Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 8 December 2008

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

Is IMDb an unreliable source?

As follow-up from a recent consensus to remove external links from {{Infobox Film}}, a new section in the template's documentation was created to capture the rationale behind the consensus. This was done at least in part so that editors have something to point other editors to in order to reduce the odds of IMDb links inclusion/exclusion becoming another in a long line of perennial proposals. This seems particularly possible because IMDb has been in {{Infobox Film}} for four years, i.e. since the infobox was created. A well-written draft of the rationale was created, but it includes this statement:

Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source for verifying content in Misplaced Pages articles,...

When I asked about it, a couple of editors agreed with this statement made by the editor who wrote it. I also found Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal from July 2007 and found some discussions about IMDb in some FA nominations. So I'm wondering if there a growing sense that IMDb isn't a reliable source? Thanks. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source.

Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of WP:EL to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --ROGER DAVIES  06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at WP:CIMDB on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. GDallimore (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections:

1. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
2. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
3. Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at ), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
4. Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission.

1. The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Misplaced Pages.
2. The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Misplaced Pages should avoid using them.
3. Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.
4. The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as Variety. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted.
5. The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is).

I hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can i ask you for your opinion on bio information? considering WP:BLP and the fact that it has been questioned several times before? --neon white talk 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else that may or may not help: Roger Ebert's opinion about IMDb, taken from this October 2008 blog entry:

I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.

Thanks. 72.244.200.30 (talk) (same as 72.244.207.57) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (i.e. the one who instigated this discussion)

• OK, the only thing that would be important here, is IMDb a WP:RS for Misplaced Pages purposes? Nothing else matters really. The way I see it there are no restrictions pr WP:RS using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Misplaced Pages. That would include anything that's relevant, pointed out by Metropolitan90: the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards etc. Anything that has to do with user comments or any kind of goofs would not be relevant for WP purposes anyway since this is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish any kind of WP:TRIVIA. Now, since this question about IMDb gets raised all the time, and valid references to solid facts get added and then again removed because someone claims IMDb not to be a "reliable source". Therefore I'd encourage everybody to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb so that a some kind consensus for WP:Citing IMDb could be reached. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Andersen Maps

I would like to ask for clarification of the third party opinion regarding this past request. It seems that a third-party opinion clearly concluded that, I quote: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". Yet now, on the same page, User:Meowy is pushing the same map from a controversial blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andrew Andersen and essentially ignoring the third party opinion in his comments. There are dozen other pages, to which these maps made it, and I think they need to be removed from all of them. None of these maps are based on any credible research and only result in edit warring over contested border issues. Thank you in advance. Atabəy (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.-- Ευπάτωρ 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where WP:NOR#Original images is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Misplaced Pages is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks Blueboar for recognising the WP:NOR#Original images issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Misplaced Pages are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, WP:NOR#Original images points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main text of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on[REDACTED] is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, the image reinserted by Meowy, edit warring in violation of his parole at Nagorno-Karabakh, is not neutral, because it asserts POV about the existence of some independent fiefdom inside a larger empire, which is false. This POV is not claimed by anyone but Armenian sources, hence is not neutral as it's simply not agreed by the opposite side and no 3rd party sources are offered. Moreover, the images were not made by Meowy but were taken from a blog of Andrew Andersen, who was fired from his job at University of Victoria for racism. These maps are used in several Misplaced Pages pages only by contributors whose POV they fit. Hence, I think it would be better to remove them and come up with consensus neutral version of maps discussed by several parties and relied upon neutral sources in text. There is a multitude of respected scholars on the subjects of medieval history of the region, and Andrew Andersen is not one of them. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory is discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. Grandmaster (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities were independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (WP:NPOV#Undue weight comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. "It was Jahan-Shah who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from Karakoyunlu territory. Meowy 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. Meowy 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. Meowy 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians:

the Russian Empire recognized the sovereign status of the meliks in their domains by a charter of the Emperor Paul dated 2 June 1799.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Even when the Persian Empire conquered them and subordinated to the Karabakh Khanate (although this period has no connection with the map in question), these melikdoms could keep their self-government:

The new khanate consisted of the eastern plains between the juncture of the Arak's and Kur (lowland Qarabagh) and the mountainous western half (Highland Qarabagh, ...) inhabited predominantly by Armenians living in five autonomous principalities governed by their own hereditary princes, known as meliks

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 155.

