Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) →Congress of the Confederate States: Primary source |
The article notes that he is a member of Vilnija. |
||
Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
*After a simple google books search it became obvious that the claim originates from ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=T-BiAAAAMAAJ&q=%22It+was+forbidden+to+speak+Lithuanian%22&dq=%22It+was+forbidden+to+speak+Lithuanian%22&ei=9ptISbD9BpOUMYK4qCQ&client=firefox-a&pgis=1 The History of the Lithuanian Language By Zigmas Zinkevičius, William R Schmalstieg]'' (1996). So behind this is this guy [[Zigmas Zinkevičius]], Lithuanian linguist-historian. Since Wikipedia doesn't look for the truth but verifiability, the claim could be included in an article if it said "according to Lithuanian linguist-historian [[Zigmas Zinkevičius]]". And as the claim made by Lithuanian Zinkevičius about Poland gets cited by books like ''The Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe'', [[WP:VERIFY]] is covered.<br /> |
*After a simple google books search it became obvious that the claim originates from ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=T-BiAAAAMAAJ&q=%22It+was+forbidden+to+speak+Lithuanian%22&dq=%22It+was+forbidden+to+speak+Lithuanian%22&ei=9ptISbD9BpOUMYK4qCQ&client=firefox-a&pgis=1 The History of the Lithuanian Language By Zigmas Zinkevičius, William R Schmalstieg]'' (1996). So behind this is this guy [[Zigmas Zinkevičius]], Lithuanian linguist-historian. Since Wikipedia doesn't look for the truth but verifiability, the claim could be included in an article if it said "according to Lithuanian linguist-historian [[Zigmas Zinkevičius]]". And as the claim made by Lithuanian Zinkevičius about Poland gets cited by books like ''The Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe'', [[WP:VERIFY]] is covered.<br /> |
||
:As long as it doesn't end up causing one of those ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia again , I mean it should be common knowledge that Lithuanians and Poles have this historical marriage-divorce gone bad thing between themselves going on and such claims even though in sync with verifiability could trigger another spark in this love-hate relationship. So this thread here is not that much about [[WP:RS]] but something that should be debated out at [[WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard]] perhaps.--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
:As long as it doesn't end up causing one of those ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia again , I mean it should be common knowledge that Lithuanians and Poles have this historical marriage-divorce gone bad thing between themselves going on and such claims even though in sync with verifiability could trigger another spark in this love-hate relationship. So this thread here is not that much about [[WP:RS]] but something that should be debated out at [[WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard]] perhaps.--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
::The article about him notes that he is a member of Vilnija.The organisation is known to be a radical nationalist group noted for antipolish statements. So I don't believe he can be considered credible. |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnija |
|||
political organization, considered to be extremist[1][2][3] and nationalist.[4][5][6][7] The organization was formed in 1988, in the LSSR, and its primary aim was the Lithuanization[8] of ethnic Poles living in the Eastern part of Lithuania. |
|||
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands? == |
== Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands? == |
Revision as of 02:49, 20 December 2008
Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in .
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.
If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.
This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.
Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here
Using Carma for power station emission info in Australia
At the Kogan Creek Power Station, Queensland talk page there is a minor issue with the reliability of a source regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted by this and other power stations in the country. Does a database, such as the one Carbon Monitoring for Action has online, become unreliable if they use a statistical model to deduce emission from power stations that do not report figures directly to them? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change[1], and National Polutant inventory[2]. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree that official sources ought be used if available. Unfortunately neither I nor another user (Shiftchange) can find any actual or estimated figures on emissions of individual power stations from official sources after researching the references provided by Gnangarra. The source has emissions of CO1 but not CO2. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 [3] My searching of [4] similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. Having done the research suggested by Gnangarra and finding that it does not provide any actual or estimated figures for CO2 or Greenhouse gas emissions of individual power stations it seems that CARMA is the best available source of estimates of such emissions from individual Australian Power stations. On that basis, given that CARMA [5]clearly has a major database and a disclosed methodology of calculating estimates of sources which have no official estimates (based on actual reported emissions of a large number of sources) I submit that CARMA is an acceptable source for an *estimate* provided it is clear it is an estimate and a reference is given to the source. Individual users can then make as assessment of the reliability. This seems a far more credible approach than not allowing any estimate for emissions. dinghy (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- What reason do we have to think that CARMA is reliable? On the plus side, it is linked to by the UK Energy Research Centre. Its launch led to positive news items on CNN and US public radio. However, I can't find any review saying "this is a reliable website". I also found a damning critique by some people calling themselves Climate Due Diligence, although this organisation does not seem to have any particular indication of notability or credibility. The critique did on the face of it seem to be sourced. So what are we left with? CARMA's estimate of CO2 emissions is probably the best available. It is only an estimate but then an estimate can be labelled as such. Does the article need to carry a statement about CO2 emissions? No. If there is no official figure and we do not have an impeccable source for an estimate, it should be left out. The article still tells us that it is a coal-fired power station of a certain capacity, so any reader can be sure that it is responsible for emitting "a lot" of CO2? Approximately how much? If a reader wants to know this then they will have to email the company or perhaps the Australian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Carma has updated its model since the review by Performeks LLC in 2007, advised to CGD (the self described independent, not-for-profit think tank of which CARMA is an initiative) in December 2007 and published at http://www.climatedataduediligence.org Carma V2.0 was released on 27 August 2008 and the changes are documented at http://carma.org/blog/about/carma-version-tracker/. The board of CGD [6] includes people of the stature and noteworthiness of 1. a former Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mexico, 2. Former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, 3. former Treasurer and Managing Director, World Bank, 4. President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Reserve Board of New York. 5. President and CEO of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (until 2001); former Chairman and CEO of Schroder Wertheim & Co. 6. Former US Treasury Secretary; Chief Executive Officer of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative (PRHI). While the original estimates may have been flawed, the estimates that would now be used are from v2 which has not had any criticism made of it by Perforeks LLC. dinghy (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- I have emailed Itsmejudith as she has not yet responded either here or on her talk page to the information above. Views of other editors/admins would also be welcome. dinghy (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- Thank you for these posts and for the email, and sorry that I neglected to reply until now - I have only been editing sporadically these last couple of weeks. Given the membership of the CPD board, then I think the estimates can be used. They should be clearly attributed and carry appropriate internal links ("Carbon Monitoring for Action estimates the carbon dioxide emissions to be x per x"). Any available estimates from Australian or international government bodies should go in first. It would be good to get some further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have emailed Itsmejudith as she has not yet responded either here or on her talk page to the information above. Views of other editors/admins would also be welcome. dinghy (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- Carma has updated its model since the review by Performeks LLC in 2007, advised to CGD (the self described independent, not-for-profit think tank of which CARMA is an initiative) in December 2007 and published at http://www.climatedataduediligence.org Carma V2.0 was released on 27 August 2008 and the changes are documented at http://carma.org/blog/about/carma-version-tracker/. The board of CGD [6] includes people of the stature and noteworthiness of 1. a former Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mexico, 2. Former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, 3. former Treasurer and Managing Director, World Bank, 4. President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Reserve Board of New York. 5. President and CEO of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (until 2001); former Chairman and CEO of Schroder Wertheim & Co. 6. Former US Treasury Secretary; Chief Executive Officer of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative (PRHI). While the original estimates may have been flawed, the estimates that would now be used are from v2 which has not had any criticism made of it by Perforeks LLC. dinghy (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- What reason do we have to think that CARMA is reliable? On the plus side, it is linked to by the UK Energy Research Centre. Its launch led to positive news items on CNN and US public radio. However, I can't find any review saying "this is a reliable website". I also found a damning critique by some people calling themselves Climate Due Diligence, although this organisation does not seem to have any particular indication of notability or credibility. The critique did on the face of it seem to be sourced. So what are we left with? CARMA's estimate of CO2 emissions is probably the best available. It is only an estimate but then an estimate can be labelled as such. Does the article need to carry a statement about CO2 emissions? No. If there is no official figure and we do not have an impeccable source for an estimate, it should be left out. The article still tells us that it is a coal-fired power station of a certain capacity, so any reader can be sure that it is responsible for emitting "a lot" of CO2? Approximately how much? If a reader wants to know this then they will have to email the company or perhaps the Australian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree that official sources ought be used if available. Unfortunately neither I nor another user (Shiftchange) can find any actual or estimated figures on emissions of individual power stations from official sources after researching the references provided by Gnangarra. The source has emissions of CO1 but not CO2. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 [3] My searching of [4] similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. Having done the research suggested by Gnangarra and finding that it does not provide any actual or estimated figures for CO2 or Greenhouse gas emissions of individual power stations it seems that CARMA is the best available source of estimates of such emissions from individual Australian Power stations. On that basis, given that CARMA [5]clearly has a major database and a disclosed methodology of calculating estimates of sources which have no official estimates (based on actual reported emissions of a large number of sources) I submit that CARMA is an acceptable source for an *estimate* provided it is clear it is an estimate and a reference is given to the source. Individual users can then make as assessment of the reliability. This seems a far more credible approach than not allowing any estimate for emissions. dinghy (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
- I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change[1], and National Polutant inventory[2]. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Exclaim.ca
I noticed that Genghis spawn (talk · contribs) is making over a dozen edits inserting links to articles from Exclaim.ca. Not knowing anything about Canadian music media, how notable/reliable is this site? In any case, it seems poor practice to randomly add links to references or external links sections, as this user has done, so I'm going to remove their edits, but I was wondering if the site was appropriate as an inline-cited source. --Mosmof (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage
Is this talking points memo put out by 6 Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee of the US House in 1995, and cited in the lede of Mininum wage a reliable source? Reliable sources are defined as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"... I don't see how a partisan set of talking points fits this description. (see this revert and this talk page discussion.) Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hell no. I've removed this clear example of POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't clear that this is a clear example of POV pushing, but I agree with removing the citation to the talking points memo. The talking points memo (NOT a reliable source) cites many studies from economics journals (reliable sources, if they are indeed academic journals--I didn't research it, but they looked good at first glance). Somebody needs to take the citations in the talking points and put them directly into the article. There's a lot of work involved, but it's a way to make a point. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the whole issue of - if a current or past elected official or government official says something, is it automatically WP:RS and even more WP:RS than something said by, say, an economist in the private sector. An issue that came/comes up a lot in Community Reinvestment Act. A number of things have to be considered:
- things that these people say, if publicized in any way, are notable because they will or potentially could have some effect on government policy and private actions and relevant reports probably can be found in some WP:RS
- being sourced from wp:rs makes them WP:RS, even if avoid being reported on
- even if neither of above, it may still be notable as their opinion, especially in context of historical story where they said someting similar or different before or after. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the whole issue of - if a current or past elected official or government official says something, is it automatically WP:RS and even more WP:RS than something said by, say, an economist in the private sector. An issue that came/comes up a lot in Community Reinvestment Act. A number of things have to be considered:
- The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee); this would take the form of "According to X, Y" such as Dlabtot's reverted edit. The memo is presented as a "survey of the academic research on the minimum wage" which is exactly what Wikipedia seeks to establish a claim of scientific consensus. I see that the introduction of the memo says that "These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission", and perhaps that survey would be more acceptable as a source? I think a big part of the problem is that the statement in the article makes two claims:
- There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism.
- There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are intended to help.
