Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295

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.

Some days ago I created an article stub on CleanTechnica. Its talk page now has a question from QRep2020 whether the article should be deleted as unreliable, with reference to an earlier discussion on this Noticeboard. We certainly have articles on news media that is non-reliable, so the talk page question is easily answered. However, I noticed that the discussion of CleanTechnica as reliable source was very brief, started by the aforementioned QRep2020 and with just two comments, from Masem and Springee. Among the points raised by the previous discussion is that the source favours one technology over another (to the detriment of hydrogen as an energy carrier) and that the source "content appears to summaries of reports and press releases". While there objectively are challenges with hydrogen, it was easy to find an article South Windsor High School, where the CleanTechnica writer is themselves interviewing the person cited and where Fuel Cells "save the day". (It's not explicitly stated that the Fuel Cells are using hydrogen, but hydrogen is basically only usable with fuel cells, so it is as a minimum supporting the main hydrogen use case). This specific source citation was validated by Ser Amantio di Nicolao.

Prairieplant, Minesweeper, Varnent, rodw, Back ache, Mariordo, N2e, Rfassbind: Wikipedia has 200+ articles that cite CleanTechnica and the editors of each of these citations has made the determination to quote CleanTechnica in support for the added information. While we can not ask the opinion of everyone who previously made such a determination I am now asking a few of you for your opinion regarding the reliability of this source. Lklundin (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We can have articles on notable sources that are not reliable for being used on WP. (That said, what's on CT's article right not isn't going to pass the GNG....) The problem with the site is not so much a specific focus on a type of clean energy but that generally it looks like a industry-promotional site. The writers there may seek out stories but it looks more like they are tipped to stories from companies that want them to be written up, which are the types of sites we generally avoid. As i noted, they will provide links to actual reports of use which should be the sources to be used instead. --Masem (t) 13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is might be able pass

WP:NOTE but the number of reliable sources about CT are going to be very limited. My concern with CT as a RS is largely based on what I've read from sources that don't pass WP:RS criteria but none the less make strong arguments. I generally feel CT is very promotional and is likely feed select bits of information from companies. Conflicts of interest are not clearly identified. In general I would be wary of using CT as a source for much of anything and would generally assume any reliable fact reported in CT could be sourced elsewhere. Still, I think the site is often cited by mainstream reliable sources as sort of the opinion of an industry watcher. I would be reluctant to remove any citation to CT without some reason to be suspicious of it. I suspect most of the material cited to CT is going to be non-controversial claims. Springee (talk

) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the 8 articles where the above mentioned (8) editors chose to cite CleanTechnica as a source, I have looked at another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica - out of currently 822 articles in main that mention it (although some not as a source), and have made these observations:

• In these 58 articles 50 different (43 named + 7 IP) contributors have made the determination to cite CleanTechnica,
• The information added has not been reverted or significantly modified by subsequent editors, suggesting that the content is non-controversial and that a larger number of editors see it as useful.
• Occasionally other editors have reviewed these source citations (updating the access-date, introducing citation template, etc.), again suggesting a wider acceptance of the source among editors.
• Larger articles typically cite more than one CleanTechnica source, typically by different editors suggesting an even wider use of the source than the search suggests.

Give some extra days I (or someone else) could review another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica, but I see no indication that additional sampling among the about 800 CleanTechnica uses would change these observations.

With a wide range of Wikipedians who have deemed to cite CleanTechnica as a reliable source, there is nothing concrete to suggest that this source should be the contrary. Given this overwhelming body of existing material, we would need concrete, compelling reasons to consider it an unreliable source, rather than the so far provided comments that are more speculative. Lklundin (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think one generally assumes reliability of a source until proven unreliable. Usage by other editors also doesn’t really mean anything.

A more useful barometer: what do independent reliable sources say about CleanTechnica? I’ve only found this Mashable profile so far, which describes it as a blog. However, their about page mentions that

Our work has been referenced by the New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, MSNBC, Think Progress, Reuters, Scientific American

Finding these examples and seeing the extent to which they reference CleanTechnica may demonstrate a solid claim for reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct, we certainly do not assume reliability until proven otherwise. Every editor is supposed to quote a reliable source and while some may fail to do so, wide usage by a range of editors is a strong if implicit indication that the source is indeed reliable. Be that as it may, an Internet search for CleanTechnica that excludes the site itself yields plenty of examples of other news media that cite CleanTechnica as a source. In a few days I expect we will see examples among the above mentioned news media citing CleanTechnica for their stories. Such examples could fittingly provide some content and indication of notability to the related CleanTechnica article. Lklundin (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just ran into this discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that CleanTechnica is frequently cited as a reliable source by other news sources - [1] [2] [3] [4] etc, and features op-eds by famous people (for example, here's one from Gavin Newsom[5]). If sites like Business Insider, Forbes, Bloomberg, the NY Times, etc consider CleanTechnica worth citing, it'd be pretty ridiculous if Wikipedia didn't. 157.157.83.50 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is an IP address opining here? The above doesn't really make them reliable so much as just a blog like site that is happy to published content for others. I would be happy to use CT as a source to say something like "Ford said that Ford will release such and such an EV". That's just regurgitating a press release. I wouldn't trust CT to be critical when reporting something like "Tesla to have 1 million robotaxies on the road this year!" Same when "sources leak" an "internal" email at Tesla that causes the share price to move up. Springee (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please avoid

WP:ABP arguments? Lklundin (talk

) 09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to the suggestions from

WP:RS

. There are plenty more examples that can be added from any willing editor, but with the examples currently provided we are clearly able to close this discussion.

On a related note, I will follow up on my above presented idea that a massive body of already cited material from a wide range of editors constitutes a large number of small but specific

WP:RS validations performed by the editors who decide to cite the source - who in this case probably number in the hundreds. It should be quite possible to write a bot that for a given search string (e.g. cleantechnica.com) will identify all edits that have introduced that string in a source citation all over Wikipedia - and by whom (and whether such an edit was reverted) and present this list to e.g. reviewers on this board. This could help in several ways, e.g. identifying a small group of editors who introduce a large number of citations of a possibly unrealible source or (as my sampling indicates for this case) a large number of editors who each introduce one or a few citations of that source. Lklundin (talk

) 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

CT should only be used as a limited RS and with great caution. As a source of statements of others perhaps but not as a source of reliable, independent commentary. The chief editor has been accused of bias/conflict of interest in his coverage, especially as it relates to Tesla Inc vs other companies/competing technologies [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. Articles like this are pretty egregious [[9]] in their pro-Tesla bias. Articles such as this one are pure op-ed yet the site does not indicate as such. This is more troubling given the fiscal ties between CT and Tesla both in terms of may editors being share holders and the way Tesla effectively trades access for favorable coverage. Springee (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

By basing their argument on Tesla-bias user

WP:SPA,[10] with an (anti-)Tesla

focus.

The bias of these two, coordinating editors is reflected in the sources Springee cite to support their claims against CleanTechnica:

• respectmyplanet.org is a web-site that is itself unknown to Wikipedia, so hardly suitable for determining whether a highly cited source on Wikipedia is biased or reliable.
• The cited book and thedrive.com article are by none other than 'Edward Niedermeyer' who already 10 years ago was predicting Tesla's imminent collapse and as an apparent epitome of anti-Tesla-bias is central to our self-described anti-Tesla-article TSLAQ, where QRep2020 has argued at length - with support of Springee - to use Niedermeyer as source. This writer who is so deeply entrenched in Tesla-criticism is clearly unsuitable for determining whether something is in fact biased in regard to Tesla.

