Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 57

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.

I would like an opinion on the Gay Erotic Video Index. It seems to have editor control, but it lacks an "About Us" page.

Warning: contains pornographic images. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation: ^ "Who are the most prolific performers?". Gay Erotic Video Index. www.wtule.net. Retrieved 2010-02-15.

• This suggests that it's unreliable: "This is a not-for-profit Queer Community site that ... counts on content contributed by the Public such as Yourself." Epbr123 (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The same page that makes that statement also clarifies what user contribution ought to be - "Of particular interest are reviews, information on older videos, profiles of performers, directors and studios." - the index itself was compiled by the site editor from multiple sources and invites readers to suggest corrections. Compared to, say, IMDB, this seems far more controlled. In particular where user submitted information is added, these are clearly marked as such and so distinct from the principle facts quoted in the listings. This may not be as credible as a publisher's catalogue but seems a suitable source for checking an actor or director's general body of work, including highlighting awards won, printed sources that the site editor has checked and clearly marking information that is not verified (such as uncredited performances). I suggest this site is suitable as an external link or for use as a general profile reference or to confirm professional awards but as not all information has primary sources, unsuitable to confirm detailed biographical data or to be considered a fully comprehensive listing of works. As a source for comparative analysis (the "who are the most prolific" list on the FAQ for example) the site editor's research seems reasoned and credible. So long as it is made clear that the analysis is quoted from this website, I find this as credible as almost any independent book one can find that includes "interesting" film facts. Ash (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • COMMENT I relisted this source in RSN (See below) specifically asking that users involved in the porn project post their comment in this listing instead. Again I received two comment from two opposing view points from two users involved in the porn project who are actively debating each other. I was hoping for fresh, neutral, expert opinions. I regard the above opinions to be biased (as is own) and request unbiased opinions in relisted posting below. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey everybody. I was wondering if I could reach out to the wiki community at large to get an outside opinion on the

[1] [2]

--Bertrc (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

These two seem to be different. The first is an article from the Inter Press Service, which is a news service. They may have a slant, but if they say a specific person said something, I would tend to believe them. Statements by Sachs can be attributed to Sachs, by Boyle to Boyle, etc. The ones that are from anonymous sources or otherwise not attributed probably shouldn't be used. The second is an article by Mark Weisbrot in The Nation, and is basically an editorial. The Nation is a noted journal, but unabashedly "left", and Weisbrot is a noted expert, but also has a definite point of view, so this article is not neutral. So, for example, if it's being used to cite that the CIA destabilized Aristide's regime, that should definitely be marked "according to Mark Weisbrot" or something like that. Can you please be specific what statements these two sources are being cited to support? --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is an alleged 16th century document which is claimed to have been discovered in 1995, a timely event as it coincided with the deliberation of the canonisation of Juan Diego. It purportedly described the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1531. This is, unsurprisingly, highly contentious. An IP is adding a claim from the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, that ""This document has been subjected to several scientific tests and all of them indicate that it is an original of that period of time.". See [3]. I removed this as I can find no sources saying anything about these tests other than this 'house organ', which I don't see as a reliable source. In any case, I think this is a

A further red flag is that it contradicts the most reliable sources on the issue that are extremely sceptical (to say the least) about the codex's authenticity.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case it is clear that the Texas Catholic Herald can only be used as an example of a source making a claim, not as a source of fact. Zero^talk 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bellarmino (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) The reference to sarcasm was to that employed by Brading in his comment on the Codex Escalada. He treated it not with any scientific method but sought to discredit it with a sarcastic comment. Having read your material on classifying "reliable" sources I see how he qualifies and those who oppose him sometimes don't - i.e. he has the secular university community behind him - but the comment he makes in this context is less than worthless. In fact, it discredits the position of those who claim to be governed by reason. That's why "let the reader judge" is the only possible response (since you don't appear willing to have the sarcasm deleted).

Bellarmino (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Now if the Texas Catholic Herald is sufficient as "as an example of a source making a claim" then surely it ought not to have been deleted. It ought to have been corrected. What am I missing?

Bellarmino (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I've made some more edits. It turns out that the stuff about the "painting" and the various layers is from a secret investigation in 1982, which has never been published. Instead, it was referred to in an article in the magazine "Proceso" from where it was gleefully lifted by rationalists and spread far and wide. From what I've seen so far of the quality of the reasoning governing things here, it belongs on Wikipedia, but on the hypothesis that the statements about verifiable quality sources has some level of sincerity, I've deleted it. I await with interest the reaction of the mob.

Starting off by insulting other editors is a bad idea. Just a quick peek at your changes makes me wonder about your reliable source for "Neither Poole nor Brading has examined the Codex Escalada".

talk

) 14:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bellarmino (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) It's called a fact. Apparently Wikipedia recognises those, despite its pose as being uninterested in truth as such. The only way you could impugn that fact is if you had some source in which it were claimed that Brading or Poole had examined the Codex, but no such source exists because they have not done so. I have a source in which it is admitted that they did not examine it, but no such source is needed in the absence of any claim to the contrary. As for insults, if the hat fits, wear it. If the hat doesn't fit, don't insist on being insulted, since it obviously isn't aimed at you.

Is [4] a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that

Do other, obviously reliable sources use this source without specific attribution? Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Advocate in its blog section gives a precis of the article and a link to the SFGN site. No other sources are provided, nor do I find any on a Google search, so clearly no RSs appear to use this source without specific attribution. Collect (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did this website hire the entire staff of the South Florida Blade? Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I was concerned about this as well but as the talkpage notes "There were not two NJ Deputy Attorneys General named Arthur Goldberg" and in a 2007 interview Goldberg, of the ex-gay groups, is noted as "a former law professor at the University of Connecticut and past deputy attorney general of New Jersey". To me that settled that this was one and the same person. As to the Gay News article I rewrote the content, which to me seemed a bot POV to now read

Looking at the current easy-accessed sources there is a long history here of the man forming groups and championing causes as well as books discussing his finance work including starting a credit union which was central to the fraud case. There is a lot there but it can be presented NPOV and RS'd.

Definietely an improvement - though is the primary source for the court case which reduced his punishment needed or proper here? Is the reduction of penalty a source for the conviction? Collect (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to allow the two editors there interested some latitude to piece together a larger narrative. Frankly in every source I found another organization or business or thing he did, it's a bit endless and IMHO has to be woven chronologically whereas all this ex-gay stuff seems his retirement hobby. His notability as far as I can tell was first as a pillar in the Eastern US Jewish community and as a bond financier/semi-public figure. Then after jail his two sons came out as gay when they were in college which prompted the whole ex-gay stuff largely because Goldberg was uncomfortable with the ex-gay groups/movement which is dominated by the charismatic Christian/right-wing experience. At some point it may be clear that he singlehandedly legitimized the ex-gay movement to many by having another religious ex-gay group that wasn't intertwined with the rest. Consequently this latest revelation of his fraud will likely by picked up by the LGBT press and many in the US are sensitive to bank fraud issues so all that legitimacy he brought may melt away. There was a similar ex-gay scandal, or I may be combining a couple, where ex-gay leaders were caught doing "research" in gay bars. Many of the other ex-gay groups have been funded and used as political pawns. Clearly people believe what they write and go to their meetings, what happens from there I haven't a clue although Will & Grace did an episode that was amusing. BUt back to the point I'd rather leave it at least temporarily, I have a feeling the article is about to significantly grow.

-- Banjeboi

14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask for opinions about the video web site World of Martial Arts [5]. It does not appear to be a video blog: the videos are selected by the staff of WOMA. There is no statement about their editorial policy and there is no information about the copyright status of the videos on their site. There are interviews with popular martial artists [6].

Would these videos be acceptable as Primary Sources? Would inclusion in this site help a claim to notability? jmcw (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not a lot about it that I could find. From http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/Wherecaniseethat.html and http://www.woma.tv/docs/about.html it seems a limited number of people can upload content, so I would say they could be primary sources for the views of those specific people, which could be useful if those specific people are considered experts. But since there isn't much about WOMA elsewhere, I wouldn't be able to say that the site as a whole is a reliable source, or that inclusion in it as a "Guru" is a guarantee of expertise or notability. It certainly doesn't hurt, but I don't think it would be sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will consider it a Primary Source of the people interviewed. jmcw (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. For a while I've been using www.britballnow.co.uk as a source for a number of articles relating to American football in the UK. During the course of a peer review, the

The fact that this is written in the first person indicates that it is a

WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your response.

(talk)

12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Following on from the discussion on gibnews.net above, I would like to raise another site, gibnet.com, also operated by

This site is used in the following places [8].

To pick some examples:

• At
  Disputed status of Gibraltar (a very hot potato), this clearly partisan page
  is being used as a reference
• On numerous pages, this clearly partisan page ("The Struggle Continues...") is appearing in External Links [9]
• On several pages, this appears as a reference [10] - a piece of original research which is totally unreferenced.
• This page (note the "no 2 id" logo) is being used as a reference at Identity document

I submit that - even before we consider the COI issues (please note, it's Gibnews' site and he himself is adding many of the links to it [11] [12]) - this site is totally unreliable for usage on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This is plainly an unreliable source and from your description, that's a completely inappropriate use of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No indication that it satisfies Wikipedia's

WP:RS guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable on it's face. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why not propose it at

talk

) 13:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this late. I agree also. It's just a personal (or at most small-company) website. There's no way it's up to the level of reliability - e.g. known reputation as a publication - expected by

WP:RS. Gordonofcartoon (talk

) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the page [March 2002 - Demonstration is 'partisan' I suggest you read it. The description is factual and the statement shown at the end was the one read out on the platform. The BBC and SKY covered the event. I expect they said much the same thing and had much the same pictures. Not that you can find any record of it on their website, what exactly IS the problem with that page? not that it is AFAIK linked in any way to wikipedia excepting I donated a copy of that picture to the wikipedia commons. Any event where nearly the whole population of a country take to the streets to protest something IS pretty notable though.

So what IS the game? Get everything from Gibraltar banned because it IS from Gibraltar? and RH does not like it? Gibnet.com does not have to have a NPOV in its content. But the reference documents are presented 'as is' comment is labelled as 'comment' and other material in that section strictly according to its source. --Gibnews (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the views of editors here, at COI/N and at ANI, I have submitted gibnet.com for inclusion on the blacklist here [13]. I will also remove all links to it from Wikipedia articles once that has been actioned, as I wish to preserve the record of links for the editor who deals with it. Gibnews, this noticeboard is for RS matters - please stick to those rather than discussing me: I'm utterly irrelevant to the reliability of the source, on which - unlike gibnews.net - there has been a unanimous response. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is not a reliable source, I do not see a level of abuse that warrants blacklisting, and have as such suggested to mark that as declined. I do believe that a (maybe careful) cleanup should be performed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although all things could be better, some of the material in the reference section there is simply not available anwhere else in a computer readable form, and it is presented in a consistent reliable manner. I note that RH has tried very hard to have me and gibnews.net banned and started this particular discussion when he knew I was not active on wikipedia and did not notify me until some time afterwards. some of his descriptions of pages on Gibnet.com are as missleading as his recents attempts to get me banned from editing claiming I was a sock of user:gibraltarian. --Gibnews (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I support blacklisting as well, given that pattern of

WP:COI edits, in addition to the site not appearing to meet WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't support a blacklist. It doesn't seem even slightly warranted, read

WP:SPB. A blacklist is for a site that is being spammed all over Wikipedia and all other attempts to keep it away have failed, either because someone is using multiple sockpuppets or there are a lot of people adding it. Nothing remotely like that has occurred here. Gibnews certainly has a conflict of interest in regards to the site, but that just means he shouldn't be linking to it, that doesn't mean that everyone on Wikipedia should be disallowed from thoughtful use of the contents of the web site. -- Atama頭

00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed all the links, replacing them with "fact" tags, and have started on the process of finding reliable sources to replace those. As I stated elsewhere, I'm finding this relatively easy, thanks to the power of Google. There really is no need to link to gibnet.com. (There is, however, one potential exception. The Bahá'í organisation's own website links to gibnet.com [14]. So, should we link to the Bahá'í website which lists Gibraltar, or should we link to gibnet.com too?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century a valid and reliable source to provide in whole or in part estimated statical information for articles here on Wikipedia? [15]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not... if you go to the author's home page and then to the link "Who Am I?" you quickly discover that it is a personal webpage run by someone who admits that he is "No one in particular... " and that "My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian." Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar has pretty much nailed it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation but- Ha, by that standard Wikipedia is pretty hypocritical...Thanks for clarifying though.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not if you think about it. We don't consider ourselves reliable sources either. That's why it's so important we do have reliable sources, because "a Wikipedia editor says so" doesn't mean much. --GRuban (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This version [16] of Megan Connolly was virtually word for word reproduction of [17] at TV.com. I have edited the content to the point that I think any copyright violations have been addressed, but the sole source for the article is the TV.com article and if that is just a wikipedia mirror, then the whole article needs to be resourced. MM 207.69.139.138 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Notice on TV.com the little "edit" button at the top of sections. Anyone with an account can edit it, much like IMDb. It looks like either someone copied the TV.com bio over to Wiki or vise versa. TV.com should not be used as a

reliable source.—Mike Allen

01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, per MikeAllen. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This came up before and it was determined that certain sections of the site are user generated while other sections aren't.[18] Pages with a URL of www.tv.com/story are professionally written and should be reliable (assuming they haven't reorganized their site or anything since the last time this came up). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Like IMDB, it's not quite true that anyone with an account can edit it, in that edits have to vetted by someone (perhaps the topic moderator). Still, we don't know that that someone has a reputation for fact-checking, so it's not generally reliable, except for signed sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Galassi is inserting "he was significant proponent of the Blood libel against Jews" in Vladimir Purishkevich. Galassi supports this with two refs.