- The first statement is clearly correct and is supported, not just by the memo in question, but my numerous other sources cited in the article. The second statement is also clearly correct to an extent and is supported by many other sources, however, as this is worded in the article it may overstate the magnitude of the negative effects. According to the memo, "...a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%", making clear that there is a tradeoff. Perhaps the article's wording in the lead can be adjusted to better reflect this tradeoff. Something like "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws increase unemployment rates, but the degree to which this occurs is disputed, and thus there is no consensus as to whether minimum wage laws represent a net harm to low wage workers."Cmadler (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee) Well, Wikipedia is not really a venue for publishing primary sources of opinion. If the opinion of those six politicians were notable, it would have been noted in a third-party source, such as those described in WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually going to WP:RS and WP:RS good luck figuring out except through common sense the relation of primary/secondary/tertiary and 1st/2nd/3rd party sources. Anyway, primary sources can be used in some places at some times, and in this case I think this is one of them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee) Well, Wikipedia is not really a venue for publishing primary sources of opinion. If the opinion of those six politicians were notable, it would have been noted in a third-party source, such as those described in WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee); this would take the form of "According to X, Y" such as Dlabtot's reverted edit. The memo is presented as a "survey of the academic research on the minimum wage" which is exactly what Wikipedia seeks to establish a claim of scientific consensus. I see that the introduction of the memo says that "These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission", and perhaps that survey would be more acceptable as a source? I think a big part of the problem is that the statement in the article makes two claims:
Bundesarchiv as a source
The German Federal Archiv Bundesarchiv has recently uploaded several images and is going to do so with about 100.000 pics. Some of them were made in 1933 - 45 and used by Nazi Germany for propaganda purposes. I tried to add a picture of killed civilians at the Bromberg Bloody Sunday, which is a controversial topic even though the incident itself is undisputed. This picture was removed by several editors based on the claim the Bundesarchiv would publish Nazi propaganda ([8]). No sources were provided that the image was "faked", not made in Bromberg or does not show victims of the incident. The removals were simply based on the fact, that pictures were made by Germans in 1939 (e.g. [9]) and as such are propaganda.
The point is how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933 - 45. Are they reliable? How should they be used? I'd like to hear some other editor's POV. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ekhem. You yourself confirmed that pictures were made by Nazi German propaganda, that the Bundesarchive distributes them doesn't change that fact. Nazi media are per defeault not reliable and can't be presented as objective portayal of reality unless it concerns a clear non-propaganda subject. This however is a propaganda subject The burden of proof in this regard is on the provided of such information. For all we know those can be victims of Operation Tannenberg and titled "german victims".
- The proper place for such things is Nazi propaganda article.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- They were used by propaganda does not mean, they are propaganda by themself. If a reliable source would claim these pictures show infact victims of the Op. Tannenberg, it wouldn't be a matter of dispute (off course not). Up to now I havn't seen anykind of such source. If your position is the majority POV, Bundesarchiv should stop to upload images made in 1933 - 45.HerkusMonte (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why should Bundesarchiv stop relasing them ? I think besides far right and extremists nobody takes Nazi claims seriously. If anything is true then it can be sourced by non-Nazi sources--Molobo (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about who took the pictures, it's about proper attribution of the subject: who were these dead? who killed them? were they killed indeed - it could be a staged set? etc. These questions remain unanswered, so the photograph may appear only with a caption with something like Here's a contemporary German interpretation of the event (and be deleted as unnecessary decoration). On less controversial subjects (i.e. portraits of well known public persons) the archive is a fine source as such. But anything that can be interpreted as a staged propaganda piece should, indeed, be left out. NVO (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The incident itself is not disputed, even not by "far right or extremists". The background and the number of victims is disputed, but as I said above, up to now no source was provided, that these pictures show anything else but (undisputed!) victims. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question here isn't the photographs... photographs on their own do not make claims as to what they depict, they simply show what was in front of the camera. The question is the caption. Captions are claims as to what the photo is depicting. Captions are text, no less than the text of the main article. So, if there is any question as to the text of the caption, that text must be supported by citation to a reliable source, just like the main text of the article.
- In this case, the caption claims that the photo depicts "Victims of the Bloody Sunday" and attributes that claim to Bundesarchiv: "(according to Bundesarchiv)". So can this claim be supported by a reliable source? That is a simple question to answer... does the Bundesarchiv (which is a reliable sourse for its own claims) actualy say somewhere that this picture depicts "Victims of the Boody Sunday"? If so, then the caption is verifiable. We may caption that picture "Victims of the Bloody Sunday (according to Bundesarchiv)" and cite Bundesarchiv as the source. If not, then the caption is not verifiable, and we can not caption the picture that way. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Blueboar-I must warn that there is a tactic I observed that is potentiall destructive. One can create whole article using texts as "according to" or with short notice "at least according to nazi propaganda". The end result could be actually a very POV-ed article with lots of pictures and texts that gives an undue weight to certain point by overexposing it. --Molobo (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The text caption used by Bundesarchiv is the copy of the Nazi caption as stored in the archives. It is not made by Bundesarchiv.
Bundesarchiv uses name "Signature: "Bild 183-E10612" for the picture itself. It gives full description made by Nazis later. It seems no statement on truth or actual situation is made by the archive itself. --Molobo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The full title is "Bild 183-E10612: Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des Bromberger Blutsonntags)" ~ Dead bodies of killed Germans (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)[[10]] HerkusMonte (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bundesarchiv gives signature then archived title of the photo and later the full text from the archive. Somehow I doubt current Bundesarchiv makes claims about "consequences of English blank check to Poland" and "barbarity" and "eternal shame of Poland"-all of which are in the text of the caption.
All in all this is the full caption:
"Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher
Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939" So it is obvious that the title is archived name from 8.9.1939 and thus made by Nazis.
--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Molobo, there is no dispute that ethnic Germans were killed in the war at this point. There also no dispute that the Nazis made the most of this for propaganda purposes. There is also no dispute that the photograph was published as a part of that propaganda. Since that is the case there is no reason to exclude the photographs as long as they are properly labelled to explain this context. Articles should have images where they are appropriate, and there is no reason why these should not be considered to be so. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The image's place is Nazi propaganda article. As to your claim killed indicates a crime, and modern research is of the opinion that what happened was a badly gone SD provocation.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment makes no sense. "As to your claim killed indicates a crime" is an unintelligable phrase. The image is about the subject of the article. Virtually every image made of events in the war was used for propaganda by both sides. It irrelevant to the issue of its appropriateness for an article. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh Paul Barlow, its been long time since we discussed. I just remembered that we did talked once about if Germans supported extermination of Jews and Poles or "just" expulsion and denial of citizenship[11]) ,nice to see you again.
- Your comment makes no sense. "As to your claim killed indicates a crime" is an unintelligable phrase. The image is about the subject of the article. Virtually every image made of events in the war was used for propaganda by both sides. It irrelevant to the issue of its appropriateness for an article. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway; your argument is not convincing: "The image is about the subject of the article" For example propaganda picture of Jews compared to rats conspiring are about Jews but we wouldn't put them in article about Jewish people but in Nazi Propaganda article or Antisemitism. Likewise this picture as it is a propaganda should belong in the article about the subject. Your claim "both sides used propaganda" is a understatement, that dangerously equalises both sides(if not unintentionally)-we should not forget that Nazi regime was totalitarian regime bent on genocide and thus its claims can't be compared to morale boosting attempts by Allies.--Molobo (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now (and don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true). We would put a photo of Jews compared to rats in the relevant articles, which would be about antisemitism, because that's what the pictures illustrate. Indeed, such pictures are in those very articles. Images are to be placed in the articles that are most relevant to them. Articles should have images if those images are relevant and appropriate. In this case the images are appropriate to this article, since they represent German propaganda about the event. We also have photographs from Nazi Germany in the Holocaust article and many other relevant articles about events in WWII. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now "
Now ? Rejecting Nazi propaganda imagery is anti-German nationalist view ? I am sorry but your views seem rather extreme and In my book such incivility and extremism can't lead to fruitfull debate nor judge as objective observer. However you yourself noted 'in relevent' article. Such article is Nazi propaganda. However I did note that is a general term. Perhaps Nazi propaganda against Poland is in order. Oh well, even the worst beginnings can't be turned to some good ideas as the debate showed up. Cheers--Molobo (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no incivility and you are not addressing the issue. The relevant article is the article on the event that the photographs are claimed to document, just as we have many photographs taken by Nazis in the Holocaust article. No-one has ever suggested that the inclusuon of such photograps implies a pro-Nazo POV, indeed they have been uploaded and included by undeniably anti-Nazi - and often Jewish - editors. your "argument" is contradicated by all the relevant evidence. Paul B (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- What "evidence" and about what ? You presented nothing relavant. And in fact I am not sure what you are talking about. It's obvious that Nazi propaganda claims against Poland deserve their place and such imagery and description. Likewise potential untermensch portayals belong to racism articles or sections about discrimination of Poles, but not in the main article about Poles. I'm afraid for some reason you have a very emotional stance of this issue, perhaps it would be better if you try to distance yourself to such topics.--Molobo (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The general question is, how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933-45, should we use the BA description or is it Nazi propaganda?
