Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 124

Resolved

Is this source [6] reliable for this statement: "A response condemning this statement was made by the Jewish website Aleph Melbourne." To see the article, contested edit, and the statement being "condemned" click here: [7]

Yes, you can use this site for that specific statement. That doesn't speak to any

WP:WEIGHT issues it may have though. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to make a major discussion out of a military order, however, if I do, pardon me.

I had a minor discussion with User:Yopie and the user believes it is fringe to use theories, however, there are many uses of theories to show about the Templar facts, and has deleted my book source when I had the right to use the book source of "Henry Dunant un die Templer". If deleting the main theory, then why didn't the user have the right to delete the theory of Knights Templar (freemasony) since it can be a major fringe, due to its theoretical definition of investigation between the Knights Templar and freemasonry. I was just about to edit a possible theory with the shriners, who are met with speculation with the Templars and the Red Cross Movement, from whom, Henry Dunant, was indeed a freemason. If theoretical sources are aloud to legends for military orders vanished for many centuries, then please explain Yopie why delete a possible theory of many theories, when the theory of above mine is also part fringed, the section called Knights Templar (Freemasonry), theorizing with Free Masons and Templars(possible X and Y), although, they suggest they are not from the Templar movement.

My main paragraph and source was used on this article:

There are similarities between the

GoShow (........)

If you were going to use Quellmalz as a source on this, you'd need to show that Quellmalz has a record of publication in this subject area with academic publishers or peer-reviewed journals, or that his book has been reviewed and cited by other scholars. Andrew Dalby 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One major problem is that the name "Knights Templar" has been used by so many individuals and groups who have not the slightest connection with the Masonic groups or witht he historis Knights Templar -- which means that every "nut case" who says the two words can end up in articles on the Knights Templar <g>. As for the link to the IRC, one significant problem is that one person with the posited link to freemasons does not make any sort of a case that the large group which absolutely included non-Masons was a secret societ of Knights Templar. Amazingly enough, the idea of helping others was not restricted to that group. The word "fringe" is thus properly applied. Collect (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That explains alot for the proper word of "fringe" ideas used in the section for the theories of Shriners and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).-- GoShow (........)16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello! This is a question I originally posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85, but I was pointed here.

I'm looking to determine the reliability of this source. It seems to be unavailable on the Internet, but it is used in a number of places, including History of scientific method and Book of Optics. The claims it is making seem quite dubious, e.g. (paraphrased) "Alhazen's scientific approach resembled the modern scientific method." These two particular articles also contain a numbered procedure for the scientific method (hypothesis, test, etc) and give this as the source - but I'm pretty sure that's a much more recent innovation, and the two lists are not consistent with each other.

This is the answer I already received:

"Searching suggests there is no article here on the author (Bradley Steffens), and according to Google Books, that author has written on a wide range of topics: origin of the printing press, animal rights, San Francisco earthquake, cartoonists, Emily Dickinson, censorship, addiction, working mothers, J.K. Rowling, the Loch Ness monster, and quite a lot more. It looks like this bio describes the author. Based on that, it appears the author has no training in a field that would make him an authority on

WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk

) 10:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)"

Unless there is evidence of the author's expertise in this subject area, I would agree with the opinion you quote from Johnuniq. The work cannot be treated as reliable. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to use a variety of Overseas Development Institute publications to provide additional insight to a number of articles. For example, I want to add the following section to the Pastoralism article:

EXAMPLE EDIT: Management

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute explored the management of natural resources relating to pastoralism in the Horn of Africa. They highlight that the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations ^[1]. As a result, agencies working in this area are obliged to consider a range of relevant issues, and not focus on any one issue in isolation. Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial.

The status, history and mission of ODI

ODI is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian policy. Founded in 1960, it has made major contributions to research, dissemination and policy change, on all aspects of development and humanitarian policy. The Institute has a staff of around 150, half of whom are researchers, with the remainder providing a wide range of support services.

ODI's mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.

With a reputation for high-quality research and policy advice, ODI is in demand by governments, international institutions and other partners around the globe. Through their core research programmes they work across a wide range of sectors that have a direct impact on the well-being of the poorest people in developing countries. In addition, ODI offers consultancy services that include monitoring and evaluation and the development and delivery of tailored training courses, as well as expertise in communications and knowledge management.

ODI attaches great importance to dissemination and public policy work. The Institute:

- publishes two peer reviewed journals – Development Policy Review and Disasters – as well as a range of authoritative publications such as ODI Briefing Papers, Working Papers and Opinions

- has a large public affairs programme, with many public meetings and seminars also streamed live online

- runs international networks, for example the Humanitarian Practice Network and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network

- hosts the Secretariat for the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)

- provides support to parliamentary activities, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD).

ODI also manages the ODI Fellowship Scheme, which has placed postgraduate economists in government positions in developing countries since 1963.

The ODI is held in high esteem by both international policy makers and the global scholarly community. For example, t The James McGann Think Tank Index, updated annually, ranked the ODI second in the world for International Development Think Tanks. in 2009^[2] ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank.

ODI’s research programmes cover a vast range of development and humanitarian issues. Further information is available in the Institute’s Annual Report, and on the website. ^[3]

NewsAndEventsGuy and I have been discussing whether ODI publications are a reliable source. I am very much of the opinion that they are. My talk page provides extensive evidence to support my position. It would be great to have some further input from other editors to confirm for certain that this is the case.

References

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a very thorough question. However, I'm not sure I fully followed it, did you want to include the section above entitled "The status, history and mission of ODI" in the Pastoralism article? Or is that just there to try and help your case and convince us that you're right? I'm thinking it's the latter, in which case, please don't do that (feel free to remove it), we can do our own research here thank you.

Assuming I'm correct, discussing the first part of your question, ODI seems like an RS source for this claim, although I would change your first sentence a bit as it's almost an exact quote of your source, and if you're doing that a lot in the article you're going to run into

1. The only content to add about the institute to the pastoralism article is a sentence or two of information about specific major projects the Institute has engaged in, that can be shown to be important by sources outside the institute--so important that they're amomng the key projects that anyone interested in pastoralism would want to know about. If you have 3rd party source to show they're important, then you can add a link to the institute publication on it to give a link to details. But otherwise its promotional content. You may not use the article about a particular problem to put in an extensive section about the work of the institute on that problem--that's promotional spam. If you add such material to articles on general topics, you're likely to be blocked as a promotional account.
2. Or perhaps you want to use the institute article as a source for the importance of the viewpoint presented, that "the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations" If you do, its a pretty vague statement, and needs some specifics to illustrate what you actually mean--does it mean we need to reduce & control the mobility of pastoral groups? The last sentence of that paragraph says , in my opinion, nothing at all--pure PR jargon. I cannot see any specific meaning in "Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial." If you're just saying we need a systems approach, is that a meaningful contribution to any actual policy question?
3. perhaps I misunderstand, and you intend to add some of it to the article on the Institute. But in my opinion the present article is promotional because of its use of adjectives of praise,, and the material you suggest adding is even more so. What you need to do if you want to use it anywhere is remove vague adjectives , and vague descriptions of its noble plans and worthy intentions, and talk instead about specific accomplishments for which you have outside sources. Phrase like "to inspire and inform" belong in a promotional newsletter, not an encyclopedia-- they're PR jargon. Lists of projects beginning "such as" should instead list actual projects, with references for every one listed--preferably from an outside source, to show it's significant. I struck out some meaningless sentences and adjectives as an example of content that does not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and advice. Despayre - I would certainly only put the section relating to Pastoralism into the article; the information about ODI was merely to provide information about ODI to other users. Someone had previously recommended that I do this.

I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications. I will be sure not to paraphrase from the publication itself in order to avoid copyright problems. Thank you DGG for highlighting this. I think ODI publications have a lot to offer in terms of providing current, well researched findings to wikipedia users.

Many thanks again for your input!

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI

concerns

The one time I looked at one of these reports it appeared to be self-published. User Hannah did offer a policy-based explanation for why they are still RSs, but I got 'way too busy to review it before going on extended wikibreak. I've just been popping in briefly from time to time and today I see user Hanna has been active promoting ODI reports in most if not all of her contribs. Is there a bit of an agenda here, to promote self-published reports? In response to comments above, user Hanna even says "I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications." (bold added) While I appreciate the mission of ODI, let's pretend the think tank in question was Heartland Institute or some other example of very left or very right politics. Why should ODI's self-published material pass muster and blogs and inhouse reports from other such groups get rejected? I am going back to wikibreak. I just wanted to offer the question for any editors with interests in evaluating RS questions, with (hopefully) a consistent and neutral scale. Kudos to ODI, keep up the good work, I'm just dubious its appropriate material for this forum.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE problems. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply from the bolded section of Polly's comment above, but whatever she wants to do with her edits seems a little outside the scope of this board. Having said that, if you feel she's used something from ODI in a way that it shouldn't be, or may not be RS, please bring it back here and we'll evaluate that. As I said, ODI likely won't be RS for everything, but I can't speculate without context (which would make it not speculation at all . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

My main concern is intellectual integrity and application of a consistent policy. In the climate pages usually self published sources get tossed. If folks think ODI meets the execption criteria, that works for me. But question, Do the ODI reports' authors also submit to peer reviewed journals? If so those cites would be the better source.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All ODI briefing papers, working papers, background notes and journal articles are peer reviewed. ODI is the UK's leading think tank on international development and internationally was ranked second only to the Brookings institute, according to the James McGann Think Tank Index [1]. ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank. ODI has no political allegiances. I have taken on board the comments raised here, and understand that the extent to which a source is a reliable source depends on the exact context. Are you happy for me to make edits with this is mind?

Many thanks,

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Prog Sphere is a growing online progressive music magazine with thousands of hits every week. We update every day with new CD reviews as well as interviews, album and concert reviews, and other music related content. We are covering vast field of music genres ranging from progressive rock, progressive metal, jazz fusion, stoner rock, to psychedelic, space rock and its related subgenres.

We consider that we are a reliable source of informations that could be used on Wikipedia, as we bring the "ontopic" material that is reliable and is the point of interest.