• http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/17_r/rez/reznik.html - Russian-language source that calls Purishkevish "leader of early Russian fascism" but says nothing about Purishkevich connection to blood libel. I guess, putting this fake reference, Galassi hoped that most readers of English Wikipedia will not understand what was really written in Russian-language text.
• http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/studies2.html - text by William Korey (lobbyist on international issues for B’nai B’rith). There are two sentences about Purishkevish in the text. "One of the Union's reactionary leaders, V. M. Purishkevich, was referred to by his Sovbiographer as a “fascist” who had set an authentic style for a movement that would blossom forth in Europe a decade later.", "While the Union's chairman was a physician, Dr. A. I. Dubrovin, and his two deputies were a nobleman-landowner (Purishkevich), and an engineer, the majority of the membership ranged from petty-bourgeois elements to unemployed workers, peasants, skilled proletarians, and professionals." Again, nothing is written about Purishkevich connection to blood libel.

Can this sources be used to support the content? Attention from uninvolved editors needed. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the sources do not back the claim then they are not reliable for that claim... you have essentially two options... 1) reword the passage so it better reflects what the sources do say (ie talk about his fascism, but not about "Blood libel")... or 2) remove the citations and tag the statement (don't remove the statement right away). If you go this route, leave a good edit summary and explain in detail what the problem is on the talk page.

There is no rush on fixing this, since the article is not a BLP. The key is to ensure that the article discusses the subject accurately and in a neutral tone. Be willing to work towards a compromise and build a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Russian text, but I don't see any evidence that the William Korey reference is "fake". It says that Purishkevich was a leading figure in the Union and that the Union "was a major backer of the notorious blood libel trial of Mendel Beiliss". I don't think we can reasonably consider it to be

WP:SYNTH to see these two statements together as inevitably implying that Purishkevich backed the blood libel trial. [19] Paul B (talk

) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly

WP:SYNTH since it is not at all unusual for leading members of organizations to disagree with some of their policies. The solution is to say just what the source says and no more. Zero^talk

14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems more than a stretch to me given that it was central to the Union's very role, but the sentence can be reasonably rephrased. Paul B (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I can speak to the Russian text. The entire article is about the blood libel, that's its title, "КРОВАВЫЙ НАВЕТ В РОССИИ", "Blood libel in Russia". However Purishkevich is only mentioned in passing, as an early Russian Fascist leader. The article does connect Russian Fascism to the blood libel, but doesn't specifically say Purishkevich did it. Not a good source for that. --GRuban (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So far as we have seen here, we have no source that justifies the text inserted by Galassi. Zero^talk 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The insertion involves too much

The chart mentioned above includes the film grosses adjusted for ticket price inflation, and also the number of ticket sales via the Box Office Mojo chart here: [20]. However, since ticket sales aren't tracked Mojo clearly states where the ticket sales are unknown it works it out using the average ticket price for the year the film was made. This is fine in most cases where the ticket price is static, but has caused a problem with Avatar, where it states that Avatar has sold over 87 million tickets in grossing $668 million.

Because ticket prices are different for the different formats Avatar was released in (2D/3D/IMAX), the simple model of dividing the gross by the average ticket price for that year no longer applies, as noted in their own article about Avatar's performance: [21]. They clarify the general methodology for how they calculate admissions: Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive.. Their article provides a breakdown of teh ticket sales in each format (and at the different prices for those formats) to extimate that "All told, Avatar's estimated admission count is 60.7 million thus far" in grossing $600 million.

The dispute is over whether to include the ticket sales estimate from their chart, which Box Office Mojo clearly indicates is inaccurate in the case of Avatar. Avatar clearly didn't sell another 27 million tickets going from $600 million to $668 million. So yes Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, its chart is usually considered reliable, but the Box Office Mojo analysis indicates the estimate is not reliable in the case of Avatar.

So what should take precedence in a case like this? The chart or the article, both published by the same source? It seems to me the article acts as a kind or errata in this instance. Would appreciate any opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not account for both estimates... list it as "60.7 or 87 million", and explain the issue of calculation method in a foot note. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see the article does this already. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it might be the better solution. The other party may still contest it though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, from your reverts and discussion, I thought you were against using the 87 million altogether. I am assuming I am the other party you are referring to and no, I will not object to using both sources at all until and if the primary source ever decides to unify these counts on both instances. DrNegative (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The stability of the article is the priority, but all things considered if Box Office Mojo have provided two estimates, I believe we should go with the estimate they consider to be the most accurate. Both Entertainment Weekly [22] and MTV.com [23] provide estimates that corroborate Box Office Mojo's revised estimate with ticket sales at 62 million and 59 million respectively. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is used extensively in Al-Farabi to prove that he was Persian. The author of the Iranica article about al-Farabi, Dimitri Gutas gives a different account about al-Farabi's ethnicity in a different article published on the Stanford University site. Sole Soul (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any conflict or contradiction between Gutas' two articles. In both he quite clearly states that there is no resolution for Al-Farabi's ethnicity.

So, do you really mean that EI has been quote-mined and cherry-picked to push a pro-Persian POV? Well, that's just your garden variety POV-pushers' tug of war, EI has nothing to do with it.

(obRS: Is anyone doubting that EI is a RS?) rudra (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that most of the people here will not read the long Iranica article to make their conclusions about my claim. In the Iranica article, Gutas is "refuting" the Turkish ethnicity claim. He is saying that the primary sources that say al-Farabi was Turkish are pro-Turkish and should not be relied on.

Regardless, the main question is: Is Iranica a RS in a disputed matter that relate to Iran. Sole Soul (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

EI is certainly RS. However, your contention about Gutas seems mistaken. Only the first two out of the four sections of the article are relevant to issues of ethnicity and "refutation" (because the third section "STORIES AND LEGENDS" starts with this: "The above is all that can be said with certainty about Fārābī’s biography"). The second section ("LIFE") says nothing about ethnicity at all. So where in the first section ("BIOGRAPHY") did you find a "refutation"? rudra (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

People have to decide for themselves, but I doubt that Iranica would publish an article that talk about pro-Persian bias. Quote: "Ebn Ḵallekān, in line with his pro-Turkish bias, makes the outlandish claim that Fārābī knew no Arabic when he came to Baghdad but only “Turkish and numerous other languages,” and that he mastered Arabic only afterwards." Sole Soul (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That passage is in the "STORIES AND LEGENDS" section. It has no bearing on the facts. Your problem is with tendentious editing in the Al-Farabi article, and quite possibly a misuse of the EI source. But not with EI source itself, which is still RS. rudra (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That passage is related to the question of wether EI is partial or impartial. Sole Soul (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Khallikan's pro-Turkish bias is simply a fact, and properly explained by Gutas. Note that Gutas early on dismisses the third primary source, Bayhaqi. But he does not similarly dismiss Ibn Khallikan, which he clearly would have if he wanted to imply that only Usaibi was right and Al-Farabi was indeed Persian. But Gutas did not do this. Like a true scholar, he laid out all the facts. Anyone reading the article without an

agenda should realize this, and not try to second guess his informed scholarly conclusion that, all said and done, Al-Farabi's ethnicity is not known. rudra (talk

) 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask you about Gutas. My question: Would EI publish an article that talk about pro-Persian bias in the same way? Do you think EI is completely impartial in matters related to Iran? Sole Soul (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt it. The roster of scholars is stellar. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iranophilia, either of the author or in the content, is a precondition of contributions to EI. rudra (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. You made yourself clear, you think that "EI is certainly RS", "Ibn Khallikan's pro-Turkish bias is simply a fact" and wondering whether Encyclopedia Iranica is impartial in subjects related to Iran is "a conspiracy theory" all emphasizes are mine. Sole Soul (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is EInsiders.com a reliable source? The website has been around since before 1996, it has several very well known and well respected editors with editorial oversight to their content. EInsiders is on the internet, on several TV stations and has a radio show. Information is 3rd party verified. The editors are all long-term members of the Film Critics association and are high level professionals in the field of their expertise, the film industry. Other large publications use them for a source and often cite them as a source for information. They are on the list of approved film critics with Rotten Tomatoes and show up in the Rotten Tomato movie reviews as an official film critic. (I use Rotten Tomatoes as an example because they are used as a reliable source on Wiki and EInsiders.com is the source for some of that info) They attend film festivals and press-only movie screening by invitation from film PR firms and do live interviews with cast and report directly from the events. I can't find anything that would make EInsiders not a credible source. Please let me know if that is enough for reliability. Pharaway (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the background of this dispute here. The issue at first was not that the site was not "reliable", it was that in every one of your edits, you were adding that site. That was back in December and then in January and it was explained to you and you were warned. Now you are not only doing the same thing, you are removing existing reliable sources and adding that site claiming "the Einsiders report was posted 24 hours before the Daily Mail". [24] However, I am glad you finally brought this issue up here. —Mike Allen 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is the source of the conflict - Mike Allen, who for some reason is making false allegations and harassing my edits and mytalk page. My "claim" as you call it after you posted lies on mytalk page, was that I cited EInsiders originally. EInsiders was removed and replaced with yours. I simply reverted it back to the original as I believe it is valid and reliable. So stop making stuff up Mike. Pharaway (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense! "False allegations and harassing"? That was your fist time adding the EI source on that article (link above) and I reverted your edit (clicked one button), which in turn reverted back to the original source, Daily Mail. I didn't manually go in .. never mind it's late and I can't believe this. I'll let the edit summaries speak for themselves, as all of this is documented. Also, your talk page is there for issues like this, which I exercised

WP:DISPUTE (which ever is the correct party to go to). —Mike Allen

07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, why don't you just take a second to calm down. EInsiders was the original source. I am the original author on the article and I put Einsiders as the source. It was changed to the Daily Mail. I reverted it to EInsiders. A simple viewing of the history will show you that. The purpose here is to have others weigh in on if EInsiders meets Wiki's guidelines as a reputable source. It is my position that it does and, since other authors have also used it, I believe the general consensus will be in agreement with me. You need to stop the accusations and your shrill behavior. Pharaway (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you forgot to sign in with your user name and post here, your IP is now in the page History. Now that I look at the page, it was the IP (yours) that first added the site of that page. You didn't bother to tell anyone that. I'm done speaking with you, I would like someone else to speak about this mess. —Mike Allen 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What "mess"? Are you really this upset because you don't like a cite that I use? None of the information has been proven inaccurate and thank goodness you now realize that your accusation that I replaced a cite with an EInsiders cite is wrong. You don't seem to have a problem with the information that I post. You aren't disputing the validity of any of my edits. You are just this upset because you want a different reference used as the cite for the same information?? Don't you think you are over-reacting?Pharaway (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to bypass the above for now, and look at the original question posed by Pharaway. EInsiders does not have an "about us" link on its site. I can see nothing about who creates it. Its creators appear to be good at media marketing / linking - they've got facebook links, twitter etc, but at its core it is an unverifiable site for which a google search, and a google news search, fails to turn up other obvious commentary that might attest to its reliability. Sorry, Pharaway, but my examination suggests it fails the test. Assuming the source happens to get those death dates correct, your best bet is to use that as a heads-up, go to the newspapers online in following days and find a reliable source. If other editors replace an EI ref with a reliable source, i recommend those revisions be allowed to stand. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bypass these last few days also, and comment if you will. ;-) The site has no "About us" and that is frowned upon. There's no way to find out who the website belongs too, who runs it and how do we know these editors are part of the Film Critics Association? The "editors" seem to be just regular people that review films. [25], [26]. Who is Jonathan W. Hickman? His profile doesn't say anything about being part of the FCA. [27] What makes this obituary significant over other obituaries, such as this one? Who is Kathy Stover, where did she get her sources? The site just looks like a big community site, where anyone can review films, add people as friends, etc I just can't see it being used as a reliable source for BL(and dead)P or well.. any article. I'm sorry. —Mike Allen 05:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether einsiders.com is a reliable source, the discussion at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Pharaway shows a consensus that there has been an undue promotion of the site. Above, Pharaway states that the site is well known, with well respected editors and editorial oversight. However, I do not see anyway to verify these claims and I see no reason to regard einsiders as a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the EInsiders site itself, there are video interviews with Jonathan Hickman and Scott Mantz, among others. Most recently, there are videos of the two of them as official press at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. If yous listen to the videos, as I have, a good bit of these questions are answered. [Here is a link to who Scott Mantz is - he is a producer at Access Hollywood http://www.accesshollywood.com/moviemantz]. On it is a movie review that he also licensed to EInsiders - not as an aggregator, but as an owner and official writer. How do I know this? Because Scott Mantz is on the video saying it on the Einsider's website. Also, he told me that in person - I had the opportunity to meet him. To prove my statement that EInsiders is well respected, here is a [link to awards and nominations within the industry for Scott Mantz http://www.accesshollywood.com/showdown/access-scott-movie-mantz-nominated-for-icg-publicist-award_article_13082]

(moved from a talk page) Off the very top of my head, Kim Walker and Ashleigh Aston Moore would be examples that illustrate my point. Both actors are obviously notable but their deaths were merely blips on the radar in the media. I spend quite a bit of time working on fairly obscure dead actors' articles which means I know where to look for even the smallest mention of a obit. In those cases, none can be found except for Einsiders. While I'm fully aware that any unsourced content can be removed or challenged by anyone, I do not believe a notable person's death should fall into that category. In both cases, the deaths were covered by an outside source. For whatever reason, this source is being called into question. If possible, I'd like to be pointed to the discussion regarding the reliability of this link. Aside from it being spammed by some person for whatever reason, I've never found any problem with the actual site itself. Again, if there's something I'm missing please about this situation, feel free to clue me in. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See here for the RSN discussion. The site doesn't cite where they get their information, there is no About Us, no one knows who those authors are. For example this is not a professional obituary:

"DANNY DUKES Died Dec. 3, 2007

Adult film actor Danny Dukes (real name Danny Salas Jr.) died of a drug overdose at age 33. Mr. Dukes acted in several adult films between 2002 and 2004. He was also a sometime agent. He leaves behind a young son. Prayers of comfort for his family and friends. Some say that the adult film industry leads to drug abuse. Of course there are enough examples of legit film industry insiders getting hooked on drugs to make one wonder about such blanket condemnations. However, the bottom line is this, drugs will kill you. First they will kill your soul, then your body. All that remains is the pain you leave behind because you didn't care enough to fight the addiction" There are more examples, but their site is down, again for me. —Mike Allen 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Danny Dukes on Wiki cited by EInsiders? Aren't there other deaths noted on EInsiders that are more formal obituaries? - YES. Pinkadelica is absolutely correct and is one of the reasons I use EInsiders regularly. The answer to who the authors are has been answered repeatedly with links to outside websites covering awards that some of the authors have been given within the industry. So Mike Allen's claim that he doesn't know who they are just doesn't hold up. Mike Allen in on a vendetta, it looks like there is a cOI with him affiliated with a competing entity. Why else this vehement stance? He has literally taken down almost TEN YEARS worth OF CITES from EInsiders and replaced the EInsider's cite with cites from his "pet" references but he has NOT changed the text/content that is EInsider's content including photos pulled from EInsiders website! No one has that much of an issue unless they are competing. A COI should be opened against him. EInsiders has met the Wiki guidelines for a reliable source - 1. longevity: EInsiders has been on the web since 1996. 2. Editorial oversight: the editors have been pointed out and shown to be high-ranking, respectable professionals in the industry with industry awards to their names. Pharaway (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus has been established here. Thank you. —Mike Allen 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What the best way is to offer further 'proof that Einsiders.com is not a bona fide source; information on ownership, persons involved, etc. — that is, without violating terms here, etc.842U (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. You have asked me previously to "vet" EInsiders as a source. Then when I went out and vetted them, finding as much information as I could about their editors, etc, you claim I "know too much" about them and use it to try and prove that there is a Conflict of Interest, and attempt to get me banned. Seems like foul play to me and a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation. Bottom line is that you don't intend to allow EInsiders as a reliable source no matter what. You could find out that they are owned by the New York Times and overseen by their editors and you still wouldn't allow them as a reliable source. EInsiders meets all of Wiki's guidelines to be a reliable source. Pharaway (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of your behavior, others have vetted your sources and discovered that EIinsiders.com is operated by an advertising company, the same advertising company that you posted from, when you inadvertently posted your ISP. Several of your edits into Wikipedia articles inserted the very name of a key person at both the advertising company and the EInsiders.com site. So in a short period of time it became clear that EIinsiders.com, being owned and operated by a company whose job is to among other things promote and create demand where there is none... and rather pertantly, optimize search engine results... isn't a reliable source; they are a highly biased source. It became very clear as well, that someone from that very same company, you, was doing the ref-spamming. This is a conflict of interest, and highly discouraged. The other issues, the photo issue (which is self-resolving) and your aggressive suggestions that Mike Allen or others in the discussion are sinister representatives of other media outlets (are, in other words, your competition) are ruses, meant to divert attention from your behavior. So, essentially, game over. There may be some formalization of these findings, blockages, etc. In the meantime, take care.842U (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What edits have the name of an advertising company? I put in mostly death notices? The rest were film edits. This is becoming ridiculous.Pharaway (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You made edits including quotations from a "film critic" who happens also to be [[28]] self-described as "president" of EInsiders.com, whose web site was created by a certain advertising company... for whom said "film critic" is also listed under that same advertising company's website "who we are" section, which lists... three people. Here the "film critic" and "president" is listed as "producer." 842U (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The "film critic" Jonathan Hickman. Which is the editor-in-chief of einsiders.com. Funny that you didn't bother to post the company that owns einsider.com, about us. BrightNight Media, which is an advertising company. Source —Mike Allen 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought the issue up about Scott Mantz on Pharaway's talk page, Scott Mantz is a critic for Access Hollywood, but his profile on einsiders says nothing, on RottenTomatoes the same search for Scott Mantz gives you his full bio and links to his original reviews, einsiders passes him off as one of their reviewers. Scott Mantz et al. are legit reviewers, einsiders is not. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And so EInsiders, which stands for Entertainment Insiders, appears more comprised of... outsiders.842U (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i have big doubts regarding this book. i explained on the discussion page of battle of kursk. first of all the book is convicted with using rotmistrovs steelguard as source, the book is claiming that the myth of prokhorvka is true. furthermore the claims of the strenghts are rediculous. i explained on the dischussionpage. while i think glantz is a reliable historian his book kursk seems to be punked by russian sources ( rotmistrov for example ). without checking german archival sources this book printed claims created by soviet propaganda. glantz is supporting the opinion that the red army was superior in many cases ( which is maybe possible but this is not the point) , he supports this claims with taking wrong strenght numbers and comparing them. his "ratios" are cited in the "battle of kursk" articles. for example he gives and overexxagrated number of german tanks and "forgots" the steppe front. so his ratios are simply ridicolous... . newer research is discrediting many statements of him. zetterling/frankson , have written an book about the statistical analyse of kursk and we see that glantz simply faked the numbers. "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol.8 " (2007) has an entire chapter regarding the prokhorovka myth. i explained this problem on the discussion page but nobody responed glantz is still even cited for the prokhorvka battle which is very sad... Blablaaa (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a more complete description of the source please? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Glantz, David M. & House, Jonathon (1995). When Titans Clashed; How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. University of Kansas Press. iam not sure if the user who makes the dubios statements is citing this book because he seems to own Glantz/ House ... Kursk too. but most of the dubios statements are from when titan clashed. i can present more dubios statements of the book about kursk. again i have to say that i dont think glantz is not reliable, but his statements about kursk are more than wrongBlablaaa (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This user has misquoted from sources and trying to elbow this author out because his figures don't fit with his distorted view of events. Please ingore this.

David Glantz is one of the most formidable academics in the field of Soviet military art. It is a disgrace that some anon of the internet questions that he 'ain't releiable'. Dapi89 (talk

) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

so i ordered the newer book Kursk 1943, i will check what this book says then we can go on. Blablaaa (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

to make my point clear, iam not disputing the reliability of glantz in general but his book when titans clashed. and here particulary his numbers . now the examples. operation zitadelle is the name for the german pincer attack for kursk. glantz(i can only say what the user is citing ) lists 3,xxx russian tanks. when i check the latest sources i see this number are correct but only the numbers for two of three fronts. the first defensiv lines were manned by 2 fronts and behind them the steppe front as reserve (reserves are always listed in strenght because they are important for the outcome used or not doesnt madder), this steppe front was used very ofthen with more than 1000 tanks in action and fighting. even if this front would not participated it should be mentioned but it was used. so if glantz really gives this numbers for zitadelle he simply faked the numbers. after this he takes his numbers to create tank ratios, he explaining 1:1,5 tanks , because russian only had this 3000 tanks.... than the user is arguing glantz uses this ratio to explain their was no numerical superiority . this totally absurd because this tanks were fighting . and i not even mention that the brijansk front with its 1xxx tanks started to attack the 2nd Panzerarmy. iam not sure what glantz really says but this dubios. the user who cites glantz own both books "when titans clashed(1995)" and "kursk 1943(2070)" but he is always citing the older one so i think glantz himself uses other numbers in his newer book. if the user only owns the old book than forget what i wrote. there are more examples if u want i can explain. dont hesitat to ask meBlablaaa (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an interested editor from the Kursk article.

Grigoriy Krivosheyev

's recent study is considered seminal for Russian figures, but I don't think it's enough to prove Glantz unreliable in the wikipedia sense; that would require exceptionally good sources who specifically opine that Glantz's research was flawed. My understanding is that when reliable sources differ, editors don't get to play favourites unless there is consensus to prefer particular sources (and so, Krivoshe(y)ev's figures should also be considered reliable.)

I'd suggest that trying to play one source against another to decide that another must be "wrong" is

Original research/Synthesis

, unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to prove one is a fringe opinion. I note there is no bulk of reliable sources to criticise Glantz.

Also, I would ask fellow editors to be civil, and focus on the question, not other editors. Hohum 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

lets stick to the point. i dont say he is unreliable but i think his numbers for zitadelle are. thats why iam really interested in his book Kursk, we talk here about "when titans clashed" this book is 12 years older. and please hohum tell me your opinion about "forgeting" the steppe front? i know our opinion is irrelevant....

he only lists central and voronezh front. why? and again i have to repeat myself iam not sure if glantz says this or the user who cites him. glantz doesnt count the reserves, while he is counting the germans reservers which took not part. hes counting german passiv reserves but not russian activ ones. who can we use his numbers then ? we have zetterling 200x and frieser 2007. even if we say glantz is reliable than his numbers should be not used for this article. Blablaaa (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If two experts disagree, we generally write the disagreement. "The Soviet forces included 5000 tanks (according to Glantz[ref-giving-details]) or 10000 tanks (according to Krivosheyev[ref-giving-details])". Experts do sometimes disagree. But we do need to be able to cite the disagreeing experts on each side, we can't just write "Glantz writes 5000 tanks, which we're sure is wrong." --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

they both have the same number but one of them is missing a front/armygroup/Heeresgruppe. i think we can give both numbers but than the infobox becomes very huge. is there a possibility that somebody decides which source is better for the box. zetterling frankson wrote a book only about the numbers of kursk.... .the other numbers can be explained in the text, in the text its easy to explain the numbers and the reader will see fast that glantz simply missed a front which took part and his numbers are nonsense.... . another issue: glantz is quoting the myth of prokhorovka , what now? Blablaaa (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to reflect the information provided by reliable sources, not compare a bunch of reliable sources and then only use our favourites, even if the others seem wrong to us (whether it be authors, their books, or a specific number). It's not up to us to critique why one author came up with one number, and another author a different one. As long as they are both/all reliable, and Glantz, Krivosheev, Zetterling, and several others are, then we repeat what they say. If the quality of particular sources is obviously higher - as decided by knowledgeable book reviewers, then it's suitable to prefer one, but I don't much difference in praise for Glantz, Krivosheev, Zetterling, etc.

If the numbers quoted are for different groups of troops, then we ought to point out those differences, not just keep the ones a particular editor likes. Hohum 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• " not just keep the ones a particular editor likes."

argh, this has nothing to do with "like" or POV or bias, here its : correct or wrong. its simply wrong. and we have more then one historian saying this. most historian include all participating troops and one does not! and what is with prokhorovka, what is neccessary that wikipedia dont uses historians which are punked by the myth? Blablaaa (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we have you saying you think one author is wrong, because you think another author is right, while another editor does the opposite.

Read

WP:V

:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."

"Most" historians disagree? You've given one, and he isn't disagreeing with Glantz, he's just presented different numbers, since he is using different sources. Hohum 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

no he is not using other sources -.- frieser and zetterling and frankson are counting all participating tanks and glantz not. i explained it so well i think, glantz is giving the number for central and voronez and the other historians give central voronez and steppe, which is the "truth" because steppe fought in the south. but when your green sentence is correct than the discussion is over because glantz is glantz. but its a bit sobering, isnt it ? i only hope that glantz dont decide to say germany won WWII because than wiki will start publishing this . iam sure there is a wikirule against being funny. so sorry for this.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If Glantz ever says that, there will be no shortage of reliable sources specifically criticizing his reliability on that point. Hohum 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have, however, heard people say that Japan won WWII. They were mostly from Detroit... --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do anonymous testimonies in a RS journalist piece count as RS? The source in question is this, specifically in this passage:

Neighbors recalled there was something both strange and sad about Liu Chunling, that she sometimes hit her child, that she drove her elderly mother away, that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company.

It is a piece originally by the Washington Post, and is disputed primarily in

If the information is potentially important to the article, the simple solution is to phrase it that The Washington Post reported that X said Y. Barnabypage (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the caveat is "if it is potentially important". I would argue it's not. Some of the information in the piece is already used in the article. Admittedly, it's a bit selective, but if we cite the more outlandish claims, the risk is that this type of anonymous testimony may give even greater

prominence to a fringe or unsupported position than is already given or warranted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

06:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the information is important to the article. I fail to understand the eagerness to exclude this small piece of information. It's relevant, yah? Readers can make up their own mind. To say that something like a few dozen words in a several thousand word long article is pushing undue, is pushing it! (imho)--Asdfg12345 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about the use of op-ed in articles, specifically in the UN Watch article, and the following excerpt which some users have advocated[29]:

Journalist and former anti-apartheid activist Ian Williams, writing in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007, wrote that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also condemned UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians.^[1]

Ian Williams was twice president and twice vice president of the United Nations Correspondents Association, originated the UNCA award for best UN coverage in 1995 years ago, and is a judge in the New York Overseas Press Club Awards. He has appeared on ABC, BBC, ITN, CNN and contributed to Newsday, LA Weekly, Village Voice, New York Observer, Penthouse.[30] He is also the author of Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776, The Deserter: Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans and His Past, The Alms Trade and The UN For Beginners[31]

It has also been noted that Wikipedia doesn't have any article on Williams, Williams may not have ever been a staff writer for a "major" publication.[32]

Thanks,--70.225.142.161 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Op-ed articles, especially those by guest writers, often are subject to less editorial scrutiny than news reports. So it is safer to say that Journalist Ian Williams described UN Watch as X, Y and Z, thus making it clear that this is Williams's take on matters, not necessarily a universally-accepted fact.

A couple of more general points here, just for your interest. Note that I don't bring out the common fallacy about op-eds, in contrast to news stories, not being fact-checked - it is (in the vast majority of cases) a myth that news stories are fact-checked anyway, other than by their author. Also note that in British newspapers the line between op-ed and news reporting is much more blurred than it is in North American newspapers. News stories in British papers, particularly those written by subject specialists (the political editor, the religion correspondent, etc.) frequently contain some subjective analysis as well as objective statements of fact.

