This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | → | Archive 145 |
Her Spanish colleague Darío Fernández-Morera takes the opposite view, arguing that "Islamic Spain was not a model of multicultural harmony. Andalusia was beset by religious, political, and racial conflicts controlled in the best of times only by the application of tyrannical force (by its rulers)
saying; (a source from an agenda-based organization does not refute real sources) [1] I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored [2] again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) [3] The claim is contrary to the poets claim just above but the article is referenced and I will leave it to user Roscelese and others to make a case J8079s ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction; that was considerate, and I thank you. I don't actually read that it was "soundly rejected": I see one editor saying, "Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of [an article's author] or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute," while another editor says, "Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required." No other editors commented after this, so it reads as if there was a stalemate and no consensus to reject it.
I do see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP that, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do we know for sure it's not peer-reviewed? I'm not sure where the reputation of the publisher as having poor fact-checking and quality is coming from. I can see there's disagreement with its political stance — and I'm no conservative, so I understand and I know it's a principled disagreement. Still, it sounds as if one wants to reject this article because of the publication's politics. What do other editors think? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is WP:reliable, the scholar holds a post at Harvard university (see Darío Fernández-Morera). The opposition to it seems to be driven mainly from ideological reasons (allegedly "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" for some taste as if this were a valid reason for exclusion even if true). His critical stance on the "tolerance" of Al-Andalus is anyway echoed by several colleagues, so this discussion is pretty moot: there are other scholarly sources in Spanish which share his view and which can be quoted in support. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Kmhkmh, your personal view of a "formally" reliable source has, I am afraid, no basis whatsoever in the WP guidelines - unless you can cite them to support your interpretation. Likewise Stephan theorizing along the lines of "not a reliable source in general". Since WP:SOURCES holds that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources and since it has been now established that The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed, it is a reliable source, and among the most reliable sources at that. This is nothing which can be negotiated against the guidelines.
As for Fernández-Morera's scholarly background as a literary professor, you make it sound a bit as if he were daring to talk about topics as remote as the pleistocene or Japanese history. As it is, his core research interest is the Spanish Golden Age and relations to Islam. If WP were to follow your formal criteria of inclusion, it would have to remove the most notable Western scholar on Chinese technology Joseph Needham, to give but one example, as he was actually a biochemist by profession, and never received any academic training in history or sinology. Despite this, he is widely cited and rightly so.
Tenebrae has rightly pointed out how the constant changing of goalposts evident in the discussion rather points to an underlying WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. Look, it is not like Fernández-Morera is alone in his criticism of the retroconcept of convivencia. Far from it, although he is quite outspoken, he is only one of many scholars sharing such a view. David Nirenberg, Richard A. Fletcher and Bat Ye'or ( The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) all have attacked the idea of a "tolerant" Andalusian society on varying grounds. Islam never knew nor wanted tolerance in the modern sense but organized its societies and non-Muslim subjects on the basis of the dhimmi hierarchy which is nothing but a two-class system. Fernández-Morera says only as much.
So, instead of losing ourselves in a proxy debate about the alleged lack of reliability, I volunteer to gather more scholarly, reliable literature in the vein of Fernández-Morera. By doing this we show that he is not an eccentric loner as some editors (like to) portray him, but actually representative of a school of thought critical of what one can call the tolerance myth; we do this of course on the basis of WP:WEIGHT which requires us that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be proportionately included in the article. Since his article is somewhat polemic as he seemed to feel the need to address particularly the laymen, I readily agree to put him at the more radical end of criticism in an attempt to move on. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS both say that reliability can reside with the author, rather than the publication. Journals don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, but regardless of that, we can focus on the author, not the journal, per IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
So the question is: can Darío Fernández-Morera, Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University, be regarded as authoritative in relation to the history of Islamic Spain and "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise"? That boils down to whether he has been published before about these issues by independent publishers, per the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS. If he has been published before in this field, then his essay can be used as a source.
If (a) this is the first time he has written about this topic, and (b) he chose to make his only appearance on it in a journal that some say is not an RS, and given that (c) his qualifications (PhD Harvard, comparative literature) are only indirectly related, then no. (Another factor would be what his PhD thesis was on; if it was related to Islamic Spain, that would change things.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again I've come up against the use of a CDP map as an authority for saying that some location is within a certain town. In this case, the claim is that the Howard County Public School System is located in Columbia, Maryland (see this edit for an example). The truth is that the board of education buildings sit on a state road just outside Columbia and are not part of the "new town" land (i.e., they aren't taken from land that the Rouse Company owned and applied it CA covenants to). The post office gives the offices an Ellicott City, Maryland zip code, which is equally misleading.
Howard County, Maryland has no incorporated areas, so truly definitive boundaries for any community are impossible—except in the case of Columbia, because its boundaries are generally bounded by what land the Columbia Association controls through covenants. The Columbia CDP is much larger than that area, and incorporates large areas which anyone who actually lives there never considered part of Columbia (e.g. they simply ignore the town of Clarksville, Maryland and assign all of that area to Columbia). This has led to a lot of implication, particularly in the article on the town itself, that various things are in the town of Columbia proper when they actually are not. All of the former Simpsonville, Maryland surroundings were given Columbia zip codes, but that area lies outside of and preexisted the new town. Clarksville is a somewhat distinct place with its own zip code.
CDPs are lines drawn for statistical collection convenience, because the census has to say that everyone is somewhere. They shouldn't be treated as if they were municipal boundaries. My parents' house appears, from the CDP maps, to lie in Scaggsville, Maryland, but that is incorrect; in fact as far back as I can recall there's never even been a post office for the town. The post office calls the area Laurel, Maryland although it lies outside that city's incorporated limits. I would like to see this use of the CDP maps deprecated. Mangoe ( talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to post here again, but I've seen another problem come up a few times, where a simple definition or etymology of a word is tagged as needing a source. I know Wikipedia is supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources, but for simple dictionary definitions is a literal dictionary definition not enough? elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Good day, I hope this is the right place to ask, but I would like to verify whether YouTube videos of this old TV show (posted by apparently anonymous individuals and not an official broadcaster's account) can be: 1) citations for a table of episode casting and 2) listed as a channel listing in the External Links section? Most of these videos are of entire episodes of the show. I was of the opinion that such is a copyright violation (regardless of the fact that the copyright owner has clearly not taken efforts to enforce their copyright)? I'm sorry if this has been asked/resolved before; I was unable to find any policy that directly speaks to this. DP76764 ( Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
In a recent A-Clase review, the article School of Advanced Military Studies was denied an A rating because of use of a PhD dissertation. The final comments in the discussion, which can found here, were:
To me, that logic would seem to run against WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community", and "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."
I am trying to get a non-copyrighted version of the dissertation and upload it to wikisource so that the community can better judge the work. However, I wanted to start a discussion concerning the use of the dissertation in the article. I asked for a WP:GA review, so I am hoping to come to a consensus on the use of the dissertation and how that should effect the articles quality rating. Thanks. Casprings ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
On the article Bolshevik, two editors (one subsequently blocked as a sock of the persistent Runtshit vandal) have repeatedly to the lead added a questionable assertion, sourced to an article by Steven Plaut in Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology", subsequently amended to "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism had strong features of theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually described Bolshevism as "a theology"; rather that, in the early days, it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist ( Steven Plaut). Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on this board, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"; "FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would recommend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people.". To my considerable surprise, Plaut himself has never been discussed here, though there have been several discussions about use of his opinions at WP:BLPN, where the consensus appears to be not to use him: "Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer."; "Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia.".
My question is, should we allow the inclusion in this article of such an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim? RolandR ( talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it not blatantly obvious that the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinian News Agency aren't reliable for claims of fact regarding occurrences of vandalism in the West Bank? See, for example, this press release, which is currently citation #48 in said article.
24.177.121.29 ( talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I regret that I have been involved in a content dispute with another editor, regarding which genres to include in the [Misha B]] info box. Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got.
Most sources we have point to including soul music in her genres They may not be the best sources but they are independent and neutral and wide variety sources listed below....are they good enough?
http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y
http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA
http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags
http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410
http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html
The sources covering her other genres like R&B are weaker, so if these are not good enough for 'Soul' then maybe all her genres ought to be removed.
See (sorry these are not neat Wikipedia internal links...i forget)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B ... Genre Changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zoeblackmore_reported_by_User:Jennie--x_.28Result:_.29.....
Zoebuggie☺
whispers 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi fellow members, can you tell me if this website is a reliable source? My bait is it being a WP:SPS but I would want to have a better POV from you guys. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to expand the Far-left politics article with some parties, movements and people described as far left on the political spectrum. I had previously noted how the article has expanded and then contracted repeatedly and was going nowhere. I used Google Book and searched for far left, radical left and extreme left. However my additions excluded but I am not sure which policy or guideline I am breaching. The reason provided was that while my statements are supported they aren't discussing the same topic as the article. The claim is asserted without providing any proof the topics aren't the same. The implication being that they aren't reliable. Could someone provide a policy page or guideline which explains why my additions should not stay? - Shiftchange ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a debate at Talk:Prometheus (film) in regards to using this Forbes article.
