This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor insists [2] that we should use the Organic Consumers' Association as a source for the following:

Because the nutritional content changes after irradiation and because of the loss of probiotics food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading.

The issues for me are WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and the fact that OCA is an activist organisation with a dog in the fight. OCA is a trade body for Big Organic, they bankroll US Right To Know, a prime mover behind anti-GMO legislative efforts in the US, and are unquestionably not a neutral commentator. Per [3], this editor thinks that OCA are reliable because Codex Alimentarius is funded by the "biotech lobby" and does not use "legitimate science". That is clearly a fringe view. My thought here is that if we are to say that (a) food irradiation changes nutritional content and (b) that is the reason it is opposed by "food advocacy groups", we would need reliable independent sources. As written, this is WP:SYN, I think. Of more concern, the user considers that stating his opinions on my user talk page constitutes a valid basis to assert that he is right and reinsert the content. Is this a case for a DS notice on GMOs? Guy (Help!) 09:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For "the nutritional content changes after irradiation", WP:REDFLAG applies. Obviously the OCA falls well short of the sourcing requirement. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. The statement as written is incorrect as it presents stuff as fact that is not reliably sourced. However it can be reworded to be an attributed claim relatively easily - and it is a common view of organic consumer advocates regarding irradiated food - so as an example of how the organic industry views irradiation there is probably an argument for inclusion. The organic food market is a sizeable share and while their views on food irradiation are wrong (for the most part) it doesn't mean they are not relevant. "OCA claims the nutritional content changes after irradiation and because of the loss of probiotics organic food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading. - Ultimately this is a business push - the organic industry would like to be the only raw food provider and so is seeking to exclude anything else. I remember when organic food was about the impact on the environment, not about the food industry catering to hipsters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And if we were thinking of including it like this, we should see that industry "view" commented on by secondary sources, to ensure there is sufficient weight to merit inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hence the 'yes and no' bit. I havnt looked into it far enough to see if anyone else has commented on it. You could argue the organic food industry's opinion on food preservation is valid regardless of its factual content solely due to the size of the organic food industry. There is a loud opposition to irradiated food, I cant see anything policy-wise that would prevent detailing briefly the source of that opposition via a primary source as long as its made clear it has no real basis. That there are plenty of studies confirming its safety is indirectly addressing those concerns anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not really a "reliable source" issue. It's more of a phrasing and UNDUE issue. One can phrase the statement as "OCA opposes irradiation due to <give their reasons>". As written, the statement gives the impression that "X is true, therefore OCA opposes irradiation", which is not good. All of this, of course, presumes that the OCA statement is notesworthy enough to be included. I have no idea about the latter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Radiation causing nutritional content changes(called ionization) and loss of Probiotics(called pasteurization) are facts. The references ([4] and [5]) are for referencing "food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading". --Ne0 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The extent to which radiation causes significant nutritional changes is not a simple fact, and evaluation of the data requires analysis by NPOV scientists, not by advocacy groups. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If Ne0 continues drinking unpasteurized milk, he will only have himself to blame when he gets sick and dies. Or when the cow falls on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In the latest version of the article that used those sources, they were used to support the line quoted above by JzG - that's clearly a factual statement. If those sources are to be used, it would have to be clear in the sentence that the problem of changing nutrition/probiotics is not a fact, but rather a claim made by organic advocacy groups. It can't be stated in wikipedia's voice based on those sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and if that was not accepted scientific knowledge but a fringe view, we'd need to make that plain per WP:PSCI, perhaps by giving some actual facts from the FDA?[6]. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Original author of the section here. There are many citations in the article indicating that nutrition changes with processing, and just below the quoted text is an explanation of how much. The citation is only meant to prove that because of the previously stated changes to nutrition (which is found and properly cited in the article before this section) the organic lobby is advocating that the irritated food is not "confused" with raw food. Here is the full excerpt. This brings in the controversy so it can be properly explained. I have opened up the discussion on the talk page of the article so we don't have an ivory tower thing going on here and experts on the topic can weigh in. Please bring any discussions there. Please propose any rewrites that will end this madness.

Because the nutritional content changes after irradiation and because of the loss of probiotics food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading.[1][2] However, the degradation of vitamins caused by irradiation is similar or even less than the loss caused by other food preservation processes. Other processes like chilling, freezing, drying, and heating also result in some vitamin loss.[3]

2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You cite activist sources as if they are reliable and independent, and you continue to assert tendentious statements as ineffable fact. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't read anything I wrote I do not. I claim the activist source correctly indicates the view of the activist. If you read anything you would realize that you are incorrect. The tenuous facts you speak of are done by a peer-reviewed academic Journals and irradiation based trade Publications. It is common knowledge and well cited in the article. Stop your foolish rant and apologize. After being the steward for this article for so long I have come to realize that the anti anti science people are just as crazy as the anti-science people. Luckily there are fewer anti anti-science people. You are very good at not listening to reason and believing whatever you want in spite of the scientific evidence. No one in the industry denies that taste texture and nutrition are impacted by irradiation. The point of the matter is they are not impacted very much if the job is done well. People need to be educated on that because when people hear that there are nutritional changes they may overreact and assume that the nutritional changes are significant. There is significant concern about this. In fact you can find many trade Publications that talk about dealing with this concern. Don't be an anti anti science fool. Science is not a religion if you don't believe his precepts you can't just choose other facts. But it's not like you're actually going to read this because you've already made up your mind and nothing an idiot IP could say could change it.

67.162.25.59 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The root of your problem is that you assume your words are so compelling that anybody who reads them cannot fail to agree - and thus anybody who does not agree, has not read them. This happens often on Wikipedia. It doesn't work. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First you never read what I wrote because you keep claiming I am anti irradiation and I am a believer in the organic consumers Association. Second the consensus on the page is that everyone did agree with me except for you. You are the only one. No this isn't specifically issue of my lack of understanding or being able to explain things well or correctness. You simply never read what I wrote and showed me a vast amount of disrespect. Consensus of the team is that I was correct that there was plenty of attribution to the facts that taste texture and nutrition are impacted by irradiation. Just look at the log. There was a suggested word order changed to make sure people like you who are going to nitpick understand that the attribution of loss of nutrition is not cited by the organic consumers Association but by the 3rd citation instead. You are simply wrong admit it and apologize2600:1008:B113:FFCD:22BE:C3E:AD55:655 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

REFs for 'Radiation causing pathogen growth'

Since we are already discussing Food irradiation here, I would like to verify some sources for some additions to this article.

"Contrary to popular belief, Radiation dosen't kill all pathogens. Specific varieties of pathogens, such as Melanized fungi (Radiotrophic fungus) are mutated to grow on Radiation.

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1866175/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677413/

"melanized fungi can also germinate spores (reproduce) with the help of ionizing Radiation."

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20678943

--Ne0 (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The first source is primary research in PLoS One - avoid; the second is fine in general, if a bit old, but has nothing about "popular belief" or mutation so does not support the proposed text; the third doesn't appear to be about food irraditation so its use would smack of SYNTH/OR. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

About 2nd ref, the word "adapt" refers to 'mutation'. The 3rd Article is about 'Radiation absorbed by tree-barks causing pathogen germination' & "food irraditation" is about using Radiation to eliminate Pathogens; so it is relevant. --Ne0 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Tree bark ain't food - and this is another primary source anyway. The second source mentions adaptation in the context of high radiation environments like in space. On food irradiation specifically it says it is "considered sufficient to kill the bulk of the food-contaminating microorganisms". So it might be useful to support a statement of that kind. Which is kind of the opposite of what you are trying to say. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

barks of most of the Category:Cinnamomum are eaten somewhere in the World & therefore also exported as food. The idea, "Irradiation is used to create safe foods" is everywhere in the article, which is not 100% true, as some pathogens still survive. --Ne0 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You do realise that this only happens in living organisms, whereas food is normally dead when irradiated, right? I'm struggling to see the relevance of trees growing at Chernobyl to the short exposure to radiation used in food preservation.Guy (Help!) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If the source doesn't mention food irradiation, or even food at all, then it's probably not a good source for food irradiation. Your claim "cinnamon is a type of bark, this article is about bark, therefore it's related" is a big stretch. It's not even about the same kind of radiation, as far as I can tell, since it seems to be a source comparing different tree barks as monitors for levels of radioactive elements in an environment. I don't think that has anything to do with exposing food to EM waves. Even the second of your sources, about fungal resistance to EM waves, only mentions food irradiation in passing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dosage is important. The intensity of radiation experienced by trees collected from the Thrace region in Turkey is much, much smaller than the intensity of radiation experienced by food being irradiated. Exposure to sunlight has the advantage of producing Vitamin D (and some disadvantages) but that doesn't mean that I can apply a study on sunlight and vitamin D production to the question of the health effects of standing on the surface of the sun. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

THe citations are fine, but i do not know how it would add anything to the article. The article speaks of the Uses of irradiation, only one of which is sterilization for target pathogens. Untargeted pathogens survive in this case, and in all other uses some of the targeted pathogens survive and maintain the ability to breed. If you want this information to have more emphasis please continue this conversation on the talk page for this article.