The above mentioned CleanTechnica article is indeed special, as it details a sequence of Tesla-related mudslinging on social media. The writer is a 'Johnna Crider' who in 2020 started writing stories on CleanTechnica that seem to be mostly concerned with social media and COVID19. Wikipedia does not appear to cite any articles by this writer. Since Wikipedia is not news, I can easily see how articles of that nature would remain uncited here at Wikipedia, not necessarily because of claims of bias but just because their content appears unencyclopedic in nature.

As for the actual, ca. 800 (!) CleanTechnica citations we have on Wikipedia, they have been added over many years by a wide range of editors some of which are highly experienced (see above for a few) and the citations themselves have typically generated no controversy. Apart from a single, technically focused editor TGCP who has cited CleanTechnica for a range of (non-controversial) contributions, (e.g. [11][12][13]) the typical editor who cites CleanTechnica does so only once or a couple of times (see above). So there is no indication of an editor-Cabal to introduce bias to Wikipedia via repeated citations of (purportedly biased) CleanTechnica stories. Based on these observations, I cannot accept the claim regarding bias - and I cannot see how these many editors who have in fact cited CleanTechnica on Wikipedia could, either. As this stage I feel I should explain my own interest in CleanTechnica. As an engineer/scientist and amateur historian I feel strongly not only that Wikipedia should cite reliable sources, but also that when possible we should have articles on these sources. This way our readers can follow a source citation to our article on the source and then better form their own opinion of that source and as well easily see where else we cite that source. Technically, since these articles can have many links to them, they increase the interconnectivity of Wikipedia (which is a good thing). As such I have over the years started source-related articles as different as De frie Danske (2014), Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory (2015), Technisch Weekblad (2017), Electrek (2018), Bovrup-kartoteket (2019) and CleanTechnica (2020) as well as upgraded from stub Ingeniøren (2017). To return to the direct discussion of CleanTechnica, it could well be appropriate to mention on the CleanTechnica article the critical claims of Niedermeyer (as clearly attributed to him). This could help our readers form a more nuanced opinion on CleanTechnica.

It's possible we cannot reach a unanimous consensus regarding CleanTechnica. Over the years dozens (if not hundreds) of Wikipedians (including some very experienced ones) have chosen to cite CleanTechnica. While editors who just want to add what they self-evidently consider to be notable, technical content to our articles may not themselves want to engage in a meta-discussion such as this one, I think their opinions should be solicited if we are to change how CleanTechnica should be cited at Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lklundin, what the hell is that load of BS? Are you just making things up? I've never said the CT article should be removed and I've never accused those who have cited CT of doing so in bad faith. That is total BS.

OK, let's think about this for a moment. CT is typically cited for low level claims that have little significance, basically industry to reader via CT. I don't have a big issue with such claims. However, what should we make of their in depth reporting? Well we have sources that have questioned them. You do understand that sourcing rules and OR apply to material that makes into articles. It does not apply to discussions regarding the quality of a source. I've presented material showing that one of CT's top editors has shown COI with regards to his reporting, in particular on material related to Tesla. Rather than address the concerns propperly (ie focus on the arguments) you attack the sources as not reliable per WP:RS... which would only matter if we were putting the material in the CT article. Let's hit on a few other claims of bad faith you are making. You claim I want to remove the CT article. Where did I say that? Where have I supported removal of the CT article? Where did you get the BS idea that I'm accusing editors who have used CT of somehow doing so in bad faith? These are the claims you are making.

I stand by my statements that CT is a source that has shown bias when doing original reporting and has a COI when reporting on Tesla material, especially when reporting on "leaked" emails or production numbers which later impact the company's stock price. It is a tainted source. Springee (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My focus here is verified high-profile frauds (Enron, Worldcom) and groups who claim they've discovered a high-profile company committing fraud (at the moment TSLAQ and WeQ, albeit the latter hasn't been referenced in published material as of yet so I haven't published an article). My history reflects that focus so please stop trying to distort the picture, Lklundin; by the way, didn't you just complain about

WP:ABP? That nastiness aside, CT is so obviously biased in favor of Tesla I can't imagine how anyone can argue otherwise. It is not a reliable, independent source. QRep2020 (talk

) 01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I got a notification about this discussion. I like to write about energy matters and I think CleanTechnica is a good source for information. I would like to be able to cite CleanTechnica in the future. TGCP (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am currently engaged in a rewrite of the Warner Bros. Movie World article and would like to establish reliability for three sites that are used in the article: Parkz, OurWorlds and Australasian Entertainment Management. I am hopeful that we can establish a consensus that all sites—particularly Parkz—are reliable. I have conducted plenty of research and hunted for sources from the 90s and 00s, and Parkz is consistently one of the only sources useful for information from this period. I strongly endorse these sites as being reliable, but nevertheless the dialogue should be had. Here's some background for all three:

Parkz (https://www.parkz.com.au/)

Parkz (About, YouTube) is a theme park news site with a ride database (similar to RCDB), community forum and photo archive. The site has been operating since June 2002 with Richard Wilson as its main editor. Parkz publishes news articles about the theme park industry, ride/coaster updates and financial/performance analyses. They are often used by Village Roadshow Theme Parks and Ardent Leisure as an official channel to distribute press releases.[14][15] Their YouTube channel distributes official ride POV videos and animations.[16][17]. There is an extensive archive of press releases and articles dating back to the 1990s.[18][19] They do publish editorials/opinion pieces (written by Wilson) about the industry/specific parks and attractions, although claims are typically backed up with references to events and facts.[20][21]

The site has an extensive (admittedly incomplete) database similar to RCDB, although it encompasses rides and attractions, not just coasters. Although registered users may edit the database, any changes made are not published until they have been verified and fact-checked by staff. I've spot-checked several entries and believe they're highly accountable. As a matter of fact, there are occasional minute discrepancies between Parkz and RCDB entries, but I believe Parkz may actually be more accurate in these cases. A good example is DC Rivals HyperCoaster; Parkz[22] lists its total length as 1,380m whereas RCDB has it at 1,400m (written in ft).[23] The ride was promoted as a 1.4km coaster, which is likely a rounded-off figure that RCDB runs with. Parkz entries typically have more information about a ride's history, construction cost, changes over time etc.[24][25]

From Parkz' "Contribute" page: "To ensure that the Parkz database remains reliable and useful, our editorial staff reviews all edits and submissions to the database. We reserve the right to accept or reject your submissions on the basis of your [sic] quality guidelines: Accuracy – we fact-check all submissions and will delete or edit any incorrect submissions; Quality – Parkz is about visually stunning and eloquently written content; Copyright – Parkz will reject any submissions that we believe breach copyright; Duplicate content".[26]

A Parkz member, "docoaster", created a digital animation of DC Rivals in March 2017; VRTP themselves took notice and consulted "docoaster" for their official animated trailer a couple of months later.[27]