As an example: This picture shows (according to BA) US POW's at the Battle of the Bulge. I'd rather say it's showing Germans, dressed in US uniforms and the picture was made for Nazi propaganda. Sources? None, but it's up to you to proof the BA title is true and not a Nazi lie. A picture of a German Nazi general/politician - no it's an actor dressed in a Nazi uniform, and it's your job to proof the opposite. Do we have a Liberum Veto on BA images or should the doubts be sourced? HerkusMonte (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- We need to distinguish between historical original captions, which are often suspicious, and modern captions added by historians at the Bundesamt, which will usually be as reliable as neutral academic opinion - in fact, academic use and historical research is the main reason why the archive exists. This particular image of US POVs has been recaptioned after 1945, as is obvious from the original German comment, and so in the absence of strong other evidence I would accept that caption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda and which one isn't? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question is not Nazi-propaganda or not, the question is wether it is a contemporary caption, or a modern informed one. In this case, the language and the content (referring back to the ultimate 1945 defeat of the Nazis) makes it obvious that it is a modern source. This problem exists for all historical pictures, and has to be solved on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the title "Kriegsgefangene amerikanische Soldaten" a "modern informed one"? The comment below is post-war ("faschistische Wehrmacht" - probably a GDR comment), but nobody want's to use the full text comments of BA pictures. As you said above "so in the absence of strong other evidence" - doubts have to be sourced, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, as always the onus is on the proponent of the information. Why would you not want to use the full text? Anyways, in this case the heading is effectively repeated in the modern description ("Eine Kolonne gefangengenommener amerikanischer Soldaten") . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda Herkus, do you believe comments about 'eternal shame of Poland' 'barbarity' 'consequences of English actions', 'disgusting bestiality against German honour" are made by modern Bundesarchiv ? I really think this is not the case. --Molobo (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, as always the onus is on the proponent of the information. Why would you not want to use the full text? Anyways, in this case the heading is effectively repeated in the modern description ("Eine Kolonne gefangengenommener amerikanischer Soldaten") . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the title "Kriegsgefangene amerikanische Soldaten" a "modern informed one"? The comment below is post-war ("faschistische Wehrmacht" - probably a GDR comment), but nobody want's to use the full text comments of BA pictures. As you said above "so in the absence of strong other evidence" - doubts have to be sourced, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question is not Nazi-propaganda or not, the question is wether it is a contemporary caption, or a modern informed one. In this case, the language and the content (referring back to the ultimate 1945 defeat of the Nazis) makes it obvious that it is a modern source. This problem exists for all historical pictures, and has to be solved on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda and which one isn't? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only and exclusively referring to the title description. That's why I said, noone want's to use the full text. In fact nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures. So the question is, do we have a Liberum veto on BA pictures or not and under which circumstances should such pictures be used. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". The caption in this case is together with the rest of the propaganda text and thus its obvious it is Nazi propaganda claim. Even you now write that :"nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures"-and using even that we can't give a green light to Nazi propaganda claim as factual.--Molobo (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only and exclusively referring to the title description. That's why I said, noone want's to use the full text. In fact nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures. So the question is, do we have a Liberum veto on BA pictures or not and under which circumstances should such pictures be used. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- All that is necessary is that the image be properly labelled as having been used for propaganda purposes at the time. That the image is relevant to the article is undeniable, and that it is properly sourced as an authentic image used for that purpose. It is "authentic" in the sense that a reliable source asserts that it is a genuine photograph of the period used at the time for propaganda purposes. Whether the people shown in it were genuinely victims of a massaacre or not is a wholly separate issue, and not one for this board to determine. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". Have a look at this picture for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R83186,_Eger,_beim_Einr%C3%BCcken_deutscher_Truppen.jpg. It shows Sudeten Germans during the German invasion in 1938. The description says this Hitler salute was forced, the woman cries because of this and because she knows how much she suffered and will suffer under the Nazi rule. This description is bollocks, most probably written directly after the war and now utterly obsolete. So, the description was added after the war, but isn't trustworthy either. Karasek (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- A perfect example of how propaganda might use a picture, even though the picture itself is not a propaganda picture. The title is ~ "Eger, on the arrival of German troops", which is quiet factual, only the full text turns it into propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And as you see the text has to be judged by case to case basis. In the case of Bydgoszcz we have no way knowing who the people are, although as mentioned the most likely answer is the victims of Operation Tannenberg.--Molobo (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you deny, some Germans were killed at Bromberg in early September 1939? I can't see any evidence nor plausibility why the picture should show victims of the Op. Tannenberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- We know Germans murdered people in Gliwice to portay them as German victims. Now we are dealing with such claims and know that they were fabricated by German Nazi propaganda then I am more to believe that is German Nazi propaganda then believe take it as truth.--Molobo (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And as you see the text has to be judged by case to case basis. In the case of Bydgoszcz we have no way knowing who the people are, although as mentioned the most likely answer is the victims of Operation Tannenberg.--Molobo (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- A perfect example of how propaganda might use a picture, even though the picture itself is not a propaganda picture. The title is ~ "Eger, on the arrival of German troops", which is quiet factual, only the full text turns it into propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd still like to hear a noninvolved editor on how to use BA images. I added a "(according to Bundesarchiv)" and would like to see any other suggestions. Right now every single image is supposed to be removed without explanation as Molobo prefers the Liberum Veto. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both Schulz and Karasek are uninvolved, German and they both noted that those are not reliable title quotations. Also it is not "according to Bundesarchiv". Please read:"often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme"--Molobo (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that if a photo would clearly state it is a product of Nazi propaganda, we may consider its inclusion. But there is also a question of balance: what if only pictures of the event are Nazi propaganda? Do we allow Nazi propaganda, even marked as such, to monopolize visual aspect of a subject? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture of the Katyn massacre was made as a product of Nazi propaganda. Goebbels used Katyn for his propaganda, which does not mean the massacre IS propaganda. And I don't think anybody wants to delete these "propaganda" pictures. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of non-Nazi propaganda pictures of Katyn massacre (ex. this one). If there are no non-Nazi pics of the Bromberg massacre, well... that doesn't really help the credibility of this story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure you understood what I ment: contemporary pictures showing the victims of Katyn, not the modern memorial. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of non-Nazi propaganda pictures of Katyn massacre (ex. this one). If there are no non-Nazi pics of the Bromberg massacre, well... that doesn't really help the credibility of this story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture of the Katyn massacre was made as a product of Nazi propaganda. Goebbels used Katyn for his propaganda, which does not mean the massacre IS propaganda. And I don't think anybody wants to delete these "propaganda" pictures. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Nazi propaganda is obviously not reliable, and unless we can agree that a given photo is noncontroversial, it should not be used to illustrate the subject. Even on Commons, Nazi era German photos from Bundesarchiv (a pitful stub...) are tagged with a template that states clearly: For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. What more needs to be said? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a comment from an uninvolved editor. Bundesarchiv is a highly reliable source. If they have a copy of a photo then that photo certainly exists. If they make a statement as to what the photo represents then that is also reliable. If there is no statement made by Bundesarchiv but only a caption that we do not know to be from a reliable body, then we do not have a reliable source for speculating what the photo might represent. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, I think we have to see the difference between the original image captions at the bottom of the pictures, often "erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme" and the headline, which contains the registration number of the BA and a short descriptive title. This headline was obviously created by the BA and should be used, while the contemporay comment is most likely of unclear origin and shouldn't be used. User:Karasek's picture of Eger above is a perfect example for that (I don't think Karasek wanted to say, that picture shouldn't be used at all) HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is a staged photo reliable? The Nemmersdorf massacre describes one of such cases. Any part involved used to produce war propaganda and this Wikipedia should warn the readers. I have watched a number of the BA pictures, they show disciplined, uniformed Germans, profesionally staged German victims, bad looking prisoners in KZs and no non-German victims. The non-Germans had little chance to be professionally photographed under German occupation. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- So the question boils down to whether the BA's "headlines" are to be considered reliable. Does the BA say anywhere that it has done its best to ensure that these "headlines" are accurate? Or on the contrary does it say that it cannot guarantee that? In the absence of any such statement I think we must conclude that they have been created in order for people to find the archived photos and are thus not reliable as to what the pictures represent. A parallel would be a university library classifying Marx's Capital in the Economics section. It does not guarantee that it is a reliable work of economics, only that people who are looking for the work would expect to find it there. On a general point, history articles should be sourced from texts by academic historians, not from photographs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be confusing the issue here. The archive is recording that the photographs exist and were used in a certain context. It is a reliable source for that fact. A photograph of a Nazi officer arresting someone might be captioned "victim of oppression arrested by by Nazi thug" or "Officer detaining thug who murdered innocent Germans". Photographs in themselves are not source for facts unless the circumstances in which they were taken are undisputed. Both captions are POV, what matters is whether the source identifies this as an authentic photograph of the period and how it was used at the time. We can then use an NPOV caption which improves the article by showing the kind of images that were made and circulated at the period and in what context. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- So the question boils down to whether the BA's "headlines" are to be considered reliable. Does the BA say anywhere that it has done its best to ensure that these "headlines" are accurate? Or on the contrary does it say that it cannot guarantee that? In the absence of any such statement I think we must conclude that they have been created in order for people to find the archived photos and are thus not reliable as to what the pictures represent. A parallel would be a university library classifying Marx's Capital in the Economics section. It does not guarantee that it is a reliable work of economics, only that people who are looking for the work would expect to find it there. On a general point, history articles should be sourced from texts by academic historians, not from photographs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is a staged photo reliable? The Nemmersdorf massacre describes one of such cases. Any part involved used to produce war propaganda and this Wikipedia should warn the readers. I have watched a number of the BA pictures, they show disciplined, uniformed Germans, profesionally staged German victims, bad looking prisoners in KZs and no non-German victims. The non-Germans had little chance to be professionally photographed under German occupation. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another comment from an univolved person: I don't need Bundesarchiv as a "reliable source" to tell me that a photo that is there is a photo that "certainly exists". I'll just trust my eyes for that. What I do need Bundesarchiv as a "reliable source" for is to tell me that the captions are actually correct. However, Bundesarchiv does not claim they are. This means the captions should not be used a a source if there is a dispute over what the image depicts. Further, Bundesarchiv should not be quoted with the image captions ("according to Bundesarchiv") – it's simply not correct that Bundesarchiv claims anything that's in the captions. -- 3247 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
To bring it to a clear result, the common sense seems to be, as follows (please make a short comment):
- Any picture from the Bundesarchiv at commons:Bundesarchiv made in 1933-45 might be reverted without further explanation as the BA image captions are not reliable and do not proof the factual content of the image.
- Oppose, per discussion above. The BA is a reliable source and its image titles are reliable. Factual doubts are already considered by this template. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, as the image captions from the Bundesarchiv may be extremist, but not neccessarily incorrect. If an image is Nazi propaganda, this should be mentioned in the image caption in the article. Regards, --ChrisiPK (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, the image may be used if it relates to the article. It is simply a question of how to caption it using neutral language. For example, the image above can be nutrally captioned: "Photograph reported by Nazi sources to depict American POWs During the Battle of the Bulge". If there is a reliable source that claims the picture was actually staged, then we can include that information in the caption as well... "Photograph reported by Nazi sources to depict American POWs during the Battle of the Bulge<ref>, but which historian Iman Expert says was staged<ref> Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The images probably can't be used as sources (just per WP:PRIMARY and not because they are Nazi), but they certainly can be used as illustrations. How many captions on Wikipedia are reliable at all? Then we should exclude every PD-self from Wikipedia at the very least, as well as all pictures by modern press offices. Colchicum (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Straw man alert. Nobody is suggesting removal "without explanation". Only controversial photos that may be seen as still propagating German Nazi propaganda can be removed, after proper explanation is given.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever provided any source or evidence, the picture shows anything else but what its title says. User:Molobo makes totally unsourced suppositions on the "real" background and the removals were exclusively based on the former usage by Propaganda. The only explanation given yet is the fact, the picture was used by Nazi-Germany, that's it. It's necessary to find a general rule on how to deal with propaganda photos. It shouldn't be based on "I don't like it" or "It might be staged", this would turn it into a pure game of chance. The supposed solution above is the consequence of the current discussion, but feel free to make a different suggestion. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Straw Man Alert indeed. It is Piotrus's assertion (repeated ad nauseum) that being "Nazi propaganda" makes it unusable that is the real straw man. The fact that this irrelevant "argument" is simply repeated over and over like a mantra is evidence it just serves to distract from the real issues. All photographs in war are used as propaganda. Some were staged, some were authentic (like the exhumed bodies at Katyn). The allies also staged photographs. Famously, the most used photographs of the Battle of El Alamein were staged by blowing up a cookhouse and advancing into the smoke. That does not mean they should not be used. Indeed we do use one of them in the article as the main photo of the battle. That's beacause it's the best available photograph, properly captioned. As has already been stated over and over, it is legitimate and reasonable to use photographs (or posters) that were circulated as propaganda. We use German WWII photographs in any number of articles about those events. I know of no guideline or consensus that states "controversial photos that may be seen as still propagating German Nazi propaganda can be removed." Acceptance of any such claim could be used to justify even removal of portraits of Nazi leaders on the grounds that they make them look noble. We should not imply that such a policy or guideline exists without any evidence being provided. That's argument by assertion. Paul B (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture is not the problem, it's the caption provided by BA that's unreliable. Even a staged image has encyclopedic value iff put into the correct context; it illustrates the point that false propaganda was made. -- 3247 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- exactly, we might add "..used by Nazi Propaganda" or something similar, but we shouldn't rule out the picture per se. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is not the way it works. It is equivlent to creating article on topic, and writing it wholy based on German Nazi propaganda then adding small footnote "as claimed by German Nazi propaganda". We don't know where those pictures came from, we only can guess that they are murdered people by several genocide operations perfomed by Germany during the invasion. We can add a link to the picture under links in article directly titled "Propaganda photo by Nazi Germany".--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Used... and created by Nazi propaganda. Intentions are important. So some people want to trust that Goebbels-run press/photo op? I am shocked.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every (contemporary) picture of the Katyn massacre was "used and created by" Goebbels' Propaganda, so we shouldn't use them? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- exactly, we might add "..used by Nazi Propaganda" or something similar, but we shouldn't rule out the picture per se. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- As to the pictures from Bundesarchive-they are so various and with so diverse topics that they are to be judged case by case. As to German Nazi propaganda pictures-they belong in Nazi Propaganda article and not as worthwile expansions to articles--Molobo (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the question here should be "can the commentaries attached to images be considered reliable" for Wikipedia purposes in case they come from such source as Bundesarchiv? This is the only thing that matters in the context because a commentary attached to any given image can change the meaning of the picture.
- Also, since the images under discussion are currently published by the Bundesarchiv, not by the Nazi Germany, suggesting that the images and the commentaries attached to them by the archive are Nazi propaganda is basically accusing the German Federal Archive of spreading the nazi propaganda, just that such an act would be a criminal offense in Germany.--Termer (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* As said before, Bundesarchiv does not claim that the commentaries be factually correct. They do claim them to be contemporary commentaries, which may be Nazi propaganda ...or Cold War propaganda ...or no propaganda at all. -- 3247 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what are you talking about. Are you saying the archive suggests that the images may be Nazi propaganda? Again, by suggesting that the commentaries and/or the photos published by the archive in Germany "may be Nazi propaganda", you are saying that the archive may publicly commit a criminal offense in Germany. this is, again, because spreading/and or publishing etc. nazi propaganda in Germany is a criminal offense in that country. I don't know how to make it more clear than that. therefore is there any evidence that criminal charges have been filed against the archive by anybody in Germany in order to suggest that we may deal with nazi propaganda? And what has "Cold War propaganda" to do with anything? --Termer (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* As said before, Bundesarchiv does not claim that the commentaries be factually correct. They do claim them to be contemporary commentaries, which may be Nazi propaganda ...or Cold War propaganda ...or no propaganda at all. -- 3247 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Questions: How do we know that these photographs actually were Nazi propaganda? Is there a reliable source that claims they were propaganda? Or are we simply assuming them to be propaganda because they were taken by someone in Germany during the Nazi era?
