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 235 | ← | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | Archive 243 | → | Archive 245 |
An editor has removed all traces of State of Terror from an article I recently created: 1946 British Embassy bombing. Per this discussion the best "rationale" the editor had for removing the book was because the author plays the violin. The book has a publisher; it is not self-published and bases its research on documents from the time period. Because of 1RR, I would appreciate if we can clear this up swiftly and someone can help with reverting the editor. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
taught music in Gaza for two years while writing the book, per the book
You don’t graduate from the Juilliard School by being mediocre. He is a writer, not only a violinist and cartographic historian. I.e.
How has it been reviewed?
An independent scholar, he spent years mining the British National Archives at Kew. His book is based primarily on declassified British documents covering the British Palestine Mandate (officially 1923-48; de facto 1920-48) through the 1948 war and thereafter.
’vitriolic’ ‘anti-Isrraeli’. Relying primarily on an array of hostile British government sources to bolster his indictment, Suárez provides a tedious recounting of every Irgun and Lehi attack during and after the World War II years. It seems never to occur to him that his primary source base might have had an anti-Zionist bias.
Note that Auerbach, a professional historian, provides not one note challenging any one of Suarez’s sources. Inbdeed, clumsily for an historian, he blames Suarez's archival evidence as 'hostile' to Zionism and therefore invalid. (sigh) He admits it is based on an exhaustive account of Irgun and Lehi terroristic assaults in British government archives, but protests that reading this vast array of incidents is tedious. Like saying that reading any of the numerous historiographies of Israeli or Jewish suffering at the hands of terrorists or regimes is ‘tedious’. It is a virulent dismissal based on distaste, on trying to skew the author’s interpretation of a phenomenon that is largely missing from the standard Zionist narrative. Auerbach wrote a book (Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel 2009) sympathetic to a settler group in Hebron most sources state is one of the most virulently anti-Arab movements of settlement in the West Bank.
The politically violent orientation of two Jewish organizations operating in mandated Palestine is the focus of State Terror. Suarez, a writer and musician, based in London strains credulity by taking the obviously odious activities of the Irgun and Lehi, aka Stern Gang, and equating them to the overall effort of the Jewish Agency in Palestine to seek and work for an independent Jewish state. Each attack by these two focused groups is highlighted with graphic exaggeration in an attempt to sour the entire Zionist enterprise. There is a contribution to be credited, namely the documentation of some number of incidents during the mandate period, supported by a wealth of British archival material, however without consultation with the relevant Irgun and Lehi archival outlets. This is a clear and intense attempt to delegitimize Zionist ideology and in doing so change the traditional historiographic interpretation on the creation of Israel. The author would have the reader consider that there has been a pattern of settler colonialism qua imperialism in place. Some will view this work as a polemic while others can reach a reasonable conclusion of revisionist historical interpretation.
No details of errors, but a balanced snippet overview. There's nothing wrong with revisionist readings of history: it's what all progress in scholarship does.
A tour de force, based on diligent archival research that looks boldly at the impact of Zionism on Palestine and its people in the first part of the 20th century. The book is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine.
This is archival history that has been intentionally forced down the memory hole – by Zionist organisations, by Israel and by British officials – for very good reason. It risks reminding us that Israel emerged out of an unholy alliance between, on the one hand, British anti-semites and colonial officials and, on the other, Jewish ethnic supremacists who had adopted for themselves the ugly ideology of Europe’s racial nationalists.US intelligence officials in the Middle East, points out Suarez, understood the roots of Zionist ideology. In a report in 1943, they concluded that Zionism in Palestine was “a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism”.
David Collier) (a pro-Israeli activist and polemical blogger obsessed with the idea the British Labour Party is antisemitic)and Jonthan Hoffman a pro-Israel blogger and activist, both undertook a lengthy scathing critique in their 'A Report on a modern anti-Semitic fraud,'. They actually went to the trouble of checking a smidgeon (as they admit:Of the nearly 700 footnotes they admit to only checking a small sample, dealing with 4 issues.) of his archival work in the appropriate archives. Jonathan Hoffman made a complaint about the book to the House of Lords, which was dismissed as false.
The findings of this research were brutal. The distortion created within the book’s argument is drawn from every level of error imaginable. The author made basic historical research mistakes, such as an overreliance on, and disproportionate inclusion of, ideologically selected material. In addition - and more worryingly - the source material for the most part contradicts the author’s writing. And finally, there are several clear examples of such total distortion and inversion of meaning that it is difficult to conclude anything other than deliberate intent.
The online polemic here is a self-deconstructing farce, as I can show if proof is required. Collier and Hoffman’s evidence complains of a lack of detail of Arab violence during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, whereas Suarez is focused on the archival record for the succeeding decade Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine (1939-1948)
Suarez thanked them for the review and then in return gave a detailed analysis of their claims, finding them abusive, consistently distorting the content of his books, denying the archival factual record and thus unsound.
My view is that the book can be used with attribution (and Suarez needs a wiki bio). Nishidani ( talk) 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
bizarre assertion that, in post - WWII Europe "thousands of Jewish children were forcibly removed from the adoptive families that had saved them when their parents perished years earlier, the kidnappings sometimes assisted by Jewish Brigade soldiers." The idea that soldiers of the Jewish Brigade or other unidentified Zionists forcibly entered and removed Jewish children from the homes of Christian families who has saved them from the death camps is so bizarre as to firmly classify both Hagopian and Suarez as part of a WP:FRINGE of anti-Israel revisionist historians.
is dead wrong. Suarez did not assert anything. He documented from archival sources and contemporary accounts the outrage felt by many Jews ( Œuvre de secours aux enfants) and Christians for Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog's attempts to force Jewish children in their care to be taken to Palestine, rather than to be raised in Europe. This is in the documents he lists, and is not claimed, asserted or invented (unless an historian can demonstrate, which no one has so far, that he made it all up). History is not the province of a state: it is not to be sifted to confirm a national myth or mythistory. Nishidani ( talk) 21:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A single new article in
Molecular Biology (journal) published by
Nauka (publisher) (Russia) is being used in
Hans Asperger for fairly strong claims about the person. This article has not been referred to in other reliable sources, except by Press Release. Is the article, on its own, sufficient to make the claims it is being used for? Springer states it covers the "complete pattern of relevant basic research mostly in Eastern Europe."
The article is one of biography and not of the scientific discipline of "molecular biology."
Questions include one of whether political articles published by Nauka meet WP:RS and whether press releases cited by reliable sources then make the original article a reliable source.
The claims are in [3]. The edit plagiarizes the abstract clearly and without quotation marks, by the way.
Plagiarism example:
Wikipedia article: Asperger co-operated with the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi Party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program.
Source: Asperger managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his affirmations of loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"Nazi"enough. The bottom line, the claims in Molecular Autism are substantiated by another source (Sheffer). K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This Al-Ahbash/AICP article use to say, The AICP runs Islamic schools affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] and referenced an Oxford source, however now it has been changed to, The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6][7][8]
As far as I know Egypt's Al-Azhar has not denied being affiliated with Al-Ahbash/AICP.
1.Kabha, Mustafa; Erlich, Haggai (2006). "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam". International Journal of Middle East Studies. United States: Cambridge University Press This reference says they run islamic schools affiliated with azhar 2. Avon, Dominique (2008). "The Ahbash. A contested Lebanese Sunni movement in a globalized world". University of Montpellier Religion Studies. 2 [4] This reference says the same 3. Egypt's news organization weekly ahram also confirms this. [5]
Now looking at references that says Azhar denies this claim seem dubious 1. Reuters source makes no mention of a denial but then links to less credible website named islamonline [6] 2. A supposed letter from Azhar severing ties with Ahbash is posted which cant be verified [7] 3. Assembly of Muslim Jurists doesnt seem reliable [8] 4. Radio free europe news source alleges that at the grozny conference, head of azhar called ahbash/habashis an extremist but again makes no mention of azhar denial of ahbash school affliaiton [9] Ashraq news website says head of azhar never excluded any sect [10] In addition the official grozny website makes no mention ahbash/habashis [11] 5. "Exposing Ahbash" pdf self published by group in indonesia also doesnt seem reliable [12]
Would appreciate opinions on this topic, thanks. 67.180.185.229 ( talk) 01:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The map in question is
I cn tagged it as there was no source and recently an IP removed the tag twice, adding "approximate" and a source. [13] Our map says 9th century. The source says 733 BCE. Our map has differences in the boundaries, particularly Israel's. How can a source which shows a map from a different period with different boundaries be a source for this map? I'm actually asking two questions. Was my cn tag correct (I've tagged it in other articles), and is this an acceptable source? I don't object to a map at all so long as it's reliably sourced. I would prefer the source to be in the article, not just the map's page. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Maps are not an "exempt class" especially where they implicitly make certain claims which we would need WP:RS sourcing for. I would point out that maps are used and have been used in the past to make "political claims" about historic lands, especially in support of irredentist claims. And folks have gotten in trouble for using them in real life - note the PRC stamp " The Whole Country is Red" where Taiwan was in white. In short - maps are not exempt at all. Collect ( talk) 14:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
While building up WP:Folklore, today I revisited fakelore. As the article admirably makes clear, this is a controversial concept in folklore studies. However, that doesn't seem to have stopped editors from adding what they deem to be fakelore to the article, even when a source does not refer to it as fakelore. More eyes sourcing for this article would be appreciated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Is One America News Network WP:RS? See Talk:Douma chemical attack. Comments? Huldra ( talk) 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have seen some disagreement on whether The Daily Wire is a RS and when it should be used. I want to clarify here whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs. On Joss Whedon, the article says In April 2018, Whedon expressed on Twitter that he wanted President Donald Trump to "Die...Just Quietly Die." which is sourced to Emily Zanotti at TDW. The authors at TDW are experienced, confirmed by a LinkedIn spot check I made, and they commonly write for well established RSes. However, TDW does not publish an editorial policy; I only found this. I tried to find RSes discussing TDW.
