Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 89

Ooops, yes, I see that now. Of course AFP is reliable. I request closure of this inquiry. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chiune Sugihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both at the article's talk page and my talk page issues have been raised about a biography by Hillel Levine used in the article. There was a lawsuit challenging its accuracy, although family members were divided, see [3] and[4]. I can't find out what happened about the lawsuit. I'm raising it here because a new editor is having problems with the article. Thanks.

The biography of “In Search of Sugihara”contains only two or tree studies written in Japanese. This shows clearly that Pr. Hillel Levine cannot read Japanese.

Though we see this page :“As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home near Tokyo Bay that year….”, it is ridiculous, because Mr. Chuine Suguhara has NEVER lived in Tokyo.

The interviews done by Pr. Hillel Livine are not always credible. Japanese schalars and journalists do not appreciate his so-called study concerning Mr. Chiune Sugihara.

If the writer would like to write the motivations to rescue the Jewish refugees, he or she have to think about the evidence that Mr. Chiune Sugihara is a christian of Russian Orthodox Church.

Cf. A Hidden Life: A Short Introduction to Chiune Sugihara by Stephen Keeler http://www.pravmir.com/article_282.html

Mordecai Paldiel, director of Yad Vashem, quotes in hisｓｔｕｄｙ　ｉｎｔｉｔｌｅｄ

“Diplomat heros of the Holocaust”（KTAV Publishinh House, NJ, 2007, pp.55-56）ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｄｓ　ｕｓｅｄ　by　Ｍｒ. Chiune Sugihara explained his act to rescue the Jewish refugees : I do it just because I have pity on the people. They want to get out so I let them have the visas.

We can see also in postface of the Japanese biography written by Mrs. Sugihara the words of Mr. Sugihara : I may have to disobey my government, but if I don't, I will be disobeying God.

Cf. http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~chiunesugihara/

The name and all the quotations from Pr. Levine’s study should be deleted completely in that page of Wikipedia.Tizizano (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine is a professor specializing in this area, and the book is from a major publisher, so I think it meets

WP:V. Here is a mediocre Times review. Like any other source, it may be questioned, opposing material introduced, or with regard to objections raised here, by-passed when better sources are available. But I don't see the grounds for saying its never to be used. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You say, “Levine is a professor specializing in this area”, but it is not true. Pr. Hilel Levinis a professor specializing in Polish anti-Semitism. He CANNOT understand Japanese AT ALL. He has no books or articles specializing in Japanese matters. If you read his work intitled “In Search of Sugihara”, you know that his study was co-operated by a Japanese interpreter.Tizizano (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dougweller I’ve read the article,“Family split by book on Japan’ Schindler” Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the journalist has really an interviewed with one of Mr. Sugihara’s sons. Mr. Billy Adams committed even the orthography of his son’s name, Nobuko. Nobuko is a feminin name in Japanese. It is not also probable that there is a split of opinions between Mrs. Sugihara and her fourth son, Mr. Nobuki Sugihara. They lived in the same house and often made a conference together.Tizizano (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobuki, it’s a boy’s name. Noobuko, it’s a GIRL’s name in Japanese.Tizizano (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of a Japanese interpreter would not in itself make the book unusable as a reliable source. Professor Levine is a recognized Holocaust scholar and the book was issued by a significant publisher. The lawsuit filed around 2002 has never led to any reported judgment I am able to find; my guess is it was dropped or possibly settled. In either case, it provides no basis for holding the book can't be used as a source. From

WP:TRUTH: "Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article.... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."Jonathanwallace (talk

) 22:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First, those who can’t understand Japanese are not able to study what is concerned Mr. Chuine Sugihara. The so-called study by Pr. Hillel Levine doesn’t show any Japanese resources in its bibliography, because he cannot read Japanese. An Important question : Do you understand basically Japanese language ?Tizizano (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC) > Professor Levine is a recognized Holocaust scholar and the book was issued by a significant publisher.

It is a different thing. He is NOT a recognized JAPANESE MATTERS scholar at all.Tizizano (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy I am aware of which says that Prof. Levine's biography may not be cited if he doesn't speak Japanese. By the way, you haven't even produced a reliable source saying he doesn't, I am merely assuming your assertion is correct. Rather than arguing that Levine's bio should never be used, I advise you to focus on particular disagreements. For example, I know Levine's book says Mr. Sugihara spied for the Japanese government. If you have a Japanese source that says he did not, this should also be included in the article to ensure

neutral point of view.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The relations between Mr. Chiune sugihara and the Polish Intelligence Agency are completely investitated by a Polish excellent scholar, Dr. Ewa Palasz-Rutkowska. It’s a summy of her study : http://www.asjapan.org/Lectures/1995/Lecture/lecture-1995-03.htm For futher reading : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429408~frm=titlelink?words=romer,a

Levine’s study contains full of mistakes concerning Japanese matters and it is also out-of-date. Pr. Hillel Levin doesn’t know even such a polish study.Tizizano (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion（“this should also be included in the article to ensure neutral point of view.”）, however it’s different to admit the uncountably many mistakes committed by Pr. Hillel Levine, who cannot read, write and speak Japanese and has no competence to achieve studies concerning Japanese issues.Tizizano (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It　seems　ｔｈａｔ　ｙｏｕ　ｄｏｎ‘ｔ　ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄ　what　Ｉ　ｓａｙ． Ｓｏ，　I　repeat　ｔｈｅ　ｆａｂｒｉｃａｔｉｏｎ　ｗｅ　can　ｓｅｅ　ｔｈｅ　page　of　Ｗｉｋｉｐｅｄｉａ．

> Sugihara explained that the refugees were human beings, and that they simply > needed help. As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home > near Tokyo Bay that year:“You want to know about my motivation, don't you? > Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees > refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help > but sympathize with them.

Mr. Chiune Sugihara lived after the World War II in Kugenuma in Fujisawa city ａｎｄ　ｍｏｖｅｄ　ｔｏ　Kamakura ｃｉｔｙ,　ｗｈｅｒｅ　ｈｅ　ｄｉｅｄ　in　１９８６．

Ｆｕｊｉｓａｗａ　and　Ｋａｍａｋｕｒａ　ａｒｅ　ｓｉｔｕａｔｅｄ　in　Ｋａｎａｇａｗａ　Ｐｒｅｆｅｃｔｕｒｅ,　which　is　separated　with　Izu　 Ｐｅｎｉｎｓｕｌａ　ｆｒｏｍ　Tokyo Ｂａｙ．Please see the Japanese map carefully.

Ｓｏ，　ａｎｙｏｎｅ　cannot visit　“his home near Tokyo Bay”．It　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ａ　matter　of　“ｎｅｕｔｒａｌｉｔｙ” ｂｕｔ “ＦＡＢＲＩＣＡＴＩＯＮ．”Tizizano (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the p. 259 of “In Seach of Sugihara”, “About a year before his death in 1986, Sugihara spoke to a visitor in his home close to Tokyo Bay.” But Japanese translator who knows of course Mr. Chiune Sugihara has NEVER lived “in [the] home close to Tokyo Bay”changed into “Kamakura.”

Pr. Hillel Levine tells a lie !!! So, I’ll persuade to delete all the quotations from Levine’s pseudo-study which is not credible at all. We can show you dozens of mistakes committed by him.Tizizano (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to persuade people to delete material, you'll have to be a lot more persuasive. Tips:

• Don't use zenkaku rōmaji. For those whose computers are set up to show it, it looks like shouting; for others, it will appear as empty rectangles, quotation marks or similar.
• You invite people to look at a map. Here's one. The reader can see that Kamakura is indeed not on Tokyo Bay. The reader can also see that Kamakura is close to Tokyo Bay (for drivers, if not for pedestrians).
• Nobody will be persuaded by your assertions that some professor is a liar, or that unspecified people say in unspecified places that he is a liar.
• People may be interested by such talk (though probably not in the way that you hope). It may persuade them that you are a crank and better blocked.

Now, if you have a reasoned argument to make about Levine's credibility, then make it, presenting evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Horay

• First, I would like to change “a lie” into “an error”.
• I pose you a question. What is the reason for that the Japanese translator changed it into Kamakura ?
• Second, I am an University academic and I have much more knowledge about Mr. Chiune Sugihara. It’s me that made a Japanese page of Wikipedia.
• Third, Pr. Hillel Levine cannot read, write and speak Japanese. Why do you think that he is specialized in this field ?
• Fourth, the note 59 of that quotation indicates that “Unpublished interview of Oxley.”Oxley ? Who ? UNpublish ? No date !!
• We see the page this phrase : “About a year his death in 1986”, but at this period, Mr. Chiune Sugihara were seriously ill and he couldn’t welcome an interview from anybody. Even at the ceremony of Jerusalem, his fourth son attended for his father. Was I able to explain to you　? Tizizano (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to make guesses about the motivation of a translator, or to comment on Levine. Anyone here can claim to be anyone, and so a claim to be a "university academic" is meaningless. I do not have Levine's book and so cannot comment on Oxley. Imaginably, somebody in Japan could welcome a short visit by somebody but not want or be able to fly to Jerusalem. Do you have a cogent, empirically grounded argument to put forward about Levine's book? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Horay and others

> Now, if you have a reasoned argument to make about Levine's credibility, then make it, presenting evidence.

Mr. Horay, in order to present you the evidence which make us believe his incredibility, I would like to you only one clear example. Watching this example, you’ll be easily aware that Mrs. Yukiko Sugihara, old woman of about 90 years old, was angry about him.

See p.64 of this book (ed. 1996). I quote : “Tokyo of 1920s : Yoshiwara, the world-famous and much-imitated pleasure zone of old city …. Chu’ichi Ohnishi, then the Japanese consul of Harbin. Shimura tells how they first stopped at the Turkish bath.”We can also see in the page 65 this phrase : “Now, he proudly indicated, it was called Soapland….”

