Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 144

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

Is this a reliable source for argument from silence? http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html Humanpublic (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What text is the source supposed to be supporting? What is the text of the source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic definition for starters. But, really, just about all of it. It's the best brief overview I've seen. The summary is good and the ideas of it could go in the article: "In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. That inference can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence." In general, is the source useable (granting that there are obvious possible misuses). Humanpublic (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of "Argument from silence" section "Misuse of sources" [[1]] to put this question into context. Humanpublic wants to remove the definition "An argument from silence ... is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of statements in historical documents", sourced to The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999, and John Lange, The Argument from Silence, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301, and replace it with the statement he quotes, drawn from a website, which, as has been pointed out to him, is not attributed to an author, therefore with no way of knowing who wrote it.Smeat75 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The mere appearance of an article on a university server does not make it reliable. This source is interesting, and was probably written by someone qualified to write it, but without a named author I don't see how it is citable. Zero^talk 11:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just hosted at the site. The contents are copyright the University of Mass. I don't see where the reliable sources policy requires a single named author. The history dept. of U. Mass is obviously reliable on matters of history. Many sources, such as encyclopedias, don't have named authors. You look at the publisher, I assume. Humanpublic (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the Warring States Project, which gives its staff here: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/staff/index.html - Bruce Brooks, a UMass professor, and various associates. I'd credit the Warring States Project at University of Mass. I'd consider it a reliable source, but not the only one, especiall if a dictionary says otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just a dictionary that says otherwise, but a few other totally WP:RS sources if you look at the page. The general situation seems to be that arguments from silence are "so, so" at the very best but as one other WP:RS source said "stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." On the positive side, there is a source already that says "although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events". In any case, it is not certain if the professor wrote that UMass page or the assistant. If the assistant did it, it is not great. And why not get a "proper WP:RS source" anyway. Is that web page the only source that says this? Why not get solid WP:RS sources whose authorship is not in question? History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I took another look at the univ website and it is not clear if that statement is by Brooks or an assistant. But what is clear is that Brooks has some type of reputation for overdosing on arguments from silence for (on the same web site) a review of his book states: "the authors' liberal use of arguments from silence might disturb some scholars as might their generous use of some rather late and suspect sources to construct biographical accounts of Confucius and sons." The book review is pretty positive overall, but seems to view the args from silence as one of the weak point in his work. So Brooks is viewed as good, but as someone who ODs on args from silence in view of other scholars. In any case, that is not a blanket statement to be used, and the fact that other scholars think Brooks ODs on these reaffirms the views in the other RS sources that these are in general viewed as somewhat shaky arguments. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That is all completely irrelevant. Please cite a Wikipedia policy against the source in question. Humanpublic (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007, you object to being called dishonest. Please start being honest, then. The review makes no generalizations about Brooks and the argument from silence at all. It doesn't say he overuses it. It does not say it is a weak point in that particular book, it says some scholars might see it that way. You are being obstructionist and distorting sources. Stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of

WP:NPA disregards here and on your talk page is piling up too fast. And now we have WP:RS source deletion which quotes the source. I can not discuss items in this atmosphere. History2007 (talk

) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, all insults aside, what is the key point in dispute here? I read the page, and it doesn't seem to dispute the dictionary definition. It merely says that the argument from silence can be useful. Well, that seems perfectly fine for our page; we clearly need to give at least one example of a scholar who thinks it's useful, otherwise we're begging the question why it's an interesting concept at all. That doesn't mean we need to remove the counter arguments that it's not useful, it just means that we should give both sides. What am I missing? --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a scholar who says it s useful: it says "Louis Jacobs writes, If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing." And it is sourced to the A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion and I looked it up briefly and it looks right. So it is there, supporting it in the Talmud case. I am not sure if the first sentence of that paragraph comes from the same place, but Jacobs clearly likes them. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the question is just whether a Web site authored, copyrighted, and attributed to the University of Mass history/humanities departments is a reliable source for information about a historical method. Humanpublic (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As Zero said, the quote needs attribution and without an author it is questionable. You need to get hold of the book about it that was reviewed (mentioned above) and see if the book says the same. That is what you need to do. Just get the book and check it. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of coming here is to get an independent opinion. If I had wanted to continue debating you (endlessly), I would stayed on the article Talk page. You are welcome to cite actual policy supporting your claims. You are being tendentious. The book review you mentioned above is not about the Web site. It is not about the argument from silence. It has nothing to do with this. You keep saying you're not going to engage with me, and then you keep engaging with me. If you're going to do that, please agree to the DRN I requested. Humanpublic (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We have had some opinions, and anyone can respond. In any case, a source needs attribution, and can not be attributed to a department, because "departments do not take positions". So one can not say the "department of physics at MIT says X", because in many cases faculty members have opposing positions. A funny example was years ago when Jack Dennis and a couple of his students were going around the east coast with a bull horn saying Dataflow is great, it is the future, etc. However, most of the department a MIT were directly against that architecture. So departments do not take positions, and statements cannot be attributed to departments. In any case, why not get a good WP:RS source whose authorship is not in question; or just get the book and see what it says. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It can be attributed to the Warring States Project (of the University Massachusetts History Department). --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

May be pushing it, but to make a long story short let us tentatively say it may be. Now what is it that would be attributed, the definition does not need to be given that there are better sources, but any statement from it, if to be used, will need to be carefully worded, and not be a blanket statement; given that the web page is full of caveats by itself anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Armaiti (talk · contribs) with this edit[2] and a previous identical one has added this to the article: "Apart from the Cyrus Cylinder itself, the benevolent acts of Cyrus are revered in the

Aside from the pov wording (closely paraphrased from the Dictionary of World Biography, I'm arguing that the dictionary and Robert B Kebric (a specialist in the Greek and Roman people, not Cyrus, see [3] and his book) are not reliable sources for such a broad statement - that Cyrus's acts (we seem to be talking about all of them) were benevolent and that they are all historically correlated with other archaeological accounts. I have no idea what the JSTOR article says but it dates to 1926 so can't take into account later work.

It also seems to be somewhat of a non sequitor - it says that everything in the Bible about Cyrus is accurate, 'yet some argue' - the accuracy doesn't reflect the purpose. Maybe it's the 'benevolent'?

It also ignores the fact that the authenticity of the decree mentioned in the Bible has been challenged (see Cyrus the Great in the Bible) but again that's another issue. I'm never sure what to do when an edit has multiple issues.

I asked the editor to bring this here, but instead he responded on my talk page and the article talk page telling me to. Commenting on the sources, he wrote "The first two sources are Historical and Archaeological accounts at once, you cannot argue their veracity, the Bible is religious, yet you cannot reject what is written in it; it basically calls 'Cyrus the Great', a 'Messiah'; this is by all means the utmost reverence for a human being by at least 3 world religions, who consider the Bible a sacred text." and "Also please try and understand the semantics here, there is difference between a 'biography' and a book called "The Ancient World: 'Dictionary' of World Biography" (which is also used as a source in various Wiki articles such as, 'Ancient Greece', 'Ashurbanipal', 'Damnatio ad bestias, etc.). In any case, 'Biographies' may also be used as references in Wikipedia, FYI, and there is no problem in that. Nevertheless we are not citing any 'biography' or 'world biography' here, but a 'Dictionary', and you cannot cancel the reliability of this book, just because its title contains the phrase 'world biography'."