At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. Caucasian Albania, which was formally ruled by Persian Marzbans. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --Vacio (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it?

But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state.

It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were.

The melikdoms of Karabagh have become a legend among the Armenian people as the first rallying centre of modern Armenian nationalism, but their existence was threatened by the jealousies of neighboring Mohammedan rulers and by the suspicions of later Shahs. The melikdoms enjoyed their greatest independence in the 1720's under the Siwnid General David Beg (1674-1728), but after his death they were overrun by the Turks.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Also, you refer to a post mikkalai (talk · contribs) (admin?? no I think) who proposed the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: ). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Misplaced Pages. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --Vacio (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all maps shall be removed and replaced with NPOV based on scholarly sources. There are actually plenty of maps inside publications, not sure why can't we use those or recreate maps based on them, instead of using maps made by blogger accused of racism. Atabəy (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all those maps should go, if there are doubts of their accuracy. After all, I'm not the only one questioning the accuracy of this source, so do even wiki admins. As for Albania, it was an independent state, with its own kings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. And I presented my sources, not agreeing with this map. See Mirza Jamal:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja.

Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Atabəy, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the last, as long as you don't have any abjection against itself.

Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster is making claims which he knows aren't true, see above at Vacio's reply. I wonder how long Grandmaster can still refuse to read what others write when others repeat all over again and he closes his ears.

The map represents 1450-1515, the quote he presents speaks of late Safavid, the reign of was from 1501/1502 to 1722. The second half of their reign was in the 17th century. See how Grandmaster made Beylerbey clickable to it's main page on Misplaced Pages and has not done so for Safavid. Given that he was corrected previously of the difference of date I hope Grandmaster has just forgotten to do likewise for Safavid which article clearly indicates the date.

It is not the first time Grandmaster has provided sources representing different periods to remove history which is recognized and not denied outside Azerbaijan.

As for Atabek, his continuous attacks on the author of the map rather than addressing what is inaccurate on the map must stop. More particularly is the subject at hand; Atabek was and is currently banned from its main article. Dozens of sources including the authors Grandmaster uses refers to the principalities of Artsakh (Khachen) indicated as Karabakh on the map. Those sources were provided in the two articles from which Atabek was banned from. This is another attempt to game his topic ban and Wokipedia-wide attempt to remove any mention of Armenian past history in NK and the lands of present-day Azerbaijan. - Fedayee (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all just a pointless repeat of the original discussionrequest (and that in turn was a pointless repeat of the article's talk page discussion.) Again Grandmaster / Atabəy don't come up with credible reasons to reject the map, don't address the points made by other editors, and go widely off-topic in an attempt to disguise their weak positions. And again we have disinterest from third-parties. Meowy 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys read the source before saying something bad about other editors and failing to assume good faith time after time? The source says that the Armenian principalities in Karabakh never were independent, they were always subordinate to Muslim rulers, initially to the Khans of Ganja, and later, after Ganja khans remained royal to Safavids and did not support Nadir shah, he subordinated their lands to other rulers. For instance, meliks were subordinated to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, and that arrangement lasted until Karabakh khanate was created:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

I have more sources on this, but this discussion is pointless. The main issue is that the map should be made on the basis of a reliable scholarly source, and not be taken from some amateur website. This is what I propose to do, let's find a map from a professional source, who's qualification cannot be questioned. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). Meowy 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --Brand спойт 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters IT IS AN IMAGE! What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atabəy claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a circulus vitiosus. --Brand спойт 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - Fedayee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to illustrate information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no WP:RS violation involved. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. Meowy 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion on the talk page of the Abkhazia WikiProject, and I want to say that already previously I found that the maps that describe the political situation of the region some 2000 years ago (like here, used on Misplaced Pages e.g. here) seemed improbably accurate, given the paucity of contemporary sources. Of course, I could be wrong. sephia karta | di mi 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. Meowy 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. Grandmaster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. sephia karta | di mi 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a source for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to illustrate what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Misplaced Pages editor).

