Archive 230 Archive 233 Archive 234 Archive 235 Archive 236 Archive 237 Archive 240

Organic consumers association

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Labeling of Irradiated Foods
  2. ^ "What's wrong with food irradiation?". Organicconsumers.org. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Loaharanu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Reliability of a source

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

simplikation.com and typepad.com blog

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)[reply]

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

Self-published sources

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

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

This is an excellent tool. Neutralitytalk 03:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Record Holders Republic

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)[reply]

I have boldly redirected the article.Spamming seems to be on a steep rise:)Winged BladesGodric 16:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Queerty Source/Is it appropriate for an FA?

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)[reply]

Forebears

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)[reply]

Looking.Winged BladesGodric 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

citypopulation.de

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

topuniversities.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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I fully understand why my article has been rejected. But I want to redouble my efforts to improve it! (Need guidance)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

George Forty - Authority on Tanks/Tank combat or Amateur

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:

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.

"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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Bliztkrieg to the gulf war" Sutton Publishing p 84,
  2. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
  3. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
  4. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 48
  5. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
  6. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
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:
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Bliztkrieg to the gulf war" Sutton Publishing p 84,
  2. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
  3. ^ Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
  4. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 48
  5. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
  6. ^ Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Buelow's A History of Baroque Music

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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]

References

  1. ^ Hilgenfeldt 1950, p. 99
  2. ^ Bitter 1865, Vol. II p. XCVII
  3. ^ a b c Spitta 1873, pp. 480–5 and endnote 21 pp. 797–8 (English translation: Spitta 1899, pp. 487–91 and endnote 20 pp. 630–1)
  4. ^ Lane Poole 1882, p. 131
  5. ^ Swack 1992, p. 139.
  6. ^ a b Sandberger 1997, pp.188–9

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]

References

  1. ^ Talle 2013, p. 50
  2. ^ Buelow 2004, pp. 566–567
  3. ^ Zohn 2001, see [1]
  4. ^ For further commentary on Spitta's comparison of Telemann and Bach, see also
  5. ^ Sandberger 1997, pp. 188189
  6. ^ Sandberger 1997, pp. 188189
  7. ^ Spitta 1873, pp. 480–485 and endnote 21 pp. 797–798 (English translation: Spitta 1899, Vol. I, pp. 487–491 and endnote 20 pp. 630–631)

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Allsides.com

The following was just added to The Atlantic article:

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

References

  1. ^ "Allsides.com", Allsides.com, December 2017.

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)[reply]

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

Stopfake.org

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is The New York Times a reliable source for american politics?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Food for thought Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say at best Stossel’s opinion on the Times is a reliable source for him opinion on the Times and certainly not remotely strong enough of a source to even consider discounting the Times as a reliable source on Wikipedia.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In anbd off itself, yes. The issue of OP-edd pieces is a different question, as in all things Attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, op ed pieces are not news reporting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the video is a ridiculous hack job, that is almost comedy. But yes as you've said even if taken seriously it's not giving us any reason to consider the NYT as unreliable but just tells us that Stossel doesn't like the NYT, in particular for not being supportive of many current GOP policies. So a Fox employee is annoyed that NYT ain't like Fox, well too bad for him but probably not so much for the rest of us. The whole thing seems "food for thought" for people on a zero calories diet.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these sources sufficient for claiming there is a provisional government of Ezidkhan?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Caleb H. Johnson

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)[reply]

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

Looking for input about a source

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Can this author and his work pass as expert historian and reliable history source?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
As Doug says, this is useless from our perspective. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Information like the statement listed, if believed by many historians, would have more than one source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Maps as sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Fringe newspaper's map sourced only to a literary critic used for wiki ethnographic map

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello all. This ethnographic map [[22]] uses as a vital source this map ([[23]]) by the French far-left "anti-capitalist" newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. The wiki map it is used for has been around awhile and has seen wide usage, but also persistent controversy that bubbles up and occasionally explodes, as it is once again doing now. The sourced map is titled "The Albanians, a scattered people, and the cartographer is Philippe Rekacewicz, a "radical cartographer" [[24]]. The newspaper in question is known for many controversial things including 9/11 conspiracies, equating the United States to Osama bin Laden, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, and other wild fringe views and claims including that globalization is nothing more than an American attempt at world conquest, Europe is an American "vassal" [[25]], and other gems like these.

Regarding the map, it doesn't give any demographic studies as sources, but instead cites Rexhep Qosja, a literary critic who is noted for his fiery views on some topics related to nationalism, irredentism and the like. As explained by Resnjari other demographic maps published by the paper have also been wildly incorrect [[26]]. As Ktrimi991 notes[[27]], indeed even the editor-in-chief has expressed worries about the sources that were used for some of Le Monde Diplomatique's reporting, presumably including non-expert essays like those published on demographics by out-of-fielders like that literary critic Rexhep Qosja. Regarding the distribution of Greeks in the map that is used for, demographic studies have produced very different results that falsify parts of the wiki map such as these: [28] (Resnjari speaks fluent Greek and can explain how this one contradicts if necessary-- he highlights the critical section here [[29]] but left it in Greek as he was speaking to other Greek-speakers) and [30] (see pages 50-60 ish, this one covers four of the effected eight districts only but shows no Greeks in many places the flawed wiki map shows Greeks), and others. I also have concerns with many of the other sources used for the construction of that wiki map, but I plan to take this one at a time, so as not to overwhelm those who handle cases on this page.