In the Forbes article, scientists give their opinions on certain scenarios in the film Prometheus.
I'd appreciate some views on whether it is reliable for the claim that that scientists have "criticised the science" in the movie. On one hand this is a Forbes article which is generally considered an RS, on the other the piece starts with "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions", which suggests that some of the scientists may not have actually watched the film itself.
Is this article appropriate for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film" even though the article implies they may have not watched it, or is the fact it is a Forbes article good enough? Betty Logan ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Autism Speaks ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Source: "Autism Speaks – Consider the Facts" (PDF). Autistic Self Advocacy Network (Flyer). Autistic Self Advocacy Network. May 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
Statement: Autism Speaks is often criticized by autism rights advocates including many autistic people who claim that it excludes autistic people from leadership positions, uses stigmatizing rhetoric, and focuses on issues that are not relevant to the autistic community.
Is it inappropriate to source claims that autism rights advocates/self-advocates make to an autistic rights/self-advocacy group? Would sources from multiple autism rights groups be better? - Purplewowies ( talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I am married to Billy Brandt and I have noticed that his ex's who have issues continue to change his biography to untrue information. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsBillyBrandt ( talk • contribs)
Zad
68
14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.
Here are the sources:
Justiciero1811 ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has a section [14] sourced to a PDF [15] from the UN which is hosted on a blog on the international law bureau website. Does this fall foul of WP:PRIMARY? It is currently used as a source on information about BLP's. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Are the following secondary sources good sources for the content listed below?
Source: Youth Connection charter set to fire teachers, union cries foul
Source: Chicago Charter Teachers Fight for Their Jobs, And a Union
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2011 the teachers at Latino Youth High School formed a union with the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS) in response to what they believed to be administrative mismanagement of the school. Although the union was certified by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board made clear that charter schools are public schools and are allowed to unionize under Illinois state law the administration of Pilsen Wellness Center has refused to negotiate with the school’s teachers.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 05:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source from music reviews? I was removing nonprofessional reviews of some music articles, and was wondering if this one is appropriate to stay or not. The website: Chronicles of Chaos. Thanks. The1337gamer ( talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an expert, Michel Laurin ( talk · contribs), who wants to add paleontology content to the encyclopedia. He needs guidance regarding how we decide which current hypotheses to include in our articles. In medicine it's easy: we generally rely on scholarly reviews and textbooks. In the more poorly-funded sciences, where an important topic may languish for a decade or more between reviews, how do we best serve our readers? Do we wait the ten or fifteen years, or rely on number of citations and article talk page consensus?
The editor has published in the field, and has had WP:COI explained.
What is the status of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? Does it reflect our usual practice in that area? If so, should we point Michel Laurin there? If so, should it be upgraded to guideline status?
The background is at User talk:Michel Laurin#Sources in medicine and paleontology. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Peter Brown ( talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear opinions about punknews.org [16] as a reliable source. I'm a little uncomfortable with the writers doing articles under psuedonyms (please spare me the historical examples, just because someone notable did it doesn't mean it's ok across the board) and the pro-am feel of the site, but I could be wrong. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The following source: [17]
Is the reason for some contention on the article Huey P. Newton: [18]
There is also substantial discussion on the Talk page
This is the text:
Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality. [1] [2] [3]
As outlined in my comments on the talk page, this reference seems to have some POV issues, some WP:V issues, WP:PSTS issues, and does not appear necessary to support the statement, as other references are there. However, this position appears contentious, so I would appreciate some guidance on whether this source should be included or not.
Studylight.org is a creationist site affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research. [19], [20](which offers courses run by the ICR [21]. I ran into this at Thomas Chalmers where I discovered that the link that I thought would take me to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition took me instead to studylight.org. It seems to be being used extensively as a source [22] and if I'm right needs to be added to the cleanup list at the top of this page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)I fixed the broken link at the article, check it out now.
Zad
68
13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Wikipedia is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the following secondary source a good source for the content listed below? All the relevant information is taken from Chapter One, Introduction and Background - Report Conclusions, pg. 1.
Source: MANAGEMENT AUDIT PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2008 a special audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General for the state of Illinois uncovered a number of expenditures, which were inappropriately charged to State programs at taxpayer expense and sometimes without documentation. Additionally, the auditor discovered that a third of employees did not have documentation to prove they were qualified for their positions. At the time of the audit 48 percent of the files also lacked documentation on performance appraisals.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Total Immersion includes the following statement:
The three citations point to webpages: [1] http://www.triathlonsummit.com/index1.html, [2] http://www.xtri.com/all-articles/detail/284-itemId.511710350.html, and [3] http://www.latalkradio.com/Simon.php . Are these links sufficient to support the assertion in the statement? Thanks! Location ( talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: [25] I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grand master 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.
So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:
While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.
Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896
Grand master 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).
Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
В своем подходе к этногенезу армянского народа Еремян исходил из автохтонистской концепции, начинал историю армян с Хайасы и доказывал, что их предки не имели никакого отношения к Фригии. С этой точки зрения, мушки не представляли для него никакой ценности, и он щедро отдавал их грузинам.
...
Иными словами, по концепции Еремяна, армяне являлись безусловными автохтонами на Армянском нагорье; они были носителями государственного начала с рубежа VII-VI вв. до н.э. и являлись как бы прямыми преемниками Урарту; к этому времени они ассимилировали все остальное население бывшего Урарту, которое перешло на армянский язык. Тем самым, формирование армянского народа и возникновение армянской государственности резко отодвигалось в глубь веков и предшествовало возникновению Персидской державы. С этой точки зрения, персы оказывались захватчиками, нарушившими естественный ход этнополитической истории армян. Положение улучшилось лишь во II в. до н.э., когда арменизация продолжилась, охватив Араратскую долину и более северные территории. Еремян настаивал на том, что к II - I вв. до н.э. процесс этногенеза завершился и сложилась Великая Армения с одним народом и одним языком (Еремян, 1951. С. 49-50).
I would have made this request regardless of Goghtn. We discussed ASE a lot at various articles, and never reached any consensus. This is why I want the community to express their opinion about this source. Grand master 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The way I read it, we have two editors here conscientiously defending very reasonable positions. I think this is basically a difficult balancing decision for the two of your to work out, but here are some pointers:-
In the 1960s too, social science publications in Armenia and Azerbaijan did refer to the border conflict between them over N-K. In general, historians whose articles were published in a journal were considered "winners", which also meant that their national views did not contradict the general Party line. As such, they became the 'gatekeepers' of their national past. Indeed, different versions of the histories of nations and territories appeared in national historiographies. For example, Armenian historians in the Armenian Encyclopedia emphasized the Armenian myth regarding the contested territories of N-K and Nakhichevan. Only a short explanation was devoted to the existence of the Azerbaijanis in these territories. A short column referred to Azerbaijani music in Nakhichevan without praising the wise leadership of the Azerbaijani Communist authorities. Instead, the success of the flowering of Azerbaijani music was accredited to the 'Soviet era', meaning after 1922.