OurWorlds (https://ourworlds.co/)

OurWorlds (About, YouTube) is a professional media production company. They have existed at their current domain since 2012 and publish news articles, park/ride reviews and (frankly stunning) ride photography/media. Their news updates are similar in quality to those of Parkz: non-speculative news and industry updates,[28][29] editorials[30][31] and reviews.[32] They also publish interviews and features with notable park industry alumni, such as

Australasian Leisure Management (ALM) (https://www.ausleisure.com.au/)

ALM (Editorial Guidelines, Content Policy) is a leisure industry magazine, which has been published since 1997.[37] Their stated editorial policy outlines a commitment to fair, reliable and accurate reporting. Their online site has a much broader scope than the former two (they publish articles on leisure/entertainment activities and attractions, not just theme parks). Articles specific to the theme park industry cover attraction updates[38][39] as well as industry/financial news.[40][41]

TL;DR

I endorse all three sites (Parkz, OurWorlds and ALM) as reliable for news articles, database entries etc. Editorials and reviews should be given with appropriate

parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS as its editor also write news articles for it, and many more are anonymous (by the staff, of 2 one of whome is the editor). ourworlds.co seems to admit they (in effect) generate income through paid content, and that is all I can find out. ALM is harder as I cannot even find an about page. But I would say the first two are nor RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input,

UBO)[42][43] and Parkz is archived in Google News. I don't know if this means much but thought it would be worth mentioning. I'm trying to find more background on him, but I at least located an online profile on Zoominfo (can't post URL - /p/Richard-Wilson/1614284654). In any case, the question I'm asking—do Parkz news articles have any history of unreliable or unsubstantiated claims published as "news"? In my research, the answer is a clear no. I've dove a lot into their articles and I just don't see any red flags with what they publish. OurWorlds have been paid to produce media, yes, but I can't see evidence they're paid to produce articles. Clear distinction there, which their About page seems to make. — CR4ZE (T • C

) 11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason I said "parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS" is because its editor also writes for it, this there is no clear line between authorship and editorial oversight. IN essence anything he writes for the site is SPS. Anything that is not attributed might has similar issues.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still digging. I don't echo your concerns, but I'm trying in good faith to respond to them. It appears Wilson is credited for editorials whereas news is attributed to staff. There must be editorial oversight for the latter. I suggested above that Wilson's pieces should be given with attribution, so I don't think it would be an issue. Also, does the fact that VRTP/Ardent have a direct feed with Parkz mean anything? I'm saying, these are large, public companies that could use any channel they like for distribution of news, and they are all in good standing with Parkz. (I can link articles where they communicate directly with Parkz if you like). Re ALM, what else would you typically expect to see besides stated editorial/content policies? They have admin teams and editor oversight (see links attached above, also their contact pages). — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Their news page [[44]] third article (and first one with a by line) [[45]]. Nothing says this is an Op-edd or an editorial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, what's your point? It's credited to a specific author, not site staff. A news article doesn't need to be specifically labelled as such to be news, likewise for op-eds. It's possible they simply left the editorial header off (for whatever reason—perhaps an oversight, perhaps not?) Other content by Wilson is labelled as such.[46][47] Even so, I don't see alarm bells with Wilson specifically; as stated above, he's been quoted by RS before. Mind you, I have dug deep and haven't unearthed much else about him. (Would he not have standing for hosting one of Australia's top theme park sites for nearly 20 years? If not, no matter). I'll happily meet you in the middle and say that Wilson-authored pieces (if reused here) should be attributed as opinion only. Appreciate your insight, keep it coming. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Or it could be...that is the point. It could be any number of reasons, and thus I need to see they have a reputation for fact checking. I want to be confidant this is not just one blokes opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's take Wilson specifically out of the picture. Would it at all assuage your concerns if I cross-referenced Parkz news articles with vetted RS? Here's some examples: Parkz vs Guardian; Parkz vs SMH; Parkz vs myGC; Parkz vs GCB. I can feed you quotes from the Gold Coast Bulletin (you need a subscription to see some of them)—they have a plethora of relevant articles to compare against Parkz. I only used one example, but could cite many. I hope this establishes that Parkz do have quality reporting and don't just tread on the rumour mill. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Even the Daily mail has been known to say something true, that does not make it an RS. Now I will let others respond if they wish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability isn't always a hard line. Situational/discretionary use exists. That's what I'll advocate for here. Thanks for your comments. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if we could continue this dialogue. Further insight from others on these sites would be welcomed. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

At

Not sure why slugger isn't linking to the actual website but here is the about page. Some quotes "the Catholic News Herald is the official news outlet for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, N.C." and "The Catholic News Herald is a tool of evangelization and communication". The publisher is the Diocese and there is not even a claim of independence. The author of the piece is also the "editor" so that would also be an issue. The "editor" in question and other reporters publishes under CNS when they doing so professionaly. Its a well produced church newsletter and RS for activities at the church. I do also want to point out that the biggest issue is putting the content in wikipedias voice.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I am not sure I follow. This isn’t some guy with a blog. It’s a professionally run newspaper. Can you elaborate? —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If The "editor" in charge of the newsletter had written the article there would not any independent editorial judgement. Therefore a self-published source. What makes you believe it is professionally run and not run by the Bishop? As far as I can tell it is a twice monthly newsletter. Turns out I was wrong about the SPS issue as I was looking at a different article.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not generally reliable, it appears to operate as a non-independent arm of the Diocese of Charlotte.

The quote is not stating anything extraordinary or biased and the source is perfectly acceptable for confirming what the Church declared. If the church actually followed through on it etc.. is a different matter. To counter the quote for example sources that say the Catholic Church said AIDS is a punishment from God, include a following sentence w/ multiple POVs. Or show this quote has counter-evidence, then make a WEIGHT case for its removal. But pedantically lawyering RS without taking into context what is actually said is a blunt approach. -- GreenC 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The bigger problem is actually that the article is basically how in actuality the situation is exactly the opposite and priests in Africa are discriminating against AIDS victims. I could NPOV the content in the article by adding this but I honestly don't think this article is RS for content about the AIDS situation in Africa.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis honestly the article titled Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS seems like the right place to NPOV/multi-POV how the Church sees its response and how others see it. -- GreenC 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• The question isn't whether the bishop actually said the thing, the question is whether or not Wikipedia should care about it if no reliable sources picked it up. You can say anything on your personal blog/diocesan newspaper/whatever and it's verifiable that you said it, but Wikipedia and that blog serve very different functions, and Wikipedia's function is not to amplify anyone's voice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with GreenC here. This is a perfectly adequate source for the claim that is being made, and it's not required for major news agencies (which often have a bit of blindspot on religion) to report on such a statement for it to meet the bar of verifiability. The task of editors on this article is to try to present the diversity of views on this topic in a neutral and balanced manner. That the sentiment behind this statement may not always prevail on the ground is a separate question from whether this is a reliable source.TheBlueCanoe 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

It seem this website was spammed everywhere with canned content like "See history of "X Iron and Steel" as inline external link.

But it seem that website look like a partial clone of timeline from International Directory of Company Histories or other content. So, steelonthenet is a reliable source? Or did it need the same treatment likes the online clone of International Directory of Company Histories?

Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources are book of Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Information from this book is I quote: "Harald Turner declared Serbia as first European country Judenfrei in August of 1942." ^[1] And same information from book of Jeanne M. Haskin, 2006, Bosnia and Beyond: The "quiet" Revolution that Wouldn't Go Quietly ^[2] Edit was made in article Judenfrei [48] and this information is confirmed by other two sources which exist there. Whether these two books and information from them can be used as reliable sources or not. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 already provided a better source for these statements which do not seem controversial. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but a book of "Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History" has information concerning Milan Nedić, Banjica concentration camp etc, and editors must know if it is RS or not. Mikola22 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Judging from the summary at Philip J. Cohen I would say that its conclusions may be questionable. He is not a historian but Texas A&M University Press is a generally reliable publisher so that's a tossup. Due to his points of view being potentially in the minority or controversial this is more a question of DUE weight and whether the statements should be attributed. A number of expert historians were critical of the book's statements. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not use his conclusions, I use his information which some of them are confirmed by other sources. He in the book cites many sources. His book is used as a source of information by historians. [49] If this source is not RS then we have to determine this in order to know this fact in the future. Mikola22 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually a number of historians have said his book is accurate and fair when discussing the topic of WWII and aligns with other historians’ views about the era. So seems overall the book is RS. In fact the Philip J. Cohen wiki page lists multiple professors that deem his book valid and factual about WWII Occupied Serbia.OyMosby (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have this Croatian review I quote: "Prevede li se Cohenova knjiga, zacijelo neće bitno pridonijeti hrvatskoj historiografiji. O svim zbivanjima i povijesnim činjenicama koje nalazimo kod Cohena već je mnogo pisano i raspravljano. Dovoljno je samo prisjetiti se izdanja Ljubice Štefan, Vladimira Žerjavića, Ljube Bobana, Bogdana Krizmana, Ivana Jelića. Za američku je širu javnost ovo povijesno štivo ipak prvorazredno otkriće. Ono bi trebalo promijeniti iskrivljeno tumačenje o zbivanjima u Hrvatskoj tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, a pružiti istinitu sliku o Srbima i njihovim povijesnim krivotvorinama." "If Cohen's book is translated, it will certainly not significantly contribute to Croatian historiography. It is already known about all events and historical facts that we find in Cohen and it is much written and debated. It is enough to remember the edition of Ljubica Štefan, Vladimir Žerjavić, Ljubo Boban, Bogdan Krizman, Ivan Jelić. For American wider public this historical reading is nevertheless a first-class discovery. This book should change distorted interpretation of events in Croatia during the Second World War, and providea true picture of Serbs and their historical forgeries."^[3] Mikola22 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming here with this "I am just trying to provide the true story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" is probably not going to work out well. Same goes for anyone doing the opposite. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what I found online from Croatia, I hope it doesn't offend you that I'm from Croatia. I cannot choose the country of my birth and origin. We are all here together to make wikipedia better and not to look who is from where. These historians from review worked in Yugoslavia and Yugoslavian times, therefore the point is that informations from book are already known in the Yugoslavian era and if you think that there is propaganda information in it, feel free to expose it to all see what's this all about. If he presents propagandistic information, then all the literature he uses is also propagandistic. We must concretize the propaganda information and sources which he uses in order to label those sources as propagandistic. We are editors from wikipedia and we need to know which books and historians have been used to promote propaganda through his book. We have to keep some order here. Mikola22 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: It seems he was providing a quote not his own words. However a biased a partisan quote of which I don’t see what it has to do with the discussion here. I don’t think he himself is calling anyone “evil”. And @Mikola22: when starting a section about Rs, stick to the reliability or credibility of the source. He was not talking about you being Croatian but the quote you stated. OyMosby (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"True story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" What I have to do with the evil Serbs. I spent my time editing wikipedia and someone deletes one source with the claim that it is a propaganda source and it is not RS. I have no problem with that but it must be officially established. The informations from book which I used has its sources in the footnote and if this source in not RS I will start using those sources from footnote but problem is because and these sources ie informations are also propagandistic if this book and informations from her are propagandistic. I can't edit wikipedia for weeks and then again look for RS sources and after that again someone can say that these sources are also propagandistic because they are used in this book. Therefore please allow me to work, is this source RS or not? I spend my days here and because of that and because of future editors, I ask that this be finally clarified. If this book is not RS it doesn't matter let's move on. Mikola22 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, because it is controversial this is more a question of attribution and

WP:RS. —DIYeditor (talk

) 14:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m slightly confused by the section title. A book that is about historical propaganda isn’t necessarily propaganda itself. It sounds like that’s the basis of challenging the reliability of the books? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Section title is reason for removing this source from the Judenfrei article of some editor. These information(from this book) have been confirmed by other sources in Judenfrei article but this book supposedly is not RS. Mikola22 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Turner's statement about Serbia being the first Judenfrei or Judenrein country in Europe (despite the inaccuracy that is was actually an occupied territory, not a country) is completely uncontroversial and is in many reliable sources, including Prusin (which I added), Cohen and Haskin (which repeats what Cohen says) amongst others. Not sure what the basis is of a claim that any of these sources are propaganda, the first two are published by university presses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cohen is and was a war propagandist, this book is the prime example. A number of historians and other uni. professors have raped his propagandistic little books and there is no consensus among historians that it's reliable, not by a long shot. Sometimes, getting a good publisher is not always about having a great work, as we are not living in a perfect world. He is sometimes used but with obligatory "According to". For serious statements such as that one, his work should be the last in line to be used, as there are far better sources. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko feel free to quote all the data from his book which are propaganda and which have no source in some RS in the footnote. You can made a separate chapter in this discussion where you will expose all propaganda informations without confirmation that everyone see what it is all about. Mikola22 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Cohen should not be used as a lone source due to the controversy. But to say his book was “raped” by historians is problematic in a number of ways. You left out the numerous professors that gave positive response to his book. As for Cohen’s book, Professor Brendan Simms, Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and Professor Charles W. Ingrao of Purdue University's History Department in Nationalities Papers and Professor Raphael Israeli Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published his book The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945, validated his book. As well as other professors, about his writings about Nedic’s regime. Were all these professors part of the propaganda push? Again no doubt his work is controversial but definitely not just one-sided as multiple historians deemed his work on WWII era to be "well-written, heavily footnoted narration" which "details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion". Simms noted that "in places Cohen gives the Croats the benefit of the doubt", but states that "[N]one of this affects Cohen's central argument: "Serbia" and many Serbs collaborated with Nazi Germany". Israeli stated that Cohen had "copiously documented" the large amount of anti-Semitic press in the German-occupied territory of Serbia.[20] He also observed that Cohen had "definitively demonstrated" that the head of the German-appointed puppet regime, Milan Nedić, along with other members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, "were aware and supportive of the German extermination plan and execution [of Jews], and were not loath to lend a hand when asked". Again, there were negative and positive criticism of Cohen’s works. For that reason despite the book being RS, it should be accompanied by other cited sources as well for heavy claims in edits. But to disregard the book entirely as some “little propaganda book” seems more “I Don’t Like it and want it gone”. OyMosby (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say he is RS for his views, not for them being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cohen is a very controversial and questioningly relevant source. Many relevant scholars and observers dispute him. His claims can be cited as one of the views, but we should never cite them as a fact or a final conclusion.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB same proposal which I gave to Sadko, expose all informations from book which are propaganda without source in some book etc. Mikola22 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK a question, can we have some examples of the historians (non partisan) who have slammed this book? Also I am sure we have been here before.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Philip J. Cohen provides a good summary of the extensive controversy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as I stated before the Wiki article gives a decent overview. OyMosby (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So overall a bit of a mixed bag, but certifiably not universally reviled. This does not change my view, it may be an RS for his views, and is thus more of a weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Basically. Cohen is not a historian but a lawyer. However he does heavily cite his writings from books and articles written by historians and professors. But his wording is not neutral in the book. And seems more reactionary to Serbian slanted books than simply a neutral history textbook . OyMosby (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I say this is more of a weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Example