There are multiple issues, yes. I think Armaiti needs to be able to work constructively with others and try to understand our reliable sources policy better. Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World seems to be a rebranding of an encyclopedic text (a tertiary source) pitched at college libraries: if so, hardly acceptable at all as a source for us, unless this article on Cyrus (by John M. Lawrence) has received favourable comment from scholars on the Persian Empire.

The JSTOR link is to W. F. Albright, "Ea-Mummu and Anu-Adapa in the Panegyric of Cyrus" in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1926) pp. 285-290. It's a short philological article written soon after the discovery of the cuneiform Panegyric of Cyrus (which, as you know, we'd call a "primary source", not an "archeological source") at the stage when scholars were still puzzling out its meaning. I don't see any general comment about the character or politics of Cyrus, so no reason to cite it in this context.

PS - What does Kebric have to do with this, Doug? Andrew Dalby 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Partly of course this is an editing judgement discussion, not a simple WP:RS case. I think what I agree with about WP:RS in the judgement of Doug and Andrew can be summarised as "weaker sources should not be used for strong positions". The sources are certainly not as horrific as some we hear of here, and the statements are certainly not totally shocking either, just oddly balanced so as to give too much Biblical reference point. Just to make it clear I see no problem with separately mentioning the Bible's picture of Cyrus and how it has been often compared to this cylinder (consider

WP:NOTE), but we should not make it our standard point of reference for describing the cylinder itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Should always use the best available sources (high quality recent secondary sources) and these types of arguments would disappear. TFD (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a reference at

Is the year that the change in ownership took place really being contested? If not, I would take the attitude that the year is not "likely to be challenged", and simply add it without a citation. If it is being contested, then I would say you should find a more reliable source for it (I don't think the forum is outright un-reliable... but it is borderline and there is probably a better source out there, if you look hard enough). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks!

SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs

14:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you say the way I used the videos as references is ok? They are mostly found in the Media coverage section -- Dravidian  Hero  16:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While this isn't directly relevant to your question, I would probably move the external links in the table to the footnotes section. This is per Wikipedia:External links. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I might have to rethink my original idea regarding the existing table as an easy "fan interface". Meanwhile I found a solution for citing videos here:

Template:Cite_video.-- Dravidian  Hero 

16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Sources: See also Talk:Haddenham, Cambridgeshire#Improvement of citations

• Grassam, 2005, report 1809
• Bray and Robinson, 1990, ‘Anglo Saxon Burials Haddenham’
• Whittaker, 1998, report 261

2. Article: User:212.219.116.68/sandbox (formerly in the archaeology sections of Haddenham—[4], Witchford—[5] and RAF Witchford—[6])

3. Content: Whole article is suspect

--Senra (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If a source is unpublished, then it can't be verified by other editors, and verifiability is a requirement on Wikipedia.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unpublished sources do not meet rs. However, any information in a rs, such as Bishop's report, that is sourced to an unpublished source does meet rs, because we are relying on the judgment of the author for the accuracy of the information. That does not mean that we can consider any other part of the unpublished report to be reliable. TFD (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's normal in some fields for academic writers to be using unpublished sources. Anything Bishop gets from this unpublished work, we cite from Bishop. We can't cite the unpublished reports directly. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I do, however, wish to clearly understand. Please forgive, therefore, my continual pushing at this. @Rurik says that unpublished sources fail Wikipedia's

original research --Senra (talk

) 11:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition of "published" is sometimes debatable, but I'm not sure whether that is a crucial question for you here. "Printed and available at the Cambridgeshire Records Office" does not equate to "published", because the Records Office holds all sorts of archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As you and Judith both say, these are unpublished sources, and are described as such in our reliable source. Information drawn by us from the reliable source is potentially fine; information drawn by us from documents only available in an archive is a no-no.

I don't really follow your last question -- what does the "self-publication" question have to do with "original research"? To me those are two different issues. Original research may be built up from all kinds of sources; we simply shouldn't do it. Forgive me if I'm being dense :) Andrew Dalby 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew I guess the point of that is that if we WP editors are the first people to bring something into public, we are like the publisher publishing something original? Back to the question of public archives, I think the responses are correct, maybe not only because of WP:RS but also because of

WP:V. But there might be cases where there is a grey area. Many archives are getting easier and easier to access, with online summaries of records etc. It does not seem to be relevant in this case though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also an issue of

weight. If the information in a report is so obscure that no one has sought to publish it, then it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk

) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This paper—written as a project in an undergraduate class on data mining, and found on the course page under the heading "Sample team projects (Fall 2007)"—uses some simple metrics to compare the works of Shakespeare to writings of Frances Bacon [sic], Christopher Marlow [sic], and Edward de Verde [sic]. Though the authors express concern about the shortness of the sample of de Vere's poetry they found on the Web, they boldly conclude that "the Oxfordian camp may have some veracity" and "perhaps de Vere was Shakespeare."

Undergraduate research is generally not acceptable as a reliable source. Was it published and/or reviewed?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The first paper is obviously unsuitable. The second looks fine. The Tennessee Law Review is a student-published journal, but a rather serious one, backed by academic advisors and the school. Moreover, the authors are unquestioningly experts, and the paper is adapted from previous ones that were published in very good academic venues indeed. If you want to avoid the debate, you might want to go back to these previous papers (which probably will make the same statements, but possibly in a less colourful language). But I'd give the source a pass. Academics are supported by student research all the time - that's not the same as citing undergrad work directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Scientist [7] has been described as "not an ideal reference" in a discussion at Talk:Human evolution#Timeline of human evolution and the lead. Is there a general policy as to whether New Scientist is considered a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's useful for many things, especially for science-related news. Very good for whether a conference was held, or for the existence of research institutes and projects. Not so good for actual science facts, because the articles are simplified for a non-specialist audience - the readers are mostly scientists, but from all disciplines. And its treatment can be sensationalist. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Two editors, (121.208.25.30/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/121.208.25.71) and (180.149.192.132/180.149.192.134/180.149.192.133/180.149.192.139) are repeatedly deleting the following paragraph from the article section Accusations of false claims on the grounds that it is "based on demonstrably false claims" and is an attempt "to discredit [Moran's] book." Moran is rather controversial as his books support Windschuttle's position in the History wars, ie:that while some deaths did occur there were no massacres of Aboriginals. The massacres are myths based on hearsay and the misleading use of evidence by academics.