Neither of these points is specifically relevant to Williams but I thought I'd mention them anyway, as this issue of op-eds as reliable sources comes up so often! Barnabypage (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that the material is acceptable as long as the material is clearly attributed and qualified as the opinion of Ian Williams? Thanks for your feedback,--70.225.142.161 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I had a quick look at the most recent version of the article and I would consider it absolutely fine. It's a straightforward statement of what Williams, prima facie a responsible journalist and writing for a source that is generally regarded as reliable, said. What is the problem here? (I'm not familiar with the subject.) Is it a controversial point of view? Barnabypage (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing it as being the opinion of Ian Williams would make it acceptable in terms of reliability ... However, note that there may be other reasons not to accept it. Not all opinions are worth including. Stephen Hawking's opinion on partical physics is note worthy... his opinion on the Crimean War is not. Context is important. See

WP:UNDUE for more on that. So it comes down to this... is Ian Williams's opinion on the UN Watch worthy of metntion in the specific article under discussion? I will leave it to others to argue that out. Blueboar (talk

) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He was, per the original question, "twice president and twice vice president of the United Nations Correspondents Association". I certainly haven't checked it out in detail, but this would tend to suggest that his opinions on the UN are more noteworthy than those of Hawking's on the Crimean War! Barnabypage (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Would

WP:NPOV/N be the place to collect input then? Thanks, --70.225.142.161 (talk

) 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Website, The Shakespeare Authorship Page at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ be used as a reliable source for the orthodox opinion at the Shakespeare authorship question page? Kathman is profusely published in Shakespeare studies for the past 15 years, and his article “The Question of Authorship”, concerning the Shakespeare authorship question, appears in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (2003), edited by well-known Shakespearean scholar Stanley Wells, and published by the Oxford University Press. In addition, according to his CV at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/kathman.html, in April 2001 he was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on “Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies” at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain. He has also discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio. The Web site is recommended by academics to those seeking information about the authorship question, and is referenced in several books as a reliable site for information on the topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll note that I'm not an uninvolved commentator here, since I edit the relevant page and support Tom's view that the website should be used as a crucial resource on this issue. I think it's important to point out that Kathman is a widely published expert on Shakespeare and the Elizabethan theatre [33] [34] and so his website falls under the specific exception to the use of personal websites: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Tom is correct that academics themselves reference the site, as for example in Zachary Lesser's article Mystic Ciphers in which he states that "the 'authorship debate' is for academic Shakespeareans what creationism or intelligent design is for evolutionary scientists", and notes that he always refers students to the website, which is "the best introduction to the 'debate' for the intelligent nonspecialist" (p355) [35] The principal opponent of the use of the webpage user:Smatprt will argue that Kathman is not an established expert on the "authorship debate", because he has relatively few peer reviewed publications on that specific topic. IMO, this is an absurd argument since "authorship debate" does not exist in academia and is not part of mainstream scholarship at all. It's like arguing that Richard Dawkins' views on creationism can't be quoted, because he has not actually contributed to "creation science". In the real world of Shakespeare studies Kathman is an undoubted expert. Paul B (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an acceptable

WP:SPS to me... like any self published source, it should be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk

) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it distressing that Paul would first, speak for an opposing editor, then label an argument "absurd" that hasn't even been made yet. This kind of attempt to poison the well, as they say, is unfortunate. I hope that any commentators will take those comments with a grain of salt.

• The CV also mentions Kathman have written "two chapters (on "Players, Livery Companies, and Apprentices" and "Innyard Playhouses") forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook on Theatre History. Again, I think it is clear where his expert status applies. In fact, on Project Muse, the list of Kathman's publications [[36]] total 3 book reviews and the book on Apprentices. Hardly extensive and certainly does not establish him as an expert on Shakespeare or the authorship.

• Kathman's "chapter" in Wells' Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, consists of 7 pages devoted to the authorship question being debated here - 7 pages, that's it. In it he offers no new research, compares the issue to UFO's, and throws around labels such s "heretics" "debasing", "elitism" and attacks such as "Oxfordians typically twist". He also makes numerous unsupported statements that, from a scholarly standpoint, are impossible to prove (and would never be made by a real scholar). Yet he states them as fact (page 626 for example, states beyond doubt when both Lear and Tempest were written (impossible to prove and orthodox scholars are still arguing about them). On page 627 he advocates the theory that Shakespeare was not well educated - an old theory that has clearly been disproved. Also on page 627 he states that there is no evidence that Oxford and the Earl of Southampton knew each other - an interesting assertion since Oxford's daughter was engaged to the man. And the list of inaccuracies goes on and on. If this represents what Wells would approve, can you imagine the kinds of statements he makes on his blog - with no peer review, no editor, and no need to cite sources?

I think I have laid out my objections fairly clearly. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the uninvolved editors on this page and will certainly clarify any of the information I have brought forward. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument I labelled absurd has been made repeatedly by you, so don't be disingenous. And there is nothing wrong in supporting another's editor's POV. As for the notion that Kathman's views are on the 'lunatic fringe' to use Crum's characterisation of your claims, that is absurd indeed. Only someone who truly is on the lunatic fringe would think that. As I and Tom have pointed out with evidence, the site is recommended by experts. I challenge any uninvolved editor here to read the website and to assess Kathmen's method of argment. I am convinced that that they will find nothing whatever to justify Smatprt's bizarre portrayal of it as an extremist "blog" that accuses opponents of being "insane nutjobs and 'heretics'". Paul B (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by this entire discussion. Perhaps that is because editors Barlow and Reedy are so much more well versed in the wikipedia canons of sourcing than I, but it had been my impression that the standard for inclusion was peer review or some similar certification of authority. David Kathman and David Ross's website is just that -- a website started by two individuals. As for citing the fact that in other, more academic, contexts David Kathman has been published, well the same certainly goes for myself, and for quite a number of other Oxfordians, for instance WSU's Michael Delahoyde, who in fact is an editor of the Rocky Mountain Review of Languages and Literature (published by the NW MLA), as well as operating a nice website featuring Oxfordian perspectives. If we are matching academic qualifications, Delahoyde's leave Kathman and Ross in the dust. So, if this wikipedia page is going to include Kathman and Ross's site as a source of authority, simple logic dictates the following sites must also be included as authoritative with respect to their contents:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org

http://www.shake-speares-bible.com

http://www.shakespearestempest.com

http://wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/

And, certainly, http://www.briefchronicles.com, the content of which are, of course, entirely peer reviewed.

There are, I'm sure, more that meet the same test.

Paul, here is a friendly suggestion: when you post comments which are full of basic spelling errors, you greatly diminish your authority as an editor of this page. I'm spelling-challenged myself, but the wiki gurus have supplied you with a spellchecker for this composing space. Why don't you use it? When you don't use it, you look like someone who doesn't care about correct usage, or about the wikipedia community standards. Is that how you want to come across. --131.118.144.253 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Ben Jonson)

These remarks exemplify the resons why we have WP:RS. Even leaving aside the infantile comments about spelling, always a sign of desperation, we have in both

WP:OR are introduced to support this. But this board is not for evaluating such claims (rebuttals would take too long). Indeed, we have RS policy precisely to ensure we do not get into such arguments. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Kathman, Wells, or Uncle Tom Cobbley are right or wrong; what matters is whether or not we can properly say what they argue. There is not justification whatever for suppressing the views of a respected and published scholar in the relevant field. Paul B (talk

) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, it seems to me that the source meets the SPS "expert" exclusion as RS, since we accept "expert in the field" fairly broadly. But the issue may boil down to

WP:UNDUE, not RS. If, as User:Smatprt seems to argue, his opinions are on the remote lunatic fringe, they should not be mentioned at all. If he is just a small but visible minority, then his views should be presented as such, with the appropriate weighting. In all cases, if his views are mentioned, they should be directly attributed to him (in-text attribution). Crum375 (talk

) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find it a strange argument that seeks to limit sources because other academics have also written on the topic. As I have argued at the talk page, there are literally thousands of anti-Stratfordian books and articles—all of which, by the way, promoting a fringe theory that Shakespeare didn’t write his works—but very few works refuting them, because, as Paul points out, it’s not really considered an academic subject by orthodox scholars. David Kathman is a well-known and often-quoted independent scholar (one only has to search his name on Google Scholar to find out) whom academics trust for information on the Shakespeare authorship issue. I don’t know how long Smatprt has been interested in the topic, but Kathman has been writing on the issue for 15 years or better.

• Also, whether Kathman does original research on the authorship question is beside the point. He doesn’t have to be an expert on English literature and punctuation, graphology, paleography, Greek and Latin translation, law, medicine and astronomy. He is a tertiary source, that is, he researches the academic Shakespeare literature to put together arguments that refute anti-Stratfordian claims. My understanding is that those types of sources are preferred for encyclopedia articles, and in any case none of the sources used by Smatprt can be considered experts on anything. His most oft-quoted source, Charlton Ogburn, was a military man, not a literary scholar or historian, and is considered by most academics to be a crackpot.

• Smatprt’s summation of Kathman’s scholarly work is deceptive. Kathman has numerous publications about Shakespeare and Early Modern theater to his credit, as both Google and Google Scholar searches attest. He is also the author of the Biographical Index of English Drama Before 1660, an on-line resource that is cited in such scholarly publications as The Cambridge Introduction to Early English Theatre.

• And how exactly would Smatprt know what arguments “would never be made by a real scholar”? Most of the sources he uses at the Shakespeare authorship question page are only allowed because the topic is a fringe theory, which allows all sorts of otherwise unreliable sources to be used simply because there are no other.

• Finally, I believe Crum375 is confused by Smatprt’s representation. Kathman represents the scholarly consensus, not the lunatic fringe. It is the anti-Stratfordian theory that is a fringe theory, not the orthodox view. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Reedy, anyone who compares Kathman's arguments about, for example, The Tempest, as made [here^[2]], with those of Stritmatter and Kositsky, [here ^[3]], cannot fail to see that the length of time that David Kathman has been opining on the authorship question is irrelevant to the question of his reliability. His mistakes in his online Tempest article are in retrospect both obvious and gratuitous, the the sort of errors that only a poorly advised undergraduate or a someone who knows better but believes that the ends justify the means, would commit. Kathman's errors are only underscored by the fact that, although Stritmatter and Kositky's rebuttal has been posted online for FIVE YEARS now, he has not responded to it. Really, who the heck does David Kathman think he is? He posts material on his internet site which has been if not entirely discredited, at least called into serious doubt by any reasonable standard of scholarship, and he leave his original article unmodified, without even providing his readers to a post to the critical response. And yet, at the same time, given the opportunity he attacks one of the two others of the critique as someone with "pretensions to scholarship." This is not scholarship. This is not even "pretense." Its self-serving ideological obstinance of the most pathetic sort.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Ben Jonson)

Now that you've vented your spleen, counted coup on your hated enemy, and touted your own expertise, I suggest you read the guidelines at the top of the page about what is relevant to this discussion. 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I was not confused by it, I simply used Smatprt's view as an example. I said that the SPS appears to be a RS, and it is up to the editors of the page to decide how to classify and handle it, per
    WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk
    ) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing seven pages on this drivel and correctly comparing it to other crackpot theories seems to qualify as extensive writing on this topic. The source seems to meet

WP:NPA, so no more personal attacks such as those by 131.118.144.253 please. Verbal chat

21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are also condemning the personal attacks made here today by both Tom and Paul? And the attempted outing by Tom (a severe non, no)! If so, I heartily agree! Smatprt (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I too think the website qualifies as a reliable source for the authorship article because:

1. Kathman is a published expert in Shakespeare studies (see last sentence of
   WP:PARITY
   for why restricting scholarship to "Shakespeare authorship studies" is not warranted),
2. We have other scholars attesting to the value of the website,

Of course, whenever possible peer reviewed and reputable publications should be preferred in the article, and the content should be adequately attributed, but using the website as a source is consistent with

There are literally thousands of reliable, extremely high quality sources on everything related to Shakespeare. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to rely on a

WP:SPS in this case. It should not be used. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayig, this is a fringe theory. Academics don't publish articles rebutting specific arguments in these texts. Yes, there is a huge amount written on Shakespeare in standard scholarship, but not on this. Really. If you can provide evidence for your claim, fine. But if Tom, who specialises in this, can't find these "thousands" of books and articles, I doubt you can. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of reliable, extremely high quality sources on everything related to Shakespeare, except for the authorship theory, because the overwhelming majority of professional and amateur Shakespeareans alike consider it a fringe theory with no convincing evidence. Academics don't write about things they don't accept as valid scholastic topics.