Any thoughts?

To support what statement in what article? By the way, the pages take forever to load. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest reading a little bit on this page to see what websites pass and fail, and to take a thorough read all the way through

WP:RS states, Wikipedia should only use "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I think that could be a tough hurdle for your website right now, unless your editors all have years of experience in other relevant areas in this field. I hope that helps. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The "About" page clearly stated it was a "blogzine" (you can see an archived version here). I notice it has been changed after I informed them that blogs were unreliable sources per

WP:RS. And I have seen no evidence that this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The page is little more than a blog site ("blogzine" seems a good description), and thus I don't believe its reviews are considered reliable for inclusion on album pages. MrMoustacheMM (talk

) 07:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this piece in the Ventura County Reporter a reliable source for support of any aspect/ section of The Zeitgeist Movement? (For example in support of a brief discussion of the movement's key/ core ideas, etc.) Does the Ventura County Reporter have a reliable publication process?

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a critical analysis of the movement by a qualified expert. Rather , it consists of interviews with the founder & a supporter, most of it paraphrased rather than quoted. There are better sources for what the movement says, especially their own writings. It does seem a rather good paraphrase, but still it's better to quote directly DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

There is an abundance of cites to allmusic.com at

• Yes. See
  Allmusic. Allmusic is published by a company with hundreds of employees, and its data has been licensed by well-known companies such as Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. See [8] for details. It's not a "self-published website" in the way that I would normally expect to see that term used. It's a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  03:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Metropolitan90! — GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A section of work (see here for the removed info) was recently removed from the

• The book appears on the list of reference books for Ian Fleming Publications. Ian Fleming Publications is Ian Fleming's family company, holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works, still connected to the Fleming family and the people who license the Bond name to Eon Productions, the people who bring us all the Bond films. They are, therefore, the official repository of all matters relating to Ian Fleming and James Bond.
• The preface for the Griswold book is written by
  ISBN 978-1-85799-783-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
  ));
• One of the forwards was written by Zoe Watkins, from the Fleming copyright holders, Ian Fleming Publications;
• The second forward was written by
  ISBN 978-1-85283-233-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
  ).
• The book has also been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 131-149(19) (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/155280109X368688)

These are all without looking at a number of references used by the mainstream fansites, MI6-hq.com and commanderbond.net. Short of an endorsement from a beyond-the-grave Fleming himself, I'm not sure what else is needed to verify the credibility of the book. -

The introduction to the removed text begins, "Independent scholar John Griswold constructed a "high-level chronology of James Bond's life"". It can't be denied that John Griswold's book is a reliable source for that statement. So this is not a reliability question at all. It's a notability and fair use question: is John Griswold's construction sufficiently notable for us to base our whole table on it, and are we using his work fairly if we do that?

Those are not questions for this board, but I'd say you have begun to show, with citations above, that his work is notable. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess one question I would have pertains to the forwards written. We should not presume that the forewords were offered out of the gushing eagerness of the writers, but rather because of a shared connection to the written material and (far more likely) renumeration for such. Were these forewords endorsements of the contents or indebtedness tot he material within? I put those in quotation marks because that refers precisely to the definition of such. If, for instance the person writing the foreword is simply comparing their material to that of Griswold, it isn't an endorsement. Neither is it if the foreword writer talks only about Bond. More than a few people claim to have pored over this book at length. Perhaps they could tell us more about the forwards, and we can better assess the reliability/notability/ fair use triple-threat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Are you happy that Griswold is a reliable source to use? Many thanks.

I'm only one editor -- others may well differ! I agree with Jack Sebastian that short forewords often don't mean much. However, in my view, in this context of describing a "fictional world", Griswold appears to have been accepted by some major authorities -- (a) the "proprietors", (b) one of the recent authors of the series, (c) some academics -- as a serious source. So I think he should be treated as reliable on this, and we can footnote one or two of the citations given above to show that he has been accepted as such.

We should definitely name him inline as our source (the removed text that I saw already did this). This is essential, both because we need to distinguish his information from that given by the series authors themselves, and also to give proper acknowledgement for our use of his work. Andrew Dalby 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed for your input. -

^ • @

) 11:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andrew. Do others concur with Dalby's assessment? The article is an FA, and I'd prefer that this discussion didn't come up again in a few weeks. Is there some other FA article precedent that someone can point to where a similar situation was resolved in a similar fashion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously being self-published usually rules out a source as an RS because they lack editorial oversight, and a foreward written by a notable Bond writer generally does not convey editorial oversight since forewards are often solicited and paid for. However, this text has been sanctioned by Ian Fleming Publications as an approved reference text for the novels: [9].
  WP:SELFPUBLISH does allow for exceptions and I think given that the source is being used in the article as an authority on Bond's chronology, and Ian Fleming Publications has approved it in that capacity, it seems reasonable to apply an exception to this particular book for this particular purpose. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, your link doesn't appear to point to an official sanctioning of the text, per se. Do you happen to have a source that says that they are sanctioned, or are you making a leap of logic here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's one of four books listed following the words "IFPL approved reference books". This is on the IFPL website. You are entirely right that the word "sanctioned" does not appear, but being on the site and listed under approved books is a sanctioning, and not a leap of logic. -

^ • @

) 07:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I hope this house of cards you've constructed doesn't cause a lot of collateral damage when it comes crashing down, my friend. My time is better spent elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

These are from the

Is there any indication that these graduate students have weighty views, ie, do they have an extensive publication history in scholarly journals or with scholarly publishers. Otherwise, regardless of reliability, I don't see how their opinion in an op ed. forum would be relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say that one of the editors emailed me and this is in response to that. She says "all the information in the Diwaniyya podcast and website is held to high academic standards and has been fact checked and approved by experts in Middle Eastern studies." but I've just emailed her asking her or her colleague to comment here. And suggested that they are in a good position to find sources already published in academic publications.

talk

) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah—not a great sign given that trivial facts used as asides in "wide ranging" opinion discussions are trivial to locate elsewhere; whereas novel opinions and concepts, the very purpose of wide ranging discussions, are "only reliable for their own opinions" and it becomes a matter of the opinion's weight. Even then, there's the tertiary point: scholars of Middle Eastern and African studies have a wide variety of scholarly outlets readily available to them that have the standard system of peer review; scholars publishing outside of this mode have suspicion levelled on them due to the appearance or potential for avoidance of the scholarly mode's scrutiny. We generally don't accept "personal correspondence" as proof of editorial policy or peer review here. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, this is Ben Silsbee, one of the co-producers at Diwaniyya. You are correct in stating that both of us are graduate students and we understand the COI issue. The podcast is a fully funded publication of the Moshe Dayan Center and receives the approval of the academics and guests involved as well as regular review for content from Professor Uzi Rabi, the director of our center. I would also like to clarify that the podcast is an academic product, NOT op-eds, as some users have indicated. The text, taken from our description, is press copy indicating that show topics are not necessarily tied into current events, as is the case with many other Dayan Center publications. The show is in an interview format with guests who have the extensive publication history necessary for relevance in an academic setting, such as Martin Kramer, Meir Litvak, Ofra Bengio, Liat Kozma, and many others. The rare episodes which do not feature senior researchers speaking about their researchers have been either expert interviews with figures such as Haaretz reporter Avi Issacharoff, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of Academic Affairs director Mahdi Abdul Hadi, or the occasional "man-on-the-street" style report, such as interviewing Christian Pilgrims at Christmas in Bethlehem.

I think for clarity purposes we need to distinguish again between the Diwaniyya blog and the podcast itself. In my opinion, the content of the podcast, which is on the record and sourced from either reliable academic sources or newsworthy subjects should not be considered op-ed. The blog, which is the text portion on www.diwaniyya.blogspot.com is written primarily by graduate students, and while it reflects current academic research in the given subject for wikipedia purposes I agree that the source article should be cited rather than the summary blog posts. With regards to the podcasts themselves, the benefits of citing these on a Wikipedia page are twofold: they are primary sources with regards to the research of the guests and are useful not only for research purposes on the subject at hand, but for historiography purposes, e.g. Washington Institute for Near East Policy Fellow Martin Kramer's work on Western views of Islamic reformer Jamal Al-din al-Afghani may be found in short form in his published work but are significantly augmented and clarified in the episode of the podcast in which he is a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catblender (talk • contribs)

In this context, they're still opinion pieces. While the website of the podcast claims to have editors, the website's editorial board is two individuals, one of whom is a research assistant. There's no indication of a fact checking policy on the website itself, and the object resembles (strangely enough) blogged podcasts and not a radio programme or recording of a keynote address at a peer reviewed conference. As I noted we do not accept personal correspondence from editors as a demonstration of an editorial policy. Opinions expressed in the podcast would be entirely dependent upon the weight of the person expressing the opinion, and would effectively need to be considered each in turn as an SPS published by the chief interviewee or speaker, depending entirely on their credentials. This is precisely what you get when you emit non-traditional research outputs and place a half-hearted about page on them. Even then, the interviewees would need to solidly and clearly meet SPS, because African and Middle Eastern study scholars of repute have easy and ready access to traditional output modes. And I'm still not happy with this, the format ("thought-provoking conversations on Middle East culture, history and politics") in no way resembles traditional scholarly outputs—and wikipedia very heavily privileges traditional scholarly outputs due their time proven efficacy. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Slave women were required mainly as concubines and menials. A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women." (from

WP:HISTRS and ask if this non-traditional output meets the standards of our goal sources in historical article writing. Fifelfoo (talk

) 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I have to agree with Fifelfoo's assessment here (although he may need a cup of relaxing herbal tea this morning ). Whether or not anything claimed from the podcasts is RS or not is going to fall directly onto the expertise of the person doing the speaking, and does that person qualify for an SPS exemption. I would also suggest a little more detail in any cites, linking a 31 minute podcast to listen for a single sentence about slave rights is not "super-helpful" (a very scholarly term!). It may be that over time these podcasts can develop into a reliable source, but for now, I would have to evaulate each speaker independently, and in context, to determine the RS-ness of each cite. It would also help if the opinions/comments from your guests were already published so as to avoid the idea that they are pressing any agenda. I don't think there is necessarily any COI issue here though. I would suggest that providing more details on your guests credentials, including published works, would go a long way towards helping your site be an RS source. Making editors here jump through hoops to prove something that may/may not have been said in a podcast is not going to help. Context is also very important, so I would strongly caution against adding any cites that aren't 100% clear on what your expert/guest is saying. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the point made by Fifelfoo above that broadcast discussions and lectures should be regarded, at best, like opinion pieces. They cannot be fact-checked. The broadcaster/host is relying on the notability of the speaker and on the speaker's general knowledge of the subject, not on accurate memory of specific details. So, when we cite them at all, we should be citing them because they are what someone notable said about a topic, and not treating them as a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have two sources:

• Davies, Norman (1998) , Europe: A History, Harper Perennial , ISBN: 978-0060974688; says "...recruitment drive for three Latvian divisions of the Waffen-SS. The men swore an oath 'to struggle against Bolshevism ' and 'to obey the commander-in-chief of the German armed forces, Adolf Hitler'." (see Appendix III, pp. 1326-7).