No one here is contesting the extremely powerful influence of Soviet propaganda on topics from the modern period, but to claim that the ASE is notable and yet unreliable at the same time is perplexing. There is a certain unevenness to an encyclopedia when its scope consists of everything from Armenian poets executed by Stalin in the 1930s to geographic regions from the ancient and medieval periods, which is where the ASE is mostly cited. Its individual authors consisted of modern historians, forced to adhere to the party line, but many of them were also widely respected outside of the Soviet Union (see the names I mention above). I don't know what Nagorno-Karabakh "myth" Geukjian is specifically referring to, but it seems to me that too wide a brush cannot be applied to all articles and entries. We have to evaluate a source and judge its appropriate for a certain article as it comes and goes. If a strong enough argument is made against its usage, only then it can be excluded.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate is full of smoke and mirror and running in circles:
If the answer to the above three questions is "no", then what the hell are people blabbering about? Provide some hard evidences (like providing author names, ISBN numbers and poll surveys) and no more frigging propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate please! Jim101 ( talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This whole conversation is getting out of hand since it revolves around a very strong aversion found exclusively in Azerbaijan that tries to deny the presence of Armenians in the medieval and ancient periods. The controversy surrounding the examples cited by Grandmaster are fabricated by himself entirely and it's unfortunate that his argument is receiving more attention than is truly warranted. All the information cited in those three articles are based on primary sources, i.e., chronicles and histories written primarily from the fifth to twelfth centuries and if an editor truly had the time, they could dust off the published volumes from libraries and cited the works themselves. But then someone else would find another excuse to try to exclude the information – the source being in a language other than English, the source being unreliable, or the editor being accused of original research by reading too much into a source. I say this because I have had to deal with these tired tactics because some editors (and readers) are unsettled by the fact that their history does not quite match that found on Wikipedia, for which they must then rectify. I can name the primary sources for each of the three examples given (1. Movses Kaghankatvatsi's History of the Caucasian Albanians; 2. and 3. Anania Shirakatsi's Geography). If a statement is in wanting of more citations the appropriate tag should be added, but unless compelling evidence can be shown that the ASE is seriously mistaken in regards to a certain topic or article, this conversation is much ado about nothing.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Many articles use this unreliable source. Erowid is a database that collects primary sources from a number of different sources without attribution. It is self run. It itself accepts contributions and works from sources which we consider unreliable. It will take a lot of personpower to remove all the sources. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on Aaliyah (album) in my sandbox and wanted to make sure if the blog YouKnowIGotSoul, specifically this interview of those involved in the album, would be acceptable if I nominate the article for FA. I came across it after looking through clearly reliable sources such as this LAtimes article referencing the source in question. Just want to be sure before I use any of it at my sandbox, as the actual Wikipedia article on this album is a mess and happens to have it incorporated, among other blogs. Dan56 ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor is, among other changes, adding information to the page Serama based off some personal sites and a forum: [28] [29] [30] [31]. This has been going on for awhile, with various editors and IPs, and I have posted on the talkpage at Talk:Serama#Early Breeders section explaining our sourcing policy with links. The editor who is repeatedly adding information with those sources says they are reliable "as has first hand experience seeing the breed both in Malaysia and here." Can I get further opinions on whether these sources are reliable? Thanks, CMD ( talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Is the following source, [32] reliable for this statement, which will be added to the 'controversies' section of the article Council for Christian Education in Schools: "The organisation attracted criticism for replacing Christmas carols at school Christmas concerts with songs that have been described as "creationist anthems"." I note the author is a columnist from the Herald sun, and this article is hosted at the Herald Sun webpage, but it is after all a blog, so I'm not sure if that deems it unreliable. Freikorp ( talk) 04:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello I am just sending this message to see if the following sources are credible. From the research I have done they all seem to be credible and reliable.
The American Journal of Psychiatry - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/
This what the website of The American Journal of Psychiatry says –
The American Journal of Psychiatry is the most widely read psychiatric journal in the world. Published monthly, it is an indispensable journal for all psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who need to stay on the cutting edge of virtually every aspect of psychiatry.
Current Dermatology reports/Springer Link - http://link.springer.com/journal/13671
The Springer link website says it provides scientific documents from Journals
Natural standard- http://www.naturalstandard.com/
The reason why I wanted to know if the above source was credible was because I made an edit to the page Omega 3 and someone reverted my edit requesting a secondary source. The link above ( http://www.naturalstandard.com/) is the secondary source I provided. Its website says it provides high quality evidence based information.
Thank you in advance for the help.-- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Academics Review [33] a reliable source? And if so, is it an appropriate source for this text (below) currently in the Jeffrey M. Smith BLP?
The source describes itself as:
However, I'm skeptical.....
Comments??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article James Files states:
Files has been implicated by various conspiracy theorists in the assassination of JFK. Citation 13 refers to http://dperry1943.com/lettermn.html by Dave Perry and citation 14 refers to http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/ by Allan Eaglesham. I am wondering if these sources are sufficient for the statements made. I have a lot of trouble with the sources in articles related to Kennedy assassination conspiracies in that a lot of the characters, theorists, and debunkers appear to be notable within that circle (i.e. they frequently reference each other in their self-published books and websites), but not outside of it. (A related discussion on the RSN may be found here.) Location ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This list and most articles linked from it are almost completely unsourced and most of them are tagged since 2007 ! Of course it's all notable. I don't see any errors but that's because I know nothing about the topic and won't be able to help much. Furthermore a good deal of the articles is written in very bad English sometimes even hard to understand. So my question is how do you usually go about such stuff ? I know there is no deadline but it's been quite some time with no progress. 80.132.87.244 ( talk) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it could be that i should take this to WP:NORN instead, if thats the case please let me know. Here it goes:
On page 15 the author of the source uses the following narrative: "That Zeno himself is a Phoenician is implied, i think, in our records". The statement it supports is not explicitly stated by the source, thank you 23x2 φ 08:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
Would it be appropriate for trimet to use info such as http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf as a source? If you read it the first paragraph is self serving. "TriMet is a national leader in providing transit service. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system its size. Weekly ridership on buses and MAX has increased for all but one year in the past 23 years. TriMet ridership has outpaced population growth and daily vehicle miles traveled for more than a decade" Then it goes on to state "Most riders (84%) are choice riders: they have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet." and then "Clean air Each weekday, MAX eliminates more than 87,000 car trips from our roads, easing traffic congestion and helping keep our air clean. That adds up to 28.6 million fewer car trips each year. TriMet’s MAX and buses combined eliminate 207,300 daily car trips, or 65 million trips each year. For each mile taken on TriMet, 53% less carbon is emitted compared to driving alone." I do not believe that 86% of people riding trimet choose to. I for one am part of the 16 percent and the bus is rough. Especially considering all the service cutbacks. That sounds like a lofty statement and I would like to see a source to back that up. So if the source is self-serving can this page be used on trimet's page? PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 09:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yahiya Emerick is a book writer. i have doubt that his book The Life and Work of Muhammad is a fiction book or academic book ? can we use this in islamic history articles? -- Espiral ( talk) 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://obamarecords.com/ a reliable source to support the contention that the purported sworn affidavit which it quotes at http://obamarecords.com/?tag=fraud-obama-affidavit-bishop-ron-mcrae-obama is not bogus? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
In an article about a living person, awards they received from the International Biographical Centre were cited as evidence of notability. Based on the Wikipedia article about this Centre, it appears to be an organization that sells "awards" to anyone who pays for them. The awards have now been deleted from the article; they included "Noblest of the World", "Outstanding People of the 20th Century," and "International Man of the Millennium." It seems clear that this outfit is not a Reliable Source, and it was suggested at the article's talk page that we should call to the attention of other Wikipedians the fact that this is not a reliable source. Is there some kind of listing, somewhere on the pedia, of sources that should not be considered reliable? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Exaro is a British investigative journalism website, apparently highly regarded - [38]. Is it a reliable source - for example in adding material to the article on Operation Fairbank? An IP is trying to add material to that page, claiming it's sourced from Exaro. Actually, it isn't - it goes way beyond what Exaro have published - but there is material freely available on the Exaro site which could be added to the article if it is deemed to be reliable. Is it? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
{{subscription required}}
after the reference to alert readers to this fact (a subscription only site is just like a book in that an effort (in this case a cost) is required to access) --
Senra (
talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In a discussion I cited " Faces of Goa, it is written by a Fulbright scholar, and the project has been supported by the foundation. [39] Is the book non-reliable because it is published by Gyan? Diffs of the discussion are [40] and [41] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation, where a citation to the Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book [49] is being questions. A sentence that explains how a gang's founder named it is being called "dubious" by another editor. First, is the source reliable? Second, is pinpointing the exact page number that sentence appears on mandatory or is it ok to use one citation and simply provide the page range that encompasses the entry covering this gang? Third, is it ok to claim an entire source is dubious simply for lack of an exact page number? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The content is being opposed by three editors: User:Byelf2007, User:Darkstar1st, and User:North8000. Byelf2007's most recent argument is that Krugman's post does not actually refer to the Austrian School of Economics (although we agree that Krugman explicitly and specifically calls it out several times by name), because since Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School's account of inflation is not accurate --- therefore, Krugman is not referring to the Austrian School, at all. Byelf contends that Krugman is talking about something else, even when Krugman specifically names the Austrian School. The basis for this argument appears to be that Byelf simply disagrees with Krugman's critique. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences [52].
This argument and edit war has been going on for 11 days now. I encourage other editors to join the discussion, which has been continually plagued by digressions, irrelevancies, and flights of fancy. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether this source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071010130228/http://www.ugle.org.uk/news/gc-englefield120907.htm
in the the Continental Freemasonry article can backs up the use of the alternate term "Irregular Freemasonry". A diff showing it's usage is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Continental_Freemasonry&diff=528363537&oldid=528362558
The quotation that's provided with the source says
The wider dispute is about the use of "Irregular Freemasonry" as an alternate term for "Continental Freemasonry". If you are interested in the wider dispute itself then I would suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Irregular_Freemasonry entry on the NPOV noticeboard, there have as yet been no outside views on this. However to avoid forum shopping, this is about the acceptability of this single citation and not the dispute on the term.