To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it might be an acceptable illustration. Whether it is an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Misplaced Pages editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. Meowy 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. sephia karta | di mi 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as per WP:OR#Original images a seperate source does not need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should already be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Southparkstudios.com video tags

Southparkstudios.com FAQs seem to be a pretty good source for Southpark plot synopses, the FAQs being answered by the writers or directly on their behalf. Some episodes have been cited with tags from the video clips, from which I've found this; "The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other". So are they a guide for searches or an actual citeable source? Alastairward (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally a fan forum would not be considered reliable. How are we sure that the answers are indeed from somone official such as the writers themselves? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the site itself is the property of the show's creators and not an affiliate. The writers themselves do seem to have some input into parts of it (if we can believe the typed word), but the tags for video clips do not seem to be one of those parts, if I understand what was said in that link. Alastairward (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be fair, shall we? The complete quote is The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other. A search for Butters in the video clips will give you all the clips they have here with Butters in it. Further more, the quote preceding it is Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. How's that unreliable? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The full quote just confirms that the tags seem to be there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ. 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs)

That's your personal understanding. They are generated by the SPStudios' admins and therefore, indisputably reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is a dispute, a note on the site itself says they're added to aid searches, not to act as a FAQ. Remember WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something, not to simply dismiss queries. Alastairward (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then as an editor, prove that SPStudios are full of $#!+ and you know better than they do. It's the creators' website - whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else), it's still the creators' website! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something that has been added to Misplaced Pages is verifiable, not to simply dismiss queries.

You said yourself, "whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else)", so you at least acknowledge that this is not a form of FAQ. The link I provided confirms this, it seems that the tags are added to aid searches, so the Admins know what people want to look for in association with certain clips. This is not the same as a FAQ, this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site.

Also, please remember to be civil. Alastairward (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you're claiming to know first hand what the Admins think and do ("this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site"). Care to provide a verifiable source for that? Unless you can cite their Admins, it's your own speculation and as such, has no place on Misplaced Pages.

By the way, WP:BURDEN applies to you as much as it does to me, as you are an editor too. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a suggestion and I've provided a cite as to the lack of link between the FAQs and tags. In return you've done nothing to convince me of your own case.

BTW, I'm challenging your addition to Misplaced Pages, the WP:BURDEN does apply most heavily to you in this case. There's nothing to be gained by simply turning around and demanding that other users address the policy instead of you. Alastairward (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. Basically, you're challenging SPStudios... amusing. As for WP:BURDEN - are you claiming that it doesn't apply to you? You claim that I'm demanding that other users address the policy instead of - no dude, not instead - in addition. You don't have a single privilege over me and don't you forget it. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please calm down and address the issue, not each other. What exactly is the issue with the tags vs the FAQ? Could someone please link to what is being stated and sourced so we can see what the dispute is about? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ccinsider blog

ccinsider.com, a blog affiliated with the Comedy Central website. Looking at the list of contributors and the suggestion that people send them tips (a link just below the link tot the list of contributors, I was wondering how reliable a source this should be considered for in depth discussion of plot synopses of Comedy Central shows. Alastairward (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is reliable. 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't sign your post. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds fine as a primary source to me. It's published by Comedy Central and they have a regular staff, just like some newspapers have columnist blogs that are still part of the newspaper. Also the suggestion that readers send in tips doesn't impact RS; many of the best newspapers accept tips from the public. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about for speculating on cultural references and the like? Alastairward (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Speculating" is done only on your part here. What you think is OR and therefore, unsuitable for WP discussions, let alone editing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What I think is OR? What else would a person's thoughts be?! But philosophy to one side, what makes your edits not speculation? And what makes this team suitable to define the writers' intents? Alastairward (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be fine for speculating on cultural references as long as what's being cited is not unduly controversial or self-serving. What it can't be used for is to assert notability because it's published by the subject of the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, it was used to support a "cultural reference" in the article on the episode Towelie, but it seemed to go against the actual episode commentary. Alastairward (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then cite them both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both are cited, there is no contradiction between the two, yet AlastairWard seems to assert his personal understanding (or the lack thereof) as the end of all things. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

rulers.org

Is this site a reliable source? Several books have cited it. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be tempted to simply avoid it by citing other sources. I would expect something as simple as the start of a rulers' term would be easy to source. The page does not cite sources and accepts corrections via e-mail. I wouldn't use it if I could avoid it. WLU (t) (c) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but in Hubert Maga's case it had information that I could not find anywhere else. I am trying to bring this to FA. Is rulers.org so unreliable that it should never be used. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Using Carma for power station emission info in Australia