Hi, I would like to know if the following source is reliable for the ethnicity of Al-Kindi, a medieval scholar of 9th century:

Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures

Thanks a lot for your valuable time. Farawahar (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The article on the encyclopaedia is a poor thing, with only one (affiliated) source, but the book itself has run to three editions with a mainstream publisher, so although it is tertiary and not secondary it should be OK, provided the ethnicity is not a matter of controversy. If it is controversial then I'd recommend additional sources. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer ! Farawahar (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed them [7] as sources from Sea lioning. The first is a pseudonymous blog post the second is a blogger.com style hosting site. They were added back as "on a par with the content" but I don't see anything in WP:RS to the effect that we can use bad sources for unimportant articles. I'd like a consensus either way. 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published, no evidence of reliability, I agree with you. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Strike that. Nancy Friedman seems to be a valid source. Not sure about the other one yet. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Notable, but not necessarily reliable (as we would mean it as a Wikipedia term of art). The source itself looks to be firmly self-published; the author an expert on customer service, not word meanings. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the Nancy Friedman of the Typepad blog is different from the Nancy Friedman that we have an article on. The latter is a customer-service skills consultant. The former makes no mention of such a business either in her Typepad profile or her Twitter account; usually anyone who runs a consulting business promotes themselves at every opportunity. And the former states that she lives in Oakland, California while the latter is in St. Louis, Missouri. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the excelent Crow, edit filter 894 now logs use of common self-published sources. Please check the log periodically.

• Filter 894 / log

This should be a valuable addition to our modern lifestyle. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent tool. Neutrality^talk 03:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone got any experience with Record Holders Republic? I've just come across it at Abhilash Pudukad, where it seemed to suggest some sort of affiliation with World Records University. I suspect a load of bullshitting but I haven't really got anything to compare it with because I'm not even sure why we cite Guinness World Records as an authority at other articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected the article.Spamming seems to be on a steep rise:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Guinness has a system in place for verification of record attempts. This one just looks like a record certificate mill.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like a mill. I also notice that it is mentioned at other articles (and perhaps at more using the acronym RHR). - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More, World Records University (which bizarrely claims to issue honorary doctorates in world records) has several affiliates listed at its website, including India Book of Records. I've no idea whether or not that relates to Limca Book of Records but the entire topic area looks dodgy to me. Should this be at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard? - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am currently putting this article (Ho Ho Ho) up for FAC, and during the source review, I was asking about the reliability and appropriateness of the following Queerty source here. The source is an interview with American drag queen Hedda Lettuce and I am pulling from the following part of the source: (What’s the Best Holiday Song? I know the worst one, RuPaul singing “Hard Candy Christmas.” Makes me want to shove a candy cane in my eye.). I could not find an about page or page about the site's editors or editorial oversight, though the site has been named as "a leading site for gay issues" Newsweek in 2010. So my question is the following: Is this source appropriate for a featured article? Since this source is not integral to the article, I have no problem with removing it, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Forebears reliable for distribution figures as at the Sharma article? In particular, it is difficult to determine exactly which of their many named sources are being used and some are distinctly more reliable than others for sampling purposes, especially when taking into account the massive problem of transliterating over 200 languages in India alone. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking.Winged Blades^Godric 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Their surname population figures for the UK may be correct, but the accuracy of their figures for India is doubtful. As already stated, it's not clear what their sources for the specific population figures are: if they rely on the colonial-era registers listed at forebears.io/india, their numbers are obviously obsolete. They seem to be either extrapolating data from previous years, or wrongly comparing population figures from different years for different countries. Moreover, their website allows user submissions, and does not name any editors or compilers on its "About", "Contact" or "Website Credits" pages. As such, I am inclined to classify this source as non-reliable. If they mention their sources for specific data somewhere on their website, it's better to use those sources as citations. utcursch | talk 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• citypopulation.de: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

As far as I can tell, this is not a WP:RS. It is run by one man and is a self-published source. I can't imagine why we would use this site as a source for what is, in the end, census data. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with you, but further research into Thomas Brinkhoff might be helpful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• topuniversities.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This looks an awful lot like WP:REFSPAM to me. Is this really a reliable independent source? Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The topuniversities.com site is published by Quacquarelli Symonds. I have no idea how reliable or well-regarded they are. As for the possibility of refspamming it may be relevant to note our article on the Quacquarelli Symonds has been lovingly tended by numerous SPAs and obvious COI editors over the years, such as the imaginatively named User:Quacquarelli Symonds. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the blogs or the actual rankings? I think that the former is not an RS but that the latter could be. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Primo, thanks to Kb.au for reviewing my article submission about "Stuart Candy". Your feedback is precious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stuart_Candy

Secundo, I really want to improve my references in order to make my article fit with wikipedia's policy. Any suggestions?

Tertio, I started to edit my article with adding a "awards" section (this is a living person case) with some extra references. Do you think it can help my article to be better referenced?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Bappyh (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bappyh, you were advised on your talkpage by Kb.au to visit the WP:Teahouse. It would be best follow his advice! :) Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that this topic doesn't already meet WP:GNG. These two articles seem fairly in-depth.[8][9] Also, GNG states that significant coverage is coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If this were at AFD, I would !novote keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more potential sources[10][11][12] you can use in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Edit other articles and learn how Wikipedia works, is my advice. This article reads like it was written by a friend or colleague. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the official reason given for its decline is WP:GNG, but it might be the style in which its written that might be holding it back. @Bappyh: Try to tone down the language. Phrases like, "experiential scenarios, an approach to immersive storytelling at the intersection of futures, transmedia design and politics." aren't helping. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bappyh, I agree with others that you need to edit other articles and learn how Wikipedia works. Jumping in right away and trying to create and pass a borderline article, when you are too new to assess for yourself what belongs in the article and what doesn't, is why you are having problems. For one thing, try to do The Wikipedia Adventure that I posted on your talkpage a month ago, which would at least get you going in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, Softlavender, Guy Thank you so much for these precious advices. Before send a new submission I'll focus on my article's tone and references that are valuables. Bappyh (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bappyh, A Quest For Knowledge: for the record I rejected the article because my view is that it doesn't meet GNG or NBIO, and because of WP:NOT. Specifically, I feel that the article reads rather like a resume or a promotional about-page than an encyclopaedic article due to the prominence given to information on Candy's various degrees and various roles in a number of organisations. Aside from my WP:NOT concerns, I did not reject the article on the basis of its quality or its citations as that is not the role of an AfC reviewer. The article itself is quite well made.

While a number of people have provided links above that talk about or mention Candy, I will note that this does not prove he his notable. As WP:NRV points out:

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.

I also have some concern that the coverage would not meet WP:SUSTAINED regardless given many of the sources given in the article and above are merely blog posts in response to his talks at summits and the like. The CNN article is not really an indicator of notability as it merely quotes him and is not coverage on him.

Improving the referencing in the article does not fix notability issues (unless, of course, independent RSs that I or others have overlooked are found that show notability).

Obviously different people have different views as to what meets notability guidelines, and this is one of the more borderline articles I've reviewed. But my reject was based on how I would vote if it went to AfD. If someone else wants to move the article to mainspace, so be it. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion on whether this man is seen as a notable authority, and as to otherwise, whether his works are seen as RS. There is a conversation going on at the Panzer ace article about George Forty. His works there *were* quoted in the article and treated as RS, including:

• "Tank Commanders" (Firebird books)
• "Tank Warfare in WW2 (Magpie Books)

Forty was Curator of the Bovington tank museum, and has written over 70 books on tanks and military history, as well as serving in the military just after ww2. He was praised by the Museum, when he died recently and he was noted by The Times as being a "leading authority" on the area. However, he has not worked for a university, so I don't believe has University qualifications. Can anyone give an opinion on whether his work counts as RS?, his references were in the article for a while, but were removed from the article recently by one user, who sees him as an "amateur". Given his history, I don't see this to be the case. IMHO his references establish some points that add to the article, and maintain WP:BAL, so would be good to have them back in again.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Forty
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lieutenant-colonel-george-forty-mpgzvcnlb
• http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/obituaries/14534276.Lt_Col_George_Forty_____Father_of_the_Tank_Museum___/

"British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again.^[1] However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. ^[2]. Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. ^[3]"

and

"There are numerous factors established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace (and tank crews generally), though not all of them agree. Training was one issue, with writers establishing the difference in quality of training depending on the country. George Forty concludes that German tank training had the edge on other nation's training, at least partially because they had started training programs before the other countries, though he notes they still had their problems. ^[4]. In comparison, he notes that Russian training was seen by some as inadequate, as it was too short.^[5]. He noted that for instance, Russian crews drove on the peaks of hills to avoid rough terrain, however this made them more visible targets. They continued to do this throughout the war, with no training or experience correcting this. ^[6]"

Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Impeccably reliable. George Forty was an Oxford University educated British Army officer who was chief of staff of the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school and later director of the Tank Museum, and author of more than 70 books with a focus on armoured warfare. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• In a field like this, reputation counts as much as credentials. One can be an expert without being an academic. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I invite editors to visit the Talk page for more background, such as:

• Talk:Panzer_ace#Prior_discussions.