- Comment: even if the photographs were propaganda (or claimed to be propaganda by a reliable source), that fact does not mean they must be excluded from Wikipedia... it simply means that we should note that fact in the caption. Remember, the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. It is verifiable that the photos were originally captioned a certain way. As long as our caption accurately notes who captioned them that way, it does not matter whether that original caption is "True" or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose.
- Bundesarchiv stores all images with two captions:
- Originaltitel ("initial caption") is the caption given by the database the Bundesarchiv got the image from. This may be biased, propagandistic, or untrue, as indicated in the image description at commons, and is only kept for documentation.
- Archivtitel (archive caption) is the caption given by the Bundesarchive. This caption is the one we have to rely on.
- If we look at the Bloody Sunday (1939) image (at commons or [view=detail at Bundesarchiv]) which caused this thread, we can see those two captions. The initial, historical caption is of course biased, the archive's caption is not, it only states
- "Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag")"
- i.e."Poland.- Bodys of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)"
- So I do not see any reason to label the image as Nazi propaganda. I think the confusion here came about because commons has only one image description and Bundesarchiv has two - in commons, the archive's caption is given in brackets ("[...]") below the initial (historical) caption, which is for documentary purpose only. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC), PS 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
At Media Awareness Network, an exercise in decontructing a website uses an article about aspartame from http://www.rense.com, which is an anti-semitic site full of nonsense. Can Media Awareness Network in this matter be used as a source to make valid claims on aspartame research? They also claim that the writer of the article is a pseudonym for Betty Martini, which Martini officially denied to be in any way involved with. Nevertheless, Media Awareness Network states it was she who was behind it, without mentioning any proof. (Immortale (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
- The MAN is a reliable source. The website rense is not, but the MAN is a reliable source about rense. Verbal chat 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- As you, Verbal, are the original poster of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, I have no doubt that you consider it a reliable source. In my opinion a website, may it be a reliable source or not, that uses an article from a website that is obviously not a reliable source, cannot be used as evidence or facts regarding research. If this is allowed, any type of research can be ridiculed or hoaxed on unreliable websites and then used as evidence that the original research is a hoax. I like to hear some unbiased opinions on this. I also like to know Verbal's arguments why Media Awareness Networkis a reliable source. According to Wikipedia's policy, the burden lies on the editor that uses the source, to prove it's reliable. (Immortale (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- Incorrect - I am not in any way the original poster of this source. Verbal chat 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The page is an exercise in media literacy. The aspartame page it deconstructs is just a convenient example. I suppose it is reliable enough to show that the aspartame controversy was discussed in this way, but it is a very trivial point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect - I am not in any way the original poster of this source. Verbal chat 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given its accolades and government funding, the Media Awareness Network looks like a pretty good source... — Scientizzle 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that two of the original supporters and re-posters of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, Verbal and Scientizzle, come here to express their opinion, while I was suggested to mention it here, to get an unbiased opinion. Media Awareness Network, was added recently by Scientizzle for Wikipedia to add strength to the idea that they are largely funded by government sources. On their own website they state: "MNet’s programs are funded primarily through the contributions of private sector sponsors and the Government of Canada, with additional support from the annual memberships of individuals, non-profit organizations and small businesses." From their annual year reports, the Canadian Government is only one of 35 major sponsors and contributes little. To clarify the issue a bit more: Can a reliable website quote an article from an extremely unreliable website to make reliable scientific statements? (Immortale (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- Shame on me for writing an article about an organization that readily meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Clearly this encyclopedia doesn't benefit from such an article.</sarcasm> "The funding for the Media Awareness Network is largely from government grants" in the Wikipedia article is sourced directly to something reliable. If you can find a source that backs up your original research claims and whetever you think that means to the credibility of the organization, please improve the MAN article. — Scientizzle 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that two of the original supporters and re-posters of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, Verbal and Scientizzle, come here to express their opinion, while I was suggested to mention it here, to get an unbiased opinion. Media Awareness Network, was added recently by Scientizzle for Wikipedia to add strength to the idea that they are largely funded by government sources. On their own website they state: "MNet’s programs are funded primarily through the contributions of private sector sponsors and the Government of Canada, with additional support from the annual memberships of individuals, non-profit organizations and small businesses." From their annual year reports, the Canadian Government is only one of 35 major sponsors and contributes little. To clarify the issue a bit more: Can a reliable website quote an article from an extremely unreliable website to make reliable scientific statements? (Immortale (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- Nobody has shown that the CNet quote is incorrect, let alone that the Canadian government "contributes little". The organization itself states "MNet’s programs are funded primarily through the contributions of private sector sponsors and the Government of Canada, with additional support from the annual memberships of individuals, non-profit organizations and small businesses." This statement is perfectly congruous with "funding for the Media Awareness Network is largely from government grants". However, I'll ammend the statement in the article for greater clarity. — Scientizzle 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Immortale's claim is that the annual reports breakdown of funding sources show that the government is not the main source of funding. However, glancing at the annual report I don't see anything obvious which backs that up. Analogously, if the CNET reports some CEO's pay as X, and the audited Form 10-K clearly states that it was Y, we should probably prefer Y over X unless there's a good reason not to. Although executive compensation can be a bit more tricky, so perhaps that's a bad example. II | (t - c) 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Immortale's claim is that the government "contributes little", which is a remarkably stronger assertion. I agree that if a better source could state definitvely that "x% of MAN's funding comes from ___" it would be preferable. A news story and the organization itself make it clear that government support is substantive, even if they both use qualitative qualifiers. In any case, I've endeavored to make this clearer in the article. — Scientizzle 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that Mnet's own website should be a better source about where they get their funds from than secondary sources. The Canadian government is mentioned as one of their 35 main sponsors. Not even one of the founding sponsors, or gold sponsors (or in older annual reports, not even once mentioned as silver or bronze sponsors). These sponsors are themselves already a minority to the total of the funds they receive. So my conclusion that financial contribution from the Canadian Government is little, isn't far-fetched. It certainly isn't "largely". (Immortale (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
- "Can a reliable website quote an article from an extremely unreliable website to make reliable scientific statements?". Of course it can. Reliable historians quote from Mein Kampf to make reliable historical statements about Nazi Germany. That doesn't make Mein Kampf a reliable source. Reliable journalists quote from Bin Laden to make reliable statements about Al Quaeda. That does not make Bin Laden reliable, or the sources who quote him unreliable. Reliable sources quote unreliable sources all the time. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was originally skeptical of the source and suggested asking here. It seems reliable enough for the claims that it is making.
- However, if a source without undeniable proof says someone did something (especially a bloggish source like MAN or Snopes), and that person denies it, then we should not convey the source's assertion as fact. That's very likely a BLP violation, and it is something that should be fixed in the aspartame controversy article. II | (t - c) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I stated in the Aspartame controversy article several times the claim by Mrs. Martini that she was never involved with the Nancy Markle posts, including the source, but they were removed. (Immortale (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
What is the point of a RS/N if almost no uninvolved editors give their outside opinions? MaxPont (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously if all of these criticisms of that article are true, at the very least someone should alert "MAN" and see if they take it down. If they do that means in general it's a more reliable source, if not for this article. Uninvolved editor who hates sweetners, but doesn't really care otherwise :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Is The Daily Bruin a reliable source? (In this case?)
I cited this article as a reference. Another editor removed the citation. It was in the controversy section of the ITT Technical Institute article.
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/34042/
Veecort (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the Daily Bruin should be seen as an reliable source. But does this source provide anything that the the other sources doesn't? Taemyr (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The editor who removed the reference wrote: "college newspapers do not pass WP:RS".[12] However I don't see the grounds for that assertion. College papers aren't mentioned specifically in WP:RS. College papers have editorial boards and are accountable for their reporting, just like commercial newspapers. According to our article on it, the Daily Bruin has won a number of awards recently, so it is presumably more reliable than the average college newspaper. However I'll inform the editor who deleted it and see if he has any better reason for the deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- A college newspaper is no different than any other newspaper. The key is its reputation and circulation. The more local and small town a paper is, the less likely it is that we can treat it as reliable... especially when it comes to news from beyond the local area. A small college's newspaper can be treated similarly. However, the newspaper of a large institution such as UCLA is more equivalent to the newspaper of a medium size city. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was told in a previous dispute that college newspapers are never considered reliable sources due to lax restrictions on what they will put in their papers. However, there are other reasons for disincluding it. The information stated within is also stated in another, better source. Also, there may be an issue with the neutrality of the source. McJeff (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with Blueboar and Will Beback - the Bruin is a reliable source. If it makes an unusual or extreme claim, just as with any source, then look further. But in general, the Bruin is an excellent paper and reliable as a source. Consider the reputation of the journalism department of UCLA and how that supports the reliability of the Bruin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was told in a previous dispute that college newspapers are never considered reliable sources due to lax restrictions on what they will put in their papers. However, there are other reasons for disincluding it. The information stated within is also stated in another, better source. Also, there may be an issue with the neutrality of the source. McJeff (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I've a question. Apparently what I felt was a violation of NPOV wasn't in the Daily Bruin at all, so chalk that argument up to a brainfart on my part. However... the statement that the Bruin was being used as a citation for was one that notes ITT Tech settled a lawsuit for $725,000. That statement has another source, http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/18/itt. Which one of these sources is preferable to use, or should they both be used?
Aside from this question I've no objections to the Bruin being readded based on the discussion here. McJeff (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary
Is Urban Dictionary a reliable source? I ask, because I notice that the Generation X article relies on it as the fourth citation listed in that article. But that raised a red flag with me, as a rather churlish editor took out his frustrations with me earlier this year by starting an article on UD denigrating me here, and perusing through that site further, I find further such articles on John McCain, apple bottoms, etc. Does any portion of that site, vis a vis the Generation X entry, have editorial control that would deem it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary is not at all a reliable source; it consists of user-contributed entries which are judged by other users. Skomorokh 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- This seems to come up every couple of months. Maybe we should start compiling a list of previously discussed sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not usually a reliable source. You can sometimes WP:IAR on pop-culture articles but I would use it only as an example of usage of a slang term, and it doesn't establish notablity. You can however use it as an external link if the UD page you're linking to is stable and uncontroversial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, someone should start a more easily searchable archive of sources, with particular emphasis on popular sites like MySpace, YouTube, etc. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe - Lithuanian
The Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe - Lithuanian claims that Lithuanian was forbodden on the phone in Poland till 1990: http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA305&dq=glanville+proce+telephone+lithuanian&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U1QOroh2Q96OIWCltH9hMMoDeb6yA
The story is totally absurd, no other source conforms it. There existed limitations on foreign langauges usage under martial law in Poland 1981/1982, but hundreds languages were forbidden and not till 1990.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that Blackwell Publishing, which published the Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe, appears to be a reputable publisher of the kind whose books are considered reliable sources. (I also note that the cited excerpt appears to claim only that Lithuanian was forbidden on the telephone in three particular districts of Poland, not nationwide.) The next questions I have are: (1) Do we have a claim in Wikipedia that Lithuanian was forbidden on the telephone until 1990? (2) Is it cited to that book? (3) Are there any reliable sources that indicate that Lithuanian was not forbidden on the telephone during that period? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I mean Lithuanian minority in Poland, History:In Sejny and Suwalki districts prohibition to speak Lithuanian in the public lasted until 1950 (on phone in 1990) and it was in the 1950s that teaching of Lithuanian was introduced as a subject in schools.[1].Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ad 3 - the article in the Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe isn't purely academic one, but includes Lithuanian POV historical comments. The source doesn't quote primary source of the story. Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Have any reviewers commented on the Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe as being inaccurate or biased? Right now, if all we have is a source (in the form of a book from a mainstream publisher) that says Lithuanian was banned in those districts, and no source that says it wasn't or that the book is inaccurate, I would be inclined to continue to believe the book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- After a simple google books search it became obvious that the claim originates from The History of the Lithuanian Language By Zigmas Zinkevičius, William R Schmalstieg (1996). So behind this is this guy Zigmas Zinkevičius, Lithuanian linguist-historian. Since Wikipedia doesn't look for the truth but verifiability, the claim could be included in an article if it said "according to Lithuanian linguist-historian Zigmas Zinkevičius". And as the claim made by Lithuanian Zinkevičius about Poland gets cited by books like The Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe, WP:VERIFY is covered.