Here are some
WP:USEBYOTHERS:
Al Arabiya (huge chunk of article),
Fox News (a tiny section),
SF Gate (minor),
Newsweek (major story; this also by
NY Daily News,
WaPo and
wgntv),
PolitiFact (a fact-checking organization!),
National Review (small),
National Review (big),
National Review (small),
Miami Herald (whole article),
WaPo (among others),
National Review (small),
Philly (an interview, this demonstrates TDW as a reliable secondary source),
Forbes (small but takes TDW reporting pretty much as fact),
CJR (builds upon TDW),
News.com.au (TDW was first to publish a screenshot on which a story was based),
Village Voice (small and/or minor),
National Review (small),
Fox News (interview; big),
Newsweek (twice and small),
The New York Times.
I couldn't find many other RS on TDW reporting, here are those I found: Independent (only about random Twitter users criticizing TDW), The New York Times (not really citing a fact published on TDW, but discussing some other aspects of its reporting; there are some other NY Times articles mentioning TDW)
TDW is a blog-styled news website, which passes WP:NEWSBLOG, so that is not a concern. Of course we should also take care about opinions published on TDW. Note that this is about the TDW website, not the podcasts associated with it. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder everyone this discussion about The Daily Wire, not Shapiro, Breitbart, Bannon, or Trump. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Use with caution: Clearly a very opinionated source that would be considered on a case by case basis but it shouldn't be excluded outright. Springee ( talk) 13:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's a FactCheck.org article which found that DW was the source of a falsehood [25]. Snopes says "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified," and then mentions some examples of false DW stories. [26] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs, that's really outside the scope of this noticeboard. We do not have a list of quote-unquote "reliable" sources , since reliability depends on context. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article in question is The Holocaust in Poland (and a few other related articles such as Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). There are two sources I'd like to get more eyes on following a dispute on the page:
"Poland became the only country in German occupied Europe in which assisting Jews carried the highest price - death.. This passage is false as the death penalty was imposed in over countries for assisting Jews as may be seen in - Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty. This Kurek is not widely cited by others (Note that there is a microbiologist with the same name who is well regarded and is cited for microbiology), and as of 2006 she held a lecturing position [27] in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - a CV posted here doesn't show her holding a significant academic position. Ewa Kurek herself in known in the following context - [28] [29] [30] - for stmts such as
Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II. In addition to the iUniverse book, in a Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (and a few other places) we are using an older book published by Hippocrene Books and falsely state it was written by Jan Karski (who wrote the introduction).
For hundreds of thousands of Jews the Polish language was barely familiar.[183] By contrast, the overwhelming majority of German Jews of this period spoke German as their first language.
The Holocaust testimonies confirm that, trapped in the ghettos, some Jews took advantage of inside information about the socio-economic standing of other Jews as well (see Group 13)
and collaborating with the NKVD. Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims..
"Ironically, even a cursory examination of The Story of Two Shtetls reveals that Mark Paul and the other authors in this generally anti-Jewish tract rely almost overwhelmingly on Polish secondary sources-rather than archival research-to discount the "Jewish version" of the events described. In other words and without explanation, Polish histories of the Holocaust are taken as the gospel truth, while Jewish sources and testimonies are mostly treated as complete falsehoods"by Allan Levine in this book, or
Whatever the result of the case in a court of law, the larger discussions about the partisan activities have produced some demonstrably false claims. For instance, in a document published by the Canadian Polish Congress.....in Zeleznikow, John. "Life at the end of the world: a Jewish Partisan in Melbourne." Holocaust Studies 16.3 (2010): 11-32.. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims."(not some Jews - but mainly Jews (prominent)) - needs to be attributed clearly to Żydokomuna adherents. If you take a read through some of these documents I believe you will see the nature of the writing - surely some non-controversial facts are not an issue - however other aspects are. We were also using Paul in a BLP - Yitzhak Arad (old version) (using
Remarkably, the ideologically tinged memoirs of Yitzhak Arad (then Rudnicki), a historian at the Yad Vashem institute, who belonged to a partisan unit based in Narocz forest which was part of the Voroshilov Brigade, do not do not even mention the “disarming” of Burzyński’s unit.from Tangled Web 2008). and also (wasn't used directly)
What Arad neglects to mention is that Soviet and Jewish partisans also attacked and murdered Polish partisans and civilians,
Afterwards, Yitzhak Arad joined the NKVD and was active in combattinng the anti-Communist Lithuanian underground. He was dismissed from its ranks for his undisciplined behaviour. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So Kurek is a self-published amateur historian??? Does anyone actually do some genuine checking, which by the way is readily accessible online so there's NO excuse. Kurek's doctoral dissertation - she was student of Wladyslaw Bartoszewski at the Catholic University of Lublin - was published in 1992 by Znak, a leading Polish publishing house, as Gdy klasztor znaczyl zycie: Udzial zenskich zgromadzen zakonnych w akcji ratowania dzieci zydowskich w Polsce w latach 1939-1945. It was translated into English as Your Life Is Worth Mine with a foreword by Jan Karski, and published by Hippocrene Books in New York (1997). It has been cited in numerous publications, including publications found on the Yad Vashem website: The Convent Children The Rescue of Jewish Children in Polish Convents During the Holocaust by Nahum Bogner ( http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202308.pdf) and is even recommended reading ( http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/courses/life_lessons/pdfs/lesson8_7.pdf). Yad Vashem published Nachum Bogner's monograph on that same topic, At the Mercy of Strangers, in which he cites Kurek extensively. Nachum Bogner is a Yad Vashem historian and member of the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous Among the Nations."( https://www.yadvashem.org/author/nahum-bogner.html) Mark Paul's online publication, Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers ( http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is, by far, the most comprehensive study on this topic in any language. Other works of his were published in books that are available in scores of major libraries around the world: The Story of two shtetls: Brańsk and Ejszyszki: an overview of Polish-Jewish relations in Northeastern Poland during World War II: a collective work. Toronto ; Chicago : Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998. Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński, and Paweł Styrna. Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012. Tatzref ( talk) 04:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
2012-2003 – wykładowca Wyższej Szkoły Umiejętności w Kielcach- a lecturer at " Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - which seems to be a weekend/night school. Coverage of her in newspapers has been limited to her rather extreme views - How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the Holocaust (2018), Kurek: Getta zbudowali Żydzi (2006) (Jews having fun in the ghettos, they had cause for celebration as they lived in an "autonomous province" negotiated with the Germans - while Poles were being rounded up and executed in Warsaw). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Polish officials have intervened to prevent an author accused of anti-Semitism from receiving an award at a Polish diplomatic outpost in the United States. Even a cursory look at coverage of her in any English RS written in the past decade shows massive WP:REDFLAGs. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”[37] or
She is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career. When asked for potential precedents, David Silberklang, the editor-in-chief of Yad Vashem Studies and a leading expert on the Holocaust in Poland, could only think of the British Holocaust denier David Irving, who lacked Kurek’s extensive formal credentials and was never taken seriously as an academic historian.[38]. I will note that her tenure as a "legitimate Holocaust scholar" was not too long - perhaps a decade. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As with the case of other dominant narratives pertaining to the memory of the Holocaust, some of the chief narratives about rescuers and Jewish survivors were formed in the early postwar period such as the myth of the “ignoble ungrateful Jew.” By the late 1960s, this myth was fully developed and utilized by the “partisan” faction within the Communist Party, led by General Mieczysław Moczar. Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85)-
85 For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul, ed., Wartime Rescuers of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors (Toronto: Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 2007); ....- So a footnote mentioning his work as expressing a myth. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all, we should look at the source of this latest revelation: Joanna Michlic, an ideological warrior who declared certain historians such as Bogdan Musial, Marek Wierzbicki, Marek Chodakiewicz and Tomasz Strzembosz to be “nationalists,” “bigots” and “hacks.” She accuses them of doing what she herself does: viewing Polish-Jewish relations as a conflict in which one side is always right, and the other side is at fault. Joanna B. Michlic, "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew," Jewish Social Studies 13.3 (2007): 135-176. So we’re dealing with someone who advances very crude arguments as a way of avoiding an objective discussion of the merits. Do reputable historians share her views? Apparently not. In his review of Sowjetische Partisanen: Mythos und Wirklichkeit, Israel Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer called Musial’s book “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Timothy Snyder doesn’t think much of Michlic’s views either since he invited Marek Wierzbicki to contribute to the collective volume Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928–1953 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), which he edited. Is Michlic any more credible when she attacks Mark Paul, and HIS alleged expressions of the “myth” of Jewish ingratitude? The section titled “Recognition and (In)Gratitude” in Mark Paul’s Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers ( http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is a compilation of quotations from Jewish sources, with minimal commentary from the compiler. Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish viewpoints. The “offensive” sources are not Moczarites or Polish nationalists but Jewish testimonies, and it is Jewish authors who make the point that they indicate ingratitude. Here are some examples: “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245. “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22. Liwa Gomułka, the wife of Communist leader Władysław Gomułka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143. So before attributing something to Mark Paul one should actually read his publications, which are copiously and meticulously referenced. A Tangled Web contains more than 1800 footnotes. The quarrel, it seems, is almost always with the evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed, and in many, if not most cases, the problematic evidence is based on a Jewish source. Tatzref ( talk) 00:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@
Tatzref: Re evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed...
- if the evidence is valuable, why has it not been published in peer-reviewed publications? Is there some sort of a conspiracy going on?
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts, please! At Giorgi family, is this source:
reliable for a statement that "the Giorgi family received patrician status in 930"? Please note that the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1937 gives 964 as the date of the first documented mention of the family, as does the current online version of Treccani; that date may perhaps refer only to documentation within what is now Italy. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears to me that Washington Press may be fake news, or unreliable at best. See the article about a Texas school teacher who died because of complications with flu. Local ABC News presented the story accurately. I can't find any information about who funds the publication, their staff writers, etc. Need some input as to how to rate this source on the quality scale of RS. Atsme 📞 📧 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:List of company registers
Should this article include external links or more preferably references for the listed registers? Gotitbro ( talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
These diffs [39] [40] makes me want to ask if Died with Boots On at Horrorview.com is a reliable (and notable) source. Especially since we have other sources saying it's a documentary. // Liftarn ( talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
For context, I ( epicgenius ( talk)) haven't posted this edit. I wanted to put some details, with a source, into the Signaling of the New York City Subway. It was written by an employee for New York City Transit Authority, the operator of New York City Subway, as well as an employee for Parsons Brinckerhoff, a NYCTA contractor. However, when I tried to save the edit I got this: "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as introducing references to a predatory open access journal. If you are confident that you want to cite this source anyway, please click 'Publish changes' again. Note that citations to predatory journals are routinely removed."
The MTA's form of CBTC uses a reduced form of the old fixed-block signaling system, which serves as an "auxiliary wayside system".[Witpress Source]: 16 On lines equipped with CBTC, this has resulted in increased maintenance costs for the double signaling system.[Another Source] When CBTC is in operation on a line, that line's block signals display a flashing green indicator.[Witpress Source]: 16
[...]
The CBTC contract was awarded to joint venture of Siemens, Union Switch & Signal, and L.K. Comstock & Company Inc. in late 1999. Installation of the signal system was begun in 2000.[Witpress Source]: 14
My question is, should I even use this source? epicgenius ( talk) 22:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
On an article I intend to improve, specifically Discord, there is some important information about the article subject I want to cite, such as that it (which is a software company) has publicly stated that it has no intention to open its source ( reddit comment source)—which has been, and remains, proprietary—despite inviting open-source communities to use its software ( source). Unfortunately, the company is not very vocal about these matters and the majority of this information comes from reddit comments in the official subreddit of the company by official representatives and spokespeople of the company ( designated as such by the subreddit).
So long as I cite the specific comment's permalink (perhaps with an archived copy), would this be an acceptable use of self-published social media content per WP:SELFPUB? I have searched the Help desk archives and the closest I could find is 2016 November 18 § Citing a Reddit AMA?, which seems to maybe support doing so, but this is obviously a somewhat different case. I have also searched the RS/N archives and the closest I could find are the following, none of which specifically address this issue with any clear consensus:
My guess is probably not even though it might technically pass WP:SELFPUB, but I might as well ask anyway. Perhaps some future archive searcher will find this helpful. Thanks for whatever help you all are willing to provide. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw an user added to Wikipedia:CHART that this website kworb.net can be used to validate YouTube views and Spotify numbers. But nothing validates they post official data. For example, it claims " Look What You Made Me Do" did 49.9M views in one day, while Billboard said it did 43.2M. How many factual errors they "estimate" and post.. I believe that website should be avoided. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 18:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this sentence from AR-15 style rifle, does the phrase "widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" need to be attributed with a qualifier such as "by the media" or "in the media"?
While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns, [1] [2] [3] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" [1] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized by the media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack, [13] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, [14] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, [14] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. [15]
References
On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings...
The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters.
While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America.'
NYT 13 June 2016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Relevant talk page discussions: [41] (Active), [42] [43]
"We also have RS that disagree."Well, post them? This is WP:RSN, so evaluating the relative worth of your sources vs. the ones above is probably the best way to go about it. And you do have to produce them - my feeling is that if we have a lot of WP:RSes saying something, and no reliable sources contradicting them, we can just report it as fact; rewriting it to imply that it is somehow dubious would be editorializing on our part, and omitting it is clearly not an option when it is so well-source. But if you have sources specifically disputing that description, we can cover those as well, and we can use those sources to outline the locus of the dispute. Looking over your comments above, though, you've repeatedly asserted that it's controversial, but haven't presented the sources you say support that interpretation, while we seem to have a huge number of mainstream, high-quality reliable sources using the term with no indication that it is controversial or disputed. Based on those, we have to similarly treat it as an uncontroversial statement of fact unless you can produce some similar high-quality mainstream WP:RS sources either disputing it or, at the very least, describing such a dispute. (If all you can find is some less mainstream sources, they could still be included, but it would have to be worded along the lines of "this is the general way it is described, which these people dissent from, saying [other position]." Blogs and opinion pieces, though, obviously wouldn't be enough when most of the sources here are mainstream news coverage that we can cite for statements of fact.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The NYT has a strong anti-2nd A bias- ?? Regardless, the WaPo piece by Michael S. Rosenwald is out of date: June 16, 2016 was before Parkland, Waffle House shooting, Las Vegas, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
By the media seems to be the most accurate representation of the sources given the lack of expert commentary on the subject. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Avoiding all judgements as to the specific topic entirely, the wording used seems to go beyond WP:NPOV with its use of "While" as an opening.
Would seem to avoid the "media" usage entirely, and be concise and accurate reflections of the sources cited. Absent a definition of "AR-15 style", I would think placing the term in quotation marks accurately reflects the sources. This opinion of mine applies uniformly - that concise wording is preferable to argumentative wording in any topic on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a RfC at the White Helmets Talk page which may interest people on this board. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is Terence Hogan, and I already know Daily Mail is unreliable but there are some circumstances it may be used. How about as a source for a daughter's recollection of her deceased father? The Daily Mail article is here. Hogan is mentioned in other sources (books, The Guardian, Independent, etc.) so some of the facts of the crimes, etc. are verifiable but not the parts about his family life, or some of the missing pieces about his role in the crimes. The article also corroborates some of the dates/times and location of Hogan, who was never caught/arrested. Can the Daily Mail be used to cite the daughter's recollection using inline text attribution? Atsme 📞 📧 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.Atsme 📞 📧 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Source: The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999, Cambridge, Massachusets, Londen, England.
Article: The Black Book of Communism
This book is a collective volume that combines the works of several experts in their fields. According to our criteria, each chapter is a secondary source. In addition to the chapters, the Book is supplemented with an introduction, where no independent research have been presented. The introduction draws conclusions from some data taken from BB chapters and has no reference list.
Is the introduction a secondary or tertiary source? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
A search for "Reddit.com" pops up more than 500 citations in article space. I estimate that 85-90% of these cites are improper. (A small minority may fall under a WP:SELFPUB exception). Does anyone want to assist in culling through these and removing the bad ones? Neutrality talk 23:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
At [54] Iovaniorgovan has inserted a book published in 1846 as if it were a WP:RS, which he also stated at [55]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Google translation of the "about us" page
This is a small, German-language local news organization in the Northern District of Dortmund, Germany. Someone objected because of the word "blogger" in the name. They have an actual office, but it's a non-profit/volunteer organization. It's run by the former editor and editorial director of the Westfälische Rundschau, a mid-sized mainstream regional daily newspaper. Nordstadtblogger does general local news stories, with a focus on social themes. They tend to be in support of immigrants and against right-wing extremism.
I found an article where they received a civic award presented by the District Mayor, who described them as "experienced and competent journalists" who achieved "balanced, independent reporting", and "show how innovatively one can develop good journalism on the Internet without having large media groups behind them." The article also says "(Almost) All who write there have a sound journalistic education and often worked for decades in the editorial offices of the Westfälische Rundschau and the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung".
I've used this article about an exhibition at the Dortmund Museum for Art and Art History as a source for some basic facts about Münsterstraße, one of the main streets/neighborhoods in the district, which was the subject of the exhibition. It would also help show notability for Münsterstraße. So I'd like to get an opinion as to whether it could be considered a reliable source for this and for other typical local news reports, despite having "blogger" in the name. Thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Tetyana Ramus draws extensively on http://ukrainka.org.ua/tetyana-ramus. Is there anyone with knowledge of Ukrainian who could offer an opinion on whether this is a reliable source? It looks a bit self-published to me, but I'm just judging by the general feel of the site without being able to read the content. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? It involves the former police chief of Malmö, Sweden talking about crime in Malmö to journalists from Breitbart news. -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:84FB:E76A:E25C:7CE6 ( talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
We have many other RS other than Breitbart that talks about skyrocketing crime in Malmo so no need to use Breitbart. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm after opinions on climate-data.org. It looks self-published and its sole point of contact is one individual. There is very little other information on the website. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids ( Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue that remains unclear to me, despite multiple threads on a half dozen or more talk pages, is the extent to which something like bigfoot should be considered an academic subject for the purposes of choosing reliable sources. IMO folkloristics does not have a monopoly on reliable sourcing for a subject that's so much a part of popular culture (or regional culture). So if there are books in the popular press or high-quality articles in non-academic publications (not including silly local news stories like "let's interview this local guy who says he saw a yeti"), I don't see a good reason not to use them. And if popular press uses terms that originated with cryptozoology, then use them just as we would any other term from popular press. In other words, as with most other topics, academic sources are ideal but not absolutely required. I feel very much in the minority with this nonbinary opinion, though, as I see bloodofox and a handful of others insisting on academic sourcing, and I see fyunck(click) and a handful of others insisting that basically anything having to do with cryptozoology is a reliable source. It's a mess. For a long time.
As to this specific matter of this section, I'm inclined to think these two websites are not great sources. What would be useful, Fyunck(click), would be an explanation of why they are reliable sources (putting aside, for the time being, the issues I mention above). In other words, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no special requirement for academic sources here and that there isn't a long messy history in debates over these sources. Why are these two in particular good sources according to WP:RS? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Back to the topic of the suggested sources. Stop discussing philosophy here.
"little-realized plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts also on record - creatures that have often received only the briefest of mentions in the literature, and even then only in specialized, scarcely read, or largely forgotten journals, travelogues, historical accounts, and other esoteric sources."Does the occasional article on a site like Mysterious Universe repeating exactly the same hundred year old sightings, hoaxes, and fiction constitute notability within the "field" of cryptozoology? I really don't think it does. -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts...And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids.
Actually, no. Ghosts and cryptids fall under our pseudoscience and fringe theories guidelines, which advises (for good reason) that the best sources to describe fringe topics and ideas are
sources that are independent of those ideas. In short, we don't let a fringe idea present itself on its own terms. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes on Emela-ntouka? After stripping out the usual cryptozoology pseudoscience, a quick search doesn't reveal any reliable sources for this topic, just the usual pseudoscience from figures like Loren Coleman, amateur cryptoozologist websites, and even some nonsense by Roy P. Mackal. If this entity does indeed stem from the folklore of Central Africa, surely there's some specialist sources out there from folklorists (academics active in folklore studies) or Central African studies specialists. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a 2-part question regarding the same source. I need advice on if the journalist Eric Zorn can be cited as a source for facts, or just for his personal opinion, or not at all.
Part 1: Does the news blog at the Chicago Tribune qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG?
Part 2: Does the journalist, Eric Zorn, having written more than 36 articles over the past 30 years about Rob Sherman, qualify as a "specialists and recognized experts" and "authoratative" on the specific topic (Sherman) as described under WP:NEWSORG? Is he a citable reliable source for facts, or would information from Zorn about Sherman still need to be attributed to Zorn?
As you can see, the "Change of Subject" news blog is operated as a feature of the Chicago Tribune by op-ed columnist Eric Zorn and edited by the coordinator of the Tribune editorial staff, Jessica Reynolds [58]. WP:NEWSORG also says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Zorn's news blog does issue corrections [59], [60], to maintain factual accuracy. Holbach Girl ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I've usually assumed they're ok. But Michael Tellinger, the discoverer of Adam's Calendar, most of whose books are self-published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [63] has managed to get "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" published by them. [64] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [65] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Is SFlist (and it's affiliates RS)?
Specifically this [ [66]] for the claim that a given person set up a museum (and for the other "facts" it contains)? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the following a reliable source: https://www.lvstprinzip.de ? 92.10.238.53 ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, let's make it simple: For (almost) all practical purposes that that website is not a reliable source and should not be used for Wikipedia.
Even if you would show that an individual article was written by a highly reputable author (and hence theoretically might be considered as a source), he most likely has published somewhere else. More importantly the self published exceptions usually only apply for content that is more or less undisputed. For disputed or controversial topics (which probably includes most sexual topics), that exception usually doesn't apply and you need a repputable publisher and (peer) reviewed publication as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hope this is the right place to ask this question (newbie)...Can an image be a source/reference for information about an article topic? I have a number of scans provided by institutional archives of postcards announcing an artist collective's exhibitions. the facts of the shows (when/where/who) are on the cards. if they give permission to upload to wikipedia can an image of the postcard be the reference? The info in the images can be verified in NY times listings for the same exhibitions. Or are the postcards considered like press releases and not valid references? Or is this original research and disqualifying for that reason alone? The way i see it, there is no possible misinterpretation of the image because it is a scan of published words (scan of the physical object in an archives' collection) rather than an image of people or a situation which can be interpreted in different ways. some of this is touched on here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Using_jpeg_files_as_inline_citations but I am not clear on how to deal with this particular situation, as I am totally new to this. Thanks! Jenuphoto ( talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a weight thing. A postcard is not a very substantive document but I see no issue if it supports some smaller assertions perhaps about the advertising on the card or what have you. Legacypac ( talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing#RfC about Bagoon Source which may interest this board. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! Richard Rohr has been tagged five years for chronic WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues. My attempt to add a critical review of a book is met with resistance and the claim that it violates WP:WEIGHT. We could use some more opinions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the appropriate form of action if someone promotes an article title that has zero sources? Thylacoop5 ( talk) 12:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was recently reverted
here by
DrFleischman. Originally
They speak so often that one Trump adviser has said that Hannity "basically has a desk in the place."
, I tacked on , according to a Washington Post story.
. as it's a sensational claim that the article writers claim was claimed by an anonymous "presidential adviser," and the claim hasn't been verified by other news orgs (to my knowledge).
Fleischman performed a similar act
here, arguing that Cristiano Lima's assertion that Hannity "echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry."
should be treated as a fact, and stated as such in Wikipedia's voice. Since the source provides no proof or even evidence of this claim, I felt a "Cristiano Lima argues that" attribution is necessary, especially since Lima's claim is dubious to say the least and can be readily debunked.
Can we have some clarity to really nail down when it's acceptable to skip attribution and go ahead and allow journalists to be the final arbiters of facts on Wikipedia, please?
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
::So to answer
DrFleischman first, this is of course a content post. I have no serious issues with your conduct so far, although I am growing a bit peeved that you continue to blatantly misrepresent my concerns with the content despite being corrected at least twice, now. Both sources are reliable in general, yes, with the exception of the occasional false report and heavy reliance on what they claim to be "high level White House officials who wish to remain anonymous" and such. As I explained to you yesterday
here and
here, I did not say anything remotely resembling "I want in-text attribution because Politico has leftist leanings". This is a content post, but if you continue to intentionally repeat this falsehood, we may have to explore remedies to throw a wrench in this pattern. The material should be attributed appropriately if you only have one source that makes the claim, which happens to be demonstrably false.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
:::In response to
Jytdog, that edit was actually in the wrong place. I had meant to add the attribution to the content, not the reference (I would think that is fairly obvious). I am not exactly what you would call a "seasoned editor," but I would be astonished if editors get banned for trivial mistakes like that. Your revision proposal is POV ("attack" is much less neutral than "criticize"), and doesn't properly attribute the source of that argument.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::The reason why we're here is because you think this claim should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and I think you're wrong and policy says otherwise. But once again,
that's not you're missing the issue. The issue is that the alleged claim by this anonymous source that Lima claims to have is not attributed to the publication that chose to print it. If we don't attribute stuff written in a single article on the Internet, where do we draw the line? Look at former Politico writer
Glenn Thrush's article: "A leaked email released in October 2016 by "Wikileaks", which the U.S. intelligence concluded was executed by the Russian government, showed Thrush sending John Podesta portions of a draft article that dealt with Podesta, asking that he fact-check the statements, and writing: "No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything."
Not only is Thrush's email attributed to the source, but Wikipedia's voice pins the whole thing on the Russkies. We attribute the source of the email (twice), and Thrush admits he sent the email.
[67] But somehow, the sensational and preposterous "Hannity basically has a desk in the place" gossip from a phantom source written in Politico gets to be stated in Wikivoice with no attribution whatsoever. Something's not adding up here.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for clarifying that
Peter Gulutzan. The only thing I'm confused about now is how do these postings conclude, normally? Does an administrator come in and make the final call as to whether Lima's claim should be attributed?
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
* as i noted above, the content is a quote. Everybody learns in grade school that if you are quoting, you attribute that. X said: "Blah blah blah." The content as it stands is just bad writing. This remains a goofy argument. It would be an interesting discussion if the content were paraphrased.
Jytdog (
talk) 00:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
", according to an anonymous source quoted in a Washington Post story."is needed? And for 2), you said the Politico article with Lima's argument that "Hannity echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric" should be attributed to Politico? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are talking about 2 different things. The first quotation says "one Trump advisor says" and the quotation is referenced. I don't see anything else has to be said, if the reference supports this. In the case of the second quotation I agree that Christiano LIma should be mentioned in the article since it is his opinion that is being written, not a fact. If a physics paper says e=mc^2 we can use the article as a source but if it also says "Einstein was the most studly physicist ever" we would legitimately wonder how the author knew that. Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment - OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned user. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I linked to an interview on Boing Boing, but it was removed as a non-reliable source. True?
Boing Boing
Interstellarpoliceman (
talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems it has already been discussed. Will comment there
Interstellarpoliceman (
talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, How are Boing Boing for a reliable source, specifically Johannes Grenzfurthner Thanks scope_creep ( talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested to read West_Bromwich_Albion_F.C.#Supporters. But then again, you may not. Boing boing. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I know the answer to this question, but would appreciate other views: at European Aviation Safety Agency, is this website an independent reliable source for a mass of detail about its rules and regulations? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
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 235 | ← | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | Archive 243 | → | Archive 245 |
An editor has removed all traces of State of Terror from an article I recently created: 1946 British Embassy bombing. Per this discussion the best "rationale" the editor had for removing the book was because the author plays the violin. The book has a publisher; it is not self-published and bases its research on documents from the time period. Because of 1RR, I would appreciate if we can clear this up swiftly and someone can help with reverting the editor. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
taught music in Gaza for two years while writing the book, per the book
You don’t graduate from the Juilliard School by being mediocre. He is a writer, not only a violinist and cartographic historian. I.e.
How has it been reviewed?
An independent scholar, he spent years mining the British National Archives at Kew. His book is based primarily on declassified British documents covering the British Palestine Mandate (officially 1923-48; de facto 1920-48) through the 1948 war and thereafter.
’vitriolic’ ‘anti-Isrraeli’. Relying primarily on an array of hostile British government sources to bolster his indictment, Suárez provides a tedious recounting of every Irgun and Lehi attack during and after the World War II years. It seems never to occur to him that his primary source base might have had an anti-Zionist bias.
Note that Auerbach, a professional historian, provides not one note challenging any one of Suarez’s sources. Inbdeed, clumsily for an historian, he blames Suarez's archival evidence as 'hostile' to Zionism and therefore invalid. (sigh) He admits it is based on an exhaustive account of Irgun and Lehi terroristic assaults in British government archives, but protests that reading this vast array of incidents is tedious. Like saying that reading any of the numerous historiographies of Israeli or Jewish suffering at the hands of terrorists or regimes is ‘tedious’. It is a virulent dismissal based on distaste, on trying to skew the author’s interpretation of a phenomenon that is largely missing from the standard Zionist narrative. Auerbach wrote a book (Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel 2009) sympathetic to a settler group in Hebron most sources state is one of the most virulently anti-Arab movements of settlement in the West Bank.
The politically violent orientation of two Jewish organizations operating in mandated Palestine is the focus of State Terror. Suarez, a writer and musician, based in London strains credulity by taking the obviously odious activities of the Irgun and Lehi, aka Stern Gang, and equating them to the overall effort of the Jewish Agency in Palestine to seek and work for an independent Jewish state. Each attack by these two focused groups is highlighted with graphic exaggeration in an attempt to sour the entire Zionist enterprise. There is a contribution to be credited, namely the documentation of some number of incidents during the mandate period, supported by a wealth of British archival material, however without consultation with the relevant Irgun and Lehi archival outlets. This is a clear and intense attempt to delegitimize Zionist ideology and in doing so change the traditional historiographic interpretation on the creation of Israel. The author would have the reader consider that there has been a pattern of settler colonialism qua imperialism in place. Some will view this work as a polemic while others can reach a reasonable conclusion of revisionist historical interpretation.
No details of errors, but a balanced snippet overview. There's nothing wrong with revisionist readings of history: it's what all progress in scholarship does.
A tour de force, based on diligent archival research that looks boldly at the impact of Zionism on Palestine and its people in the first part of the 20th century. The book is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine.
This is archival history that has been intentionally forced down the memory hole – by Zionist organisations, by Israel and by British officials – for very good reason. It risks reminding us that Israel emerged out of an unholy alliance between, on the one hand, British anti-semites and colonial officials and, on the other, Jewish ethnic supremacists who had adopted for themselves the ugly ideology of Europe’s racial nationalists.US intelligence officials in the Middle East, points out Suarez, understood the roots of Zionist ideology. In a report in 1943, they concluded that Zionism in Palestine was “a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism”.
David Collier) (a pro-Israeli activist and polemical blogger obsessed with the idea the British Labour Party is antisemitic)and Jonthan Hoffman a pro-Israel blogger and activist, both undertook a lengthy scathing critique in their 'A Report on a modern anti-Semitic fraud,'. They actually went to the trouble of checking a smidgeon (as they admit:Of the nearly 700 footnotes they admit to only checking a small sample, dealing with 4 issues.) of his archival work in the appropriate archives. Jonathan Hoffman made a complaint about the book to the House of Lords, which was dismissed as false.
The findings of this research were brutal. The distortion created within the book’s argument is drawn from every level of error imaginable. The author made basic historical research mistakes, such as an overreliance on, and disproportionate inclusion of, ideologically selected material. In addition - and more worryingly - the source material for the most part contradicts the author’s writing. And finally, there are several clear examples of such total distortion and inversion of meaning that it is difficult to conclude anything other than deliberate intent.
The online polemic here is a self-deconstructing farce, as I can show if proof is required. Collier and Hoffman’s evidence complains of a lack of detail of Arab violence during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, whereas Suarez is focused on the archival record for the succeeding decade Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine (1939-1948)
Suarez thanked them for the review and then in return gave a detailed analysis of their claims, finding them abusive, consistently distorting the content of his books, denying the archival factual record and thus unsound.
My view is that the book can be used with attribution (and Suarez needs a wiki bio). Nishidani ( talk) 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
bizarre assertion that, in post - WWII Europe "thousands of Jewish children were forcibly removed from the adoptive families that had saved them when their parents perished years earlier, the kidnappings sometimes assisted by Jewish Brigade soldiers." The idea that soldiers of the Jewish Brigade or other unidentified Zionists forcibly entered and removed Jewish children from the homes of Christian families who has saved them from the death camps is so bizarre as to firmly classify both Hagopian and Suarez as part of a WP:FRINGE of anti-Israel revisionist historians.
is dead wrong. Suarez did not assert anything. He documented from archival sources and contemporary accounts the outrage felt by many Jews ( Œuvre de secours aux enfants) and Christians for Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog's attempts to force Jewish children in their care to be taken to Palestine, rather than to be raised in Europe. This is in the documents he lists, and is not claimed, asserted or invented (unless an historian can demonstrate, which no one has so far, that he made it all up). History is not the province of a state: it is not to be sifted to confirm a national myth or mythistory. Nishidani ( talk) 21:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A single new article in
Molecular Biology (journal) published by
Nauka (publisher) (Russia) is being used in
Hans Asperger for fairly strong claims about the person. This article has not been referred to in other reliable sources, except by Press Release. Is the article, on its own, sufficient to make the claims it is being used for? Springer states it covers the "complete pattern of relevant basic research mostly in Eastern Europe."
The article is one of biography and not of the scientific discipline of "molecular biology."
Questions include one of whether political articles published by Nauka meet WP:RS and whether press releases cited by reliable sources then make the original article a reliable source.
The claims are in [3]. The edit plagiarizes the abstract clearly and without quotation marks, by the way.
Plagiarism example:
Wikipedia article: Asperger co-operated with the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi Party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program.
Source: Asperger managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his affirmations of loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"Nazi"enough. The bottom line, the claims in Molecular Autism are substantiated by another source (Sheffer). K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This Al-Ahbash/AICP article use to say, The AICP runs Islamic schools affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] and referenced an Oxford source, however now it has been changed to, The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6][7][8]
As far as I know Egypt's Al-Azhar has not denied being affiliated with Al-Ahbash/AICP.
1.Kabha, Mustafa; Erlich, Haggai (2006). "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam". International Journal of Middle East Studies. United States: Cambridge University Press This reference says they run islamic schools affiliated with azhar 2. Avon, Dominique (2008). "The Ahbash. A contested Lebanese Sunni movement in a globalized world". University of Montpellier Religion Studies. 2 [4] This reference says the same 3. Egypt's news organization weekly ahram also confirms this. [5]
Now looking at references that says Azhar denies this claim seem dubious 1. Reuters source makes no mention of a denial but then links to less credible website named islamonline [6] 2. A supposed letter from Azhar severing ties with Ahbash is posted which cant be verified [7] 3. Assembly of Muslim Jurists doesnt seem reliable [8] 4. Radio free europe news source alleges that at the grozny conference, head of azhar called ahbash/habashis an extremist but again makes no mention of azhar denial of ahbash school affliaiton [9] Ashraq news website says head of azhar never excluded any sect [10] In addition the official grozny website makes no mention ahbash/habashis [11] 5. "Exposing Ahbash" pdf self published by group in indonesia also doesnt seem reliable [12]
Would appreciate opinions on this topic, thanks. 67.180.185.229 ( talk) 01:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The map in question is
I cn tagged it as there was no source and recently an IP removed the tag twice, adding "approximate" and a source. [13] Our map says 9th century. The source says 733 BCE. Our map has differences in the boundaries, particularly Israel's. How can a source which shows a map from a different period with different boundaries be a source for this map? I'm actually asking two questions. Was my cn tag correct (I've tagged it in other articles), and is this an acceptable source? I don't object to a map at all so long as it's reliably sourced. I would prefer the source to be in the article, not just the map's page. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Maps are not an "exempt class" especially where they implicitly make certain claims which we would need WP:RS sourcing for. I would point out that maps are used and have been used in the past to make "political claims" about historic lands, especially in support of irredentist claims. And folks have gotten in trouble for using them in real life - note the PRC stamp " The Whole Country is Red" where Taiwan was in white. In short - maps are not exempt at all. Collect ( talk) 14:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
While building up WP:Folklore, today I revisited fakelore. As the article admirably makes clear, this is a controversial concept in folklore studies. However, that doesn't seem to have stopped editors from adding what they deem to be fakelore to the article, even when a source does not refer to it as fakelore. More eyes sourcing for this article would be appreciated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Is One America News Network WP:RS? See Talk:Douma chemical attack. Comments? Huldra ( talk) 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have seen some disagreement on whether The Daily Wire is a RS and when it should be used. I want to clarify here whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs. On Joss Whedon, the article says In April 2018, Whedon expressed on Twitter that he wanted President Donald Trump to "Die...Just Quietly Die." which is sourced to Emily Zanotti at TDW. The authors at TDW are experienced, confirmed by a LinkedIn spot check I made, and they commonly write for well established RSes. However, TDW does not publish an editorial policy; I only found this. I tried to find RSes discussing TDW.
Here are some
WP:USEBYOTHERS:
Al Arabiya (huge chunk of article),
Fox News (a tiny section),
SF Gate (minor),
Newsweek (major story; this also by
NY Daily News,
WaPo and
wgntv),
PolitiFact (a fact-checking organization!),
National Review (small),
National Review (big),
National Review (small),
Miami Herald (whole article),
WaPo (among others),
National Review (small),
Philly (an interview, this demonstrates TDW as a reliable secondary source),
Forbes (small but takes TDW reporting pretty much as fact),
CJR (builds upon TDW),
News.com.au (TDW was first to publish a screenshot on which a story was based),
Village Voice (small and/or minor),
National Review (small),
Fox News (interview; big),
Newsweek (twice and small),
The New York Times.
I couldn't find many other RS on TDW reporting, here are those I found: Independent (only about random Twitter users criticizing TDW), The New York Times (not really citing a fact published on TDW, but discussing some other aspects of its reporting; there are some other NY Times articles mentioning TDW)
TDW is a blog-styled news website, which passes WP:NEWSBLOG, so that is not a concern. Of course we should also take care about opinions published on TDW. Note that this is about the TDW website, not the podcasts associated with it. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder everyone this discussion about The Daily Wire, not Shapiro, Breitbart, Bannon, or Trump. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Use with caution: Clearly a very opinionated source that would be considered on a case by case basis but it shouldn't be excluded outright. Springee ( talk) 13:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's a FactCheck.org article which found that DW was the source of a falsehood [25]. Snopes says "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified," and then mentions some examples of false DW stories. [26] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs, that's really outside the scope of this noticeboard. We do not have a list of quote-unquote "reliable" sources , since reliability depends on context. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article in question is The Holocaust in Poland (and a few other related articles such as Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). There are two sources I'd like to get more eyes on following a dispute on the page:
"Poland became the only country in German occupied Europe in which assisting Jews carried the highest price - death.. This passage is false as the death penalty was imposed in over countries for assisting Jews as may be seen in - Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty. This Kurek is not widely cited by others (Note that there is a microbiologist with the same name who is well regarded and is cited for microbiology), and as of 2006 she held a lecturing position [27] in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - a CV posted here doesn't show her holding a significant academic position. Ewa Kurek herself in known in the following context - [28] [29] [30] - for stmts such as
Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II. In addition to the iUniverse book, in a Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (and a few other places) we are using an older book published by Hippocrene Books and falsely state it was written by Jan Karski (who wrote the introduction).
For hundreds of thousands of Jews the Polish language was barely familiar.[183] By contrast, the overwhelming majority of German Jews of this period spoke German as their first language.
The Holocaust testimonies confirm that, trapped in the ghettos, some Jews took advantage of inside information about the socio-economic standing of other Jews as well (see Group 13)
and collaborating with the NKVD. Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims..
"Ironically, even a cursory examination of The Story of Two Shtetls reveals that Mark Paul and the other authors in this generally anti-Jewish tract rely almost overwhelmingly on Polish secondary sources-rather than archival research-to discount the "Jewish version" of the events described. In other words and without explanation, Polish histories of the Holocaust are taken as the gospel truth, while Jewish sources and testimonies are mostly treated as complete falsehoods"by Allan Levine in this book, or
Whatever the result of the case in a court of law, the larger discussions about the partisan activities have produced some demonstrably false claims. For instance, in a document published by the Canadian Polish Congress.....in Zeleznikow, John. "Life at the end of the world: a Jewish Partisan in Melbourne." Holocaust Studies 16.3 (2010): 11-32.. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims."(not some Jews - but mainly Jews (prominent)) - needs to be attributed clearly to Żydokomuna adherents. If you take a read through some of these documents I believe you will see the nature of the writing - surely some non-controversial facts are not an issue - however other aspects are. We were also using Paul in a BLP - Yitzhak Arad (old version) (using
Remarkably, the ideologically tinged memoirs of Yitzhak Arad (then Rudnicki), a historian at the Yad Vashem institute, who belonged to a partisan unit based in Narocz forest which was part of the Voroshilov Brigade, do not do not even mention the “disarming” of Burzyński’s unit.from Tangled Web 2008). and also (wasn't used directly)
What Arad neglects to mention is that Soviet and Jewish partisans also attacked and murdered Polish partisans and civilians,
Afterwards, Yitzhak Arad joined the NKVD and was active in combattinng the anti-Communist Lithuanian underground. He was dismissed from its ranks for his undisciplined behaviour. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So Kurek is a self-published amateur historian??? Does anyone actually do some genuine checking, which by the way is readily accessible online so there's NO excuse. Kurek's doctoral dissertation - she was student of Wladyslaw Bartoszewski at the Catholic University of Lublin - was published in 1992 by Znak, a leading Polish publishing house, as Gdy klasztor znaczyl zycie: Udzial zenskich zgromadzen zakonnych w akcji ratowania dzieci zydowskich w Polsce w latach 1939-1945. It was translated into English as Your Life Is Worth Mine with a foreword by Jan Karski, and published by Hippocrene Books in New York (1997). It has been cited in numerous publications, including publications found on the Yad Vashem website: The Convent Children The Rescue of Jewish Children in Polish Convents During the Holocaust by Nahum Bogner ( http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202308.pdf) and is even recommended reading ( http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/courses/life_lessons/pdfs/lesson8_7.pdf). Yad Vashem published Nachum Bogner's monograph on that same topic, At the Mercy of Strangers, in which he cites Kurek extensively. Nachum Bogner is a Yad Vashem historian and member of the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous Among the Nations."( https://www.yadvashem.org/author/nahum-bogner.html) Mark Paul's online publication, Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers ( http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is, by far, the most comprehensive study on this topic in any language. Other works of his were published in books that are available in scores of major libraries around the world: The Story of two shtetls: Brańsk and Ejszyszki: an overview of Polish-Jewish relations in Northeastern Poland during World War II: a collective work. Toronto ; Chicago : Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998. Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński, and Paweł Styrna. Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012. Tatzref ( talk) 04:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
2012-2003 – wykładowca Wyższej Szkoły Umiejętności w Kielcach- a lecturer at " Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - which seems to be a weekend/night school. Coverage of her in newspapers has been limited to her rather extreme views - How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the Holocaust (2018), Kurek: Getta zbudowali Żydzi (2006) (Jews having fun in the ghettos, they had cause for celebration as they lived in an "autonomous province" negotiated with the Germans - while Poles were being rounded up and executed in Warsaw). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Polish officials have intervened to prevent an author accused of anti-Semitism from receiving an award at a Polish diplomatic outpost in the United States. Even a cursory look at coverage of her in any English RS written in the past decade shows massive WP:REDFLAGs. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”[37] or
She is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career. When asked for potential precedents, David Silberklang, the editor-in-chief of Yad Vashem Studies and a leading expert on the Holocaust in Poland, could only think of the British Holocaust denier David Irving, who lacked Kurek’s extensive formal credentials and was never taken seriously as an academic historian.[38]. I will note that her tenure as a "legitimate Holocaust scholar" was not too long - perhaps a decade. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As with the case of other dominant narratives pertaining to the memory of the Holocaust, some of the chief narratives about rescuers and Jewish survivors were formed in the early postwar period such as the myth of the “ignoble ungrateful Jew.” By the late 1960s, this myth was fully developed and utilized by the “partisan” faction within the Communist Party, led by General Mieczysław Moczar. Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85)-
85 For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul, ed., Wartime Rescuers of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors (Toronto: Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 2007); ....- So a footnote mentioning his work as expressing a myth. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all, we should look at the source of this latest revelation: Joanna Michlic, an ideological warrior who declared certain historians such as Bogdan Musial, Marek Wierzbicki, Marek Chodakiewicz and Tomasz Strzembosz to be “nationalists,” “bigots” and “hacks.” She accuses them of doing what she herself does: viewing Polish-Jewish relations as a conflict in which one side is always right, and the other side is at fault. Joanna B. Michlic, "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew," Jewish Social Studies 13.3 (2007): 135-176. So we’re dealing with someone who advances very crude arguments as a way of avoiding an objective discussion of the merits. Do reputable historians share her views? Apparently not. In his review of Sowjetische Partisanen: Mythos und Wirklichkeit, Israel Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer called Musial’s book “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Timothy Snyder doesn’t think much of Michlic’s views either since he invited Marek Wierzbicki to contribute to the collective volume Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928–1953 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), which he edited. Is Michlic any more credible when she attacks Mark Paul, and HIS alleged expressions of the “myth” of Jewish ingratitude? The section titled “Recognition and (In)Gratitude” in Mark Paul’s Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers ( http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is a compilation of quotations from Jewish sources, with minimal commentary from the compiler. Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish viewpoints. The “offensive” sources are not Moczarites or Polish nationalists but Jewish testimonies, and it is Jewish authors who make the point that they indicate ingratitude. Here are some examples: “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245. “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22. Liwa Gomułka, the wife of Communist leader Władysław Gomułka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143. So before attributing something to Mark Paul one should actually read his publications, which are copiously and meticulously referenced. A Tangled Web contains more than 1800 footnotes. The quarrel, it seems, is almost always with the evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed, and in many, if not most cases, the problematic evidence is based on a Jewish source. Tatzref ( talk) 00:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@
Tatzref: Re evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed...
- if the evidence is valuable, why has it not been published in peer-reviewed publications? Is there some sort of a conspiracy going on?
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts, please! At Giorgi family, is this source:
reliable for a statement that "the Giorgi family received patrician status in 930"? Please note that the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1937 gives 964 as the date of the first documented mention of the family, as does the current online version of Treccani; that date may perhaps refer only to documentation within what is now Italy. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears to me that Washington Press may be fake news, or unreliable at best. See the article about a Texas school teacher who died because of complications with flu. Local ABC News presented the story accurately. I can't find any information about who funds the publication, their staff writers, etc. Need some input as to how to rate this source on the quality scale of RS. Atsme 📞 📧 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:List of company registers
Should this article include external links or more preferably references for the listed registers? Gotitbro ( talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
These diffs [39] [40] makes me want to ask if Died with Boots On at Horrorview.com is a reliable (and notable) source. Especially since we have other sources saying it's a documentary. // Liftarn ( talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
For context, I ( epicgenius ( talk)) haven't posted this edit. I wanted to put some details, with a source, into the Signaling of the New York City Subway. It was written by an employee for New York City Transit Authority, the operator of New York City Subway, as well as an employee for Parsons Brinckerhoff, a NYCTA contractor. However, when I tried to save the edit I got this: "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as introducing references to a predatory open access journal. If you are confident that you want to cite this source anyway, please click 'Publish changes' again. Note that citations to predatory journals are routinely removed."
The MTA's form of CBTC uses a reduced form of the old fixed-block signaling system, which serves as an "auxiliary wayside system".[Witpress Source]: 16 On lines equipped with CBTC, this has resulted in increased maintenance costs for the double signaling system.[Another Source] When CBTC is in operation on a line, that line's block signals display a flashing green indicator.[Witpress Source]: 16
[...]
The CBTC contract was awarded to joint venture of Siemens, Union Switch & Signal, and L.K. Comstock & Company Inc. in late 1999. Installation of the signal system was begun in 2000.[Witpress Source]: 14
My question is, should I even use this source? epicgenius ( talk) 22:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
On an article I intend to improve, specifically Discord, there is some important information about the article subject I want to cite, such as that it (which is a software company) has publicly stated that it has no intention to open its source ( reddit comment source)—which has been, and remains, proprietary—despite inviting open-source communities to use its software ( source). Unfortunately, the company is not very vocal about these matters and the majority of this information comes from reddit comments in the official subreddit of the company by official representatives and spokespeople of the company ( designated as such by the subreddit).
So long as I cite the specific comment's permalink (perhaps with an archived copy), would this be an acceptable use of self-published social media content per WP:SELFPUB? I have searched the Help desk archives and the closest I could find is 2016 November 18 § Citing a Reddit AMA?, which seems to maybe support doing so, but this is obviously a somewhat different case. I have also searched the RS/N archives and the closest I could find are the following, none of which specifically address this issue with any clear consensus:
My guess is probably not even though it might technically pass WP:SELFPUB, but I might as well ask anyway. Perhaps some future archive searcher will find this helpful. Thanks for whatever help you all are willing to provide. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw an user added to Wikipedia:CHART that this website kworb.net can be used to validate YouTube views and Spotify numbers. But nothing validates they post official data. For example, it claims " Look What You Made Me Do" did 49.9M views in one day, while Billboard said it did 43.2M. How many factual errors they "estimate" and post.. I believe that website should be avoided. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 18:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this sentence from AR-15 style rifle, does the phrase "widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" need to be attributed with a qualifier such as "by the media" or "in the media"?
While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns, [1] [2] [3] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" [1] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized by the media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack, [13] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, [14] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, [14] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. [15]
References
On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings...
The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters.
While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America.'
NYT 13 June 2016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Relevant talk page discussions: [41] (Active), [42] [43]
"We also have RS that disagree."Well, post them? This is WP:RSN, so evaluating the relative worth of your sources vs. the ones above is probably the best way to go about it. And you do have to produce them - my feeling is that if we have a lot of WP:RSes saying something, and no reliable sources contradicting them, we can just report it as fact; rewriting it to imply that it is somehow dubious would be editorializing on our part, and omitting it is clearly not an option when it is so well-source. But if you have sources specifically disputing that description, we can cover those as well, and we can use those sources to outline the locus of the dispute. Looking over your comments above, though, you've repeatedly asserted that it's controversial, but haven't presented the sources you say support that interpretation, while we seem to have a huge number of mainstream, high-quality reliable sources using the term with no indication that it is controversial or disputed. Based on those, we have to similarly treat it as an uncontroversial statement of fact unless you can produce some similar high-quality mainstream WP:RS sources either disputing it or, at the very least, describing such a dispute. (If all you can find is some less mainstream sources, they could still be included, but it would have to be worded along the lines of "this is the general way it is described, which these people dissent from, saying [other position]." Blogs and opinion pieces, though, obviously wouldn't be enough when most of the sources here are mainstream news coverage that we can cite for statements of fact.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The NYT has a strong anti-2nd A bias- ?? Regardless, the WaPo piece by Michael S. Rosenwald is out of date: June 16, 2016 was before Parkland, Waffle House shooting, Las Vegas, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
By the media seems to be the most accurate representation of the sources given the lack of expert commentary on the subject. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Avoiding all judgements as to the specific topic entirely, the wording used seems to go beyond WP:NPOV with its use of "While" as an opening.
Would seem to avoid the "media" usage entirely, and be concise and accurate reflections of the sources cited. Absent a definition of "AR-15 style", I would think placing the term in quotation marks accurately reflects the sources. This opinion of mine applies uniformly - that concise wording is preferable to argumentative wording in any topic on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a RfC at the White Helmets Talk page which may interest people on this board. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is Terence Hogan, and I already know Daily Mail is unreliable but there are some circumstances it may be used. How about as a source for a daughter's recollection of her deceased father? The Daily Mail article is here. Hogan is mentioned in other sources (books, The Guardian, Independent, etc.) so some of the facts of the crimes, etc. are verifiable but not the parts about his family life, or some of the missing pieces about his role in the crimes. The article also corroborates some of the dates/times and location of Hogan, who was never caught/arrested. Can the Daily Mail be used to cite the daughter's recollection using inline text attribution? Atsme 📞 📧 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.Atsme 📞 📧 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Source: The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999, Cambridge, Massachusets, Londen, England.
Article: The Black Book of Communism
This book is a collective volume that combines the works of several experts in their fields. According to our criteria, each chapter is a secondary source. In addition to the chapters, the Book is supplemented with an introduction, where no independent research have been presented. The introduction draws conclusions from some data taken from BB chapters and has no reference list.
Is the introduction a secondary or tertiary source? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
A search for "Reddit.com" pops up more than 500 citations in article space. I estimate that 85-90% of these cites are improper. (A small minority may fall under a WP:SELFPUB exception). Does anyone want to assist in culling through these and removing the bad ones? Neutrality talk 23:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
At [54] Iovaniorgovan has inserted a book published in 1846 as if it were a WP:RS, which he also stated at [55]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Google translation of the "about us" page
This is a small, German-language local news organization in the Northern District of Dortmund, Germany. Someone objected because of the word "blogger" in the name. They have an actual office, but it's a non-profit/volunteer organization. It's run by the former editor and editorial director of the Westfälische Rundschau, a mid-sized mainstream regional daily newspaper. Nordstadtblogger does general local news stories, with a focus on social themes. They tend to be in support of immigrants and against right-wing extremism.
I found an article where they received a civic award presented by the District Mayor, who described them as "experienced and competent journalists" who achieved "balanced, independent reporting", and "show how innovatively one can develop good journalism on the Internet without having large media groups behind them." The article also says "(Almost) All who write there have a sound journalistic education and often worked for decades in the editorial offices of the Westfälische Rundschau and the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung".
I've used this article about an exhibition at the Dortmund Museum for Art and Art History as a source for some basic facts about Münsterstraße, one of the main streets/neighborhoods in the district, which was the subject of the exhibition. It would also help show notability for Münsterstraße. So I'd like to get an opinion as to whether it could be considered a reliable source for this and for other typical local news reports, despite having "blogger" in the name. Thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Tetyana Ramus draws extensively on http://ukrainka.org.ua/tetyana-ramus. Is there anyone with knowledge of Ukrainian who could offer an opinion on whether this is a reliable source? It looks a bit self-published to me, but I'm just judging by the general feel of the site without being able to read the content. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? It involves the former police chief of Malmö, Sweden talking about crime in Malmö to journalists from Breitbart news. -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:84FB:E76A:E25C:7CE6 ( talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
We have many other RS other than Breitbart that talks about skyrocketing crime in Malmo so no need to use Breitbart. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm after opinions on climate-data.org. It looks self-published and its sole point of contact is one individual. There is very little other information on the website. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids ( Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue that remains unclear to me, despite multiple threads on a half dozen or more talk pages, is the extent to which something like bigfoot should be considered an academic subject for the purposes of choosing reliable sources. IMO folkloristics does not have a monopoly on reliable sourcing for a subject that's so much a part of popular culture (or regional culture). So if there are books in the popular press or high-quality articles in non-academic publications (not including silly local news stories like "let's interview this local guy who says he saw a yeti"), I don't see a good reason not to use them. And if popular press uses terms that originated with cryptozoology, then use them just as we would any other term from popular press. In other words, as with most other topics, academic sources are ideal but not absolutely required. I feel very much in the minority with this nonbinary opinion, though, as I see bloodofox and a handful of others insisting on academic sourcing, and I see fyunck(click) and a handful of others insisting that basically anything having to do with cryptozoology is a reliable source. It's a mess. For a long time.
As to this specific matter of this section, I'm inclined to think these two websites are not great sources. What would be useful, Fyunck(click), would be an explanation of why they are reliable sources (putting aside, for the time being, the issues I mention above). In other words, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no special requirement for academic sources here and that there isn't a long messy history in debates over these sources. Why are these two in particular good sources according to WP:RS? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Back to the topic of the suggested sources. Stop discussing philosophy here.
"little-realized plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts also on record - creatures that have often received only the briefest of mentions in the literature, and even then only in specialized, scarcely read, or largely forgotten journals, travelogues, historical accounts, and other esoteric sources."Does the occasional article on a site like Mysterious Universe repeating exactly the same hundred year old sightings, hoaxes, and fiction constitute notability within the "field" of cryptozoology? I really don't think it does. -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts...And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids.
Actually, no. Ghosts and cryptids fall under our pseudoscience and fringe theories guidelines, which advises (for good reason) that the best sources to describe fringe topics and ideas are
sources that are independent of those ideas. In short, we don't let a fringe idea present itself on its own terms. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes on Emela-ntouka? After stripping out the usual cryptozoology pseudoscience, a quick search doesn't reveal any reliable sources for this topic, just the usual pseudoscience from figures like Loren Coleman, amateur cryptoozologist websites, and even some nonsense by Roy P. Mackal. If this entity does indeed stem from the folklore of Central Africa, surely there's some specialist sources out there from folklorists (academics active in folklore studies) or Central African studies specialists. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a 2-part question regarding the same source. I need advice on if the journalist Eric Zorn can be cited as a source for facts, or just for his personal opinion, or not at all.
Part 1: Does the news blog at the Chicago Tribune qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG?
Part 2: Does the journalist, Eric Zorn, having written more than 36 articles over the past 30 years about Rob Sherman, qualify as a "specialists and recognized experts" and "authoratative" on the specific topic (Sherman) as described under WP:NEWSORG? Is he a citable reliable source for facts, or would information from Zorn about Sherman still need to be attributed to Zorn?
As you can see, the "Change of Subject" news blog is operated as a feature of the Chicago Tribune by op-ed columnist Eric Zorn and edited by the coordinator of the Tribune editorial staff, Jessica Reynolds [58]. WP:NEWSORG also says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Zorn's news blog does issue corrections [59], [60], to maintain factual accuracy. Holbach Girl ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I've usually assumed they're ok. But Michael Tellinger, the discoverer of Adam's Calendar, most of whose books are self-published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [63] has managed to get "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" published by them. [64] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [65] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Is SFlist (and it's affiliates RS)?
Specifically this [ [66]] for the claim that a given person set up a museum (and for the other "facts" it contains)? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the following a reliable source: https://www.lvstprinzip.de ? 92.10.238.53 ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, let's make it simple: For (almost) all practical purposes that that website is not a reliable source and should not be used for Wikipedia.
Even if you would show that an individual article was written by a highly reputable author (and hence theoretically might be considered as a source), he most likely has published somewhere else. More importantly the self published exceptions usually only apply for content that is more or less undisputed. For disputed or controversial topics (which probably includes most sexual topics), that exception usually doesn't apply and you need a repputable publisher and (peer) reviewed publication as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hope this is the right place to ask this question (newbie)...Can an image be a source/reference for information about an article topic? I have a number of scans provided by institutional archives of postcards announcing an artist collective's exhibitions. the facts of the shows (when/where/who) are on the cards. if they give permission to upload to wikipedia can an image of the postcard be the reference? The info in the images can be verified in NY times listings for the same exhibitions. Or are the postcards considered like press releases and not valid references? Or is this original research and disqualifying for that reason alone? The way i see it, there is no possible misinterpretation of the image because it is a scan of published words (scan of the physical object in an archives' collection) rather than an image of people or a situation which can be interpreted in different ways. some of this is touched on here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Using_jpeg_files_as_inline_citations but I am not clear on how to deal with this particular situation, as I am totally new to this. Thanks! Jenuphoto ( talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a weight thing. A postcard is not a very substantive document but I see no issue if it supports some smaller assertions perhaps about the advertising on the card or what have you. Legacypac ( talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing#RfC about Bagoon Source which may interest this board. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! Richard Rohr has been tagged five years for chronic WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues. My attempt to add a critical review of a book is met with resistance and the claim that it violates WP:WEIGHT. We could use some more opinions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the appropriate form of action if someone promotes an article title that has zero sources? Thylacoop5 ( talk) 12:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was recently reverted
here by
DrFleischman. Originally
They speak so often that one Trump adviser has said that Hannity "basically has a desk in the place."
, I tacked on , according to a Washington Post story.
. as it's a sensational claim that the article writers claim was claimed by an anonymous "presidential adviser," and the claim hasn't been verified by other news orgs (to my knowledge).
Fleischman performed a similar act
here, arguing that Cristiano Lima's assertion that Hannity "echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry."
should be treated as a fact, and stated as such in Wikipedia's voice. Since the source provides no proof or even evidence of this claim, I felt a "Cristiano Lima argues that" attribution is necessary, especially since Lima's claim is dubious to say the least and can be readily debunked.
Can we have some clarity to really nail down when it's acceptable to skip attribution and go ahead and allow journalists to be the final arbiters of facts on Wikipedia, please?
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
::So to answer
DrFleischman first, this is of course a content post. I have no serious issues with your conduct so far, although I am growing a bit peeved that you continue to blatantly misrepresent my concerns with the content despite being corrected at least twice, now. Both sources are reliable in general, yes, with the exception of the occasional false report and heavy reliance on what they claim to be "high level White House officials who wish to remain anonymous" and such. As I explained to you yesterday
here and
here, I did not say anything remotely resembling "I want in-text attribution because Politico has leftist leanings". This is a content post, but if you continue to intentionally repeat this falsehood, we may have to explore remedies to throw a wrench in this pattern. The material should be attributed appropriately if you only have one source that makes the claim, which happens to be demonstrably false.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
:::In response to
Jytdog, that edit was actually in the wrong place. I had meant to add the attribution to the content, not the reference (I would think that is fairly obvious). I am not exactly what you would call a "seasoned editor," but I would be astonished if editors get banned for trivial mistakes like that. Your revision proposal is POV ("attack" is much less neutral than "criticize"), and doesn't properly attribute the source of that argument.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::The reason why we're here is because you think this claim should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and I think you're wrong and policy says otherwise. But once again,
that's not you're missing the issue. The issue is that the alleged claim by this anonymous source that Lima claims to have is not attributed to the publication that chose to print it. If we don't attribute stuff written in a single article on the Internet, where do we draw the line? Look at former Politico writer
Glenn Thrush's article: "A leaked email released in October 2016 by "Wikileaks", which the U.S. intelligence concluded was executed by the Russian government, showed Thrush sending John Podesta portions of a draft article that dealt with Podesta, asking that he fact-check the statements, and writing: "No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything."
Not only is Thrush's email attributed to the source, but Wikipedia's voice pins the whole thing on the Russkies. We attribute the source of the email (twice), and Thrush admits he sent the email.
[67] But somehow, the sensational and preposterous "Hannity basically has a desk in the place" gossip from a phantom source written in Politico gets to be stated in Wikivoice with no attribution whatsoever. Something's not adding up here.
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for clarifying that
Peter Gulutzan. The only thing I'm confused about now is how do these postings conclude, normally? Does an administrator come in and make the final call as to whether Lima's claim should be attributed?
Mr. Daniel Plainview (
talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
* as i noted above, the content is a quote. Everybody learns in grade school that if you are quoting, you attribute that. X said: "Blah blah blah." The content as it stands is just bad writing. This remains a goofy argument. It would be an interesting discussion if the content were paraphrased.
Jytdog (
talk) 00:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
", according to an anonymous source quoted in a Washington Post story."is needed? And for 2), you said the Politico article with Lima's argument that "Hannity echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric" should be attributed to Politico? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are talking about 2 different things. The first quotation says "one Trump advisor says" and the quotation is referenced. I don't see anything else has to be said, if the reference supports this. In the case of the second quotation I agree that Christiano LIma should be mentioned in the article since it is his opinion that is being written, not a fact. If a physics paper says e=mc^2 we can use the article as a source but if it also says "Einstein was the most studly physicist ever" we would legitimately wonder how the author knew that. Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment - OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned user. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I linked to an interview on Boing Boing, but it was removed as a non-reliable source. True?
Boing Boing
Interstellarpoliceman (
talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems it has already been discussed. Will comment there
Interstellarpoliceman (
talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, How are Boing Boing for a reliable source, specifically Johannes Grenzfurthner Thanks scope_creep ( talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested to read West_Bromwich_Albion_F.C.#Supporters. But then again, you may not. Boing boing. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I know the answer to this question, but would appreciate other views: at European Aviation Safety Agency, is this website an independent reliable source for a mass of detail about its rules and regulations? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)