I don't believe that the quote (which is the only instance within the source that uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry") does actually make it clear that it is referring to the Liberal Masonic tradition. It says that one of the particular cases was that these lodges made "public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy". This could refer to Liberal Freemasonry - and this is one of the points of contention - but it could also apply to right wing, occultist or avowedly Christian groups - none of which are in the Continental tradition.
I've been told that the lack of a plain attribution of the term is not a problem by Blueboar and MSJapan as it must be Continental Freemasonry as the term is almost never used in any other way. No further evidence has been offered. There is also the claim that the meaning is clear for those who are Freemasons or have an understanding of it.
So is an inferred meaning understood by one party, but not by another, acceptable?
JASpencer ( talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Current Dermatology reports which is published by springer links is a relaible source? I used this source to make an edit and i want to make sure it is a reliable source.
This is the source - http://www.springer.com/medicine/dermatology/journal/13671
Thanks in advance. -- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Fox News a good secondary source for the content listed below?
Source: Workers Say Pilsen Wellness Center Director is Packing Payroll With Family Members
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2010 a Fox News investigation alleged that the Executive Director of Pilsen Wellness Center hired numerous family members to work at the agency. According to internal agency documents and interviews obtained by Fox News the director’s wife, mother, son, three brothers, four sisters and two nieces all have jobs at the agency. The investigation also revealed that two adult children of Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval are also employed by the agency. Senator Sandoval is one of several lawmakers who have provided state funding to Pilsen Wellness Center.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Francis E. Dec needs a complete overhaul in that it is built upon primary source material and other sources that are generally considered unreliable (i.e. blogs and personal websites). Given that this forum is supposed to address specific sources, I'll simply jump in.
Is http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/decvisit.html a reliable source for the following comments:
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990117002658/http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~acb/discordianism/saints.html a reliable source for the following comment:
Thanks again! - Location ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
One link, http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html , appears to be a self-published source and is cited in the article as "Kossy, Donna (1999). "Francis E. Dec, Esquire: Your Only Hope for a Future!", Kooks Museum, Schizophrenic Wing, www.book-happy.com, copyright 1999 with a 2006 addendum, consulted February 2009 — Updated online summary of the Dec chapter in Kossy's book." As such, is it a reliable source for anything? Thanks again! Location ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Source: ConsumerLab.com User Absander had been adding sections about supplement qualities into articles that is sourced around a source Consumerlab.com
Articles & diffs:
Contents: It has been noted that one editor Absander exhibited a pattern of adding ConsumerLab.com as references serially and it is my suspicion that there's a conflict of interest. Based on edit pattern, I find that the edit is focused around disseminating ConsumerLab.com's visibility more so than improving encyclopedic value. Claims are such as Consumerlab.com found Consumerlab.com's own tests (based on their proprietary testing standards) "according to tests by" when it does not in fact do testing as established by a reliable source. The notability of the company was questioned for its existence on Wikipedia, however even if they're notable enough for Wiki article, its use as WP:RS is questionable. It may receive media attention has a company that takes leads, but there's no indication that it is a reliable source to be used as a reference. Access to many of their contents require subscription payment and the use of references are quite obviously for WP:PROMO to add contents that might allow for their use rather than supporting worthwhile contents. It may order tests on products it choose, but then the method of selection or questionable and ConsumerLab.com does not appear to have recognition as a provider of scientifically accepted research data. As their test results, pass/fail criteria are based on their own proprietary system that is not generally recognized as industry benchmark or regulatory standards, the source of data is not disclosed, I find the use of this source as supporting claims on supplements is improper. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the pay-wall, half of the medical content here is supported by subscription journal articles. I have no problem with them being used in conformity with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've emailed ConsumerLab.com, in case they want to add something to the discussion. If a company representative chimes in here let's ask them for a handful of free subscriptions for some of the regulars at Wikipedia:Resource exchange, so someone here can check our article content against cited reports. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My email said
Hi. This discussion might interest you. It seems that your reports will be judged reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but I thought you might like the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, if we've missed something. If the question arises again, this discussion will probably be referred to then. Discussions are automatically archived after 2 days of inactivity.
If you would like to join the discussion, just click the [edit] button next to the section heading "ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest", and add your comment to the bottom of the "edit box" at the bottom of the page.
Regards
They have pointed me to summaries of all of their reports, including key general findings here and a description of their testing methodologies here. I have pointed them to the relevant contact here, should they wish to offer some free memberships.
Anyway, back on topic. They seem to me to be a reliable source for the quality of health and nutrition products. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the first RS/N discussion I've participated in, and I'm not sure what happens at this point - have we arrived at consensus? Do we need to summarize the arguments so far and try to determine a verdict? Dreamyshade ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is nearing closure. We don't single out individual manufacturers based on CL's reports, we use the style of language suggested by Dreamyshade above, and I'll check what we say for accuracy against the full report. Have I missed something? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The topic of the article far right is groups such as neo-nazis and klansmen. There is a dispute about the statement "Far right politics commonly includes... racialism." [53] An editor says, "misuse of sources. book citation is about hate groups, not far-right politics per se". The source says the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". [Michael C. Keith, Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, p. 38] Clive Webb writes in Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." [54]. Another editor says we cannot say that racialism is part of the ideology of klansmen and neonazis because there are racists among all political groups - the federal government for example held American citizens of Japanese ancestry in camps during the Second World War. TFD ( talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
So, yes, this is a reliable source for the article. Give me a sec to read through it to see how it is being used.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In this book we most often use three categories; right-wing, which encompasses the moderates; far-right, which includes those who are openly racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government; and extremist right, which refers to those groups that advocate violence to accomplish the goals embraced by the far right and, in many cases by the moderate right wing.
Most designations of right-wing hate groups are limited to those that are easily identifiable as activist organizations that, in the judgment of society as a whole, are causing or intend to cause blatant physical or psychological harm to that society.
Berlet and Quigley add to this "theocratic right" movement others as advocates of "regressive populism": patriot, armed militia, and white supremacy groups, the "overtly racist far right organizations" such as the "Ku Klux Klan, Chistian Patriots, racist skinheads, and neonazis and right-wing revolutionaries... promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semism, demagoguery, and scapegoating,"
OK, both of you are right. Not a cop out but makes me believe there is a compromise. Whats missing is the balance of opinion from JUST that page. That page actually says:
Dr. Jean V. Hardisty, Director of Political Research Associates, defines the principle goals of the far right politics as "white supremecy...(the rest is about wealth, capitalism, religion and family structure.)
However, the authors go on to say:
"It is important, however, not to stereotype all organizations or movements of the far right with identical aims, or to stereotype all members of those organizations with common motivations or goals.
So, my hope is the two of you can work together to find common ground here. Both have some clear concerns about the source being used. I will say one thing. The source is good and works for the article but the way it was originally written was poor and haphazard. I could make a suggestion here and advise some prose, but you two are the ones working on the article and should be able to do so with this in mind.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The OP inartfully describes the discussion on that article talk page. Which is -- should "racism" be listed as a "core principle" of the "far right." The OP on that talk page asserts that the "far right" is specifically fascist and neo-nazi, and that the far right "admires Hitler" etc.
He even says there If Collect wishes to continue his argument that racialism forms no part of the ideology of klansmen and neo-nazis then he may continue his defense there. and But one cannot be far right and not racist and Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism which has absolutely no rational connection with what I post or with any of my opinions at all. In this Universe.
I would also note that the OPs "quotes" are taken freely out of context and misrepresent the discussion there, which I find a teensy bit dishonest as a debating tactic. My statement is that "racism" is not a "core principle" since it is found in all parts of the political spectrum (and presented 8 substantial cites thereon), and I pointed out the same sources he uses also make this clear -- in fact I cited quite a few sources that "racism" is not a "defining characteristic" of the right, and that some far right militias are, in fact, fully integrated. If one looks at the lead, there is no doubt that the lead ascribes to the "far right" precisely the same attributes as are found in other parts of the "political spectrum" which TFD seems quite unwilling to accept. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: TFD shows "white supremacists" may be considered "far right." He has not shown any source for the converse - that the far right, as an entire group, is "racist" with that source. In fact, that is the core of the argument -- is the fact that the far right includes racists sufficient to say that the far right is racist as a generalization?
