Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277

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.

After substantial input from editors here including @Assayer, Slatersteven, Aquillion, My very best wishes, The Four Deuces, Someguy1221, Paul Siebert, Nug, K.e.coffman, and ZScarpia: discussion was quickly archived. Not being aware of discussion here, I tried to consolidate accounts of NKVD gas vans [1]. Quickly thereafter My very best wishes has expanded our article's emphasis on Soviet use of gas vans, and changed the article's language to be more definitive [2].

My main concern is that the Nazi systematic use of gas vans for extermination is being subordinated to their sporadic and uncertain use in the purges in a manner that violates

Until this discussion and investigation is included, hopefully in a manner involving a greater number of editors, I think we should be conservative with the article Gas van. -Darouet (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not really an RS issue, its a NPOV issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been already discussed on WP:NPOV noticeboard [3], with consensus to expand the section about Nazi Germany. User Assayer promised to expand it, and he is welcome to do just that. Who said "this has been a cause célèbre for holocaust deniers"? If that can be reliably sourced to something other than Holocaust deniers themselves, perhaps this should be included to the page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, this is a
  WP:TONE. Those, unfortunately, tend to be more difficult questions. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by involved users (@Assayer, Slatersteven, Aquillion, My very best wishes, The Four Deuces, Someguy1221, Paul Siebert, Nug, K.e.coffman, ZScarpia, and Darouet:

Actually, there is also an issue that makes this discussion relevant to this noticeboard. On the article's talk page, @Darouet: proposed to list all sources that tell about Soviet gas vans, and to summarise which secondary sources are based on which primary sources. I think it would be good to move this discussion here. Moreover, per comments on the NPOV talk page, I propose to organize this discussion in such a way that involved and uninvolved users are separated from each other. In my opinion, noticeboards like this one are created to give more opportunity for non-involved users to voice their opinion, so that style seems to serve to this purpose better.

Here is my summary of all sources:

• A collection of testimonies published in Kontinent. The author is a writer specialized in cinematography. He just collected all available testimonies about Butovo polygon. He provided no own analysis of testimonies, so, in my opinion, this book, despite the fact that it is a useful source of information, is just a collection of primary sources.
• The Komsomolskaya Pravda article published in 1990 by Zhirnov. This article is not available online (to the best of my knowledge). It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier, the same document cited by the Kontinent (vide supra).

The Zhirnov's article was cited by several secondary sources, each of which used it as the sole source about Soviet gas vans. These sources are:

1. Timothy J. Colton. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Belknap Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-58749-9 p. 286
2. Е. Жирнов. «По пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров отравлялись газом». Коммерсантъ Власть, № 44, 2007 (the article by the same author who just re-tells the story he published in KP).
3. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297
4. Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. 1995, page 101
5. Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, Knopf, 2007, ISBN 140003213X, p.460.

In addition, the source Marek Hałaburda, “The Polish Operation”. The genocide of the Polish people in the USSR in the years 1937–1938, Orientalia Christiana Cracoviensia, 2013, v.5, p. 71. just cites the Polish book Wielki Terror: 1937–1938 by Tomasz Kizny, who, according to Joanna Madloch (The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 57, No. 4 (WINTER 2013), pp. 699-70) is just an independent photographer. Therefore, it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article.

• The article Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov (an author of the KP article).
• We also have the Grigorenko's book where he cites (from memory) testimonies of one person who happened to see what he described as usage of a gas van in Omsk in 1930s. In my opinion, the author provided no analysis of this primary source, so this source should be considered as a highly questionable primary source.
• Next source is memoirs by ex-policeman М. П. Шрейдеp. According to him, during transportation, the victims were intoxicated by car exhaust that made them semi-conscious. He is not telling that the primary reason was to kill them during transportation. Therefore, usage of this source is a direct violation of the rules that regulate usage of primary sources.
• The article by Sokolov (Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012) was published in a local Ukrainian newspaper. It essentially summarizes the information from the above mentioned sources.
• In addition, we have the article published is a personal blog by Nicholas Terry, a scholar who is professionally studying Holocaust and Holocaust denial. This article says the Soviet gas van story is used by Holocaust deniers to blame Jews in invention of gas vans.

In my opinion, there is a big problem with usage of sources, which are organized in such a way that multiple sources that used a tabloid article as the sole source of information are presented as many independent sources. In addition, several primary sources are used as secondary ones, whereas the opinion of the scholar who professionally studies the Holocaust is ignored. As a result, we have a three pronged violation: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR are violated simultaneously.

Again, to let uninvolved user voice their opinion, all participants are strongly encouraged to comment in "involved" and "non-involved" sections, accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality: I probably was not clear enough. When I listed the sources that are based on a single KP article, I meant that they cite only this article as a source of information. For example, Solzhenitsyn clearly writes that he obtained the information about gas vans from this KP article, and he does not cite any other source. There is no indication that Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn use any other source besides the Zhirnov's article. Therefore, it is not my guess: they are talking about the same story that happened during the Great Purge, they cite only the KP article, they cite no arcival documents, they present no witness testimonies, and there is no indication any of them did any independent archival studies of this issue. Therefore, there can be no "probably" here: each of them is based on that KP article, and only on that article. Later articles authored by Zhirnov tell the same story, and they are based on the same single document the author happened to see in 1990, so it is not an independent publication either. The Polish work cites another Polish book authored by a photographer, who also did no archival research, and the only source of information available to him could be either that KP article or some of the sources listed by me above. That is not a guess, that is a logical conclusion.

In addition, nobody claims these sources should be rejected, the problem is different: if several sources are telling the story that was taken from some single source, we cannot present them as several independent sources. Quite the opposite: we have to list them all, but we must clearly explain the connection between each of them and the original publication each of them is based upon.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to things you have said such as "It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier", "The article...tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov" and "it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article". These seem to be to be your assumptions about these sources, and not verifiable facts. Just because something is, in your opinion, "very/highly/most likely", does not mean that we can consider it as such. That is, as far as I can tell, your original research. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality: Of course, it is verifiable. Thus, it is quite possible to find Kizny's book and check what source he was using. Taking into account that he himself is not a historian, and his book is not devoted to the gas van topic, it is highly unlikely that he did any independent research. Therefore, we have a very serious reason to assume it is not an independent source, but just a repetition of what other sources say. That can and should be checked, and, until it is checked, we should not use it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I will reiterate; it is only your opinion that this is "highly unlikely", and making such assessments of sources is original research. I give very little weight to assumptions, no matter how serious one thinks the causes for such assumptions may be. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy, it seems this issue does belong to this page, at least, partially. First, should we treat the source that just reproduces a single secondary source as secondary or tertiary? Second, should we treat it as an independent source, or we should clarify the hierarchy of sources (which source is based on which)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I think the comments by Paul are misleading and indeed original research. No, the publication in Kontinent is not just a collection of testimonies. There is no such thing as "Butovo polygon". Paul could not even find the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda he tells was used by other sources. All authors of secondary sources clearly express their own views on the subject, they do not even cite directly the alleged source "...", including even later publications by the same author (Zhirnov). We simply do not know what other sources the historians (Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn, etc.) could use, all of them are established experts. If even I could find four additional sources (such as the articles in Kontinent and by Sokolov and memoirs by Grigorenko and Shreider, none of which ever mention the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda), so could others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter, if the comments of an editor on sources are "original research" or not. In fact, research is indispensable to assess the reliability of sources.
2. The publication in Kontinent is merely a transcript of interviews for a documentary. The previous discussion at best proposed to use this source with caution and attribution. Actually I am surprised that My very best wishes is so in favour of that source, because it directly contradicts their other sources, in that the Soviet gas vans according to these "eyewitnesses" were not used for execution, but for rendering the victims unconscious before they were shot.
3. Albatz, Colton, and Solzhenitsyn cite Komsomolskaya Pravda. Merridale cites Colton. To use Merridale and Colton as seperate sources is misleading. As of now the translator of Yevgenia Albatz' work has even been promoted to co-author status. Does anybody think that this increases reliability?
4. It does not matter what other sources historians might have used use. That's mere speculation. It is clear from the footnotes that many used only one source and others kept copying. Those are not independent sources.
5. The current use of sources in the article is so focused upon using everything available, that errors and contradictions are reproduced over and over again. I already introduced a work on Stalin's secret police by Alexander Vatlin.[4] Based upon Berg's personal file it is clear that Berg became chief of the administrative economic department in Moscow’s NKVD in the summer of 1937 and was arrested on 3 August 1938. Instead, based upon a newspaper article by Zhirnov, Wikipedia claims that Berg was arrested in 1937. That's an example of
   WP:INACCURACY
   and demonstrates how (un)reliable Zhirnov is. What could be found on Berg with Vatlin has quickly been removed from the article. Seems that this source didn't fit into the narrative, because Vatlin does not mention "Soviet gas vans".
6. To a large degree this is indeed an issue of
   WP:SCHOLARSHIP were thrown over board. As of now interviews, newspaper articles, novelists and studies from the 90ies are preferred over more recent scholarship.--Assayer (talk
   ) 18:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiable means if I read it and you read it we see the same thing, not that it is accurate. Scholarship is one part of RS, so it