Do you know these Japan-made-English words“Turkish bath”or“Soapland”? These are special equipment for sexual service women do for men. Of course, they are the words fabricated after WWII. These words which are of neologism in the recent period in Japan doesn’t exist even in“Tokyo of 1920s”.

I would like you to read carefully pp.64-65 of Levine’s book. Are you always sure that his so-called study has enough credibility ? Tizizano (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Now in Tokyo, we are at night. I’ll take a sleep and I’m sorry not to answer to you quickly. See you tomorrow.Tizizano (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tizizano, my (probably) final comment. In the law of evidence, there are concepts of "admissibility" and "weight" which are relevant here as analogies. You think you are arguing that Levine's book is "inadmissible", but in reality your arguments are ineffective for that purpose, and work only to say "Levine shouldn't be given that much weight". That is a fine argument for the article talk page, or can be pursued by adding opposing, appropriately sourced statements in the article. I'm going to try not to reply any further, because we are getting into

argument sketch terrtory ("Yes it is! No it isn't!"). Jonathanwallace (talk

) 17:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.47news.jp/CN/200504/CN2005041301004496.html

Please read this in translating Japanese into English. (05/4/13) means the 4th day of April, 2005. On this day, the Judge Mr. Izumi Takizawa of the Tokyo District Court has delivered judgement on Shimizu Shoin, the publisher which translated “In Search of Sugihara”for the libel on Sugihara family.

In order to discuss what is concerning Mr. Chiune Sugihara, it is necessary to learn Japanese first and foremost. Pr. Hillel Levine who cannot read Japanese documents is not qualified for the research of Mr. Chiune Sugihara. In Japan, even a high school boy has of course much more knowledge of Japanese history.

His so-called study “In Search of Sugihara” is of no academic value.　

In the page 68, Pr. Hillel Levin asked to the former Russian wife Klaudia Appolonov :“What did he call you ?”I asked Klaudia as she lifts a cup of tea to her lips with a hand that is amazingly steady, “Yukiko,”she answered.

“Yukiko” is the fisrt name of Mrs. Sugihara. Isn’t it ridiculous for Mr. Chuine Sugihar to call the former wife and Mrs. Sugihara with the same name ?

In the page 73 concerning the little sister of Mr. Chiune Sugihara : She had run a karaoke club in Gifu City for many years.

This phrase is translated in Japanese as following : She had run a café in Ichinomiya City for many years. It was translated by Mr. Teruhisa Shino, who had already known the details of Sugihara family. It was proved that Pr. Hillel Levine hadn’t had an interview himself.

Please read this article (13/11/2000) in“Aera” magazine in translating into English.

http://www.asyura.com/sora/bd11/msg/773.html

“Aera” is one of the magzines of high quality published by Asahi Shinbun, the most famous Japanese newspaper which is an equivalent of the New York Times. In this article, Mr. Teruhisa Shino, one of the Japaneses translators of “In Search of Sugihara”, says : “The original [English] text is much more unreasonable. ”All the scholars who have read the original rext think so, too.

It would be arbitrary to believe in what you would like to believe, nevertheless, is it a honest way of describing the historical matters ?

As one of the Japanese scholars, I would like you all to reflect this point of view once more again.

If you would like to find the motivations, in the postface of the Japanese revised edtion“Life for visas”（p.200）, we can see the answer to the decision to rescue Jewsish refugees:

Every time when I am asked why Mr. Sugihara has dicided to issue visas, I remembers his words which were said to me : “I should save those who rely on me , but if I don't I would be disobeying God.”

There are not any other reason behind these simple but impressive words.

Tizizano (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly a reliable source. Levine is a recognized expert on the broader subject matter, and the publisher is a reputable publishing house. The book may be used as a source for the article. If, as the objector claims, there are inaccuracies in the book that are actually relevant to the uses it is put in the article, the solution is to find independent, reliable secondary sources supporting that alternate account. The objections look entirely like unsupported original research and undocumented assertions, most of which, even if taken as true for the sake of argument, are irrelevant to the uses to which the source is being put in the article.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine's specialities are not Japanese history but Jewish religious studies and Jewish history.Please, please read above and read again his book carefully with your own eyes． Levine is NOT a recognized expert concerning Japanese matters. Nobody calls a person who cannot read Japanese a recognized Japanese expert nor a Japanologist.Tizizano (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

>> I do not have Levine's book and so cannot comment on Oxley. Imaginably, …… >> Clearly a reliable source. Levine is a recognized expert on the broader subject matter, and the publisher is a reputable publishing house.

I’ve never seen such a radom way of discussing and I am little tired to see you not aiming at a precise description without consulting the details of historical matters.

Tizizano (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

First, let's get some misunderstandings and simplifications out of the way.

1. The book is published by the Free Press. Yes, the Free Press is a reputable publisher. However, this does not mean that it hasn't put out junk. Example: The Real Anita Hill, which now even repels its author. Junk aside, even a reputable publisher can put out books that are seriously flawed. Publication by the Free Press should make us pay attention to the content but it's definitely no carte blanche for credibility.

2. It's untrue that "Nobody calls a person who cannot read Japanese a recognized Japanese expert nor a Japanologist." Consider the praise lavished (by Japanese people, too) on Lafcadio Hearn. Now, I would never call Hearn a Japanologist or expert on Japan, but many do.

3. In order to write knowledgably on Sugihara, an ability in Japanese is necessary somewhere. But the ability need not be the writer's own, it may be his or her assistants' ability.

Right then, Tizizano presents two links that I looked at.

First, there's http://www.asyura.com/sora/bd11/msg/773.html . This is a long message by a person calling him/herself "MY" to some message forum. It appears to reproduce an article that appeared in Aera. (This is Asahi Shinbunsha's easy-to-read weekly: fine as far as it goes, but not a patch on the sadly defunct Asahi Jānaru.) The prose appears to be that of Aera (plus coloring by "MY" for emphasis); it is certainly not the prose of a normal contributor to a message forum. So far as it does come from Aera it would appear to be a copyright violation and of course it may have been tampered with; an editor should look in a library for the original article. Still, so far as it is credible, yes, it does raise serious questions about Levine's work -- questions that I shan't summarize here.

Secondly, there's http://www.47news.jp/CN/200504/CN2005041301004496.html . This is both less and more interesting. Less because it's so very much shorter, more because this is a credible, citeable news website. (As for the little photos of semi-naked bimbos on the site's top page, well, this is Japan.) It says that Sugihara's widow won a payment of half a million yen -- peanuts by US standards, but not bad in Japan -- for what was said in (the Japanese translation of) the book.

The problem with Levine's book, as determined by a court in Japan, is not a matter of the description of Sugihara's widow. Instead, it's the estimation of Sugihara's contribution. Very very simply, the book alleges that Sugihara must have had covert help from within the Japanese government. (This of course is a notion that, its truth-value aside, would delight postwar Japanese governments, with their eagerness to have wartime Japan depicted as quite unlike Nazi Germany, and as victim rather than perpetrator.) Sugihara's widow and others vehemently denied this, and they won in court.

I don't claim to have read the detail and I don't intend to do so. However, I see good reason to avoid use of Levine's book. To answer the question in the title of this thread: No it is not. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that, under Japanese libel law, truth is not a defense, a libel judgment awarding trivial damages is singularly irrelevant to the reliability of this source.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If I send you my bank details, will you credit me half a million, Fladrif? After all, the amount is trivial in your eyes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Horay

I'll answer to you. Wait a moment.Tizizano (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised and a little impressed with your sophisticated style and your competence to get an insight into many complicated matters concerning Mr. Sugihara.To know profoundly the motivations to rescue Jewish refugees, I’ll present you a book intitled “A Decision. Visas for Life” which contains the “Memories” written under the supervision of Mrs. Sugihara. Might be a Japanese American, I'll show you the Japanese title : 『決断 命のビザ』（ISBN4-81170308-1）. We can see the passage as following : 「兎に角、果たして浅慮、無責任、我武者らの職業軍人集団の、対ナチ強調に迎合することによって、全世界に隠然たる勢力を有するユダヤ人から永遠の恨みを買ってまで、旅行書類の不備とか公安上の支障云々を口実に、ビーザを拒否してもかまわないとでもいうのか?　苦慮の揚げ句、私はついに人道主義、博愛精神第一という結論を得ました。そして妻の同意を得て、職に忠実にこれを実行したのです」(p.301).

I would like Mr.Horay to translate the passage above and propose you all to replace with this the quotation made by Pr.Hillel Levine from the equivocal interview “unpublished”.Tizizano (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine's biography obviously meets the requirements of

WP:RS. He is writing in his area of expertise (Holocaust) and it was published by a reputable publishing house. The fact that he allegedly doesn't speak Japanese is irrelevant. And specific details of reliable sources are often contested, it doesn't make them unreliable - nor, as Fladrif points out, do awards for minor sums in courts where "the truth is not a defense". Jayjg ^(talk)

00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Such kind of authoritarianism would lead us to be blind to the media literacy.　As you says , “the fact that he allegedly doesn't speak Japanese is irrelevant,”however ,the fact that he cannot read the Japanese documents is not irrelevant in order to accomplish the persuadable academic achievement. Pr. Hillel Levine is an authoritarian in the field of Jewish Religious Studies, but he is only a debutant concerning Japanese culture and history. There are many Japanese historians who admire the remarkable achievement by a Polish scholar, Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska we can see her name in the “References”of the English vesion of Wikipedia, nevertheless, no Japanese historian appreciates the work by Pr. Hillel Levine. Mrs.　Michi Sugihara （daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Sugihara）said to Mr. Jonathan Watts，envoyé spécial : “It is full of mistakes and exaggerations, distorts the image of my father, and damages our family's reputation.”（http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/12/research.japan/printTizizano (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• One persuadable evidence