Moran's claims regarding the reliability of Gribble were examined by Green and found to rely on unreliable sources, and where reliable sources are cited the claims are misinterpreted, false or can not be found in them at all.. — Green, Neville: Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33

The reference for the above is a reply to two articles authored by journalist Rod Moran, Gribble out of Balance and Ernest Gribble's Dark Torment. Written by Historian Neville Green the reply was published in Quadrant magazine. As it is not online I have copy/pasted some of the relevant supporting text:

He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist...Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one [descendant] and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...In his attempt to vilify Ernest Gribble and denigrate Christine Halse, Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted.

Green's interpretation of Moran's work is widely supported by other academics such as archaeologist and historian Sylvia Hallam:

Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History"...[Windschuttle] cites material which supports his contentions and ignores other equally available material which might support the opposite view. Rod Moran leaves himself open to similar doubts...Moran's preface throws some doubts on his claims of impartiality...The evidence Moran cites does not always support his conclusions.More important criticisms are lack of adequate context, lack of ballance and insufficient presentation and explication of evidence. — review of Moran's book Sex, Maiming and Murder: Seven case studies into the reliability of Reverend E.R.B. Gribble published in the Australian Aboriginal Studies journal by Sylvia Hallam

Is the source, Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33, a reliable source per WP policies and does the text reflect the source's claims? Wayne (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase how another user has put it, is it responsible Wikipedia editing to include text based on commentary (by Green) on a source (in this case Moran’s books and articles) where that commentary can be seen to be false simply by reading the source commented upon? When an academic gets it obviously wrong, makes demonstrably false claims or puts false information in print, why would we want to allow those false claims or that false information into Wikipedia?

Green makes claims that sources referred to by Moran do not exist or do not contain the information Moran says they do. Let’s take the first example, Wayne has given from Green’s article: “He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist..”

Moran does not claim that “he” (being Police Sergeant Buckland) assisted Bishop Trower in the investigation nor did Moran refer to “the Trower report”. In Massacre Myth (Moran, Rod (1999). Massacre myth: An investigation into allegations concerning the mass murder of Aborigines at Forrest River. Bassendean: Access Press.

ISBN 0-86445-124-5

.), Moran refers to Trower twice only, on page 41 Moran wrote:

“The Commissioner obviously knew of the case because he remarked that Bishop Trower, who was at Forrest River at the time, said there was nothing in the allegations. (Q2625) The latter had carried out his own enquiry into the matter. But Nairn pointed out that Gribble had said there had been a massacre of a whole camp. At Q2629 he asked Neville: “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” He replied: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. In fact, the enquiry found that the police had acted in self-defence while trying to apprehend a murderer.”

The Neville referred to here was A.O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia.The enquiry referred to by Neville was the official enquiry.

Moran’s second reference to Trower is on page 152: “However on investigation, it was found that, in the words of , Chief Protector Neville—in response to the question “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” --- at Q2629: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. The Commissioner himself noted earlier that “I think…Bishop {Trower] reported that there was nothing in the allegations”.

Let’s have a look at the next part of Wayne’s selection of examples: “Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one [descendant] and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...”

The references to Jack Gribble Melville Island and the phrases "according to descendants," "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island" and the allegations regarding land dealings, bigamy, etc, come from page 215 of Massacre Myth. He gives a footnote for that paragraph. Moran makes no reference whatsoever to Jack Gribble’s female descendant, he identifies the source in the footnote 23 as “Gribble and Race Relations, p 432” (this is Dr Christine M. Halse’s thesis where she says on pp 432-433 “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.225” and she gives the following reference for those points (reference number) 225 "interview, Mary Oxborrow and Mrs Eric Gribble, Sydney, 12 March 1986." So it is Dr Christine Halse who reported the interview. Green, however, chooses not to let the reader know that fact.

There are a couple of other examples of Green misrepresenting what Moran used as sources or found in sources on the talk page, if anyone wants to take a look.

Can we really say Green’s article is a reliable source?

The fact is there are 2 principal books written about Forrest River, one by Neville Green and the other by Rod Moran. There should be fair and accurate representation of both in the article. The fact is that some historians have commmented unfavourably on Moran's work and some including Professor David Day and Dr Josephine Flood have commented favourably. Incidentally that claim in the Hallam review that "Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History" happens to be false too. There is no source whatsoever for the claim.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I see that my ISP address has been reset/changed again. I'm AKA [121.208.25.30]]/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/[[121.208.25.71]60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI the references to "Q2629" above are to a question number in the record of the 1927 Royal Commission.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply reading the source commented upon for Wikipedia to come to a conclusion regarding the reliability of Green is not permitted. The subject is prominent enough that the three academics who support Moran should have published something in the 10 years since Green published. Your entire post is irrelevant, synthesis and original research and as such can not be used to determine reliability. For an example of why we can't use original research... you claim that Green is making a false claim because Moran was only citing Halse. That is irrelevant as Moran still made the claim in his own book without any fact checking which would have quickly revealed that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them. Thus Green's criticism was correct. As for the two books, we have the mainstream view (ie:historian Neville Green's peer reviewed book) that the massacre occurred and the minority view (ie:journalist Rod Moran's self published book) that no massacre occurred. We must give prominence to the mainstream view regardless of the Wikipedia editors own views. Moran's book is adequately covered. Wayne (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a somewhat flexible view of what Wikipedia standards are for preferred sources. The statement: “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.” and the reference for it are contained in Dr Christine M. Halse’s PhD thesis (which since it was specifically about Ernest Gribble and his family, makes her the leading academic expert on the 'field' of the Gribbles). This thesis went through the entire process of review, acceptance and approval by the University of Queensland. The claims by Neville Green "that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them" are contained in an article dashed off by Green and published in Quadrant magazine. You are saying that Green's magazine article, which did not go through any process of peer-review, is to be regarded as correct and is to be preferred to Dr Halse's PhD thesis? By any standard, both Wikipedia and Moran are fully entitled to accept that Halse is the reliable source, not Green, and since Moran relied on the reliable source, he has to be regarded as correct on this issue.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Next point, you refer to Moran's book as "self-published" which is a term that has a defined meaning. Moran's book was published and sold by Access Press which expressly advertises on its website that it does not provide self-publishing services. So that's an incorrect claim by you.

It seems that your idea of Wikipedia editing is that editors must switch off their brains. If text is based on claims that are obviously false, editors are obliged to remove it.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Access may have paid for distribution, but Moran still paid for the book to be printed. What is "obviously false" to you is irrelevant, you can not use any original research in WP. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this really an RS question? Using our common sense to say that a source is weak is type of reasoning we can use when deciding on what weight to give a source, which is something to be judged on the article talk page, but it is not really relevant to what is normally discussed on this noticeboard. I see nothing at first sight which gives a reason to invoke RS as a reason for not using the sources under discussion. The discussion seems to be one more about getting the right balance between WP:RS-acceptable sources? That seems to be for other forums, but concerning other policies I would point out that concerning the question of due weight, we do not normally accept "common sense" arguments for removing any well-known sources. We aim to report whatever is mainstream and when the mainstream is controversial, report more sources, and show the controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The two anons believe that mainstream and minority views should be given equal weight, they are oblivious to Wikipedia policies regarding reliability and no one else has weighed in on the article talk page. I was hoping that bringing this here and getting a few editors to tell them that they have to provide sources rather than base reliability on what is "obvious to them" would end the matter. What other board would be more appropriate? Wayne (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am seeking fair and accurate representation of the Moran book in the article, nowhere have I asked for ‘equal weight’ nor, that I can recall, has the other editor who objects to Wayne’s use of this material, asked for ‘equal weight’ . The particular text that I and the other editor object to is being used to mislead the readers of Wikipedia into dismissing the book as having a valid contribution to the debate on Forrest River by pretending that Moran falsely claimed that he had found evidence in sources when Neville Green ‘proves’ that the evidence is not in those sources.