Collect (
talk) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll just be blunt. The source that TFD supplied simply does not support the claims that were made. End of story. Seriously. There seems to be a lot of "not seeing whats there" and cherry picking going on with that source.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Cited (see reflist) in Kathy Kelly to support
The citation was deleted with the edit summary "not RS". -- Lexein ( talk) 04:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
ncronline.org - never discussed here before. I'm asking because, as above, the facts claimed seem unremarkable. Cited in Kathy Kelly to support this:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | → | Archive 145 |
Her Spanish colleague Darío Fernández-Morera takes the opposite view, arguing that "Islamic Spain was not a model of multicultural harmony. Andalusia was beset by religious, political, and racial conflicts controlled in the best of times only by the application of tyrannical force (by its rulers)
saying; (a source from an agenda-based organization does not refute real sources) [1] I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored [2] again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) [3] The claim is contrary to the poets claim just above but the article is referenced and I will leave it to user Roscelese and others to make a case J8079s ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction; that was considerate, and I thank you. I don't actually read that it was "soundly rejected": I see one editor saying, "Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of [an article's author] or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute," while another editor says, "Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required." No other editors commented after this, so it reads as if there was a stalemate and no consensus to reject it.
I do see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP that, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do we know for sure it's not peer-reviewed? I'm not sure where the reputation of the publisher as having poor fact-checking and quality is coming from. I can see there's disagreement with its political stance — and I'm no conservative, so I understand and I know it's a principled disagreement. Still, it sounds as if one wants to reject this article because of the publication's politics. What do other editors think? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is WP:reliable, the scholar holds a post at Harvard university (see Darío Fernández-Morera). The opposition to it seems to be driven mainly from ideological reasons (allegedly "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" for some taste as if this were a valid reason for exclusion even if true). His critical stance on the "tolerance" of Al-Andalus is anyway echoed by several colleagues, so this discussion is pretty moot: there are other scholarly sources in Spanish which share his view and which can be quoted in support. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Kmhkmh, your personal view of a "formally" reliable source has, I am afraid, no basis whatsoever in the WP guidelines - unless you can cite them to support your interpretation. Likewise Stephan theorizing along the lines of "not a reliable source in general". Since WP:SOURCES holds that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources and since it has been now established that The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed, it is a reliable source, and among the most reliable sources at that. This is nothing which can be negotiated against the guidelines.
As for Fernández-Morera's scholarly background as a literary professor, you make it sound a bit as if he were daring to talk about topics as remote as the pleistocene or Japanese history. As it is, his core research interest is the Spanish Golden Age and relations to Islam. If WP were to follow your formal criteria of inclusion, it would have to remove the most notable Western scholar on Chinese technology Joseph Needham, to give but one example, as he was actually a biochemist by profession, and never received any academic training in history or sinology. Despite this, he is widely cited and rightly so.
Tenebrae has rightly pointed out how the constant changing of goalposts evident in the discussion rather points to an underlying WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. Look, it is not like Fernández-Morera is alone in his criticism of the retroconcept of convivencia. Far from it, although he is quite outspoken, he is only one of many scholars sharing such a view. David Nirenberg, Richard A. Fletcher and Bat Ye'or ( The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) all have attacked the idea of a "tolerant" Andalusian society on varying grounds. Islam never knew nor wanted tolerance in the modern sense but organized its societies and non-Muslim subjects on the basis of the dhimmi hierarchy which is nothing but a two-class system. Fernández-Morera says only as much.
So, instead of losing ourselves in a proxy debate about the alleged lack of reliability, I volunteer to gather more scholarly, reliable literature in the vein of Fernández-Morera. By doing this we show that he is not an eccentric loner as some editors (like to) portray him, but actually representative of a school of thought critical of what one can call the tolerance myth; we do this of course on the basis of WP:WEIGHT which requires us that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be proportionately included in the article. Since his article is somewhat polemic as he seemed to feel the need to address particularly the laymen, I readily agree to put him at the more radical end of criticism in an attempt to move on. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS both say that reliability can reside with the author, rather than the publication. Journals don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, but regardless of that, we can focus on the author, not the journal, per IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
So the question is: can Darío Fernández-Morera, Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University, be regarded as authoritative in relation to the history of Islamic Spain and "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise"? That boils down to whether he has been published before about these issues by independent publishers, per the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS. If he has been published before in this field, then his essay can be used as a source.
If (a) this is the first time he has written about this topic, and (b) he chose to make his only appearance on it in a journal that some say is not an RS, and given that (c) his qualifications (PhD Harvard, comparative literature) are only indirectly related, then no. (Another factor would be what his PhD thesis was on; if it was related to Islamic Spain, that would change things.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again I've come up against the use of a CDP map as an authority for saying that some location is within a certain town. In this case, the claim is that the Howard County Public School System is located in Columbia, Maryland (see this edit for an example). The truth is that the board of education buildings sit on a state road just outside Columbia and are not part of the "new town" land (i.e., they aren't taken from land that the Rouse Company owned and applied it CA covenants to). The post office gives the offices an Ellicott City, Maryland zip code, which is equally misleading.
Howard County, Maryland has no incorporated areas, so truly definitive boundaries for any community are impossible—except in the case of Columbia, because its boundaries are generally bounded by what land the Columbia Association controls through covenants. The Columbia CDP is much larger than that area, and incorporates large areas which anyone who actually lives there never considered part of Columbia (e.g. they simply ignore the town of Clarksville, Maryland and assign all of that area to Columbia). This has led to a lot of implication, particularly in the article on the town itself, that various things are in the town of Columbia proper when they actually are not. All of the former Simpsonville, Maryland surroundings were given Columbia zip codes, but that area lies outside of and preexisted the new town. Clarksville is a somewhat distinct place with its own zip code.
CDPs are lines drawn for statistical collection convenience, because the census has to say that everyone is somewhere. They shouldn't be treated as if they were municipal boundaries. My parents' house appears, from the CDP maps, to lie in Scaggsville, Maryland, but that is incorrect; in fact as far back as I can recall there's never even been a post office for the town. The post office calls the area Laurel, Maryland although it lies outside that city's incorporated limits. I would like to see this use of the CDP maps deprecated. Mangoe ( talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to post here again, but I've seen another problem come up a few times, where a simple definition or etymology of a word is tagged as needing a source. I know Wikipedia is supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources, but for simple dictionary definitions is a literal dictionary definition not enough? elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Good day, I hope this is the right place to ask, but I would like to verify whether YouTube videos of this old TV show (posted by apparently anonymous individuals and not an official broadcaster's account) can be: 1) citations for a table of episode casting and 2) listed as a channel listing in the External Links section? Most of these videos are of entire episodes of the show. I was of the opinion that such is a copyright violation (regardless of the fact that the copyright owner has clearly not taken efforts to enforce their copyright)? I'm sorry if this has been asked/resolved before; I was unable to find any policy that directly speaks to this. DP76764 ( Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
In a recent A-Clase review, the article School of Advanced Military Studies was denied an A rating because of use of a PhD dissertation. The final comments in the discussion, which can found here, were:
To me, that logic would seem to run against WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community", and "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."
I am trying to get a non-copyrighted version of the dissertation and upload it to wikisource so that the community can better judge the work. However, I wanted to start a discussion concerning the use of the dissertation in the article. I asked for a WP:GA review, so I am hoping to come to a consensus on the use of the dissertation and how that should effect the articles quality rating. Thanks. Casprings ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
On the article Bolshevik, two editors (one subsequently blocked as a sock of the persistent Runtshit vandal) have repeatedly to the lead added a questionable assertion, sourced to an article by Steven Plaut in Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology", subsequently amended to "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism had strong features of theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually described Bolshevism as "a theology"; rather that, in the early days, it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist ( Steven Plaut). Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on this board, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"; "FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would recommend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people.". To my considerable surprise, Plaut himself has never been discussed here, though there have been several discussions about use of his opinions at WP:BLPN, where the consensus appears to be not to use him: "Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer."; "Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia.".
My question is, should we allow the inclusion in this article of such an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim? RolandR ( talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it not blatantly obvious that the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinian News Agency aren't reliable for claims of fact regarding occurrences of vandalism in the West Bank? See, for example, this press release, which is currently citation #48 in said article.
24.177.121.29 ( talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I regret that I have been involved in a content dispute with another editor, regarding which genres to include in the [Misha B]] info box. Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got.
Most sources we have point to including soul music in her genres They may not be the best sources but they are independent and neutral and wide variety sources listed below....are they good enough?
http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y
http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA
http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags
http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410
http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html
The sources covering her other genres like R&B are weaker, so if these are not good enough for 'Soul' then maybe all her genres ought to be removed.
See (sorry these are not neat Wikipedia internal links...i forget)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B ... Genre Changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zoeblackmore_reported_by_User:Jennie--x_.28Result:_.29.....
Zoebuggie☺
whispers 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi fellow members, can you tell me if this website is a reliable source? My bait is it being a WP:SPS but I would want to have a better POV from you guys. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to expand the Far-left politics article with some parties, movements and people described as far left on the political spectrum. I had previously noted how the article has expanded and then contracted repeatedly and was going nowhere. I used Google Book and searched for far left, radical left and extreme left. However my additions excluded but I am not sure which policy or guideline I am breaching. The reason provided was that while my statements are supported they aren't discussing the same topic as the article. The claim is asserted without providing any proof the topics aren't the same. The implication being that they aren't reliable. Could someone provide a policy page or guideline which explains why my additions should not stay? - Shiftchange ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a debate at Talk:Prometheus (film) in regards to using this Forbes article.