FTFY. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is incorrect. The top Shakespearean scholars of the day have written about the Shakespeare authorship issue. Matus has, Hope has, Schoenbaum has and, most importantly, the great Stanley Wells has. In Wells' own words: "I have taken part in debates on the authorship, broadcast about it on radio and on television, and written about it in newspapers and in my own books. In general I have tried to be rational, courteous, and tolerant." I will add that it's not about quantity - it's about quality, and these four top scholars, among others, certainly represent the top quality sources one could ever hope to find. In addition, mainstream scholars McMichael and Glenn published "Shakespeare and his Rivals - A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" in which they document the issue with verifiable historical data, rebut at length the top contenders Oxford, Bacon and Marlowe, and make the case for why Shakespeare of Stratford is the mainstream choice. To say there are no high quality reliable sources on the authorship issue is simply inaccurate. Jayjg is correct. Smatprt (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Tom is having such trouble finding reliable sources. I took me 30 seconds to find this lengthy article [[37]].Smatprt (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No-one disputes that sources exist. What is in dispute is that they exist in sufficient numbers, and that all specific anti-Statfordian claims are addressed by them in sufficient detail. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why you seem to think this issue is about how many reliable sources there are or aren't out there or why you misrepresent my motivation. I want to get it settled whether we can use the Web site. I haven't challenged any of the Web sites you use because I don't care what you use to support anti-Stratfordism--in fact, the nuttier the better is the way I feel about it. Why you fear Kathman's Web site so much, when it is routinely recommended by academics and even in published academic books, I have no idea. And I daresay you could count all the pages of the academic response to anti-Stratfordism and they'd still be less than the two Ogburn door stops. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kathman-Ross website should not be considered a reliable source because the so-called "expert opinions" expressed there are not kept current. The field of authorship studies is dynamic, with new articles on research, arguments and perspectives published all the time. Yet the Kathman-Ross website takes no notice of any of this. Kathman has said repeatedly that his mind is made up, and he has moved on to other topics. As a result, to take one example, the section of their website on The Tempest is very out of date. They ignore the work of Stritmatter and Kositsky (metioned above). They ignore Nina Green's refutation of their claim that The Tempest is based on the Strachey letter. Her refutation, titled "David Kathman’s false parallels between the Strachey letter, the Jourdain account, the anonymous True Declaration and Shakespeare’s The Tempest" is at the bottom of the documents page on her site at: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html. This refutation was brought to Kathman's attention, yet he has ignored it, as if it did not exist. Books are immutable, but there's a presumption that a website regarded as a "reliable source" will be kept reasonably up to date. This is not true in the case of the Kathman-Ross website. They have made it clear that they are closed-minded ideologues who no longer pay attention to others' views, and do not take them into account on their website. That being the case, their website should not be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of determining the current state of orthodox views. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS is the policy to be applied here, and nothing you've written seems at all relevant. Dlabtot (talk

) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anything unclear about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very unclear to me how you can say "Wikipedia does not include fringe theories in its articles". Here's the very first sentence from

WP:FRINGE

: "This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects."

In fact, the entire Shakespeare authorship question article is about a fringe theory, and I doubt it's going to be removed anytime soon. It's an authentic phenomenon and probably the grand-daddy of all conspiracy theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If a fringe theory is discussed in reliable sources, such as

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by your syntax, but never mind; it's enough to know that you oppose the site as a reliable source. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different subjects here. Jayjg's example would apply to an article like

WP:Undue would apply. Whereas significant notable fringe theories (which by Wiki's very broad standards include theories that "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" as well as "hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations") are covered in their own articles. What we are talking about in this section is what is whether Kathman's website is RS for the authorship article. Thanks. Smatprt (talk

) 14:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so, Smarprt, that is what I was referring to. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose I was confused about why you would give the example for an article such as William Shakespeare when we're discussing the article Shakespeare authorship question. Regardless, Paul's point is still relevant. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know what we are talking about, but Jayig's evident confusion about the relevant policy renders his judgement questionable. He dogmatically asserts that "Everything notable about Shakespeare, including who wrote the plays, has been covered by many, many, high quality, reliable, non-self-published sources" And yet he provides no evidence that this is the case. In any case this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Kathman's site meets the exception. Even if other sources existed it would have no bearing on that specific issue. If other published sources existed for the relevant points we would, of course, use them in preference, but what is at issue is the legitimacy of using Kathamn where necessary. 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no"confusion about the relevant policy";

mind your manners. Now, are you actually claiming that the issue of "authorship" has not been discussed by many reliable sources? Including the ones already mentioned above? Jayjg ^(talk)

22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you made a clearly false statement ("Wikipedia does not include fringe theories in its articles"), I beg to differ about the confusion. So far you have failed to justify your claim that there is extensive discussion of authorship issue in RS. Even if there were, it would be irrelevant to the specific question of the usability of the Kathman site. This kind of issue crops up a lot on this board. Say Richard Dawkins makes a comment on his website which an editor wishes to use. The specific point may not have been made elsewhere, despite the seeming mountains of creation/evolution literature. It is up to the editors to decide whether it is worth using. This board is for determining whether it can be, not for saying "there must be other sources". Paul B (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An incomplete statement is not "clearly false". In general Wikipedia does not include fringe theories in its articles. Yes, as with every rule, there are exceptions; in this case, that Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories, as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources. Also, I'd like to see you state here that the authorship issue is not extensively discussed in reliable sources. Please refer to Smarprt's comment above of 19:41, 4 February 2010 before responding. If you're looking for other sources refuting the "Shakespeare wasn't the author of the plays" theories, would you argue that this

WP:RS guideline than, say, Scott McCrea's The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question? Jayjg ^(talk)

02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that you are not answering the question, merely stating what has never been disputed by anyone - that there are some reliable sources from mainstream authors on this issue. This is a truth universally acknowledged, and not pertinent to the issue under dispute. Paul B (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way are these reliable sources inadequate, such that we must loosen the

WP:SPS? Please give an explicit example. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to "loosen" anything. We have a specific exception that is part of the rules by which we operate. If you don't agree with the existence of

WP:SPS then lobby to change the policy. That exception exists for a reason. There are practical reasons for using the website - everyone can read it and affirm its contents. Other literature is much less accessible. Sometimes it might be desirable to footnote both the site and a "dead tree" text. There are specific arguments that are made on the site that are not readily to be found elsewhere - such as the discussion of the Queen Elizabeth portrait. Paul B (talk

) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that these three topics from the

It appears to me that we have a consensus that Kathman's Web site is a reliable source, but I thought that these points would help in assuring the independent editors that the decision stretches none of Wikipedia's policies. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's no consensus on that. Now, are you saying that there are reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship that are not responded in Matus's Shakespeare, In Fact or McCrea's The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question? Keep in mind, we're not talking about an authorship theory on some website somewhere, but rather a theory that's attested to by multiple reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom wrote nothing whatever about "reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship". He was describing reliably sourced rebuttals of theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship. And no one has ever disupted that these exist. What matters is that they do not address some specific issues that Kathman addresses. Their existence is not pertient to the question at issue here. Paul B (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently your idea of what a consensus is and mine are different; it is not a synonym for unanimity.

As to your question, there are no reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship and I have never said there were; they are all creatures of fantasy. I think you're confused about the topic, based on your question, or perhaps misread my statement.

The issue at hand is the reliability of David Kathman's Web site based on his expertise and scholastic reputation. His site does not espouse any alternate authorship theory. Four uninvolved editors have said it is a reliable source used in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. You've said it shouldn't be used, but not for reasons based on the content of the site nor an assessment of his expertise. And I was also under the impression that this is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, this is not a "general discussion of issues or for disputes about content". I don't see how it could be, in fact, since we have discussed no specific content. However, Reliable Source assessment has to be taken in context of the topic itself, which is what we are doing. The general quality and availability of reliable sources related to, say,

Kathman's website. Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but for the life of me I don't have a clue about what you're getting at, and I have a post-graduate degree in English. Would some other editor please tell me what Jayjg is asking for? The only fringe theory discussed on Kathman's Web site is anti-Stratfordism, which is what the Wikipedia article we are discussing is about.

As for your contention that Wikipedia only uses reliable secondary sources to discuss a fringe theory, I beg to differ. The only support for the anti-Stratfordian side at the

Baconian theory Wikipedia entries are also nothing more than promotional screeds for their fringe beliefs that are largely ignored by regular editors. Tom Reedy (talk

) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, looking through your edit history, I now realize that you've really only edited a tiny number of articles, almost all related to Shakespeare. In fact, of your 617 Mainspace edits, 262 (42.5%) have been to William Shakespeare, and 239 (38.7%) to Shakespeare authorship question, or over 80% of your edits to just two articles. So perhaps it would be helpful if I went over some of the basics here.

O.K., Tom, to begin with, Wikipedia has a

verifiability policy

, which says that, as regards Wikipedia articles, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Another important point in the policy is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The latter is quite significant, and often trips up inexperienced editors. It doesn't matter what any editor believes to be the truth, since opinions on that will vary wildly; instead, what matters is that we can verify that material was taken from reliable sources.

In addition, Wikipedia has a related

Self published sources

are typically denigrated in this context, as it is obvious that when one self-publishes, one need not answer to any editorial process, whether peer review, or merely the typical editorial oversight provided by a reputable publishing house. This can also be confusing for inexperienced editors.

Now, in relation to your question about reliable sourcing, as I explained in my previous comment, "If reliable sources don't discuss a fringe theory, then it has no place on Wikipedia. Not in a general article, nor in an article on fringe theories." Keep in mind, here we are talking about reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition, not what you may personally consider to be reliable. For example, the Holocaust denial article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents. That is because such sources are not reliable (by Wikipedia's definition). Instead, the article relies on reliable secondary sources that discuss Holocaust denial. This is also the editorial policy Wikipedians must follow when editing the Shakespeare authorship question article; one cannot use unreliable sources to describe the topic, but must stick to reliable ones.

Next, regarding your statement that "As for your contention that Wikipedia only uses reliable secondary sources to discuss a fringe theory, I beg to differ." You are no doubt correct in a narrow technical sense, in that many Wikipedia articles (unfortunately) do not yet conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That is not, however, an indication that they need not do so! Rather, it merely indicates that they have not yet been brought into conformance with guideline and policy. Bringing sources here for discussion is one part of that process.

Next, I feel confident that there are fairly reliable sources that discuss the Shakespeare authorship question; indeed, we have already mentioned several. What you appear to be saying is that many "Shakespeare authorship"-related articles currently rely on unreliable sources to discuss their topics. Is that correct? If so, those sources should be removed, and the material based on them either sourced to reliable sources, or also removed, if no reliable sources can be found. Please remember, however, that when we say "reliable sources" we mean "sources that comply with

WP:RS

", not merely sources we agree with or believe to be telling the truth.

Finally, regarding the

self-published website you wish to use, you have not presented any compelling evidence that Wikipedia need relax its sourcing requirements specifically to rebut "Shakespeare authorship" theories. Perhaps you can provide an example of a specific claim made in the Shakespeare authorship question article that you think you need Kathman's website to rebut. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom's view on why the small section in question was deleted is certainly... interesting, but more on point - I think he is still mistaken as to what is considered a reliable source here on Wiki. In relation to the authorship question (which, while debatable, can also be classified as a significant minority viewpoint), there have been numerous third-party publications that, do in fact represent both sides of the debate. The mainstream opinion has been held up by the examples we have already mentioned. The minority viewpoint has been researched and published in several RS books including those by Ogburn, Michell, Price, Sobran and Anderson, for example. As Jayjg so wisely noted, "Please remember, however, that when we say "reliable sources" we mean "sources that comply with

WP:RS", not merely sources we agree with or believe to be telling the truth". We know that Tom does not agree with the authors I just mentioned, but they are RS according to wiki policy, as are academic and peer-reviewed journals (even if Tom does not agree with them), finished PhD dissertation which are publicly available (such as that by Dr. Stritmatter on Oxford's Geneva Bible), as well as major news organizations and third-party documentary producers (the type that do fact-checks). We should also note this section of the policy - "Primary Sources are not OR but "source-based research" and is essential to writing an encyclopedia". One has to be careful in applying this, but it does have applications here. I hope that helps to clarify the situation.Smatprt (talk

) 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether third-party publications or no, all but one of the sources you list are promotional texts for the anti-Stratfordian theory, not research on the "minority viewpoint." It would be interesting to how they would fare on this board as reliable sources, especially Ogburn, who is the second most important prophet of Oxfordism, right behind Looney. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow - you just don't get it. That would be like saying Wells, Matus & Schoenbaum are merely promotional texts for the Stratfordian theory. Will you ever understand that it's not about whether you agree with what they say or not? Smatprt (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the clueless one. Read Jayjg's comment directly above mine. Note the sentence, "For example, the Holocaust denial article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents." Both Holocaust denial and anti-Stratfordism are

Well, the next step we would take would be to examine one or two of the sources used to describe the "anti-Stratford" theories. Presumably Smatprt considers them to conform with

WP:RS? Jayjg ^(talk)

20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• ISBN 0-804-61877-1
  (The first book to promote the Oxford theory.)
• ISBN 0-939-00967-6
  (Influential book that criticises orthodox scholarship and promotes the Oxford theory).

Please note that in keeping with the above mentioned policy ("the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources"), the sources abore are not used to discuss the prominence or notability of the theories, only to describe the theories themselves.Smatprt (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Looney's a pretty old work, and he was a school-teacher. While he might have some notoriety, it's not clear that the source is particularly reliable. Ogburn appears to be a freelance writer of popular (not scholarly) works. It would be hard to classify either of them as an expert, or particularly reliable source, when it comes to the topic of Shakespeare. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already established on the William Shakespeare page that on the general topic neither are R.S., and I was not saying that they would be RS in any such way. The article is Shakespeare Authorship Question and they are used to describe their appropriate theories of authorship , nothing more. Sorry - was I not clear about that? Smatprt (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary of what you are now claiming, you were clear that these were RS. Read your post above: "The minority viewpoint has been researched and published in several RS books including those by Ogburn, Michell, Price, Sobran and Anderson, for example." Tom Reedy (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The question you were asked was "Smatprt, could you bring one or two examples of "alternative authorship" sources you consider to conform to WP:RS?" You provided sources that do not conform to WP:RS, but to specific exceptions under WP:FRINGE. In other words you did not answer the question. Paul B (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Smarprt, the point I have been trying to make for some time now is that there are no exceptions to the WP:RS rules, even in articles that discuss WP:FRINGE topics. A Wikipedia article that discusses alternative theories of Shakespeare authorship must still cite only reliable sources. Just because the topic of a fringe theory may be encyclopedic, it doesn't therefore allow the article to cite any fringe source that happens to discuss that theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being clear. However, what you are saying is in opposition to the stated policies that say what fringe writers are the best source for what they "believe". Now this still requires third-party publishers and not self-published material. Your position is also in opposition to the judgement of mainstream senior wiki editors who repeatedly advised, during the William Shakespeare FA process, that Ogburn was not RS on thw Shakespeare page, but only on the Authorship related pages, as he is clearly and expert in the area of Authorship studies, as well as one of the more recent researchers who have been published by major printing houses (those with reputations for quality and fact checking). I'm not sure what else to say on this. The related policies seem pretty clear and have been stated so for the several years that I have been editing.Smatprt (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I'm not sure which stated policies you think this is in opposition to, but you cannot get around

WP:RS. You must still use reliable sources to describe what fringe writers believe, and that generally excludes directly quoting or citing the fringe writers themselves. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this one from

WP:PARITY

- "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources." Now I'm not suggesting using amateurs or self-published texts but this policy obviously allows for that particular instance. This makes your comments even harder to understand as this seems to be saying that amateur and self-published texts can also be used, but if it is, then criticism of the theory can also come from sources that are not considered reliable.

Weird. Well, policies take precedence over guidelines, and a guideline can't create a special loophole for itself that contradicts

WP:V policy. These exemptions, however, are neither permitted nor required. If reliable sources don't discuss any aspect of fringe theory, then that aspect of the theory simply does not belong on Wikipedia. One needs no special exemption to rebut something that does not belong on Wikipedia to begin with. Jayjg (talk)

22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, the opinion request on whether Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Shakespeare Authorship Page can be used as a reliable source has resulted in comments by five uninvolved editors. Four of them,

It appears to me the consensus is to use it. Is that about it? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have neither stated nor implied that the article should be deleted. Please review

this policy, particularly item 2d. Please also modify your post accordingly, and don't attribute to me desires I have neither stated nor implied. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I misunderstood your position. There's no reason to be snippy; it was an honest mistake, as evidenced by another editor's misapprehension also. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about vote counting. It's about (if at all possible) building a consensus from all interested parties. It implies give and take. And sometimes, it relies on compromise. You really need a major course on wiki terminology and definitions. For starters see

WP:DEFINECONSENSUS. Smatprt (talk

) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, I am not near as expert in Wikipedia guidelines as almost anybody here. At that site it also says consensus is not unanimity. For the record, what would you say the consensus is among the five uninvolved editors right now? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could anybody explain to me why this source, http://wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/vere.html, is reliable, while Kathman's is not? Very little on this page is referenced, and he offers suppositions as fact throughout. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The site with the .edu prefix? That would be a university website and as such, is presumed to have be under academic oversight or review.

Not so. Most universities give professors space on their web sites for their personal use. This is one of those, as can be seen by exploring the linked pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the list of uninvolved editors who think David Kathman's website conforms to RS. Kathman has authored over 108 articles on Elizabethan biographies for, respectively, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and for the Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, shortly to be published by Greenwood under the general editorship of Yale Phd. and Stanford academic, Patricia Parker, who is editing three Shakespeare plays, for Norton and Arden. Kathman, unlike Nina Green (I've corresponded with both long ago), is reputed by Elizabethan scholars like Sir Brian Vickers and Stanley Wells as a colleague whose views are worth citing. I'm sorry to say this Jayjg but your remark that 'Everything notable about Shakespeare, including who wrote the plays, has been covered by many, many, high quality, reliable, non-self-published sources,' is wrong on many counts, not least because research is on-going, discoveries or novel hypotheses are made or advanced every year, and, crucially, ignores the fact that the whole tradition, revived by Looney and Ogburn, both completely erratic unprofessional kibitzers on a sphere of scholarship they were wholly untrained in, tends to be systematically ignored or not taken seriously, except as an example of popular mythmaking, by ranking Shakespearean scholars. Kathman, the quality of whose work is recognized by those scholars, specialized precisely in doing the bleak drudgery of exposing the methodological incoherencies and fatuously circular reasoning of the cultish amateurs who thrive on lunatic fringe theories about Shakespeare, work that most major scholars think below contempt or notice. Indeed, with few exceptions, their work is unreadable. To annotate the errors they make often exceeds the space provided by the page margins. Kathman is one of those experts who are troubled by the unintended consequences of scholarly hauteur, the tendency to ignore fringe ideas that, if unopposed by authoritative scholarship, capture the public imagination and lead to the establishment of popular myths, usually grounded in theories of conspiracies, cover-ups and occult mysteries. His site is therefore an indispensable guide for those who wish a vademecum to thread their way through the bewildering labyrinths of mental confusion, slipshod methodology, and counter-intuitive cloud-gathering that characterize the de Verean-Ogburnian lobbyists. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you're hardly "uninvolved" when it comes to anything I do or say, which you almost invariably oppose. In fact, I strongly object to your appearance here, per WP:STALK. I thought I was finally rid of your harassment when I stopped editing I-P related articles, and subsequently also stopped editing the unrelated Islam and Antisemitism article, after you followed me there to oppose me. I did not expect you to follow me here, to oppose me on RS/N threads related to Shakespeare authorship! What next? Will you start opposing my AfD closures? My edits to synagogue articles? Will G-Dett show up to oppose me as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So intense is my stalking of you, that I only noticed this remark a minute ago, while checking a detail. For the record, to assuage your paranoia, Tom Reedy posted a note of exasperation on a page I had bookmarked, which lead to either this, or the

Shakespeare Authorship Question. I can't remember where exactly, since I don't look at wikipedia much these days, but Tom Reedy, if he's watching, could probably produce the link. I saw two people who know a subject thoroughly, being wikilawyered by a fringe theorist hyperactivist, and responded to Tom's call by stepping into that page. I don't even know, though you will not believe me, how to bookmark an editor's contribution page, and often wonder how it is done. The things you name (Islam and Antisemitism) as evidence of 'harassment' came to my attention by chance, not by checking you. You're far too hyperactive, and have an editorial omnivoracity of Falstaffian capacities that would exhaust me in minutes were I even vaguely interested in tracking you. Since we were both given the I/P boot, we have encountered each other, I think, twice, both on topics which have interested me for decades. I named you here, because your judgement was, in my view, haywire, like that of the editor your call supported contextually. Tutto qua, so rest easy. I'm sure they'll have you back with full honours if you keep working at it, and my casual 'harassment', two disagreements over a year, will not compromise your reputation or aspirations. Nishidani (talk

) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well after that diatribe filled with ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with Kathman, I would hardly call you uninvolved. Your personal bias simply overwhelms everything you have to say. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably go to my grave without once seeing an anti-Stratfordian use the term ad hominem correctly. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, as other editors have noted, and as you admit, you are not really up on how wikipedia uses certain words and phrases. This is from

wp:NPA, a policy you continue to demonstrate complete ignorance of: Sample Wiki definition of what constitutes a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Smatprt (talk

) 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt other editors have noted any such thing, however you are the one who is confused.

WP:BLP might apply to those who are living, but that does not include Looney or Ogburn. Paul B (talk

) 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One can cite the wiki rulebook ad infinitum, and get away with (the) murder of commonsense. One can ignore the precise meaning of words, and make argument wearisome. You called my remark a diatribe, which it is only in the classical Greek sense of 'wasting (one's) time'. There is no ad hominem attack, since I did not attack any individual in here, and, as Tom understood, to characterise a negative judgement of a fringe tradition of pseudo-scholarship in strong terms is not to violate

WP:BLP

to indict 'completely erratic unprofessional kibitzers' with regard to Looney and Ogburn, but they are dead, and the charge falls, in the sense of abusing wiki rules, since that is a singular in Latin, and I made no personal attack on anyividuals writing from the de Verean-Ogburnian fringe. Elizabethan scholarship is, above all, about using and understanding words correctly. Once you master this, the taste for bizarre historical hypotheses, based on the snobbish theory that people of poor or non-university backgrounds cannot write artistic masterpieces (Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Dickens, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Cervantes, Murasaki Shikibu, Rumi etc.etc.etc.) generally vanishes.

I spoke of the effects of mythmaking on the 'public imagination', and I had in mind the effect on the credulous public, unforearmed with any knowledge of the rigours of historical scholarship and Elizabethan textual analysis, of this trash. If you wish to see yourself as the intended victim of this generic description, you are at liberty to do so, but do not call the process of identification with my broadbrush description, a personal attack. Unfortunately for wiki, there is no penalty for consistently misreading what plain words in English mean, and then taking supererogatory offence at an imagined slight.

There is a technical problem here for wiki. In summary terms, the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe, extreme minority hypothesis. It is generally disregarded by Shakespeareans. Even those who do look at it in glancing, like Alan Nelson in his biography of de Vere, do so en passant. Most treat it en pissant. Therefore, to get quality RS on it, is like asking for quality RS on flatearthers, Velikovsky's planetary theories or chronological reconstructions, or Gurdjieff's invisible moon theory. So Tom Reedy's complaint is legitimate. Kathman is one formally trained, and recognized Shakespearean academic, who has devoted years to untangling the mess caused by the endemic misprisions of those amateur textual sleuths who create these fictions. To document the hypootheses using the otherwise academically unreliable texts by Ogburn, Looney, Price and co., and then challenge one of the authorities on this freakish cult on the pure technical grounds that he published his findings on the web, and not in a book issued by a university press, is to attempt to out perhaps the major source for the academic demystification of this fringe tradition. Ogburn, Looney and co., are only sources for their own beliefs, not for any question regarding Shakespearean scholarship. Kathman, by contrast, is a source for Shakespearean scholarship, since the doyens of the field cite him, and his publishing record on the era is substantial. To source a wiki text freely from the disiecta membra of a ragged fringe school of pseudo-scholarship, while using the rules to deny full critical reference to perhaps the major academic who took the time to do what no serious scholars think worth the trouble, exposing the methodological incoherencies of the movement, looks like a shabby attempt to game the system, to the advantage of what is a fringe, slightly lunatic, omnium gatherum of conspiracy theories. Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.

• While its true that no true "consensus" has been achieved it certainly appears that the majority feeling is that the Kathman site is useable, but with some caveats attached:

• Most editors (here and in general) would always prefer, whenever possible, to see sources that are of higher quality (what ever that means) and have greater accountability than a self-published website.

• Several editors (Dlabot, Crum375) also noted that clear attribution (in-text) should be used. For me, a key to this consensus it the use of in-text attribution as it will assure readers that certain statements are the opinion of Kathman and not a statement of undisputed fact, or that one researcher is speaking for the "academic consensus" - a claim that would be classified as extraordinary, and would require RS of the highest quality (not just the fact that certain Stratfordians recommend him).

• One (Crum375) also mentioned that in any case, "how" to use the site should be discussed by the article editors.

Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority here and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors here for providing input. I will copy this post to the article talk page so we can resume work there and on the article itself. Smatprt (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I've made a request above. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Software Top 100 is verifiable, as it quotes material from annual reports, and clearly displays its methodology and calculations on its website. The Software Top 100 is online since 2003, and it is used by large software companies to review their competitive position and inform the public of their size. The point of view is neutral and objective: companies are only included on the basis of sufficient software revenues. Companies can not pay to be on the list, or something like that. The Top 100 Research Foundation makes the Software Top 100 on best effort, using its database with currently 10,000+ software companies. In doing the ranking, they do not differ from the makers of other rankings such as the Forbes 400 or the Fortune rankings, which do not claim to be complete, but do have a stated research methodology and a verifiable way of working.

Some time ago, it was decided by user Esoteric Rogue that the Software Top 100 is not a reliable source, and he proceeded to delete all links on Wikipedia to that source. His post on this noticeboard can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#softwaretop100.org . I do not agree with him. At the moment there is really no better source online for software company size than the Software Top 100. Try and compare with other sources and their methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_software_companies (Software Top 100 references were deleted from this page by Esoteric Rogue).

In general, it looks reliable because most of the data comes straight from

ping

11:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Pcap! I can follow your line of reasoning, and I would like to bring up these things that came to mind: first, estimation is a method also used by science e.g. in guessing the location of an electron, as no absolute information is available. According to Wikipedia policy

Reliable_sources

, estimation is not really an issue in determining source reliability. The quality (and probably to a lesser extent, the number) of third party quotations is considered important. You will find quotes and links to the Software Top 100 in government- and scientific publications such as:

1. A report on European Software Strategy from the European Union 2. A report on the regional software industry by SELA, a regional intergovernmental organization that groups 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries. 3. A Research paper on Cloud Computing by the Georgia Institute of Technology With regards to the 2006 European IDC list you mention: it is a copy of the Truffle 100, of which the most recent (2009) edition was (according to their website) not researched by IDC but by the Top 100 Research Foundation; the makers of the Software Top 100. Anyone? --BalderV (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate peoples' views on whether the below news sources (primarily Pakistani and Iranian) are RSs for controversial reports concerning Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani accused of being an al-Qaeda member (who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents).

There has been a deep divide over many Pakistani reports (which the Boston Globe, for example, has described as "sketchy")[39] and many RS reports in this area.