WP:NEWSORG, what it does not say is we can only use scholarly sources. So none of the above throws either out. I really suggest this is closed now, its not an RS issue and is becoming tiresome. Do not ping me again, I have said all I wish to say.Slatersteven (talk

) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. There is no grounds for an "anything goes"-approach. If there was any ping, it was unintentional and maybe due to the edit summary. --Assayer (talk

) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not really want to wade too deeply into this here (Seems like not really the correct place), but I will say that the above argument relies far too much on the assumptions, guesses, and opinions of one editor(unsigned, but page history shows it is Paul Siebert) to the point that it verges pretty deeply into Original Research territory. I am not comfortable with their assessment that all these sources "probably" rely upon the same source, especially when that source is unavailable. I see a whole lot of "in my opinion", "It is very likely", "highly likely", etc. This is really nothing more than guesswork, and you cannot dismiss sources based on an editor's assumptions or guesses, which seems to be the backbone of the above argument. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not an involved edd, and have no idea how I am supposed to be involved. We do not second guess sources, we do not use assumption or OR to dismiss them. This is not an RS issue (the sources have been found to be RS) its a weight issue. This is getting tedious now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• This is very strange posting by
  WP:RS (only two of them are reliably published memoirs by famous people and therefore probably primary RS, which does not preclude their usage per policy). An exception is this blog post, which was posted by an anonymous user with Russian name [5]. No, this is not posting by Nicholas Terry. Fortunately, no one suggested to use this blog on the page so far. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• This is not a RS question, the sourcing is generally fine and can be addressed case by case on Talk anyway. The issue is of
  WP:UNDUE, and as far as I can see we can fix that simply by putting the Nazi section first (since that's far and away the most prominent). I have done that. Guy (help!
  ) 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• How is this even an argument?! Everyone has heard about Nazi gan vans, lots of sources. "Soviet gas trucks" are covered by Russian tabloids who recount an eyewitness of a truck which nauseated but didn't kill transportees, some sources who repeat the tabloids, and Holocaust deniers who try to downplay Nazi gas vans. Nazi gas vans existed and killed many. The existence of a few "Soviet gas trucks" isn't even certain. Eostrix (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This page does not include a single reference to tabloids or to Holocaust deniers. I did not see a single RS saying anything about Holocaust deniers in relation to the Soviet gas vans. None of the cited sources downplays Nazi gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but I did search. What I found in English: [6] or [7] is on www.vho.org whose title is "The Holocaust Controversy A Case for open Debate". German-Wikipedia calls Weckert a "Holocaust denier". The Russian-Wikipedia is skeptical on Berg - "no evidence". Eostrix (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Russian Wikipedia is not an RS, but it provides a link to yet another source [8], newspaper Argumenty i Fakty (currently not used on our page Gas van). There, a Russian state security official tells about Soviet gas vans as matter of fact. Furthermore, your both sources (linked pdfs) also claim that Soviet gas vans did exist and refer to an additional source, a "four-part television series ... broadcast in the United States" (also currently not used on our page). However, one of the linked sources is a book by a Holocaust denier as you say, and another one is from the "The World's largest website for Historical Revisionism!". Are you saying they should be used for sourcing on the page? Argumenty i Fakty look OK to me. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting www.vho.org. Color me skeptical when everything I find in English is linked to Holocaust denial.Eostrix (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's because some people denied the use of gas vans by Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding was that Terry (the central academic RS in this case) was ambivalent if the Soviet gas vans existed but asserted if they did exist they were a small "innovation" with a local scope, not something codified into policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What "central academic RS" do you mean? This blog post by this anonymous user [9]? My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Source to check

These have come up as possible sources, can someone check them?

The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Stephen Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353 "construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937".

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sole mention I see is in footnote 75 (page 1353):

"Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD , that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim. See Valentin Kovalev, Dva Stalinskikh Narkoma (Moscow, Univers, 1995), p . 241"

So a sensational claim needing further confirmation. Eostrix (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How about [[[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXM2H6tWHskC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=dushegubki+%2B+nkvd&source=bl&ots=fOiZKwVv_F&sig=ACfU3U24SQrch93sKcvAr-jwbrbIUxRgeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrMjB27LlAhU5QUEAHQAMDfMQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=dushegubki%20%2B%20nkvd&f=false]?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

One sentence on "ginned up" lorry by Isai D. Berg at Butovo. No discussion, the rest of the page discusses shootings there. Eostrix (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it an RS? If it is then we have an RS that talk s about this. Anything else is another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The reference number 75 in the Wheatcroft's article is used in the sentence

" Auschwitz as a centre for mass killing should be compared with the mass shootings[75] of the NKVD throughout the 1930s, and not with the Gulag or the famine."

The ref 75 says:

" Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD, that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim."

That means that (i) Kovalev refers to the same document that was used by Zhirnov in his KP article, and, most likely, Kovalev's claim is based on the same KP article, and (ii) Wheatcroft, who is a really serious historian specializing in Stalinist repressions, thinks that that claim is "sensational" and needs further confirmation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the book, this page is not available to me, and I couldn't read it. However, if it tells about Berg, then it is definitely based on the same KP article, because the Berg's dossier seems to have been classified again (the only person who happened to see it was Zhirnov). Again, we are speaking about the same story reproduced by several secondary sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, that is not how RS works. We are not allowed to second guess or analyse RS. They may well be reap;ting the same story (assuming they are, and that is an assumption), they are still RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. We are allowed, and we must analyse RS before we use them. Thus, my analysis shows that the RS found by you supports the claim that the statement about Soviet gas van found in Valentin Kovalev's book is sensational, and it requires further confirmations. Do you have any objection to that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy tells us "we must analyse RS before we use them"? What you are proposing is research and

WP:OR strictly forbids it. --Nug (talk

) 12:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:V

says: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

That means, we have to

1. Analyze the context to determine appropriateness of the source;
2. Analyze the structure of the source to determine if it is professional;
3. Analyze the degree of scrutiny to determine the degree of reliability.

In contrast, if you just pick a phrase from the source, that is called cherry-picking, and it is not a sign of a good editor.

Moreover, as a recent discussion at the NOR talk page demonstrated, OR is applied to the article space only. What you are saying is

playing policies against each other. --Paul Siebert (talk

) 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand

WP:V, nowhere does it state we need to analyse sources used by a source, that is OR. --Nug (talk

) 21:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

An ability to read and understand English texts is an obvious skill that is not supposed to be stipulated by our policy. And, again, this your statement is playing OR against V, which is directly prohibited in areas that are under DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul, I do have one question. You said in your post above, "whereas the opinion of the scholar who professionally studies the Holocaust is ignored". What scholar and which source are you talking about? Based on your post (the diff), it is this anonymous blog post. And you are telling about the alleged "WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR" "violations" by others? My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retraction Watch Database is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what."