At the Kogan Creek Power Station, Queensland talk page there is a minor issue with the reliability of a source regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted by this and other power stations in the country. Does a database, such as the one Carbon Monitoring for Action has online, become unreliable if they use a statistical model to deduce emission from power stations that do not report figures directly to them? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change, and National Polutant inventory. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that official sources ought be used if available. Unfortunately neither I nor another user (Shiftchange) can find any actual or estimated figures on emissions of individual power stations from official sources after researching the references provided by Gnangarra. The source has emissions of CO1 but not CO2. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 My searching of similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. Having done the research suggested by Gnangarra and finding that it does not provide any actual or estimated figures for CO2 or Greenhouse gas emissions of individual power stations it seems that CARMA is the best available source of estimates of such emissions from individual Australian Power stations. On that basis, given that CARMA clearly has a major database and a disclosed methodology of calculating estimates of sources which have no official estimates (based on actual reported emissions of a large number of sources) I submit that CARMA is an acceptable source for an *estimate* provided it is clear it is an estimate and a reference is given to the source. Individual users can then make as assessment of the reliability. This seems a far more credible approach than not allowing any estimate for emissions. dinghy (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

What reason do we have to think that CARMA is reliable? On the plus side, it is linked to by the UK Energy Research Centre. Its launch led to positive news items on CNN and US public radio. However, I can't find any review saying "this is a reliable website". I also found a damning critique by some people calling themselves Climate Due Diligence, although this organisation does not seem to have any particular indication of notability or credibility. The critique did on the face of it seem to be sourced. So what are we left with? CARMA's estimate of CO2 emissions is probably the best available. It is only an estimate but then an estimate can be labelled as such. Does the article need to carry a statement about CO2 emissions? No. If there is no official figure and we do not have an impeccable source for an estimate, it should be left out. The article still tells us that it is a coal-fired power station of a certain capacity, so any reader can be sure that it is responsible for emitting "a lot" of CO2? Approximately how much? If a reader wants to know this then they will have to email the company or perhaps the Australian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source

STS-48: if the core of the information can only be backed up by a video on youtube and if there is no other copy elsewhere, can it be used safely on[REDACTED] as a source?Lyckey (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it really depends on who uploaded the video. If it's NBC it's likely reliable however if it's some fan you shouldn't be including it. Also please see WP:YOUTUBE as there can also be copyright issues when it is from a fan. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be NASA footage. dougweller (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As said, it's supposed to be a Nasa footage. Not sure but the uploader probably is a "fan" of UFOs, or might be a neutral NASA employee as well. On the other hand, the video speaks for itself, even if it were through, say NBC, nobody in NBC could have verified the originality. Lyckey (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to youtube as a source, but it is used everywhere to support everything so it must be me :) --Tom 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, youtube is not a reliable source. There is no way to tell if the video has been manipulated from the original. The user who posted it may say it is NASA footage, but we can not verify this. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

However, let's not think the video is not available elsewhere. I have found STS-48 video clips on several sites that have editorial control and do not have the copyright problems often associated with Youtube... for instance Williamson Labs. Just what does your video purport to show? Schmidt, 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Little green men, oh course :) --Tom 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ps williamson-labs.com??? And they are who/what? --Tom 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess due to the nature of the subject, a "supposed to be Nasa footage" is beyond any editorial control, which can judge authenticity. I don't see any copyright issue with such a video, as any claim from Nasa would mean the confirmation of authenticity. The version in williamson-labs is obviously the shorter and poor quality one. Who cares their editorial control :)? I've not encountered with any longer and better quality version than the one in youtube. The video purports to show that Nasa has the technology to monitor UFO or ice particle activities. --Lyckey (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly, editorial control is what makes something a reliable source. Uploader Joe is not NASA, and so cannot have the credibility of a NASA video. Find the original. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap! Someone said something on Misplaced Pages that makes sense! Ling.Nut 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original is available for free at most good libraries and can be ordered from NASA. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Then per WP:NF, since the film is available from NASA and "most good libraries", the film itself can be used as a source, even if not available to every editor. So don't cite back to youtube, simply cite to the NASA or library site where it is available. Schmidt, 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Right -- and also note the claim made for what the video shows better be substantiated by any normal viewer of the NASA footage. Too often I have found a cite does not say what is claimed for it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the video was published by NASA and can be referred to as such a publication. Collect's point is extremely important. The conclusion that the video purportedly supports may not be obvious from the video itself; one should be careful to only state what it actually shows. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