1. Daily Times (Pakistan) (Discussion here suggests no). whoops -- as pointed out below, prior conversation (which mentioned DT in passing) is about different paper.
2. Press TV (Iran) (Discussion here suggests it is questionable for a range of topics).
3. Tehran Times (Iran) (also mentioned in the above Press TV discussion)
4. Cageprisoners (an organization, not a newspaper)
5. DAWN (Pakistan)
6. The News International (Pakistan)
7. Associated Press of Pakistan
8. The Nation (Pakistan) (Discussion here suggests possibly)

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Globe article doesn't say which reports from Pakistan it thinks are sketchy; they could be refering to anything. If we're writing about events in Pakistan, we're going to be citing some Pakistani newspapers. One jumps out at me; the Daily Times of Pakistan is not the same as the Pakistan Daily which is what the linked debate is about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick notes: The Dawn is arguably the most influential/reputable newspaper in Pakistan. The News is published

talk

) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have missed that when I searched the archives. It still seems pretty tabloidy and gossip blog-y to me. I don't think consensus was ever gained on the issue, so perhaps now would be a good time to? –

Chase (talk

) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think unless you have something specific then like previous comments I'd say it is a

talk

) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of some content (e.g. news stories, in-depth features, profiles etc) is implicitly guaranteed by mainstream publishers and sloppy errors will attract heavier libel damages than they would in other contexts, even in the same publication. I doubt that Digital Spy intends to publish news stories this rigorously. Nevertheless, parts of Digital Spy are deliberately presented as officially-sanctioned reviews signed by regular real-life-named contributors, and IMO these should be considered reliable sources for those reviewers' opinions, in the same way that a regular critic's reviews published on a newspaper's website would be reliable. However, any statements about facts (e.g. "245,000 people watched the final broadcast of Spooks: Code 9") wouldn't be reliable and would need to be verified elsewhere. Blog pages written by regular contributors and published by mainstream publishers are probably the same. But if there's any doubt about the contributor's identity (e.g. because the publisher doesn't verify it or can't be trusted to verify it) then all bets are off: the source is useless. - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Common situation (song articles)

This link is widely misinterpreted by editors. It's a page updated periodically(weekly?) of planned future song releases, meaning, firstly, it's not a good reference to link as the contents change and secondly because it's future releases then it is subject to

I do not know why The Economist changes (apparently all of) their article names, renaming them from the original hard-print publication title to an online version. Does anyone know, and how should these articles be cited? Example:

• Venezuela's curious coup, The Economist, 2009-06-11 "ON APRIL 11th 2002 nearly a million people marched on the presidential palace in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to demand the ousting of Hugo Chávez, the elected president whom they accused of undermining democracy and causing the creeping “Cubanisation” of the country. As they neared the palace, violence broke out, 19 people were killed and over 150 wounded.…"
  • "Venezuela's curious coup" was renamed to "Riddle wrapped in a mystery"; how would that article be correctly cited, to reflect differences in the hard-print and online versions, and what is going on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related matter, how should we cite a source when the publisher changes its name over time? Should we cite the original publisher name, under which the source was first published, or the new publisher name, if the name changed after the source was published ? Sample, Naval Historical Center changed to Naval History & Heritage Command, effective 1 December 2008 (see bottom of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We should

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

... if you got the information from the dead tree version (with the dead tree title) that is what you should cite, and if you got it from the on-line version (with the on-line title) that is what you should cite. This is especially important if there are differences... as it enables other editors know which version verifies the information stated in the article. Of course, if the differences are significant, this might be grounds for questioning the reliability of the information (we would need to look into why there is a difference... is one a correction of the other? etc.).

As for publisher's changing their names, I would add a parenthesis: <ref> Author Name, Source Title, Source Publisher Name (now: New Publisher Name), date, page. etc.</ref> Same thing when we source to reprints of old books... we should cite the reprint info, and note the original publication info in a parenthesis: <ref> Author, Title, Reprint publisher, date of reprint (originally published by Orignial Publisher, original date), page, etc. </ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar. So, at the bottom of this edit, since I got it from an online version title "Riddle wrapped in a mystery",

• RIDDLE WRAPPED IN A MYSTERY
• Jun 11th 2009
• ON APRIL 11th 2002 nearly a million people marched on the presidential palace in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to demand the ousting of Hugo Chavez, ...

I should change that title ... but ... the online link still goes to "Venezuela's curious coup". I don't know how to resolve this? Should I somehow indicate both titles? I'm most curious about why The Economist consistently does this-- on every article, as far as I can tell, so it's not a matter of corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be that the editing process for the article at some point splits into two parallel processes, one for print and one for online. This would further imply that there might be changes in the text itself, strengthening the already strong case for rigorous adherence to

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Incidentally, I can't in all honesty think of another plausible reason - Riddle wrapped in a mystery is a worse headline from a SEO point of view and probably less intelligible to non-native-English-speakers, and there is no great difference in the length of the two headlines. (Length and the desire for attractive line breaks are significant factors in print headline writing that don't apply to such an extent online.) Barnabypage (talk

) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, now you have confused me... when I click on the link, I get the title "Venezuela's currious coup"... which you say is also the print edition title (unless I am misreading you). Where does the "Riddle" title come from? Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid that would happen :) I'm trying to find another example, that shows it more clearly. When you click on the link, you get one title, when you access the full online text, you get the other at the top of the article, and on some older articles (need to access one of them as an example for you), you get both, as if one of them was added as a byline. We may not get to the bottom of this without me taking a trip to the library. In the older case (which I can't locate right now, it mattered because you had the search on the new title ... very confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ping DGG to see if he can shed light here (isn't he a librarian? unsure). But for example, when I cited this article years ago, it was listed as "Venezuela: Mission Impossible", but now it comes up under "Poverty in Venezuela" ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I get it. I would say all of this can be clarified by using a parenthetical mentioning the various titles. If there is a significant difference between the versions, it does not really matter which is used as the "main" citation. If there is a significant difference, then apply SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT as best you can. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: When an online document lists a publisher, and the publisher thereafter changes its name (but not the name on the document), what should be listed: the old name, the new name, or both? In

My call... list either the original or both. The key is ensure that someone can find the same version of the source that you saw. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In most news sources, the person who write the article does not write the headline. This can be the result of deliberate emphasis: recent issues of the Wall Street Journal seem to have headlines giving a more conservative view that the actual news reports. In many publications there can sometimes even be two titles: a headline written by the executive editors, and a title written by the reporter; sometimes this is presented as a title and subtitle--the title is meant to catch attention, the subtitle to describe the contents. (This is a common practice with book titles as well). Sometimes I've seen a title from Associated Press or other news service, and above it a title from the reprinting newspaper. And this occurs in unexpected places also. Nature has had the practice of supplementing the actual title of an article with a headline, over which the authors have no say. Sometimes the table of contents of a publication to bear a different title than the actual article.

In academic fields, we usually go with the title that the indexing services use, but I've sometimes seen Scopus and Web of Science have different titles for an article.

In librarianship, we have a simple rule: we transcribe whatever happens to be on the title page in the position where a title is usually found. If, say, the cover of the book has a different title, which is not rare, we optionally transcribe it also.

For Wikipedia I would modify Blueboar's rule, and include whatever titles I conveniently could find. If I knew there were two, I'd use both. If I had just seen the print, I wouldn't search to see if the online was different. If I had just seen the online, and it indicated the print had a different title, I'd add it--if not indicated, I wouldn't go looking to see if it is the case. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. This is one reason why I prefer the <ref>...</ref> format for citations over templates. It allows you to be flexible when dealing with complex citations and adapt the standard formats to meet the requirements of the situation. A good rule of thumb... when it comes to citations, it is better to give too much info than not enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, is the correct summary to both of my questions here that we should indicate both in both cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say so. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that headlines (and entire articles) are sometimes tweaked across "early" and "late" editions. I presume online versions tend to match the latest edition (sometimes incorporating errata from days or months later).--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DGG, is the "both names" rule common in your profession? Do you update the 'card catalog' every time an author's name changes, e.g., due to marriage or divorce? Or is it still Mary Smith, because that's what the book says, rather than Mary Jones, which is what her friends call her? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a librarian, but the book is still by Mary Smith, until Mary Jones (if she cares to call herself that in print) chooses to have a new edition come out as the product of Mary Jones. And if that does happen then the older copies are still by Smith; only the redesigned ones are by Jones. It seems to me that most women who publish under their maiden names continue to use those names after marriage. Transsexuals (etc) are more interesting; books that were by James Morris are republished (if they're republished at all) as by Jan Morris, but my copy of a book by James Morris is by James and not Jan Morris. And if it was published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich then this is how I cite it, regardless of Harcourt (and Brace?)'s later divorce from Mr Jovanovich and marriages with Messrs World, Reed, Elsevier, Houghton and Mifflin. Morenoodles (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if we could get some opinions on the RFC at

ALR (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User is deleting this reference saying blogs are not RS What say you? Dlabtot (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

states: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

The biography of the author of this particular blog states: Jo Mannies is a political columnist and blogger for the Post-Dispatch, where she had been the chief political writer until she stepped down as a full-time staffer in November 2008.

The blog in question appears on the Website of the Post-Dispatch.

I'd say it's fine. Barnabypage (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the source back per the above argument, however since this is not an ideal reliabl;e source, I have attributed it. I have removed the label "convative" from the lead sentence because using labels like this with a single source, especially a blog, is problematic per

Just who is it that you are accusing of acting in bad faith in that way? We report what the sources say. Dlabtot (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I'm not sure you have George Thorogood's birthday right. I believe it is actually December 31st, can not confirm the year (1950-1952).

Thanks Lori

Do you have a source for this - a book or a reliable Website or something like that which gives the information? Barnabypage (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I get an opinion about this source being used to back up material added to the BLP of

It's a curious source. A lot of things seem news-like but some articles such as this one expand tenfold and get really editorial. As such, I see a ton of red flags and there's no way whatsoever that it should be considered RS on a biography or a living, dead or even fictitious person. The start is somewhat tolerable, but it dives into defamatory gossip in a hurry. Even if that all can be proven factually accurate (which it makes only minor attempts to) we'd still have more to talk about since the site as a whole offers no balance. I see on the article talk page for Medina that the contributor adding notes the source's founder as proof of credibility/reliability, but just because someone who has won an award on a topic or is well-known in a certain community doesn't mean everything on their web site is automatically vetted and balanced.

Certainly not appropriate per an easy duck test of reliability. Might also consider a review of

(talk)

05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These maps, File:Serbia_ethnic_6_8_century.png , File:Romania ethnic 6 8 century.png, File:Albania kosovo macedonia 6 8 century.png are based on "historical atlas for schools, published in Belgrade in 1970, representing a view of Yugoslav historians from that time". They claim that ethnic(Albanians the 1 and the 3) groups that were not present in the location shown some 500 years before they are considered to have made their appearance (See Origin of the Albanians). This has been pointed out, they have been discussed (Talk:Albanians#RfC:_RS_use_.28encyclopedia_of_6th_century_and_map_from_school_atlas.29) and the maps have been removed many times. But the creator (that does not deny that the source is a schoolbook from 1970's Yugoslavia) has readded them repeatedly and may have even used Sockpuppets to do so. diff, diff sock, diff, diff, sock diff. Despite being a prolific map maker in general he still seems to ignore WP:RS. Here he uses a random googled site(Remember Sarajevo) to compare his map with talk diff.Megistias (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As you are an opponent of the inclusion of these maps, it strikes me that it is only fair to hear from a proponent before opining. Megistias, would you mind notifying the person who offers these maps of this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have , i was actually looking for a tag to put there but i did not find it.Megistias (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here he random googles websites again diff Megistias (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Take note that 1970's Yugoslavia was a Totalitarian state,in which the only legal political party was the League of Communists of SerbiaMegistias (talk)

General view among most World historians is that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and that they always lived in Albania and maps that I made reflect exactly that. User:Megistias is an Greek nationalist who have very negative ethnic attitude towards Albanians and he push here his POV that Albanians came from somewhere else and that they did not lived in Albania in 6th century. It is a minority view among historians and one that is not generally accepted and he attacking my work and want to discredit my maps simply because I made them in accordance with generally accepted historical view. Also, I do not see why an official historical atlas for schools should not be reliable source, especially when it only reflect generally accepted view, not minority one that user:Megistias trying to push. As for maps, I made them few days ago, and it was user:Megistias who was removing them because of his claim that they are wrong. I made many maps for Wikipedia related to various countries and recently when I made few maps related to Albanian history (note that I am not Albanian, but Serb from Novi Sad), user:Megistias started to attack my work, first in Wikimedia Commons, and now here, simply because my maps are not in accordance with his nationalistic anti-Albanian views. PANONIAN 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Yugoslavia, it was not Soviet-type totalitarian state, but a country with its own more liberal form of socialism. I, however, fail to see how form of the state government of Yugoslavia would affect opinion of historians from that country, especially about subject (ethnic Albanians) that is unrelated to politics of Yugoslavia. Finally, does user:Megistias want to claim that all sources that come from China are unreliable because of the Chinese form of government? PANONIAN 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All 3 maps are based on schoolbooks by a Totalitarian state.(No need to comment the rest as they are irrelevant and Panonian's personal viewpoint)Megistias (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are all school books from China unreliable source then? PANONIAN 16:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not see that user:Megistias presented here any reliable (or even unreliable)source that would support his claim that Albanians migrated to Albania in year 1300. As I see it, we have only his word for it. PANONIAN 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for chit-chat so stay on topic ,Reliable Sources. Since you completely ignore the Albanian origin issue (only Albanian ultranationalists claim that they were always there and old theorists).