• https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/database-18000-retracted-scientific-papers-now-online.htm
• http://retractiondatabase.org/

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Nice! See [10] for one well known author. Guy (help!) 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this should go to page

Retractions in academic publishing. Anything similar on plagiarism? I know there is Dissernet. My very best wishes (talk

) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Article: Ruhollah Khomeini

Text in question:

"Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

Sources:

• "Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period “a diving blessing,” and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” This practice continues to this day, despite the severe injuries girls often incur from early intercourse and childbirth. Encounter Books

• ""In many of his works Khomeini himself strongly recommends pre-menstruation marriage as "a divine blessing." "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house," he write in Tawzih al-Masayel"Adler & Adler Pub

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would be wary of using Robert Spencer as a source about any thing Muslim. If its relevant or factual a better source would have mentioned it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Stefka Bulgaria, where are you seeing the quote? That being said:-
  An Islamophobic polemicist is definitely not a RS for anything related to Islam. And his views shall be always used with necessary attribution and that too, iff other sources have covered his views on the issue. That the work has been published by a conservative publication fora, which deems every review-outlet from Kirkus to NYT as biased against them just lends to the case for not using it, at all.
  Adler & Adler has published about ~50 books in the 80s. No repute as a press, going by the credibility of most of their authors and lack of publication-reviews. Now, the author is highly controversial and has been earlier caught outright fabricating Khommeini's quotations. An emphatic no. ∯WBG^converse 18:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Encounter books (page 48), Adler and Adler (page 35). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Being "conservative" or skeptical of Islam does not an unreliable source make. What's concerning here is that the authors do not have a high reputation for accuracy and the Encounter itself seems like, at best, quite polemical in tone; it publishes self-described "broadsides". Pro-Iran disinformation is also something to be on the lookout for. I'm not sure about these exact quotes, but there are other sources describing Khomeini's encouragement of pedophilia. See, eg. this UN report (pg. 2).

talk, contribs

) 18:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Wot? An outright polemic Islamophobe, per a bunch of scholarly sources, does not a reliable source make. ∯WBG^converse 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

True, but when they also have a reputation for falsehoods its does. It just saves time to point out their view of Islam is so negative it (basically) is a false view (and falsity a non RS does make).Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I would go with UN report (link by Fiamh above): "According to the ... Ayatollah Khomeini, sexual experiences, with the exception of intercourse, are permitted with girls of all ages. He hasissued a fatwa (religious edict): “Anyone who has a wife less than nine years of age is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, whether she is his permanent or temporary wife. However, other forms of sexual pleasures are permitted, such as..." The text after changes reads pretty much pro-Iran regime. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone tell if this is a credible primary source for birth records, or if there is a better one?

In particular is an ongoing dispute if Jussie Smollett was actually born Justin. Or any other name.

Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

this is not a question of reliability. Primary sources cannot be used per

WP:BLPPRIMARY. The policy is very clear. Slp1 (talk

) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s foremost a question of reliability. If the information is from an unreliable source then I won’t consider using it as a reason to search for reliable secondary sourcing. If the source is accurate then it begs the question why the disconnect of what is true, verses what is being reported.

It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name, although some states amend birth certificates maybe California does not. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The policy language could not be clearer: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

If reliable secondary sources do not discuss the material, then it must be excluded by policy. "It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name" is precisely the type of innuendo and rumor that has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, and this is a matter of policy that every Wikipedia editor is obligated to follow.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t looking to use it as a source per se, but to determine what is accurate in the many sources available.

Right now we are unable to reliably source any birthname so we’ve removed that from the info box.

At this point it seems he was born Justin, and Jussie is a nickname. None of which has been reliably sourced, but all of which have been ongoing edited into the article.

I figured there was something to it and wanted to get some resolution on the matter. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Justin" should be excluded from the article until reliable secondary sources report it. The fact that one very reliable source withdrew the claim is a strong indication that the so-called birth name was probably an error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Excluding ‘Justin’ for now is exactly what we are doing; because of this inquiry we are also removing the ‘birth name’ from info box because there is *no* source he was born as ‘Jussie’. ‘Jus’ is one of many nicknames for people named Justin, personally I feel this is the most likely explanation.

I’m convinced there’s at least one very good PR person at work on the issue, as can be seen on the article talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: Sports Illustrated [11] refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? Collect (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Also [12] Elle which is likely also to be RS. [https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/224892-jussie-smollett-agresse-la-star-dempire-sort-enfin-du-silence/ ], [13] The Panther, how many are needed? Collect (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll post these to the article talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In the article on Uskoks^[1] the following is mentioned, I quote "Large numbers of Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans, joined the ranks of the Uskok bands ^[2][3] " I read the book from Goffman Daniel^[4] and page where these Serbs are mentioned but there is no evidence for that claim(migration from Serbia or mention of Serbs) so i wonder what to do? These historians have stated it but it has not been proven by anything, otherwise it cannot be proven with nothing because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in that part of Croatia except one document but these Serbs migrate to Slovenia. Two historians are factual evidence for Wikipedia however these historians tell fairy tales, what do I do? I started a topic on the talk page^[5] but i am wondering what else i can do, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

talk, contribs

) 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express myself well, there are no historical data of Serbs in the Senj area or that they are members of the Uskoks. How to use reliable secondary sources for a claim when they are not proven. It is as if they mentioned that Turks were Uskoks but there is no information about Turks been Uskoks. I suppose those historians quote some Serbian historians who are probably seeing Serbs there. Factual data says the following: "Determining the exact national or ethnic composition of the Uskoks from Senj is extremely difficult since is rarely recorded nationality of the Uskoks, (most commonly terms for Uskoks are "Croat", "Slavs", "Morlaks")[6] It is difficult to actually determine the national and ethnic composition of the Uskoks, Venetians are described Uskoks as Croats, Habsburg sources also identify Uskoks as Croats. ^[7] About a migration from Serbia to Senj we should not waste words for that. Do you now understand what this is all about?Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

talk, contribs

) 22:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

But they do not prove it in their books because there is no evidence for that. We cannot based some fact on the statement of some historian which claim that the Uskoks are Serbs when there is no evidence for that. So i should write a scientific paper to refute it? But i cited scientific papers where Serbs are not mentioned as Uskoks. We have some new history that we didn't know about until now. So far we have not had a single historical record that talk about Serbs who are coming in masses to Croatia(Senj area) but on Wikipedia it says and everyone who reads that fact really thinks it's true. If someone starts write that the Chinese are coming to Croatia and that will be true because someone wrote it in their book. It's like quoting and put in wikipedia article clame of Serbian historian Jovan Cvijic who mentions White Serbia from where Serbs come to the Balkans, but there is no historical documents that mentions White Serbia. Do not tell me I need to write a scientific paper to refute that claim of Jovan Cvijić? Wikipedia is a great platform for Serbian propaganda because no one is looking for original evidence. If these claims start to be transmitted by foreign historians we will have some new history and we already have one. Croatian emigrants in America or Argentina when he reads about Uskoks in the wikipedia he will probably think that Senj Uskoks are and Serbs although there is no evidence for that, some citizens in Serbia will think the same. It's like reading a serbian wikipedia I quote "The Uskoks people were Serbs who fled from Ottoman territory to the border regions of Austria and the Venetian Republic." I have now stated that there is no historical information for that. Twilight Zone?Mikola22 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Do they say it in their books? Please read

wp:v.Slatersteven (talk

) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Quote from the book: "Just as it rounded Pola point, less than one day out from Venice, a swarm of some forty small boats suddenly darted in from the east and quickly infested the massive and clumsy galley. The courier knew that these were Uskoks, a community of destitute yet determined privateers — many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia — entrenched in the northern Dalmatian seaside town of Senj, sanctioned by the Habsburg state, and dedicated to struggle against Islam. Despite their sworn opposition to the Ottomans, it was Venetian shipping that most suffered from their attacks, which invariably occurred in the Adriatic "sea of Venice." Uskok zeal excused strikes. Bracewell, Uskoks of Senj, passim." This is what Goffman Daniel writes in his book, he does not explore history of Uskoks. Probably quotes Catherine Wendy Bracewell. The first we should see a page of her book where she quotes this and evidence for that claim. I have been following the reviews of her book in Croatia and she determined someone's origin based on names and surnames. A review, I quote "She notes, however, that to determine of Uskoks origin helps their names and surnames [8] It only proves that is true what i'm talking about i.e. that we do not have any historical information about Serbs in the Uskoks, but that should be clarify by names and surnames? How when half of Croatia are under Turks and a good part of the Croats convert to the Orthodoxy. This is as it claims by Serbian historians from the 19th century. For part of the article in which are mentioned migration of large numbers of Serbs from Serbia there is no evidence for that so we don't even need to discuss it. Otherwise someone could write book about the British population and identify someone's origins based on their first and last names, if someone wrote that in a book people would probably think he was crazy.Mikola22 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure this source supports either conclusion. It does not say they were Serbs (but were from Serbia), but nor does it say they were not Serbs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, right now i noticed that. Serb fugitives are not mentioned in the book of Goffman Daniel but this is stated in the article on Uskoks.Mikola22 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• catholicism.org  