newsmeat.com as source

Is this roll of political contributions ok as a source to claim the (deceased) person's political affiliation? The identity of "KRICK, IRVING P DR" and Irving P. Krick is without doubt. NVO (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I am shocked by the number of articles that link to this site. Also, the political affiliations of this meteorologist are not directly relevant to his career and to pull them off this website is a clear case of original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. I'd argue that political affiliations are quite relevant even for meteorologists, but in this particular case they should be quite obvious anyway. NVO (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed please

Windmill World is a reliable source for info on windmill articles. Question is, when it reports on a Weblog discussion, can one take the information quoted therein as coming from a reliable source?

Disclosure - I know the provider of the info provided is an expert molinologist, and have great faith that his info is correct. Question is, can I quote Windmill World as the source of this info for the purposes of Misplaced Pages? Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It really doesnt matter that the provider is an expert in the field blogs/forumns dont meet the requirements of WP:RS, and you should avoid quoting any person from such discussions. Try contacting the person and asking for an alternative source that covers the information in more detail. Gnangarra 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The person in question edits Misplaced Pages so I will have to drop him a line. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.adherents.com/

I see this is used a lot, over 500 links (a lot to userspace). Is this considered a reliable source and if so in what contexts, eg if someone is listed as an adherent of a faith, can we use it for that? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright info of any kind. That would make me reject it out of hand. Ling.Nut 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would consider Adherents.com a reliable source, primarily because it is very focused on citing the sources it uses. For example, this page on the site lists Oliver Stone's religious affiliation as "Jewish father; Catholic mother; raised Episcopalian; Tibetan Buddhism (convert)". And if you click on that description, you will see a page containing a long series of quotations from 11 different sources showing where this information came from. That's besides the table of religious adherent statistics, where every single entry has a citation. See this page for an excerpt from the table; the 8th column has bibliographic citations for every statistic, and the 9th column shows the quote supporting the statistic. As to who is responsible for the site, see the site FAQ; the fact that the site doesn't have a copyright notice does not necessarily say anything about its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source. According to the FAQ: "The Adherents.com website is primarily the work of Preston Hunter" (the webmaster of the website). As such it has to be considered a personal webpage. The only way it could be considered reliable would be if Mr. Hunter was an acknowleged expert in the subject of religion. I don't think he is. As he states in the FAQ... he is computer programmer who works primarily in biomedical and genetic research, with an emphasis on database-based bioinformatics. His accademic credentials consist of a B.S. degree in Conservation Biology, with a minor in linguistics and he is currently working towards a B.S. degree in Computer Science. In short, he is mearly an amature when it comes to religion.

Adherants.com is probably a good site to use for background research (ie our editors could use the adherants page to find reliable sources upon which to base information stated in our articles), but I don't think we should use it as a reliable source on its own. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses, which themselves would be considered reliable sources. Examples: Oxford University Press: , . Cambridge University Press: . University of California Press: , . Harvard University Press: . University of Chicago Press: . If it is good enough for these academic publishers, it ought to be good enough for Misplaced Pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That actually depends on the context of the citations in those books. If adherents.com was cited as an authority, then I agree that these citations probably establish Mr. Hunter as a recognized "expert". If cited in the context of a dismissal of or rebuttal to Mr. Hunter says, then no. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

history-nz

Hi! I was planning to improve an article on a relatively obscure French Explorer, Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace, but I was having trouble finding references. I have managed to dig up a website, one book which I don't have access to, and Laplace's own report, written in French. The website, seems to contain a nice amount of valuable info, but I'm not sure how reliable it is - could you help me out? \ / (⁂) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say use it with caution, use the articles there to get an over view and to help find further sources. The sites author says In view of the fact that this is a personal homepage, I would advise anybody doing serious research to cross check subjects by paying a visit to... and provides links to various sites at this page noting that the particluar subject you linked to is sourced from French explorers in the Pacific by John Dunmore, I'd suggest trying to get that book. Gnangarra 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I missed that note at the bottom somehow. It seems a trip to the library is in order - thanks for the help! \ / (⁂) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Knol - a reliable source?