- As long as it doesn't end up causing one of those ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia again , I mean it should be common knowledge that Lithuanians and Poles have this historical marriage-divorce gone bad thing between themselves going on and such claims even though in sync with verifiability could trigger another spark in this love-hate relationship. So this thread here is not that much about WP:RS but something that should be debated out at WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard perhaps.--Termer (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article about him notes that he is a member of Vilnija.The organisation is known to be a radical nationalist group noted for antipolish statements. So I don't believe he can be considered credible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnija political organization, considered to be extremist[1][2][3] and nationalist.[4][5][6][7] The organization was formed in 1988, in the LSSR, and its primary aim was the Lithuanization[8] of ethnic Poles living in the Eastern part of Lithuania. --Molobo (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands?
WP:BAND criterion #1 states bands are notable if there are several non-trivial articles about them in reliable sources. To me it means that if a band's releases have been reviewed by established music websites dealing with their genre, it's enough to assert notability. (By established music websites I mean websites that have a staff, been around for years, published hundreds of reviews, and are well-known in the genre they are dealing with.) However, I very often meet editors who don't accept these as reliable. Please confirm if the following websites are reliable:
- www.allmusic.com
- www.punkbands.com
- www.roomthirteen.com
- www.punktastic.com
- www.thepunksite.com
- Strummer25 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- None of these should be used to establish notability, although Allmusic can be used to cite biographical, discography, and chart info. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- A substantial Allmusic bio or review should be considered significant coverage in a reliable source - they have some very good professional writers and these are generally of good quality. The discographies in allmusic, however, are not reliable and better sources should be found. Billboard is a better source of US chart details.--Michig (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of the others, Room 13 and possibly Punkbands.com appear to have professional staff, so could be used as sources as long as they are presenting original articles written by staff (a lot of these webzines regurgitate press releases a lot), though they may not be enough on their own to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, if a band has been reviewed by Room 13 and punkbands.com, and a lot of other specialist webzines (the likes of punktastic), can that be enough to pass the notability threshold? Strummer25 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly it can be. (Although as I noted in the other place this conversation is happening, punktastic is not exclusive in their reviews: "Punktastic accepts all EPs and albums for review within reason...anything falling under our coverage umbrella (very loosely titled 'punk') is welcome." So, the likes of punktastic may not be useful for establishing notability.) But though this noticeboard can help determine if a source is reliable, it can't set a defining principle of how many of these or which ones meet notability. Consensus determines that on a case-by-case basis. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, if a band has been reviewed by Room 13 and punkbands.com, and a lot of other specialist webzines (the likes of punktastic), can that be enough to pass the notability threshold? Strummer25 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Kingdom of Humanity article
I don't think this has any verifiable sources, and is a travesty of an encyclopedia article. Attempts to rectify this are obstructed by user JeremyMcCracken who claims there is verification. 78.145.30.119 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This sounded odd to me, but there actually do seem to be a handful of good sources: see [13] and [14] for relevant hits in published books. *** Crotalus *** 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously those who care should beef up the references, including using those two books and giving relevant page numbers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think these sources are valid at all, they are outliers, and the main Spratlys article rightly makes no reference at all to this pseudohistory. Looking at the article, it seems some users have had a spat with JeremymcCracken who seems to think there is a pro-Chinese conspiracy or something. I've tried to add a comment on the DISCUSSION page but McCracken keeps vandalising it. I'd be grateful if someone could do something, this article really does need sorting out.78.144.197.25 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you spell out the problem you have with the Samuels book? It is from a good publisher and looks like serious history on the surface. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Two puzzling questions:
1 why is there no reference at all, anywhere except in the two sources and copy-cat internet sites, to the supposed Treaty of Southwark of 1893? 2. If these sources are correct, then why hasn't the main Spratlys article been amended accordingly. It makes no mention of 'King Franklin I' or the 'Treaty of Southwark.'
78.144.197.25 (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that there's some internet-based pseudo-historising going on here. Let's talk about the potentially reliable sources though, not the obviously unreliable ones. What about the Samuels book? Does it even mention the supposed Treaty of Southwark? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Without buying Samuel's book, it's hard to be sure. But linking bogus 'history' to bona fide scholar's work is pretty standard for psuedo/fantasy history people...I've noticed that this 'kingdom of Humanity' has now supposedly been superseded by another one, and this is so obviously invented that this, at the very least, should be deleted: the inventor admits as much (see http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html)
There has been a dreadful spat going in with this Jeremy McCracken who seems to be rather obstinate. And who also keeps vandalising my comment on the discussion page for Kingdom of Humanity. 78.144.197.25 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aha! Nosing around in the snippet view of Google books reveals that the "Meads" Samuels mentions is not the putative 19th century British captain James George Meads but an American Morton F. Meads of the 1950s. That the American Meads established a micronation called Kingdom of Humanity in the Spratlys in the 1950s is well sourced. Whether it is a notable enough fact for the encyclopedia is debatable. The pseudohistorical stuff should be removed. I'll have a quiet word with Jeremy McCracken. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Samuels may well mention 'the Treaty of Southwark' but only in the context of this (not very notable) fantasy....if it stays in wikipedia it should have a BIG health warning. As an IP said, it needs a health warning, and as another said, this subject is too important for mis-information, the Spratlys are a major potential flash point. I'd stick 'fantasy' on it in a prominent position. And while you're talking to Jeremy McCracken, I noticed he has something on his page saying he's proud of fending off the attempts to vandalise the article. Perhaps so, but the article is still probably not notable and certainly useless as a piece of actual history of this very important area. Thanks for your consideration of this, itmejudith.I think a few lines saying some bloke thought he was starting a country, but wasn't. That'd be enough.78.144.197.25 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- He doesn't mention it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can find this "kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&num=100 and a snippet "kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&dq="kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&num=100&pgis=1 - it seems to date only to 1914. dougweller (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- He doesn't mention it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Samuels may well mention 'the Treaty of Southwark' but only in the context of this (not very notable) fantasy....if it stays in wikipedia it should have a BIG health warning. As an IP said, it needs a health warning, and as another said, this subject is too important for mis-information, the Spratlys are a major potential flash point. I'd stick 'fantasy' on it in a prominent position. And while you're talking to Jeremy McCracken, I noticed he has something on his page saying he's proud of fending off the attempts to vandalise the article. Perhaps so, but the article is still probably not notable and certainly useless as a piece of actual history of this very important area. Thanks for your consideration of this, itmejudith.I think a few lines saying some bloke thought he was starting a country, but wasn't. That'd be enough.78.144.197.25 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since people want a quiet word with me, let me explain the mess you've been dragged into. I found this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Humanity. That IP user had vandalized it heavily, adding "fantasy" and "fictional" all over it. Here is what was removed at the close of the AfD. We kept it based upon sources we'd found, and removed the vandalism. This IP had also done a similar job to Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads.
After the article was kept, that IP user vandalized my user page ([15] [16]) until I had it semi protected, then has continued vandalizing the article. 99.142.11.124 (talk · contribs) was the most recent, getting blocked for blanking the article; see also [17] [18]. They're going by a source, seen here: [19] which isn't remotely reliable. So please, assume AGF on my part; I'm not ignoring a decent request, I'm ignoring a stalker. I've contacted about half a dozen ISPs from this user (guess what I'm about to do again), and can't keep them away because they keep switching ISPs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk · contribs) has gotten a similar treatment; see [20].
Notability hadn't been a concern of this IP; at the AfD, we set out to determine if it existed, which we did. Hypnotoad did post some g-books results (link) that satisfied it for me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. their talk contributions that I removed were this: [21] I didn't consider it to be any attempt at opening a discussion, anyway. Looking at the new sources, I can't read those that are only on g-books, but the article may need fixing based upon it, which would be great. I only know it from the AfD, where I looked into "what research? one chappie and his one website, nope, it won't wash, it's garbage and you know it!" as the reason for nominating. I hadn't done any writing on the article, just clearing the vandalism since. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- More- I dropped Captain Meads' name into g-books and got some hits: [22] oddly enough, looks like we have disagreement between book sources. I'm heading offline now, so can't respond for a while, but I'll check back later. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this explanation of your position, Jeremy. It must have been frustrating to have had your talk page vandalised. As you know, our concern on this noticeboard is just the quality of the sources. Yes, a number of references come up on g-books, but they are mainly referenced back to Samuels. Samuels is a good enough source for the fact that a claim to the existence of a micronation was made by Morton F. Meads sometime after WW2. I'm not sure that we have a good enough source for a claim in 1914, but we can discuss. The stuff about James George Meads and the "Treaty of Southwark" is completely unsourced and I will take it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I may have figured out the confusion with captain Meads. This book mentions Meads in relation to the Republic of Morac Songhrati Meads; I think the website owners may have made a connection between it and KoH when they're actually separate claims. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for this suggestion. It is getting very complicated. I am wary of using any law books in the article, as it is a history article and we should prefer texts by historians. Experts on international law are citing the case as an interesting one, but because of their disciplinary status they do not approach sourcing as historians do. I've tagged the article as in need of an expert in history. I'm going to leave a message at WikiProject Vietnam, which I'm a member of, but the article is so tangential to that project that it may be taken out of it. I'll also leave a message at the History Wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I may have figured out the confusion with captain Meads. This book mentions Meads in relation to the Republic of Morac Songhrati Meads; I think the website owners may have made a connection between it and KoH when they're actually separate claims. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will also leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations, as the article is categorized as being part of that project. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've now proposed merge with Spratly Islands. Good if we can get as many people as possible from here and from the WikiProjects to comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly, they are certainly tightly linked and a source discussing KoH usually mentions the Spratly Islands. We mustn't ignore Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads as it shouldn't have a separate article either I think, and also needs attention. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- And looking at this [23] I suspect there is an 'interesting' story somewhere here, but I doubt we can source it. 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)
- Possibly, they are certainly tightly linked and a source discussing KoH usually mentions the Spratly Islands. We mustn't ignore Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads as it shouldn't have a separate article either I think, and also needs attention. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've now proposed merge with Spratly Islands. Good if we can get as many people as possible from here and from the WikiProjects to comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The snippets of Contest for the South China Sea seem to suggest that there has been some media attention from the later, combined micronation (see this search). I can request that book, but I won't be able to get it until about the end of January. It does seem that the Meads that founded KoH is a descendant of James George Meads, and that the two did merge, making KoH basically a footnote in the history of the other. Maybe KoH should instead be merged into Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads? If anyone's Australian, it looks like you can get Mr. Weller's source: [24] that seems to have some important information as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie Article
Wiki Guides on this
- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia."
Although some parts quoted in the main page with a reference as citation needed There are objections on adding the full text of written oaths of the eyewitnesses mainly because the report is self published by an organisation Rachel Corrie Wiki Page
it is referenced as a self published source by a user [25] yet is the selfpublished source or wiki policy page point out self as an individual or does it contain an organisation like Palestinian Human Rights Organisation
- "We can't use the organization's own page per WP:SELFPUB. So I guess I object. I don't see the need for it anyway, we have three witness statements as it stands."
this is the only page that contain full written statements of the eyewitnesses
electronic intifada quoted Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath], from Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 3 July 2003 Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) The context includes written oaths of eyewitnesses under them taken by lawyer
- "I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie
- This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"
- "I the undersigned Joseph Carr ... born 25 April, 1981, give this statement under oath for the lawyer Raji Sourani. I, the undersigned lawyer Raji Sourani, have taken this statement on 30 March, 2003."