• Clemens Hemi here (page 159, ref 2) says: "Members of the Latvian Legion had to swear an oath on Hitler himself and against the “Bolshevik enemies” of their “homeland.” The German reads: “Ich schw¨are bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, dass ich im Kampf gegen die bolschewistischen Feinde meiner Heimat dem Obersten Befehlshaber der Deutschen Wehrmacht, Adolf Hitler, unbedingten Gehoram leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit fur diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen” (Sturm 2001: 45).

In connection to that, my question is: are these two sources reliable for the following statement:

"... they (Latvian Legionaries) took a personal oath on Hitler and against the “Bolshevik enemies” of their “homeland”.^[2][3] "

Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Davis (1998) is minimally reliable for established facts (cf: xii), which this appears to be. Hemi (2010) is entirely unacceptable as the review group is not the historical discipline, but a distinct non-historical in circle, "The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (JSA) is the peer-reviewed work of a select group of independent scholars who examine antisemitism in traditional and emerging forms. This group is not affiliated with any institution or financially dependent on a single source of funding. We have in common an understanding of antisemitism as a social pathology that must be eradicated. We are an educationally based concern." Their mission is non-historical. (They may be reliable elsewhere, but not for this). Ulrich's claims they're not peer reviewed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please elaborate on Davis a little bit more? Why he is minimally reliable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Its an overview work, with no use of primary sources, covering a long survey period in a large geographical reason, it isn't on topic in Latvian mid 20th Century war experience, and Davis notes that he doesn't cite the antecedents of the work because readers can look it up for themselves, see page xii of the preface. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is it unreliable for Latvia only, or in general?

My second question, is about this: Valdis O. Lumans. Latvia in World War II. Volume 11 of World War II. Volume 11 of World War II--the global, human, and ethical dimension. Fordham Univ Press, 2006,

ISBN 0823226271

, 9780823226276, which on the page 291 says:

"Latvian apologists also claim that, contrary to common SS practice, the Latvians excluded standard National Socialist ideology from their training, and, in contrast to Waffen-SS, Legion units provided Christian chaplains for spiritual care. Nevertheless, Latvians swore personal oath to the Fuhrer..."

Is it reliable to that statement, as well as about the statement about "Latvian apologists"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lumans (2006) is reliable, as a University Press published work of scholarly history in an edited series, for the personal oath to the Fuhrer; Lumans (2006) is also reliable regarding the characterisation of a particular narrative within Latvian social life as an "apologetic," and for the contents of that current's claim regarding the history of the Latvian SS. Country specific historians published in UPs or similar presses are the "go to" for the historiography and history of a location. The specific text used in article to characterise this is really a matter of discussion amongst editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Paul, Davies, per his original, is correct. Your construct (per Heni) adds words which are not in the oath and contradict Davies, nothing was sworn "on Hitler", instead, a promise was made in the name of God. Hitler is not God.

As for Heni, the Sturm oath he quotes is close to the German translation of the Latvian oath, but not quite. Regardless, I have provided the Latvian original, so why are we quoting German? Latvians are not Germans. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) On Heni, who are the peer reviewers? If all the "peers" believe that the purpose of commemorating the Latvian Legion is to glorify Arajs and other collaborators who murdered Jews in the Holocaust (a patently false and inflammatory claim), that isn't a very objective community. Arajs' crimes against humanity are well documented and universally acknowledged for what they are. Heni's piece from which you quote states the complete opposite, not only have Latvians not acknowledged Arajs' crimes against humanity, but the anti-Semitic lot of them including the government itself celebrate his contributions to eradicating Jewry. Heni's is an advocacy opinion piece, regardless of who reviewed it and gave it a "pass." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The peer review group for Heni (2010) is a group whose purpose in publishing is, a "common an understanding of antisemitism as a social pathology that must be eradicated," this is not an adequate peer review group for historical claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I understand you correct that Heni is not reliable for historical facts, but it is reliable for "antisemitism as social pathology"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo, thanks for that. Heni is completely entitled to express that any commemoration of any Waffen SS unit, from his perspective, is a glorification of Nazism and of the Holocaust. (That is, in fact, Zuroff's zero tolerance policy regarding the same.) Heni is not entitled, however, to contend as a fact that the Latvian populace and government are anti-Semites glorifying Arajs and his crimes against humanity. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not expressed any opinion on what Heni (2010) may be reliable for. It isn't reliable for Latvian history. Someone would need to suggest alternate uses of Hemi (2010) for alternate claims in potentially alternate articles. I would come down like a hammer on its use in history, broadly construed. The concept that anti-Semitism is a social pathology is an extremely non-standard claim in the social humanities—I would suggest that it is a FRINGE claim, as the concept of ideologies or group behaviours being "social pathology or disease" is not current methodologically or theoretically amongst social scientists. There may be obscure areas of theory for which a group of politically engaged individuals who frame anti-semitism in this sense may be reliable; but, the claim was a historical claim in a historical article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Source being used: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/timothy-bradley-and-the-1-million-worry-free-drug-testing-guarantee_060412/
2. Article:
   USANA Health Sciences
3. Content: Here is the diff being offered by User:Boydbastian  : diff

User Boydbastian is an insider with the company of the article. He brought to the communities attention that their "Athlete Guarantee Program" has evolved since its inception with the RS we currently have from Toledo Blade. The article above is an interview with Timothy Bradley about this weekend's Bradley vs. Pacquiano boxing match. On the surface, the source seems to have editorial oversight: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ - However, this source has been vehemently contested by the primary editor of this article as non-RS, SPS, and even went so far to say the company, Boydbastian, or myself must have paid this reporter to post an article that is "clearly promotional in nature".

If you'd like to read the entire talk banter it is here.

I'd like to get a read from the community on this source, and whether or not this is RS for Boxing news, which the news site appears to me to be.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate any independent community feedback.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why there is a problem taking the information directly from Usana's website. It seems the information is right there, plainly written and the site is RS for its statement of facts about its own company programs. Why are you even looking at other sites for this info? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor that has contested this updated wording does not want to use a Primary source since the article has a 2nd party RS that is quite a few years old that covers the details of the program. The editor that proposed the changes (a company insider), has said the program has evolved and expanded since the original RS newspaper article. This RS/N source as well as the http://www.boxingscene.com/bradleys-trainer-wanted-peterson-whip-khans-ass--52675 source agree with the company's wording in their annual report, but as we've pointed out to this editor, apparently their webmaster has not updated Usana's website to reflect the expanded program.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 06:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the diff provided, I don't see that text as being corroborated by the boxingscene source. The annual report obviously does backup these claims, although you have a definite copyvio problem, as it's an exact quotation of the report. That Annual Report is definitely RS for their program's stated limits/purposes/goals. Am I missing an element here? I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding why that's even being questioned, causing you to go looking for other sources, and bringing the question here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor contesting the addition typically rejects all 1st-party sources about any non-negative additions to the article, from the website or their SEC filings. After he asked for a 2nd party RS, that's when I dug up this proposed one proboxing-fans.com as well as boxingscene.com - any read from you on either of these 2 sources as far as passing the RS test?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for you to bang your head against that particular wall, the editor in question has apparently not read, or misread

WP:PRIMARY which states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". That is what this is. It is RS for the material you want to add, you do not need to placate an individual editor who chooses not to want that information from that source. There is no need to look at secondary sources here. In this case, the primary source is as authoritative as you can get, replacing that with those secondary sources weakens your source strength considerably. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If an editor doesn't like that, you don't have a content problem, you have a behaviour problem, and that problem is usually solved

there. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Euzen (talk · contribs) has been slowly edit-warring for several weeks to push an outdated, naive folk etymology into the Names of Istanbul article [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This is sourced to a mid-19th century work by a Greek writer called Scarlatos Byzantios, the author of a Greek dictionary and a book on the history of Constantinople. Byzantios, while still occasionally quoted on matters of general history, is utterly outdated with respect to his linguistics: he had no knwledge of what in his lifetime was the emerging modern academic discipline of historical linguistics, and continued the centuries-old practice of guesswork "etymologies" that were essentially made up on the spot, on the basis of chance resemblances with any modern word in any language a writer cared to think of. Moreover, in his days, there had not been any serious study of Balkan placename histories yet. The foundational works on Thracian, Illyrian and other similar substrate languages in SE European toponyms were written only in the 20th century. The current academic consensus is that the name in question here (Lygos), just like most other old toponyms in the area, is of Thracian origin. Byzantios in 1851 could not possibly have had anything pertinent to say about this, because the whole discipline on which such judgments are based was not yet developed.