I would not consider opinion by editor Nug to be authoritative. On an earlier occasion, for example, he argued that the pulp writer Franz Kurowski was a suitable source for military biographies; see archives:

• Franz Kurowski for a GA article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to say that Coffman is being misleading with respect to my view on Kurowski, I said:

"WP:BIASED says we don't have to have "reasonable trust in all factual statements" of a source. It is not all or nothing. It depends upon the context. Historians Smelser and Davis acknowledge that authors like Kurowski have a "painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate?"

How can anyone rely upon the opinion of an editor who wilfully misrepresents the arguments of other editors? --Nug (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This section features an inappropriate title. The question is not, whether Forty is an authority on tanks or not, but whether he is a recognized military historian and thus not only a reliable source in an article on tank commanders, but also a prominent one, worthy of numerous citations. His reputation as a tank officer does not enhance his credentials as an historian. In the meantime I have provided one of the rare reviews of the work in question.[13]--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of this page, it is for determining whether a source is reliable in context of the claim being made. Read the banner at the top, it states "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." --Nug (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So what? Do you think that Forty's credentials as a military historian are irrelevant when it comes to the question whether he is an authoritative source for historical information? And do you think that his military career in the British army renders any review of his work in question superflous? I am genuinely surprised.--Assayer (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So what indeed. So you think university trained career military officer who taught at the Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery School is clueless in military history and science in the context of armoured warfare? --Nug (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Above all I do not believe in analogisms. Not every military officer is also an able military historian and not every military historian is a capable military officer, either. Furthermore, as you underlined, this is about reliability in the context of the claim being made. It is not necessary to assume reliability by some reverse ad hominem argument. We may just as well stick to the book in question and the claims it makes.--Assayer (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer I have changed the title to be tank/tank combat. Nug's view that his service and training in tank combat doesn't "renders any review of his work in question superflous" but it certainly establishes him as an expert in the field, which helps in establishing his work as RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, editor Assayer agrees we should stick to the claims made by Forty. As an armoured warfare officer who was a veteran of the Korean War and other campaigns, is Forty qualified to comment on the factors (including equipment quality, expertise and bravery) that contribute to the survivability of tank crews as desceibed in this quote:

"British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again.^[1] However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. ^[2]. Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. ^[3]"

As a staff member at the Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery Schools, is Forty qualified to comment on the quality of training given to tank crews as described in this quote:

"There are numerous factors established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace (and tank crews generally), though not all of them agree. Training was one issue, with writers establishing the difference in quality of training depending on the country. George Forty concludes that German tank training had the edge on other nation's training, at least partially because they had started training programs before the other countries, though he notes they still had their problems. ^[4]. In comparison, he notes that Russian training was seen by some as inadequate, as it was too short.^[5]. He noted that for instance, Russian crews drove on the peaks of hills to avoid rough terrain, however this made them more visible targets. They continued to do this throughout the war, with no training or experience correcting this. ^[6]"

This is the scope of the query to this noticeboard, anything beyond that is basically irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. Because Deathlibrarian explicitly tied his query to issues of WP:BALANCE. In his words: IMHO his references establish some points that add to the article, and maintain WP:BAL, so would be good to have them back in again. So regardless of Forty's credentials as an authority on tank combat, that does not mean that his work adds to the article Panzer ace. The latter is rather subject to editorial discretion and NPOV, isn't it? So would you say that this whole query is irrelevant?--Assayer (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, George Forty's reliability as a source on armoured warfare was being directly questioned on the article talk page. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That George Forty is a reliable source to comment on matters of military science and history, especially that involving armored warfare, seem self-evident. He was a working professional and teacher at the highest levels of armored warfare and military science, and was the curator of one of the preeminent tank museums in the world. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So then several editors have commented upon George Forty's career and position. But that does not guarantee the reliability of his published works. That should be demonstrated by third-party reviews and opinions. Tank Warfare in the Second World War: An Oral History, e.g., is said to illuminate the experiences of tank warfare through interviews, personal communications and oral histories from American, British, French, German and Soviet soldiers. (Publishers Weekly. Nov 30, 1998, Vol. 245, p. 59) In general oral histories should be treated with extreme caution because of the problem of veracity.--Assayer (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The medium of a reliable source is largely inconsequential if the source is already identified as being reliable. An RS could comment on a subject by writing it on the back of a bar napkin, as long as it can be verified as being from the RS. The medium is more important in establishing the reliability of a source to begin with, or the establish the topical consensus for weight among reliable sources. A professor's blog does less to establish academic consensus than a peer reviewed paper, etc. Oral histories are fine, as long as it is properly framed. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a source can also be affected by the piece of work itself and its publication process. It would be sheer ignorance to focus exclusively on the author. Besides, it should be possible to demonstrate the authoritativeness of an author with reference to his work, not through assumptions about his training and the nature of the positions he held. The context of the claims being made is not military museumology.--Assayer (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If a recognized authority claims, in their own words (as opposed to quoting others) that "X is true" and we have no compelling reason to suspect said authority of lying or joking, then, absent any explicit dissent from other recognized authorities, we can and should state "X is true" in wikivoice without qualification, regardless of the circumstances under which those words were published. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ThanksᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

Yep that pretty much covers practically all cases. I did remove a bit by an expert that was not contradicted by anyone else once and that someone was trying to put in, but I raised an RfC on it and it was done after a number of other editors had agreed it was simply a mistake on the experts part and that was why no-one else said anything about it. I can't see anything like that being the case here. Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was not, whether Forty was an expert on military equipment, but whether he can be considered an expert on military operations, history and historiography, which is not demonstrated by a military career and curatorship of a tank museum. Military historiography might be distinguished from militaria literature or military antiquarianism by the degree of documentation and its perspective. Since the explicit intention of this query is to pit Forty against acknowledged academic military historians, I would expect evidence that he is that kind of a recognized authority. --Assayer (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was not, whether Forty was an expert on military equipment, but whether he can be considered an expert on military operations, history and historiography.

Unless there are experts on military operations, history and historiography who disagree with him, this is a moot point, and the only question remains (as OiD pointed out) one of weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it the idea of WP:ONUS to demonstrate that there are other experts on military operations, history and historiography who recognize him as an authority, and not vice versa? Because I find it hard to come up with references which discuss his works in question either way, critically or positively. I could provide some not so flattering reviews of some of his other works, but the people around here rather seem to be utterly impressed by his career.--Assayer (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the information used, on the article, Forty far surpasses the requirements of a reliable source. 'If' it should be used is a question of weight, not reliability. I however do not see any problems in that area either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions. It appears that Forty is an RS and is able to be used in Wikipedia. (also interesting that what an RS source says stands and is usable in wikipedia, unless it is critisized by another expert) Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Description of book
• Page on google books (page 566)

This book published in 2004 by Indiana University Press was written by George J. Buelow, emeritus professor of music at Indiana University. It is a standard textbook on the history of baroque music. It contains a section on 19th century criticism of baroque music and in particular Bach and Telemann. Buelow explains how critics systemetically compared the two composers, praising Bach to the detriment of Telemann. User:Francis Schonken has written that he considers that part of the book to be "opinionated" and therefore not usable on wikipedia. Since a relatively long section in the book is devoted to anti-Telemann criticism (Buelow's terminology), I am not sure which wikipedia policies Francis Schonken is applying to suggest that this apparently splendid secondary source is somehow tainted. I used this source to write the following clause, "Spitta's commentary—praising Bach's music while denigrating Telemann's—was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" in the cantata article Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Awaiting opinions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merely being opinionated does not render a source sub-reliable. It may be helpful to refer to WP:BIASED, a subsection of WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Hopefully this will allow you and Francis Schonken to move past any issues of your source's reliability and focus on what sounds like the bigger problem: Presenting that material in a neutral way. The statement you've quoted sounds pretty innocuous, but depending on exactly what Buelow said in that book and how much summarizing you're doing, you might have an OR issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. The reference is to page 566 in the book, which can be seen by clicking on the second link above. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Image not available," I'm afraid, but I can say that this book does appear to meet WP's reliability criteria.

However, upon a read-through of the last thread on the article talk page, it looks like reliability is only one small part of this dispute. Francis S seems more concerned with neutrality and accuracy and whether the content is relevant than with any specific problem with the source you used. I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with baroque music to draw a reliable conclusion as to which of you is supporting the better text for the article.

Ask Francis Schonken if he'd consent to WP:3O. Or you could hold an RfC holding up the two different versions of the text that seem to be the subject of the dispute. A neutrally phrased note publicizing it at WT:WikiProject_Music would bring in editors with the needed experience. I can help you with the drafting and publicizing if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as this source is concerned, the accuracy of the summary cannot be assessed without reading the relevant page in the source, whatever happens. Here is another link to the same page 566 on google books. I hope that new link works better than the other one, but it could depend on location of IP.