- "I, the undersigned, William George Hewitt, give this statement before the advocate Raji Sourani. signature
- This statement has been given before me, lawyer Raji Sourani, in my office at the Palestinian Center For Human Rights (PCHR), and in my presence on March 31, 2003, by William Hewitt. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed this statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Lawyer signature"
- "The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH 155 human organisations throughout the world – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)members Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award given by president of French Republic on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award jury for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists." about page unsigned comment
- This is discussed at length at the Rachel Corrie talk page and your unsigned commentary doesn't make it too clear what the issue is, though note per below that self-published sources can be OK if they meet certain standards. A human rights group issuing signed affidavits, especially if reviewed by others, probably would be seen as passing that standard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about unsigned comment my fault. And thanks for your reply. Can you explain what you exactly mean by review by others.
- We discussed very long for the article while 2 user refused and 2 user including myself insisted we should give reference for the eyewitness quotes. The link contains the full text of the eyewitness accounts which we clearly need as a reference. Therefore I tried to take opinion from third party. Actually statements are belong to eyewitnesses who are members of ISM like Rachel Corrie. The written signed statements has been taken under oath by a lawyer who is a member of PCHR at his office, published by PCHR. Some quotes already added to the main page article which marked as citation needed. Yet 2 users objected my giving reference to the unreferenced quotes. I tried to explain the credibility of a Human Rights Organisation is related to its international memberships, acceptance, support and international awards they receive. I tried to point out PCHR has Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations, member of various international organisations, awarded by President of French Republic and by Bruno Kreisky Comittee "for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights". Yet one user said even if it would be another organisation he would object likewise because it is against WikiPolicies to give link to a self published report. All organisations, publishers, newspapers self-publishes their works in another term. Yet as far as I understand the self-publishing objection in WP refers to individual's works. Therefore I asked here if it would be against to WikiPolicies to publish a widely accepted Human Rights Organisation's report as a reference for clearing out the issue. Because lots of wikipedia articles contain quotes of individual Human Rights Organisation reports especially on Human Right issues. Any further views from other users also might help for our settlement on the issue.
- The format of the eyewitness statements
- "I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie
- This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"
- The section is titled as ISM eyewitness accounts under Rachel Corrie page with [citation needed] mark. The only and main source to the eyewitness statements is Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) or same info in Affidavits from eyewitnesses ... Durie, Carr, Hewitt, Palestinian Center for Human Rights and Affidavits from eyewitnesses ... Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Tom Dale, Greg Schnabel, Richard Purssell, and Joe Smith, International Solidarity Movement. Kasaalan (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Lulu.com published books
This book in particular, but Lulu.com published books in general. It has an ISBN, and Amazon says "In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." so it's a bit tricky. It's kind of self published, and kind of not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's still WP:SPS. The fact that Amazon sells it, or that it has an ISBN, does not change this at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It still IS or is not. Much as I'd like my forthcoming someday politico-religous book on LuLu to be considered WP:RS, something tells me people might challenge that here. :-) Looking at topic above I was reminded Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia." Though WP:RS gives a little more flexibility. Assumedly when highly reputable source self-publishes for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lulu.com is definitely a self-published source (sounds nicer than "vanity press"). Many similar sources have ISBN and are sold through Amazon. Those two factors have almost no bearing on reliability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Self-publishing of books is becoming much easier now, with sites like Lulu.com and the Amazon version CreateSpace where books go directly on sale at Amazon from starting with a PDF file. That may be why the idea of "vanity press" no longer quite expresses the process. For our purposes, a self-published book would be no different than a self-published website - generally, not reliable as a source - unless the self-published book is by a recognized notable expert. I've seen a few of those used in articles. But the credentials of the expert would have to be quite strong, and if there's anything controversial, treated as a primary source with attribution. It's hard to make a bright line, but in general, self-published books are more likely than not, to be non-reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lulu.com is definitely a self-published source (sounds nicer than "vanity press"). Many similar sources have ISBN and are sold through Amazon. Those two factors have almost no bearing on reliability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a similar issue in another case therefore need help. The self publishing criteria in wikipedia applies to individuals and mostly pdf documents as far as I understand. Self publishing as means of Organisations' reports, printed Newspapers or a Paper magazines for non commercial reasons isnt adressed there am I correct. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Would editors consider that these references [26][27][28] [29] are appropriately reliable, and significant enough sources for a claim that this organization has been involving in spamming to get submissions? [30]? Thanks --Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the sources are used for the claim that they are accused of spamming, but aside from that, yes... --fvw* 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- At least N. Christopher Phillips should be considered reliable who is a Professor in the Mathematics Department at the University of Oregon. Some editors go easy way and delete all additions to the article instead editing them properly. By the way wayback link [31] might not be suitable for legal reasons "The original blog entry that appeared on this page, and all follow-up comments posted by the public, have been removed under threat of lawsuit. In May-July 2008, the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (”WSEAS”), represented by the law office of Charles Lee Mudd Jr. in Chicago, threatened to bring suit for defamation, trade libel, and commercial disparagement because of my public complaints on their marketing practices and institutional culture in 2004–2005. I disagree with all their assessments of the situation, and am disappointed to consider the chilling effect this decision may have on others who have made the same complaints. But as a writer running a small business I am unable to afford the expense and stress of a legal case on such a trivial matter". But you may summarize its content before and after the legal threats. Slashdot might also be considered but not strong as oregon link because the writers there anonymous. Not sure why you added paristech link but university domains are generally accepted. Kasaalan (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Henry Blodget has signed a consent order with the SEC to pay $2-$4 million and stay out of the securities business for (as I understand it) lying to investors. He has become a fairly successful financial journalist, running his own blog and being quoted by NPR or in this case writing a column for the New York Post. As I read it, the column is speculation about investors motives, i.e. "mind reading."
I'm asking for guidance for use on material by Blodget in this article. Blodget's blog has to be considered an unreliable source - how much more can you do to prove that you are unreliable? The New York Post should generally be considered reliable, but I consider the speculation of Blodget on investors' motives to be irrelevant to the topic so have removed the whole paragraph.
Looking forward to your guidance, any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another case where the source is reliable for a statement as to the opinion of its author, but is probably not reliable for a statement of fact. If Blodget's opinion is included you should phrase it as being Blodget's opinion... something along the lines of: "According to New York Post columnist Henry Blodget, X was motivated by Y" or even "It is the opinion of New York Post columnist Henry Blodget that X was motivated by Y". Blodget's opinions on the securities business are certainly notable (published by a major newspaper)... so the only question is whether Blodget's opinion is relevant in the context of the Madoff article. That is a question that is not within the scope of this guideline, and needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Cityfile.com
Wondering if someone could help me out here: Citations to cityfile.com are being deleted throughout Wikipedia by a bot, allegedly for not meeting the RS requirements, but I don't think this is the case. Can I get someone else's opinion on this? Does this site fit RS requirements?--Jenniferwilder (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to note a couple things here; the site in question is on XLinkBot's blacklist. Here is one case where a link to Cityfile.com was removed. This problem was originally reported here, where I advised Jennifer that a discussion here at RSN might help clear Cityfile.com or at least help explain why it shouldn't be included. The site was originally added to the blacklist per this discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Using a posting to Youtube.com by the copyright holder
I have been having problems regarding using a youtube video as a reference in the Land of Confusion article. I have followed the Restrictions on Linking requirement at WP:YOUTUBE and taken due care. In fact, I will show the proof here. Go to Disturbed's official website and click on the Youtube link and it will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel. If you then show all and go to page 2 you can click on the Disturbed version of Land of Confusion.
I have gone to the copyright holder's own webpage followed the links provided there, explained to my fellow editors citing large chucks of wiki guidelines what I am doing and how the link is NOT a violation of copyright and yet the reference has been repeatably yanked with one editor stating "we cannot provide a link to youtube as the source. WP:YOUTUBE forbids it as a copyright violation." after I spent nearly a freaking paragraph explaining how the reference wasn't a copyright violation.
The editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANYTHING posted to youtube is automatically a copyright violation even if you can show that the version you are linking to was posted to youtube by the copyright holder. I even went the other way and showed how to get to the link though the copyright holder's own webside and THAT was yanked by User:TheIntersect who stated "Wikipedia is not a Howto guide" and later "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place to provide people with instructions on how to find a music video or to promote a band's website." So how in blazes are we supposed to use a Youtube reference we can reasonable demonstrate (ie take due care) was posted by the copyright holder?? We really need a policy that if it can reasonably be demonstrated that due care has been take that a youtube reference didn't violate copyright it can't be yanked willy nilly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- You should put it in the external links rather than the article body, but it seems to be a valid link. You're lucky there's no rule against linking to bad covers --NE2 11:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are other problems with YouTube beyond the copywrite issue, although that is the most common. Essentially it comes down to this... while there may be the occasional Youtube video that is not a copywrite violation, and has no problem with all of the other issues layed out in WP:YOUTUBE... these are very rare. Because the vast majority of videos on YouTube don't pass muster, we have declared the entire YouTube website unreliable, and have essentially banned using YouTube as a source on Wikipedia. This means that the few videos that might or do pass muster will end up being tossed out as well. My advice... cite the video without linking to YouTube (either link to some other website that hosts it, or don't link at all... just have a text citation). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read WP:YOUTUBE? --NE2 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly not. Blueboar, you are totally and absolutely wrong about this. Dlabtot (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- This this is the type non-reading of the actual policy that I am dealing with. I will quote from WP:YOUTUBE: "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently - see Restrictions on Linking)." (the copyright part doesn't come into play since it can be shown to be posted by the copyright holder.). The only things Restrictions on Linking) requires is 1) it is not in violation of copyright (already proven) and 2) it is not blacklisted which per WP:YOUTUBE's "no blanket ban on linking to these sites" there isn't for youtube. There are NO OTHER CRITERIA. So let's discuss the merits per the ACTUAL wiki guidelines and not made up garbage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Blueboar is incorrect in his assertion that all of Youtube has been "declared" unsuitable. Per the guidelines that is most definitely not the case. It is obvious by the care in which you have made your case and followed the trail of ownership, that this specific use of Youtube by you is acceptable and does not conflict with WP:YOUTUBE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- This this is the type non-reading of the actual policy that I am dealing with. I will quote from WP:YOUTUBE: "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently - see Restrictions on Linking)." (the copyright part doesn't come into play since it can be shown to be posted by the copyright holder.). The only things Restrictions on Linking) requires is 1) it is not in violation of copyright (already proven) and 2) it is not blacklisted which per WP:YOUTUBE's "no blanket ban on linking to these sites" there isn't for youtube. There are NO OTHER CRITERIA. So let's discuss the merits per the ACTUAL wiki guidelines and not made up garbage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly not. Blueboar, you are totally and absolutely wrong about this. Dlabtot (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read WP:YOUTUBE? --NE2 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are other problems with YouTube beyond the copywrite issue, although that is the most common. Essentially it comes down to this... while there may be the occasional Youtube video that is not a copywrite violation, and has no problem with all of the other issues layed out in WP:YOUTUBE... these are very rare. Because the vast majority of videos on YouTube don't pass muster, we have declared the entire YouTube website unreliable, and have essentially banned using YouTube as a source on Wikipedia. This means that the few videos that might or do pass muster will end up being tossed out as well. My advice... cite the video without linking to YouTube (either link to some other website that hosts it, or don't link at all... just have a text citation). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh... I am indeed completley wrong in saying that WP:YOUTUBE lays out these other issues. Sorry about that. I mistakenly thought that WP:YOUTUBE was part of the old RS/Faq page, which used to summarize the many discussions that we have had on this topic here on this page, at WP:RS and at other content related policies and guidelines. In that I admit I was mistaken. WP:YOUTUBE just talks about using that and similar sites as an external link. External links and sources are very different things, with very different criteria.