Green reproduced a part of the text of Moran’s book, pretended that Moran had only 1 source for it, Constable St Jack’s patrol journal entry, and then reproduces that journal entry which does not contain all the information that Moran had reported. Moran, in fact, clearly listed multiple sources for that reconstruction in his book, not just the journal. Green pretends the others don’t exist. No original research required for that, it is simply what is written in the source. Green claimed that Moran , in his review of Christine Halse’s book, had claimed to find ‘suggestive’ evidence in Commissioner Wood's report regarding Gribble’s motive for inventing a massacre that never happened. Reading the review “Ernest Gribble's dark torment”, Moran clearly makes no claim to have found that evidence in the report and the sources that Moran actually used are clearly stated in his book Massacre Myth. Other examples, where Green misrepresented Moran’s work, are discussed above.

Green's article seems to be a case of him lashing out with wild and false accusations at Moran because Moran's book challenges the book that Green made his reputation on.

Surely there is a fundamental issue of reliability where the magazine article that Wayne wants to use as a source makes claims that are false.

We can certainly give prominence to the mainstream view on what happened at Forrest River but we shouldn’t allow the minority view to be misrepresented which is what the text that I and the other editor object to does.60.225.253.141 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is a controversy amongst mainstream and/or notable sources, then we should report that controversy and not take sides I'm afraid. The internet is full of venues for expressing our own opinions, but this particular site has less ambitious aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that it is Wayne who is asking for this noticeboard to ‘authorise’ the inclusion of his wording in the article over the consensus/objections of the other 2 editors. It also seems that the basis for his request is a very narrow interpretation of Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources. Just because you have a source for something doesn’t override the fundamental need for whatever you put into the articles to be correct, to be accurate. The 2 ‘anons’, as you refer to them, have given very strong reasons why this wording introduces incorrect information into the article. If their assurances that the information in Green’s article is not correct are not enough for you, I’ve just pulled Moran’s book from the stacks, looked at the relevant pages and can confirm that the ‘anons’ are correct. Green’s article does grossly misrepresent Moran’s sources. I suggest that you go back to the sources yourself and reconsider whether the material is something fit for inclusion. Misrepresentations about someone else's book like those Green makes have no place in Wikipedia where, I would hope, most editors strive for accuracy and honesty.The Schoolteacher (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)— The Schoolteacher (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

I've already supplied one example where a claim of misrepresentation was false. Please do not comment on Green misrepresenting Moran unless you have a reliable reference that makes that claim. Until then such claims are

WP:OR

.

This seems to a case of do as I say, not as I do. You were perfectly willing to make comments about content including whether misrepresentations were in a source when you claimed on the article talk page that Green had ‘briefly mentioned’ other sources Moran had used. That claim by you was completely untrue. Green had, in fact, pretended that there were no other sources. Was this the example of the ‘false’ claim of misrepresentation you are talking about? Your claims with respect to this certainly don’t check out, nor have any of your other ‘examples’.180.149.192.133 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning RS policy, you are right that WP editors do not need to feel any compulsion from RS policy to include a work. (RS is more a guideline about what not to include.) But other policies are relevant. Is Moran's book well-known? For example is it frequently cited and well known? If so (and it seems so from comments above) then not reporting its opinions could be considered

WP:mainstream sources on this subject. Being asked to avoid this can of course be a frustrating thing when you find that a field has very widely cited badly written sources, which happens often. I think what you ideally want to find is a published criticism of Moran so that you can report the controversy. If the controversy is only with WP editors we should not be basing our editing on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Green is considered the authority for the Forrest River massacre while Moran holds a minority view. Green is a historian whose book was his thesis, Moran is a journalist. Moran's work is supported by Keith Windschuttle, who has cited him often, and two other archaeologists while Green is supported by pretty much the rest of academia. The National Museum of Australia exhibit displays Greens version although it now also mentions the controversy after Windschuttle complained about it not mentioning that some people dispute the reality of the massacre. This is a lengthy critique of Moran by the director of the Western Australian Museum who especially condemns Moran's habit of making ad hominem attacks on any academic he cant refute. Another critism is that Moran holds that all Indigenous oral history is unreliable and that he only accepts oral history when it gives support to his view. In fact, Indigenous oral history is remarkably accurate due to having no written history, for example it records the eruptions of long dead volcanoes and the flooding of the continental shelf millenia ago. Moran's book and it's claims is covered in the article. Despite Green's account being the mainstream view, his specific account of what happened makes up 17% of the article compared to 19% for Moran's counter claims while another 7% is one positive and three negative reviews of Moran's research. As far as I know there are no negative reviews of Green. It should be noted that the anon who has commented above has made no edits outside of this subject with any of his various ISPs. Wayne (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Professor David Day is one of the historians who have commented favourably on Moran's book (in fact Day revised his book Claiming a Continent and included a favourable reference to Moran's investigation into Forrest River in it) and he IS a historian, not an archaeologist. By the way do you have a source for your claim that "Green is supported by pretty much the rest of academia"?180.149.192.133 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have said with the exception of those three, Green is supported by all other academics who have commented on the subject. I can name a number of notable academics who have rejected Moran and all state museums in Australia support Green. The National Museum of Australia includes the massacre controversy in it's exhibit and includes a bibliography for views both for and against, a book by Keith Windschuttle, who based his research on Moran's book, is included, but the exhibit doesn't mention Moran's book at all.
Historian Geoffrey Bolton wrote in the journal Studies in Western Australian History: "Most, including myself, Peter Biskup (senior Historian for NMA and RHSQ), Brian Fitzgerald (Historian), Neville Green (Historian), Christine Halse (Sociologist), and Kate Auty (Lawyer) have agreed with the general conclusions of the royal commission...Others, among them Colin Tatz (Professor of Politics) and the late Greg Dening (Sociologist, Historian and Anthropologist), believe that the royal commission greatly underestimated the carnage."
Anthropologist Ron Brunton was another who wrote a review of Morans book: "The slender grounds on which [these allegations] are based makes it hard to accept that Moran is the rigorous and sceptical researcher he would have us believe...It would be most unfortunate if Rod Moran's writings lead people to believe that the Forrest River massacre is just another fabrication."
Journalist Bruce Elder wrote a book that covered the massacre which is considered "one of the ten most influential Australian works of non-fiction in the twentieth century."
Others include historian Henry Reynolds (Historian), Noel Loos (Historian) and Helmut Reim (anthropologist). That's more than a dozen of Australia's most prominent academics in this subject area (and one German) and those are only the ones I'm familiar with, all have supported Green and rejected Moran. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have forgotten to mention that Professor Geoffrey Bolton changed his mind regarding Moran’s work and in fact, wrote the introduction to Moran’s next book: Sex Maiming and Murder; Seven Case Studies into the Reliability of Reverend E.R.B. Gribble, Superintendent, Forrest River Mission 1913 – 1928, as a Witness to the Truth.