In the Forbes article, scientists give their opinions on certain scenarios in the film Prometheus.
I'd appreciate some views on whether it is reliable for the claim that that scientists have "criticised the science" in the movie. On one hand this is a Forbes article which is generally considered an RS, on the other the piece starts with "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions", which suggests that some of the scientists may not have actually watched the film itself.
Is this article appropriate for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film" even though the article implies they may have not watched it, or is the fact it is a Forbes article good enough? Betty Logan ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Autism Speaks ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Source: "Autism Speaks – Consider the Facts" (PDF). Autistic Self Advocacy Network (Flyer). Autistic Self Advocacy Network. May 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
Statement: Autism Speaks is often criticized by autism rights advocates including many autistic people who claim that it excludes autistic people from leadership positions, uses stigmatizing rhetoric, and focuses on issues that are not relevant to the autistic community.
Is it inappropriate to source claims that autism rights advocates/self-advocates make to an autistic rights/self-advocacy group? Would sources from multiple autism rights groups be better? - Purplewowies ( talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I am married to Billy Brandt and I have noticed that his ex's who have issues continue to change his biography to untrue information. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsBillyBrandt ( talk • contribs)
Zad
68
14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.
Here are the sources:
Justiciero1811 ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has a section [14] sourced to a PDF [15] from the UN which is hosted on a blog on the international law bureau website. Does this fall foul of WP:PRIMARY? It is currently used as a source on information about BLP's. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Are the following secondary sources good sources for the content listed below?
Source: Youth Connection charter set to fire teachers, union cries foul
Source: Chicago Charter Teachers Fight for Their Jobs, And a Union
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2011 the teachers at Latino Youth High School formed a union with the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS) in response to what they believed to be administrative mismanagement of the school. Although the union was certified by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board made clear that charter schools are public schools and are allowed to unionize under Illinois state law the administration of Pilsen Wellness Center has refused to negotiate with the school’s teachers.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 05:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source from music reviews? I was removing nonprofessional reviews of some music articles, and was wondering if this one is appropriate to stay or not. The website: Chronicles of Chaos. Thanks. The1337gamer ( talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an expert, Michel Laurin ( talk · contribs), who wants to add paleontology content to the encyclopedia. He needs guidance regarding how we decide which current hypotheses to include in our articles. In medicine it's easy: we generally rely on scholarly reviews and textbooks. In the more poorly-funded sciences, where an important topic may languish for a decade or more between reviews, how do we best serve our readers? Do we wait the ten or fifteen years, or rely on number of citations and article talk page consensus?
The editor has published in the field, and has had WP:COI explained.
What is the status of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? Does it reflect our usual practice in that area? If so, should we point Michel Laurin there? If so, should it be upgraded to guideline status?
The background is at User talk:Michel Laurin#Sources in medicine and paleontology. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Peter Brown ( talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear opinions about punknews.org [16] as a reliable source. I'm a little uncomfortable with the writers doing articles under psuedonyms (please spare me the historical examples, just because someone notable did it doesn't mean it's ok across the board) and the pro-am feel of the site, but I could be wrong. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The following source: [17]
Is the reason for some contention on the article Huey P. Newton: [18]
There is also substantial discussion on the Talk page
This is the text:
Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality. [1] [2] [3]
As outlined in my comments on the talk page, this reference seems to have some POV issues, some WP:V issues, WP:PSTS issues, and does not appear necessary to support the statement, as other references are there. However, this position appears contentious, so I would appreciate some guidance on whether this source should be included or not.
Studylight.org is a creationist site affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research. [19], [20](which offers courses run by the ICR [21]. I ran into this at Thomas Chalmers where I discovered that the link that I thought would take me to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition took me instead to studylight.org. It seems to be being used extensively as a source [22] and if I'm right needs to be added to the cleanup list at the top of this page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)I fixed the broken link at the article, check it out now.
Zad
68
13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Wikipedia is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the following secondary source a good source for the content listed below? All the relevant information is taken from Chapter One, Introduction and Background - Report Conclusions, pg. 1.
Source: MANAGEMENT AUDIT PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2008 a special audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General for the state of Illinois uncovered a number of expenditures, which were inappropriately charged to State programs at taxpayer expense and sometimes without documentation. Additionally, the auditor discovered that a third of employees did not have documentation to prove they were qualified for their positions. At the time of the audit 48 percent of the files also lacked documentation on performance appraisals.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Total Immersion includes the following statement:
The three citations point to webpages: [1] http://www.triathlonsummit.com/index1.html, [2] http://www.xtri.com/all-articles/detail/284-itemId.511710350.html, and [3] http://www.latalkradio.com/Simon.php . Are these links sufficient to support the assertion in the statement? Thanks! Location ( talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: [25] I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grand master 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.
So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:
While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.
Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896
Grand master 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).
Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
В своем подходе к этногенезу армянского народа Еремян исходил из автохтонистской концепции, начинал историю армян с Хайасы и доказывал, что их предки не имели никакого отношения к Фригии. С этой точки зрения, мушки не представляли для него никакой ценности, и он щедро отдавал их грузинам.
...
Иными словами, по концепции Еремяна, армяне являлись безусловными автохтонами на Армянском нагорье; они были носителями государственного начала с рубежа VII-VI вв. до н.э. и являлись как бы прямыми преемниками Урарту; к этому времени они ассимилировали все остальное население бывшего Урарту, которое перешло на армянский язык. Тем самым, формирование армянского народа и возникновение армянской государственности резко отодвигалось в глубь веков и предшествовало возникновению Персидской державы. С этой точки зрения, персы оказывались захватчиками, нарушившими естественный ход этнополитической истории армян. Положение улучшилось лишь во II в. до н.э., когда арменизация продолжилась, охватив Араратскую долину и более северные территории. Еремян настаивал на том, что к II - I вв. до н.э. процесс этногенеза завершился и сложилась Великая Армения с одним народом и одним языком (Еремян, 1951. С. 49-50).
I would have made this request regardless of Goghtn. We discussed ASE a lot at various articles, and never reached any consensus. This is why I want the community to express their opinion about this source. Grand master 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The way I read it, we have two editors here conscientiously defending very reasonable positions. I think this is basically a difficult balancing decision for the two of your to work out, but here are some pointers:-
In the 1960s too, social science publications in Armenia and Azerbaijan did refer to the border conflict between them over N-K. In general, historians whose articles were published in a journal were considered "winners", which also meant that their national views did not contradict the general Party line. As such, they became the 'gatekeepers' of their national past. Indeed, different versions of the histories of nations and territories appeared in national historiographies. For example, Armenian historians in the Armenian Encyclopedia emphasized the Armenian myth regarding the contested territories of N-K and Nakhichevan. Only a short explanation was devoted to the existence of the Azerbaijanis in these territories. A short column referred to Azerbaijani music in Nakhichevan without praising the wise leadership of the Azerbaijani Communist authorities. Instead, the success of the flowering of Azerbaijani music was accredited to the 'Soviet era', meaning after 1922.