I think this has been discussed before but I can't find the discussion. Take this as an example: Suresh Emre. "Rapid Climate Change 11.5 Thousand Years Ago".. Hardly any references, no indication as to who he is, etc. IMHO Knol should not be used as a reference - how about as an external link?. dougweller (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Knols are listed in WP:SPS as being unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. Used a lot though. dougweller (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs?

An editor has quoted Hustler magazine (Warning: NSFW) as a reliable source. A word of warning that some of the comments on the page are quite offensive and contain crass sexual innuendo. Is pornography a reliable source for world affairs, this particular article presents a fringe theory on the USS Liberty Incident. Justin talk 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the hustler blog or somesuch. The person who wrote it does seem notable though that he could only get these views published in a blog on Hustler does make you question why he couldn't get them into a peer reviews journal or a reliable paper. NOTE: Not supporting the use of hustler as a source, I think it is inappropiate, just adding details. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts is a well-known writer. Though Roberts was once respectable, his reputation has declined. FWIW, the article is reprinted both on Roberts' VDARE archive, and on David Duke's website. I think it'd be correct to view this as a questionable source. At most, it might be worthwhile to mention his view of the matter with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is published in Hustler really has no impact on its reliability... in such cases we judge by the reputation of the author, not the venue of publication. Ask yourself whether you would consider the article reliable if it appeared in a different magazine. That said... it does not sound like the author is well respected, or considered an expert on world affairs. As such his opinion is questionable. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler has editorial oversight, its independent of the subject and the piece is by a recognised author what ever his reputation there is no reason not to consider it as a potential source it meets WP:RS, and WP:V. The problem is there are already 20 sources listed in the EL section(not even used as references) that dispute the official story, this is only another one repeating what those have already said. Under those conditions how does it compare to the similar sources, the Hustler article refers to sources already used in the article. The Hustler article doesnt provide anything that the other sources already do, this article already has too many EL another one isnt going to enchance the article. I'd think that WP:EL, WP:UNDUE are the real issue. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if something is relevant, it is likely to have been reported elsewhere, meaning we don't have to cite the porn magazine. If something about a serious topic that is subject to scholarly study only appears in a porn mag, or a celebrity weekly, or a tabloid, then in my view it's not of encyclopedic relevance. Use the most reliable sources available and present views according to their published prominence in the most reliable sources. Jayen466 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. For example, while researching a different article I discovered that Playboy had some of the strictest editorial policies in the magazine world with extensive fact checking. Though Hustler has had some scoops the worthwhile ones have been mentioned in the mainstream media. The problem here is the combination of a fringe writer and a fringe source. If either were better then the situation would be different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for fun, where would you locate (1) Playboy, (2) a yellow-press tabloid, (3) the NY Times, (4) The New Yorker, (5) a University Press-published book and (6) a peer-reviewed academic history journal, on a reliability scale from 1 to 10, for a historical topic like this? Jayen466 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. I have not laughed that loud in a long time... It seems that wikilayering has no limits when it comes to WP:RS discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly told me that no source can be judged as reliable or unreliable without judging the context and use. I've seen folks call the NY Times and LA Times "tabloidesque", so it appears that no source is good enough for some statements, while for other assertions even dubious, self-published sources are sufficient. So let's no make generalties. I think we all agree that for this article and purpose, the Roberts peice published by Hustler is not a reliable source for anything but the writer's opinion. Whether that opinion is worth including in the article is another issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

A discussion is currently going on at talk:1982 Lebanon War, regarding its reliability. While I agree that it's not a perfect source, especially on controversial issues, I'm not sure if it's completely unreliable. It is used relatively often in Misplaced Pages. Has it been discussed here already? If so, I'd appreciate a link to the discussion. If not, what's the procedure? Thanks in advance, Nudve (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This has come up in the past (the discussion would be somewhere in the archives at WT:RS) and, if I remember correctly, the determination was that it was indeed reliable.