I edit article The Holocaust in Serbia and put this information from Cohen book " Gendarmes of Milan Nedić, Dimitrije Ljotić and Chetniks by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica camp where they were killed immediately." (page 83), the footnote in the book is this "Lowenthal (1957), pp. 42-43; Romano (1980), p. 75; Hilberg (1985), p. 692; Browning (1983), p. 90" and it is this bibliography:

• Romano, Jasa. 1980. Jevreji Jugoslavije(Jews of Yugoslavia), 1941-1945. Zrtve genocida i ucesnici NOR [Jews of Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Victims of Genocide and Freedom Fighters.] Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities in Yugoslavia.
• Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia. Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. -. 1972. ‘‘Yugoslavia.” In Geoffrey Wigoder (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Macmillan Company, vol. 16.
• Hilberg, Raul. 1985. The Destruction of the European Jews. Vol. 2. New York: Holmes and Meier.
• Browning, Christopher R. 1983. “The Final Solution in Serbia: The Semlin Judenlager — A Case Study.” Pp. 55-90 in Yad Vashem Studies. Vol 15. Edited by Livia Rothkirchen. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. 1985. Fateful Months: Essays on the Emergence of the Final Solu¬ tion. New York: Holmes and Meier

• I find one source, Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia^[4] and on page 42-43 writes this:

• Okupatorovi pomagači progone Jevreje. Po raznim mestima Srbije još se krilo nekoliko stotina Jevreja, većinom žena i dece. Nedićevi i Ljotićevi agenti tragali su za takvim licima, iznuđivali od njih novac, a kad bi izvukli i poslednju paru, prijavljivali su ih nemačkim vlastima, koje su ih hapsile i ubijale.(Svjedočanstvo.. Ali su zato četnici Draže Mihajlovića koji su se nalazili u tom kraju gonili Jevreje bez milosti. U tome su se naročito isticali četnički odredi koji su dolazili sa Ravne Gore, od kojih smo se morali kriti kao od Nemaca...Naš život nije bio lak. Sredinom 1942 godine otpočele su da lutaju po šumi u tom kraju četničke bande Draže Mihajlovića, koje su, saznavši da se Jevreji kriju u tom kraju, počele da ih progone i ubijaju) Iz knjiga zatvorenika Banjičkog logora vidi se da je u vremenu posle likvidacije Jevrejki sa decom na Sajmištu maja 1942 pa do oktobra 1944 kroz logor prošlo i iz njega odvedeno na streljanje 455 Jevreja. To su bili većinom žene i deca, među njima i deca od nepunih godinu dana. page 44, Od preko 93.000 ljudi koliko je tokom 1942/44 prošlo kroz logor na Sajmištu pobijeno je ili umrlo u logoru preko 47.000 lica, a ostatak najvećim delom ubijen ili umro od gladi i iscrpljenosti po raznim logorima u Norveškoj i Nemačkoj. Oktobra 1943 dovedeno je oko 200 Jevreja koje je Gestapo uhapsio u Splitu(Hrvatska), među njima dvadesetak žena. itd itd..

• The occupier's helpers persecuted the Jews. They were still hiding in various places in Serbia several hundred Jews, mostly women and children. Nedić's and Ljotić's agents searched for such people, extorted money from them, and when they extract the last penny, they reported them to the German authorities, who arrested and killed them. (Testimony ... "But Chetniks of Draža Mihajlović who were in that area persecuted the Jews without mercy. The Chetnik detachments that came from Ravna Gora stood out in that, from which we had to hide as if from the Germans ... Our life was not easy. In the middle of 1942, the Chetnik gangs of Draža Mihajlović started wandering in the woods in that area, they found out that the Jews were hiding in that area, began to persecute and kill them"). From the books of the prisoners of the Banjica camp, it can be seen that in the period after the liquidation of the Jewish woman with children at the Sajmište from May 1942 to October 1944, 455 Jews passed through the camp and were taken there to be shot. They were mostly women and children, among them are and children under the age of one... page 44, Of the 93,000 people who passed through the Sajmište camp during 1942/44, over 47,000 were killed or died in the camp, and the rest were mostly killed or died of starvation and exhaustion in various camps in Norway and Germany. In October 1943, about 200 Jews were arrested by the Gestapo in Split (Croatia) and brought in, among them about twenty women. etc. etc.

• This is Yugoslavian source from 1957(Published by Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia Belgrade 1957) one of four which are listed for the information which I enter to The Holocaust in Serbia article. As far as I can see the Cohen book has a lot of Yugoslav sources. Such sources are certainly not propaganda, and whether someone doesn't like that informations is another matter. Mikola22 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not analyse sources, that is

wp:or.Slatersteven (talk

) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How then do we know that some information or the book itself is propagandistic? I guess we analyze information from the book and check if this informations are true or have confirmation in some source. What is propaganda? Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could look at what the original sources used by Cohen say and see if they individually are reliable sources as a separate question. There's nothing stopping you from using Cohen as a lead to undisputed sources and using those sources instead. I'm not sure how reliable something published in a Communist block country is (surely has been discussed before on this noticeboard) but it's a start. The Cohen book itself is controversial though. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know about the history of the Croatian Nazis, Camps, crimes, foreign historians mostly use these "Yugoslavian Communist block" sources so I don't know how to do that if we stopped using these sources, we would probably have a couple of independent sources as far as the former Yugoslavia is concerned, which means that about 80% of the articles would be left without text. I don't think that this is solution. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

WE do not RS do. If RS say it is propaganda so can we (but note bias is not an exclusion criteria). But if other RS say its a great bit of work we have to accept that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinions of RS are divided but we as editors need to know if it's RS or not. I can't edit wikipedia for days and someone say that I use source which is not RS. Where it is officially stated? If it is not mentioned anywhere and it was probably discussed here earlier, let's finish it here officially. Young editors are coming but also because of us. Mikola22 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, and that is the point. Our key is a "reputation for fact checking", plenty of expert opinion says "this is well researched", thus is has that reputation, this its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Judenfrei for this information Cohen probably uses as a source book of Raul Hilberg and book "The Destruction of the European Jews" (1985)[50] . This is a multi-edition book so this information is in my source on the page 737-738. second edition but from year 2003. I quote: "Dr. Schafer reported that apart from Jews in mixed marriages there was no longer any Jewish problem in Serbia (keine Judenfrqpe mehr).47 At the same time he returned to Berlin the gas van, which was to see further service in White Russia.47 48 When Generaloberst Lohr took over as Oberbefehlshaber Siidost in August 1942, Staatsrat Turner jotted down a few notes for a personal report to his new chief. In this report Turner itemized all the achievements of the Widi considerable satisfaction he wrote down a unique accomplishment: “Serbia only country in which Jewish question and Gypsy question solved [Serbien einzipes Land in dem JudenJrqge und Zigeunerfrapfepelost] ,”49.
• footnote:
• 47. Report by Hauptmann Lccb (OB Siidost/Id), June 1942, NOKW-926. 49 Note by Turner for personal report to Lohr, August 29, 1942, NOKVV-1486. To Ncdic he expressed a similar sentiment. Memorandum by Turner, March 28, 1942, Südost 75000/2.