No one here is contesting the extremely powerful influence of Soviet propaganda on topics from the modern period, but to claim that the ASE is notable and yet unreliable at the same time is perplexing. There is a certain unevenness to an encyclopedia when its scope consists of everything from Armenian poets executed by Stalin in the 1930s to geographic regions from the ancient and medieval periods, which is where the ASE is mostly cited. Its individual authors consisted of modern historians, forced to adhere to the party line, but many of them were also widely respected outside of the Soviet Union (see the names I mention above). I don't know what Nagorno-Karabakh "myth" Geukjian is specifically referring to, but it seems to me that too wide a brush cannot be applied to all articles and entries. We have to evaluate a source and judge its appropriate for a certain article as it comes and goes. If a strong enough argument is made against its usage, only then it can be excluded.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate is full of smoke and mirror and running in circles:
If the answer to the above three questions is "no", then what the hell are people blabbering about? Provide some hard evidences (like providing author names, ISBN numbers and poll surveys) and no more frigging propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate please! Jim101 ( talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This whole conversation is getting out of hand since it revolves around a very strong aversion found exclusively in Azerbaijan that tries to deny the presence of Armenians in the medieval and ancient periods. The controversy surrounding the examples cited by Grandmaster are fabricated by himself entirely and it's unfortunate that his argument is receiving more attention than is truly warranted. All the information cited in those three articles are based on primary sources, i.e., chronicles and histories written primarily from the fifth to twelfth centuries and if an editor truly had the time, they could dust off the published volumes from libraries and cited the works themselves. But then someone else would find another excuse to try to exclude the information – the source being in a language other than English, the source being unreliable, or the editor being accused of original research by reading too much into a source. I say this because I have had to deal with these tired tactics because some editors (and readers) are unsettled by the fact that their history does not quite match that found on Wikipedia, for which they must then rectify. I can name the primary sources for each of the three examples given (1. Movses Kaghankatvatsi's History of the Caucasian Albanians; 2. and 3. Anania Shirakatsi's Geography). If a statement is in wanting of more citations the appropriate tag should be added, but unless compelling evidence can be shown that the ASE is seriously mistaken in regards to a certain topic or article, this conversation is much ado about nothing.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Many articles use this unreliable source. Erowid is a database that collects primary sources from a number of different sources without attribution. It is self run. It itself accepts contributions and works from sources which we consider unreliable. It will take a lot of personpower to remove all the sources. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on Aaliyah (album) in my sandbox and wanted to make sure if the blog YouKnowIGotSoul, specifically this interview of those involved in the album, would be acceptable if I nominate the article for FA. I came across it after looking through clearly reliable sources such as this LAtimes article referencing the source in question. Just want to be sure before I use any of it at my sandbox, as the actual Wikipedia article on this album is a mess and happens to have it incorporated, among other blogs. Dan56 ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor is, among other changes, adding information to the page Serama based off some personal sites and a forum: [28] [29] [30] [31]. This has been going on for awhile, with various editors and IPs, and I have posted on the talkpage at Talk:Serama#Early Breeders section explaining our sourcing policy with links. The editor who is repeatedly adding information with those sources says they are reliable "as has first hand experience seeing the breed both in Malaysia and here." Can I get further opinions on whether these sources are reliable? Thanks, CMD ( talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Is the following source, [32] reliable for this statement, which will be added to the 'controversies' section of the article Council for Christian Education in Schools: "The organisation attracted criticism for replacing Christmas carols at school Christmas concerts with songs that have been described as "creationist anthems"." I note the author is a columnist from the Herald sun, and this article is hosted at the Herald Sun webpage, but it is after all a blog, so I'm not sure if that deems it unreliable. Freikorp ( talk) 04:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello I am just sending this message to see if the following sources are credible. From the research I have done they all seem to be credible and reliable.
The American Journal of Psychiatry - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/
This what the website of The American Journal of Psychiatry says –
The American Journal of Psychiatry is the most widely read psychiatric journal in the world. Published monthly, it is an indispensable journal for all psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who need to stay on the cutting edge of virtually every aspect of psychiatry.
Current Dermatology reports/Springer Link - http://link.springer.com/journal/13671
The Springer link website says it provides scientific documents from Journals
Natural standard- http://www.naturalstandard.com/
The reason why I wanted to know if the above source was credible was because I made an edit to the page Omega 3 and someone reverted my edit requesting a secondary source. The link above ( http://www.naturalstandard.com/) is the secondary source I provided. Its website says it provides high quality evidence based information.
Thank you in advance for the help.-- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Academics Review [33] a reliable source? And if so, is it an appropriate source for this text (below) currently in the Jeffrey M. Smith BLP?
The source describes itself as:
However, I'm skeptical.....
Comments??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article James Files states:
Files has been implicated by various conspiracy theorists in the assassination of JFK. Citation 13 refers to http://dperry1943.com/lettermn.html by Dave Perry and citation 14 refers to http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/ by Allan Eaglesham. I am wondering if these sources are sufficient for the statements made. I have a lot of trouble with the sources in articles related to Kennedy assassination conspiracies in that a lot of the characters, theorists, and debunkers appear to be notable within that circle (i.e. they frequently reference each other in their self-published books and websites), but not outside of it. (A related discussion on the RSN may be found here.) Location ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This list and most articles linked from it are almost completely unsourced and most of them are tagged since 2007 ! Of course it's all notable. I don't see any errors but that's because I know nothing about the topic and won't be able to help much. Furthermore a good deal of the articles is written in very bad English sometimes even hard to understand. So my question is how do you usually go about such stuff ? I know there is no deadline but it's been quite some time with no progress. 80.132.87.244 ( talk) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it could be that i should take this to WP:NORN instead, if thats the case please let me know. Here it goes:
On page 15 the author of the source uses the following narrative: "That Zeno himself is a Phoenician is implied, i think, in our records". The statement it supports is not explicitly stated by the source, thank you 23x2 φ 08:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
Would it be appropriate for trimet to use info such as http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf as a source? If you read it the first paragraph is self serving. "TriMet is a national leader in providing transit service. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system its size. Weekly ridership on buses and MAX has increased for all but one year in the past 23 years. TriMet ridership has outpaced population growth and daily vehicle miles traveled for more than a decade" Then it goes on to state "Most riders (84%) are choice riders: they have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet." and then "Clean air Each weekday, MAX eliminates more than 87,000 car trips from our roads, easing traffic congestion and helping keep our air clean. That adds up to 28.6 million fewer car trips each year. TriMet’s MAX and buses combined eliminate 207,300 daily car trips, or 65 million trips each year. For each mile taken on TriMet, 53% less carbon is emitted compared to driving alone." I do not believe that 86% of people riding trimet choose to. I for one am part of the 16 percent and the bus is rough. Especially considering all the service cutbacks. That sounds like a lofty statement and I would like to see a source to back that up. So if the source is self-serving can this page be used on trimet's page? PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 09:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yahiya Emerick is a book writer. i have doubt that his book The Life and Work of Muhammad is a fiction book or academic book ? can we use this in islamic history articles? -- Espiral ( talk) 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://obamarecords.com/ a reliable source to support the contention that the purported sworn affidavit which it quotes at http://obamarecords.com/?tag=fraud-obama-affidavit-bishop-ron-mcrae-obama is not bogus? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
In an article about a living person, awards they received from the International Biographical Centre were cited as evidence of notability. Based on the Wikipedia article about this Centre, it appears to be an organization that sells "awards" to anyone who pays for them. The awards have now been deleted from the article; they included "Noblest of the World", "Outstanding People of the 20th Century," and "International Man of the Millennium." It seems clear that this outfit is not a Reliable Source, and it was suggested at the article's talk page that we should call to the attention of other Wikipedians the fact that this is not a reliable source. Is there some kind of listing, somewhere on the pedia, of sources that should not be considered reliable? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Exaro is a British investigative journalism website, apparently highly regarded - [38]. Is it a reliable source - for example in adding material to the article on Operation Fairbank? An IP is trying to add material to that page, claiming it's sourced from Exaro. Actually, it isn't - it goes way beyond what Exaro have published - but there is material freely available on the Exaro site which could be added to the article if it is deemed to be reliable. Is it? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
{{subscription required}}
after the reference to alert readers to this fact (a subscription only site is just like a book in that an effort (in this case a cost) is required to access) --
Senra (
talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In a discussion I cited " Faces of Goa, it is written by a Fulbright scholar, and the project has been supported by the foundation. [39] Is the book non-reliable because it is published by Gyan? Diffs of the discussion are [40] and [41] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation, where a citation to the Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book [49] is being questions. A sentence that explains how a gang's founder named it is being called "dubious" by another editor. First, is the source reliable? Second, is pinpointing the exact page number that sentence appears on mandatory or is it ok to use one citation and simply provide the page range that encompasses the entry covering this gang? Third, is it ok to claim an entire source is dubious simply for lack of an exact page number? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The content is being opposed by three editors: User:Byelf2007, User:Darkstar1st, and User:North8000. Byelf2007's most recent argument is that Krugman's post does not actually refer to the Austrian School of Economics (although we agree that Krugman explicitly and specifically calls it out several times by name), because since Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School's account of inflation is not accurate --- therefore, Krugman is not referring to the Austrian School, at all. Byelf contends that Krugman is talking about something else, even when Krugman specifically names the Austrian School. The basis for this argument appears to be that Byelf simply disagrees with Krugman's critique. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences [52].
This argument and edit war has been going on for 11 days now. I encourage other editors to join the discussion, which has been continually plagued by digressions, irrelevancies, and flights of fancy. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether this source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071010130228/http://www.ugle.org.uk/news/gc-englefield120907.htm
in the the Continental Freemasonry article can backs up the use of the alternate term "Irregular Freemasonry". A diff showing it's usage is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Continental_Freemasonry&diff=528363537&oldid=528362558
The quotation that's provided with the source says
The wider dispute is about the use of "Irregular Freemasonry" as an alternate term for "Continental Freemasonry". If you are interested in the wider dispute itself then I would suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Irregular_Freemasonry entry on the NPOV noticeboard, there have as yet been no outside views on this. However to avoid forum shopping, this is about the acceptability of this single citation and not the dispute on the term.