Euzen clearly isn't willing to listen, and I frankly have no patience to discuss furthern with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is convincing. I would tend to agree with you, assuming what you say is accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. is right that etymologies developed before the mid 19th century cannot be taken as accurate. We should report the modern consensus, and, if necessary, any current disagreements among specialists; we should not cite older speculation as if it were equally valid. Andrew Dalby 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude all folk etymologies (the nature of which are somewhat mischaracterised by FPAS as 'made up on the spot') just because they don't match up with current scholarship. Historical understandings and culturally rooted interpretations of these names would seem to have just as much a place in the article as the current scholarly analysis as long as they are flagged appropriately (this can easily be done) and as long as they were influential or widely accepted in their own time (I think Euzen would have to show that this is not just some etymology but one that had some significance in the past). As a non-etymologist reader of this article I would be equally interested to read this information if it had some historical significance as I would be to read the current scholarly take on things. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback BothHands. In a toponym you may find a historical significance or not depending on your education and culture and your patience to discuss with other WPists. For your information, there was one more town/area called Lygos or Lygestis in Macedonia, today partly in Greece and in the Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia. The first is mentioned by Thoukydides (4.83.2 in relation to the Peloponnesian Wars), Strabo (7.7.8) and Livius (26.25.4 and 31.33.6). It is called Lygestis by Ptolemy (Geogr. 3.13.30). You may find etymologically/semantically usefull the fact that:

• There are plants bearing these names (with some latinization), e.g. Manettia lygista or M. lygistum var. lygistoides and
  Lygos
  .
• The plant Lygos is called lygaria or lygia in modern Greek, and is again a common toponym (e.g. Aegean Macedonia names & toponyms, p. 96. --Euzen (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that superceded old pseudo-etymologies might be mentioned if they were of lasting influence or otherwise significant, but we don't have any evidence that this was the case here; only this one source, in which the claim is merely made in passing, was brought forward. "Flagging" it as outdated is also problematic, since it would easily cross the line into OR: this belongs to the class of fringe claims that are so fring-y and so insignificant that modern sources don't even bother to refute them. As such, the only feasible way of treating it seems to be to ignore it, as even mentioning it would mean giving undue weight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no reason to think that it was significant even in its own time then I would agree that it should be excluded. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other side, I agree that if an etymological speculation has been really influential in the past -- if it made history, so to speak -- it is worth mentioning on those grounds. (Forgive me for being pedantic, though -- this is not folk etymology. The name's confusing, but folk etymology is a totally different thing.) Andrew Dalby 11:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Searching for the name "Scarlatos Byzantios" in Google, brings up a whopping 542 hits, almost all of which seem to be self-references, nothing indicating notability (please note that google hits of themselves are *not* indicators of what should and should not be used on WP, that's not what I'm saying here). There does not appear to be much literature or scholarly work that I can find that uses Scarlatos Byzantios as a reference either. I think there are big problems with

WP:IDHT might be going on too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who believe that Fut.Perf's concern is purely linguistic and not at all ethnic: The ref. to Sc.Byzantios's doesn't say that "this is THE etymology" but "according to". F.P., with all his linguistic fervour, or anyone else, did not supply any other etymology of the name Lygos. Besides, this is not exactly an "etymology", as the name is identical with it's assumed source. I had added to the article (see discussion) one more reference, linking the name Lygos with the root of other names like Lygii, Ligures and Lugdunum (EYÜPSULTAN SYMPOSIA I - VIII : SELECTED ARTICLES p. 221.) published by an internationally accepted contemporary Turk professor. However, this publication doesn't support the view that Fut.Perf. likes, that Byzantium is of "Thracian" origin and connects it with a homeric word. Unfortunately, this online publication obviously has been attacked by hackers who added a nonsense, that some christian saints of 4th c. are ... muslims. That was perfect for F.P. who erase the reference to the name. At the same time he (F.P.) promotes as a source a Popist priest who's job was to promote Unia in the Balkans (a church referring to a certain nation of the Balkans, who's national mythology absorbs most of F.P's interest) ([22]) and who (Janin) does not give his sources supporting a "thracian etymology" of Lygos. For those who don't know, there are no "Thracian" texts and no serious scientist would claim that he knows about Thracian language(s) any more than some isolated names and words. Just for the history, Unia's only opponent is the Greek Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
N.B. All the above said, I have no bad feelings for F.B. We both know that "Our names is our souls" as Odysseas Elytis said.  :) --Euzen (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, work on pre-Roman and pre-Greek etymologies is bound to stray towards speculation, is likely to be controversial, may be swayed by national feelings, and is highly specialised. All the more reason for us to limit ourselves to citing modern scholarship (including controversies). Andrew Dalby 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see then what modern scholarship thinks about Sk. Byzantios. I cite here some contemporary (post-WWII) scholarly works referencing Sc. Byzantios. The name is variantly found also as Skarlatos, Scarlatus, Vyzantios, Byzantius. I excluded Greek authors, as they could be biased by national feelings.
Noticeably, he is cited as a source on ambiguous or rare words and on proposed etymologies, as in:

• The iliad of homer, p. 74 (undated. Maybe an old edition reprinted)
• [http://books.google.gr/books?ei=EIHUT93uH6OU4ATlp8m6Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&hl=el&id=oWlp40G_vdMC&dq=Scarlatos+byzantios&q=Byzan#search_anchor Notes and queries, Oxford Journals (Firm) p. 46 (snippet)
• On his proposition of an etymology

Echos d'Orient: revue bimestrielle de théologie ... , 1971, vol. 22. “Scarlatos Byzantios a proposé une etymologie moins fantaisiste ... “

• A name forgotten by other lexikographers but preserved by Sc. Byzantios:

Pierre Cabanes (1993) Actes du IIe Colloque international de Clermond-Ferrand, 5-27 octobre 1990, Volume 2: “On conservera donc le nom d' Amphineus, fils d'Hector, qui est généralement oublié dans les lexiques (à l'exception de quelques raretés, comme le vieux dictionnaire de Scarlatos Byzantios, où nous l'avons dépisté) et pour cela est resté ...”

• His work characterized as “Une des sources principales grecques sur l' Istanbul du XIXe siecle, l' ouvre monumentale de Skarlatos Vyzantios, ....”: Matthias Kappler (2002) Turkish language contacts in South-Eastern Europe
• Included in a list of scholarly authors on Constantinople (In which R. Janin, - a favourite of F.P's references in this article - is NOT included): Encyclopaedia britannica, 1956, vol.6
  

But R. Janin does refer to Byzantios:Constantinople byzantine, by R. Janin, p. 259 :)
In some other works:

• Oströmische Plastik der Theodosianischen Zeit, By Johannes Kollwitz, p. 77
• History and archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor, 1990, p. 165
• Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina, Università di Bologna, Istituto di antichità ravennati e bizantine, 1963, pp. 225, 231. Here is mentioned as the first of a historical hypothesis (concerning Constantinople) that was later accepted by others.
• Revue des études byzantines, Volumes 51-52, p. 114
• Byzantion: revue internationale des études byzantines, Volume 39, p. 421
• Actes du XVe congrès international d'études byzantines, Athènes, Septembre 1976, Volume 4, p. 213
  
• Paul Stephenson (2010) The Byzantine World, p. 455
• Reference in the classic
  Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft encyclopaedia: 1957 edition, Vol. 23, Part 1, p. 271

After this, I propose that his opinion on the origin of toponym "Lygos" be included in the article as "According to..." or "Sk. Byz. claimed that...", possibly adding "a view that is not to be found in other sources", adding of course any other opinion on this toponyme (as controversial or not).
--Euzen (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, this will be my last comment. Given the fair level of respect for Byzantios's work among later scholars, which you have shown, I think it's reasonable to mention his proposed etymology with some such wording as you suggest. If there is an etymology proposed by a more recent scholarly source, we should be sure to give the recent work more weight.

My personal view, having looked at the sources, is that no one has much idea when this place-name Lygos was used, or by whom, or why. Also (again a personal view) no one really, really knows the origin of the Greek word lygos =

agnus castus. It is not a ridiculous idea to link the two -- but it is and will surely always be unverifiable. Andrew Dalby

09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing in what Euzen has brought forward shows a "fair level of respect" to Sk.B.'s etymological work in recent scholarship. Competent writers in the field know that nobody, absolutely nobody, could have had anything relevant to say about etymologies of this type at the time Sk.B. was writing. It's like quoting a medieval author's opinion about the nature of the solar system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories. But what we don't do is cite Aristotle or Ptolemy in articles about physics in general, only about the history thereof. It's the difference between

significance. With regards Scarlatos Byzantios, if he is still cited in modern times, it sounds like we should have an article about him, and describe his work there. But if this origin of Lygos claim has not been made since, and was given hardly any attention even by Byzantios himself, it seems fairly insignificant. It should also be noted that even when an individual is highly regarded in a field, specific claims that have been rejected or absolutely ignored should still be left out of articles covering the mainstream modern understanding. Someguy1221 (talk

) 07:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Apart from our opinions, do we have any source supporting another etymology or claiming that Sk. Byzantios was wrong? 2) Apart from Pliny, do we have other ancient author or an archaeological finding claiming that the old name of Byzantium was "Lygos"? Certainly we don't, therefore, following Someguy's reasoning, we should delete that paragraph.
Btw, in saying "Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories ... only about the history thereof", Someguy gave me a good idea: A history of etymological opinions on Istanbul. Or "Lygos, a toponym and it's history". Thanks Someguy, this is some idea. --Euzen (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1) We have a reliable source arguing it was likely Thracian, and we have a not-quite-so-reliable one (the Özbayoğlu paper you found) that links it to a family of Indo-European placenames across Europe, suggesting a common IE root *lug or similar (unlike what you seemed to believe when you first cited the paper, that does not contradict the Thracian hypothesis, nor does it constitute a "Greek" counter-hypothesis. Proto-IE roots may be behind both Greek and Thracian, which after all were reasonably closely related with each other.) According to your own summary of the Özbayoğlu paper (which I can't check right now because it is currently offline), the meaning of that root may have been related to "swampy region". Suggestions like that are pretty common fare in placename studies, so even though I don't trust the paper overly much, it's not implausible. I don't remember if there was something about it in Georgacas.

2) No, I don't think any other ancient source besides Pliny has an attestation of "Lygos". So what? We are not using Pliny as an authority on etymology (which would be ridiculous); he is used (not by us, but by the reliable literature) as a source attesting to the existence of the name.

A separate article on the toponym "Lygos" will hardly fly, because there's too little content for it. That's why it's merged into the Names of Istanbul article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

F.P. I admire your ability to turn everything upside-down. Janin (the "reliable") is not talking about a "Thrakian name" but the name of a possible "Thrakian settlement" attested (the name) by a Roman author about 8 centuries after it was supposedly used. So, the one source (janin) does not contradict the other (Byzantios), for the same reason that today Ankara is a Turkish settlement but has a Greek name.
A separate article on the toponym(s) will certainly have more material and encyclopedic interest than, e.g., the series of one-line articles on the mayors of Elbasan, like this Hafez Musa Ali Basha, which you are requested to review when we are done with Lygos.
--Euzen (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is everyhit.com a

In what context? See the instructions above the edit window. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically,

They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act.[348]

[348] of course being a cite to everyhit.com — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, find the entire website suspicious as far as reliability goes. The webmaster has clearly put a lot of work into it, but it remains an amateur project. Who is the guy who maintains the website? Is he a recognized expert in the field? Why doesn't he give any sources for the mountains of information he displays? Is everyhit.com cited by industry mags as a reliable source, demonstrating a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? My impression is that it is not a reliable source for anything at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

May be useful and informative, but by WP standards, this site is not RS for the quote given. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The source in question:

http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=gdjh&searchTerm=ehHQ.EDXa.aadi.YcOU&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

I edit was removed and it was cited that "no primary sources) (undo)" and "- you've already been told this is unacceptable per policy) (undo)"

The WP:Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kimberlin&diff=497145663&oldid=497142780

Also note that the same person that undid this edit says in the talk page that "And there's nothing "notable" about naming a senator in a lawsuit."

You would think people name US Senators in lawsuits all the time. Well they don't.

Mattsky (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to this editor by more than one person, citing only to the court record (an unpublished opinion) violates

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Apparently, that hasn't penetrated.--Bbb23 (talk

) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mattsky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In relation to legal documents, court cases are

original research which we do not allow. The source isn't reliable for any claim, as it would require original research to draw a conclusion from it. Appropriate sources for a biography of a living person in relation to their legal life would be newspaper reports, television reports, radio reports, scholarly journal articles, books published by commercial or scholarly presses with a reputation for fact checking, or chapters in such books. In particular, for legal significance, the appropriate sources are legal journals, especially scholarly legal journals. Fifelfoo (talk

) 02:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mattsky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm Fifelfoo with some footnotes. Most sources can be useful for something, even primary ones, but that something might not be notable, as per

WP:BLP). In other words primary sources are good for certain uses, but not for complex conclusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To put all this another way: Yes, the source is Primary... but this does not mean it is unreliable. The reliability of primary sources depends on context (ie what they are being used for). If you look at the diff provided, the primary source in question is being used to support two statements: 1) that a lawsuit was filed, and 2) that it was dismissed for a particular reason. The source (a transcription of the official court record) is indeed reliable for these two statements (indeed, I would say it is the most reliable source for these statements).

That said, the fact that a statement is supported by a reliable source does not mean the statement must (or even should) be included in the article. Reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion/exclusion of material... There are many other policies and guidelines that affect if, when, and how we discuss things. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The document says a lot more than "dismissed in DC's district court for failure to state a claim", there's an entire paragraph of reasoning there. I'm not a legal scholar , but it seems to me that there was more involved than only that one issue. To use this source to claim that one thing alone is definitely out of context, cherry-picking. This would be another good reason we don't use court documents, they aren't written in english, they're written in legalese, and we aren't experts in that. It's reliable for dates, and people involved only. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, the reference WAS being used solely to establish that a lawsuit was filed and then dismissed. An editor wanted to exclude that fact from the article, and used various objections to different sources as a vehicle to do so, despite consensus to the contrary on the article's talk page. Belchfire (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the lawsuit was dismissed that is problematic here, it is the inclusion of the text that purports to claim *why* it was dismissed, using that primary document. That part is not ok. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Source states in reference to the death toll of the 1929 Palestine riots: In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots." Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64

I seek third party opinion on whether to interpret this to mean that of the predominantly British inflicted Arab deaths (universally accepted), Jews killed specifically seven people, or does this mean that Jews killed at least seven people? Ankh.Morpork 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to interpret without knowing what source you are referring to. Author and year is not a sufficient citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This source. There are discrepancies in the sources regarding the fatalities so would like input on this particular source. The BBC does not cover this aspect in the breakdown of figures. Ankh.Morpork 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You should not be interpreting the source, that's

WP:OR. If the source is unclear, you should quote it with an inline citation, such as "Mathews says that the deaths "includ[ing] seven victims of Jewish murders" totalled 133 Jews and 116 Arabs".[cite]" Or something to that effect. Better to find a clearer source if there is controversy over that one. If you have multiple sources, go with consensus, if this author's view is particularly relevant, note that too. Personally, I read that to mean they have a verified 7 deaths, and while there might be more, they are sure of 7, ergo for our purposes, "specifically" 7. But by the letter of policy, that's my interpretation only. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Despayre's analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathews says that the Arab deaths includes 7 murders by Jews. But I think it is OR to take the next step and use her as a source to say the totality of the Arab deaths from Jewish murderers was 7, because this is not what the source is saying. As well as that Mathews says "in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots", but I don't see how you can take from that statement that all the casualties from the suppression of the riots were caused by non-Jews. Mathews doesn't make a call on the ethnicity of those that killed Arabs in suppressing the riots, so you can't use her as a source to make exact claims about the ethnic responsibility of the killings during the riots. Dlv999 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're arguing against what I said, or you just over-indented your comments, but you're saying the same thing that I am, which is that the source is unclear, and should not be interpreted. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that greater context is required so I have tried to list the other views on this issue. If I took this too far, I apologise. Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary: [comparative source weighting from a variety of sources]

Proposed text: "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232 while trying to suppress the riots, and some sources stated that six Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources indicating seven."

The concern is how to present the Jewish inflicted Arab death toll. Some sources state 6, the BBC cites 110 caused by British police (from a seemingly agreed upon 116 total), and other sources indicate indirectly that the figure might have been higher. I have tried to achieve a formulation that covers both these viewpoints. Is it acceptable?

This issue has been contentious and ongoing for a while and many of the regular I-P editors have already expressed an opinion. I appreciate that I may have worded my query inaccurately and of course I have no objections to anyone pointing this out, but ideally I would prefer third party comment only and even better would be strictly comment from editors that do not edit I-P topics at all (Wishful thinking, I know). Thank you

Death toll:

• BBC - A History of Conflict - "... in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police."
• A History of Israel by Ahron Bregman - "In a week of disturbances, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs, 60 in Hebron alone, and 339 others were injured; the Jews killed 6 Arabs and British police killed 110 and wounded 232."

Title: A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories

Author: Ahron Bregman

Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

Page:24

• It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah by Marlin Levin - "Arabs killed 133 Jews and wounded 330, British police killed 110 Arabs and wounded 232 and the Jews killed 6 Arabs."

Title: It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah

Author: Marlin Levin

Contributor: Esther Kustanowitz

Publisher: Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2002

• The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict by Martin Gilbert - "Attacks on Jews quickly spread through Palestine...133 Jews had been killed and 339 wounded. Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence"

Titre: The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases

Auteur: Martin Gilbert

Éditeur: Routledge, 2005

• The
  Shaw Report
  of March 1930 - "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured" and "Many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces." It discusses an individual attack: "In this quarter there occurred the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed."
• Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict by Benny Morris - "Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"
• Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine by Weldon Mathews - "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots"

Title: Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History

Author: Weldon C. Matthews

Publisher: I.B.Tauris, 2006

A description of an individual attack

• - "In Jerusalem, Haifa and other places, a Jewish "mob" avenged itself on the Arabs, killing men, women, and children and lynching passersby; in Jaffa, an imam and six other people were murdered in a mosque, and the mosque itself was burned to the ground. In Jerusalem the Ukasha shrine in the Jewish Zikhron Moshe neighbourhood was severely damaged."

Title: A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press

Authors: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman

Translated by: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman

Publisher: Princeton University Press, 2008

Subsequent trials

• "The Jewish policeman Simchas Hinkis was convicted for the murder of five and wounding of two when a mob broke into a house between Tel Aviv and Jaffa to avenge the murder of six Jews. Joseph Urphali was convicted by two separate trials, and lost his appeal twice, for the shooting of two Arabs from the roof of his Jaffa house."

This is an excerpt from the Wiki article with the following sources cited of which I have not been able to locate and directly quote from.

Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. 7 February 1930, New York Times: p. 9. 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Ankh.Morpork 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full scholarly citations. Author (Year) "Sub-work title if required" Work title Place published: Publisher, page range or URL. You're asking a hell of a lot here, have the courtesy to supply the information required to do the job. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As Ank has explained the rational for his proposal I shall briefly explain the rational for opposing the proposal then allow third party editors to opine. The main issue I see with AnkhMorpork's proposal is that the three sources that he relies on for the claim of 6 Arabs killed by Jews are all tertiary sources, none of them cite references or provide footnotes for their claims. Two of the sources are popular history books, the third is an "atlas" of the conflict (which basically provides maps, with one sentence summaries of important events in the conflict). I don't consider any of these to be high quality sources. What is more the 6 figure is contradicted by a number of high quality academic sources, the official British report into the riots which states that in the worst case of Jewish attacks 7 Arabs were killed, as well as the court cases following the riots in which Jews were convicted of 7 murders. None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity and I think our article should be based on these sources. Also the suggested edit intended for insertion into the lead, where it will contradict well sourced information from the article body. Dlv999 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Using
  WP:HISTRS
  to summarise the purposes and reasons for these findings:
  • [Staff] (no date) "Arab Discontent" BBC News: not reliable, non-scholarly tertiary.
  • Ahron Bregman (2003) A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories [Series] Palgrave Macmillan. Academic but aimed at a general audience (xviii), meets the minimum reliability criteria expected around controversial history.
  • Marlin Levin (2002) The Story of Hadassah Gefen Publishing House Ltd. Nope, this is a biography and a primary source; written by a non-historian, and not scholarly in nature
  • Martin Gilbert (2005) The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases Routledge. Nope. Non scholarly tertiary source.
  • Shaw Report (1930). Nope. Primary. Use for history would be OR.
  • Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict by Benny Morris. Please supply full scholarly citations.
  • Weldon C. Matthews (2006) Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History [Series] I.B. Tauris. Reliable for proposed use. Scholarly work by a specialist historian A/Prof.
  • Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman (2008) A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press. Reliable for proposed use. Scholarly press, Krämer is a chair at the Free University and her selection of this incident as "characteristic" or exemplary indicates its importance.
  • "Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately.
  • 7 February 1930 New York Times: p. 9. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately.
  • 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please clarify why you consider Martin Gilbert to be non scholarly, or is this a characterization of the source?Ankh.Morpork 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly Tertiary sources resemble SAGE's encyclopaedia, they are aimed at scholars and are by scholars. While there are scholarly atlases, this is not a scholarly atlas. Scholarly atlases tend to be restricted to world history, especially world history prior to the 16th century. They represent large scale socio-economic findings, and present agricultural materials spreads in large scale comprehensible forms. It has gone through 8 editions (ie: it presents normal research to the public in a form specifically designed for general rather than scholarly consumption), and has no scholarly introduction seating the work in its literature or context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert is an esteemed historian with a host of scholarly work to his name and although this book may be addressed at a wider audience, his statement is quite clear in identifying the figures. He explains here the revisions. WP:HISTRS states that historical scholarship may include university level textbooks that summarize the scholarly literature and popular equivalents of the above published by historians who normally publish in the scholarly mode and presents similar examples. Does this not apply here? I am unable to provide further information on Morris, this source was provided by my disputant and I cannot access it online. Ankh.Morpork 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a very clear "may." Some monographs are marketed as textbooks. Acceptable textbooks are those which are monographic in nature, rather than pedagogical in nature. For an example, consider Connell and Irving, Class structure in Australian History which has been set as a text book and includes primary sources as reading material, but whose primary purpose is to advance scholarly knowledge. You're really not going to get me to change my opinion on Gilbert as I considered the source at length before responding; other RS/N editors may have other opinions. If you seek specific review of Gilbert, break it out into its own section below. Regarding your disputant's failure to supply citation details for Morris: that which is not a source (ie: is not cited adequately) cannot be reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Another source:

Christopher Sykes, 1965, Cross Roads to Israel: Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, New English Library (no ISBN; later editions will have one): "In the whole course of the rising 133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded, 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded. All the Jewish casualties were due to Arab action, and all the Arab ones to police action except for six killed in a Jewish counter-attack between Tel Aviv and Jaffa" (p119). Sykes was a diplomat in the region, son of Sir Mark Sykes. The book is widely cited, described on our page about Sykes as "classic". Sykes does not give his source, but the book is largely based on Zionist and Israeli state archives, and documents of the British Colonial and Foreign Offices. RolandR (talk

) 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case the resemblance of the text to standard history (including its archival origins) and its later celebration by historians through wide citation would make it okay. Again, refer to

WP:HISTRS for how a professional equivalence is constructed. Fifelfoo (talk

) 00:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Roland, that's a good source, but has an ambiguity. At one point, while awaiting reinforcements, Luke's auxiliary police were assisted by former Jewish members of the British army, and rejoined to that force, undertook reprisals on the Arab population, killing some 4 Arab Christians in Jerusalem, to cite one example. That, done as part of official (British) police action does not appear to figure in the statistical breakdown sources like these try to provide. There is more than one case of this (see Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2 2002 p.177)Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not offering any comment on the accuracy of the sources, or on the historical facts. I merely examined my bookshelf, and this was the one book I found which discussed the event in detail. Sykes also makes an unequivocal statement. He may of course be mistaken, and sources such as the one you cite could be more accurate, but we cannot judge. If there are conflicting reliable sources, the article should note this without attempting to adjudicate between them. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While I applaud the effort to improve the quality of history sources, I don't agree with all of Fifelfoo's judgments. It is certainly true that newspapers are bad sources for history, but they are not bad sources for news. So when a contemporary newspaper reports that someone was found guilty of some crime in a court, it is fine to note it unless there is a quality secondary source that denies it. In this case there is a fine academic source noting the fact of the convictions and only some details are taken from the contemporary newspapers with no interpretation. It fits the "purely illustrative purposes" section of

Where are you deriving the conclusion that this incident bears any historical weight from? Whole cloth. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also simply not true that use of sources like official reports is OR. Zero^talk 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Official reports that are 90 years old require interpretation in order to produce meaning from them. A report issued this year has an immediacy, a lack of historicity, that means that the interpretive frameworks immediately available to encyclopaedia edits are valid. In relation to British government documents produced in the 1930s the same does not bear, and the direct use by wikipedia of these is interpretive. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The OR could refer to the deduction of an overall death tally by analysing and compiling the reportage of individual events, which is what another editor suggested.

"Attacks on Jews quickly spread through Palestine...133 Jews had been killed and 339 wounded. Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence" p.13

Title: The Arab-Israeli conflict: its history in maps

Auther: Martin Gilbert

Publisher: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984 Ankh.Morpork 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an early edition of the same work would elicit a different opinion. If you're really committed to Gilbert and want another opinion, just start a new section specifically dealing with them and I'll see if I can't hunt up other RS/N editors to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert is good on Churchill and many other things, but very poor on the Middle East, where he follows a standard partisan interpretation, and ignores contemporary scholarship. He states that 59 people were murdered at Hebron in 1929, for example: the accepted figure ranges from 64/65 to 67. When he writes:-

Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence

,

any area historian would remind him that others put the figure at 136, and that in noting the Jewish injured, he ignores the Arabs reportedly wounded, some 240, a figure which, like the Second Intifada figures, is a probably significant underestimate (Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2, Fayard, Paris, 2002 p.179) because the Palestinians to this day hide and care for many of their wounded secretly, out of fear that, if hospitalized for proper care, these people will end up on a police file as terrorists, bystanders mere demonstrators, or not.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general principle in encyclopedia writing, I think one should aim at the most neutral, less-blame-picking sources, sources that are not written to hammer home a victimization or culpability thesis. Several historians quoted give the killing statistics (which all vary in details) and don't, as the editor proposes, try to finesse this by assigning who did what to whom ethnically. Note how Benny Morris gets this right:-

"Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"

That at least shows great sensitivity to the complexities, and an eye for neutral but informed evaluation. Our aim should be to choose sources that give the essential facts, not sources which, while providing them, use language that is cued to tilt the passions of the readership.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not just keep posting the sources until you get someone to agree to your preconceived opinions on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) diff

Isn't that what you're doing? The lead of the article currently does not include a piece of information which no historian disputes, which is that the vast majority of Jews killed were killed by Arabs, while a small minority of Arabs killed were killed by Jews. Is there a single source that contests this? Perhaps sources disagree whether it was 6 or 7 or 8, but the fact remains it was a small minority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. Was just wondering about this source: [23]. It's all a bit too techy for me to understand, but as I understand it it's a huge database of information relating to the Commodore 64. A new editor recently created this article, and sourced the website heavily. I removed the content as I don't consider it to be reliable - on this page of the website, it states under "Information" that:

All the information in CSDb is submitted and maintained by the registered users of the database. The CSDb staff cannot manually check all the information coming into the database, so please report any form of abuse to us.

As all the information is user-submitted and not uniformly reviewed/moderated/verified by any kind of editorial team it seems pretty clear to me that it's not a reliable source. However, the author contacted me and asked for clarification, and so I said I would get a third opinion.

As per

WP:RS this is clearly not a RS site. It may have lots of accurate information, but it should not be used for anything contentious, and if it's all user-based input, they're getting it from somewhere else, find that "somewhere else". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Despayre's reasoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

The author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics asked me on my talk page whether the various US state department of education websites and documents discussing the Quantile Framework are acceptable sources, in particular:

• Kentucky Department of Education: graphic and article
• North Carolina: news release and report
• West Virginia department of education: article
• Wyoming DOE: assessment reports

My understanding is that they are primary sources, and while they can be used with care (in particular to verify that those states do use the Quantile Framework), they cannot establish the Quantile Framework's notability. Am I correct? Huon (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would these be primary sources? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean specifically in regards to their use in those states? They aren't primary sources on the Quantile Framework. They are RS to support that those states use them, yes. In terms of using them to establish notability, I'd like a little more context for the question. If enough states use it, and their edu websites say so, notability is de facto established, but you do want to be very careful to avoid OR in that circumstance. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the states report on their own use of the Framework, how would that be a secondary source? It's not some sort of independent review or evaluation. The context for the notability question is the article draft: These are prominent among the sources supposed to show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" per the

GNG. To my understanding, being in use (and having primary sources confirming that) is not enough to establish notability when no secondary sources report on the use. Huon (talk

) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the state didn't participate in the creation of the framework, and didn't fund the creation of the framework before they adopted it, then deciding to use it would be an independent evaluation. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Huon (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What Jc3s5h said... -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You might like to read

WP:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello.

Please review the post I made on the talk page (diff). Discussion can continue here, but it is preferred there. Thanks very much. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No source was cited on the second statement in concern. The first statement states "allegedly", the second statement is more definite. The reference appears to have a more definite tone to it, however, there may be other references cited in the article that point to possible deception rather than definite deception. Please provide a second opinion. I do not wish to make changes with the knowledge I have so far. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited:

A quick look through available sources seems to indicate that the latter quote is correct, and that the former quote was correct, until the lawsuit has finished, which it now has. I don't have time right now to track down an RS source for it at the moment, although there's an article on Ars Technica here that probably works as a source for that second quote. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the page to the best of my ability. See this diff. Thanks. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good, sourced, copyedit to me. If anyone else on that article doesn't like that source, there were plenty of others to choose from, that one is probably fine though. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Source: Heroes & Villains a "coffee table" book containing photos by David Steen. Only 350 copies were produced. Everything in the book is by David Steen, except the forward is by Roger Moore.

Article: David Steen (photographer)

Content: "Steen’s other subjects, featured in his published book of photographs, include: Burt Lancaster[2], John Hurt[2], Dirk Bogarde[2], Dudley Moore and Peter Cook[2], the Rolling Stones[2], the Beatles[2], Robert Mitchum[2], Richard Harris[2], Ian Fleming[2], Orson Welles[2], John Cleese[2], Michael Caine[2], Truman Capote[2], Noël Coward[2], Pete Townshend[2], Lester Piggott[2], Rudolf Nureyev[2], James Coburn[2], Tom Jones[2], Somerset Maugham[2], Harold Robbins[2], Robert Shaw[2], Brian Epstein[2], Cliff Richard[2], Marc Bolan[2], Peter O’Toole[2], Bill Wyman[2], Harrison Ford[2], Roger Daltrey[2], Jack Palance[2], David Niven[2], Mickey Rooney[2], Saul Bellow[2], Evelyn Waugh[2], Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond[2], El Cordobes[2], Jason Robards[2], Terence Conran[2], Sammy Davis Jr[2], Graham Hill[2], Donald Sutherland[2], Bobby Moore[2], Ringo Starr[2], Pierce Brosnan[2], Alex ‘Hurricane’ Higgins[2], James Mason[2], Sir Ralph Richardson[2], Tom Stoppard[2], President Tito[2], Placido Domingo[2], Julie Christie[2], Twiggy[3][4], Sophia Loren[2], Ingrid Bergman[2], Jane Seymour[2], Bianca Jagger[2], Elizabeth Taylor[2], Britt Ekland[2]."

Question: My understanding is that book by a person cannot be used for claims about 3rd parties.

There is also the Amazon refs in the article that are sourcing that a photo inside the book is by Steen, but the Amazon refs never mentions Steen. I know this is clearly out of bounds, but article's author thinks otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that much of the disputed information is biographical. A primary source is appropriate for biographical information; however, caution must be used. I don't know what to do about the Photographs of the Famous section. The book would be reliable; however, I don't know if the section listing every person is necessary, but that is a content dispute. The early career section should be pared down. Things like "My mum and dad were very proud." are not necessary. I assume he is using the book as a source for that as well and in text citations should be used. Paragraphs like

On sunny days mothers would leave their babies in prams outside their homes and, to earn extra money, Steen would borrow a camera, photograph the babies, and have the pictures printed at a chemist shop. He would pay a shilling a print and then knock at the door of the mother and sell her a photo of her baby for two shillings.

Are less appropriate to source with the book, while information on his career as an army photographer is appropriate; however, "had accomplished an immense amount of travel and photography" cannot be sourced to the book since it would require secondary coverage. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the biographical info as I know that is ok. I'm only asking about the 3rd parties. FYI... the early career has been trimmed down by several editors, but reverted. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think a book authored by David Steen would be an acceptable primary source for biographical content about himself, in the way an autobiography would be, although secondary sources are preferred since people often embellish accounts of their own lives; probably not ok for specific claims about other people. It would also be an acceptable primary source for the content of the book i.e. stating that it contains a photograph of Julie Christie, because a reader can verify that by checking the book. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Betty here - his book is an acceptable primary source. I would try to find a second source (at least) for most of the claims, if possible, and the tone should certainly be changed. As for the list of photo subjects, that's clearer - they should be kept. The pictures of those subjects, who have articles of their own, are his main claim to fame, are they not? Personally, because of how many there are, I would branch a list article for them, but that is neither here nor there.  The Steve  09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many photographers of celebs. Some of these photographers put out books of photos of celebs. Some of these books appear in editions of five thousand or more, from established publishers (Phaidon, etc). A list of the celebs photographed in such a book hardly seems encyclopedic. I don't understand why a list of the celebs photographed in a self-published edition of 350 is any more encyclopedic. (Especially as I've seen plenty of photos of these people elsewhere. Now, if the book verifiably contained photos of Howard Hughes, J D Salinger and Thomas Pynchon, it would be a different matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but its not a list of celebs in a book (or at least it shouldn't be), its a list of the photographer's subjects as part of his biography. The book is the primary source showing a lot of those subjects. It isn't necessary to list them all, of course, but because they are famous in their own right, it is certainly acceptable.  The Steve  10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Would this be considred reliable for listing genres for the article http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,8976881,00.html Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Allmusic.com, the actual source, is, yes. This website, no. Go find the review on allmusic, and that can be used (there's a clue hidden somewhere in this answer ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Allmusic was dismissed for Genres Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Genres are a little bit subjective, but allmusic is an industry standard site that employs all the editorial expertise we like to see. However, I would not use it to exclude a genre, merely as a source to say that they said it *was* a certain genre. Know what I mean Vern? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I understand now Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Uh, how is Artistdirect unreliable? It's a professional company, for crying out loud. It's just as reliable as Allmusic. Panic Reaper (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vanity publishers are professional companies. Artistdirect has no editorial policy, and no indication of fact checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, it's not as reliable. First of all, they didn't publish the information in question, they reprinted it, so they are not responsible for this content at all (it would be impossible for them to change it, since it's not from their own website, ergo, they are relying on someone else whom they have no control over, not RS), which makes everything that follows moot. However, to answer your question, Artistdirect website lists no editorial control, indicates no music scene expertise, has no record of reliability, and no mechanisms in place to correct errors, whereas, AllMusic does, and here is the job description of their content editor requirements as well. Does that help clear it up? (I'm not saying it's not reliable for *you*, I'm saying it's not reliable based on the policies in place at

WP:RS. The content on ArtistDirect may be spectacular, but their website omissions don't allow us to use it as an RS source, content at that point is irrelevant, and before you get all excited and start shooting the messenger, I'm just passing along the policy, not making it ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you also post on his talk about that sidebox genres from allmusic have been dismissed Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm sure he'll come back to read the answer to his question anyway, so anything said here, he will already see. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Allmusic has profiles for bands and artists, well at the left handside theres a box which lists genres, members, moods etc. Well I want people to know that Wikipedia has dismissed Allmusic for being a reliable source when it comes to GENRES, and i was hoping you could let PanicReaper know that those have been counted as unreliable Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Resolved

The San Francisco Chronicle has a blog called called City Brights - see here [24] The blog is contained on the San Francisco Chronicle's official website, however it carries this editor's note - "This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." Would this be a reliable source? The specific article that I would like to use can be seen here [25] --Jpcase (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look at the link, based on your description alone, they cannot be RS. There is an exception to that though, if an expert on a particular subject wrote something on that blog, and it was verifiable that he was an expert (and it was actually him), and he was saying things in his own "expert capacity", then yes, it could be RS, but I suspect that's not the case here. However, the article does give you places to go, it quotes Disney and Pixar, which likely means they are quoted in the Chronicle, find it there, the exact same quote would be RS from there. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote that I want to use is by the author of the blog post, not Disney, so another article wouldn't work. However, the author of this article has been published in the actual

San Jose Mercury News, and other news sources. She has also appeared on Good Morning America, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. You can see her resume here - [26] I would have mentioned this earlier, but I didn't notice it until now. I believe that this would qualify her as an expert. Am I correct?--Jpcase (talk

) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I would need to know what edit you would like to use that as a source for, before I could say whether her journalist expertise covered what you want to say. I'm not sure she's an expert on the ins and outs of the movie industry, but she may be for some kind of girl-power/feminism topics (I'm sure those aren't the PC words I should use here, I just don't know what they are, so apologies to anyone offended). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote I would like to use is "Can you imagine if Disney...switched a movie title so it wouldn’t risk highlighting a male star? It’s awful that this kind of radical gender discrimination exists for our smallest people– little kids who come into this world with huge imaginations and aspirations, big dreams that get squashed by a bunch of billionaire guys who run massive entertainment franchises."--Jpcase (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My fault, I should have been clearer. It's not clear to me in what context you want to use that quote. What article are we talking about, and is that the exact edit you want to insert? Or is that the quote that supports what you want to write into an article here? If the latter, what is the exact text you want to write, that this quote supports (and again, in what article)? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to include this in the Tangled article. I actually made the edit before realizing that the source may not be reliable and deciding to bring it up here, so you can already see my edit in the article. My edit is under the "Title change" section, and reads "Writing for the San Francisco Chronicle's blog, Margot Magowan accused Disney of sexism, writing "Can you imagine if Disney...switched a movie title so it wouldn’t risk highlighting a male star? It’s awful that this kind of radical gender discrimination exists for our smallest people– little kids who come into this world with huge imaginations and aspirations, big dreams that get squashed by a bunch of billionaire guys who run massive entertainment franchises."--Jpcase (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether Margot Magowan can be considered an authority on the subject. The authors are not whoever wants to write, they are selected by the newspaper & this gives them a certain amount of reliability. I see we have no article on her--would it be possible to write one that would meet WP:N? DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Policy-wise, I think you are ok with that (based on shows that have interviewed her, I think she is N enough). Personally, I think she's a little over the top, and changing the title makes sense for the marketing reasons explained (they are trying to make money I believe), but that's not what you asked me and I have no interest in getting into your article. Interesting question though, thanks for that. One question, the paragraph says Disney altered to "emphasize Flynn Rider", but her quote says "switched so it wouldn't risk highlighting a male star", isn't that a contradiction? (this is not an RSN topic, if it needs discussion, answer on the article talk page, if it doesn't need discussion, that's ok too ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The title was changed from Rapunzel to Tangled to emphasize the male character of Flynn Rider, instead of focusing on the female character of Rapunzel, even though she is the main character of the story. The quote by Margot Magowan criticizes Disney, by pointing out that they would never change the title of a film to draw attention away from a male character, even though they seem to be fine with drawing attention away from a female character. This isn't the only time that Disney has done this. The Princess of Mars was retitled as John Carter and an upcoming adaptation of The Snow Queen has been retitled Frozen. Disney may have their reasons for doing this, and it may not necessarily be immoral, but it still is a form of gender discrimination.--Jpcase (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that point now (not 100% sure I agree with the conclusion but that's ok ), thanks for clearing that up. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Jpcase (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question are here.

Interactions on the RS issue here

Here is the Hebrew news source re the note News1, with the note and its contents. Here is the poor google translation. This looks like RS to me. The World Net Daily article is [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669 here]. Israel Today's archives no longer contain the article, but it does contain the image of the note [27] and its editor has received but not yet replied to my enquiries, but copies of screenshots of the original article on 30/4/2007 are widespread.

Attempted interpretations and images of the note are still being addressed on what is reported to have been Kaduri's own site Intensive discussion on the meaning of the note is documented elsewhere here for example.Cpsoper (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is disputed that Kaduri.net is Kaduri's own site, and it is certainly not a reliable source. Parsha.blogspot.co.uk is also obviously not acceptable. News1 claims to be a news site, but appears to be more a muck-raking site than a reliable source. The non-contextualised jpg from Israel Today proves nothing; certainly not that Kaduri wrote this note. And World Net Daily has been found countless times to be an unreliable source. None of this is remotely sufficient to establish that a note discovered after a leading Rabbi's death proves that he believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and that he would soon return, Exceptional claims demand exceptional sources, and these are exceptionally bad. RolandR (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your trenchant opinions, RolandR. First, I think we must clarify that there is no attempt to claim that Yitzhak Kaduri identified Jesus the Nazarene as the Messiah in the edits, and that has been hotly contested by the considerable party of Rabbinic supporters of the note's genuineness. As to his belief that Messiah's return was immminent, that is sourced from Maariv not News One or the note's contents. Can you prove your claims about Kaduri.net? Did it not serve as his own site before his death? If not, why didn't he or his family disown it then? Neither interestingly, to my knowledge, is there any formal denial of the note's provenance, on line. Please correct me if I err. The presence of the image of the note in its archives, is strong corroboration of the widely published Israel Today article - even if it has curiously subsequently been withdrawn, and its editor not responding to enquiry. I wonder if others would like to comment about News One, especially since the journalist Yoav Yitzhak later joined Maariv, who's 'muck-raking' appears more acceptable here - isn't this a common description of a primary task for journalists? Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Maariv reference was incorrectly formatted, so lead to a "page not found" error. I have taken the liberty of amending your comment to correct this. RolandR (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And reading the article, it merely states that Kaduri believed that the Messiah would arrive (not "return", that is your gloss, and not in the article) imminently. This is a view shared my many rabbinical eschatologists and kabbalists. It says nothing about a note, nothing about a name, and certainly nothing to suggest that he believed that Jesus was the Messiah, or that his return was imminent. RolandR (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for corrections. For clarity's sake, the Maariv article has a whole paragraph entitled, 'המשיח עתיד להגיע', or 'the Messiah will come'. The paragraph below specifies in Kaduri's view this would be soon, and contains his claim of having met the Messiah, presumably mystically or in a vision, a year before. It was not my claim that the obituary mentioned the note, it was a year too early, simply that his strong Messianic expectation is well attested. Again for clarity, Kaduri's purported note does not name the Nazarene, he describes the Messiah, but by acronym, a common Kabbalistic technique, the derived name by Rabbinic Orthodox Jews, many of whom believe the note to be genuine, is Yehoshua. Any evidence of your statements about Kaduri.net? I would value the opinions of others on News One's value as RS.Cpsoper (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Have had communication from Israel Today editor, the article was in their print edition for 2007, 'We did feature it on our website for a time after WorldNetDaily wrote about it, but the article did not get reprinted online when we revamped our website.' I also hope to have news from Kaduri.net soon. I'd still be grateful for other views on News1. I see it is used elsewhere on wiki in at least two places as RS, Ronald Lauder and Nahum Barnea.Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not mentioning this on the Kaduri talkpage. I actually think that News1 is normally an RS though it is evident that in this case, it merely picked up the note picture from the kaduri.net site which is certainly not RS and seemingly dubious and there is nothing in the news1 article 'source' to give any other background at all. Given the lack of RS reporting the authenticity of this note at this time, it should not be included in the Kaduri article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to transcribe these comments to talk if you agree appropriate. I await your response to questions of evidence on kaduri.net there, Shuki. Perhaps we should clarify with NFC whether it 'merely picked up the note picture' from kaduri.net, I agree that would not constitute proper journalism? Though the Israel Today and WND articles went further, as you know. I agree NFC is ordinarily RS, there are at least three other citations Gideon Levy, Yoel Lavy and Haaretz. If it were not ordinarily RS, these should also be amended.Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I grant my Hebrew is not excellent, but my reading of the page does suggest first hand sighting of the note, not a second hand report 'הגיע הערב (ג', 23.1.07) לידי Nfc.', the crucial word being 'to my hand'. There are also details about the note's writing which also imply first hand enquiry. It appears to be corroborated by the other two sources (though there may be some interdependence between WDN and IT) and of course kaduri.net.Cpsoper (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, your translation is wrong. The Hebrew does not state "I received it", but "Nfc received it" ("to the hands of Nfc", rather than "to my hands"). So the comment does not necessarily suggest first hand sighting; the (unnamed) writer could just be stating that someone else at the site had mentioned seeing the alleged document. RolandR (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, so, RR, is it still proposed that when NFC says, the note arrived to 'the hands of Nfc' on the evening of 23/1/07, and cites 'אנשי חצרו', 'men of his court' that this was generated only by seeing the note on Kaduri.net without another primary source? If that is the case, it would not be professional journalism, especially if as you and Shuki have claimed kaduri.net does not represent Rabbi Kaduri. However it doesn't seem at all likely, NFC also first broke the story about Kaduri's claims to have met the Messiah in 29/10/2005, so they have sources in his seminary.Cpsoper (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how the writer derived his/her evidence. The onus is on you to establish that this is a reliable source for this claim; several editors have questioned this. RolandR (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where NFC/news1 says that it got the note. I guess it comes from the translation. It merely says that the note was revealed, whatever that means. --Shuki (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you both. NFC has been repeatedly accepted as RS for other pages, despite RR's global objection to the site. (I may have difficulty in counting but 'several editors' appears to be two at most, one specifically only to this incident.) Why must we start with assuming that NFC acted unprofessionally in this particular case, when it is RS elsewhere? What about the other two independent sources? Others on this noticeboard are discussing weblogs as RS! - these other two sources are identifiable, widely accessed institutions, with a track record in fact checking, self-correction, and are multiply-edited, with archived records. The question is not one of opinion, but of the incident of the note's discovery. From whence the onus to prove NFC acted out of character with its recognised modus operandi? There is ample evidence NFC has had connexion with Kaduri's seminary. The statement that NFC had the note idiomatically 'in hand' on 23/1/2007, in the evening is on the link above, Shuki. If there is a dispute about the note's provenance, please produce your sources. We have seen none except those you have so far chosen to reject. In addition, neither of you have as yet cited any formal evidence to contest the claim in print that kaduri.net represented the rabbi semi-officially during his life. I accept the note and its interpretation is controversial, and an entry should reflect that, but the evidence of its historicity is well substantiated, and I fear perhaps other considerations are affecting your weighing the nature of the sources. In the absence of objections I will cross post some of this discussion to the talk page.Cpsoper (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I recognise that 'reliable' sources may only be useful in specific contexts, and share considerable reservations about some of WND's reportage. However I note that a wiki-site specific google search for WND as a source returns nearly 500 hits, and includes some highly controversial subjects for which editors have considered it reliable. These include Johnny Chung, Failed terrorism plots, Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia), Project Daniel. For Israel today, there are 36 hits on a wiki-site specific search, and again include many Israel topics, like the beauty queen

In a sense this may be a waste of time, as the editor seem unwilling to listen, but at

More recently the Fitzwilliam Museum of the University of Cambridge has dedicated the new "Kemet" exhibit to showing ancient Egypt in it's "proper African context". <ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">,{{cite web|title= Kemet|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/index.html}}</ref> The exhibit is based heavily on the work of scholars such as S.O.Y Keita, Ossama Abdel Meguid and Mpay Kemboly. The Museum also has the "Black to Kemet" exhibit which presents Egyptian art and posing the question;

"Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today."

<ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">Andrew Crowe ,{{cite web|title= Black to Kemet Placing Egypt in Africa|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/kemet/}}</ref>

I can't find any definitive statement on race by the museum. I can't even find the "proper African context" although I can find " placing Egypt in its African cultural context."[28]. I will say that the exhibition uses work by S. O. Y. Keita who does not believe in the concept of race and does not call Egyptians black, although he does say that the present population is probably similar to the ancient population.

As I said, he's been told this a number of times, but just as he's been told that the Britannica is not a reliable source, he keeps reinserting it.

If it had academic acceptance I'm sure the museum wouldn't pose it as a question, it looks like the aim of the exhibition is to be controversial. It also seems contrary to the consensus of scholars as seen in the second paragraph of the lede of the respective article. Surely something controversial like this should be sourced from an academic source.

talk

) 11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Museum captions are "published" and, potentially, reliable sources. This is a scholarly museum. But a text asking a question is not a source that supports either the answer "yes" or the answer "no". It supports the claim that this is an interesting question. Andrew Dalby 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew above, also, I would remove the word "proper" from the "African context" quote, as that's not supported by the source in any way, and the text currently has it appearing as as direct quote, also it's a terrible cite, as the cite doesn't point to the info, I have to click to other pages to find that. The museum text goes on to say "This exhibition invites the viewer to consider the appearance of the people of Kemet around 3000 years ago and to ask the question: ‘Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’", in no way is this the same as saying it is a fact. This exhibit is not a "conclusive statement" of anything other than "Scholars are unsure what Egyptians looked like 3000 years ago". And even that statement is a bit of a stretch, this whole exhibit could be seen as a thought experiment for history. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well now that's what I call cherry picking with a vengeance! No it definitely isn't conclusive.

Dmcq (talk

) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)