This information or book of Cohen was removed with note that it is "Propaganda pieces are not WP:RS" which would mean that Raul Hilberg is propagandist because it is data from his book. Mikola22 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to listen. Whether Cohen's book is controversial has no bearing on whether his sources are reliable or controversial. The thing to do is take his sources and look at whether they are published by experts under publishers that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and if there is no competing RS or expert POV (unlike in the Cohen case) by all means use his sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable The source is not propaganda, it was published by a US academic publisher and got some favorable reviews. Yes, it does not have pro-Serb POV and should be used alongside other sources for
  WP:NPOV. buidhe
  23:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering about the reliability of this source for tourism-related information, as it might be useful on Ojos de Mar. On the one hand, afaik gob. domains are not issued freely. On the other hand, I am not really finding any information on who operates the site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It is probably the local tourist board. The website has a contact number phone available Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00, but doesn't state its affiliation clearly. The domain itself (puna.gob.ar) is registered to "MINISTERIO DE CULTURA Y TURISMO" (ministry of culture and tourism).--Eostrix (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So likely rather self serving, and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To whit, I was looking to use the list of animals & plants and the distance to Tolar Grande from that source. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL, sorry reading that all I could see was "Well, may I suggest that you consider moving to a hotel closer to the sea? ...or preferably in it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hah, funny one. Anyhow, I take that this kind of source is only good for strictly factual information that isn't promotional. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well it would depend, as I suggest above not all "facts" are "unpromotional", or "facts".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd think it might be reliable for the distance between the place and Tolar Grande. Maaaybe for the animals&plants as it's rough information. For tourist numbers (there'd be a conflict of interest) or more complex assertions (not recognized experts) probably not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed this because it is a communist-era picture book propaganda published by colitmmunist ministry of defense, at the height of nationalist hate whipping by the communists in 1975.[51][52][53] In

Sorry a bit hard to take referencing that article seriously, and unsourced stub. Now what is the issue, how is it being used?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

First, anyone participating in this discussion should be aware that topic areas related to Poland have recently seen an avalanche of socks (see

WP:DUCK

(and toss a coin - about half of those new accounts I noticed recently making similar edits in this topic area get CU blocked within ~48h...).

Anyway, pl:Encyklopedia II wojny światowej has been published by a publishing house at a government level and it was edited by professional Polish military historians of its era (ex. pl:Kazimierz Sobczak). Granted, that government was communist, and said historians were sometimes even officers in the communist army. It is always good to be cautious if we were going to use sources from that time and period on issues which have been affected by censorship/propaganda, but overall, such areas are relatively few (I'd expect to find some glorification of the USSR's contribution to the war, some pro format criticism of the US imperialists, a strong bias towards stressing contributions of the communist-affiliated Polish forces and towards minimizing those of the Polish gov't in exile, it probably omits or would be very unreliable on issues such as the Soviet invasion of Poland or the Katyn massacre which were effectively censored out of existence until 1989 etc.). But for most other issues it should be reliable, setting aside that it is now ~45 years old as well. There is no reason to assume the censorship/propaganda would affect the information on German casualties in 1939 (but again it the data presented may be just obsolete) or that it would somehow affect the definition of the term used for railway sabotage operations in WWII (which is what I used it for). Lastly, it is a professional, specialized encyclopedia, a bit old and with a POV, but hardly warranting being called a "picture book propaganda". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Socking" or no "socking", this is an old source published by the Ministry of Defense of a Communist state - organizations which aren't, AFAIK, noted for their honest and reliable public communications.

WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations applies with full force. François Robere (talk

) 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Say, Francis, how did you find this discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I follow the board. Why haven't you directed the same question at MMA, below? François Robere (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A new account using same naming pattern as previous socks and instantly jumping to fight issues that other accounts were debating with Piotrus? Nothing suspicious at all. Anyway this is a highly reliable source that fulfils sourcing expectations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you are familiar with many Polish WWII sources, so I appreciate your input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I am very hesitant about using sources even a few decades ago on WWII because the historiography has changed a lot. I think that we can do a lot better than this source for articles like Invasion of Poland. If this is the only source with some information, I would wonder why it can't be found in some better source. buidhe 23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:REDFLAG, and I'd fully support updating the source with new one (if used by itself, {{better source needed}} can be used - I don't see the necessity of removing it). For example, at the battle for railloads article, the source doesn't say anything new - I just added it there to show that the term has been used decades ago (I think it is the oldest source I found that uses this term and such dating is useful in historiography as well, suggesting when and where the term might have originated - in Polish historiography at least, the real origins may be in Russian, though perhaps in that French movie? But that's speculation, I can't find any sources really so the best we can do to avoid OR is to link and reference the oldest source found); anyway newer sources provide more details and don't contradict it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
    01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: I think it's fine to cite the source for that, but you should ideally be more clear about exactly what information is being supported by it—in <!-- comments --> if neccessary. buidhe 01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I've added a quotation, I think this should help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhat concurr with Piotrus. Use with caution (eg. it is fine for a name of a battle in Polish historiography), but I would use newer/less biased source for enemy causalties. Pavlor (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pioturs is using it in Invasion of Poland to write "In the first few days, Germany sustained very heavy losses: Poland cost the Germans 993 tanks and armored vehicles as campaign losses of which 300 tanks were never recovered".[55] LMAO, this is a picture book, half the pages are pictures. The publisher is the People's Republic Ministry of Military Affairs. The government was known for suppressing information (Censorship in Communist Poland) and spreading lies (Propaganda in the Polish People's Republic).

From my own experience, propaganda in this later era was rather subtle (eg. "lie by omission", using too neutral words for own crimes etc.). Is there any evidence author of said book published open falsehoods? Sure, he was military historian of the regime, but this alone doesn´t discount his work as a RS. However, for this very kind of information, more recent and neutral source is needed. Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If you consider military maps "a picture book", well... Anyway, I am not "using" the numbers for anything, I just reverted your removal of the referenced content per

WP:BRD (FYI we are now at the D-step). The number was added (without a ref) on March 8 2017 by User:Kolakowski ([56] - at that point the sentence had a citation needed tag and a few weeks later an anon added the refs: [57]). Anyway, the simplest solution is to verify the numbers, and preferably replace older refs with newer ones. I think this is a better ref (English, newer, CUP: [58]). Ping User:Buidhe and User:Pavlor. Note that the number 993 is often repeated by numerous sources (here's another English RS from the same year), although it would be nice to find an even newer estimate (also found it in this 1993 book [59]. PS. If anyone cares I also found an estimate for 675 tanks lost in [60] but I am too tired right now to check if it is reliable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The numbers for tank losses don't seem too out there - Forczyk's Case White 2019 gives 236 total losses and 457 damaged of which 180 were repaired and the rest scrapped - i.e. 513 destroyed or scrapped, which is itself sourced to Jentz's Panzertroopen Vol. I (1996). - this looks like the sort of thing were it would be helpful to give a range of sourced values anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, Sobczak was on a joint Polish-Soviet commission that downplayed Katyn and other crimes [61][62]. He was a loyal communist party historian, a "quintessential establishment figure" criticized by real historians [63].