I don't believe that the quote (which is the only instance within the source that uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry") does actually make it clear that it is referring to the Liberal Masonic tradition. It says that one of the particular cases was that these lodges made "public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy". This could refer to Liberal Freemasonry - and this is one of the points of contention - but it could also apply to right wing, occultist or avowedly Christian groups - none of which are in the Continental tradition.
I've been told that the lack of a plain attribution of the term is not a problem by Blueboar and MSJapan as it must be Continental Freemasonry as the term is almost never used in any other way. No further evidence has been offered. There is also the claim that the meaning is clear for those who are Freemasons or have an understanding of it.
So is an inferred meaning understood by one party, but not by another, acceptable?
JASpencer ( talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Current Dermatology reports which is published by springer links is a relaible source? I used this source to make an edit and i want to make sure it is a reliable source.
This is the source - http://www.springer.com/medicine/dermatology/journal/13671
Thanks in advance. -- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Fox News a good secondary source for the content listed below?
Source: Workers Say Pilsen Wellness Center Director is Packing Payroll With Family Members
Article: Pilsen Wellness Center
Content:
In 2010 a Fox News investigation alleged that the Executive Director of Pilsen Wellness Center hired numerous family members to work at the agency. According to internal agency documents and interviews obtained by Fox News the director’s wife, mother, son, three brothers, four sisters and two nieces all have jobs at the agency. The investigation also revealed that two adult children of Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval are also employed by the agency. Senator Sandoval is one of several lawmakers who have provided state funding to Pilsen Wellness Center.
Kausticgirl ( talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Francis E. Dec needs a complete overhaul in that it is built upon primary source material and other sources that are generally considered unreliable (i.e. blogs and personal websites). Given that this forum is supposed to address specific sources, I'll simply jump in.
Is http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/decvisit.html a reliable source for the following comments:
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990117002658/http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~acb/discordianism/saints.html a reliable source for the following comment:
Thanks again! - Location ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
One link, http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html , appears to be a self-published source and is cited in the article as "Kossy, Donna (1999). "Francis E. Dec, Esquire: Your Only Hope for a Future!", Kooks Museum, Schizophrenic Wing, www.book-happy.com, copyright 1999 with a 2006 addendum, consulted February 2009 — Updated online summary of the Dec chapter in Kossy's book." As such, is it a reliable source for anything? Thanks again! Location ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Source: ConsumerLab.com User Absander had been adding sections about supplement qualities into articles that is sourced around a source Consumerlab.com
Articles & diffs:
Contents: It has been noted that one editor Absander exhibited a pattern of adding ConsumerLab.com as references serially and it is my suspicion that there's a conflict of interest. Based on edit pattern, I find that the edit is focused around disseminating ConsumerLab.com's visibility more so than improving encyclopedic value. Claims are such as Consumerlab.com found Consumerlab.com's own tests (based on their proprietary testing standards) "according to tests by" when it does not in fact do testing as established by a reliable source. The notability of the company was questioned for its existence on Wikipedia, however even if they're notable enough for Wiki article, its use as WP:RS is questionable. It may receive media attention has a company that takes leads, but there's no indication that it is a reliable source to be used as a reference. Access to many of their contents require subscription payment and the use of references are quite obviously for WP:PROMO to add contents that might allow for their use rather than supporting worthwhile contents. It may order tests on products it choose, but then the method of selection or questionable and ConsumerLab.com does not appear to have recognition as a provider of scientifically accepted research data. As their test results, pass/fail criteria are based on their own proprietary system that is not generally recognized as industry benchmark or regulatory standards, the source of data is not disclosed, I find the use of this source as supporting claims on supplements is improper. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the pay-wall, half of the medical content here is supported by subscription journal articles. I have no problem with them being used in conformity with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've emailed ConsumerLab.com, in case they want to add something to the discussion. If a company representative chimes in here let's ask them for a handful of free subscriptions for some of the regulars at Wikipedia:Resource exchange, so someone here can check our article content against cited reports. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My email said
Hi. This discussion might interest you. It seems that your reports will be judged reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but I thought you might like the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, if we've missed something. If the question arises again, this discussion will probably be referred to then. Discussions are automatically archived after 2 days of inactivity.
If you would like to join the discussion, just click the [edit] button next to the section heading "ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest", and add your comment to the bottom of the "edit box" at the bottom of the page.
Regards
They have pointed me to summaries of all of their reports, including key general findings here and a description of their testing methodologies here. I have pointed them to the relevant contact here, should they wish to offer some free memberships.
Anyway, back on topic. They seem to me to be a reliable source for the quality of health and nutrition products. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the first RS/N discussion I've participated in, and I'm not sure what happens at this point - have we arrived at consensus? Do we need to summarize the arguments so far and try to determine a verdict? Dreamyshade ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is nearing closure. We don't single out individual manufacturers based on CL's reports, we use the style of language suggested by Dreamyshade above, and I'll check what we say for accuracy against the full report. Have I missed something? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The topic of the article far right is groups such as neo-nazis and klansmen. There is a dispute about the statement "Far right politics commonly includes... racialism." [53] An editor says, "misuse of sources. book citation is about hate groups, not far-right politics per se". The source says the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". [Michael C. Keith, Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, p. 38] Clive Webb writes in Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." [54]. Another editor says we cannot say that racialism is part of the ideology of klansmen and neonazis because there are racists among all political groups - the federal government for example held American citizens of Japanese ancestry in camps during the Second World War. TFD ( talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
So, yes, this is a reliable source for the article. Give me a sec to read through it to see how it is being used.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In this book we most often use three categories; right-wing, which encompasses the moderates; far-right, which includes those who are openly racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government; and extremist right, which refers to those groups that advocate violence to accomplish the goals embraced by the far right and, in many cases by the moderate right wing.
Most designations of right-wing hate groups are limited to those that are easily identifiable as activist organizations that, in the judgment of society as a whole, are causing or intend to cause blatant physical or psychological harm to that society.
Berlet and Quigley add to this "theocratic right" movement others as advocates of "regressive populism": patriot, armed militia, and white supremacy groups, the "overtly racist far right organizations" such as the "Ku Klux Klan, Chistian Patriots, racist skinheads, and neonazis and right-wing revolutionaries... promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semism, demagoguery, and scapegoating,"
OK, both of you are right. Not a cop out but makes me believe there is a compromise. Whats missing is the balance of opinion from JUST that page. That page actually says:
Dr. Jean V. Hardisty, Director of Political Research Associates, defines the principle goals of the far right politics as "white supremecy...(the rest is about wealth, capitalism, religion and family structure.)
However, the authors go on to say:
"It is important, however, not to stereotype all organizations or movements of the far right with identical aims, or to stereotype all members of those organizations with common motivations or goals.
So, my hope is the two of you can work together to find common ground here. Both have some clear concerns about the source being used. I will say one thing. The source is good and works for the article but the way it was originally written was poor and haphazard. I could make a suggestion here and advise some prose, but you two are the ones working on the article and should be able to do so with this in mind.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The OP inartfully describes the discussion on that article talk page. Which is -- should "racism" be listed as a "core principle" of the "far right." The OP on that talk page asserts that the "far right" is specifically fascist and neo-nazi, and that the far right "admires Hitler" etc.
He even says there If Collect wishes to continue his argument that racialism forms no part of the ideology of klansmen and neo-nazis then he may continue his defense there. and But one cannot be far right and not racist and Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism which has absolutely no rational connection with what I post or with any of my opinions at all. In this Universe.
I would also note that the OPs "quotes" are taken freely out of context and misrepresent the discussion there, which I find a teensy bit dishonest as a debating tactic. My statement is that "racism" is not a "core principle" since it is found in all parts of the political spectrum (and presented 8 substantial cites thereon), and I pointed out the same sources he uses also make this clear -- in fact I cited quite a few sources that "racism" is not a "defining characteristic" of the right, and that some far right militias are, in fact, fully integrated. If one looks at the lead, there is no doubt that the lead ascribes to the "far right" precisely the same attributes as are found in other parts of the "political spectrum" which TFD seems quite unwilling to accept. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: TFD shows "white supremacists" may be considered "far right." He has not shown any source for the converse - that the far right, as an entire group, is "racist" with that source. In fact, that is the core of the argument -- is the fact that the far right includes racists sufficient to say that the far right is racist as a generalization?
Collect (
talk) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll just be blunt. The source that TFD supplied simply does not support the claims that were made. End of story. Seriously. There seems to be a lot of "not seeing whats there" and cherry picking going on with that source.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Cited (see reflist) in Kathy Kelly to support
The citation was deleted with the edit summary "not RS". -- Lexein ( talk) 04:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
ncronline.org - never discussed here before. I'm asking because, as above, the facts claimed seem unremarkable. Cited in Kathy Kelly to support this: