own source, even if the subject matter was the minutiae of Catholic theology from a Catholic perspective (and anyone who tried to dismiss it as such would be derided by most other editors). The more elements of Catholicism are thrown in, the more of a grey area it becomes for some editors, though I would even say that a peer-reviewed work from a historical and highly reputable university press that happens to be a traditionally Catholic school, by an author who also happens to be even a bishop, whose degree comes from a similarly reputable institution that happens to be traditionally Catholic probably should not be considered a "Catholic source" if either the source can be shown to be accepted outside of Catholicism or at least the subject matter is something for which Catholicism cannot be accused (in good-faith) of having bias (arguing that "Catholics have weird math" would be reason to topic ban an editor).

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia was "was designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church, concentrating on information related to the Church and explaining matters from the Catholic point of view." Of its five editors, three were priests (two were them professors at the Catholic University of America), one was president of two different Catholic organizations, and the other was the editor of a variety of Catholic periodicals. It's pretty clearly a Catholic source.

Again, whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them and say "would I consider this source an 'Anglican' or 'Buddhist' source?" and you'll generally do alright. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)