Bolton’s commentary in that introduction includes the following: “....In the midst of this controversy the researcher striving for that unachievable goal, scholarly objectivity, has a hard time of it. Such a researcher can win credibility only by close attention to the primary sources which are the building blocks of history.

Rod Moran is such a researcher.......A royal commission found that 11 Aborigines had been killed, and the two constables in charge of the party were brought to trial but discharged when the magistrate ruled that there was no case warranting prosecution. This has not prevented eminent scholars who should have known better from claiming that more than one hundred Aborigines were slaughtered and the reputations of the two policemen have suffered accordingly. It was the urge to clear their reputations which brought Rod Moran into the controversy.

The result was his book Massacre Myth, which put the view that there was no evidence that anyone at all had been killed by the police party. This contradicted the view previously taken by most historians, including Henry Reynolds, Neville Green and myself, that on the evidence before him the royal commissioner had probably got it right in assessing the death toll at around a dozen. Careful analysis of Massacre Myth suggested that the evidence for the killings was less substantial than we had supposed, and depended a good deal on the say-so of the missionary Ernest Gribble, who by 1926 was a psychologically troubled man. Inevitably this argument embroiled Rod Moran in the current controversy about frontier conflict, although he was not arguing that police killings of Aborigines never occurred or that the pastoral occupation of the North was uniformly peaceful.

His argument suggests that by 1926, when police and official control of Aboriginal settler contracts was firmly established and regulated, a massacre on the scale of the alleged Forrest River incident is harder to credit than it would have been in the 1890s or in the early years of the 20th century. Oral histories concerning the events of 1926 may well have been blended with folk memories of the conflicts of earlier times and should be treated with caution.....”

So we've got Professor David Day, Professor Geoffrey Bolton, Dr Josephine Flood and yes...Shock! Horror!...Keith Windschuttle who all have supported Moran's research into what happened or rather didn't happen at Forrest River. Bolton even suggested when he wrote "This contradicted the view previously taken by most historians..." that other historians may have reconsidered their positions on Forrest River. Even Neville Green no longer claims that there was definitely a massacre, now he just says it's "probable". 60.225.253.166 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Green has always said that the massacre was "probable." Saying there "was no case warranting prosecution" is deceptive as there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. Moran having an "urge to clear their reputations" says it all, and he falsly impunes Gribble's reputation to do it and displays no scholarly objectivity. Being "harder to credit than it would have been in the 1890s" is also a deceptive claim. The Bedford downs massacre had only occurred two years earlier and the Coniston massacre two years later. Conflict between Aboriginals and Europeans (cattle spearings and attacks on station owners) continued right up to at least 1970. You also need to keep in mind that the Aboriginal population of the northern half of West Australia in the 1930s was estimated at 15,000 in missions and towns etc with an additional 10,000 living traditionally, while the white population was less than 3,000 (with most in towns) which hardly allows for sufficient scrutiny of police actions to say that massacres are hard to credit. So now we have four academics Vs the 12 I know of that have critiqued Moran. That supports Moran as the minority opinion which is my arguement. Continued arguement regarding the merits of Morans research does not alter the fact that he is not mainstream. Wayne (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The website http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/ allows submissions by readers, but there appears to be a "council" that approves the changes. Should we use this website for facts about skyscrapers and proposed buildings? It is found at a lot of articles including

The construction status of skyscrapers vary on these sources, in database of Emporis construction status of some skyscrapers are still on-hold, but in actual they are under construction, which is supported by other reliable sources including CTBUH, and same is the case with Skyscraperpage, they (Emporis and Skyscraperpage) do not update their data base. While on the other hand, CTBUH has a detailed database as compared to emporis and skyscrapage, for instance see the database page of Burj Khalifa, on Burj Khalifa (CTBUH), Burj Khalifa (Emporis), and Burj Khalifa (Skyscraperpage), here we can see the difference between the information in databases of above mentioned sources, CTBUH has more detail of the companies involved in construction of tower, while emporis has more details of facts about the tower, while skyscrapage doesn't concentrate either on companies involved nor facts and figure. Skyscraperpage concentrates more on the diagrams of skyscrapers, rather than facts and figures.

I think that is the main reason of giving preference to the database of CTBUH, because of precise, accurate, and detailed information of statistical information.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether skyscrapercenter.com should be dropped as a reliable source, or should it continue to be accepted as reliable? Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

CTBUH should continue to be accepted as reliable source in Wikipedia.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

http://supercars.net it looks to me like a fan site and car-spotters forum than a reliable source. This page, for example, is used to source a number of items in the article McLaren F1 including world record claims. I think it should be removed but would appreciate input from others. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Source in question: Luknitsky, Pavel (1988) (in Russian). Сквозь всю блокаду [Through the Siege]. Leningrad: Lenizdat. page 58 (In Russian) in article Continuation War used to back up a following statement:

However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot another source (secondary) which is also used for that statement in the article:

Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth:

page 228: In the north, on September 4, the Finns occupied the former frontier station of Beloostrov, twenty miles north of Leningrad, but were thrown out on the following day.

page 265: There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never forgot it. However Werth does not discuss N. Beloostrov in his text - instead he uses reference just to 'Beloostrov'. This is rather crucial since the nearby S. Beloostrov saw fighting at the time mentioned - as documented in plethora of secondary sources. In addition the Werth does not have relevance to the reliability of Luknitsky's diary. Especially since if you combine information from two separate sources you are already violating wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the Werth book is relevant to the text from the article which you quoted, since that text is attributed to these two sources.

Only N. Beloostrov had a station, so the two sources are talking about the same location. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem is the Werth is not discussing of any railroad station, instead he is referring to a frontier station. Only location he mentions is 'Beloostrov' which can refer to either of the two possibilities. Just because you make your personal conclusion on the source that it would be discussing of N. Beloostrov it does not mean that it would actually be doing so - that is called OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, the station can only refer to a railway station, unless you think it was the 18th century US and not the 20th century USSR... -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong once again, by making the conclusion that it can only refer to a railway station you are already doing OR because the source does not say so. Also i never referred to anything in 18th century US, that is once again all your conclusions and OR from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if it is not a railway station then what else can it be?

Common sense is not OR... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not for us to decide since it is would a conclusion done beyond what the sources are stating. Any 'conclusion' or use of 'common sense' goes beyond what the source is stating. Also for the note that source is still not relevant to the discussion at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It confirms the supposedly unreliable source you complain about.