This website is currently being used in 76 articles. It's published by the New Hampshire branch of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a religious group with no official recognition from the Catholic Church. Here are some recent news articles about the group: [14][15][16]. While the SPLC's coverage of traditionalist Catholicism is generally incomplete and of poor quality (e.g., why do they label anti-ecumenism and sedevacantism "worse" than antisemitism? [17]), I agree with their characterisation of the New Hampshire Slaves as antisemitic[18]. Would it be appropriate to treat this website as an unreliable source for everything other than the views of the Slaves? Cheers, gnu57 05:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A non-canonical Catholic institution is only going to be reliable for its own views. Actually, the same is true of official Catholic Church publications. But the latter viewpoint is much more important and likely to be appropriate for inclusion in articles.

talk, contribs

) 06:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Requires an explicit attribution to the author of any publication and depends entirely on the qualification of the author. Must be avoided, unless the author is a known expert on the specific subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be OK to use this material Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations attributed to the following source in Ruhollah Khomeini article? source:Whitaker, Brian (2011). Unspeakable Love: Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East. Saqi Books.

I have to say that I cannot find any other sources to support "Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality".Saff V. (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Books are usually poor sources for statements of fact, the reason being that books are usually not fact-checked by independent fact checkers. You are therefore thrown back largely on your confidence in the author. Well let's see... Brian Whitaker has an article. He's a legit journalist, writes for The Guardian... Which means he's not an academic. However, is clearly very expert in the general subject. He speaks Arabic and has written several books. The passage is very specific: "In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions." Not the sort of thing that a person like him would just make up. He seems unlikely, with his level of expertise, to have confused "executions" with "imprisonments" or something. Is this something he would do on purpose? Well, he's got a website, al-bab, so you can check him out more thoroughly there... Here is his Twitter feed. And here is a library of his Guardian articles. He could be vetted more thoroughly thru these, but my overall sense is that no, he probably wouldn't do that, as it doesn't seem to fit what looks to be his business and career model. To the the extent that he might have a strong enough polemical bias to twist facts on purpose, he doesn't show it right off.

TL;DR: Has the expertise to not get this wrong. Does not appear likely in my view to have got it wrong on purpose. So, source is OK. Just OK, but OK enough in my book. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Source is RS. There are billions of other sources that confirm homosexuals were outlawed under Khomeini "because it went against the Quran". Sky is blue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, Well in that case, we should use one of those sources instead, one that's been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or publication known to have a good fact-checking operation. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea where the idea books are usually bad sources comes from. The publisher seem reputable, the author is a respected journalist who actual,y has a qualification related to the topic this book is about. Now there may be an argument for attribution, but its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, It comes from the idea that books are not fact checked. Articles in Time magazine are actually gone over by a fact-checker, independent of the write. She consults reference works, makes phone calls, and so forth to double-check that the writer indeed got his facts right.

Books are not fact-checked in this way. Books are gone over by a copy editor, but she is looking for spelling and grammar mistakes and awkward wording; she might check some facts on an ad hoc basis, but not rigoursly. There's no time; she's got X days to copy edit the entire book, and fact-checking is labor intensive. Sometimes an author will pay out of his own pocket and hire a fact-checker. Not usually.

And indeed I have some instances of distinguished authors getting fact wrong in books.

Nor does the publisher care. HarperCollins etc. know that people buy books by subject and author. No one says "Oh, a new HarperCollins books, I'll buy it". So it's not their business model to care. They won't publish books by InfoWars type authors who make up facts wholesale from whole cloth, because that'd eventually tend to degrade their reputation; that's different from caring whether a proper author is loose with occasional facts. "Reputable publisher" sounds comforting, but it's just a magic word. It doesn't mean much really.

So, a book is little better than a blog. The fact that it has physical mass, hard covers, cost some money to create, fancy dust cover... it feels comforting, but it doesn't mean anything really. Tha's not terrible; a lot of blogs are fine. It's just a matter of how reliable you think the author is, and you have to recognize that without a fact-checker even the best author's book or blog is going to be "Acceptable, but not great". Brian Whitaker looks reliable enough for me. Whether he had published his statement in a book or on his blog makes no real difference. We've decided to trust Brian Whitaker that what he says is true. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: your evaluation of the author was good but I think you may have a more accurate "sense" if you note that the author of [19] has used another book (Afary, Janet and Anderson, Kevin: Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islam. Chicago 2005, p. 161.) as the reference for the claims. It is more interesting that in the footnote 31 of the later book, p.292 , the author has used email exchanges as a source of information! Can we rely on this?Saff V. (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we? Email correspondence with experts in a given field is a valid way for journalists and academics to obtain information. It also cites a piece by Eliz Sanasarian, and other academic writings, and is published by University of Chicago Press. I don't see anything that would contradict this being a reliable source, in fact quite the opposite. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No less then face to face interviews.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pleas take look at the provided link then make the commment, Not only the source is the email exchanges, but also are this two unriliable website, homan and [20]. it is what was written in footnote:

Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost.According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor,SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187). Saff V. (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Are we citing to it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the main source for that claim is email which as

WP:SOURCE demanded, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.Saff V. (talk

) 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hold on I am confused now, is the claim being sourced to the book, or an e-mail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A book, which cites another book, which cited email. Staff V seems to be arguing that since the chain starts with email, subsequent books based on the email are not RS. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I will reserve judgement on the merits of such an argument (though I think my above responses should give a clue) based upon what his response it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest then you read

wp:rs which does not support your contention. Books are RS, as long as they meet certain criteria, this one does. If you are not happy with this I suggest you take it to village pump and try to get policy changed.Slatersteven (talk

) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the book very clearly qualify as a good secondary RS on the subject. And what is the argument against using it, exactly? "A book, which cites another book, which cited email"... so the book is not an RS? This is the same "argument" as in the thread just below about Soviet gas vans. Wrong. An author of a secondary RS/a book can cite whatever (or nothing at all), but it is still his/her conclusion, and it is clearly a secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This secondary book is not reliable for this claim, because these claims refers to email! I did not talk about being reliable book or not generally.Saff V. (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Not only you are making an original research here, but you are trying to disprove claims made by a reliable source (a book by an expert) while not being an expert on this subject yourself. This is POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Books written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field the book is about (in this case, the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries) ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in

WP:BIASED has never been more appropriate wnen citing news sources in general, not just books or famously agenda-driven news outlets. --loupgarous (talk

) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is reasonable to say "Statements written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field... ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in WP:BIASED". It's not necessarily true, but it's reasonable, as long as its understood that there are exceptions, and it depends on what the statement is.

Because whether its a book, a blog, an interview, or any other public statement doesn't necessarily or even usually make much difference. Just understand that, book or blog, if the person made a mistake -- for instance, slipped up reading a column of figures and wrote that the 2017 nominal GDP of Czechia is 245,000 (when actually that is the 2018 number) -- nobody is going to check that, probably. So it is not just expertise and lack of bias, you also need an author who wants to be and is able to be pretty careful about each statement of fact she puts under her name. Lots of writers are expert and unbiased, but not super careful. (As I said above, this particular writer for this particular statement of fact from this particular book is probably OK.) Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And any argument here must be based upon policy, not logic. Policy does not say that blogs and books are the same. Can we close this now, its just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it dubious to suggest that

I agree with this. The bottom line: the book was reliably published, and the author can be reasonably viewed as an expert on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We describe the first as an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog. Our article on the Middle East Forum is a bit equivocal but doesn't fill me with confidence, and I'm surprised that we call its founder Daniel Pipes an historian (yes, he once taught history, but that's not what he's known for - he's mainly a major critic of Islam). Global MB Watch is a one man band run by Steven Merley who worked for Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation whose senior consultant now is Evan Kohlmann and was evidently, according to his description of himself[21] the subject of praise by John Ware (TV journalist), described by the Guardian as "not quite public enemy number one for many British Muslims -"[22].

These sources are used in articles such as Wahhabism, Hani Ramadan and numerous others.[23][24][25] Doug Weller talk 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

MEF after 2009 become peer reviewed and have editorial control yes its partisan but we allow partisan sources per

WP:BIASED --Shrike (talk

) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The objection is not to partisanship. MEF, and the organizations it funds, actively foment Islamophobia, there is a long record through all of the venues it establishes and supports, and via all of the funding groups behind it, of militant antipathy as a driving force in a publicitarian cause. I don't think we should make an exception here. If MEF figures on a respectable site listing hate groups (Southern Poverty Law Center) as it does here, then it should not be used on Wikipedia. We have huge resources from Academic, government think tanks etc. on all of these Islamic movements. The latter are often problematical, qua partisan, but they have no stepped over into financing fear and fomenting anti-Islamism as the MEF does.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be concerned if we were using Jihad Watch as an authority on Muslim subjects, but from glancing at the internal search results, all of the citations that I saw were specifically citing it to support claims about the activities and opinions of anti-Muslim academics, which seems potentially acceptable. I haven't reviewed the other sources at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't use blogs, let alone conspiracy blogs, which is how Jihad Watch is described. This is every more so given its decidedly polemical anti-Muslim world view. Sensitive topics require optimal sourcing. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not be using blogs at all, as Nishidani said. Furthermore some of these sources look pretty clearly like

WP:FRINGE outlets and they should not generally be used as sources. Simonm223 (talk

) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd agree that these look like fringe outlets. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to lump all three of these sources together. The

According to its h-index, MEQ is cited by other academic journals and ranks in the middle of similar journals by number of references to its articles. It gets cited by regular scholarly books, for facts. (Although it is criticized elsewhere for pro-American orientation, no evidence of unreliability is offered). I don't see any indication that MEQ is not a reliable source.

talk, contribs

) 00:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Those linked citations aren't the strongest, and fringe sources frequently exist in an ecosystem of supportive other fringe sources that support them. I'm still very dubious about MEQ. The others are clearly fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This source was already mentioned in the previous discussion devoted to the Gas van article, but it seems the idea to discuss several sources simultaneously was not good, so I am posting my question about this source specifically.

The source is a 2012 publication in a local Ukrainian newspaper. I failed to figure out credentials of this author. An interview in a Russian newspaper (which is a

The statement this source is supporting is Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union.

This question may be simultaneously a WP:V and WP:NPOV issue, because outstanding claims need outstanding evidences, and it would be good to hear a third opinion on whether such a publication may serve as an adequate evidence for such a claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need 3 active posts on the same noticeboard, about the same article? It suggests that whatever is going on at

Gas vans is a bigger/thornier issue than a matter of a specific source's reliability. Fyddlestix (talk

) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, unfortunately, yes. I realized that discussion of this concrete source separately would be less confusing and time consuming, and resolving this issue would be a first step out of an impasse.

In particular, I would like to know if my understanding of

WP:NEWSORG is correct, and if such sources are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• An RS and can be used, especially with attribution to author. I think the source is OK because the author (Sokolov) is a historian who published, for example, this book. A lot of info about him, including other numerous scholarly publications, can be found here. This is an interview with him in one of major Russian newspapers. According to introduction by 3rd party, "Dmitry Sokolov is a historian from the city of Sevastopol. Since 2007, he has published many history articles in journals, and since 2013, he has been publishing monographs annually on various periods and aspects of the tragic events that began in 1917 on the land of Tauris." This is all in Russian. The article in question was published (not self-published) in a newspaper. The article is clearly a secondary source because it summarizes claims from books by Petro Grigorenko, ru:Шрейдер, Михаил Павлович and several others. Yes, as Paul tells, one of his summary statements was that gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union - because such cases have been reliably reported in books by Grigorenko, Shreider and yet another author cited in the review article by Sokolov. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any evidence it has a poor reputation for fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:BURDEN.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 14:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Always been unsure, as its hard to prove that where as it is easy to show it does not have one. So I tend to err on the side off "it has a good reputation because it does not have a bad one".Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include (...) Mainstream newspapers

. That means want to see a proof that this newspaper is a mainstream newspaper, because otherwise it cannot be considered a reliable source.

Moreover, the newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. Therefore, this publication is more like

our guidelines

, it should be considered reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Is my understanding correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot say if it is mainstream I am not Ukrainian (but I see nothing to indicate it is not), as to your second point, correct so we attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting approach: does it mean that every newspaper is considered mainstream unless the opposite has been demonstrated? If yes, that fully contradicts with my understanding of our policy.

Regarding your the second answer, "attribute" ... to whom? What are credentials of this author? Had he authored any book or article that was published by some reputable publisher or scholarly journal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, see the link to his book above; he has many other publications noted in another link. Also, this is not "news", but an educational publication about the past by historian. How this article can be a "primary" publication if it is entirely based on other sources, primary and secondary? My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a page about this newspaper on ruwiki, ru:Крымское эхо, and it does not tell anything bad. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

So, speaking of the three meanings of a source [26], (a) the article itself is OK (it claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say), (b) the author is fine, an established historian based on his publications, and (c) the newspaper is obviously not a scientific journal, but this is just an article on history for general public, enough to reliably document whatever author tells. Also, the newspaper is located in Crimea where author apparently lives. At the time of publication, it was a Russian language Ukrainian newspaper (as Paul tells), but it was expropriated by Russia in 2014, together with peninsula. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am hesitant on this one, just because I have seen a considerable amount of historical misinformation in newspapers especially the more minor ones. It is reliable for the fact that the author wrote it, but I wouldn't take it much farther than that. I doubt that editors are in a good position to vet such claims—especially if they put a disclaimer on it!
  talk, contribs
  ) 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, Paul misled us by saying: newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. This is not a disclaimer for this specific publication. This is a disclaimer at the very bottom of the website which goes everywhere: Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Since English Wikipedia users are not expected to know Russian, below I reproduce the disclaimer in full

"При перепечатке и цитировании ссылка(гиперссылка) на "Крымское Эхо" обязательна. Точка зрения авторов может не совпадать с точкой зрения редакции. Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. Материал, обозначенный (R), публикуется на правах рекламы."

Google translates it as follows:

"When reprinting and citing, a link (hyperlink) to the Crimean Echo is required. The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials. Material labeled (R) is advertised."

In my opinion, the statement in bold is exactly what op-ed means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a disclaimer at at the very bottom of the website which goes on all pages, right? But you made it appear as a disapproval of the article by Sokolov [27]: "newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion". The disclaimer does not say anything about Sokolov or his article. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Reading this source, it looks totally unreliable. It's written in a sensationalist and politicized rather than academic or historical style. My Very Best Wishes has found two links [28][29] showing that the author Dmitry Sokolov has a presence somewhere on the Russian-language internet, but his lack of connection to English-language academia makes it impossible to verify his credentials, importance, and suggest he's not a well known journalist or historian. The paper he's written in is not a major / flagship or internationally recognized publication and I can get no information about it in English.

In short, nearly every red flag one could conceive of is present here. I thought that in these topic areas, we were supposed to use the highest quality academic sources, with an emphasis on English-language sources. By contrast, this feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is simply written as an article for general public, not as an academic paper. This is a newspaper, not an academic journal. But the newspaper and especially the author still qualify just fine per WP:RS. That's the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. The topic area is under strict sourcing restrictions;[30] local newspapers need not apply. François Robere (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I wish you were right, but, alas, The Great Purge is not under this restriction. Only Nazi gas van topic, and only in part related to Poland falls under that restriction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that this source is also used to argue that the primary sources quoted by this source (Sokolov), namely the memoirs by Shreder and Grigorenko, have to be quoted in the article as well. Whereas on this page My very best wishes writes that Sokolov claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say, they have frequently maintained on the talk page that Sokolov “discusses” the claims by Grigorenko.[31][32], and therefore these primary sources may freely be used. Upon Sokolov and the sources quoted by him they also base their conclusion that gas vans have been used “in at least three different cities” in the USSR.[33] [34] This conclusion is not supported by any other sources. Not using these sources they consider to be censorship.[35] [36]

This is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. Gas vans were used at Chełmno extermination camp, e.g.. The whole epic discussion has emerged, because it has been maintained by some, that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were first used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets. A quote by journalist Yevgenia Albats, stating: "yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built", has been vigorously defended, thereby effectively integrating the "Soviet gas vans" into the narrative of the Holocaust. I think that narrative is untenable and not supported by scholarly sources, only by fringe sources like Sokolov, but those who connected the "Soviet gas vans" to the Nazi gas vans should not deny that they intend to suggest that very connection. Applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit. --Assayer (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To that, I would add that one of the most renown historians writing about Stalinism, Wheatcroft, clearly writes that the claim that gas vans were used during the Great Purge is "sensational", and it needs further confirmation (Stephen Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353). Therefore, the statement that Sokolov's article contains nothing extraordinary directly contradicts to what a top quality reliable source says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your "applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit", I asked EdJohnston to do that, and I am still awaiting for a responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is probably off-topic, but
  political scientist who received her PhD degree in Harvard University and taught in a number of other Universities. More importantly, she is a top expert in Russia on the KGB subjects; she worked as consultant for the Russian Duma commission to examine KGB involvement in Soviet coup attempt of 1991. This is all described in her book used on the page. Also, "same gas vans" is the narrative by almost all sources that mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans, for example, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and yes, also by Petro Grigorenko and Sokolov. Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans simply because Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust, quite obviously. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans and so forth - that's exactly the reason why the sources who "mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans" are

WP:FRINGE. And saying "almost all sources", one should note that the majority of scholarly sources on "Soviet gas vans" do not mention Nazi gas vans at all. The fringe character of the whole subject is the reason why you have to turn to an article by a virtually unknown local historian in a Crimean newspaper in the first place. To insist that an otherwise insignificant aspect of the history of gas vans should be exempted from the strict sourcing restrictions otherwise applied in the very same article is inconsistent, confusing and leading to distortion.--Assayer (talk

) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention...". Sure, that's why we do not mention Soviet gas vans on the page

Gas vans. My very best wishes (talk

) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust#Gas vans refers to the "main article" Gas van. So the latter article is very much within the scope of the topics under source restruction.--Assayer (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Why even use newspaper article (or op-ed), when there are plenty of peer reviewed journals and books devoted to this part of the world/history? If you want author´s opinion, simply use higher quality source he wrote on the same topic. Pavlor (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, one can easily skip this source and simply use books by Yevgenia Albats, Petro Grigorenko, Shreider and others. However, Assayer and Paul want to remove claims by almost all RS about it (see here; actual edits on the page [37]), and replace them by a blog post by unknown person (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's absurd to use this source for Russian Communism, which is one of the most studied and documented topics in the world. Imagine writing an article about the American Civil War or Amundsen's journey to the South Pole and using a village newspaper in Spain as a source. This is clearly cherry-picking, choosing an obscure source that presents information not accepted in mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That is sort of a false equivalency. Spain has nothing (or very little) to do with either of those things, whereas this is about the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning that the history of Soviet NKVD repressions is a

top secret. When Lev Ponomaryov commission started digging, it was disbanded immediately. My very best wishes (talk

) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, good point. So the conclusion is that the source is not reliable for that statement, and the absence of other sources does not make it reliable. Do other participants of the discussion (except involved parties) have any comments/objections to that summary?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Slatersteven said the article can be used with attribution to author [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Archbishop Carlo Mario Vigano became famous last year for publicly accusing Pope Francis of covering up for accused sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. However, Vigano himself was accused of ordering an end to an investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt, who resigned his position after allegations of sexual abuse. Vigano provided documentation attempting to show that he did not order an investigation into Nienstedt to Life Site News, which published it. The content detailing this matter, as well as some other things, were removed from Vigano's biography here by David Gerard in response to Life Site News being deprecated.

I challenged the revert on the basis that per

I propose that Vigano's defense of his actions and response to Pope Francis's denial be restored with citations to the Crux articles. Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly a novel argument that a site that was deprecated for being completely untrustworthy and having a history of publishing false information - blatant repeated liars - must be included in an article on BLP grounds. I find myself utterly unconvinced that

WP:RSes say on the case, and is there any reason that none of them went near his statements? The situation was covered in a lot of mainstream RSes, that are in the article - why did they leave this out? - David Gerard (talk

) 00:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that LSN was a fine source to use - David Gerard (talk

) 00:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Which part of
  WP:FALSEBALANCE. I suggest you search for a better source that covers the material you want to add to the article, rather than trying to argue for this one. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 02:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard and Aquillion, there are points that I already made but I'm not sure you understood or paid full attention to. Let me spell them out again.

I understand that Life Site News has often been accused of twisting and distorting facts, but nobody has shown me any example of cases in which they were accused of going so far as to fabricate entire interviews or pretend like certain documents were given to them when they really weren't. So long as you are unable to find something like that, it is at best a stretch to say that LSN made the whole thing up.

The source that I am using isn't even LSN. It's Crux, which is a reliable nonpartisan source that reports on events in the Catholic Church and is currently widely used on Wikipedia articles documenting recent events in the Catholic Church. It published an article in which it discussed the interview and documentation that Vigano provided to LSN. The fact that a reliable source considers the interview and documents that Vigano gave to LSN genuine should put to rest any doubt in your minds about whether or not they are really what he said, and the fact that the source discussed it in an article should establish notability. Leaving the material out is a BLP violation because it involves discussing allegations of wrongdoing made against someone while excluding mention of the fact that the person published documentation in his defense even though the fact that he did was discussed in a reliable source. That reliable source is Crux. Crux is the source that I'm using David, not LSN. Display name 99 (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This situation looks similar to the one discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257 § A question related to the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, I misunderstood (your initial post was a bit wall-of-texty, so I sort of skimmed it - granted I'm the last person who should complain about that.) Crux is trickier than LifeSiteNews; I can definitely see the argument (which some people have raised on talk) that they might be
  WP:UNDUE given that it's only covered in one very specialized source. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 06:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  WP:UNDUE. In fact much of the article lends excessive deference to the opinions of people with a vested interest in the reputation of the Catholic church as "rebuttal" to weighty mainstream sources pointing to a serious problem. Guy (help!

  ) 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see the argument that it's

WP:BIASED, but it also gives them potential insight into connections other sources missed - as with the bit where they noticed the implications of the timeframe mentioned above. Regardless of how they're used here, I'd be reluctant to dismiss them entirely as a source without more reason to doubt their coverage. --Aquillion (talk

) 14:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LSN is a conservative catholic website, generally reliable, trusted by many leading catholic figures and leading vaticanists. Senior Vaticanist Philip Pullella just described it in 2019 in a Reuters article as "a conservative Catholic website that often criticizes the pope" and frequently uses it as a source (here or here). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat used it as a source in his last book about Francis and the Catholic Church. I could go on and on. Claims made by people through LSN should of course be included. Thucyd (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thucyd, LSN? Reliable? Not hardly. It's a hard-line anti-abortion site with a history of bias and sometimes outright fabrication, "Among other issues, a troubling headline about "beating baby hearts" resulted in accusations of witness intimidation." (see, e.g. https://www.snopes.com/?s=LifeSiteNews for other fabrications and distortions, and that's just one fact checker). It criticizes Pope Francis alright, that is exactly why it's unreliable in this context (the claims are disputed by Francis). The main reason it hates Francis is because he supports, as much as any Catholic can, LGBT rights. LSN is as hard-line homophobic as it is anti-abortion. Douthat may have used it as a source for what the fundamentalists think about X or Y, but it is certainly not reliable for claims of fact, especially for anything involving sex. Guy (help!) 11:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG If LSN is a reliable source for Reuters, a New York Times columnist, Associated Press, Catholic newspapers, etc., it is good enough for Wikipedia. Your political and theological views are of no interest here. Thucyd (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Being quoted in those sources doesn't make it a reliable source for them (and being quoted by a columnist has almost no value at all.) They're using it to represent an opinion, because it is a high-profile source that holds that opinion; this isn't the same as them treating it as a reliable source for statements of fact.

WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about randomly mentioning or quoting or referring to a source; it means using it in a way that implies that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Absolutely nobody uses LSN that way, because it performs no meaningful fact-checking and is infamously inaccurate to the point of outright fabrication. --Aquillion (talk

) 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF quotes. We do have a consensus that LSN is not reliable: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#LifeSiteNews. This discussion is not going to overturn that, I think. Guy (help!

) 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The issue here is the uncritical reporting of claims of exculpatory evidence in a serious matter. We are having this discussion only because the op cannot find a single mainstream sources that covers it. These are claims published by LifeSiteNews - a canonically unreliable source - and repeated largely uncritically by a Catholic source. This is not about reliability (though the discrepancies and the original source underline that the content may well be unreliable), it's about
  WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!
  ) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - that none of the many mainstream sources that covered this issue went near these claims is a massive
    WP:REDFLAG - David Gerard (talk
    ) 12:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm not saying whether the documents that Vigano provided actually do exhonerate him or not. They may very well not, and that's up to the reader to decide. All I'm saying is that for the sake of maintaining neutrality, we should include the fact that he published documents in his defense, whether these documents actually do defend him adequately or not being open to the reader's consideration. If you can think of a better way to phrase the text, I'd be open to it. How about: "He provided documents to LifeSiteNews which he said showed that he did not order an end to the investigation."

David Gerard, Crux, despite being a religious source, is mainstream in the sense that it is nonpartisan and does not have a reputation for poor factual reporting. That is why it is widely used on articles related to recent Catholic events. I'll try some arguments by analogy as I did with JzG on the article talk page. What we have here is a Catholic issue, which means that Catholic sources are likely to report on it in greater detail than non-Catholic ones. Do we consider events in U.S. politics unnotable simply because non-American news agencies didn't report on them? Or how about information in a science journal that wasn't published in the Washington Post or New York Times? That sounds ridiculous, but it makes about as much sense as what you're telling me. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that I've spent a while longer pouring over the Crux piece, here's my problem with that. By placing something in the article, you are giving it weight - implying that it is significant, or important, or has some relevance to the topic. In context, I do not feel the Crux source actually gives those documents much weight - it reads as if they present them, summarize them in a way that plainly dismisses them, then present broader details that undermine Vigano's claims. Especially given their summary of the documents, which is... not helpful to Vigano at all. One is literally just an earlier document by him denying that he did it, and the other is a vague note about "correct[ing] my interpretation of his instructions", ie. patiently retconning something Vigano previously said. (In fact, hold on, you say it's "up to the reader to decide", but how would they do that when your version omits how little the documents even say?) Pulling out just Vigano's characterization of the documents and leaving everything else (including the actual content of the documents themselves) would put

WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk

) 15:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I still feel like for the sake of impartiality, we should mention when someone publishes documents to try to clear their name and when such a fact is mentioned in a reliable source. In order to maintain the balance, I could accept also adding in the fact that the unnamed Catholic leader said that Vigano refused to take action. If you're unwilling to agree to this, I will have to accept defeat, but I feel that it's the best course. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, you are moving the goalposts now. And no: we don't include "rebuttals" without sources that assess their validity.

Imagine if the Washington Free Beacon published an article saying they had documentary evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election by suppressing evidence of Manafort's corruption, and the Washington Free Beacon published an article noting it. Would we use that as a source? No we would not. Same here. No sources outside the bubble cover it, then neither do we.

As an argument, give me what I want and I will allow you to weaken it slightly with an anonymous comment" is unpersuasuive. Guy (help!) 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, Aquillion, and JzG, I acknowledge that I will not get consensus for re-adding the content and therefore accept defeat. Consider the question finished. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I see we use it in a number of articles[39] but take a look at their article "Conspiracy theory" - the quotes are theirs, most of their articles don't seem to have scare quotes. The lead says ""Conspiracy theory" is a label given to ideas which challenge an official narrative, held by people who are pejoratively termed "conspiracy theorists". This stems from the US deep state's efforts to promote the "lone nut" theory of the JFK assassination. The concept was later developed into a general purpose enemy image used to try to prevent the connection of deep events that the commercially-controlled media presented as isolated incidents. Post 9/11, it is the subject of pseudo-scientific study to limit freedom of speech by promoting the idea that the holders of such opinions are inclined to violence and deserve to have their civil liberties removed, in particular by subjecting them to internet censorship.'"

I'd argue that this is a site that should definitely be deprecated. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with that argument. Content is user generated "The site is written by volunteers", and "a few pages here have imported material directly from Wikipedia", and "The idea of "fake news", launched in 2016, appears to be a counterproductive attempt to boost flagging faith in corporate media". Seems about as reliable as an anonymous conspiracy theory blog. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of reliability. Guy (help!) 10:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No its not an RS. It seems to be another Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• ”Depreciate” is the wrong word. I would simply call it Unreliable. “Depreciation” implies that there are at least some rare instances where it would be OK use it (example: when we depreciated the Daily Mail, we made an exception for its sports reporting) and, in this case, I can’t think of any situation where it would be appropriate to use it. We simply don’t consider user generated websites reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, yeah - obviously not a reliable source, and we should be taking a careful look at any of the pages you linked there that use it as a citation. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious wiki is obvious. Having said that there is no need to actively depreciate such obviously unreliable sources. The number of such obviously unreliable sources is endless, and the vast majority are well covered under existing policy and common sense, without needing to evaluate them individually. GMG^talk 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• spam blacklist alongside Examiner.com (RSP entry) and Lulu.com (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk
  08:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, this is just another wiki and therefore not an RS. However, it is currently used only in 4 main space articles. No reason to blacklist which is the last resort against extreme spamming. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  The

  VPNs) to just a few articles, that domain would be eligible for blacklisting. The eligibility threshold for the blacklist (in terms of spam volume) is higher for websites that are more reliable and less promotional. — Newslinger talk

  09:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not an RS clearly per our policy. We do not "deprecate" non-RS, we remove refs to them and warn the (very possibly) unsuspecting novice editors.
  talk
  ) 19:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Using author so controversial like Krunoslav Draganović is not the best way to build a consensus for your changes. If you don´t have better sources to support your POV, I advise you should probably not edit any article in this contentious area. Pavlor (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Krunoslav Draganović wrote book in 1937 in which it cites original evidence from the Vatican archives on nearly every page below the text. It's one of the best books with archive sources I've seen. It is evidence in master's theses in historical studies and every catholic or other library has that book. Therefore when historical data cannot be disputed then the writer is guilty? I'm interested in data that has original evidence and this is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. Me and Wikipedia are not interested who is the writer we are interested whether the writer's claims have evidence in historical sources. What do i have to do? Collect people on Wikipedia to enter some information as some people(Serbians) doesn't like it? Oh my God. We have an article on Wikipedia about Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