Nobody is suggesting we use him as a source for the Katyn massacre. In fact, I explicitly said above he would not be a reliable source for such content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, honestly I wouldn’t use it anywhere except its own page. Neither the system or the institution which produced was known for their credibility and academic rigor. Heck I’m not even sure I’d trust something published by the Polish military last week, there is still a long way to go in terms of professionalism etc.

• royalark.net  
• worldstatesmen.org  

Most of

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites showed consensus against using Royal Ark in respect of living individuals (all entries on the pretenders list are living). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Kekoolani predicated much of its argument on the assumption that this consensus holds. If anything, World Statesmen looks worse.

There are nearly 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org.

It looks to me as if these should be deprecated and added to the unreliable sources filter, as this is functionally indistinguishable from spam at this point. Guy (help!) 18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can also add thepeerage.com   to this list, which has nearly 10,000 citations and appears to be a self published source. What's your opinion on the reliability of Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, ech. Burke's used to be worthwhile but it's hard to say now. That said, both are storied institutions so don't fall into the same bracket as these self-published nobility fansites. Guy (help!) 11:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Three genealogy sites

I personally believe it's about time we count Listverse as a reliable source as they have a strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Wikipedia and those British tabloids. What do you think? 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:8881:4E66:524D:FD70 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Per [64] I'm leaning no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has a strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Wikipedia and problematic British papers, and yet

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so no, that is not a winning argument. --Nat Gertler (talk

) 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for facts, no due weight for attributed opinion Listverse is another top 10 listicle site like WatchMojo, Whatculture and Ranker, though Listverse has a broader less pop-culture focused scope than those. I would consider a lowest common denominator listicle site like listverse to be unreliable for facts, and not have any due weight for ranking, and should avoid being cited for attributed opinion. I don't see why listverse ranking Ruhollah Khomeini as #8 in "Top 10 Most Evil Men" or any other ranking on their website should ever be cited in a wikipedia article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Listverse is currently being used as a source in 203   articles, christ. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is a perfect source for completyely unencyclopaedic content on a site that has no reliability standards. Fanmdom, for example. But not here. Guy (help!) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, there is a dispute about Hillenbrand Books, an imprint of Liturgy Training Publications and the University of Saint Mary of the Lake. Specifically, we are talking about the book Understanding Sacramental Healing: Anointing and Viaticum by John C. Kasza, pages 169-173. Hillenbrand describes itself as being "focused on contemporary and classical theological thought concerning the liturgy of the Catholic Church. St. Mary of the Lake is a seminary associated with the Archdiocese of Chicago. Is it a reliable source for information relating to care the Catholic Church provides to AIDS patients, and specifically this content? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate, the issue, as with

WP:SPS or other sourcing policies as far as what to include or not to include in an article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That suggests to me a misreading of

WP:SPS, as well as what counts as "an official arm of the Catholic Church" (this press is run by an American university, not a Vatican office). --Andreas Philopater (talk

) 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 15:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's not independent of the Catholic Church and doesn't grant due weight. buidhe 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Its a Liturgical and practical manual published by a Chicago dioscese seminary. Slugger you haven't even sourced that the manual is in use anywhere, let alone that it is prescripts are being followed in any actual churches. Yet you are using it to say that the entire church is performing what it says in Wikipedia voice. You are also using it to say in wikipedia's voice that it reconnects people to god. No source in the world is RS for that statement in wikipedias voice.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• More attempts to assert CPOV instead of NPOV, I think. Guy (help!) 10:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a new article reliant on non English sources, this would not be an issue except the article about the chief subject makes no mention of this controversy (and seems to even contradict some of it), and seems to use archaic terms. And it is using this [[137]] as a source, and it seems a bit iffy to me. Can someone who speaks Chinese check the sources?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I can find most of the claims in the sources, albeit not all. Some of it seems exaggerated. The article is mainly a more or less direct translation from the Chinese article, created in 2013. Which partly explains the "archaic" language, some of it is PRC communist slogan rhetoric. The first two sources are the same, new are two linked e-books, one is a 2010 PRC book, one a 2016 ROC book. Of the two linked sources, the PRC book from 2010 is more detailed. I'd like to find out what the 1992 book says, its quoted, but it doesnt seem to provide much information. Which contradictions do you mean? What I think should happen is to add clarification markers, e.g. at "This controversy is believed to be deliberately raised by Japanese military, who tried to warn Taiwanese intellectuals about their Chinese nationalism." Believed by whom? Etc. EnTerbury (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this website, called "madridbullfighting.com", qualify as a

I wouldn't think so. "madridbullfighting.com" seems to be user-generated content, and does not have any indications of notability. While the website does contain information about the mechanics of the parts of a bullfight, it seems like it has a focus on selling tickets, not necessarily giving reliable insight into your topic. Maxmmyron (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been discussing the inclusion of an expert interview[138] at the

The problem is that we can not trust the Epoch Times to accurately present what the expert said. Even with video, an interview can be edited (manipulated) so that it appears as if the expert said X, when he in fact said Y (or even Not X). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue here, I am watching the interview almost in repeat to make sure I didn't prematurely wrote a notice here. And if you watch the interview from 15:12 to 17:53 (where he first says it's impossible) there is no apparent audio gap or appearance of editing. If you want, I can try to isolate the audio track of it to find if there are any abrupt changes or oddities, but I think this goes way beyond the normal procedure for reliable sources on wikipedia.

talk

) 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also the issue of who the Epoch Times chooses to interview. Does this person represent the scientific mainstream? Would the views they're presenting pass peer review in a reputable journal? The Epoch Times supports the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, and they found someone with a PhD who is willing to support that view. That doesn't mean the view isn't

WP:MEDRS sources for these sorts of issues, not the Epoch Times. -Thucydides411 (talk

) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that, but it seems that no one else in the mainstream media has noticed/commented this timeline oddity. That's why I came here in the first place, to see if there are other occurences of experts stating that. I also think that the timing of a particular scientific process might not meet the requirements to be validated with

talk

) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

They didn't just "find" someone to support their view: their expert is literally a regular contributor to Epoch Times, practices Falun Gong, and is "executive director of the Global Alliance against Communist Propaganda and Disinformation" according to Present Danger China! JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose including any media from Epoch Times whatsoever, but especially as a source for material that is anti-China. Their expert is also not independent of Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-xiaoxu-sean-lin JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As per

talk

) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we started talking about this, i'd like it to be in a more rigourous format. Feel free to edit the ballpark options I did here to better reflect the process in this

• Option 1: This interview is unreliable
• Option 2: This interview is reliable
• Option 3: The Epoch Times is generally unreliable but this interview is.
• Option 4: The science might be right, but the Epoch Times is generally unreliable.

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a

brief and neutral statement as the first signed comment in the discussion. — Newslinger talk

22:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

oh thanks, should I remove the options also?

talk

) 22:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to if you'd like other editors to use them. They're perfectly fine both inside and outside of RfCs. — Newslinger talk 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the option for "The Epoch Times is never a reliable source, and there is zero scientific merit to the claims as presented in the interview"? JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times is never a reliable source and should not be used as a reference under any circumstance. One of several propaganda arms of Falun Gong, a new religious movement that relentlessly peddles conspiracy theories and financially supports extreme-right wing politics, The Epoch Times makes for an excellent example of a truly unreliable source. If the only source one can find for a claim is The Epoch Times, it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(joke) even on their page? His point does seem to make sense though. Can we talk about that? I specifically wanted to extract this interview from the Epoch Times frame in order to consider his point as a virology expert, which even with his regular contribution to Epoch Times could be mentioned using

talk

) 22:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss the merits of his position, although to me it reads as a blatant attempt at duping naïve laypeople into believing one of a revolving cast of anti-China conspiracies du jour. I would be just as critical of any interviews conducted by Chinese media touting the opinion of a random government-employed expert; if actual independent scientists (=exclusively PhD-holding lead researchers actively publishing in this field) give this newest proposal any attention, they will do so from a reliable source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the WIV page has this notice on the top. I don't know if it is appropriate to add it here, because I don't really understand what it implies. But ultimately, this discussion will help decide the faith of a reference that will be used/not used on this page. And @

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

• Epoch Times, including this interview, is unreliable. If any of the information is credible, reliable sources will repeat it eventually, and then it can be added to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you that's very constructive. What do you think of the actual matter behind it though? Do you think it will get repeated sometime? I will start looking at it, but knowing the scientific process, I find that the timeline is indeed strange... Anyway, thanks!

talk

) 23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly,

PhysiqueUL09, I don't see what difference it makes in the big picture. I think it's reasonable to suspect that China has not been entirely forthcoming; why would they be? I think that if China started the genome sequencing and looking for the virus a few weeks earlier, it might become a cudgel that gets used against them by other countries but will it change anything, really? Schazjmd (talk)

23:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...

talk

) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Exposing cover-ups is what scientists and researchers and investigative journalists do, not Wikipedia editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, especially here Epoch Times has strong political motivations behind their reporting of COVID-19. They themselves refer to the virus as the certainly non-neutral "CCP Virus", so to include a supposed "expert interview" from someone involved in the group (as
  WP:MEDRS are needed. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)}
  23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Update! I just found two sources (one basically translating the other) that suggest they might have received the samples before Dec.30: "Upon interviewing a number of medical doctors who were in charge of treating patients at the very initial stage of the outbreak, Caixin journalists obtained a list of labs which had helped the hospitals to run an analysis of the new virus. Upon testing, a lab in Guangzhou found out that the genome sequence of the new virus was 87 per cent similar to Bat SARS-like coronavirus. The lab shared the results with the China Institute of Pathogen Biology and Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on 27 of December. However, the National Health Commission issued a new regulation banning all the labs from sharing and releasing their test results in early January." [140] And the report it references in Caixin.[141] saying "on December 24, a deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine performed bronchoscopy on the patient and then sent the patient ’s alveolar lavage fluid sample Tripartite testing agency Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology". Does adding these independent sources on top of it makes this interview legit?

You can discuss adding the information using those sources at the applicable article where interested editors can weigh in on

WP:DUE. But the interview is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk)

00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I still find it funny though that it basically says the approximate same thing as those two other sources, but is defacto unreliable because it's the Epoch Times. I guess it'll take more time for me to understand how WP works. But I bet some of you already had that kind of flame I have to find and write about stuff like that. Thank you all again for your inputs, very appreciated.

talk

) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That is because of the "Stopped clock effect": the stopped clock is unreliable, but still gives the right time twice a day. You should not point to the stopped clock as evidence for the time, even if it is one of the two times when that clock does show the right time. "Reliable" means you can rely on it.

Somebody who knows that ET is unreliable will not believe the WP article if it gives ET as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Then, what about the people who have no knowledge of ET, yet believe that Wikipedia is generally a credible source?David notMD (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What about them? How are they relevant to the question at hand? Other users cannot read your thoughts, unless you write them down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, China plus Epoch Times equals unreliable. Guy (help!) 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• The interview is as unusable as the outlet; firstly, there is the issue of whether the "expert"'s views are being presented accurately and reliably by the unreliable source, and then there is the point JoelleJay raises, that the "expert" is not independent of the Epoch Times to begin with (so, his own reliability is called into question), and thirdly there is the issue Thucydides411 raises, that they picked this specific expert to advance their existing conspiracy theory, when his views may be
  WP:MEDRS. If, as suggested above, there are two other sources that say the same thing, and if they are reliable and due, etc, then just use them...! -sche (talk
  ) 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about [142]. Please chime in. Hushbeck seems to be

@

an engineer, all others I have cited are full professors in a relevant field. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 16:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The disagreement @Tgeorgescu: and I have revolves around whether or not we should be stating outright that the account of Saul's death in 1Samuel, and the report from the Amelekite in 2 Samuel should be described explicitly as a conflict within the Bible. Every apologetic I have read has seen no conflict, in that the author gives an actual account in 1 Samuel, but is merely describing a report in 2 Samuel. Gleason L. Archer, Elgin Lewis Hushbeck and Carl S. Ehrlich all claim that the report from the Amelekite should not be considered trustworthy. Given Tgeorgescu's sources (Ernest Nicholson and Lucy Bregman) and belief that we should list it as a conflict within the Bible, I have tried to edit the section in a way that incorporates both. --Bertrc (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, acknowledges there is a conflict between the biblical stories about the death of Saul.

Bertrc did not get the point that apologetics books are often junk sources.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at

WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk

) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In context, Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, says that there is a conflict between the narrator's (ie. author's) account in 1 Samuel and the Amelekite's report in 2 Samuel: "Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume the narrator account in 1 Samuel .. The account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect told as it is by an Amelekite." ^[3] This is why we have had an editting war where I keep trying to edit in Tgeorgescu's view and Tgeorgescu simply keeps reverting my changes, wholesale. --Bertrc (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

17. Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume that the narrator's account in 1 Samuel 31, regardless of how he got the information, is reliable. The account told in 2 Sam 1:3-10 is naturally suspect, told as it is by an Amalekite, Israel's old foe (Exod 17:8-16; 1 Sam 15:1-33). But how does David know that this Amalekite is lying, since David does not know what the reader knows from the preceding chapter? Saul's crown and bracelet look like the plunder that battlefield scavengers would harvest from the slain after a batter, and if the Amalekite could escape, why could not Saul?

— Samuel A. Meier

That's the full quote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Tgeorgescu:; I had transcribed manually. --Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All, Here is a diff of desired content --Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Again there are two different questions:

• Is there a conflict between the stories?
• Why is there a conflict between the stories?

I was talking about the first question, not about the second. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All, In addition to the diff, here are direct links to my version and Tgeorgescu's --Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)