Therefore, I ask the community -- is reliance on such a map published by a fringe newspaper and sourced only to an essay by a literary critic an acceptable source to rely on for an ethnographic map? I thank you all for taking the time to consider this case, and apologize for its wordiness. --Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability always depends on context ... So, in order to answer your question we have to look at the context. Which of WP articles contain a version of the map? Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently on en-wiki it is on Albania, Languages of Albania, Greeks in Albania, Demographics of Albania, Foreign relations of Greece and Northern Epirus. The last is a territory that is historically claimed by Greek nationalists -- 19th century Greek nationalists claimed the whole of it is inhabited by Greeks and the map in question makes it look like this is true, but more recent scholarship, some of which I have linked above (these were written by Kokolakis and Kallivretakis-- more reasonable, modern and academic scholars from Greece, in fact) has mostly limited the Greek presence to a compact area in the regions of Himare, Vurg, Dropull, Pogon, and Carcove, not the huge area shown in the challenged map. Also, in the 19th century, the effected area is considered very important by Albanians because it, especially the eastern region of Korce, was also a cradle of the Albanian Renaissance movement (Rilindja) which helped spark the creation of the Albanian state, despite 19th century Greek nationalist claims that the area was majority inhabited by Greeks. So, needless to say, it's a very touchy issue for editors of Albania-related topics, and there has been plenty of fire exchanged over this map in the past. --Calthinus (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy and feel I must respond to the rest of this post later (a lot of it seems directed at me) but I would like to point out that I'm not an "Albanian POV editor", and in fact I cant be as I am not Albanian. I have a personal interest in Albania topics but I am an American (of Jewish, not Albanian, background if anyone is dying to know). Of course we all have our own points of view but I try to keep my mainspace edits governed by principles, not opinions. There are times I may slip because while editing controversial topics, but I like to think I try my best not to. Rexhep Qosja is indeed Albanian (and a literary critic, so, in my view, unqualified) and many Christian Albanians have told me they dislike him-- inter-Albanian politics are as tangled as inter-Greek ones often. I appreciate good faith and attempts at understanding different perspectives-- making a truly neutral encyclopedia despite all of us having different vantage points is not always easy. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Khirug is stunningly intellectually dishonest, in particular the attempted character assassination of Leonidas Kallivretakis. Nowhere does Panourgi state that Kallivretakis is from the left, only that he recounted a memory from his life pertaining to the left in younger days (in relation to his mother). Panourgi in that same page notes Kallivretakis' skills as a historian and even offers praise such as "Kallivretakis 2007 gives a good bibliography of memoirs" etc. It is quite disappointing to say the least that Panourgi is cited via distortion. Kallivretakis in his study went village to village with a university research team right after communism fell in Albania and borders opened. He compared both the reality he found on the ground in both Gjirokaster and Saranda municipalities + Himara district with previous data of old. His scholarly conclusions are peer reviewed, published in Greek scholarship, without dispute. Additional studies in relation to past realities have also been done by Kokolakkis [33], [34] who notes that people in the late Ottoman period considered as Greeks in the area can only be done so on the criteria of mother tongue -another in depth Greek scholarly study. Alexikoua's map apart from omitting other communities in Albania like the Gorani, Bosniaks and Romani, colours areas of solid Albanian Muslim settlement as Greek (as the issue of sentiments where raised these populations were never pro-Greek), which not even the Greek army in its Peace conference village by village statistics [35] for the Greek government (1919) for claims toward the area [36] did not do of the Muslim element, though it considered everyone Orthodox in the area as Greek (regardless of language and other qualifiers). Or the cherry picking of Tom Winnifrith (1999), a Western scholar who did fieldwork in the area, his map resembles Calinthus' one on the distribution of Greeks as opposed to Alexikoua's. Question is are we going to consider scholarship that has done fieldwork on the ground and the archival research in relation to sensitive matters like this or pick one map from a literary critic (Qosja) who has never done the hard yards on the ground that feels like for some as supporting a certain POV while omitting scholarship? I can go on. I'll wait though for others however. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map in Le Monde Diplomatique cites as its source Rexhep Qosja, La question albanaise. (The Albanian question.). Paris: Fayard, 1995. A scholarly analysis of Qosja's book by Antonia Young, John Hodgson, Nigel Young noted on page 90. [37] in the book titled Albania that its contents are about "Writing in vigorous and straightforward French, Qosja (born 1936) argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". Now some editors like Khirug have been vehemently opposed to sources used by some past editors that promote Albanian irredentism or nationalism and i have agreed and still strongly agree with that. I ask, how then is this source which promotes "the unification of the Albanian territories" RS and fit for use on Wikipedia regarding such sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania?Resnjari (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Resnjari: you can not use the refusal of others to accept the citation of nationalist POV across Wikipedia's articles to justify the Cherrypicking of RS on your part. Please, we are not here to comment on disputes unrelated to this one, so please avoid recalling what the other editors did or not in the past with RS, and instead, I recommend that you focus your comments solely on why do you believe that the following 5 RS aren't reliable.
@ RSN Volunteers: The 5 RS in question are: 1. Philippe Rekacewicz of Le Monde Diplomatique, 2. "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18 (2010) 3. Cartographie.sciences-po.fr, 4. CIA, Intelligence Memorandum 1994 and 5. "Hellenism in the Near East 1918" by Soteriadis.
As everyone can see, the 5 RS are not fringe as Calthinus and Resnjari are trying to claim. They come from very well-known and reliable organizations, scholars and newspapers which confirm the presence of an ethnic Greek Minority in the region of Southern Albania. To those who are not familiar about the unfortunate politics behind the current disagreement over the 5 RS, I shall bring here some facts: there is a Christian Minority of Greek origin inhabiting the southern parts of Albania for more than 2.000 years already. The minority today is facing political discrimination and socioeconomic challenges as result of the rising Albanian nationalism which is today prevailing in the country as result of the Kosovo issue and the tensions in the Balkans. Many ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians are trying to suppress the ethnic minority's historic presence in the region on the grounds that the minority is posing a threat to the character and unity of the Albanian state. Hence why certain editors who are working or focused especially on Albanian topic articles in Wikipedia, are insisting so much on the Albanian-POV which wants the Greek minority's presence in the Albania to be artifically reduced in line with their POV, and for this reason are opposing any RS that goes against their views. I and User:Alexikoua have tried to reason with Calthinus and Resnjari that CIA, Diplomatique, Soteriadis, and Cartographie are all very popular and reliable sources. But to no avail. Just yesterday, Resnjari made clear to me that he will NOT CONSENT to these 5 RS no matter what, and even if others tell them that the RS are reliable. So I am wondering: What is the purpose of the RSN filling if they are so stubbornly firm in their positions and are not willing to re-consider their stance? What if the RSN volunteers/admins find any or all of the 5 RS to be in line with the project's criteria? Could Resnjari and Calthinus then be willing to change their mind on the RS? Sadly, this is not the impression they gave me yesterday. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RSN Volunteers: Both Rekacewicz and Cartographie.sciences-po [38] cite Qosja as a source for their map (with the first only Qosja). Qosja's book to once again quote Young, Young and Hodgson notes that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". How is the use of a map from such a book promoting irredentism and nationalism RS for use in sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania ?
@Silent Resident. Your reference to "ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians" without even citing a source is quite uncalled for considering that Albania's current prime minster is Orthodox converted to Catholicism and many of the cabinet are Orthodox voted in by a majority Muslim public through free elections. Please keep personal views out of the discussion. Thank you. On other sources, the current RSN deals with the Qosja source, although Soteriadis has its own issues being a propaganda piece from World War One noted by British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson [39].Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Resnjari: first, that a source may contain POV, is not a strong argument to classify that source automatically as unreliable. Please, as per WP:Neutrality of Sources, Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.. That's the second time I am asking you to read that. CIA, Catrographie, etc, all have a reputation for fact-checking and their reliability can not be dependent on whether you personally agree with their point of view. I am saddened that you have not understood this. Second, that the country currently has an Muslim or Christian Prime Minister elected, matters little, as the issues the Greek Minority of Albania are well-documented and reported (at least outside of Albania), especially by the European Union, to which Albania aspires to join someday, and even by the foreign representatives in the country, such as the American and European Ambassadors. But I am sure you are aware of that already, aren't you?
And could I ever mention of the latest Annual Report of the European Comission for Albania's adaption to the Maastricht Criteria, also confirmed shortcomings in 3 fields: 1) Fight of Corruption, 2) Protection of Minority Rights, and 3) Judiciary Reforms.
Only a naive person could assume that just because of the LGBT Prime Minister Ana Brnabic's election in Serbia, Serbia shall now be considered a LGBT-friendly country, or just because a Greek or Christian PM Edi Rama's election in Albania, the country is automatically more friendly for Greeks to live at. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Silent Resident, Rekacewicz and Catrographie has used map from a book by Qosja that promotes "Albanian unification" in the 1990s. Now if one does not want to consider that as nationalism, at the very least it is irredentism. Is that the type of source that meets Wikipedia standards of RS ? Regarding Albania's issues with the Greek minority, such as the church Dhermi etc was a tussle between Edi Rama (a formally Orthodox Christian, now Catholic), someone who has deep roots from the Himara region being from Vuno village who is the prime minister and local Orthodox clergy over a religious site. Your characterisation of the issue as some kind of Muslim on Christian thing was completely uncalled for. I am deeply saddened that you said such a thing. Please clarify issues before commenting and keep to the issues at hand, as Wikipedia is not a wp:forum. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, on top of all your other (rich) accusations, now you claim that the RS documenting the minorities living in the country as being "irredendist"! I am really baffled. What else will we hear from you, Resnjari? Please, can you for once leave your nationalist Albanian POV, including anti-Albanian conspiracy theories aside, and explain here to the RSN why the Central Intelligence Agency, the Cartographie, and Sotiriadis and such, are unreliable? How a source containing POV, makes them unreliable? I am asking you this because as far as I am aware, there is no such rule or guideline in Wikipedia which states that Reliability of a source is determined by Neutrality. That CIA and the others, just because they may be citing POV (which may be POV or not, depending your editorial view) are unreliable. To claim that Reliability = Neutrality, goes against logic and is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. -SILENTRESIDENT 14:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One source at a time. Also once again your inferring something about me regarding "accusations". Please refrain from doing so and keep to the issue at hand. The whole point of this RSN is about the use of Qosja. Le Diplomatique and that French cartography company source both use and cite Qosja as their source for data. Qosja's book is noted by other scholars that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". For @RSN volunteers, is Qosja as a source reliable due to the irredentism of "unification" it promotes ? If Qosja here is deemed a reliable source, the ramifications are wide ranging as his book La question albanaise might be used by some editors in future to add Greater Albania POV on any given articles which has the potential to cause much discord and a return to this forum in future asking the same question about Qosja and reliability, yet alone issues of the book's accuracy among other things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, if Qosja (and frankly, not only this, but every other out there) is deemed a reliable source, it can not be used as an window to insert nationalist POV across Wikipedia's articles, since the WP:NPOV rules are very clear on this: Source POV is allowed in the encyclopedia, but Editorial POV is not. The editors have a duty here in the Project: to take in account these RS, (regardless if they contain POV or not), and present them in Wikipedia in a neutral way. Let me copy-paste the sentence here: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The above five RS may contain POV, but that doesn't mean we can use its information to promote nationalist POV. We may cite RS that contains POV, but it is our duty to present it neutrally. This is why any nationalist content about irredendist concepts such as Greater Albania or Megali Idea have no place in Wikipedia and they shouldn't be confused with information about populations in these countries (i.e. the Arvanite populations in Greece and the Greek populations in Albania). --SILENTRESIDENT 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to use Qosja (or any of his other works) -never have, never will- however the whole premise of his book "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories", noted by Young, Young and Hodgson. That is not NPOV at all. If Qosja's work is not textbook irredentist, then what is? Hence my question on reliability to RS volunteers. If he is allowed for one thing, stuff from his book will start oping up over time and proliferate articles on the wikipedia project. I don't want to waste time again and again (nor should other editors for that matter) having to discuss this issue about him being RS or not and having to clean up such usage of a controversial source if it comes to that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cite from CIA and Cartographie and not directly from Qosja as far as I am aware. If they do cite POV RS (Qosja), doesn't make them more POV or less reliable. Unless you are questioning CIA's, Cartographie's and everyone else's fact-checking reputation. Is that so? This is very serious thing, Resnjari, and I do not recommend that you go down the trend as to accusing now any reliable organizations for citing and publishing... unchecked and unreliable (in your view) information, just to justify the exclusion of their information about the Greek minority in Albania. This is very low to do of your part. First time an editor is assuming CIA and the other organizations of citing unchecked fieldwork.
If you are not willing to accept Qosja, it is just your opinion and this is respected. But this does not make your arguments against CIA and Cartographie more valid for the rest of us to omit them from Wikipedia. --SILENTRESIDENT 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First its important to determine Qosja's reliability as he is used as the source material for maps and so on, before delving into other sources and their reliability etc. Determining Qosja's reliability is important not only for this issue of the map, but because in the Albanian speaking world he has published some other problematic material and it could be used on wikipedia articles. Editors have better time than to do constantly have endless discussions about whether Qosja is this or that. An outside neutral assessment and determination by RSN volunteers is needed on Qosja, hence the RSN here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. But the problem is the RSN can not offer you the answer you want. To brief the entire discussion: here in the Reliable Source Noticeboard, you called Qosja's work to be "problematic" and "unreliable" because it contains, what you call it, "irredendist POV". Right? I replied to you that Neutrality and Reliability shouldn't be confused with each other and unfortunately the RSN can not decide on a source's reliability based on POV issues or to perceived problems in the scholar's fieldwork. You need stronger arguments than just this to present against citing the population data. Even if you had any, still, the RSN's duty is to evaluate reliability of sources, not neutrality of sources. I am sorry but if this is why you came here, then I don't think you will get what you seek. Even in the hypothetical scenario where you are questioning the scholar's reliability without citing neutrality issues, then I am afraid, your answer was already given by the others; the scholar's fieldwork has been used and referred to by several governmental and non-governmental institutions who maintain high reputation in the international community. You may, personally, find yourself opposing the scholar's work and disagree with CIA and others citing it, but here, the editiorial opinions little matter; these well-known institutions checked these parts of his work, especially the population data (mind you, native populations should not be confused with irredendism) and published them in their own publications. Simple.
Everyone is free to publish information, and no one ever questioned them priviously for doing this, except some Albanian topic editors in Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to change these facts. We are talking about particular organizations which are not known for their anti-Albanian bias and the information they published about the Greek monority, contains data relating to its population, not data relating to irredendism that may exist in other parts of the scholar's fieldwork. But the Albanian topic editors are objecting to this due to their own POVs. It is as simple as that and there is nothing I can do to help the situation. Like it or not, the RS are quite neutral. Since what you are seeking from the RSN is to evaluate reliability by citing NPOV issues in the scholar's work, I can't help you, nor the RSN can, I am afraid. I could suggest the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard instead, but in that case, I don't know how can this resolve your problem, since you have made quite clear (in the article talk page) that you won't deviate from your position and POV no matter what. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Silent, Qosja's has reliability issues that relate to RS and more. I identified one issue on irredentism, i.e Western scholars have noted in a direct way that his whole book La question albanaise is about arguing for "Albanian unification". Other editors here have noted Qosja and his issues toward other Albanian religious communities. Its important that an assessment by editors not involved in the map discussion is done on this issue. Is this work by Qosja fit for usage on Wikipedia in general (one cannot just cherry pick one set of things on population data that they like and then call the rest of his work fringe)? Otherwise we enter problematic territory and POV edits are a possibility in future by some editors. Qosja's book comes as a package. It needs a evaluation on whether its reliable, whether it meets Wikipedia standards of wp:reliable and wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are dealing here with a classic case of literary critics who publish fringe content on purpose and Wikipedia editors who fall for it. Indeed, there are five sources that "support" the map used in some Wikipedia articles. I can type Google now and find not five but fifty sources for Hitler living in Antarctida. Having sources do not automatically qualify a claim as true. The sources are Sotiriades (criticized by academics for deliberately falsifying data), two Qose-based maps, and two sources that are tertiary ones and do not explain where do they base their content (every reliable source uses other reliable sources to make conclusions, right?). One editor keeps saying that Resnjari and Calthinus should present arguments why Qose/Le Monde and Sotiriades are not reliable sources, however arguments have already been presented. On the other hand I ask why academics like Kokalakkis and Winnifrith, who oppose Le Monde Diplomatique's claims are not taken into account? Does anyone have peer reviewed publications that criticize their work? I agree we should confine the discussion here to Qose/Le Monde Diplomatique. Qose is a literary critic. His purpose is not academic accuracy but promotion of his own ideas and provocation of public discussions. Put it in other words, Qose aims at attracting some attention for himself. He is criticized for Albanian irredentism, as showed above, and taking positions against Albanian national interests in the same time.[1][2] He is criticized for blaming the Orthodox for problems of Albania.[3] Someone who says some of the most important problems of Albania are caused by the Orthodox is a reliable source for a map that paints all Orthodox Albanian speakers as Greeks? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, that there are opposing scholarly views, is very true and natural. No one here ever claimed to be the case. The dispute is due to the one side prefering only the RS that fit its personal editorial criteria (be them nationalist POV, or whatever) instead of taking in account all the RS that have been published on this.
I am sorry but to select the X RS and ignore the Y RS, just because it happens that you are finding yourself disagreeing with them, for political or whatever reasons, goes against Wikipedia's WP:Neutrality which mind you, is one of the project's 3 core pillars. Instead of this, it should be wiser of us to highlight all differing opinions between the scholars on the map, something you are refusing to do, hence the current dispute. To prefer only these RS that reduce the Greek minority's inhabited areas in Albania and even excempt it from places it lives, is a blatant POV and is unacceptable, no matter how hard you try to justify their omision on the grounds that it is "Anti-Albanian", "provocative", or against "Albanian national interests" to you.
Also let me correct you on two facts: the map that paints the areas with blue color, does not indicate that these areas do not have Albanians, or that these areas have only Greeks. In the same contect, the blue lines which were added by me on Calthinus' map (prior to its revision) did not replace the purple for Orthodox Albanians at all. So please do not try justify your POV by claiming fringe where there isn't. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the Albanian topic editors followed the example of Greek topic editors in resolving the neutrality issues. The Greek topic editors, allowed the Albanian population maps of Greece to be reflected without any population thresholds, or whatever. The areas where the Albanian populations lived or still live in Greece; the whole coast of Chameria in Northwestern Greece which has been inhabited by Cham Albanians, a large part of Central Greece and Southern Greece where the Arvanites live, and even Northern Greece where Muslims and Turks do live. If you compare these Greek topic article maps with the Albanian topic maps, you see a big difference, and certainly not what was done on Calthinus map of Albania, where a mere tiny portion of the map shows Greek presence and only on a village-per-village basis, and with population thresholds that obscures or hides the Greek element/presence from regions of Albania where it has been documented. If you take the time to check the maps for Greek topic areas and the infobox picture in the article about the languages spoken by the Albanians which also concerns Greece and other neighboring countries, you don't find any population thresholds, nor the whole countries marked stricktly on a village-by-village basis, just the RS which mark the places where the minorities lived or still live, without any personal intervention from the Greek topic editors of the kind we see now on Calthinus' map. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On other maps relating to Greece, i did not participate in either making those or if ever there was a discussion about them. That said, Silent, actually i probably should have written this before (and i say it in good faith and respect), we cannot have a proper discussion about map issues unless there is some clarity on source reliability. Otherwise we are wasting time and effort that can be devoted to other productive things on wiki etc. Its important that a assessment of Qosja is given about whether or not he is reliable by editors here at the RS not involved in the map discussion so there is clarity going forward. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you go into this article: Demographics of Greece you can see a very beautiful map containing ALL the linguistic minorities of Greece, on all possible regions given by the RS, without going into tricks of using population thresholds, nor object to it using arguments of the kind "this RS is anti-Greek POV", "is irredendist", or "is against Greek national interests". Just we don't care if a source is POV or not, they are used as they document the populations living in Greece, regardless of their size (majority or minority), regardless of their numbers (population thresholds), and regardless of Greece's inner politics. See for yourself. Here is the map. I hope you will also assume good faith of the other editors, Resnjari, because (at least for me) of the policy of welcoming the RS that contain information about populations, without starting up fights, edit wars, disputes and bringing up all sorts of POV arguements for its exclusion.