• Basic fact from a secondary source,Imagining frontiers, contesting identities by Steven G. Ellis,Lud'a Klusáková, "The Albanians arrived in Epirus from the north, but also from Thessaly where some clan had settled in the first decade of the 14th century,..."Megistias (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You obviously do not understand this source - term "Epirus" in this case means modern Epirus in Greece, not medieval despotate of Epirus, your source clearly say that "in 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova" "apperared for the first time in Epirus" (clearly, not in modern-day Albania, but in modern-day Epirus in Greece). PANONIAN 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Albanians arrived in the region in 14th century AD.Epirus Nova is the term used for the Roman province that was most of Albania, Epirus Vetus was the Old Epirus, the one in Greece. I perfectly understand my source.Megistias (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what "Epirus Nova" means, but your source does not mention that Albanians settled in Epirus Nova - it mention that "Albanians from Epirus Nova (Albania) settled in Epirus (Greece) in the 14th century". It does not mention that they settled in Epirus Nova - in fact it confirming sources from my atlas that they already were there. PANONIAN 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

American journal of philology, Tomes 98-99‎ -page 263,Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Tenney Frank, Harold Fredrik Cherniss, JSTOR (Organization), Project Muse - 1977,"It seems that the original home of the Albanians was in Northern Albania (Illyricum) rather than in the partly Hellenic and partly Hellenized Epirus Nova."Megistias (talk)

Original home from which century? There is difference between Albanian presence in different regions in different centuries. This source also does not contradict to my sources. PANONIAN 17:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources, you have a book from a Totalitarian state. All secondary sources contradict you.Megistias (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is just empty rhetorical claim - it is obvious that you do not have sources and that two sources that you presented here are not contradicting to my original source. Can you present to us something else or not? PANONIAN 17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As always you ignore what Reliable sources are which is the issue at hand. You "source" is a schoolbook by a Totalitarian state, that even makes an unreal claim, thus no WP:RS.Megistias (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot ignore something that you never presented: you first have to present a source here and then I can say my opinion about that source. Also, how many times you will repeat words "totalitarian state" without answering my question are all sources from China then unreliable according to you? (and Yugoslavia was certainly more liberal country than China). Finally, you only objected here to presence of Albanians in south Albania, but why you removing from the articles my maps of Romania or Serbia? PANONIAN 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you avoid to give an answer to my question are all sources from China unreliable, you will show that you in fact do not have an opinion about sources from "totalitarian states", but that you simply trying to find all possible ways to discredit my sources (and my sources only) only because info presented in such sources do not confirm your personal POV. PANONIAN 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

China? Take it to a forum.Stay on topic, your source is unreliable, Schoolbooks are for children.Since the beginning it has been noted that all 3 maps are rejectable as their source is unreliable.Megistias (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoolbooks are for children, but were not written by children. Schoolbooks are written by their school professors and if you claim that school professors are not reliable source then, according to your idea, all children would leave schools as ignorants and idiots (and then you will come to enlight them, I presume?). You can act like a parrot, repeating over and over that my sources are not reliable, but I fail to see any proof for that. PANONIAN 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Collected Studies: Studies in Greek literature and history, excluding Epirus ... by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond,page 499,"The Byzantine theme or province of Epirus Nova had in the extreme north Albanians, but the rest of the are had probably a mixed, mainly Greek-speaking people in the 11th and twelfth centuries. The first movement of the Albanians comes after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204."

• You are 600 years offMegistias (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Had probably"? Obviously, what you presenting here is just an theory whose author use word probably since he himself is not sure that it is correct. Also, as far as I know, Epirus Nova was not an administrative unit of Byzantine Empire in the 11th century, so your source obviously contains errors regarding historical timeline. Even if we forget these errors and fact that it is only assumption of that author, claims about Albanians from that source are only one theory about their origin and my map show another theory. I clearly noted on map page that it is a view of Yugoslav historians and I did not claimed that it is a "divine truth". If there are different theories about one subject, then I do not see why we cannot have several files illustrating each theory. Wikipedia is created as a project that is open for various ideas and points of view and it is not a church-type dogmatic project where only certain ideas and theories are forced and other are forbidden. PANONIAN 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Photobucket? Hammond is world-class scholar and you waste my time with answers like this? Read what Reliable sources areMegistias (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you perhaps quoted him in wrong way - how else could Epirus Nova province appear in the 11th century? PANONIAN 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian, names of themes,provinces the such are used in convention by scholars to define relevant regions.It is just like using familiar vs non-familiar toponyms for the sake of necessity.Megistias (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if he used name of Epirus Nova for wrong time period, he still refer to 11th century, not to 6th century (i.e. to the time after Slavic conquest of the Balkans). 11th century Greeks from that area could be settled there after Byzantine empire reconquered that area from Slavic/Bulgarian states in that century. Your source does not say anything about origin of these Greeks and it is hard to assume that they lived in Albania during Slavic rule. PANONIAN 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the source. What it states.Megistias (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. Well, actually, yes for editorial oversight, but of a particular political kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a base for such conclusion, Jayjg? Do you have any background on which you would claim that schoolbook sources published in Yugoslavia in 1970 are not reliable? And where is proof that such source is "not noted for factual accuracy"? Finally, what political motive Yugoslav authors would have to falsify data about presence of Albanians in Albania or Romanians in Romania? These questions should be answered before final conclusion about accuracy of this source. PANONIAN 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is a point of a claim that source is old? See this category full of old ethnic maps: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_maps_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_Balkans - the map from 1970 is no different from these maps, but since it is not old enough to be used as a file free for usage in Wikipedia, I made new maps based on it and included them with a description that it is "according to Yugoslav historians from 1970". In similar way this Megali Idea article have a map made by the pro-Greek cartographer E. Stanford from 1878, illustrating his point of view (and this map is proved to be unreliable and contradict to other sources, while such contradictions were not proved when 1970 Yugoslav atlas is in question). PANONIAN 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Very old maps are like primary sources. That category in the commons is for actual old maps. From 100 years ago and more.Megistias (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why cant you simply accept the simple fact, that a schoolbook is not RS and a schoolbook from Communist Yugoslavia is even more not RS?Megistias (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will accept any opinion that come from reliable person with good faith and good knowledge about the subject. You do not have good faith in this question and you are known nationalist and POV pusher, and therefore your opinion means nothing to me. However, this issue is to be discussed further with other users. PANONIAN 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have insulted me many times and you used Sockpuppets as indicated in the beggining of the section. Megistias (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And now you remove my map based on Hammond with no reason at all....[72],[73] Megistias (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I do not have sockpuppets - I am not much active in English Wikipedia in recent times, so I do not logg in every time I edit some article. IP number of user who is not logged in is not an sockpuppet. Second, you are the one who harrasing me in various Wiki projects and you are one who disrupting my good-faith work, so how you excpect that I react to that? You expect that I love you or something? As for your map, info presented in it is different from what Hammond claims according to you, so I suspect that you did not based that map on Hammond, but on your own POV. PANONIAN 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP NOW - this is not the location for the two of you to continue an endless argument. My suggestion... place two maps side by side, so that both POVs are visually represented. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me - placing two maps side by side is a good solution and I agree with it 100% PANONIAN 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammond is not POV, the 70's schoollbook is. This is a simple issue and Pannonian has made it big for no reason.Megistias (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was Pannonians old browser. diffMegistias (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your maps are based on unreliable sources thus they cannot be used. Its that simple.Megistias (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that according to Origin of the Albanians the claim of Albanians as autochthonus is highly disputed, not to mention that before 11th century they were never recorded. Moreover the Albanian-Ilyrian link is also something historically questionable. As far I see the map isn't historically correct even with the presence of Vlachs, not to mention other minor issues.

The main point is that the map avoids the entire western bibliography and can't be explained by any academic historical means. Alexikoua (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is western bibliography for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not see why I cannot made maps based on this source. PANONIAN 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with placing highly pov material. Placing to pov is even worst, but Hammond is an expert in this field and I hardly believe its pov. @Megistias: You need to provide the specific pages with the relevant texts&maps, I remember that somewhere on the net I found a similar map directly scanned from Hammond's work.Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammond's map is here [[74]], it's identical to the one Megistias proposes. So it seems that is is quite reliable. On the other hand the 6th-8th century map is still of questionable value.Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As was proposed on this page, both maps can be used, mine based on this and one made by Megistias, so that readers can see both points of view about the subject. PANONIAN 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source confirming data from my map

Here is an Internet source with similar map showing Albanian presence in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not think that even Megistias can claim that this source is unreliable and not good enough to be used in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far I see this book, which is completely contradicting the entire western bibliography in this part, does not explain why the ancestors of today's Albanians, should been placed there. No descriptions, no explanations, no prove, no nothing. Moreover this book is focused on modern post 1800 history. If the authors believe this it's not our problem. Typical

For example this: [[75]], is not enough to claim that Columbus was Greek. Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is false analogy. I provided links to other sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Schoolbook_map - you may claim that my souce is wrong because of two reasons: 1. if there are no other sources that confirming data presented there (and I presented several other sources with similar data), and 2. if it contradict to most other sources (but, contrary to your rhaethorical claim that my source "contradicting the entire western bibliography", you failed to provide any quotation from that bibliography that would really contradict to my sources. In fact those quotations provided by user:Megistias are not contradicting to my sources). PANONIAN 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't presented a single reliable work that confirms this. You still need to show this, and please do not post again questionable school atlases of past decades. Existing articles like

Origin of Albanians, which are sourced, are in favor of Hammond's version.Alexikoua (talk

) 06:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I presented two reliable sources, if you think that these sources are not reliable, it is your problem and your problem only. I have no time for your childish games. Get life, man... PANONIAN 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you presented here: [[76]] doesn't meet wp:rs. Moreover I see that in this discussion you are not convincing the rest of the editors.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am convinced about the validity of the maps made by PANONIAN and so are a lot of other editors that the maps are

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans). It's full of Albanians and it's the biggest graveyard of truth you'll find in Wikipedia concerning the Balkan topics. The Greek editors above by working in tandem will make every edit possible to "forget" their own sources (read Ptolemy, Polibus and Stephanus of Bysantium - all Greeks), that the Albanoi Illyrian tribe has been mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC as Arbon, in the 2nd century AD by Polibus as Albanoi, and in the 6th century as Albonios by Stephanus of Bysantium as, see Origin_of_the_Albanians. That is proof of the continuity of the Illyrian-Albanian population and the world's historiography has already accepted it. It's the way it's studied in Albania, Russia, Germany, France, USA. In Greece there are other orders, I am affraid, but this is not the Greek Wikipedia. sulmues (talk

) --Sulmues 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not read all the above stuff, but here is what makes those maps unreliable: the source is an old schoolbook published during the Serbian communist period — a regime known for it's propaganda — while there are a lot of modern sources to follow. Another strange thing is that PANONIAN inserted those maps across all Wikipedias, making me sceptically.—Sebitalk 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I expanded my reference list on map pages and provided new sources in which similar maps can be found. There are some slight differences compared to the map from 1970 history atlas, but basic info about presence of ethnic groups is same in all these references. One of these references is The Times Atlas of World History published in 1984 (or more precisely its Yugoslav translation from 1986). I hope there is no objections to reliability of that source. Also, I do not see what propaganda Yugoslav regime might have regarding origin of Romanians or Albanians? Historical propaganda of Yugoslav regime from that time was mainly based on World War II liberation struggle and criticism of pre-war Yugoslav regime. 6th century ethnic relations in the Balkans were simply too unrelated subject to the political ideology of Yugoslavia. As for observation that I "inserted those maps across all Wikipedias", I always insert all my maps across all Wikipedias, so what is a problem with that? PANONIAN 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what should not need repeating, maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I expanded reference lists on map pages and added some "newer" sources that are confirming data from 1970 history atlas, so maps are not based on that atlas only. I also did not asked that you repeat your claim but to provide an explanation why you consider 1970 atlas to be "unscholarly" and "not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight". PANONIAN 10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources you initially used as well as those you later used did not change the fact that what you claimed, is not substantiated. Hxseek has at the lower part of this discussion Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Proposal elaborated to you, again these facts. You have been told this by admin(the admin told you the same thing i did) & user level editors. Please just comply with the consensus of the community and stop blindly denying.Megistias (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Megistias, please do not interrupt my discussion with another user. Your stance about this is well known and you have no reason to repeat yourself over and over. I asked User:Jayjg for explanation of his view and he is the one who should answer to that question, not you, Megistias. And what "consensus of the community" you speak about? You and user:Hxseek are both politically motived and you are not valid persons to judge my work or my sources. Of course, I hope I can have constructive discussion about this with user:Jayjg. PANONIAN 09:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding reliable sources (if you have indeed found reliable sources) does not magically make unreliable sources reliable. The issue is not content, but editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks do not qualify. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. I won't be repeating that a fourth time. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, can we have a resonable constructive discussion here or not? No matter if you are an admin or not, you still have to elaborate why you think that sources from Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are unreliable. Who exactly said (and where) that these sources are unreliable? As for "editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking", source could be checked in the National Library in Belgrade in any time and it is a source from official educational system of Yugoslavia, so how exactly it can lack an "editorial oversight"? PANONIAN 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If your map is reliable, please find it in a book that wasn't published at gunpoint. Any historian will tell you that socialists more often than not rewrote history in their favour, and to make themselves into martyrs. Would I trust a map made by the communist party of China that shows the history of China? No, I wouldn't. I would trust one made by an independent map maker, however. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did found that map in other sources (for example in The Times Atlas of World History, Times Books Limited, London, 1984, see reference list on map page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albania_kosovo_macedonia_6_8_century.png ). Maps in both books are almost same. There are some minnor differences in them but basic info regarding presence of Albanians (which was a disputed subject here) is same in both sources, Yugoslav atlas from 1970 and in The Times Atlas of World History from 1984. Also, I agree that Yugoslav socialist historians did to certain point wrote history in their favour, but, as I already pointed out, this was related to WW2 occupation of Yugoslavia and pre-war Yugoslav regime, but these historians did not had interest or motive to write medieval history in their favor, especially if we speak about map that show autochtonic origin of the Albanians in the Balkans (an historical opinion which certainly would not be in favor of any Yugoslav state since Yugoslavia ruled parts of Albanian-inhabited territories and Yugoslav historians did not had any interest to write history in favor of Albanians). The only problem here is that some Wiki users are trying to use all possible ways in attempt to discredit my map which show historical opinion about autochtonic origin of Albanians in the Balkans. User:Megistias already tried to use similar tactics in Wikimedia Commons trying to discredit and delete some of my maps. He first claimed that maps are not accurate, then claimed that my sources are not reliable and then he even claimed that I forged sources, so I had to upload scaned pages from two books to show that same map is published in these books. That is an dirty POV campain against my good-faith work. PANONIAN 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)