The Werth source says station, if you think that refers to a colonial frontier station, a space station or a shopping station then that is your problem... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again conclusion that it refers to colonial frontier station or space station is again your own OR. If the source does not state which it was then it can not be said in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it cannot be said to be a railway station, then you are implying that it might be a colonial frontier or space station... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The source only specifies it as 'frontier station' however it never states that it would have been a railway station. It might or it might not. Regardless concluding that it was is already OR since it goes beyond what the source states. And only you have referred to it as colonial frontier or space station so it would better for all involved if you kept you OR away from the discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It would benefit everyone if you stopped making false accusations and admitted your OR that was confirmed by a third opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Which as it happens is not what person giving the third opinion stated. Regardless i see no point to spread that discussion here, it already has it's own discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are going to ignore third opinion feedback again? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As said there is another discussion for this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the correct translation for the above Russian text is:

What happened here?

I knew the following.

Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Luknitsky was a war correspondent. I don't understand why Wanderer602 thinks that he had to personally witness an event for his information to be considered reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what his position was. The work he made is a personal, unofficial, diary of the events in which the author admits the information regarding the fighting at the N. Beloostrov on 4 September 1941 to be second hand information. That is the only thing that matters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He does not admit anything... I still don't understand why you think he had to be there himself for his information to be reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He states at not being at location at the time of the event and then states that he suddenly 'knew' something which had not witnessed. If it was not first hand information then it was second hand information (by definition, not by conclusion). Also it would be polite if you kept your OR from this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The only OR is coming from you. You still did not answer my question... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a second hand account of events described in biased personal diary. And keep your own deductions and conclusions (i.e. your own OR) elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So everything correspondents write is a biased "second hand account of events"? Keep your twisted logic to yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The information is confirmed by a secondary source and an army report.[8] -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If by secondary source you refer to Werth, then answer is no, the source is question does not discuss of 'railway station'. Which means that the current entry is OR. However if we read the primary source you linked to without analyzing any of its contents or without doing conclusion on it then it has to be said that it does not discuss that N. Beloostrov would have been cleared of enemies - and since doing analysis or conclusion on primary sources is forbidden (needs to be read as it is) it can not be used as a source for such a statement - especially when there were two Beloostrovs next to each other in the Karelian Isthmus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You know other people read this...

The source directly mentions the Finns taking it and being kicked out.

So far you failed in your desperate attempts to prove that it is somehow unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it is a primary and can not be used for analysis. As it does explicitly discuss 'Beloostrov' (not N. Beloostrov) in the second part of the statement - it could mean either of the Beloostrovs in the area - and since it does not say you can not conclude it either way since any analysis or conclusions from primary sources is OR. As you so quaintly put it, leave it to the historians. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing how quickly you can transform from pushing OR to vehemently fighting against it when you need to...

It does not explicitly discuss N. Beloostrov? Maybe you will notice it now: On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Only part which discusses N. Beloostrov is the section stating that fighting broke out at there. However rest of the text does not make that rather crucial distinction between the two localities - and since it is a primary source no wikipedia editor can do that conclusion either without it being OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you actually going to claim that the same sentence is talking about two separate locations?? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It might or it might not. Point is that we can not tell. And since it is a primary source we can not conclude it either way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just too funny... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You may disagree with wikipedia's rules but then again you shouldn't introduce sources which violate it either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I disagree with your ridiculous claims. -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree yet you still can't make any interpretations or conclusions beyond what is already stated in case of a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you are doing, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that was exactly what you were stating just few posts earlier. So are you actually going to claim that the same sentence is talking about two separate locations?? <- there you are demanding that others would agree with the conclusion you made from a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands.

Just to be clear, we are talking about this sentence. What is wrong with it? -YMB29 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the second instance of 'Beloostrov' does not specify which one of the two locations it is referring to and as it is a primary source we can not make conclusions as to which one of them it is referring to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess when you are proven dead wrong, all you can do is make up arguments like this... -YMB29 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an argument, only a statement since the source does not disclose accurately. And since its a primary source we can not do any conclusions over it regardless how much you want to do them. Assuming you want to follow wikipedia's rules that is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is an argument you made up as an excuse, which only embarrasses you. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not an excuse as it merely is directly how the

WP:USINGPRIMARY are laid out. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comprehending a sentence cannot be OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is if it the sentence is from a primary source and requires making a conclusion over its contents. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No conclusion is being made... -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you conclude that 'Beloostrov' mentioned in the source refers to N. Beloostrov instead of S. Beloostrov (or indeed vice versa) you are already doing conclusions from the primary source, and that is OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, go ask about this on the OR noticeboard, if you are not afraid that others will just laugh... -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to go to OR noticeboard since the source you are using is a primary source from which no conclusions can be made. You have already admitted as making a conclusion by stating that something was essentially 'blatantly obvious'. That does not matter since it is a conclusion regardless. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, reading comprehension is not OR. If you think it is, you should go ask for help from others. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are 'comprehending' that 'Beloostrov' means 'N. Beloostrov' - that is not comprehending that is concluding. And since it is primary source that can not be done. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is primary or not. This is simple comprehension... -YMB29 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your 'simple comprehension' already changes some the 'Beloostrov' into 'N. Beloostrov' which is a conclusion, and as such not allowed in wikipedia especially since the source in question is a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No... See the other page where I explained this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

All you explained is that you concluded that it was N. Beloostrov, nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I explained how ridiculous your claim is. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

All you have explained is how you 'comprehend' that in the given context 'Beloostrov' means 'N. Beloostrov'. That however is already a conclusion - and as such made from a primary source it is also OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, anyone who can comprehend a sentence in English will understand this. Again, go ask for a third opinion if you are so concerned about this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really need to do anything but if you want to use the source you still need to show that it is not OR - by other means than just because you think so. Rules are quite in this instance, no conclusions from primary sources - it simply does not matter how 'blatantly obvious' or 'simple comprehensions' they might be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be blatantly obvious to anyone, so you don't want to ask... -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There exists other discussion also for this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not think that a "frontier station" is necessarily a railway station? Secondly, someone can at least find a clearer term than "Soviet sources" to describe the sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source in question is a book based on the diary of a Soviet war correspondent.

There are two towns, N. Beloostrov and S. Beloostrov. N. Beloostrov has a railway station (the last stop before the old Soviet-Finnish border), so when the author writes "frontier station of Beloostrov," which town do you think he refers to? -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If Werth discussed of a 'station' then there wouldn't be much to discuss - however he does not. He explicitly refers to it as 'frontier station'. He does not make any references for it being a railway station - by doing that conclusions you are already doing OR since the source does not state so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So what else can that mean? You are just being disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem with your stance, you have already concluded beyond what the source is stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "station" existed before railways existed. Even in recent English, "frontier station" might still mean "manned frontier crossing" rather than "frontier railway station". You'd need more context to be certain what the author meant. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew is correct. "Frontier station" can mean the same as "frontier post". In a military context it can mean a fortified outpost near the frontier. It is certainly can't be assumed to be a train station. Zero^talk 11:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The other location was a settlement or village, not a military outpost. Again, this is not the 18th century US...

Yes, it would be incorrect to make that assumption... If one location did not have a train station...

Also, in the Russian translation of the book, the word станция (station) is used[9] and that can only mean a train station.

Wanderer602 is just nitpicking. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something but if S Beloostrov is not the one on the frontier, it will not be the frontier station no matter what the word station is referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The two locations are nearby, so both can be said to be on the frontier, but S. Beloostrov did not have a train station and was not a military outpost.

Furthermore, Wanderer602 is aware that S. Beloostrov was captured by the Finns earlier and the Soviets were not able to retake it, as mentioned in the article [10], so the author cannot be talking about S. Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Both S. Beloostrov and N. Beloostrov were on the frontier before the Winter War. There was no difference there.

As stated by other users term 'frontier station' can refer to other things than 'railway station' - which only verified that your conclusion that it must mean railway station is OR. And since we are editing English Wikipedia and that the original language of the source is English it is hardly relevant what Russian translation of English text states after it has been back-translated into English (as per

WP:NOENG).

Statement regarding not being able to retake it is valid in broad context but a according to for example Russian historian Juri Kilin (in the source used for the text section, the book 'Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941', referenced above by YMB29) Soviet forces did reach the S. Beloostrov on exactly the date (5 September) in question after Finns had captured in on the 4 September 1941 and managed to capture it; however the Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack managed to retake the village of S. Beloostrov to the Finns later in 5 September. I cut some parts of the description from the text - since it involved counter attacks and counter attacks against counter attacks - just to keep it simple. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You added the text into the article about the Soviet attacks on S. Beloostrov failing. Now you are trying to say no?

It is a translation of the same book, so

WP:NOENG

does not apply.

You will find an excuse for everything... -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As the source did, if we observe the whole of the 5 September then the Soviet effort to retake the village failed. Soviet counter attack launched on 5 September against Finnish advances of 4 September was successful in reaching the village (i.e. capturing) but Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack to the Finnish original attack threw the Soviets out from the S. Beloostrov again still on the 5 September. Actually NOENG applies since you deliberately using back to forth translations to enforce your point of view of a certain term which we already have valid English language source (the original). - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The translation can clear doubts about the term, so

WP:NOENG

has nothing to do with this.

Reaching is not the same as capturing, just so you know... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation can, yes, but in this case the source (original work) is already in English so there is no need for translations as per

WP:NOENG that English language sources are preferred and that previous translations should be preferred instead of new ones. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you actually read the policies you refer to carefully...

Also, this is not my personal translation; I quoted a Russian version of the book. -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That you did, however the already existing original English work takes precedence over any translations according to wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what you like to think...

Again, in this case it only helps clear doubts about word usage.

You don't like it because it proves you wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your whole original research regarding the translation is pointless since the original source was already in English - just like wikipedia rules dictate, English work takes precedence. Just because you dislike what the original source is stating is not a reason to use foreign language translation and then back-translate the term into English.

WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. - and since the original work is published and reliable source it is preferred over your personal work. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are still lost... I did not translate anything.

The Russian version of the book states exactly the same thing as the English one.

The word "station" was translated to Russian as "train station", which means the author did mean train station as I have told you. -YMB29 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not. It only determines that the translator, not the author, decided that it was such. It has no bearing on the actual English source since the the English language source is the original work and takes precedence over translations in English wikipedia. You are already translating it back to English by telling how it was stated in the Russian translation - and once again the original work with its 'frontier station' takes precedence, it is the official version. Just because you don't like it doesn't allow you to do translate it since valid 'translation' (i.e. original work) already exists. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A translation by an translator/author takes precedence over your ridiculous OR claims.

Anyone can look up the word станция.-YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter since the original work is in English and as such takes precedence - according to wikipedia's rules - over any translations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not contradict the original book, only your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if it contradicts or not. The Russian translation simply does not matter as the original English language work takes precedence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the translation is only used to clarify a doubt that you have. -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That still does not matter since the original source is in English and takes precedence. Just because your OR requires the Russian translation of the original English language source to be used does not mean that any kind of translation would take precedence over the original work - given that both this wiki and the source are in English, as per

WP:NOENG. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same thing without understanding what I am saying. -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I understood perfectly what you are saying but you have still not read the WP:NOENG: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. - since the English language work in question is the original work there is no reason to even involve the translation since according to wikipedia rules the original English book takes precedence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are still just repeating the same thing...

There is no contradiction between the two books for the English version to take precedence. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you reach a conclusion from a translation that is not in the original source then there is a contradiction between the sources. And since the English source takes precedence the translation is simply irrelevant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. You claimed that the words used are ambiguous. The Russian translation can be used to resolve this. -YMB29 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with that is that it does not matter what the Russian translation states, since the original work was in English and takes precedence. Just because it is ambiguous does not make the source in any way invalid or unreliable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Who said that it is invalid or unreliable? I said that the Russian text can be used only to clarify the exact meaning of the words. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it can't since the original work written in English takes precedence. As per wikipedia's rules assuming you want to follow them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know what rules you follow, but there is no rule against this. Using a published translation to clarify something does not mean preferring it over the original source. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly were you are wrong, by using a translations instead of the existing English work, especially when the English work is the original work you are violating the

WP:NOENG - which clearly states following: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (since the English work in question is the original work it is of at least equal quality to a translation from it) - furthermore it continues: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." Which means that the published English work would still be used as a official translation for it instead of your translation from Russian translation. - Wanderer602 (talk

) 07:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The word станция is station in the original English text, but because you claim that station is too ambiguous, we can refer to the Russian translation to settle this. There is no rule against this, so stop quoting irrelevant text. Can you for once not ignore

common sense. You are just arguing because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk

) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem again is that we can not refer to any translations since the original work was already in English which with its 'frontier station' takes precedence over all your translations back to English as well as over the published translation in to Russian since this is English wikipedia. For example the ambiguity in question might just as well have been author's intention.

And original English text most certainly didn't have word 'станция' in it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you see that...

Once again, I am not translating anything differently. -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That is just the catch, the original work is still the 'translation' of the Russian translation. And since it is published English language source it will take precedence as a translation from anything you state according to wikipedia's rules. It simply does not matter what or how you translate anything from the Russian translation since the original English language book takes precedence regardless. Assuming you want to follow wikipedia's rules that is.

This discussion should be continued on the respective talk page rather than here if there is any need to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but you don't understand how the rules apply in this case. -YMB29 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• There's far more text here than I have time to read; however, answering the initial question, secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. Go look up anything on JSTOR, and the vast majority of articles you get will be based on primary sources. Wikipedia states that we cannot interpret primary sources, but allows us to use secondary sources that have done so. Ryan Vesey 06:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Los Alamos source only gives the number. Do we need additional documentation on prediction or experiments to verify it?--

No, they're the experts. Their word is enough. - Cal Engime (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Source: [11]

Article: List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatalities reported in 2012

Content: The content is a tabular entry for the breed of dog involved in the April 20 attack on Aiden McGrew.