This is not the first time this kind of thing has happened: previously postings at WT:WikiProject_Music and reports at WP:ANI have led to Francis Schonken being banned for periods of 6 months from editing certain Bach-related articles, in particular Orgelbüchlein and BWV 39. User:Johnuniq and User:Softlavender offered third opinions then (at ANI, on article talk pages, etc). Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 is on my watchlist and I was going to look at the current fuss soon after it started but frankly the edit summaries put me off—the first shot was diff and that is over the top. That phrases the issue as a battle and there is no way to respond other than by doubling down and fighting. Other editors should not be mentioned in edit summaries in articles. I don't see how the claim (that synthesis using outdated primary sources occurred) can reasonably be discussed now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Francis Schonken's method of synthesising from primary sources (e.g. outdated 18th or 19th century commentaries or raw lists on the Bach archive) has been discussed before and is not the subject of this query. In the exceptional case of this cantata, no longer attributed to Bach, there are very few references indeed, and hardly any online, as the work is no longer discussed in most textbooks on Bach cantatas. The main sources are not on the web and are very few in number. They are in German and can only be found in specialist libraries: the commentaries and official reports of Arnold Schering (1912), Alfred Dürr (1977) and Andreas Glöckner (2000). In comparison, the literature for cantatas known to be written by Bach is very much larger, with many detailed commentaries. A year ago I found and photocopied the relevant literature from Cambridge University Library, including a musical analysis of the cantata from one of the volumes by Whittaker. In 2016 the article was not properly sourced at all.

Returning to the point here, since posting this query I subsequently found the same content in Grove Music Online, under the entry for Georg Philipp Telemann. I will reproduce just two sentences from the very long article of Steven Zohn (to avoid problems of copyvio),

"When, in the second half of the 19th century, [Telemann's] music was unfairly judged according to the very different aesthetic standards of J.S. Bach’s, it was considered to be merely ‘fashionable’ and lacking in religious fervour. In their Bach biographies Spitta and Schweitzer denigrated Telemann’s church cantatas while praising works attributed to Bach that have since been shown to be by Telemann."

I have changed "denigrated" to "disparaged" in my text. Again Grove Music Online (Oxford University Press) is a reliable source.

I would not say there is a battle on, but Francis Schonken still persists in using primary sources for writing content; he does not try to locate secondary sources, particularly if they cannot be found online. For Orgelbüchlein, he complained about "religious point of view" and tried to dismiss the OUP book of Stinson devoted to the collection. He is doing the same type of thing here. I found several secondary sources on Spitta/19th century criticism—I was unaware of the literature until a week ago—and then summarised it on wikipedia; I did not invent the content and then try to cobble together primary sources to justify that content, which regrettably is Francis Schonken's modus operandi. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Well sticking strictly to WP policy and guidelines, WP:PRIMARY does permit the use of primary sources, with care, but the Wikieditor must find a secondary or tertiary source for any analysis of that source. It sounds like you are concerned that the text that Francis Schonken bases on these primary sources might constitute original research, and you believe that this is not a one-time thing but rather a persistent part of FS's MO that you think should changes. Is there a non-confrontational way to ask Schonken if you could resolve the issue? Maybe the guys at WP:ORN could help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This has not been resolved at all, in answer to the question of User:Softlavender below.

In fact I waited to see what Francis Schonken would do, as he often lies low when his editing is reported on noticeboards. In this case he started by vandalising the article citing this noticeeboard as a reason.[14] Perhpas that was a mistake, but he removed huge amounts of careful edits. He then replaced the second paragraph with this content:

Uns ist ein Kind geboren is mentioned as a cantata by Bach in 19th-century Bach-biographies by Hilgenfeldt (1850),^[1] Bitter (1865),^[2] Spitta (1873),^[3] and Lane Poole (1882).^[4] Spitta compares the BWV 142 cantata, which he assumes to have been composed by Bach, with TVWV 1:1451,^[5] a cantata by Telemann on the same libretto by Neumeister: he is fairly dismissive about the Telemann composition ("[...] probably written in half-an-hour [...]" etc.), only finding a few places where Telemann's composition compares favourably to the composition he attributes to Bach.^[3][6] According to Spitta the composer of BWV 142 "[...] adhered throughout the cantata to the subdued minor key, which offers so singular a contrast to the bright joyfulness of Christmas. It gives a tone as of melancholy reminiscences of the pure Christmas joys of our childhood [...]".^[3][6]

In his cumulative edits[15] he removed Buelow as a source and Zohn's entry in Grove Music Online as a source. He also removed three other secondary sources, by musicologists Andrew Talle, Wolfgang Hirschmenn and Ian Payne. The passage above, which has been removed, is unbalanced original research concocted by Francis Schonken as if her were a musicologist himself. It is written in wikipedia's voice, but the commentary—apparently just Francis Schonken's thoughts—is not a paraphrase or summary of what is in the secondary source (Sandberger's book on Spitta's reception of Bach). It fails verification in the source. The first sentence is sourced to randomly chosen and outdated 19th century sources, written before questions of authenticity has been raised. It can be compared with the currecnt (and previous version) which is very carefully sourced:

In 1873, before questions of authenticity had been raised, Philipp Spitta devoted 18 pages of his two-volume biography of Bach to a comparison of Bach and Telemann cantatas that set the same Neumeister text:^[1] Spitta's commentary—praising Bach's music while disparaging Telemann's—was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century.^[2][3][4] In his description of Telemann's Uns ist ein Kind geboren, TVWV 1: 1451, Spitta wrote, "This piece, probably written in half-an-hour [...] shows us the worst side of the church music of the time."^[5] Spitta added that Bach "adhered throughout the cantata to the subdued minor key, which offers so singular a contrast to the bright joyfulness of Christmas. It gives a tone as of melancholy reminiscences of the pure Christmas joys of our childhood [...]; in contrast to this Telemann's eternal C major is often unutterably shallow and flat."^[6][7]

I might add further comments a little later. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping: Has this been resolved? If not, what is the exact wikitext in question which is in dispute? Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not resolved yet: "... was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" is the phrase that is in dispute. Buelow (the source used as a reference for this phrase) does not say that. He speaks about a "concerted attack" which is not the same as saying something is "typical". The difference of opinion is also *not* about the reliability of the source. Describing Spitta's and Bitter's opinions as a "concerted attack" is an "opinionated view" (Spitta and Bitter were not on speaking terms, so describing whatever they did as "concerted" is an opinionated view). Which does not diminish the reliability of the source. Not a WP:RSN matter. Buelow does not mention the cantata BWV 142. There is at least one reliable source describing Spitta's opinions on BWV 142 (Sandberger): such source is more appropriate in the article on BWV 142 than Buelow who doesn't mention BWV 142 specifically. There are a host of sources describing Spitta's views on Telemann without mentioning BWV 142 specifically. Since BWV 142 was not written by Telemann, I don't see why we would need general comments on Telemann from sources not mentioning BWV 142 in the BWV 142 article. In sum:
    1. "... was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" is not an adequate summary of the Buelow source;
    2. "Spitta's commentary praised Bach's music while disparaging Telemann's" or "Spitta, comparing BWV 142 with a cantata by Telemann, is dismissive about the Telemann composition" can be referenced to reliable sources which mention BWV 142.
    3. Further opinionated views about how Spitta saw Telemann (taking part in a "concerted attack" according to Buelow, making an "infamous comparison" according to another reliable source, etc.) are, imho, well outside the scope of the BWV 142 article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • If this is not an issue about the reliability of the source, but rather what the source says and how to incorporate that into the wiki article (if at all), then WP:RSN is apparently the wrong venue/DR-process to discuss the issue. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Francis Schonken, since it appears that you removed five reliable sources from the article, please note that you need to gain article-talkpage WP:CONSENSUS before unilaterally making (and re-removing) such removals. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • As User:Darkfrog24 has said Francis Schonken (FS) cannot dismiss reliable sources like Buelow's A history of Baroque Music and Zohn's entry for Georg Philipp Telemann in Grove Music Online just because he feels they are "opinionated". Apparently if FS read that remark, he ignored it.

I would say that FS is just POV-pushing, while dismissing contemporary musicological literature. Neither of these references can be described as "opinionated", except by a user engaged in WP:disruptive editing, as seem to be the case here. FS says he doesn't like the sources, so editors on wikipedia cannot use them. But that is precisely why this report was made at this noticeboard: to counter the disruptive claims of FS that these perfectly good sources are "opinionated". He is trying to push the use of unusable primary sources over excellent secondary sources. This is a question of FS's confidence in his own abilities as a commentator vs contemporary musicological criticism. As an illustration of the problem, in Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach, FS has written a largely unsourced essay, relegating one of the main secondary sources on the subject to "further reading". The result reads like a blog in pidgin English. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, no problem. At RSN we could still discuss the reliability of the Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole sources in the context, but as that is quite far from the Buelow source mentioned in the OP I suggest a separate (sub)section about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This WP:IDHT response is typical of Francis Schonken's editing and his past conduct on noticeboards. He tries to drown out/ignore valid points and generally tire out other editors. Hence the new section below. Despite that please could the main discussion continue here wothout being sidelined? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Zohn reference ("Zohn 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZohn2001 (help), see [16]") contains a link to the Bach Cantatas Website: according to the formal closure of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER: "...there seems to be concern that the [Bach Cantatas Website] is, apart from any copyright issues, self-published". The link to that website provided in the Zohn reference ( http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Other/Telemann-Gen1.htm ) is to a discussion page, i.e. a discussion among editors of the Bach Cantatas Website, which has both problems: it fails as a RS per WP:USERGENERATED, and it contains at least one extensive copyright-violating quote (we shouldn't link to such copyvio content per the WP:LINKVIO policy). In sum, we shouldn't link to such page from Wikipedia's mainspace, not as an external link, and certainly not as a reference.

Further, not as a reliability issue, so should probably be discussed elsewhere, the entire (lengthy) discussion on the Bach Cantatas Website page does not mention a Uns ist ein Kind geboren cantata—not by any composer—so I'd rather not use it as a reference in the Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142, article for that reason too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole

• Sources:
  1. p. 99 of: Hilgenfeldt, Carl L. Johann Sebastian Bach's Leben, Wirken und Werke: ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Friedrich Hofmeister, 1850 (in German)
  2. Vol. II p. XCVII of: Bitter, Karl Hermann. Johann Sebastian Bach. Berlin: Schneider, 1865. Vol. 1 – Vol. 2 (in German)
  3. p. 131 of: Reginald Lane Poole. Sebastian Bach. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1882.
• Article: Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 (in a section relating to history or reception)
• Content: "Uns ist ein Kind geboren is mentioned as a cantata by Bach in 19th-century Bach-biographies by Hilgenfeldt (1850), Bitter (1865), ..., and Lane Poole (1882)."

Are the mentioned sources reliable for the proposed content? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Already discussed above and off-topic. user:Darkfrog24 wrote: "Well sticking strictly to WP policy and guidelines, WP:PRIMARY does permit the use of primary sources, with care, but the Wikieditor must find a secondary or tertiary source for any analysis of that source." Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilgenfeldt (1850), Bitter (1865) and Lane Poole (1882) are not WP:PRIMARY sources in this context. They add nothing (not even a personal opinion) to what had already been written down around a century earlier and/or published by others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

They are primary sources in this context because they are historical documents which, as reference texts, are out of date. They have been superseded by later scholarship (Andreas Glöckner (2000), Alfred Dürr (1977), Arnold Schering (1912), etc). That modern scholarship—combined in Glöckner's 2000 editorial appraisal—has shown that BWV 142 is a spurious work, for which many crucial questions remain unanswered. Hence great care has to be taken when writing content on this cantata. FS has randomly selected three books, so no other editor can have any idea whether this was an appropriate choice—why not add Albert Schweitzer? Without access to Glöckner, Dürr or Schering and unable to find the content in another reliable source (written after the work was deemed to be spurious), FS has invented an editorialising sentence himself to make a point. Classic WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"These three sources all mention this other thing" is a perfectly acceptable observation to make of a primary source and it is also acceptable to make that observation of a secondary source, so, in my view, it does not matter. So long as the three sources do indeed mention Uns ist ein Kind geboren, we need look no further. "This says that" is not analysis, so it's not an issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed an issue as Mathsci has stated. Mentioning random mentions is not what an encyclopedia does. Mentions must be mentioned only in proper editorial and accurate context, not randomly out of the blue, especially if there are dozens of other random mentions available and especially if the random mentions themselves are inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, putting it in an adequate context is needed, as suggested by the OP of this subsection ("in a section relating to history or reception"). Compare, e.g., the first paragraph of the "History" section of the BWV 572 article: one can't talk about the name a piece had throughout history without actually talking about the sources that used the different names. Similar about attribution in the BWV 142 case: one can't talk about the different attributions throughout history without actually quoting the sources that used one or another attribution. Sure, in the BWV 572 case, 19th-century sources were "inaccurate" w.r.t. the name of the piece, but you can't explain to a modern readership where the piece got its most used name without referring to these "inaccurate" sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, SoftL. While it is okay per reliability to cite either a primary or secondary source in this way, that by itself does not mean there are no neutrality or notability issues. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I once had a guy go "that source isn't reliable! no not that one either!" over and over and over no matter how many credentials I showed him. What turned out to be going on was that he also objected to the text for other reasons but was just more comfortable talking about reliability. It can feel more concrete and less subjective than other things. A third party had to come in and point this out before we were able to say "Yes, that source isn't reliable but this source is" and move on. So I guess what I'm saying is we've addressed your reliability issues. You can move on to the next part of the problem without reliability baggage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

They aren't "my" reliability issues, and the reliability issue in the OP was only one single source. This red herring sub-thread posted by Francis Schonken was simply another volley in his attack on Mathsci, which he has been engaging in (and has previously been sanctioned for) for over a year and a half by now. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... we've addressed your reliability issues" – If you're speaking about the reliability issues expressed in the OP of this subsection (that's how I understood this) I agree. No remaining reliability issues regarding the Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole sources afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... why not add Albert Schweitzer?" – Schweitzer published Bach-biographies in three languages from 1905 to 1911: that is early 20th century, and doesn't fit in the context of "19th-century Bach-biographies" (the OP of this subsection). Sure, Schweitzer's views on the BWV 142 cantata (including e.g. "... of a more popular character") could be mentioned in the BWV 142 article. That is, unless the reliability of these biographies as expressing Schweitzer's views on the cantata are doubted – in which case I'd start a new (sub)section about these reliability issues on this noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

SoftL, I certainly did not mean to address you specifically with that possessive pronoun. I was addressing both Francis S and Mathsci. In my once-over of the talk page thread in question, I saw only those two people. All of you, good luck with your efforts to improve the article, but this is not the forum to seek remedy for editor conduct.

I will say one thing: If any of you do go to ANI over this, simplify things. I consider myself a well-educated person, and I have to work my butt off to tell which source said what and why it matters. Your best bet is to run an RfC and publicize it at Wiki projects for pre-20th-century music and baroque culture, because I don't think anyone outside those projects is going to want to put in the effort to weigh the facts with the care it would require. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Observations

Francis Schonken, my general observation is that your extensive editing on Uns ist ein Kind geboren BWV 142, and your extensive posts on its talk page, for the past 10 days (that is, since 21 December 2017 UTC) have been disruptive, largely uninformed or insufficiently informed, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish and a continuation of your harassment of, and vendetta against, Mathsci. I suggest that you drop the stick and move on to editing unrelated articles. I am fairly certain that if this goes to ANI, which it easily could and seems well on its way to, you will receive even stricter/longer sanctions than you received previously in regards to your interactions with Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of frustration and other bad feelings here. Mathsci does not appear to be assuming good faith of Francis Schonken. I believe we've addressed the issue of whether the Buelow source is sufficiently reliable; it is. Mathsci, it looks like you object to Francis Schonken's text for more than one reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This query did not concern Francis Schonken's text (posted after this query and possibly as a reaction), but his objections to the secondary sources that I had used to create content. After this report was made, Buelow's book and Grove Music Online were both deleted by him from the references section, citing the discussion here as justification. Francis Schonken then added the off-topic section above. Softlavender has given an explanation of Francis Schonken's editing which seems quite accurate. Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am getting very bored of these two users knocking six bells out of each other in edit wars over their very dogmatic views of this subject area. I think it cannot be long before the two are ibanned and probably tbanned as well. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:JzG: I don't know what you mean by "very dogmatic views": all that is being discussed here is sourcing for a specialist article BWV 142, a baroque cantata written by an unknown composer. You commented on this noticeboard in October 2016 about the article that contains BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 (sections I wrote on wikipedia, with image and audio files on commons). You didn't seem very bored then as far as I remember; you name-dropped about Martin Perkins. You seemed to agree with me about sourcing, i.e. not to use liner notes.

I looked in my contributions to check my activity on noticeboards.[17] That might help you jog your memory. I am sorry that you think my contributions to wikipedia on music might deserve a topic ban: please tell me what's wrong with Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Clavier-Übung III, Canonic Variations, Orgelbüchlein, BWV 105, BWV 39, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1057, BWV 1044. Or Organ concertos, Op. 4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op. 7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel), Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, 52 chorale preludes, Op. 67, ... Best regards for a Happy New Year, Mathsci (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The following was just added to The Atlantic article:

"The Atlantic" is often considered a left-leaning news organization.^[1]

Is allsides a reliable source for this (or perhaps more generally for other news sources)? They describe here how they come to their bias rating.

I checked the archives and this has not been discussed before. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the use of the word often means the AllSides is definitely unreliable for that claim, as they don't appear to have engaged in a summary or meta-analysis of other views. They also have the disclaimer Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to news articles on their web site, not from opinion pieces or what is broadcasted on TV or radio. The opinion writers from the same media source may have different bias ratings, so individual writers often are rated separately. which means that the rating is not for the whole organization but new articles on their website. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to its About page, its bias rating is crowd-sourced which means it is not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the example given though they also have editorial review and secondary research used in some ratings (not this one). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/blog/cnn-media-bias-update Example of them doing their own research However, after spending time reviewing article after article and scrutinizing all previous research --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed an IP user recently did this to the news.com.au article (see history). The page was semi-protected as a result of the information being readded repeatedly by different IPs. It's hard to say if it's a wider spread problem, or whether it's the same user doing it to multiple articles given the IP address keeps changing. Kb.au (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use this for anything in Wikipedia's voice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to make my OP neutral so didn't give my opinion there, but now i will. i think it would be OK to use this, attributed (not like it was above). They seem to mostly use focus groups, and they add to that web-based feedback, so i think it is pretty legit. this article from the christian science monitor had good things to say about it. We probably should have an article on it... Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Attributing it to Allsides would settle the reliability issue. Then the question is whether Allsides is notable enough to mention. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• stopfake.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The Ukrainian volunteers' website which allegedly "debunks fakes of Russian propaganda", and is used as an RS in a multitude of articles, including Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, etc. I'm in doubt that it can be used as an RS, and suppose that it may be WP:UNDUE in comparison to, say, Western media sources; besides, it is obviously biased because its very motto implies that "only the Russians lie". --Buzz105 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, I am concerned that neither phrase that you have enclosed in quotes above seems to appear on the Stopfake.org website. (Please correct me if I am mistaken.) Google Translate renders the tagline on their website ("Борьба с неправдивой информацией о событиях в Украине") as "Fighting untruthful information about events in Ukraine"; the English version of their page uses the roughly equivalent but somewhat clunkier "Struggle against fake information about events in Ukraine".

While we should certainly be conscious of the editorial biases associated with any source, merely having a bias does not render a source (or an entire organization) ineligible for use on Wikipedia. In principle, an organization that specifically studies and reports on a particular topic or issue can offer deeper, more nuanced, more robust information than a general, non-specialist news outlet. If this organization is widely recognized as having expertise on the topic of Russian propaganda, there's not necessarily any problem in our using them in that way.

Do you have particular articles and instances in mind where you think that this organization is used inappropriately? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

At Waheed Mandoo Hammo and at Ezidkhan where I just removed a lot of original research there is a claim that there is a provisional government, based on [18] - which doesn't even use the word provisional, and this. Neither seems reliable. A news search on Hammmo only turns up 4.[19] Doug Weller talk 18:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ezidkhan is now a POV/OR non-RS mess since an Ip edited it after me. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first link takes me to a list of articles, not a single article. Can you list the title or post a link to the diff with the reference tag? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've always treated it as an WP:RSOPINION source. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I would not use it. Most of the articles rely on stories published in other media, while original stories lack the coverage required for weight. Because it is news and opinion, editors need to distinguish the two and also evaluate each article on a case by case basis. TFD (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We have a large number of articles referencing The Mayflower and her passengers, a self-published book by Caleb H. Johnson. Google searches for his name turn up very little other than sales pages and references to his small number of self-published books, but after wading through several pages of dross I found a comment tot he effect that he was editor for a while of a journal called Mayflower Decendant, which is privately published by the New England Historical and Genealogical Society. Do we think this is a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like a borderline case. I'll read up later but for anyone else chiming in, this would fall under WP:SPS, the rules for self-published sources. Basically, it says that it's a reliable source if Caleb H. Johnson is an expert but not if he's an amateur. Generally, a self-published book by a guy who, say, has had smaller works published in professionally edited magazines would be considered reliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the Boston Globe did a book review. Also, would it be possible to flip open the dust jacket and see if there are any endorsements by historians whose expertise is not in question? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

More if a namecheck than a review, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, it is sometimes possible to contact an author and ask them about their credentials. I did that once (using a designated "contact us" system) and the people sounded like they might have been flattered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone who publishes multiple articles in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (NEHGR) and The American Genealogist (TAG) is certainly an expert in his or her field. Those articles are, I think, the "credentials" you're looking for. The lastest issue of TAG contains yet another Mayflower article by Caleb Johnson (as main author), "The English Origin and Kinship of Mayflower Passengers William White and Dorothy (May) Bradford of Wisbech, Cambridgshire". Here's how TAG describes him in its latest issue: "Caleb Johnson...is the researcher behind MayflowerHistory.com and is the author of several books including The Mayflower and Her Passngers and Here Shall I Die Ashore: Stephen Hopkins, Bermuda Castaway, Jamestown Survivor and Mayflower Passenger. He was editor of Mayflower Descendant from 2011 to 2014. He previously discovered the English origins of Mayflower passengers Stephen Hopkins (1998) and Peter Browne (2004) , and has made a large number of other Mayflower-related discoveries." These discoveries are accepted findings; you can't very well include them in articles without citing the person who made the discoveries! - Nunh-huh 09:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In the recent DYK nomination for the new page SSK 90 helmet, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and I disagree about the reliability of a particular source. I, the nominator, think it is reliable, while he, the reviewer, thinks it is not. I'd like to solicit further opinions.

A 1992 book by Dominic Tweddle purports to identify a helmet ('newly discovered' in that it recently came to his attention, but without any information about where or when or how it was found) as a tenth century Viking helmet. No other printed work refers to the helmet. A website, however, shows the original design plans of the helmet — on a 1940s World War II patent by Siemens. Looking at the photographs in the book (pp. 298–299 of the online pdf), and on the website, it is inconceivable that they could be different.

John and I disagree on whether the website is reliable. As far as I see it, there are three reasons why it is reliable:

1. The website "shows its work," so to speak. The claim that it makes is backed up by hard, essentially irrefutable evidence: the patent designs show the same helmet termed a "Viking helmet" by Tweddle.
2. It's patently obvious (pun unintended). Sources are not needed for material that is unlikely to be challenged (e.g., "the capital of France is Paris"), and nobody (not even John, I suspect) is likely to challenge that the two helmets—one termed Viking, one termed German Luftwaffe—are the same.
3. IAR. Does anyone honestly dispute the website's claim? If not, then the question should be "does that information make the article better?" rather than "does the information have the appropriate pedigree?"

John's perspective (which hopefully I'm doing justice), on the other hand, is the singular issue that:

1. Tweddle is a respected academic, and the person with the website is unknown.

I think the difference in opinion ultimately boils down to whether one chooses to value the quality of an author's work, or the quality of the author. I generally would call Tweddle the quality author (after all, John is right that the author of the website is essentially unknown), but here value the quality of the website's work, which clearly shows that Tweddle had a Monday morning on this helmet. Any further input would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more perspective, my concern is that if it's true that the helmet has been misidentified, I'd expect that it's been written about in an academic journal or at least a reliable trade publication, and the absence of such a reliable source is cause for caution. WP:V and especially WP:NOR require that assertions must be based on reliable sources rather than our own reasoning, even if that reasoning seems sound, and since DYK hooks appear on the Main Page we must be especially stringent about this. I'm happy for more input on the matter. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• A lot depends on what the text of the DKY “hook” is. If the “hook” is that the helmet was “Misidentified as a Viking helmet”, I have to agree that we need stronger sourcing (to say it actually was “misidentified”)... however, if the “hook” is that it was “identified” as a Viking helmet, I think we need also need stronger sourcing. The fact that the identification was made by just one single author (with no corroboration) bothers me. In short... I don’t think the helmet makes for a good DKY “hook”, in either direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blueboar & John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), to account for the nuances that Blueboar raises, how would you feel if we state both versions but endorse neither, and change the direction of the hook (and the language of the article accordingly), to something like "Did you know ... that one archaeological find has been identified as both a World War II Luftwaffe helmet, and a 10th century Viking helmet?" --Usernameunique (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah... Given the lack of sources discussing either claim in any depth... I don’t think the factoid really merits a DKY. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was thinking about going a similar direction, like "... that an archaeological find identified as a 10th century Viking helmet has been alleged to actually be a World War II Luftwaffe helmet?" John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Source: A Concise History of Afghanistan by Hamid Wahed Alikuzai Google Books
• Article: Bactria
• Content: "Pashtuns are also mentioned to be, at least, partially descended from the Bactrians" Added in this revision[20]

My concern is I think that claim is absurd and it's not supported by other sources. I did not find any other source which support that content. So is the author expert and his work reliable for history topic? --Wario-Man (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Trafford Publishing is a vanity press, and the author seems to have no qualfications to write these books.[21] So no. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As Doug says, this is useless from our perspective. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Information like the statement listed, if believed by many historians, would have more than one source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Then regardless of whether this author is an expert, there is a notability issue. This could be a WP:FRINGE view or at least an extreme minority view. The process of confirming whether this content is notable enough for inclusion in Bactria is likely to either establish the author's expertise or turn up an additional source and render the matter moot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been watchlisting the article, List of rump states for some time, and have had to remove a bunch of entries that had no references (and I looked for them for a few that seemed probable). I've noticed since then that an editor has been adding maps of the entry as a source.
My problem with this is that an editor is evaluating that a map is of a rump state. I've removed a few of these, with an entry on the article talk page suggesting that maps aren't sufficient as source/proof of the pictured area being a rump state. I'm set to remove a lot of entries without adequate references, but I thought I'd seek a bit of guidance here about the issue before taking further action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See Human development index, Democracy Index and Press Freedom Index. Maps should not be used as sources, they can be only used as maps.Excelse (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cartographers hold no reduced status as authors.  Maps can be an example of non-prose GNG sources.  Follow the rules for WP:RS to determine if the source is reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• See Barber Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• An editor has requested that I explain that this article is an example of "maps as sources".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• A map that clearly labeled a state as BEING a rump state might be reliable (depending on the reputation of the map’s author)... but looking at a few of the maps in question, they do not include such a label. This is indeed a case of an editor using a map to support a claim that the map itself does not directly support. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

They are written by Hristo Smolenov, a scientist who has strayed into archaeology and thinks he has found the world's oldest civilization. There's already been one attempt to use them.

• Codes in Space, 2016 - seems self-published.[76]
• Zagora - Varna - the hidden super-culture, 2012 - the same source says this is published by MAGOART which links to this.
• The Lost Aurolithic Civilization? Codes from a Black Sea Atlantis, 2010 ditto - also published by MAGOART

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Codes in Space" appears self published. Some of his other books list MAGOART and Argo as publishers [77] although no more detailed info is available. I found at least one other author published by MAGOART [78] so it may be an obscure but legit Bulgarian imprint.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have very very serious reservations about this, which is among the politest ways to say no or at least not yet that I can think of. Yes, www.book.store.bg does list two books by Magoart Publishing House. Running a Google search for that particular term unfortunately generates returns which include as it's first returns domestic self publishing sites, which don't actually mention this house but are kinda free of any publisher names other than the name of the specific websites owner. That gives me a very strong impression that Magoart is a self publisher, and the fact that there exists an ad agency by the same name in Sofia doesn't necessarily help. Having said all that if there is any way to ask Bulgarian Wikipedia editors what they might know that might definitely help. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have become aware that a number of Wikipedia articles have been citing American Thinker as if it is an acceptable reliable source for factual claims. I do not believe this to be so, and thus I have begun removing it where it is inappropriately used - particularly for claims about living people.

Firstly, American Thinker does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires - indeed, it essentially has no journalistic reputation whatsoever. The vast majority of what it publishes are essentially first-person opinion columns, many of which make wild, unsupported, conspiracist claims.

Secondly, the site is noted for publishing white nationalist or supremacist apologia, such as this beauty, entitled "The Forbidden Faction: Stigmatizing White Identity Politics", which declares of the Charlottesville Nazi protesters, they were also protesting to promote the forbidden idea that there's nothing wrong with white Christian Americans advocating for their group or being proud of their heritage. Also see this fawning profile of Jared Taylor, one of America's most notorious white supremacists, "Time to Give Thanks to White Males", this virulently-racist piece by Colin Flaherty, etc. etc. These are not what we expect from a reliable source.

Thirdly, they published rampant numbers of birther conspiracy nonsense with no apparent retractions or corrections.

All of this is evidence that the site should not be considered an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree fully with this assessment Darkness Shines (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is reliable only for its city of publication and the name of its current managing editor, and I recommend double checking both of those. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with all of the above, except that I would say that it is reliable for the opinions of the writers of the articles, just as a blog post of other SPS written by them would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, but given the WP:FRINGE nature of the site's ideology, I would be highly skeptical that we should be routinely quoting the site's writers' opinions, absent some compelling reason to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

With regards to fact checking in Professor Paul Kengor's The Communist he writes that it does occur. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yJiybwYPPEIC&q=fact-checking#v=snippet&q=fact-checking&f=false --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, this article published today, which states as fact that a dozen or so named living people are part of a "criminal conspiracy to cover up their crimes and bring down duly elected President Trump" was definitely fact-checked. :rolleyes: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, one professor at a "Christian" college who is a member of several paleoconservative groups, who publishes with WND Books, and who has written nearly a hundred articles for American Thinker himself, claims one instance of fact checking in a book published by Glenn Beck's outfit. That's basically like a joint statement by Noam Chomsky, Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, H. L. Mencken, the current Dalai Lama, and the papal curia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The magazine's articles should be seen as opinion pieces rather than news articles and evaluated individually. For practicle purposes that would mean that none of their articles would be considered reliable or the opinions expressed carry sufficient weight to be used for any articles. Of course the odd exception might exist, however unlikely. Professor Kengor's passing reference is unhelpful to the determination. It does not say whether fact-checking is consistently applied or just in this particular case or whether it follows the same standards as news media. Note too that the standards required for opinion pieces is different from news reporting. Double-sourcing for example is not required. Why political orientation is independent from reliability, magazines representing minority views are best avoided for topics that receive coverage in mainstream media. An exception is where an opinion or report originally published in a minority outlet becomes itself widely reported and hence part of the story. TFD (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The more global question, is local sourcing banned for gauging notability. How do we define local sourcing, a town newspaper or a hyperlocal website like Patch?

The following arguments are being made at AFDs: "New Jersey is in the circulation area of the NYT, an NYT obit for a New Jersey figure is not a sign of notability." and He was in the local distribution area of the NYT, so coverage of him is an example of local coverage. Nothing shows that he rises to the level of notability

I started an RFC at Talk:The New York Times covering this topic, please respond there. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A lot depends on what KIND of obituary you are talking about... One that is paid for by the family or friends of the deceased would not count towards notability... one prepared by the obit staff of the NYT itself would. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Making blanket statements about events and persons covered in the NYT's local circulation area is just plain silly. The Times has multiple versions and sections which some are or some are not indicative of general notability and that's not even getting into the death notice versus editorial obituary Blueboar mentions. WP:LOCAL has to be carefully applied and not used as an automatic excuse to remove articles, it is an essay after all. In general, however, I would consider NYT coverage of events in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that is not in one of the local sections as satisfying WP:GNG sources criteria. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a national paper not just a local one, and a staff-written obit is a good indication of notability. I would not take it as sufficient on its own, but the NYT is selective in staff-written obits. These are not news stories as such, they are feature content really. Two obits in national papers or one plus some other feature content in another paper would very likely satisfy WP:GNG even for a hardened deletionist like me. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the controversial article immigration to Sweden and in this case the section Crime. What is established is that immigrant are over represented in crime statistics and that violent crime is rising. However several editors are now trying to present possible sociology explanations as facts. To even things out I would like to add different perspectives such as Tino Sanandaji (for non Swedish users, you can read the Politco Summary [79]). To do this I cite Massutmaning, which is self-published book, but peer reviewed by Assar Lindbeck, Magnus Henrekson and others. The book has also been praised by reviewers for it's accuracy and I wrote the following

Criminology professor Jerzy Sarnecki has argued that an increased level of immigration has not lead to a increased number of crimes. Although immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, Sarnecki argues that this is because immigrants are more likely to have grown up with lower socioeconomic status. He also point out that even though the immigrants share of the total population has increased heavily since the 1990, most crimes have not increased.^[4] This was however critized by Tino Sanandaji who claim this reasoning to be methodologically incorrect. Sanandaji argues that crime could have gone down for natives and up for immigrants while on total still go down, or that crime goes down for both groups while the share of immigrants increase. That would mean that crime would have been even lower without immigration. Sanandaji further argues that if lower socioeconomic status leads to more crime, larger levels of immigration that result in more people with lower socioeconomic status will still lead to more crime.^[5][6][7]

As you see I also added a news article where the argument was repeated and since people questioned Nyheter Idag, I also added the radio program which in my opinion shouldn't be necessary.

WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

Since this is a mere statement of logic, I don't think it is an exceptional claim. I don't write: this was disproved by Sanandaji (which I could agree needs a stronger source), I write that: Sanandaji has a reservation. I also provide additional sources to the argument, but they refuse to accept it. They want to dismiss it on the cause that it is self-published, but I argue that if you look at what is quoted the book is more than enough for this statement. Am I wrong here? They didn't complain when I used Massutmaning for the history section and the reservations only seem to be when it goes against certain perspectives. I could take a picture of the quote in the book if that is necessary (but it is in Swedish)--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a WP:NPOV issue, not a reliability issue. In general, content is not added to articles to "even things up". Unless Sanandaji's views have received attention in decent secondary sources their inclusion would be WP:UNDUE - why should Wikipedia be the only publication on the planet to be giving them attention. If the views *have* been reviewed by decent secondary sources, those sources could be cited. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I pointed them here. This is related to the discussion earlier in 2017 you participated in (Search Tino's name in the archives, 225 I think). The short version is, Tino's opinion/conclusions is being rejected not as undue, but on reliability. My personal view is that he qualifies as an expert, while his book is self-published its been critically reviewed in depth widely, commented on, covered in the news etc. The statistics from Tino's original papers that form the base of his book have been peer reviewed. So I would consider his book/opinion etc reliable enough if what he is discussing is notable enough to be in the article.

The NPOV issue is that there is a wide and vocal issue with the government statistics and crime reporting in Sweden, and the right-leaning have been very vocal about what they consider the cause. The problem is you then have editors saying 'well those people are biased'... well quite. Its goalpost moving. The issue over the figures is clearly widely covered. So Tino's research should be allowable as he clearly passes the bar for expert opinion on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If Tino Sanandaji does indeed have peer-reviewed scholarly publications on this topic, why don't we use them instead of a self-published book? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer reviews are seldom published. You don't understand the scientific method.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I ask to see the peer reviews? What on Earth are you on about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That you are not the brightest star in the sky. You wouldn't find the reviewers summary online as you sugguest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunmotbluescreen (talk • contribs)

Please avoid personal attacks. This is always policy, but it's particularly wise if you are wrong in reading what your opponent says. Please read again. User:Snooganssnoogans has not suggested to use any peer reviews, but the supposed (properly) peer-reviewed papers that User:Only in death suggests exist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe they are specific to this issue. Which (as I pointed out below) isn't in dispute anyway, all parties agree the basic figures are accurate. They differ in interpretation. Tino interprets them in his book - albeit rather than stating they are fact, he suggests alternatives that have not been considered or have been discarded without proper consideration. The problem really is that the right-wing have latched onto his opinion on the statistical methodology used, to push their own agenda and they are quite rightly, shown to have an extreme bias in this. As a reliability issue Tino's book has been covered, his opinion on the immigration question has been covered, he certainly qualifies as an expert on statistical methodology. And really the above section is quite neutrally worded. Even a layperson can see when you have an expert stating 'Its not because they are immigrants, its because they are poor' the obvious question 'So where are all the rich immigrants then?' appears. Which is why its a thorny issue in Sweden, given the crime statistics overwhelmingly show certain types of crime to be linked directly to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A small clarification is that the debate is not over statistics, but rather how to interpret the statistics. Sarnecki agrees Sanandaji use the correct statistics, but not his explaination and vice versa. There is however an argument that reported crime does not equal commited crime as the willingness to report and change of laws may vary.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I would argue WP:NPOV as well, but the others do not. NPOV does say "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As as such this perspective should be added to even things out.

The views were circulated in both SR and Nyheter Idag as well as on other academical blogs. The book itself was also mentioned in all news papers in Sweden and some news papers in Norway and Germany. Maybe they don't quote exactly that, but praised the book in its entirety--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OP misunderstands the concept of scholarly peer review. The book was not peer-reviewed before publication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The second "reviewer" listed above has co-authored books with Sanandaji, while the first one is am eminent but 87 year old economist - not an expert, and unlikely to have to time to do an in-depth review. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between an article in academic journal and a book. To claim that more 50 years of studying the economy of Sweden does not make you an expert in the field is far fetched. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I should have been more precise. He is an expert economist, but not an expert on immigration. And conflict-of-interest applies to books as well as papers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think in this subthread we are talking about Lindbeck, not (Tino) Sanandaji. One of the hints that it can't be about Sanandaji is the 50 years of experience, which a 37 year old researcher is unlikely to accumulate ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well smack me with a kipper. I think the point stands though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Self-published but peer-reviewed" is not a thing. This is just a self-published book. You might be able to cite it (with attribution to the author) if they're an acknowledged expert on that topic, but it kind of rings alarm bells when an actual academic chooses to self-publish: usually it means that they are really determined to publish something that real presses turned down. It's a bit of a redflag. If it's a notable perspective (ie, the book been reviewed/commented on by independent sources) then it might be usable with attribution, but that depends on if it is WP:DUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

See previous discussion especially comments by David A who appears to have provided most of the links there. He has however been topic banned, so don't ping or ask him about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This might be difficult for a non-Swedish speaker to evaluate, but the book does seem to be widely discussed in Swedish news media, which suggests that his view is noteworthy. Some of that coverage is about how its been criticized for "astounding scientific shortcomings" though. I would treat it like any other highly controversial but notable polemic: mention his views, and mention the criticisms, but keep it as short as possible and don't give equal weight to more authoritative academic works. AFAICT it looks to be notable as a political argument, not as scholarship, and should be treated accordingly. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As you also know, everyone understand from the context that by peer review I mean as in it not self-published without the any input from other experts. As in it is just as good as any other book. Interesting that you talk about due weight when you include their criticism, which as largely been rejected by the economist community. When they say that not all his sources are scientic litterature. They mean not all sources can not be found in Scopus (which is a limited database and does not include official reports). Very intresting that you would like to DN, instead of SvD where you can also find his reply--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus?

It seems a certain editor was very efficient in side tracking from the main issue here. To get back to the discussion, can we agree that it is not unreasonable to include Sanandaji's perspective from a NPOV perspective? With that settled, let's focus on the issue of using Massutmaning (and Sveriges Radio) to state his academic expert opinion about the methodology of Sarnecki. I also think it is a good idea to include Nyheter Idag which cites Sveriges Radio for accessibility for readers that are not fluent enough for a Swedish radio program or have the book. It also interesting to discuss other scenarios where you cite the book for other reasons, but it's not what was discussed here. I am not aware of a survey on the subject, but I think the attention Massutmaning got proves that it a viewed shared by a substantial share of the population.

@Alexbrn with his relevance established do you think the source combined with Sveriges Radio is enough for its purpose? Would it helped if I included the academic from the University of Gothenburg as well? Not the abstract case, but this particular case.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is his five page argument in its entirety. Its in Swedish, but maybe you can understand some if it with the use of Google Translate (brott=crime) [80]. It can be mentioned that similar arguments were made by [81][82]--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If the book really has undergone real peer review, the way a scholarly article would before publication, then I say it doesn't matter if it was a vanity press that put the expert-approved content to paper. Is that what happened with this book? Was it evaluated by a panel of neutral social scientists who approved it for publication? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn't undergo peer review, as Immunmotbluescreen has admitted [83]. Read the thread above for more details. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never claimed it is an input to a scientific journal. What I mean by peer review is that it has although it is self-published, it has gone through the same level of reviewing that a book published with a publisher would have.

I am less interested in the reliability of the book in general and more interested in this case in particular. If there is general rule that is blocking the use of the source, it can be ignored if it stops the improvement of the article Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I think Sanandaji's argument disproves the credibility of Sarnecki and his peers. If you look at the last page in the images, the analogy he uses is that you wouldn't say that cookies are more healthy than crispbread, if you account for sugar and fat. When it comes to practice however this does not change the fact that cookies are less healthy. In the same way if immigration cause inequality and you get more poor people, it is wrong to suggest that immigration does not cause more crime if you account for inequality. This has also been argued academically by Sarislan about criminology in general IIRC, but not directed towards Sarnecki.

But this is more that I ask for now. Here we are discussing whether using this book is a reliable source together with the Sveriges Radio link for that he has made this argument and that his views are relevant to include. What has been said in the above section that is not off topic is:

• Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof [an expert on immigration]. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would treat it like any other highly controversial but notable polemic: mention his views, and mention the criticisms, but keep it as short as possible and don't give equal weight to more authoritative academic works. AFAICT it looks to be notable as a political argument, not as scholarship, and should be treated accordingly. Fyddlestix (talk)
• Unless Sanandaji's views have received attention in decent secondary sources their inclusion would be WP:UNDUE - why should Wikipedia be the only publication on the planet to be giving them attention. If the views *have* been reviewed by decent secondary sources, those sources could be cited. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never claimed it is an input to a scientific journal That is PRECISELY what you did when you claimed it had been "peer-reviewed".

What I mean by peer review is that it has although it is self-published, it has gone through the same level of reviewing that a book published with a publisher would have. If it's self-published, it hasn't been "peer-reviewed" or even reviewed in general. Words have meaning, you know. --Calton | Talk 15:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This website claims to be of the purported American Diplomatic Mission of International Relations Intergovernmental Organization (ADMIR). I have found nothing about this organisation on Wikipedia or the internet and the America First sticker with the eagle makes it obvious that they are fake. Still, it is baffling that they use "-gov" (but, see, "-gov", not ".gov"!) and a seal similar to these of U.S. governmental organisations. The articles I located using it as a "source" were Brazil-based Lebanese billionaire Joseph Safra (called "His Excellency Honorary Member of Honor and Distinction") and defrocked Georgian Bishop Christopher Tsamalaidze (the link serves as a "source" on a different person, which is extremely funny as this is a five-line stub) but there may be others. This organisation smells IPSP from afar but I place it here to investigate if there is a remote possibility of it being even halfway legitimate and to raise awareness of it in case someone else encounters it in an article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at the page shows grammatical errors, seemingly contradictory indications of focus and a design that reminds me of the "good" old days of geocities, even though it is obviously nowhere near that old. So that tells me that their copy was written by someone who doesn't speak fluent English, and their website was designed by an amateur. Looking at the source code shows that it was built by wix.com. So no, not reliable for anything but their own claims/views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - far from reliable. Fake News... :) Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)