Gorski kotar, continental parts of northern Dalmatia, some places north of Kupa, parts of Slavonia, southeastern Baranya etc.).^[3] This is the reason Eastern Herzegovinian is the most spoken Serbo-Croatian dialect today, and why it bears the name that is only descriptive of its area of origin. These migrations also played the pivotal role in the spread of Neo-Shtokavian innovations.^[4] On that famous migration talk linguist without any historical document and someone persistently returns that data even we do not have any historical sources on earth which proves migration of someone from eastern Herzegovina to 70% of Croatia or Bosnia. This is exactly where I recognize the Greate Serbian ideology which claims that Croats are Catholic Serbs because they talk "Stokavian" dialect and therefore they delete relevant evidence and about converting to Orthodoxy and historical facts that prove existence of Orthodox Croats. If this is Wikipedia then i probably can't do anything myself. For this reason I ask everyone to help me to present truth to the whole world and to finally remove the Greater Serbian ideology from Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk

) 10:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Krunoslav Draganović was not a historian, and was a propagandists. I doubt very much he is an RS for anything but his own views.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand, source is important. If Draganović 1937 has sources on every page of the book then this tells that his book is reliable source. He did not write documents from the Vatican Archives, he presented them to the public and presented own conclusion. This is source and for the doctoral thesis so I see no reason not to be source in the Wikipedia article except that someone is bothered that and the truth but that's another matter. I also quoted other historians and books about Orthodox Croats. That is something controversial would be already disputed but problem is fact that there exist and Orthodox Croats who are today part of Serbs in Croatia, and this someone wants to hide. Mikola22 (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I do understated, I understand perfectly Draganović was a propagandists who took sources and presented his conclusions as to what they proved. As far as I am aware he is not a respected historian, nor a respected expert in any field (not even the one he worked in). Thus (at best) he could only be used for his views on what those sources said (unless of course he just presented photostats without commentary, did he?).Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I put in the article facts(from Draganović book) based on the Vatican Archive I quote: ">From

Greek Orthodoxy) it is a command from Turkish times. And this is his conclusion, I quote: Most Catholics of southern Herzegovina especially in the central parts of the diocese in the 15th century or earlier convert to Orthodoxy". This conclusion in his book proves dozens of original documents from the Vatican archives that talk about Catholic converting to Orthodoxy. Otherwise this is mentioned and in doctoral dissertation from year ( Zagreb, 2013.) ^[5] in which has dozens of books and also the Vatican archives as evidence. Therefore, these facts cannot be disputed because they are what they are and we must respect them not erase them. Otherwise there is information from Pope of Rome about overtook of the Catholic churches in eastern Herzegovina and their conversion to Orthodox Churches, I did not state this but it also needs to be brought to light. And that's why is the problem because Wikipedia starts telling the truth and they don't like this. I didn't know this was a private portal i thought such things should be entered into Wikipedia without question. Mikola22 (talk

) 13:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• When dealing with propagandists, it is common that they cherry pick documents which supported there conclusions, omitting documents and evidence that might contradict those conclusions. I don’t know enough about this specific author to know if he did this or not, but given the controversial nature of the topic, I think it quite likely. This does not mean we can not mention what this author says, but you need to present his conclusions as being his OPINION and not as accepted fact. You also need to
  weigh what he says against what other (academic) historians say. If they overwhelmingly disagree with his conclusions, then mentioning what he says would give his conclusions UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk
  ) 13:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

These are the informations from doctoral dissertation (Zagreb, 2013.) I quote: "Hum and Travunja until the second half of the 12th c. were ruled by Catholic rulers and west Christianity was the only confession in this region (southern and eastern Herzegovina), "Orthodoxy during the rule of Serbian rulers did not take root more deeply in Hum", "During all this time, the danger of the spread of Orthodoxy threatened from the East, which is especially strong in the late 12th and 13th century. for the reigns of the Nemanjic dynasty." "Pope Clement VI in 1335 addresses to Stefan Uroš IV Dušan and request him to stop the persecution and that to the bishop of Kotor which is responsible for Roman Catholic Diocese of Trebinje return monasteries, churches, islands and villages, which some kings of Raška before him overtook." "At the same time, as Catholic church buildings are being demolished, Orthodox monasteries are erupting which had not existed in the area of Trebinje and Hum before the Turkish conquest." "During 16th c. Orthodox monasteries were established in the territory of Herzegovina: Tvrdos, Zavala and Žitomislić." "Although historians of the Orthodox Church, the construction of individual monasteries in the territory of Herzegovina dates to the Middle Ages, that is, before the Turkish conquest, such claims we do not find in historical sources" "About the situation in the diocese a few years later, writes Ambrose Gučetić first bishop of Trebinje who visited the diocese under Turkish rule after a long time, His report from the beginning of the 17th c. shows an almost hopeless state of dioceses." "J. Mancinelli in the early 17th c. wrote that because of the lack of Catholic priests, the people in the area of the Diocese of Trebinje were convert to orthodoxy(source in Latin) The Franciscan Blaž of Graz in his report of 1624. will accuse the Congregation of Rome of converting Catholics on Islam and Orthodoxy( source M. JAČOV, Spisi Kongregacije) "Archbishop of Dubrovnik, who wrote to Cardinal Vice-Prefect of the Congregation Antony Barberini in 1640 about the situation in the Diocese of Trebinje, why "many Catholics become schismatic/orthodox) or embrace Islam"( source: Vescovato di Tribigne, e Mercana vi sono molti Schismatici, e Catolici insieme, e per penuria di buoni Parodii molti Catolici diventano Schismatici, o si fanno Turchi…, M. JAČOV, Spisi Kongregacije) " Since the number of Orthodox priests in the Diocese of Trebinje was significantly higher than the Catholic ones, of which there were few or no, it is not at all surprising that young people attend their rites ( source:Non vi sono nè preti, nè Frati Cattolici, nè monasterij, se non due dell'Ord[in]e di S[an] Basilio Greci scismatici, uno è in Trebigni di 40 frati incirca, e l'altro in Savala in Popovo ancora dell'istesso numero...“ M.JAČOV,Le missioni…, vol. II., 672.) etc, etc..(there is more historical information) This is not based on Krunoslav Draganovic's book but facts are same and conclusions is same( doctoral dissertation) I don't understand what the problem is, it's historical facts? Whether this is Wikipedia or someone's private portal?[6] Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask at this point, exactly what is this all being used for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This was not used for anything, this is proof that source from 1937(Krunoslav Draganović) and 2013 (doctoral dissertation) have the same conclusion and they are not "propagandists" or "fascist" how Serbian editors want to show them. The problem is that the historical data is presented and talks about Orthodox Croats and transition to Orthodoxy. Someone does not like it and deletes that information, so please help me get that information back "Croatian Orthodox Church" ^[7] Mikola22 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, do any of these sources actually say that the Croatian Orthodox church existed before 1942, quote for that statement please.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have information about Orthodox Croats or Croats and Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy. Does this belong to the this Wiki article? Mikola22 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a proposal in the article which talking about Sokollu Mehmed Pasha for deleting information that he is Serbian origin because there is no historical document that speaks of him as a Serbian. Answer on the talk page I quote: "Competely irrelevant. Even if there are no documents written during his life talking about his roots that does not mean a thing. THere is a ton of events and people on which we do not have sources from their life and time. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)" So there is an article on Wikipedia that speaks that he has Serbian origin, although there is no historical document which proves that he is Serbian? (Talk:Sokollu_Mehmed_Pasha#Deleting_the_data_concerning_the_origin_of_Sokollu_Mehmed_Pasha.) I know that nobody trusts Wikipedia as a source of information and i tried to change that but this is amazing. I have no words for this. Thanks Wikipedia for the relevant information. Mikola22 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not need historical documents, we need RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for RS which says that he is Serbian origin. Maybe I will one day in the future according to RS become Sokollu_Mehmed_Pasha. Anything is possible in the future. Thank you Wikipedia for this information otherwise we would never know some things. Mikola22 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I doubt any source that claims you are a reincarnated 16thC Ottoman statesman is ever going to be found to be RS. But anything is possible.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• The statement you seem to object to has seven sources: Sokollu's birth name was probably Bajica,[4][5] and he was of ethnic Serb origin.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}