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever mix

The question is whether the Source is reliable for identifying the breed of dog involved in the attack. In this case, the dispute is whether the breed of dog shown in the tabular entry should the one stated in the source ("golden retriever-Labrador mix") or as it is currently stated in the article ("Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever mix"). There is an extensive discussion here: Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. -- Astro$01 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a reporter from an established newspaper who spoke to the dog's owners is a much more reliable source than J. Random Wikipedian. If these editors want to call it a Toller in the article, they'll have to convince The Post and Courier to print a correction. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This situation is clearly that of the opinion of one or two editors based on what they believe they see in the image of Lucky, the dog that attacked and killed the child. It is innappropriate to lable the dog anything more than what the sources claim until and unless true verification is found anywhere that contradicts the information. There is no such source at this time.--

talk

) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My position is

• The
  WP:RSes
  cannot be safely assumed to have had the ability to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. It's a rare and obscure breed that not even the local animal control authorities can be safely assumed to have been able to recognize it.
• The ability to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, or basically any breed, is not that difficult to come by. We can easily learn to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever with tools available to anyone with an internet connection. We as a group are more reliable than your average Animal Control officer and can see that this is apparently a clear case of misidentification: the RSes really seem to be wrong.
• I don't know how to cite a statement to the effect of "the dog is apparently/appears to be/shares the traits and physical features/looks and sounds like a NSCTR", but I think it can be done by directing any challenger to pictures and videos of the dog in question on the one hand, and confirmed NSDTRs on the other hand and let the the reader be the judge. And also some pictures of Lab/Golden mixes in a third column would help to satisfy a likely challenge. I don't know how to do this, though. Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, no and no. Drop the stick and back away from the horse.--

talk

) 03:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Brought to my attention through OTRS Ticket#: 2012022810011972:

The case involves an assault involving a black man named Dwayne Buckle in Newark and 7 lesbians. There is debate about whether Buckle, who was more seriously injured in the incident was the aggressor or the victim, and whether or not the women were acting in self-defense. A related earlier incident involved a lesbian named Sakia Gunn who was killed in Newark. The sentence in question is:

All the women were acquainted with

Sakia Gunn

, a black lesbian murdered in a hate crime.[citation needed]

The best remotely reliable source I can find for this on Google or Google News/Archives or HighBeam is CounterPunch:

"Being young, they knew the odds of fun were better in the Village; being lesbians, they knew fun was not to be had in the streets of Newark, where, four years earlier, 15-year-old Sakia Gunn was knifed to death by men who thought she was cute–until she told them she was gay." http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/07/05/killer-lesbians-mauled-by-killer-court/

Another source, of unclear reliability, is ThePublicIntellectual.org:

"All of the New Jersey 7 either knew Sakia Gunn personally or knew that she had been murdered in a street harassment incident three years earlier. The media, they say, helped foster an environment that made it easy to mischaracterize the women’s acts of self-defense." http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/07/18/the-case-of-the-killer-lesbians/

One last source, also of low reliability, is NYC IndyMedia:

"All of the seven women knew and went to school with Sakia Gunn, a 19-year-old butch lesbian who was stabbed to death in Newark, N.J., in May 2003. " http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2007/07/88068.html

I'd appreciate thoughts about these three sources, as the mention of Sakia Gunn is apparently controversial and requires a closer look. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't seem good enough for us to state they were acquainted with her personally. We may be able to use them to write that commentary on the incident connected the cases after the fact. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This has probably come up before, but are reports like [12] considered RS to support that Butler & Xavier universities are joining the new Big East Conference? If not, what about the SportsCenter TV show, which also supports the above? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In summary:

Source(s): SportsCenter broadcast from 2013-02-28, and ESPN article

Articles: Any article which lists the members/future members of the Big East Conference, either the current one or the new one being established by the "Catholic 7", or lists conference membership changes of NCAA members.

Including but not limited to:

• Big East Conference
• 2010–13 Big East Conference realignment
• NCAA Division I conference realignment
• 2010–13 NCAA conference realignment

Content: Any content such as running text, timelines of conference affiliation, conference membership tables, etc. that indicate that Butler University and Xavier University will be members of the newly-established "Big East" later this year. Example diff: [13]

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

With in-text attribution (i.e. "ESPN reported..."), I don't see why these wouldn't be OK. One concern is

Location (talk

) 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Smacks of recentism to me. Why not just wait for the published sources?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

what do you mean by "published sources"? i.e. why are the above sources not "published sources"? 96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I should have said "written" sources. Chances are ESPN.com will have the information online by the time it made it to your TV. For some reason I get the feeling that the TV shows are being used to "get the scoop". Nothing wrong with that I guess, but its a lot easier to use an online source. Just my 2 cents.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I did link to an ESPN.com article above 96.32.138.125 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is OK, but for a report you heard on Sportscenter you would need to cite a published video or transcript of the broadcast.

Location (talk

) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a preference for written vs audiovisual sources. I think the sources are probably okay, but I think that

WP:INTEXT attribution would be appropriate and expected by our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a web scraper to me and I can't find any indication that they have a reputation for fact checking. It is used for bio information in the article Nikita Ramsey as http://www.magweb.com/actors/nikita_ramsey# I'm not certain, though, so would like other opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it's anywhere as reliable as IMdB, which is at least accepted for such routine things as list of films and roles, , But what information do you see there that could possibly be used in the article? DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It was being used as a reference to support birth date in the article. I suspect it got the info from IMDb, they don't say where the info is from. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I got this. Swapping it out with a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I put in a reliable source for an approximation of the birth date as I presumed magweb.com wasn't usable. I couldn't find anything reliable that gave specific info that meets requirements at

WP:BLPPRIVACY. Would be nice to find something though. Geraldo Perez (talk

) 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Dr. (Prof.) Aydogdy Kurbanov can be cited in the WP Articles -->> "Hephthalites" (Hephthalite Empire), "Gurjar", "Rajput"; the Consensus favors Dr. Kurbanov, unanimously !! ← Abstruce 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dear ALL

• Source: Dr. Aydogdy Kurbanov [14]

• Articles concerned:
  Hephthalite Empire [presently, Hephthalites redirects to Hephthalite Empire], Gurjar, Rajput

• About Dr. Kurbanov:
  • Ph.D. thesis was on The Hephthalites: Archaeological and Historical Analysis [15]
  • Copy-Paste (as is) from Aydogdy Kurbanov | German Archaeological Institute - Academia.edu:

    Aydogdy Kurbanov

    river Uzboi, Turkmenistan, and Neolithic

    Archaeology

  • An nice link concerning Dr. Aydogdy Kurbanov: (Federal Foreign Office) Connecting worlds of knowledge > Portraits of foreign scientists in Germany > Aydogdy Kurbanov

    ← Abstruce 18:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)