- I stand by the rest of my comment however. What I intended to convey is that there is a firm consensus (one that has been clear for a long time): YouTube is not considered a reliable source, and for more than just copywrite reasons... For example, YouTube as a website has significant issues with WP:V in that anyone can post a video, so there is no oversight, no guarentee that what we are looking at in a YouTube video is the same as the original (ie whether it has been manipulated in some way). This means that, even though an individual video may not have such problems, YouTube as a website can not be used as a source for information.
- Linking to it under WP:EL, is a very different matter. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- You completely failed to read the discussion. This is a video posted by the band or an authorized representative. --NE2 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. I am not saying that there is a problem with the video... I am saying there is a problem with the host website. The objection isn't about who posted it... it's about where they posted it. The objection is to YouTube. There are enough problem's with YouTube that we consider the entire website to be unreliable and unusable. The exact same video hosted on some other website would probably be considered reliable.
- This is similar (although not exactly analogous) to our position on citing articles found on various Wikis... an individual article on a Wiki might be the best write up of a topic in the universe... extremely well written by an expert in the field, highly researched, completely sourced, etc. But, because it is located on a Wiki, it can not be used as a source in Wikipedia. The objection isn't to the individual article, the objection is to the location where that article is to be found.
- Note that my comments relate to using a video on YouTube as a source... they do not apply to posting a link to a video on YouTube in the external links section of the article. The standards are different for external links. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're completely wrong; Youtube is not always considered unreliable, and neither is a wiki. If the source can be verified, then at the very least WP:SPS applies. (In the case of a wiki we'd probably link to the old revision, since the contents may change.) I urge you to think about this and realize that there are no absolutes. --NE2 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Blueboar's posts above more carefully. The video is the source, not its uploading to YouTube. As a parallel, if I find a scientific paper that was printed in a paper journal but is also posted on the internet as a pdf, I cite the paper. I can link to the pdf if I'm sure that there are no copyright problems, but I don't have to. Same here. You can cite the video as a source if you are sure it exists and that it can potentially be accessed for verification. Blueboar's also suggesting that you can include YT as an external link. He's going out of his way to be helpful on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you watched the video on Youtube, it would be dishonest to claim that you didn't, at least if you couldn't be sure if it was the actual video. But in this case we know for sure that it is, and there is nothing at all wrong with using the video on Youtube as the source and giving a convenience link. --NE2 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, when you watch the video there is this "Disturbed: Indestructible Official YouTube channel" on the same page showing again the video was posted by the band. As such it would fall under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you watched the video on Youtube, it would be dishonest to claim that you didn't, at least if you couldn't be sure if it was the actual video. But in this case we know for sure that it is, and there is nothing at all wrong with using the video on Youtube as the source and giving a convenience link. --NE2 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Blueboar's posts above more carefully. The video is the source, not its uploading to YouTube. As a parallel, if I find a scientific paper that was printed in a paper journal but is also posted on the internet as a pdf, I cite the paper. I can link to the pdf if I'm sure that there are no copyright problems, but I don't have to. Same here. You can cite the video as a source if you are sure it exists and that it can potentially be accessed for verification. Blueboar's also suggesting that you can include YT as an external link. He's going out of his way to be helpful on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Judith sums up my advice on this perfectly... citing the video without providing a link to YouTube is fine... linking to the copy of the video that is on YouTube in the external links section is fine.... The only thing we should not do is put a link to YouTube in the citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's totally fine to put such a link in the citation; it's called a convenience link. --NE2 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, and that is the main argument for keeping it in as it can be reasonably demonstrated it was posted by the copyright holder (how many times do I have to say this before it gets through??) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources is quite clear that such things can be used as both links AND references. Here is the reference wiki policy I am using:
- It's totally fine to put such a link in the citation; it's called a convenience link. --NE2 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're completely wrong; Youtube is not always considered unreliable, and neither is a wiki. If the source can be verified, then at the very least WP:SPS applies. (In the case of a wiki we'd probably link to the old revision, since the contents may change.) I urge you to think about this and realize that there are no absolutes. --NE2 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources;
- the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source."
The Youtube video fulfills all these requirements, so let's deal with the actual polices and not these weird misreadings.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Who's Who in America
Recently, I've seen some people using the website http://whoswhoinamerica.com for sourcing on a myriad of things, most notably birthdates. The site doesn't guarantee its veracity, nor does it give any indication of how or where it obtains its information, and says in its Terms and Conditions that all material is available "as is".[32] My memory of Who's Who in American Students was that its information was subject submitted. Should this be considered a reliable source? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since entries are submitted by those listed, I think we can consider it to be essentially a self-published source... with the caveats and restrictions that would imply. In other words, it is reliable for some things, but not for others. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
CV as a source
Is a curriculum vitae considered a reliable source? A recent edit to the Steve Fuller (sociologist) article uses his CV as a source for claims about his work. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sustainable Packaging
Sustainable packaging includes a statement that “General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups.” In support of this statement, two citations have been proposed. Using the cite-web format, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition [33] and the Sustainable Packaging Alliance [34] were referenced. One editor challenged these links as citations and also as external links: see talk page. Do you consider these to be reliable sources? If so, should they be in-line citations or external links? Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- These are reliable sources for that statement if you can find the pages on their websites that demonstrate all points you mention (general guidance AND metrics AND checklists AND scorecards) between these two organisations. I don't think that they both need to have all of them. You should use the cite-web format linking to relevant pages (one page per organisation is sufficient). If you can't find the specific pages then you should reword to something less specific, just mentioning that these organisations are active in the field. They are fine as external links too. I can't see why this should be controversial. The article on Organic food links to the national certification bodies and the article on Fair trade has an extended discussion of certification which you would find interesting. Spam is always a concern on environmentally-related articles, but you should be on safe ground if you stick to major bodies operating in the field and make sure that when there are competing organisations you include all of them. SPC includes some of the world's largest corporations and SPA is backed by an Australian state government and universities. Even so, if there happens to be some published criticism of them, then that should be included too. If I'm missing an important point here, please let me know. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking for further contributions here, as there is a controversy on the article talk page and I really don't get why. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No one is questioning if they are reliable sources. I think the comment above, "Do you consider these to be reliable sources? If so, should they be in-line citations or external links?" indicates the problem. Simply, there is a lack of understanding of when WP:RS applies, and no distinction between references and external links. As far as I can make out, the links were simply added as examples, and the subsequent discussion seems to argue for inclusion as external links rather than references. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking for further contributions here, as there is a controversy on the article talk page and I really don't get why. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Double check blog
I think this is a reliable source. Although it's a blog, it's that of Robin Leech for Las Vegas Weekly. So those are good, right? لennavecia 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a little weird. It says it's by Leach, but this one, for instance, talks about Leach in the third person. I'm not sure he's actually writing these. Stuff like "OMG! It’s Joe and Kevin and Nick!" just doesn't sound the Robin Leach I remember. I think he's putting his name on articles written by other people. Whether it's reliable or not, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Nivel
I'd like some comments on the reliability of research reports by this research center in The Netherlands, NIVEL. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's in dutch, so you may want to solicit Dutch-speaking editors - I've asked JfdWolff as he's a native Dutch speaker and a doctor. Also, I wouldn't consider it a medically reliable source unless published in a peer-reviewed journal. What was the oversight? I think based on your contributions and comments regards this, you were a reviewer, and your training is an an economist is it not User:Guido den Broeder/Guido den Broeder? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- My part in the oversight was as a recognized experience expert and published scientist in the field. This is not bio-medical research, but socio-medical or epidemiological. My original training (not as an economist) happened 30 years ago and I've not stopped learning at that point in time. Others that took part in the oversight are affiliated to CBO, TNO, and CG-Raad. This is of course just one example, but oversight is usually like that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I removed this ref for 2 reasons: [1] it doesn't appear to be published in a reliable journal and [2] Guido is involved with it so he has a COI. Being involved with a study doesn't automatically mean you can't post it, but it does raise a warning flag and other editors should decide whether or not it goes in. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the RS noticeboard. The COI issue is raised at the COI noticeboard. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- What qualifications do you have to review this? Have you published any articles in peer-reviewed journals? Do you have a current academic appointment? Are there any books published by peer-reviewed, high-quality medical publishers that you have written or contributed toward? Ultimately that's only tangentially relevant as the real oversight comes from the degree of fact checking and reputation of the publisher. Has Nivel published anything in a peer-reviewed source? Is it cited extensively by respected medical articles and scholars (probably not since it was published recently)? What reason is there to consider this a reliable source, and not a statement published by an advocacy or patient group? Responding frankly to these questions will assist in venturing a conclusion on the reliability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- NIVEL is a large research institute with a long track record and an impeccable reputation. It is not a patient advocacy group. Please note that journal articles are not the only peer-reviewed sources in science; there is an entire primary circuit of research reports with equally strong quality checks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- That said, here is the nl:Wikipedia page about its current director. [35]. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What qualifications do you have to review this? Have you published any articles in peer-reviewed journals? Do you have a current academic appointment? Are there any books published by peer-reviewed, high-quality medical publishers that you have written or contributed toward? Ultimately that's only tangentially relevant as the real oversight comes from the degree of fact checking and reputation of the publisher. Has Nivel published anything in a peer-reviewed source? Is it cited extensively by respected medical articles and scholars (probably not since it was published recently)? What reason is there to consider this a reliable source, and not a statement published by an advocacy or patient group? Responding frankly to these questions will assist in venturing a conclusion on the reliability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the RS noticeboard. The COI issue is raised at the COI noticeboard. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I removed this ref for 2 reasons: [1] it doesn't appear to be published in a reliable journal and [2] Guido is involved with it so he has a COI. Being involved with a study doesn't automatically mean you can't post it, but it does raise a warning flag and other editors should decide whether or not it goes in. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- From a short look at the English language part of the Web site, it looks like a recognized and competent research center. As such, it's reports are reasonable sources, at the level of a WP:SPS from a recognized expert, but not up to a peer-reviewed article in a good journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
NIVEL is a Dutch research institute that primarily works in the area of primary healthcare. Its research is authoritative and reliable. However, it would be useful to know which piece of information is being quoted from its research. If it is directly from a research study, it might be a primary source and less reliable than a secondary source. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Journal of Mental Health
I'd appreciate an evaluation of this journal as a source. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- And is it a good candidate to challenge the conclusions of The Lancet, as in this specific use? Particularly given primary medical sources shouldn't be used to debunk secondary? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- What if the secondary source is used to promote the debunked view without supporting evidence? Not all 'secondary sources' are reliable. This particularly one is non-systematic and only serves to further the deviant disease model of the authors, who have a huge financial stake in continuing this belief. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about the journal, but the reference you put in from it had 2 problems. [1] there was no mention of it in pubmed which makes me wonder if it is reliable and [2] the study you are trying to debunk wasn't even mentioned in your ref - you seem to be saying they're talking about the same "disease model" which would be synthesis. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lets' try to stay on-topic and deal with any other issues after the journal has been found reliable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean "if", as it's still uncertain. And merely because it is reliable for certain issues does not mean it can be used to challenge, contradict (or eliminate) a study published in The Lancet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it can. The Lancet is not holy. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean "if", as it's still uncertain. And merely because it is reliable for certain issues does not mean it can be used to challenge, contradict (or eliminate) a study published in The Lancet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lets' try to stay on-topic and deal with any other issues after the journal has been found reliable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about the journal, but the reference you put in from it had 2 problems. [1] there was no mention of it in pubmed which makes me wonder if it is reliable and [2] the study you are trying to debunk wasn't even mentioned in your ref - you seem to be saying they're talking about the same "disease model" which would be synthesis. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This seems close to wikilawyering. MEDRS is a guideline, not a rulebook, and if a subsequent study directly contradicts what a review said, the study should not be kept out of the article based on the fact that it is a research article alone. Instead, one should look to see what the review is basing its assertion on as compared to the other. If each has comparable underlying statistical power, they should be included. If the research article points out reasonable methodological problems in the review, it could similarly be included, as could a good letter to the editor. The synthesis issue will still need to be looked at. II | (t - c) 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
A view from someone not involved in this dispute:
- The Journal of Mental Health is not listed in PubMed. PubMed lists 49 journals with "Mental Health" in their titles, ranging from Adm Policy Ment Health to Res Community Ment Health. Typically these journals are not indexed, as PubMed is not about psychology; but individual articles relating to medical topics are indexed, and the Journal of Mental Health apparently has never published an article on a topic that PubMed would consider medical.
- Grey et al. 2004 (doi:10.1080/09638230410001729870) goes on at some length as to why ISI impact factors should not be taken that seriously (a sentiment that I mostly agree with) and argues that, despite the low impact factor of JMH, it has many end users outside academia and is in fact making an impact on the outside world.
- The editorial board of the journal shows a heavy influence from the Institute of Psychiatry, far more than I'd like to see in an independent journal.
- As for that particular source, Song & Jason 2005 (doi:10.1080/09638230500076165), Google Scholar reports only 2 citations to it, neither in reviews. It would be quite a stretch to call this an important study, worth mentioning even when we have reliable secondary reviews on the topic.
Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is great!
- Note that Song & Jason address one particular issue, a specific disease model, that is not covered in any secondary review except the own non-systematic review of the group that invented the model, and their review is not of studies into their model, but rather the model is used in that review to make certain interpretations and speculations (which of course lack any basis if the model is invalid). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I didn't quite follow all that, but in a topic like chronic fatigue syndrome I'd expect reliable reviews to cover important disease models with suitable weight. If reliable reviews on CFS don't mention a disease model then Chronic fatigue syndrome probably shouldn't either. Reviews don't have to be systematic to be reliable, and for the purpose of determining weight general reviews may be better than systematic ones; please see WP:MEDRS #Biomedical journals for more. Eubulides (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, too, but other users insist that it should be included. As this model is a minority view and very controversial, IMHO it should at least be balanced by referencing the one study that investigated the model. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I didn't quite follow all that, but in a topic like chronic fatigue syndrome I'd expect reliable reviews to cover important disease models with suitable weight. If reliable reviews on CFS don't mention a disease model then Chronic fatigue syndrome probably shouldn't either. Reviews don't have to be systematic to be reliable, and for the purpose of determining weight general reviews may be better than systematic ones; please see WP:MEDRS #Biomedical journals for more. Eubulides (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like there's enough to warrant deleting the JMH article based on reliability alone, if you ask me. One should generally err on the side of leaving academic articles which cover a particular angle not already covered in, if you ask me. If something is contested by other researchers, just because one researcher happened to be writing a review when he made the statement doesn't automatically warrant shutting out the other view. First, the review could be basing its assertion on one small sample trial or even no trials at all, while the subsequent research article could have a much larger sample size. Also, just because The Lancet is a a household name doesn't mean it is super-reliable. It seems more like a well-marketed general rather than specialist journal, and it does have a bit of a sketchy past, eg the MMR vaccine article. II | (t - c) 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article in the Lancet, and then looking back at the paragraph on psychological factors. Both are a bit hard to follow. I don't think Guido's edit helped at all by referring to a "disease model" which had not been clearly defined. The review article in the Lancet is very broad and lacking in numbers, making it hard to assess what's speculation and what's not. One of my concerns with MEDRS was that it would easily lend itself to obfuscating assertions behind reviews. This seems like one of those cases. It would be better to cite the articles which The Lancet uses to support its statements, especially since in many cases these are specific reviews -- for example the neuroticism predisposition. The Lancet seems to reference a controversy surrounding this very issue -- see reference 131, and it should definitely be well covered. The Lancet refers to the psychosomatic/psychiatric model, but seems to endorse a more nuanced neurobiological position. The psychological factors section doesn't cover this controversy very well. II | (t - c) 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
About.com for cannabis info
This is the ref I would like to use. The author has written a bunch of books, but they're about teen parenting, not cannibis.. This reliable sources/notcieboard discussion talks about about.com a bit. The article I want to use it on is Cannabis in Oregon. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the "cold facts" in that article appear to come from a DEA report. The DEA has a lot of reports online about what the drug problem is in different regions of the country, so if its those figures you're interested in you should go for the DEA article. On the other hand, if there's an opinion in the About.com article about how cannabis is generally perceived in Oregon then cite her. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. I'll look for the DEA versions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Snopes.com
Is http://www.snopes.com a reliable source or is it just another self-published website? I went through all the archives and no one had asked before. The website seemed to be maintained by an American couple with no scientific background.(Immortale (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
- Reliable in that the site bases what it publishes on what it finds at other reliable sites. Sure, the site may be self-published in some sense, but I don't see any reason to doubt its veracity. Ngchen (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Snopes appears to do some fact-checking and seems quite reliable on investigations of urban legends; as described on our page about them it is often cited by the media on the subject of urban legends. At the very minimum Snopes would qualify as an expert SPS. You do have the option to cite them using attribution; i.e. Snopes.com traced this rumor to a chain letter circulating circa 2002. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- (For scientific matters) Barring the existence of even higher quality mainstream scientific V & RS that contradict the conclusions of Snopes' verdict, it can be accepted as being reasonably accurate. They also show the sources they have used in their research. This is basically in line with standard Wikipedia policies, which use mainstream sources from V & RS as being "reliable sources" until proven otherwise. If there is significant disagreement in the literature, IOW very real controversy, then both opinions can (and often "should") be provided to show the real world controversy. If better sources unequivocally show that Snopes is outright wrong, then notify them and don't use them as a source for that particular instance until they correct their error. Any website, including JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ can do that. Human error exists. We have to live with it and do the best we can. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly related thread: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 10#Verification of snopes.com opinions. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not reliable according to our policies Yes, it is a nice site, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a mom and pop operation. Yes, it sometimes cites sources, but it has a fairly low bar on these sources. These people are not reading the scientific literature, and we have no idea what their scientific background is. Neither are they experts on law, politics, history, or anything else. They're a good start, but there's no way to justify their use as an SPS except through ignoring the rules, and I don't think that's a good solution. If you want to go by the rules, edit WP:RS to allow mom and pop websites which have a good reputation or something. I've seen misleading stories on Snopes -- it was the article on plastic bottles, where whey completely neglected to mention Bisphenol A. I emailed them and they've since updated the page. The thing is, if Snopes is relying on a decent source, then why not use that? II | (t - c) 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with II that the website is not reliable. Its RS status is independent of whether we WP editors examine the site's content and find it is truthful or erroneous. Its status depends on its fact-checking systems, which in this case do not appear to be present. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, what can you tell us then about their fact-checking? If they are a two-person operation, then how do they achieve what newspapers and academic presses have departments to do? Can we find quotes from good sources that they are reliable? I'm open to convincing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable for widely publicized opinion. If in doubt about the "truth" of their utterances, then keep in mind that we're about "verifiability, not truth....". They can still be quoted for their very notable and widely quoted opinions. According to the WP:MEDRS guidelines, they may not be a good RS for medical matters, where we should prefer high quality medical sources, but for the subject of their website - urban legends - they are a perfectly good source for opinion. If in doubt, then attribute it to them. They are the most notable website on that subject on the internet, so their notability isn't in doubt, not that notability is a requirement for article content, it is not. Notability is only a requirement for the creation of articles. Since their opinion is relied upon so much by many RS, they can be quoted or referred to in such situations. As mentioned above (and we agree on this), if they are in error, then they are not a RS "for that particular instance," but still for most everything else. If we demand perfection of websites, then no website can be cited in any article. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Generally Reliable Certainly far more reliable than a typical blog. They do try to get correct answers about urban legends, and to present the material as accurately as they can. If shown to be in error, they emend their reports. They are not noted for any overt biases, which, to me, makes them better than some gerally accepted RSs commonly used on WP. Collect (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- A source can be reliable and biased. An absence of bias is not the crucial factor. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable on the subject of urban legends. I don't know why we've strayed into debating whether they're an RS on medical conditions or the chemistry of plastics. And they most definitely meet the requirements of an expert SPS ( on urban legends ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this reliable?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=magibon&btnG=Search+News
http://yearzero.pardon.pl/dyskusja/1443587/amerykanski_wytrzeszcz_jest_wielki_w_japonii
I would like to use info (full name) from this source for a BLP. Is it okay? AuricBlofeld (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Search listings are not sources. The yearzero looks like a blog, so unless this Pepe is an acknowledged authority on internet phenomena then the source is not reliable. It's also a somewhat bad sign that he links our article. Taemyr (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Is the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome a reliable source? It was discontinued sometime in 2008 but there're many articles from 2008 and before. [36] Mathityahu (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines need clarifying somewhere
Some editors don't seem to understand that references/external links to Facebook, YouTube, blogs etc. are fine when the article is actually discussing public reaction to an event as a social phenomenon. Some people seem to just go through blindly deleting all such references as unreliable without taking any acount of the context. This probably needs stating somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.72.84 (talk • contribs)
- Actually, they usually aren't fine in these cases. They should be regarded as primary sources. If a journalist points out that a phenomenon has been discussed on Facebook, then we cite the journalist, not the Facebook posts. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like you might be one of the editors I was referring to then...
- If a journalist points out that something's been discussed on a blog, we should cite both the journalist and the blog posts. It's okay to dig a little deeper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Acaeum.com
The reliablity of this site has been brought into question in two FACs, and the issue has kind of gone unresolved. I have recently found in issue #356 of Dragon, a very official Dungeons & Dragons resource, the following quote:
According to the Acaeum (acaeum.com), the premier D&D collector's website...
Does this quotation, along with the information at the Acaeum's front desk, establish the reliablity of the source? Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's reliable or not, but it's mentioned in a couple of books.[37] It may depend on what type of info you're using it to source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Congress of the Confederate States
The following paragraph was added to the article back in February 2008. I've removed it several times due to verifiability issues, but the writer of it keeps restoring it. It's been discussed on the talk page, with only one other user weighing in, who agrees with me that it should be removed.
The Confederate Congress also passed legislation calling for the execution of any African American taken as a prisoner of war with white officers suffering the same fate if they were captured in command of black troops. This act outraged many in the United States Congress and the Union Army promptly responded that if any United States soldiers were executed without cause, an equal number of Confederate soldiers would likewise be put to death. The Confederacy backed down on this official proclamation although summary and "unofficial" killings still took place.[citation needed] The act to execute black troops was mentioned in the 1989 motion picture Glory.
The reference given is Proclamation by the Confederate President. My issue with this isn't the source itself, but that the proclamation given doesn't support the claim. The proclamation is, first of all, an executive order, and not a legislative act, and second, it orders that armed slaves - not any black troops - are to be executed if found in an uprising, and that's not what the paragraph says. As it's also the only thing to currently have a full paragraph on it, it also comes across as NPOV or giving undue weight to this one act. This proclamation might warrant a mention in a different article, about blacks in the Civil War, or about slavery, or possibly even about Jefferson Davis, but it's out of place here.
As its removal keeps getting reverted, I've brought this here, which I hope is the right place for it, as I've never disputed anything beyond the talk page before, and this page seemed like the most appropriate of the noticeboards. If there's somewhere more appropriate, then I'll be happy to move this. PaulGS (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be the issue is about primary source vs. secondary source. Primary sources can be reliable, but it's good to include secondary sources which interpret the primary source. This is a good example of a situation where the primary source is reliable but a secondary source, like an article about the proclamation, is needed to explain it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a reliable primary source. It's also a whiny piece of propaganda. It can be used to verify that such an order was given, but not for the veracity of any of the claims made. And it does not order the execution of any slaves found, only of Butler and his presumably white commissioned officers. The confederate congress did pass legislation threatening to enslave captive black soldiers, though[38]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Glanville Price. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. 1998, p.305 ISBN 0631220399