I’ll show you one persuadable evidence as following : in the pp.66-74, Pr. Hillel Levine said to have had an interview with the former wife of Mr. Chiune Sugihara, Klaudia Apollonova. The reader knows by the note 40 (p.290) that this interview was based on the preceding one with Mr. Giichi Shimura held on “July 3 and 9, 1994, Tokyo”. But all the Japanese scholars and journalists know that the former wife of the Consul Sugihara, Klaudia Apollonova was already dead at the age of 93 in the Sergius Hospital in Sydney on the 25th day November, 1993 ! It is proved by Mr.Mitsukuni Hatta who had telephoned to Mr. Michael Apollonov, nephew of Klaudia. This is written in the study intitled “The Tragedy of Chiune Sugihara”（

As has been explained by several other editors here, your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Levine's book qualifies as a

reliable source. The objections you raise have already been responded to. Please read what the reviewers here have said, accept their advice and move on. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to see p.187. of Levine’s book. I quote, : “Sugihara could be extremely accommodating, at times. Dr. Roman Korab-Zabryk solicited his memoir to shore up a thesis …” The scholars and journalists all over the world know that it is NOT Korab-Zabryk but Colonel R. Michał Rybikowski, one of the Polish intelligence officiers who demanded Mr. Sugihara to write a memoir on his information activities between Nazi-Germany and Soviet-Russia. Mr. Michał Rybikowski has donated this“Sugihara memoir”written in Russain to the Polish Military Musium in Warsaw. The photocopie of this memoir is now in hands of Mr. Andrzej T. Romer, collaborator of Dr. Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska.Tizizano (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine's biography obviously meets the requirements of WP:RS. He is writing in his area of expertise (Holocaust) and it was published by a reputable publishing house. As I understand it, he's writing about the relations among Sugihara, the local authorities, and the Japanese government. Arguably this has a lot less to do with Holocaust studies than with studies of Japanese diplomatic and governmental goings-on. The Free Press had been an excellent publisher in the 1970s but by the 1990s had sunk to publishing material such as Brock's Anita Hill smear job and, its article here reminds me, The Bell Curve, a book about psychology that has found much reasoned opposition and little support among psychologists. On further reflection, I see no reason to call it "reputable" in the 1990s. ¶ I too don't care how little understanding of the Japanese language the author has, but I do wonder about the Japanese competence of his team. ¶ awards for minor sums Minor sums by which standards? Japanese standards? The court verdict is most interesting as it is to the detriment of the reputation of the wartime Japanese government; and any observer of relevant Japanese court cases will know that far more often than not verdicts go the other way. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, you are raising some interesting points, but they all go to "weight" rather than "admissibility". I don't see any of this leading to a blanket rule that Levine's book should be banned from ever being cited on Wikipedia. This lengthy discussion also leads me to the insight that we tend to figure out that stuff is non-

reliable in a para or two. Anything which inspires dozens of paragraphs of discussion tends to be not a reliable sourcing issue but a discussion about nuances of phrasing, countervailing evidence and the like. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The book is clearly reliable in the way Wikipedia uses the term, and may be used here. However, as always, if better sources are available, they should be given preference, or used instead. How to use Levine's book (and whether to use it at all) is an editorial matter best decided at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Horay, Mr. jayjg, Mr.Jonathanwallace & Mr. Cuchullain

There are already three publications from The Free Press which were translated into Japanese : “Denying the Holocaust”（by Deborah E. Lipstadt）, “Jews in the Japanese Mind”（by David G. Goodman）and “In Search of Sugihara”（by Hillel Levine）. The first two books were welcomed to almost all the Japanese readers, but the last one was equivocally estimated especially by Japanese intellectuals.

When Kamakura is said to be situated“near Tokyo Bay”, even a boy or a girl in the elementary school bursts into laughter in Japan. Would be too innocent your infinite reliance on the“Unpublished interview of Brian Oxley”nobody knows. This way of quotation doesn’t depend upon the appropriate procedures to describe what is concerned historical reality.

You all permitting, I dare to indicate some errata in the English version of the topic “Chiune Sugihara”.

i) Sugihara continued hand-write visas, reported spending 18-20 hours a day on them, producing a normal month’s worth of visas each day, until September 4

“spending 18-20 hours”→　from mornig till night That's an unnecessary exaggeration even Mrs. Sugihara doesn’t refer to

“September 4”　→　September 5 It is the day when the train for Berlin started.

ii) The total number of Jews saved by Sugihara is in dispute, ranging from 6,000 to 10,000. It is not in dispute and probably 6,000 at most ; 6,000 refugees include naturally non-Jewish people. The number of 10,000 is an unnecessary exaggeration only Pr. Hillel Levine insists all over the world.

iii) Sugihara stated he stated he issued 1,500 out of 2,132 transit visas to Jews and Poles. “1,500” →“about 1,500”

iv) Others took a more southerly route through Korea directly without passing through Japan. The refugees didn’t enough money to take a roundabout way and they couldn’t take a route “without passing through Japan”That wasn’t permitted by the transit-visa.

v) Despite German pressure for the Japanese government to eigher hand over or kill the Jewish refugees It is not verified by any Japanese documents.　“The Fugu Plan”written by Marvin Tokayer & Mary Swarz contains a lot of imaginations

vi) “As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home near Tokyo Bay that year :　．．．　Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my soes.　．．．” All this quotation seems equivocal. Mr. Chiune Sugihara had no home near Tokyo Bay. We can see the passage in the page 23 of the English version of “Visas for Life” which is very similar to this passage : One woman knelt down and kissed Chiune’s feet when she received her visa. Mr. Chiune Sugihara was a taciturn by nature and made never a boastful talk. Besides, any Japanese knows Mr. Brian Oxley. Who is he ? “The spirit of humanity, philanthropy … neighborly friendship … with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation … and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage.” It is slightly probable for him to speak with such an exceptional eloquence.

vii) “Sempo is not a distinct name but another way of reading the Chinese characters 千畝 for Chiune.” That’s right. “Similary, sugiwara is an alternative pronunciation of 杉原”, his family name. That’s an example of the vacant pedantry usual with a Japanese beginner, like Pr. Hillel Levine. For example, “原”　of “藤原”is properly pronounced “-wara”, that is “Fuji-wara”, but we Japanese pronounce“杉原” “Sugihara”only in one way. The pronunciation of proper nouns is relatively limited.

P.-S. Mr. Chiune Sugihara has left us by himself these words explaining the motivation. That is seen in “Sugihara Memoir”quoted at the end （p.301）of “A Decision. Visas for Life”（ISBN4-81170308-1）. I’ve tried to translate it provisionally as following :

“Anyway, am I obliged to follow blindly the pro-nazi Army ? They are inconsiderate, irresponsibly and imprudent . I should refuse to issue visas on the pretext of incomplete paperwork or by reason of public security ? Does it contribute to Japanese national interests ? After deliberation, it was concluded the spirit of humanity, philanthropy must be respected. And with my wife’s consent, I ventured what I did in the pursuit of my duties. ”

As see you above, my English knowledge is extremely limited. Do you use his proper words instead after you we’ll have refined ? Tizizano (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) * Additional information : 1) Hiroshi Bando“Japan’ policy woward Jews during the 15-years’ War 1931-1945” At the end of this dissertation, attached a short résumé in English https://m-repo.lib.meiji.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10291/1546/1/sundaishigaku_116_27.pdf 2) Pamela Rotner Sakamoto, Japanese Diplomats and Jewish Refugees, Westport, CT, Praeger Pnblishers, 1998. A doctoral thesis naturally better than works of Hillel Levine, but there are small errata in the detail. 3) J.W.M. Chapman, “Japan in Poland's Secret Neighbourhood War”in Japan Forum No.2, 1995. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429407 4) Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska & Andrzej T. Romer, “Polish-Japanese co-operation during World War II ” in Japan Forum No.7, 1995. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429408~frm=titlelink?words=romer,andrzej Not free but useful 5) Tessa Stirling, Daria Nałęcz & Tadeusz Dubicki, Intelligence Co-operation between Poland and Great Britain during World War II, vol.1, London, Vallentine Mitchell, 2005. Co-operation between Polish- Japanese Intelligence during WWIITizizano (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that en native speaking editors say it's a reliable source as, unlike The Rape of Nanking (book), there is no criticism published in en speaking countries, but the accuracy of Hillel Levine's In search of Sugihara was criticized in Japan. In magazines like Aera (magazine) and Sekai. See these translation. [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Here is a list of some errors found in Levine's book on this page. The page is very long. If you cannot see it all, please click "translate" again and again. The biggest error in the book might be "Sugihara did not disobey the instruction from Japanese Foreign Ministry". This gov. page does not support Levine's claim. It seems to me that there are too many errors in the book. But the current article looks OK to me. Oda Mari (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ms. Oda Mari, Mr. Horay & others.

After reading the Talk（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oda_Mari） between Mr. Horay and you，I almost understood what you’d like to say. I’ve just put out the linkages which have probability to provokes judiciously some problems. Now we are in the main subject. What are called in question by Japanese scholars and journalists are much more complicated : historical revisionism, etc. Different are the problems we could see in the Enlish version of Wikipedia.

>> The biggest error in the book might be "Sugihara did not disobey the instruction >> from Japanese Foreign Ministry". This gov. page does not support Levine's claim.

No. Japanese readers are well aware of the double-dealing tactics made by Japanese Foreign Minister. The page 183 of an interesting study intitled “Tragedy of Chiune Sugihara”（

i) The day when the train for Berlin has started is NOT the fourth but the fifth of September 1940. ii) Mr. Chiune Sugihara have had NO “home near Tokyo Bay”. It would be too innocent if one believe in such “Unpublished interview.” iii) Why do you make use of the real words pronounced by Mr. Chiune Sugihara, concerning the motivations with which he has rescued Jewish refugees ? etc.Tizizano (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and correct the article. Use the article talk page if other editor disagrees with your edit. Please do not waste other editors' time at here. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Oda Mari

What ? It isn't me who has made this sapce ! I would like you to say what you say above to those who make an INcorrect description in the English version of Topic : Chiune Sugihara.Tizizano (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No editors argued against my comment above. I think they accepted it. In my opinion, the reason that your edits were reverted is you didn't write edit summary. BTW, Dougweller is not the editor who edited the article with Levine's book as a reliable source. I removed the "Tokyo Bay" part. Now you do the rest. And do not forget to write edit summary. I find there is no reason to post any message at here. If you have something to say to me on this matter, use the article talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ms.Oda Mari

I've understand completely what you'd like to say. According to your advice, I'll stopped to discuss here about the matter. Thanks.Tizizano (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Is this, and I am not kidding;

Attack on personnel

Attack on a van

Attack on a building

A reliable source to back the claim that there were "3 separate attacks", ...or anything else for that matter? Please confirm that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for an editor who wont take my word for it. Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia article cannot be cited as a source for another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Period.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks too. IQinn (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently noticed that the “

Others' thoughts on whether it is WP:RS for this or any other purpose besides describing itself?? Given current focus on criticisms of wikipedia, probably a good idea to expedite this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a very "weak keep" on this one. The magazine is being quoted for its own opinion, which is all it is reliable for. Yes, its an opinion about a third party, but since in this case its Wikipedia, rather than a living individual raising

WP:BLP issues, I would include it on the grounds that its slightly informative and makes clear its quoting a racist source.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 13:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, another user brought up the issue that there have been false inferences by the publication itself that something was originally published there or printed with permission, and that that might be the case here also. That has not yet adequately answered. So that is another issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Does not look like problem. Stix [http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/08/ writes] for AR and NCF and it is not important if he post his article also at his blog earlier or later than it it was published by AR. --Dezidor (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AR is well known pro-white magazine that cooperates with university professors and writers like: American_Renaissance_(magazine)#Notable_contributors_and_speakers. They are leading representants of their point of view. Of course some another groups or individuals do not like them. It is same case like Norman G. Finkelstein. --Dezidor (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at American Renaissance's first page from the link you posted, it obviously makes fun of blacks, Latinos and immigrants in a racist way, even inferring or just plain stating they are a bunch of looters and jailbirds and incompetents! [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/jews_and_americ.php This Jared Taylor article] says the magazine takes no position on Jews, though I doubt the average Jewish reader of the article - or anyone else sensitive to real antisemitism would agree. So please don't compare it to Norman Finkelstein!! I'd say the publication definitely falls into WP:RS: widely acknowledged as extremist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are out. Many professors and notable authors and activists write for AR or speak at their conferences. For example Paul Gottfried, Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, Frank Borzellieri, J. Philippe Rushton, Raymond Wolters... Your Wikipedia:I just don't like it and your personal feelings are not valid arguments. Of course some individuals or political groups like SPLC and ADL do not like them but their point of view is just another point of view not fact.

By the way Gottfried, Levin and other authors and speakers at conferences are Jews so you fantasies are totally absurd. --Dezidor (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dezidor, nothing you say refutes Carolmooredc's assertion that the magazine/website is an extremist source. The fact that controversial professors contribute doesn't mean it isn't extremist.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote. It is same case like Norman G. Finkelstein. Some people like them, some hate them but they represent significant point of view. Their so-called "extremism" is political label/libel by ideological enemies [9]. Nihil novi sub sole. --Dezidor (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Finkelstein will show up at one of their conferences. And any white person can be racist. (As can people of any race.) Ubique Racism CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why should he? His primary fields of research are the

Holocaust and their primary fields are topics like race and immigration. They host professors, other experts and activists from their field who also co-create American Renaissance magazine. --Dezidor (talk

) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about Finkelstein, we're talking about American Renaissance. What is your definition of "extremism"?   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no genereal definition of "extremism". Poorly sourced article extremism doesn´t look helful. Term "extremism" is now generally used as a part of political fight. Many left wing liberals call conservative groups as "extremist" and vice versa. But what should by the definition for Wikipedia? If we want to respect political neutrality (and not promote political positions like "conservativism is better that liberalism", "anti-racism is better than racism" or "moderates are better than hard liners") than extreme sources and extreme points of view are sources and points of view that are fringe and are supported by really few people who have no weight. They are not supported by notable politics, political activists, academics, writers etc. For example AR is represenant of significant view point and the magazine cooperates with professors, well known writers and member of European parliament. That is why I support same solution that I supported eariler in the case of Finkelstein. That´s why groups like Libertarian National Socialist Green Party are different cases than American Renaissance or Finkelstein. --Dezidor (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Despicable publications exist. They are entitled to exactly the same level of NPOV articles as any other publications, and the discussion here should deal with sources and not with the publication itself. As long as the source is properly indicated, that is the real criterion. Imagine some folks consider the SPLC just as "despicable" but it is routinely cited for its opinions in many articles on WP. It is not up to editors to decide that any despicable topic is somehow less entitled to a balanced encyclopedia article. In cases of BLPs, this ideal is even more important. In any given article, of course, the question of weight also applies, but not the issue of opinions cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• FBI agents are reportedly investigating claims that the cannabis smoking loner was linked to American Renaissance, an extremist anti-government and anti-immigration group that is also known for its anti-Semitism.
  • I thought I'd be shot, says woman who grabbed gunman David Gardner. Evening Standard. London (UK): Jan 10, 2011. pg. 8
• The JDO website describes American Renaissance as "a collection of Jew-Hating and racist neo-Nazi & KKK." Marilyn Mayo tracks both groups as a director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. "You have one extremist group fighting another extremist group," she said. "In fact, the American Renaissance is not a neo-Nazi group. It's a racist group."
  • Militant Jewish group seeks to block N.C. gathering of white supremacists Jim Morrill. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: Jan 24, 2011.
• The Jewish Defense Organization is calling on supporters to push the Crowne Plaza Dulles Airport hotel into canceling a Feb. 22-24 conference for the New Century Foundation and its American Renaissance magazine. [..] Both organizations have been labeled by civil rights organizations as extremists. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the New Century Foundation a "hate group" and Taylor a "white supremacist."
  • Extremists' Meeting Prompts Protest; Militant Jewish Group Urges Herndon Hotel to Reject 'Neo-Nazi' Conference Fredrick Kunkle - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 16, 2007. pg. T.5
• In April 2000, Professor Frank Ellis was guest of honour at a conference organised by a far-right eugenics group called American Renaissance. His employers at Leeds University allowed him to travel to the US for the event, but withdrew their approval once they learned he was to share a stage with extremists.
  • Education: Higher: Hold the front page! The students have a story: When a university paper has a scoop, the national media descend on campus Riazat Butt. The Guardian. London (UK): Jun 20, 2006. pg. 12
• In 2000 he defied the university when he spoke at the conference of far Right U.S. magazine American Renaissance on the subject of 'Racial Hysteria in Britain'. Other contributors to the extremist publication include BNP leader Nick Griffin.
  • Students in revolt over 'racist' lecturer ; ACADEMIC STANDS BY CLAIM THAT BLACKS ARE INFERIOR Daily Mail. London (UK): Mar 7, 2006. pg. 19
• Race-relations expert Jared Taylor keeps company with a collection of racists, racial "separatists" and far-right extremists. [..] Race-relations expert Jared Taylor publishes American Renaissance magazine, which features an array of pseudoscientific studies that purport to show the folly of multiculturalism and the inherent failure of the races to live together
  • On Martin Luther King Jr. Day last week, when much of the nation took a... ]; [REGION Edition] Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jan 23, 2005. pg. J.1
• The magazine, which is edited by the self-styled "neighbourhood Nazi" Derek Turner, provides links on its website to American rightwing extremists who say that black people are more dangerous than whites. [..] On its website the magazine provides links to extreme American rightwing organisations such as American Renaissance.
  • Far right MP dropped from Duncan Smith campaign Nicholas Watt, Political Correspondent. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 28, 2001. pg. 1
• A recent conference in Virginia was a reminder that the harsh rhetoric and extremist views that fuel racial divisions are hardly things of the past. [..] At the fourth annual American Renaissance conference, participants heard that white women have larger birth canals and blacks have narrower hips and back jaws, proving, the speaker said, that whites' brains are superior. [..] At a time when rapid demographic change promises to change the face of America, and maybe further complicate difficult racial issues, the American Renaissance conference was a stark reminder that the harsh rhetoric and extremist views that increase racial divisions have not gone away.
  • WHEN WHITE SUPREMACISTS GATHER, THEIR TALKS CAN GET VERY DETAILED; [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition] Terence Samuel Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Apr 6, 2000. pg. A.6

The issue here is whether American Renaissance qualifies as an "extremist" source. Quite a few sources characterize it that way.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sources of them do you personally find reliable as sources for facts not for opinions?

Jared Loughner and AR? Newspaper that supports Labour party? Ironic phrase "neighbourhood Nazi" that British left misused to attack Derek Turner (journalist) and Iain Duncan Smith? --Dezidor (talk

) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ADL calls both the JDO and AR extremist. This list does not quote JDO itself. SPLC is a reliable source, but just one of many. Are you saying that all of these are unreliable sources for the assertion that AR is "extremist"?   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about ADL and how it calls JDO or AR? That sources you or Jayjg wrote are reliable as sources for opinions not for facts. Same case as academics who support AR or Finkelstein, Chomsky, Dershowitz... There is no general consensus, just many points of view. --Dezidor (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a general consensus among reliable sources that American Renaissance is not reliable, as has been demonstrated above and below. Please review

WP:RS for more detail. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some academics and political activists like them and work with them, some hate them and write in negative way about them. It is not surprising that people like Heidi Beirich from SLPC call them "racist". That´s nothing new. AR represents minority point of view in the USA. That´s also nothing new. --Dezidor (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not relevant to my post above. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Minority views are included, but extremist sources are excluded. AR is an extremist source, according to reliable mainstream publications. If we can find the same view expressed in a reliable source then we can include it.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I proved that AR is not an extremist source but magazine with significant support of some prominent academics. Jayjg and Will Beback provided proofs that it has notable critics. --Dezidor (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not for "The racialist magazine American Renaissance asserted that Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias in racial topics." This may or may not be an "extremist" source, i.e. they don't appear to actually advocate political extremism. But the source has itself been accused of racial bias far too often to settle the question of WP having a liberal bias on race. You need a more neutral source to weigh in on issues of bias. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RS, but with attribution. --89.176.102.35 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I verify myself as a source when trying to edit a page about my deceased father?

I'm sorry about your father. Wikipedia prefers the use of

secondary sources on the page that you are editing. If you are writing about him in a newspaper or something that isn't self-published that is considered verifiable. V7-sport (talk

) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have some news articles about him, those might be suitable sources. See

WP:RS. -- SEWilco (talk

) 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disinformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry if posting here is premature. Normally I'd try

This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have yet seen--unsourced, fuzzy and confusing prose, and examples which don't make sense. You are correct Fox News doesn't belong in the article. Though the article does not define its terms precisely, the whole drift is, and the other examples pertain to, governments lying to pursue policy objectives. Fox is not the government. By the way, the article is only semi-protected, so you can edit it if you set up an account.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Its up on

articles for deletion today. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the source [10]: "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."

As you can see in the archived discussion this source was brought in because other sources showing that OIC-as-organization recognize SoP were not sufficient to show that "all OIC members recognize SoP" - because of the following: "What is the procedure for taking decisions in OIC? Unanimity, majority? Even if it is unanimity the sources don't show that "OIC members recognize SoP" - the sources only show that the OIC itself recognizes SoP. (African Union recognizes Sahrawi Republic, but not all of its members recognize it)." Then this Curtis Doebbler source was used for his generalizing statement. He most probably applies the logic above ("since OIC recognizes SoP, then all its members recognize it" - without checking whether this is actually true). It was objected even

Now, the doubts are confirmed and this generalizing statement is

Another user - Night w - objected and tried to find various far-fetched explanations for the Doebbler mistake. One was that the 2011 decision was about official recognition and Doebbler speaks about unofficial recognition (whatever this is). Of course this doesn't help since we show in the article official recognitions, not unofficial (even if there is such a thing in the first place). The other excuse was that he tried to interpret the Guyana 2011 decision as recognition of the borders of the State of Palestine ONLY and to claimed that recognition of the state itself (without specifying any borders) should be done in the past, before the Doebbler generalizing statement. About the 1967 border straw I pointed out that if you look at the news reports about Guyana you will see that their writers/journalists interpret the event not as 'Guyana recognized SoP long ago, but today decided to acknowledge the 1967 borders' - they interpret it as 'Guyana supported Palestinian cause since long time and today decided to recognize SoP - inside the 1967 borders' [12] or simply 'Guyana hasn't recognized SoP until today, when it decided to recognize it' [13]. Night w didn't commented on the discrepancy between his (far-fetched and hanging on tiny straw IMHO) interpretation and the interpretations done by the news reports (that I agree with).

I also think that the

I think all this shows clearly that we should not use the generalizing Doebbler's claim. Night w stopped responding after I asked him about the discrepancy between his interpretation and the journalistic reports, then the thread was archived, so I kindly ask for a third opinion here. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've only given your comments a cursory reading, and I'm unfamiliar with the dispute. But on the face of it, I don't see a problem with having these two states in the "inconclusive" section. If there are sourced statements of support, but there is no source that explicitly says formal diplomatic recognition, that could be interpreted as being inconclusive. Putting these two states in the category of no recognition seems definitive. But isn't it a violation of

WP:NOR to make a definitive categorization in the absence of a source that says that these two countries haven't given formal recognition? TimidGuy (talk

) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no "sourced statements of support", and even if there were we can't use them since we don't compile a "list of countries that support the Palestinian cause" - almost every state around the world is giving different levels of vague support. About the definitive categorization in absence of negative source - we had a section in the article with a description like "countries with no information about whether they recognize SoP or not" (this is currently renamed to "no recognition", but we can rename it back).

What I ask is - should we use the particular quoted claim from the source in question here[15] that contradicts official government statement[16]? Alinor (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, you may want to rename that category. Agree with you regarding Doebbler. I'd be cautious about using his post on a partisan website as a source for anything, but especially for facts regarding recognition. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted an IP with an edit summary stating that the sources were not reliable, as they were a blog, a grad student's paper on the web, and a general book on catastrophes. Here the IP restored their edit saying it was just my pov. The statement "And probably could have hit the romanised Britons who did trade with the Mediterranean sea around 544 AD, facilitaing their conquest by the Anglosaxon kingdom of eastern Britain." is cited to this book with no page number. The author is not a specialist (see his other books [17]) and looking at some of the comments there I have no confidence in it. The publisher is a publisher of books for children and young adults. [18]. Another paragraph is based on [19], an anonymous blogger's comment on

The blog and the student's web page are clearly not reliable. The "Catastrophe" book is insufficient for the claim attributed to it: saying that this plague could have facilitated the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain is a very big claim indeed, and would need a much stronger source than this overview of disasters written for a popular audience.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an implication that John Morris might be a possible source? If so I think he is not a bad enough source to exclude completely. His Age of Arthur book is (as our article says) mainly criticized because of its speculative aspects, which are however quite obviously intended to be speculative. There is nothing essentially wrong with well informed people speculating, although we would tend to then need to attribute. I think a lot of what is written about this period is speculative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It might have been ok if sourced to Morris directly, attributed, and described as speculation, but it was sourced to a blog without mention of Morris and the blog did not back 'some scholars'. But in any case Paul Barlow's done a good rewrite on the article with some better sources.

talk

) 11:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I was mainly also just thinking ahead of your RSN question to possible better solutions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BWTF.com is the personal web site of Benson Yee, a writer, DVD commentator, and a man cited by several newspaper articles as an "authority" on the subject of Transformers. For instance here http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166084754.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A2-6a2b77bb-d43e-4e6f-93e1-581afffcfb0d.html http://www.thetransformers.net/category/transformers-news/madman-entertainment/page/2 http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/785549 He was also a consultant on Transformers Beast Wars for IDW when they wrote a comic on the series. http://www.idwpublishing.com/catalog/book/160 I wanted to know if he was considered reliable enough to site for information on his speciality.

For a personal website to be usable, the author has to have previously published pieces in the field in reliable, third-party publications. If he hasn't, his personal web site can't be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the interviews OF him in reliable third party publications count?

Mathewignash (talk

) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They would for his opinions, not necessarily for his assertions about third parties. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would his reviews of fiction toy reviews be reliable though?

Mathewignash (talk

) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me the interviews would count towards his reputation as an expert, and his writing should be usable in articles about Transformers and similar toy robots. Also, if he was a consultant on the comic then he would be citable as a primary source. Just somewhere in the citation or footnote introduce who he is so that the reader doesn't assume he's just some guy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

His reviews of toys on his own website would not be usable (unless he's published in this field in reliable sources). Newspapers getting a quote from him as a big fan of Transformers does not establish him as an authority.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The newspapers and DVD do not call him a "fan", but an "authority", I think that's an important difference. You are doing the equivalant of calling Roger Ebert a "fan of movies".

Mathewignash (talk

) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this is still a SPS which cannot be used as a reliable source. The newspaper articles and other third party sources cited do not establish that he has had his work in the relevant subject matter published by independent, third party reliable publications. The analogy to Roger Ebert is inapt: His writings have been extensively published by independent publishers, including the Sun Times, obviously, but many other sources. He may be the world's leading authority on Transformers, but absent third party publication of other work by him, his SPS website will not qualify under the expert exception for SPS.

Fladrif (talk

) 14:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is my thought, too. If he doesn't have any reliable third-party publications in the field, we can't use his self-published material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

However, as Squidfryerchef has pointed out, since he was a story consultant on Transformers, he might be considered reliable and a PRIMARY source. So we could site his reviews as primary, if nothing else.

Mathewignash (talk

) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you're trying to use him. We may be able to use interviews with him as a primary source for the comic he was involved with, but we can't use his reviews or other self-published material if he hasn't been previously published.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again.......

Is the website/magazine searchlight a reliable source for inclusion of information on the WP:Article English Defence League? I would say no due to these facts

• Searchlight magazine is an openly anti-fascist and therefore cannot provide an NPOV due to its declared political stance(the EDL are Far-Right)
• Searchlight magazine was originally part of the steering committee for the British Anti Fascist Pressure Group Unite Against Fascism which is at constant ends with the English Defence League and holds counter rally's to nearly all English Defence League street protests (although Searchlight has since ended their links with the UAF on differences in which direction the Pressure Group should go, they still have Anti Fascist beliefs and therefore cannot provide sourced information that is not inflammatory, biased to anti-facist POV or possibly considered contentious)
• Searchlight also gets most of its material from infiltrators, defectors and casual informers and this is not reliable.

User snowded has already made clear that he feels it is a reliable source.

Searchlight undoubtedly has a political stance opposed to that of the EDL. That does not per se make it unreliable. What matters is whether it has a reputation for fact-checking, and I believe it does. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you provide me with the information that corroborates your claim that searchlight has a reputation for fact checking so i can see this for myself?

talk

) 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you see someone who has written for Searchlight co-authoring with the present Speaker of the House of Commons. Searchlight articles are sometimes quoted in peer-reviewed academic papers. That kind of thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And here on the magazine website you see endorsements from Glenys Kinnock and Brendan Barber. Those are things that lend credence. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. this keeps on coming up and needed clarification

talk

) 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article on how this source would be used, but I would remind editors of the difference of a source being reliable in general by

Searchlight is considered a reliable source. See previous discussions.[21] TFD (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think DreamGuy makes a very good point and that is why any discussion on sources is best entertained with specific reference to the proposed or current text. So yes, it's a reliable source but how it is used is another discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Searchlight is clearly a politically opinionated biased source and should only be used with a lot of care - and if there is a more neutral independent source that should always be used in preference, and there will always be one - attributing a strongly opinionated source just makes the issue even more clear imo - look for sources that are as NPOV as possible - searchlight is an activist website publication.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Searchlight is far-left source that is reliable as a source for its own views but not for facts. In combinations with texts like WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV,WP:BLP... --Dezidor (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• RS, but with attribution. Same as with any other advocacy group. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but some advocacy groups should never be used. Searchlight can be used but attribution is required.
    talk
    ) 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• They attack people that they hate. RS for their statements. Be careful with BLP. --89.176.102.35 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Meets the requirements of

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003.
  ISBN 978-0312211974

Page 19. On Google Books.

This book is being suggested for use in the article

Is the source reliable for the purpose of providing a definition? Tentontunic (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There are various definitions for Communist Terrorism and the terrorism described has been described using other terms. Why do you think that this specific definition should be used? TFD (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because you asked for a definition TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC) You said you had been unable to find a source, one has been provided. Tentontunic (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is all the book says on the subject of 'communist terrorism' as a subject, then no, it isn't a reliable source for a definition. It is little more than a statement that 'communist terrorism' is what 'communist terrorists' do. A reliable source will need to analyse the (supposed) relationship between 'communism' and 'terrorism', and provide evidence that there is a meaningful linkage between the two concepts - that this is something more than an arbitrary intersection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, to suggest that the purpose of a Marxist revolution is to force 'regime change' is frankly bizarre, and not what the source says anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see chapter three pp18-19 for discussion on ideology. How would you describe "communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system" other than to force regime change? Tentontunic (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This chapter has a section devoted to communist ideology, it is viewable on google books which I linked above. Tentontunic (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

'Regime change' is generally understood as a change of government, whereas a Marxist revolution is aimed at changing an economic system - a much more profound concept. Why use a late-20th century cliché to describe a 19th/early 20th century idea anyway?

You have already given the page numbers for the part of the book you are citing, and it is clearly inadequate as a source on the subject of 'communist terrorism' - unless there is a great deal of further discussion - please give any further page numbers. If you wish to define it, I suggest you find a source that actually goes into significant detail regarding what (if anything) links the two concepts, beyond the fact that people described as 'communists' have also been described as 'terrorists'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, have you in fact looked at all at chapter 3 of this book? Given the times between my post and your response I would guess you have not. See p33 also please Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you cite page numbers, it is reasonable to expect the evidence for what you are citing them fore to be on those pages. Google books won't let me read beyond page 28 - can you tell us what the book adds to it's definition of 'communist terrorism' on page 33? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, I have cited page numbers to support the suggested content per

WP:RS for the suggested edit. I would say it does, please explain why you feel this source does not support the suggested content. Tentontunic (talk

) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously a reliable source. Definitions need to be fairly short, so "If that is all the book says ... " is not a valid objection. What intrigues me is that this definition make "Communist terrorism" quite distinct from Red Terror which is terrorism of its own people by a Communist government in power. Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you do not think that any actions carried out by communist governments can possibly be considered "communist terrorism"? TFD (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What he "thinks" is unimportant. What counts on Wikipedia is what the actual reliable sources say. Period. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes little sense in all honesty, please be clear in what you are asking Tentontunic (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus far the only people to have commented are those involved, I should like to point out, this book has been cited 429 times by other authors 150 times in scholar. I know of course these are rough numbers, but they show the source is most certainly reliable, yes? Tentontunic (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its

WP:RS for the actual statement made on p. 19, and doesn't support the emendation referring to "regime change". The proper way to handle issues about whether this source provides the best definition or goes into enough detail, would be to supplement it with other sources. Otherwise, a problematic stub "nexus" article which is largely unsourced and needs to be much more extensively supplemented with material discussing the relationship of communism and terrorism.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 12:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A brief analysis of the sources demonstrated that we can speak about at least five different phenomenae described by the term "Communist terrorism".

1. Communist terror during Russian, Chinese and some others civil wars. Some authors tend to combine terror by a government against their own citizens and terror committed by NGOs under the term "terrorism", whereas others separate governmental terror from NGOs terrorism.
2. Malayan emergency
   . This is a concrete historical event, and many sources apply the term "Communist terrorism" to this event only.
3. Sometimes, non frequently, this term is used to characterise guerilla warfare committed by Communist partisans in general.
4. Some sources use this term to describe terrorist activity of various leftist terrorist groups.
5. And finally, this term is used to describe a conspiracy theory developed by Nazi to come to power (Reichstag fire).

Therefore, the issue is not in reliability of the Drake's book, but in if his viewpoint is mainstream. It seems to be it isn't, so this definition cannot be used in the lede without explicit attribution, and cannot be presented as mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is both reliable and mainstream. It's just that definitions can be awkward things. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so this definition can be cited alongside others. Equally, it wouldn't be a problem leaving this one out. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can you say a book which has been cited so often is not mainstream? Your assertion is pointless without some form of source to back the claim. So far three uninvolved people have stated the source is reliable. And that is good enough. Itsmejudith, Various editors on the article talk page were asking "what communist terrorism is" a definition such as this is exactly what they were demanding. Tentontunic (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Did you read what I said? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. I am a little tired. It is not a definition as such, It is a description of what such groups wish to achieve through their actions. Have I gotten it correct this time? It is quite frustrating that editors ask for sources, then ignore what has been provided. The article talk page is a joke, with some editors stating that actions committed by Maoists is not communist terrorism, as they are described as Maoist and not Communist. I am on the verge of giving up on ever achieving any progress on the article. Tentontunic (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you read others' posts carefully. You have been explained several times that, whereas Maoists are Communists, they are also (i) Maoists; (ii) Leftists; (iii) political activists; (iv) humans, etc, therefore, in each particular situation the most relevant terms should be used. Since Maoist terrorism has some very specific features, which make it so different from other forms of terrorism (and so abundant), to call them "Maoists" (by contrast to other Communists) is not so unreasonable. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that terrorism committed by Maoists ought not be called communist terrorism. These are no specific features between terrorism committed by Maoists or Marxist/Leninism. Both groups target the civilian population, both groups carry out the same form of attacks, both groups have operated in both an urban and rural areas. You are splitting hairs with this. I should also like to see your source which states that terrorism carried out by Maoist groups differs to that from other forms of communist terrorist group. Tentontunic (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Responding to the original question, the answer is "yes", this book qualifies as a reliable secondary source. This is not a self-published source or anything like that. Second, this particular definition of the term can be used along with other definitions from other reliable sources. Finally, this shows that there is indeed a definition of the term. Hence we can have an article about this subject.
  Biophys (talk
  ) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• The source is a reliable source. The source, however, does not support the text that is being proposed. It does not contain a definition, nor even the term "communist terrorism". The cited passage uses the term "communist terrorist groups", not "communist terrorism", and makes statements about the aims of such groups, and provides some examples. It does the same thing with respect to terrorist groups that ascribe to Separatism, Religion, Liberalism, Anarchism, Conservatism, Fascism, Single-Issues, and Organized Crime. The real issue here is not whether the source is reliable; the real issue is an improper misuse of the source. By this logic, the source would also support definitions of "separatist terrorism", "religious terrorism", "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "conservative terrorism", "fascist terrorism", "single-issue terrorism" and "organized crime terrorism". It doesn't.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, yes, this is a reliable secondary source. All other questions should be discussed elsewhere, rather than on this noticeboard. I thought Tentontunic provided a direct quotation from the source, but he did not. According to the book, different terrorist groups can be classified based on their

Biophys (talk

) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this source meets the requirements of

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this source may be unreliable, but someone else contests that.

My reasons are:

• The name of the author Hilda von
  Cluj
  " in German)
• It seems to be a self-published source -
  WP:SPS
• The text could be POV. There are accusations that the work contains insults (Romanian: vexaţiuni): [22] (Iaaasi (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

This simply appears to be a pdf that has been posted online. Usually we try to use published sources. Unless someone can show that it has been published, it would fall under the restrictions regarding

WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So is it correct to eliminate the text from this source per

WP:SPS? I just want to be sure (Iaaasi (talk

) 11:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Since Iaaasi "forgot" to mention the discussion was about multiple sources for example this: 2 I have to copy my comment from that talk page as well that I replied to Iaaasi: "I don't agree with your assessment. That source looks a LOT more reliable to me than the source that you inserted. Especially since the source is actually about the topic of this article (atrocities against Hungarians) while your source not only seems dubious, it is not even about the article topic at all so anything it mentions is in passing. In fact just by reading the text "Hungarians killed many(??) Romanians, including beggars and old people. 2" it could be the sentence that comes up when discussing unreliable sources. " Based on this Iaaasi tried to insert a sentence ""Hungarians killed many(HOW many?) Romanians" into the article. Also what's this wordpress.com files? that Iaaasi cites? This long link? http://remusmirceabirtz.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bereczky1.pdf Is this some blog? How is this relevant here? Hobartimus (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Other seemingly unreliable source is the internet site [23], I'd like to ask also about this one (Iaaasi (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

I'd recommend against using unpublished pdf files posted online, unless it can be clearly shown to meet the exception in

WP:SPS. Some websites are acceptable. I'd need to know more about the one linked above to have a sense for whether it's acceptable. TimidGuy (talk

) 12:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this sources does not qualify as reliable under

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See my removal[24] of a section at

Possibly an Internet hoax, see Link Starbureiy if you are an Admin, it's salted now. I'm wondering if this particular link was created for the article

I don't think I'd use this as a source for Trust law. It's hard to figure out what the original source is. In general, I have reservations about using the Internet Archive as a source. Suppose a website is accused of posting false information, so then removes it. That false information would still show up in the Archive. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive is certainly reliable to show what a website once said. But, Internet Archive is not the source; the original website is the source. In this case, there is no way to identify the original website, and the various links go to pages filled with gibberish nonsense. The text, which you properly removed from the article, is likewise nonsense. Clearly, in this case, whatever it is that is being archived is not, and never was, a reliable source.

Fladrif (talk

) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This one may be a bit complicated. The material in question is a transcript[27] from a seminar conducted by the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN.) This is hosted on the website of the Russian НЕТДА ("NETDA") news agency[28]. One of the topics of the seminar was an analysis of the economic theories of Lyndon LaRouche, and it is being proposed as a source for the LaRouche bio and for an article on his views. This transcript currently appears in the bibliography of the Russian Wikipedia article on LaRouche [29].

The transcript is in Russian, which is a problem unto itself, but I would like to get feedback here specifically on the reliability of the source. Two editors are objecting to it on the grounds that LaRouche researchers participated in the seminar, which they say adds an element of bias to the proceedings. I can't see this as material to the discussion -- many of the sources used in the LaRouche articles are political activists who have campaigned aggressively against LaRouche, but that doesn't seem to disqualify them as sources, so it ought to cut both ways. The Russian Academy of Sciences is a reputable organization, and the author of the disputed paper is GG Pirogov, who is a Doctor of Political Science and an established author (see [30]) Angel's flight (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it was added to the Russian Wikipedia's equivalent of a "further reading" section does not mean that the editors there have endorsed it as a reliable source, so that's a red herring. Why is this material significant enough to include in an English-language article on a U.S. politician? What other articles cite this same source on En.Wikipedia? How many articles on U.S. politicians (or even economists) cite Russian academics whose academic specialty is apparently mining? What is the relationship of this seminar to the Lebedev Institute of Physics and to the Schiller Institute? What is the reputation of the author of the seminar presentation? Did the Lebedev Inst. have any editorial oversight over the publication? These are all questions that go into evaluating a source for reliability and relevance, but which are difficult to answer due to the opacity of the source and its context.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, you've had your say on the article talk page. Please let the regulars here give an independent opinion on the source, which is the purpose of bringing the dispute here. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will raises some good points. BLPs need rock-solid sourcing, don't you agree?

talk

) 08:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"A transcript of a seminar" is not usually a reliable source. It's unclear how much, if any, review was done on the talk proposal, and there is no quality control on the actual talk. The Russian Academy of Science is a giant organisation, and no doubt is associated with all kinds of events, at least in an administrative function. Unless they explicitly endorse the views in question, I don't see this association as adding significant reliability or notability. And GG Pirogov's main output seems to be one cold-war era piece on the "Socialist World System" - I cannot find any other "serious" publication in the last 30 years. So calling him "an established author" is a stretch - there certainly is no evidence that he is an expert in the sense of

WP:SPS's "an established expert on the topic". --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, before you dismiss an academic by writing "GG Pirogov's main output seems to be one cold war era piece on the "socialist world system" please use the kyrillic transcript of his name ""Г. Г. Пирогов" and, for simplicity's sake, enter it in google. I haven't had time to search through the 10.000+ results, but please, DO YOUR RESEARCH! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives me 6 hits with a total of one (1) citation: [31]. Not impressed. It may well be that Google's coverage of the Russian literature is incomplete, of course. But anyways, if you want to present him as an expert, you need to make the case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan. A scholarly analysis of LaRouche's economic views might be a valid source, but this one doesn't give any appearance of being a notable scholarly analysis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Conference presentations aren't usually acceptable as a source, and it seems like a presentation at a seminar would also not be acceptable. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. In some disciplines, conference papers are the primary means of publishing research. Please be careful not to over-generalize. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I came here after seeing a request at

turned out this http://www.math.panam.edu/lf/Teaching/LectureNotes/MathModeling/papers/PHU_45_9_R03.pdf document, where Pirogov is mentioned as helpful source in econometric modelling and there is a book by Pirogov on the "Socialist Economy". http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL4562252A/G.G.*_Pirogov and another about global econometric modelling: https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBFb0049024 I have although noticed that there is another G.G. Pirogov, who seems to be a Geologist. http://www.famous-scientists.ru/list/7955 Ezhiki, can you confirm that: 1. these are 2 individuals named G.G. Pirogov, one Econometrist and one Geologist? 2. That G.G. Pirogov the Econometrist is an experienced senior russian scientist in Economy and Econometrics? 3. Could you direkt us to a good web source which lists Pirogov's (Economist) credentials? Thank you vry much! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this is turning out to be more complicated than I thought :) The first question is easy, though—while both people have initials "G. G.", the economist's name is Grigory Grigoryevich, while the geologist's name is Gennady Georgiyevich. As for the economist, this interview (which has some biographic details, and which makes me think that this is the same person) is the most useful page I found, which is from a kinda sorta reliable source. Sorry for being so vague, but there really isn't much about this person online. This kind of research is best done when one has access to a good Russian library (which I don't) or knows the subject matter more thoroughly and knows where else to look. I hope what I found helps at least a little.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 18:12 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ezhiki, this has been most helpful. Now I took one source to google translate, the result was surprisingly good. I take this then to be his most important undisputable and factual credentials:

"Political scientist, specialist in research on socio-economic and political processes, the challenges of globalization. Author of several monographs, including two-volume monograph entitled "Globalization and civilizational diversity of the world" (2002). Member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the multi-volume edition of "World economic thought. Through the prism of the ages. " In 5 volumes (2004-2005). The author of the translation into Russian of two books (as well as the notes thereto) of the Nobel Prize for Economics Dzh.Stiglitsa."

Now, the dispute about Pirogov is about a machine translation of a transcript of a seminar conducted with members of the LaRouche-Organisation. Here is the original: http://www.netda.ru/fian/fian2b.htm There was one complete translation, though i have not checked by whom, nor can i assess its quality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/russian#Lyndon_LaRouche_and_his_physical_economy

In October 2009, SlimVirgin edited the Talk Page about Larouche and doubted an assertion by Pirogov: Could we have a translation of the relevant part of the source material, please, from whoever added it?

"In 2004, Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Physical Institute [1]). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)" here is the archived page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_22

Now, assuming that this is STILL the paragraph under question, can you safely say, that:

"L. LaRouche is known as the author of two fundamental long-term predictions - predictions. In the years 1959-60. He predicted a series of monetary shocks, which lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (fulfilled in 1971). In the second case, he predicted that after the abolition of the Bretton Woods system the policies of the USA and other developed capitalist countries will lead to a new crisis, but did not cyclical, but to the collapse of the entire system of international economic relations - a systemic crisis."

(from the translation in question)

is an accurate translation of: "Л. Ларуш известен, как автор двух фундаментальных долгосрочных прогнозов - предсказаний. В 1959-60 гг. он предсказал серию кредитно-денежных потрясений, которые приведут к крушению Бреттонвудской системы (сбылось в 1971 году). Во втором случае он предсказал, что после отмены Бреттонвудской системы политика США и других развитых капиталистических стран приведет к новому кризису, но даже не циклическому, а к обвалу всей системы международных экономических отношений - системному кризису."

Comments from other editors pending, this would be all, I assume. Thank you very much indeed!81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as grammar, the translation could use a few corrections, but otherwise I can assert that it is accurate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

It appears that 81.210.206.223, et al, are seeking to use this Russian academic's presentation at a Schiller-sponsored seminar as a source for a rather extraordinary assertion that LaRouche predicted a currency collapse eleven years in advance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Pirogov does not say where or how this prediction was made, nor other details to allow corroboration.

Editors above have said that, as a general principle, seminar presentations are not reliable sources. They do not have any editorial oversight. I would take as the conclusion of this thread that the seminar should not be used as a source material on a BLP. We should use the best available sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am under the impression that WB wants to dismiss a reliable source not because of it is correct and factual, but because it does not include what he (WB) wants it to include, quote:

"Pirogov does not say where or how this prediction was made, nor other details to allow corroboration." That a source should be EXcluded because it does not include what a certain editor wants it to say, is in itself scandalous! 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts.Your help is most appreciated! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If he is the main translator into Russian of the works of Joseph Stiglitz, he is a notable economist. Nevertheless, a seminar paper is probably not a reliable source. Has he not made the same point elsewhere? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is some confusion as to what is meant by "Seminar paper". In this case, calling a transcript of a speech by a senior politologist at the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences a "seminar paper" may be an understatement.81.210.206.223 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirogov is not only the author of the speech or presentation, but also the chair of the seminar. One of the differences between a self-published primary source and a secondary source is the presence of some kind of second party editorial oversight. Absence evidence to the contrary, it appears that this material is Pirogov's opinion unfiltered by anyone else. It is hardly the best available source for the biography of an American politician, especially since it is making an exceptional claim.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

"Absence evidence to the contrary, it appears that this material is Pirogov's opinion unfiltered by anyone else. It is hardly the best available source for the biography of an American politician, especially since it is making an exceptional claim" Question: If no "filtered" material is allowed, would you mind excluding the material which has no editors' board either. I am thinking of most of the material by Berlet and King. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Larouche prediction, from the 1970's: "The probable included consequence of the Rockefellers' projected 'new world order' is thermonuclear holocaust no later than the early 1980s." Or a better sourced quote from Chip Berlet's site: "Nelson A. Rockefeller is a raving fascist presently pushing as rapidly as he is able to impose a fascist police-state in the U.S.A. before the 1976 elections." We need to give some thought to weight as well as reliability.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

True. The subject has made a large number of predictions.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stay on topic please. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On topic. If he makes hundreds of predictions, stating that two of them came true is a violation of

WP:WEIGHT unless we also discuss the others that didn't.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_10-19/2008-13/pdf/24-25_3513.pdf) Larouche - site from 2008 (which you are of course free to dismiss as biased) lists just 9 forecasts. Stay on topic please, there are two sentences in dispute right now. If you feel like discussing the history and truthfulness or falseness of other forecasts made by LaRouche, bring them on, add a reliable source, then we can discuss. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one reason why we don't rely on self-published sources to write articles. There are many sources that report the prediction that there'd be thermonuclear war shortly after Carter's inauguration. By weight, it should receive much more attention than this. Is this the only source to report this exceptional claim? Are there no independent sources?   Will Beback  talk 

Although I have lost count of how many reasons WB has brought up/invented to exclude the Pirogov - Material, I see his latest posts as attempt of diverting a disscussion. ("Are there OTHER stories, more sources, more "independent" sources"?) It's really enough by now, WB. The discussion is about 2 well-sourced sentences (!), and NOT about anything else. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirogov is one of many sources. There is no reason to exaggerate his importance but also no reason to exlude him and source only with sources like Chip Berlet (Communist friend of Albania) and his group. --Dezidor (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RED FLAG

Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, we should let the applicable policy resolve this. Here is the English translation of the source; scroll down to the "GG Pies" paper. The LaRouche accounts want to use this source to support the following text: "GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him 'one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century'" (emphasis added). See the proposed edit on talk. This is an exceptional claim, within the meaning of

So: is GG Pirogov's paper a high-quality source? First, it seems to have been self-published by the seminar organizers, which is one strike against it.

Second, it was one of a series of seminars arranged in conjunction with the Schiller Institute, one of the names used by the LaRouche movement in Wiesbaden, Germany. See here in English where the seminar organizers explain what their connection is with the Schiller Institute (emphasis added):

Third, the above is something that none of the reliable sources—the mainstream academics and journalists who have written about LaRouche—would agree with. They would say that LaRouche is not a prominent American economist. They would say that the Schiller Institute does not have a growing influence, or any influence, on European intellectuals. They would say not only that these claims are false, but that they are bizarre claims to make.

To summarize: (1) LaRouche accounts want to add an exceptional claim to an article about LaRouche; (2) the academic they want to use as an independent reliable source is unknown or barely known; (3) the seminar paper is self-published by the people who organized it; (4) the LaRouche movement was involved in organizing the seminar; and (5) the seminar blurb makes what reliable sources would regard as false claims about LaRouche and the Schiller Institute.

It seems to me that the above increases the RED FLAG aspect of this, rather than assuaging it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTCSlimVirgin'sy:

:Excuse me, but referring to other editors as "LaRouche accounts" is a breach of civility and an inappropriate attempt to prejudice other participants in the discussion. SlimVirgin does not specify the "mainstream academics and journalists who have written about LaRouche," but the ones presently in use at the LaRouche BLP are mainly American New Left activists from the 1970s who were opponents of LaRouche back in the day. I think it would be useful and appropriate under NPOV to have a contrasting view. SlimVirgin does not make a case for his claim that Mr. Pirogov is "unknown or barely known." The fact that LaRouche researchers participated in the seminar does not mean that they dictated what other participants were to say, and it is clear from Russian, Chinese and other sources that LaRouche is perceived very differently in these cultures than in the US. The Chinese Peoples Daily reports that LaRouche is better known overseas than in the US. I think we should be wary of WP:Systemic bias. Angel's flight (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's summary: Apart from the fact, that SV now talks about an entirely different sentence than the one in question, there are several points to raise as to the quality of her "summary"

(1) "exceptional claim" is an opinion (2) "barely known academic" : There is no causal connection that an "unknown academic" is unreliable.In fact, the logical fallacy that an unknown or lesser known source is not valid/not right/untrue is called "argumentum ad populum" (3)"the material is self-published" As far as i can see, the material is published by a news agency (4)"Larouche was involved" : this logical fallacy is called "poisoning the well" (5)"would regard" : this fallacy is called counterfactual argument 81.210.206.223 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so recourse to forum debate like "logical fallacy" is not appropriate. Of course "one of the greatest original thinkers" is a

WP:REDFLAG claim, and of course multiple, highly reliable sources would be needed before even contemplating adding such text. Johnuniq (talk

) 02:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• First, I agree that the source is essentially "self-published" on Russian. Second, one must be very suspicious about presentations of humanitarian subjects in the leading Russian physics institution. If it was something about physics and supported by their theoreticians, that would be a different matter.
  Biophys (talk
  ) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a valid objection, first of all because the seminar was interdisciplinary, and also because LaRouche does not approach economics as a "social science." The interview[32] that Ëzhiki found actually touches upon this, where Pirogov tells the interviewer that "Lyndon LaRouche introduced the principle of "physical economy", where the real product is calculated per capita, household, and per square kilometer of territory..." It's a far cry from the monetarist approach which is hegemonic in the West.

::I'd like to also emphasize that when I started this thread, I wasn't asking for validation of specific quotes. Others have tried to focus the discussion that way. Pirogov's presentation is a far-reaching and competent analysis of LaRouche's theories, which we do not have from any of the American sources presently featured in the article, which tend to be restricted to polemics. I think inclusion would be generally useful. Angel's flight (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly self published per the above, and not RS for fact claims.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although this might be a valid source about Pirogov. There is no such thing as "physical economy", or at least this has nothing to do with Physics. This belongs either to social sciences or to

Biophys (talk

) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Well, here again, the Russians disagree.[33] Beware of systemic bias. Angel's flight (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Many academic associations publish their own things, I see no problem if it was publsihed by them if they are mainstream Academic orginzation. If its reputable org then I see no reason to exclude it. Also its worth noting that I (The Resident Anthropologist (talk)) am of the American Anthropological Association as every one in American Anthropology is. So saying he is from the Russian Academy of Sciences can mean extremely little unless he is a top officer. I see very little problem with X saying Y about Z being included as long as he is notable and reputable to give an opinion on it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::The interview[34] that Ëzhiki found identifies him as "a leading researcher at the Institute of Comparative Politics, Russian Academy of Sciences," as well as a "Japanologist, an expert on macroeconomics and economic policies of developed countries... involved in economic-mathematical methods CEMI in and in VNIISI, global modeling, and econometrics." ItsmeJudith found him to be the Russian translator of books by Joseph Stiglitz. Angel's flight (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I said if he is the main translator into Russian of Stiglitz' books, he is notable. Important difference. I also said that even if he is notable there should be a better source than this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good comment by ResidentAnthropologist. No, this not an official printed publication by the Lebedev Institute. If it was, that would be a different story. This is a self-published personal opinion of Pirogov who would hardly fit our notability criteria.

Biophys (talk

) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::::The publisher is the Russian НЕТДА ("NETDA") news agency, and there are by my count 44 different presentations, of which 3 are by Pirogov. Angel's flight (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So he was quoted in newspaper, So that implies some notability but who identifies him as a "leading researcher at the Institute of Comparative Politics, Russian Academy of Sciences." Who descibes him that way? and where? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here http://www.isras.ru/pers_about.html?id=222 Pirogov is listed as the leading researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.81.210.206.223 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::He was not quoted in a newspaper, at least not in the example cited. All 44 conference presentations were published by a wire service. The description of Pirogov's expert qualifications comes from the journalist Yuri Chirkov, who interviewed Pirogov in the interview[35] that Ëzhiki found, which appeared in the magazine National Security, October 27, 2008. Angel's flight (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds extremely dubious claim made by the journalist. In my expeience Journalist who introduce "X" as world leading "Y" typically are doing so for rehtoical purposes to set up an arguement about "Z." Also if this is new wire services why are they publishing reports on academic confereces? what is "NETDA" news agency?" It honestly sounds like when Chinses Government have their "International Symposium on Cultic Studies" and use the state media utilize stuff for rhetorical purposes. What is the credibility of this new service. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this "NoYes" site, but just looking at the text right on the top at their frontpage...[36] It tells: "За территориальным, финансовым и ресурсным переделом мира, о котором говорят все, скрывается гораздо более серьёзный передел мира - миграционно-демографический передел жизненного пространства между расами и цивилизациями, последствия которого не только для славян, но и для всей индоевропейской расовой общности катастрофичен.". This is something extremely nationalistic ("races", "living space" which was allegedly taken by the Western civilization from

Biophys (talk

) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, then there is no reason to include it as that makes it clear this is probably not a reliable source for anything. I would even think it would be a little dubious to use it to sources the Org's opinions on any matter The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jonathanwallace, Biophys, The Resident Anthropologist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• My inclination with seminar papers and presentations is that they should be treated as self-published sources and not as having been published by independent third parties. In some scientific fields, seminar papers and presentations are subjected to editorial and peer review prior to acceptance. There is no indication that that is the case here. Unless the author is a recognized expert whose work in the relevant area has been previously published by independent, third party, reliable sources, I would think that this is not a RS.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Edits by a sock of a banned user have been struck through.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason to ever use this website, which appears to be a Wikipedia mirror? See

I agree that there's a problem with using this website as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, as a clear Wikipedia fork it is not a reliable source and needs to be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here which could use more attention from sourcing specialists. --John (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• It seems the question is how to balance between two good aims: best possible new source, or a convenient online source. (I at least see both aims as good aims for Wikipedia.)
• There is some implication in the debate to imply that convenience should not even be considered, but I think that might be just rhetorical?
• The biggest concern seems to be that the online source being proposed is much older. I am generally speaking a person who is against knee-jerk dismissal of old sources. I think it depends on the subject matter. But obviously it is hard to argue against the generalization that newer is better.
• I can't really see anything inherently unreasonable about either position, and one would hope that rhetoric will not make finding a compromise impossible. I do not think the discussion should be considered as a debate between people who for policy and people arguing for breaking with policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the rather severe judgement at

Old Moonraker (talk

) 10:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that argument is a bit exaggerated. Obviously easy access is an aim worth considering as a positive, and concerning that easy-to-link source, we are not talking about a truly bad source, but just an older source. That's why I think that it should be seen as a case of balancing 2 good aims. Trying to pretend that a good aim is a bad aim is not a useful way to approach such a problem I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This book, specifically this link to the GoogleBooks page, was used to source a claim in the