If the Greek topic editors went down this trend, now I hardly could be here talking to you and Calthinus at all. Since you are insisting on taking this different stance for maps concerning the Greek minority of Albania than following the same rationale that is followed elsewhere in Wikipedia, including Greece's minorities, then it cant be helped but make the Wikipedians (not me, but those who are not involved in our dispute atm), be wondering whether you are following an political agenda. Sorry but I tried to reason with you, and there is nothing more for me to say here. I hope Calthinus will see my comments here and be reasoned to follow the same rationale the rest of us the Wikipedia editors follow, to as to have his map corrected even without your consent if possible. What you are doing is to unwillingly apply double standards even though you were the one to use this term in the various discussions we had, and this is finding me opposing. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the map on Greece, its good and can be better if done on a bigger map template if one wants to devote time and effort toward the endevour. That said, the issue with this map for Albania is whether a source is reliable on the data it claims to show. Due to issues brought up, it is important that an assessment and determination of Qosja is made here in the RS by editors who did not partake in the initial map discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, if people want to read or write more on this broader dispute they can do so on the conversation on Talk:Albania. In my own defense (lots of stuff has been said about me above), I must say that I believe my approach to the isshe, a map of languages and religions, to be the approach most free of NPOV. Languages and religions are accepted facts. On the other hand things like the sentiment or national feeling of a population 100 years ago are hard to verify and also the topic of considerable differences in national narratives (Albanian, Greek, but also Turkish, Bulgarian, Macedonian...). The languages and religions formula cuts out all the potential for POV warring, and thats why I am pursuing it. Any further commentary on this should go in appropriate places. This is an RSN about a specific source (Soteriadis will be covered later). I ask for the opinions of non-involved observers who have no connection to any side of this dispute. Also SR I'm busy right now and this is a lot of text, but I promise i will read the post you tagged me in. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus, it appears you have quite a weird taste of wp:RS though an experience editor: on the one hand you consider LMD as unreliable due to conspiracy theories and it's "not" the only source as you claim since there are 4 additional: among them CIA intelligence reports & a publication in Questions Internationales (an academic journal not a newspaper). On the other hand you insist that banned journalists & nationalist advocators should be used in wikipedia as reliable [[40]]... Needless to say that something is wrong with your definition of wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have discussed every point in this lost ad nauseam already, I'm finding difficulty convincing myself that this post was done for any other purpose than annoying me and derailing the thread. All of your misrepresentative arguments regarding myself on the Talk:Stath Melani issue can be found on that page and on Talk:Albania. We are taking this one source at a time. Please quit derailing the thread with misrepresentative and irrelevant Whataboutism.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@On the Melani thing, as i said previously and am now on the record many times i was not in favour. Anyway, the source bought here is not Mema but Qosja. Regardless about some issues that editors have expressed here with each other on a personal level, the RS is not about that (not a wp:forum). Editors here have expressed valid concerns about Qosja that warrants an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about the source and its reliability (wp:reliable and wp:secondary) for use on wikipedia. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Qosja is the subject of this topic the heading needs to be corrected. For future reference the map in question isn't a fringe map but a map verified by multiple sources and a consensus map for more than 7 years.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same way we don't alter a certain type of wording of a subheading of threads that you create, the same same applies here regarding other editors. The map was challenged many times (there was no consensus), thing is there was no alternative to your map until now and published scholarly sources that had done the fieldwork and research were not utilised in those discussions about your map until recently. Qosja forms the basis as a cited source for two sources that you use for your map. It is important that a evaluation and determination is made on Qosja by RS volunteers regarding reliability. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there was consensus. That you came and challenged the content at a later time, does not make it less. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its been challenged over time (such as some editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made). There was no alternative map over the years, and nor did those discussions when they occurred on various talkpages where the map was located take into account scholarship by those challenging. Anyway, Qosja needs an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about its reliability as a source for wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say Its been challenged over time (such as some editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made), and indeed this is absolutely true and the key in differientating the consensus for its addition from the consensus for its removal: Do not confuse the initial consensus for its addition which was larger than for its non-addition, with the over time lack of consensus among some editors for its removal. A big difference if you ask me. As per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Wikipedia's Balkan topic articles are notoriously known for not accepting easily content that is politically sensitive - rarely there has been content or map that was accepted with zero opposition in them. From the Kosovo-Serbia articles, to Albania-Greece or Bulgaria-Macedonia articles. The key for consensus is when people wanting it are more than people disputing it. if there wasn't a minimal consensus, then no content could have been added to Wikipedia and the project could have been hostage to certain editors. Frankly, I am very grateful with that, otherwise contested articles which are hubs for biased editors, could be impossible to expand or change over time with content that may not be in line with their (editorial) POV. I am sorry if you do not like this, I didn't make the rules, but you have to admit nevertheless that these rules are what saved Wikipedia articles from not evolving over time with the addition of content that does not suit some editor's POV.
EDIT : I don't know if you noticed, but one of the reasons Greek topic articles contain content that may not be in line with the nationalist POV expressed by some marginalized Greek editors who happened to be around Wikipedia, is exactly that the Greek topic editors (regardless of nationality) are making sure that the content added (and which does not reflect their one-sided view) summarizes all different views, without the typical nationalist fanfare of the kind "is against Greece's national interests" and such. Just pointing out to an example of why you are still finding minority maps in Greek topic articles that are rather generously painting, lets say, with color the entirety of Central Greece as having Albanian population without any restrictions such as population thresholds, unlike Calthinus' map which drastically has reduced the blue color of the Greek minority to only a fraction of the original areas. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The longevity of a source does not determine that it is accurate. When some editors who may not have previously been party to past discussions highlight etc certain things change can happen, even if there was previously a consensus. A recent example of this was the map that had been there for years on the Principality of Arbanon article, until its accuracy was questioned [41] and removed [42] with a new map eventually replacing the old [43]. Its very important to establish accuracy of sources especially in things relating to this. Serious issues have been raised by editors regarding Qosja and its important that a elevation and determination on reliability be made. Wikipedia has its guidelines on consensus, it also has policy rules on wp:reliable and ][wp:secondary]] to prevent biased sources and in other cases propaganda or and POV entering the encyclopedia, as in the end Wikipedia is not a wp:forum.Resnjari (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The longevity of a source is not determined by whether it has POV (mind you, the editors who have questioned Qosja, did so on POV grounds), and its reliability is not determined by how much POV or how long it has been on the article. True that. But what you are missing here is that Qosja is deemed as a reliable scholar and his work has already been used by several well-reputed institutions of the international community which are very respected and well known for their lack of POV and lack of fringe publications, and for their fact-checking, as are Cartographie and CIA in Qosja's case. Very important, Resnjari. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by User:Calthinus: @Blueboar: -- yes. The LDM map is an illustration of Rexhep Qosja's work. The literary critic. Do you think I should reformulate this thread to match that? I believe this was suggested elsewhere too but I ... can't find it :(. This got long and ugly. --Calthinus (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by User:Resnjari: @Blueboar:, the map in Le Diplomatique [44] is a copy of Qosja's map. I should add here that an academic review [45] in the journal Balkanlogue in 1999 by Michel Roux of Qosja's La question albanaise concludes that it is from the perspective of ethnonationalism (paragraph 7. "Mais il est, comme tant d'autres essais balkaniques récents, tout entier situé dans la perspective de l'ethno-nationalisme."). In addition Roux highlights in detail issues with Qosja's map regarding percentages etc in paragraph 6 and criticises them along with population hatching and population distribution for inaccuracy amongst other things. "Il s'agit ici d'un genre qui se répand fâcheusement, la CMO, cartographie massacrée par ordinateur : vite fait, mal fait, non vérifié." To translate "This is an unfortunate genre, CMO, computer-slaughtered mapping: quick, badly done, unverified." Roux notes further problems of wrong geogprahy and so on. "Istanbul a abandonné le Bosphore et le mot Albanie est à l'emplacement de la Macédoine (p. 299). Mal orthographiés sont Kolašin (p. 301), Ferizaj, Vuçitërnë, Prishtinë, Rožaje, Kičevo et Preševo (p. 306) ; d'ailleurs les deux dernières devraient être notées Kërçovë et Preshevë puisque l'ouvrage met en graphie albanaise les noms des lieux où les Albanais sont majoritaires, et cela vaut aussi pour Tetovo, Debar et Gnjilane (Tetovë, Dibër, Gjilan). Enfin, la dernière carte, p. 307, consacrée à la proportion d'Albanais par commune, est rendue incompréhensible par la permutation de trois types de hachures : il faut lire 50 à 80 % au lieu de 10 à 30, 30 à 50 au lieu de 50 à 80, enfin 10 à 30 au lieu de 30 à 50… faute de quoi on pourrait croire, par exemple, que Skopje est à majorité albanaise, ce que personne ne prétend. Encore la source, non indiquée, n'est-elle pas le recensement yougoslave de 1991, mais une estimation de source albanaise qui majore la proportion d'Albanais dans certaines communes. Cette même carte figure - sans les erreurs ci-dessus - dans d'autres publications, comme la revue Kosova, n°1, Tirana, 1993.". I hope that goes some way to answering things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by User:SilentResident: (edit conflict) @Blueboar:, the map [[46]] is created by an Wikipedia editor, User:Alexikoua, and as source, it cites authentic maps already published by the academic scholars such as Soteriadis (here is Soteriadis map for you: [[47]], as well as maps by literary critics such as Rexhep Qosja. But, the problem here, Blueboar, is that the filling party (which already apologized in advance for its lack of clarification in its wording), explained what exactly they seek from the RSN: to evaluate the content not by whether it is a source, or merely an illustration of something stated in a cited sources (it is a source, not illustration) but by whether a certain scholars's political views deem it reliable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The editors from the filling party consider Rexhep Qosja's work to no be suitable to their editorial POV, and thus they find it to be "fringe" just because they personally disagree with the literary critic's expressed political views, and are accusing Qosja for containing "bias against the Albanian state and the Albanian people". In this contect, the filling side is asking whether the map by Alexikoua (which includes both Sotiriades and Qosja maps) is too NPOV for it to meet reliability criteria for inclusion to Wikipedia, given that it cites Rexhep Qosja who often has expressed contested political views which the filling party finds itself as disagreeing with. Edit: as you can read above, I have already tried to explain to the filling party about WP:Neutrality of Sources, but they could prefer to hear your opinion instead of mine. They could like to hear the opinion of a third, uninvolved party instead of me because I have been involved in the dispute. --SILENTRESIDENT 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map by Sotiriades has also been criticized in Western scholarship (i.e Wilkenson) as being a piece of Word War One wartime propaganda [48]. There are huge issues with Alexikoua's map like also omissions of other ethnic groups etc. Considering scholars like Roux who have looked at Qosja's book La question albanaise have cited that his map data is unverified and full of inaccuracies etc and that overall it is a ethnonationalist work, for RS volunteers is Qosja a reliable source?Resnjari (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, how many times do we have to explain to you that a scholar not agreeing by another scholar during wartime period, does not mean that the opposing views shouldn't be taken in account? Please read CAREFULLY what WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Can you point me to a rule in Wikipedia which states that some views should be omitted from the encyclopedia just because there is lack of scholarly consensus on (or criticism among them)? --SILENTRESIDENT 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Resnjari, know that: I do not disagree with you that this or that scholar has been criticized for their work. Absolutely not. My point here isn't whether this or that scholar have conducted fieldwork that finds everybody agreeing with, my whole point is that given the lack of thorought analysis of the populations in Albania, which you have admitted that it was largely ignored by the academic community and thus, the populations in Albania have not been the subject of extensive studies by scholars abroad, makes even more important to present the opposing views by these few scholars who studied on Albania's populations. To just omit one scholar and cherrypick on sources from others based on political criteria or due to perceived POV, is something that goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How have scholars omitted (Kallivretakis who had a research team with him, Nitsiakos, De Rapper, Winnifrith etc that in their fieldwork when they went to those places did so in most cases on a village by village basis and Qosja did not at all) reach different conclusions based on their research and are different from the Qosja data? Roux notes in detail that Qosja's work is unverifiable, full or inaccuracies and that it is ethno-nationalist. By the way don't bend my words, i never said that populations have been ignored by scholars in Albania, what i said was that Alexikoua has ignored those studies, hence much omissions of those communities in his wikipedia map.Resnjari (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Darouet. I agree absolutely with you on this. Although it is true that sometimes a reliable source may publish incorect information, this does not make anything about it to be automatically unreliable. This was always the case about the newspapers, books, etc, across the world. Today no source could be taken as reliable if we followed the filling party's absolutist approach on what can be reliable or not. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darouet, Le Monde Diplomatique has also been noted in scholarship to have from the 1970s onward "a radical left-wing editorial line and been involved with some activist movements since the 1990s" [50] or that "Le Monde Diplomatique is owned by the Monde group, but has an autonomous, radical-left editorial staff." [51]. One cannot omit that the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique has a radical left wing bias. That said the map in Le diplomatiqie is copied from Qosja whose work La question Albanaise is noted as a ethnonationalist work and that the map and data it showed to be inaccurate and unverifiable. Newspapers of any standing can still make mistakes from where they source their data from. And it is quite clear they got it from Qosja.Resnjari (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari: thanks for your note. As a major publication LMD has been described as many things, including:
  • "With its clear left-wing political affiliation, Le Monde Diplomatique caters for a global intellectual audience..." with a larger international than home audience [52]
  • "...astonishingly successful... political and cultural bi-monthly with a global printed circulation of 1.5 million in 21 languages... editorial line clearly to the left, or rather altermondialiste."[53]
  • "Le Monde Diplomatique had established a solid reputation for high-brow criticism and debate on international affairs and for many years had acted as a mouthpiece for the left-wing intelligentsia. This was 'a newspaper produced by and for an elite' and many of France's leading left-wing thinkers had, at various points, filled the column inches of this newspaper..."[54]
  • "...the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique was a success story not only in its home country but also abroad. Today, this left-wing and movement-oriented journal is published in more than ten countries with a total circulation of 1.2 million copies..."[55]
  • "the left-leaning Le Monde Diplomatique..." [56]
  • "...a leading voice of the European left..."[57]
That said, I agree with you that the map might be wrong. I'm not an expert here and can't evaluate that issue. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You forget however that not only Diplomatique uses Qosja's map, but other agencies too, which are well-respected reliable sources, such as Central Intelligence Agency and Cartographie. What do you say about them? They too are using Qosja's maps. Are they unreliable too? C'mon now. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One source at a time. Qosja first as its used the most by other sources used in Alexikoua's map. Those others in due course. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper, and as such its aim is not to produce academic data on demographics of Albania but to present different views on topics its readers might find interesting. Those views surely include fringe ones. Above everything else, it is its editor-in-chief who has expressed his worry about false information that is being served to media organizations such as Le Monde Diplomatique itself [58].
I value your opinion that Le Monde Diplomatique is generally a reliable source. Of course, as a well-known publication it has its own merits. However, what we need to know is if the specific map published in a specific article of Le Monde Diplomatique is reliable or not. The question is not about Le Monde Diplomatique in general, but about a specific article/map published on it. A map that is very criticized, and was made by Rexhep Qosja, who himself (as shown with references above) is criticized by academics for being an irredentist, an anti-Albanian, an anti-Orthodox, and a creator of poor and unreliable maps in the same time. To sum up all, the question is: Can Wikipedia editors use Qosja-based works on maps and other things? It is very important because his works might be used or not by other editors in the future. For example, his works might be used for demographics maps of the Republic of Macedonia, although he paints as Albanian majority settlements (such as Ohrid and Skopje) that even Albanian nationalists do not claim to be so or as non-Albanian majority settlements that have an Albanian majority, as a matter of fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: That's fair, and in defending Le Monde Diplomatique generally, I don't mean to suggest that this particular map is correct. I am simply disputing the characterization of the publication provided at the start of this RSN post. -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet:, I appreciate the clarification and comments. These issues of demography are both sensitive and complex making even more the importance of using data that is credible and accurate. I agree with @Ktrimi991: on Qosja and its something for RS volunteers to reflect on in their evaluation regarding reliability. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: I must then apologize for the characterization of Le Monde Diplomatique. To be entirely honest it is not a source I am incredibly familiar with (though I do like to think I have a "modicum of knowledge on French civilization"). Most of what I knew about it were published statements saying things comparing the United States to Hitler, bin Laden and Stalin , that Europe was an American "vassal", and so on. Frankly I find these offensive, and that probably colors my view -- though it is fair to think that such an emotional response may be unfair to a "journal of opinions" based on recurrent themes in editorials (??) and perhaps also I am wrong and it is indeed "not fringe" to compare the United States to Hitler and etc. Let's just say I've been thoroughly surprised, learn something new every day. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator, there is scholarly analysis of Qosja, whose particular work Le Question albanaise is noted as "ethnonationalist" and his map as full of errors with unverifiable information, a map which Le Monde has used in its entirety and sourced in whole to Qosja. In all those RS threads on Le Monde only one touches upon the issue here and none of the issues in that thread about Qosja as an academic yet alone the book Le Question albanaise where discussed which Le Monde sources its map in whole from. There is serious issues of quality and accuracy with Qosja making its use for Wikipedia quite questionable to say the least if wiki guidelines and policy (wp:reliable and wp:secondary) are applied.Resnjari (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: Other editors (not involved in the discussion on the talk of Albania) have already explained everything depends on context. We are not asking here about Le Monde Diplomatique in general but about the map made by Rexhep Qosja. I guess you do not support usage of Qosja on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia. Do you? I guess you want Qosja to be used when it suits your own opinion, and Qosja to not be used when he says things that are not to your liking. Make your mind, is Qosja reliable for such things or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question in this RSN is wheather Le Monde Diplomatique (an article authored by Philippe Rekacewicz) is reliable to be cited in context of the presence of non-Albanian languages or people. I explicitly referred to:
  • very neutral, weak and mild context in my above comment and
  • to multiple sources and authors who support it.
Having in mind very neutral, weak and mild context of this RSN request, the "presence" of non-Albanian languages or people (without insisting on majority) and multiple other RS that support it, I think it is safe to conclude that LMD is RS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet:, @Antidiskriminator: My thanks to both of you. I am happy to hear the opinion of two uninvolved editors on the RSN regarding Diplomatique, and I appreciate that you took the time to do so, regarding the reliability of Diplomatique. But I am afraid the problem with the filling party is that due to their editorial POV, they are never going to accept Diplomatique as a RS. Never. It seems clear to me that no matter what, they will go the very end about this, and even dispute CIA or Cartographie on top of that. I already have tried to reason with them over the citation of a questionable map of Qosja by reputed and highly respected institutions and agencies. But the filling party not only they are not listening to us, but also are going as low as to suggest exlusion of not only Qosja's map, but also Soteriadis's map on faulty NPOV grounds. Which is very saddening and shows that their NPOV concerns aren't for the sake of neutrality, are for the sake of maintaining a certain editorial POV on the contested articles where this map is to be used. The filling party's approach of classifying reliable RS such as Diplomatique as unreliable, just to justify their position on the maps they do not POV-agree with, is finding me vehemently opposing. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident Antidiskriminator is not an "uninvolved" editor as you claim. He is a party in this dispute. The request for comments was done here after some editors, including Antidiskriminator and you held the view the map made by Alexikoua is based on reliable sources. So do not unfairly portrait Antidiskrimintor as an "uninvolved" editor.
@Antidiskriminator You are saying that Le Monde Diplomatique's article based on Qose is reliable because some other articles published by Le Monde Diplomatique are considered reliable. I have explained before in this discussion that having sources for a claim does not automatically make it true. For example, there are a lot of sources that say the United States are worse than bin Laden. One of those sources is an article published on Le Monde Diplomatique itself. Le Monde Diplomatique has published good and fringe articles. Our purpose here is to have opinions from uninvolved editors on this specific map made by Qose. A map that is criticized by academics as already showed. On the other hand we have several (mostly Greek) academics who after doing fieldwork have presented another version of the truth. Their findings contradict the map made by a literary essayist named Rexhep Qose. I ask you again as you still have not responded my question. Is Qosja a reliable source to be used on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: Antidiskriminator isn't party to the RS dispute. Coming to the talk page to warn you against violations of WP:CONSENSUS which you, the filling party, have committed, along with WP:EDITWAR and violations of WP:BRD, does not make him an involved party to the dispute. Voicing his opposition to disruption and pointing out to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution guidelines that you should have followed, does not make him party to the RS dispute. Please straight your facts. --SILENTRESIDENT 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Antidiskriminator was involved early in the discussion on the map within the Albania talkpage [59]. That said Silent, @Blueboar: noted that context matters, while @Darouet: also noted that though Le Diplomatiqie is of merit did not suggest that the map is correct either. @Ktrimi991: makes a valid point on Qosja and the need for RS volunteers to give a evaluation and determination on reliability considering Le Monde used the map in whole from Qosja, a source noted in scholarship as "ethnonationalist" with its map being full of errors and data unverifiable. Other sources like the Soteriadis map are noted in scholarship i.e British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson as being World War One propaganda [60].Resnjari (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is what I am talking about. He explained to you that consensus is required for replacing the old map by Diplomatique with the one created by the filling party. I don't see anywhere his participation to the RS dispute. --SILENTRESIDENT 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As i explained to him as well consensus is needed on other things as well alongside of course accuracy of sources.Resnjari (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

It seems an important goal of this RSN post is not to ascertain whether Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source (it is [61]), but rather to decide between differing and possibly contradictory maps (e.g. #1 [62], #2 [63]) of the ethnic and minority composition of Albania [64]. Note that another map is also available: [65].

As is common in these cases, subtle differences in the apparent magnitude of different ethnicities in different areas become fodder for various disputed nationalist causes, past and present. What those are won't be apparent to the vast majority of Wiki editors.

I'd propose that you make a composite map with 2-3 panels, where each panel shows a different map. You can label them A, B and C. And in the description you can clearly indicate which scholarly sources A, B and C are based upon. That way readers can be made aware that there are different, disputed maps of minorities in Albania. And readers who are very interested can pursue the subject in greater depth, using the referenced sources. What do you all think of this? -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole root of the dispute is that the sources documenting the minority populations are not reflected due to criteria placed on them by the filling party. The filling party created the following old map which you pointed: [66], as well the following new map: [67], and the maps contain editor-imposed population thresholds that are artificially shrinking the presence of minorities in the country, and this is not in line with the sources cited. The new map was created on the holiday season just few weeks ago, and the filling party tried to replace the Diplomatique map with that new one they made. The filling party said the population threshold on their new map is about 10%, significantly reducing the minority's presence in the country in areas where it is less than 10% of the population.
If the three maps have to be includred to the articles side-by-side as you proposed, then the filling party's POV on it has to be eliminated first. This means, the filling party's imposed population thresholds will have to be removed before the map is accepted to the article so what the readers see on it is what the sources say, not what the filling party wants them to see. If Resnjari and Calthinus are willing to remove their population thresholds on their new map so it can reflect what the sources say, then I will consent to its inclusion. --SILENTRESIDENT 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All this so-called conspiracy theory about LMD has reached a near-paranoia level, no wonder third part editors confirm that LMD is of merit. Moreover the LMD map is only one of the sources used in this case: Questions Internationales features another identical map and a CIA memorandum on the 1994 situation in Albania yet another one.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So present them all, with appropriate captions to indicate which source (and thus which viewpoint) they are based upon. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's impossible to present in one caption Calthinus recent map it's a wp:SYNTHESIS of 25kb of text [[68]] based on c. 40 citations (though none of the inlines presents a map on the subject only text and partial lists of villages). Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar:, the maps the filling party created, both the new map: [69] as well as the old map: [70], are not reflecting the sources cited. For example, while the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages, they are not marked at all on the map, due to the filling party having placed a Population Threshold 10% on these areas. The population threshold is not supported by the sources, is something the filling party placed by itself, resulting in a map showing very different information from what the sources do. --SILENTRESIDENT 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I'm not happy to see that in my absence SR has said things about me which are just false. There is no "Population Threshold 10%" for the 2011 census map at all. You can literally look at the map and see that. Also every single thing on that map comes from a single source, the stats available here: [[71]]. Meanwhile, SR's description of the present map is also misleading. Of course no source would say "Hmm I think if you make a map of this you should have this threshold"-- instead it is implemented to prevent a hairball effect that makes everything impossible to see on it. Furthermore, the map is a work in progress-- the "Greek side" has only actually (to my knowledge) criticized one case where "the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages"-- the town of Permet. I had simply missed that. I'm going to fix it after I'm done replying to.... all the things that were directed to me (sigh).--Calthinus (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Internationales via a commissioned map produced by a French cartography company also cites the same Qosja source for its map [72], [73] etc. @Darouet:, @Blueboar:, i have only been a interested party in the discussion, we would need the input of @Calthinus: as its his map after all and knows the ins and outs of it. @Alexikoua, your map initially had 6 sources now it has 8 and that too is wp:SYNTHESIS. Calthinus's map is based on multiple academic studies that did fieldwork documented the many ethno-linguistic communities of Albania and their distributions. There are multiple ways of showing complex referencing like this (an example is the Souliots article, see sentence on origins in the lede -its citation [no.3] has a whole host of citations arranged neatly within the context of one citation).Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Resnjari, but none here on the RSN ever disputes Diplomatique or asks for Qosja sources to be removed from Wikipedia; now, the volunteers proposed basically the same thing as I did to you above but you couldn't listen to me: Contain all significant views on the populations of Albania, as per WP:NPOV, without omitting any of them from Wikipedia, unlike how you have attempted when you replaced Qosja's map with your prefered one. You have two options: Either accept the RSN's suggestions, either we return back to the old good consensus. Period. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They proposed 2 or 3 maps to be side by side (as one of those maps is the official census results spserate to Calthinius' ethno-linguistic map). That's a different thing to what you proposed. As i said above to @Darouet:, @Blueboar:, we'll need @Calthinus:' input for this as it was his map in the end. On my part i have not made up my mind. I want to see @Calthinus:'s view before i say one thing or another going forward.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari: My position that no RS shall be omitted from Wikipedia and that all significant viewpoints should be present, including Qosja and Soteriadis remains unchanged, I am afraid. The RSN now just confirmed my position and expectations on this, that all different viewpoints reflected in the RS shall be present in Wikipedia. But since you do not want that, they offered you an alternate workaround to not adding Qosja and Soteriadis to your map: have them by-by. Thats all. You wanted to remove Soteriadis and Qosja completely from Wikipedia and to do this, you went as far as to dispute Diplomatique. The RSN however, failed to share your views, and proposed the obvious: that all the RS stay in Wikipedia, like them or not. I am sorry if you are disappointed with the outcome, but you should have listened to me from the start instead of being so stubborn to your positions. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this where we differ, your refering to viewpoints, yet my premise has always been accurate scholarship based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Sources like Sotiriades are problematic due to it being basically WW1 propaganda. Qosja is a problem due to it being nationalistic and his map being inaccurate. These are not my views but the analysis of scholarship. Also the RS did not confirm your position on the map, as apart from reliability accuracy and context was raised as well including where a source sourced its source. As i said before and i say again @Calthinus:' input is required as its his map before i make further comments going forward.Resnjari (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari:, I am glad you finally realized what is the case here, but don't you think now to be abit too late for such realizations? I wish you understood this sooner instead of having us drag our feet to Noticeboards just for this. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Qosja isn't the only source Questions Internationales uses for its map. It would be far too much to accuse this academic journal for conspiracy theories and FRINDGE like LMD. No wonder those maps (CIA included) offer almost identical definitions of the Greek minority area. Pardon me but I wouldn't term it SYNTH.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources do not pertain toward Albania, but neighboring regions like Kosovo, Macedonia [74], [75]. That cartography source also cites the Greek government website on migrants etc, yet no link to a document etc. I thought government sources were not credible in such instances, or is it only applied to Albanian government data that is not considered credible. One wonders how that cartography company formed that data for southern Albania. Well there is Qosja cited in that map once again. Pardon me, but the use of Winnifirth for your map (cherry picked only for the Aromanian community) in no way gives the Greek distribution as in your map, but instead is identical to Calthinius'. You have a collection of 8 sources, that is synthesis.Resnjari (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If mine is SYNTH then Alexi's must also be, as the supposed reason (use of different sources for different groups and regions) is also exactly what Alexi did. Indeed he used Winnifrith for the Vlachs but not the Greeks which is technically CHERRY...--Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Resnjari I'm confused by this crazy thread. For what is my input needed now?--Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus:, I do agree that its gotten way big, the discussion. As you joined the discussion now, as there is a lot to read and then contemplate as its your map, on the proposal. Only you can give a answer going forward, as my input is only that of a interested party. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: my friend, let me explain, as the article got shamelessly long for any sane and patient editors to read all this rattle: all what we need to hear from you whether you are fine with RSN's proposal to have no RS omitted from Wikipedia, and instead have the different maps displayed side-by-side. Only if you are fine with that, is what we could like to hear from you. Resnjari's stubborness again got the better of him, and already stated that they are refusing to accept the RSN's outcome, nor they are willing to make any much-needed compromises with other editors. I highly recommend that you consent to RSN's proposal like I already did, as to have the two maps together (not merged like in my proposal, just together by-by) and let us finally make a consensus even if that means a consensus without Resnjari. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silent Resident, i did not refer to your in any colourful way like "stubborness again got the better of him" and please refrain from doing so (see wp:civil). I made my comments' as i highly regard Calthinius' view on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your stubbornes is an acknowledgement, no a mere colorful call. Fortunately for you. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident Sure, I support having the two maps side by side, it seems like a good compromise for now. Of course both maps have issues-- I will be fixing Permet and removing my name in a sec. I would also like an answer on Rexhep Qosja. Perhaps honestly I should relist for that, as has been suggested elsewhere. But for now, yes, I consent to having the maps side by side.--Calthinus (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus Thank you very very much, I am very glad we have your consent. So here we go. We have new consensus from now, even without Resnjari. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silent, just give your own view for yourself and don't infer about others. Everyone can speak for themselves. Calthinus' map is going into the articles and am ok with that.Resnjari (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the RSN volunteers: Unless someone here has additional comments to make regarding this dispute over the RSs by Diplomatique and Qosja, I guess the case can be marked as resolved and be closed. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want sth to be clarified so no other problems emerge after this. I guess that the party that opposed Calthinus' map will not object on potential usage of Rexhep Qosja's books in the future, they were the ones who protected his writings and do not have any reason to call him unreliable when used on other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this piece of information from the specific person is published in RS publications lets say LMD and confirmed by additional academic journals it wont be a problem.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Qosja? His works are POV and i think a new RS in future will eventually arise due to the nationalist content he has written and POV issues on articles that will use those sources. On the map situation, Calthinus' has agreed and that's what matters now.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a solution since each map does not portray exactly the same info: map #1 is about traditional presence of non-Albanian minorities, #2 majorities whether Albanian or not.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua Well, do not forget words you just typed. They are very important. For you Qosja's books are a reliable source, otherwise you refute your own map. Cheers all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's important is that LMD is reliable and the so-called conspiracy theories unfounded. Not to mention that a number of official reports, academic journals confirm this map. Qosja might be completely unreliable but this map is based by a variety of RS publications.Alexikoua (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It could be weird to see that many reliable institutions and agencies could cite Qosja if he was not reliable at all. Qosja, POV or not, his work has been cited and used by the international community. --SILENTRESIDENT 00:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these fringe Bulgarian books actually published?

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.

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

"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)[reply]

American Thinker

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Is the New York Times unreliable in gauging the notabilty of people within the New York Metropolitan area

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Citing a self-published, but peer reviewed, book to back up that a reservation has taken place?

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kasem Biçoku (1999). Falangat që rrezojnë kombin shqiptar. p. 139.
  2. ^ Abdi Baleta (1999). Kosova: nga Dejtoni në Rambuje. Shtëpia Botuese Koha. p. 188.
  3. ^ Nexhmedin Spahiu (1997). Ekuilibret shqiptarë: publicistikë, 1989-1997. Shtëpia Botuese "Marin Barleti". p. 268.
  4. ^ Sarnecki, Jerzy (2016-08-26). "DN Debatt. "Ökad invandring leder inte till ökat antal brott"". Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 2018-01-01.
  5. ^ Sanandaji, Tino (February 2017). "12 Invandring och brott". Massutmaning [Mass Challenge] (in Swedish). Kuhzad Media. pp. 192–193. ISBN 978-91-983787-0-2.
  6. ^ Frick, Chang (2017-02-08). "Sarnecki: Jag är mer kompetent än Tino". Nyheter Idag. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
  7. ^ Studio Ett (2017-02-08). "Tino Sanandajis nya bok väcker debatt". SR. Retrieved 2018-01-03.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Peer reviews are seldom published. You don't understand the scientific method.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ask to see the peer reviews? What on Earth are you on about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OP misunderstands the concept of scholarly peer review. The book was not peer-reviewed before publication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]

"ADMIR"

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)[reply]

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

Ex Astris Scientia and Star Trek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noticed that a few Star Trek-related articles are using a source from www.ex-astris-scientia.org. It doesn't seem to pass the litmus test to qualify as a reliable source. Can someone point out what about it makes it a good source?
Among other places, I found a source from that site used here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked their FAQ. It looks like it's written by one guy, who describes it as one of the top Star Trek sites in the world. Let's see if anyone else thinks so...
Den of Geek uses it as a source in an article. There's an in-text mention and a note at the end. There are a few other articles that mention it, but they tend more to be talking about it than using it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is without doubt one of the best sites for trek, I have used it numerous times for schematics for creating models for mods. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I can tell that right away. This guy is creating some exhaustive articles on his own website. If I were working on a Star Trek project of my own, I would probably use this as a resource. However, it is possible that this does not meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria. This falls under WP:SPS. Because Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published website without its own editorial oversight, we need to establish that its author is an expert.
  • Has the author ever had any other works published? Has he written articles about Star Trek that were printed in magazines? Has he written any books that were published by a non-vanity press?
  • Do other/reliable sources say "Ex Astris Scientia is a reliable source" or equivalent?
  • Do other reliable sources cite its author as an expert on Star Trek? This would include newspapers, magazines, and people who work to create Star Trek canon.
  • Has he ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert? For example, has he served on a panel at a Star Trek convention?
  • Is there any other reason not mentioned here to consider Ex Astris Scientia a reliable source or to consider its author an expert?
There's some gray area and consensus rules, but if we can say "yes" to one or more of these questions, then Ex Astris Scientia probably makes the grade. @Darkness Shines: I didn't find anything but I was only looking for about five minutes. You sound more familiar with the website than I do, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it, one of the criteria for RS is editorial oversight. There appears to be none of that here, and there are some pretty bold claims being offered on the site. And there appears to be little in the way of official acknowledgement of the sole write as an "expert" in Trek. For me, the litmus for inclusion of so-called "common knowledge" is its existence across multiple sources and platforms. When a source w/out oversight publishes something found nowhere else, I think its an issue, which is why I brought it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not quite ready to come out and describe them as an RS for ST canon (the tech manuals would be the best RS outside of the shows themselves), I just felt my prior run-in with them might be informative to this discussion. To be honest, I'd want to see something that has an official status, if it's to be used for anything canon oriented. The production of the franchise is a different matter: we can use news sources for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all say there would be no problem using Ex Astris as a means of finding sources. Say, checking the website for which episode to look at and then using the episode as a primary source, but it would be on the Wikieditor to actually check that primary source. Now that so much of the series is available online, that's not as hard as it once was. But day-um if this guy is amateur, he is one thorough amateur. I'm not saying Wikipedia should declare someone an expert—that is the place of professional media—but I'd call this guy an unacknowledged expert or unverified, not a non-expert.
This website does have a contact us button. We could just ask "Have you ever published articles anywhere with editorial oversight? Have you ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert?" I can't find the author's real name listed anywhere, or else I'd run a check myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bernd Schneider runs it, the site has been cited in a few books Darkness Shines (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, as MPants shows above, is that if we consider him a self-published expert (about the only way the website would be useable) we need something to demonstrate that he is. If we start fact-checking him against official sources, we might as well use the official sources. If its something we cant check against anything else, we run up against 'do reputable people consider him an expert', what books has the site been referenced in and are they by a reputable publisher... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind that, Mjolnirpants. But if I remember @Jack Sebastian:'s style, I think he's asking because he wants to remove content from articles that relies on Ex Astris as a source, not merely change it from Wikipedia's voice to Scheider's or change the source from Ex Astris to the specific episode(s) or movie(s) and the real issue is what to do with that content. Is that correct, JackS?
Right now, the state of things seems to be that proof that Ex Astris Scientia is an expert source per WP:SPS could indeed exist but none was shown here this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh< I remember you very well, Darkfrog, and I'm erribly surprised you've elected to address my edits, when in fact you aren't really supposed to,b ut I guess people forget things over the span of a year or two. You have certainly very little footing upon which to descruibe my style, so maybe save us both time by steppign away from that particular land mine, okey-doke?
The point that User:Only in Death is key here: if we don't know the name of the author of the self-authored site, and there isn't editorial oversight, we should err on the side of caution and use the sources that the anonymous author of the website uses (so, wrong yet again, DF). We cannot use the the conclusions that the anonymous author draws, as we cannot prove that the author is an "expert" without supporting RS reinforcement - and there is no way we can use our own judgment to assert that (unless there is a published Star Trek expert amongst us editors). I take this stance to remove the burden of defending the statements made in the documents from Wikipedia and onto the sources that we use instead, which is where they belong.
Again, I think that we can use the far more elgitimate RS noted within the Ex Astra articles, but not Ex Astra itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave his name already, but here "the reputable Star Trek reference website Ex Astris Scientia" The Gospel According to Star Trek: The Original Crew p8 "Thanks to Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia" Star Trek: Myriad Universes #1: Infinity's Prism p517 "Bernd schneider maintains ex-astris-scientia.org as a terrific repository of STAR TREK knowledge and articles" Star Trek: Klingon Bird-of-Prey Haynes Manual It is RS for Trek Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but could you clarify the source of Bernd Schneider's "expertise"? It seems that you noted another fan site quote of praise. Do you have a surce that would be more reliable, like, say a ST published book or something? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I gave you three sources, all published books, none of them are a "fan site" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I have four things to say:
  1. I agree: If Ex Astria documents the source of a claim, it would be best to always cite that source, instead of Ex Astria.
  2. The identity of the man behind Ex Astria has never been much of a secret.
  3. We don't need to independently determine if someone is an expert: If they're referred to as an expert by others whose expertise we don't question (or widely referred to as an expert by lay commenters), then they're an expert. Even if we know absolutely nothing about the "source" of their expertise. Expertise can be demonstrated, and indeed, must be. This is documented by others referring to them as an expert. But credentials can be irrelevant. I guarantee you that I could find a half-dozen people with relevant credentials who would never be an RS, because they have demonstrated a lack of expertise.
  4. I don't know what sort of history you and DarkFrog share, but I thought their comment here to be very reasonable, and your response to be very combative. If you truly feel you are in the right in whatever disagreement went on between you, please act like it. I've seen ANI reports filed over comments more civil than that one (not that I'm planning on reporting you). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just got back from the post you left at my talk page, Jack, and I'm very surprised by your comments there and here. I certainly do not mean to criticize your Star Trek edits—in fact, I haven't read even one of them. But I feel like you're badmouthing me here, so I'll say to the floor that there is no "really aren't supposed to." Jack and I had a conflict in 2014 but we are not now and to the best of my memory never were under any interaction ban, formal or informal, and I've responded to an RSN thread that he's started before, without any response like this. Kind of surprised at this hostility now. However, part of Jack's comment on my talk page amounted to not wanting any help from me in this thread. I leave it in all of your capable hands.
I wish I didn't have to say this, but I am worried about my actions being misinterpreted. I am respecting another editor's wishes NOT confessing to wrongdoing. Jack clearly wants me to back off, and I am very worried that someone else in the future might say "You backed off, which means you're a filthy f--- and you KNOW IT and you're ADMITTING that you eat babies and you are PERMANENTLY giving up your right to speak in this person's presence EVER!" (For the record, it was not Jack specifically who pulled that crud on me.) I do not mean and am not agreeing to any of that. A couple weeks ago, I was pissed at someone else and asked them for space and they refused to give it to me. It was like he thought he hadn't done anything wrong and felt the need to prove it by getting even more in my face. Well I haven't done anything wrong, but I'll get out of your face anyway. This is not a promise to do so permanently.
You guys seem to have this covered. Ping me if you need anything that only I can provide, but I can't think of what that would be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been more helpful in these sorts of discussions where we are discussing the authenticity of RS to seek out sources that can show the wording. For Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures (1) and A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Wars (2) help me see that Bernd has been cited elsewhere. I guess that does make them citable; as long as we are certain that Bernd is the only one writing the articles (others contributing to the cite doe not warrant the same cover as sources), the question is pretty much answered.
The history between DF and myself is pretty well-documented, and I've made a point of avoiding wherever she pops up; I have very specific opinions as to any references she brings to the fore, and that's all I'll say about that. If some of you thought my response to her rude, please take no offense; doe to my experience, they were absolutely warranted and restrained. I did not invite her comments, and she should have known better than to interact with me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, if you want me not to participate in this thread, you must stop saying bad things about me in this thread. Saying you don't want my help is fine. Saying I have to not defend myself while you throw a few punches is not fine. You haven't avoided me. You've posted on my talk page on matters that had nothing to do with you, and you presented yourself as civil and even friendly at the time. You get to change your attitude toward me, but you don't get to say I "should have known better" than to think you were still feeling civil and friendly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done here, DF. Was there any part of what I asked difficult for you to understand? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.