To examine it freshly, I would say it is an excellent tertiary source. It is a collection of articles written by (and clearly attributed to) noted scholars. As such, I would call it reliable. It probably does have a distinct (pro-Israeli) bias, but bias does not make something unreliable. Any bias can be offset by reference other reliable sources that present contrary viewpoints. If there is doubt as to whether a given statement taken from an article in the JVL is "true", remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability and not Truth. We can re-write anything controvercial so as to present the statement as the opinion of its author, as opposed to a statement of an undisputed fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've found this discussion and this one, but they don't explicitly arrive at any conclusion on this particular site. Are they the ones you were referring to? -- Nudve (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No... my vague memory goes back to before we created this noticeboard. Look through the archives of WT:RS (the talk page for the actual guideline). Note... it was a long time ago. I may be mis-remembering. You may also want to check the archives at NPOV.Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember such a discussion, but would have no idea where to look. To the point at hand, as Blueboar said, JVL is an excellent tertiary source, attributed to various noted (and some not so noted) scholars in the field. Particulars at JVL may be disputed, but the site as a whole is reliable. What are the main arguments against its reliability? -- Ynhockey 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand, they are this and this. -- Nudve (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those is a valid argument. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, as Blueboar correctly noted. -- Ynhockey 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias is OK - outright falsification and historical denial are not. Mitchell Bard prides himself on updating "Myth and Facts" which should be a clue straightaway. Most of the examples in that 40 year-old screed are strawmen - the recent ones Bard has added are, it would seem to me, falsehoods eg "MYTH - "The delegates of the UN World Conference Against Racism agreed that Zionism is racism". While it is true that that particular part of the resolution wasn't voted on, it was not because the delegates didn't agree on it. The proportion of them agreeing was even higher after the US pulled out in frustration and despair than it had been before!

And the JVL itself is no better - the article on Deir Yassin is denialist, seeking to blame the peaceful and cooperative villagers for the massacre on them. Articles such as this seek to falsify, making it seem as if Albert Einstein was a regular defender of Israel - when he was highly critical of what they were doing, right up to helping wreck Menachem Begin's December 1948 visit to New York by reminding everyone that the leader of the Irgun was a fascist in the fullest meaning of the word. And that they were terrorising the Jews of Palestine as well. There are a number of Palestinian sites much, much better than this which are rejected for consideration as RS. Let's make the project more reliable, not lower our guard in this fashion. PR 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is entirely your opinion. Until you can provide evidence that clearly proves that JVL purposely falsifies facts, the accusations have no merit. Not sure what Palestinian sites you are referring to. -- Ynhockey 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found JVL more problematic than mentioned above. Not all the articles are authored, and some are very out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may need to distinguish the JVL as a whole from the individual articles that make up the JVL. The site as a whole seems to fit our definition of reliable (There is editorial oversight, the majority of the articles are written by noted scholars, some of them provide sources of their own... etc). Individual articles within the JVL, however, may not be reliable ... This would depend on the reputation of the article's author, the number of clear and obvious errors in the article, whether there are more up to date sources, etc.

(Caveat: When dealing with sources in this topic, we do have to keep in mind that there is often dispute as to whether something is "true" or an "error". We also need to remember that the threashold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. When I use the phrase "clear and obvious errors", I am not including situations where the facts are disputed. That said, where the factual accuracy of a statement in an ariticle hosted on the JVL is disputed, I think it reasonable to limit reliablility ... ie to say that the article is reliable for an attributed statement of opinion, but not for a statement of blunt fact). Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the principle by which we discriminate against, for instance, Holocaust Denial sites, even if some of what they have to say could be useful. One reference to either known falsifications or hate-speech rightly cuts them out of contention - and we link these two behaviors because they march together in real life. The JVL is more than simply biased, there is clear evidence of both denialism and falsification. PR 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar's approach is completely upside-down. If a source is reliable, we would expect all (or most - errors happen everywhere) articles published under its control to be reliable - by the very virtue of being published by a reliable source. On the other hand, an unreliable source can still publish reliable papers - I could collate PLoS Biology and Cooks United, and that would not harm the reliability of PLoS publications - and it would not increase the reliability of the Discovery Institute. The reliability of a source is determined by its own procedures. Of course it is often possible to use links to a not inherently reliable collator as convenience links (as long as we trust them to not falsify the original publication), but in that case we do not use the collator, but the original publication as the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is WP:notable, and WP:reliable source. The standard is WP:verify not what some editors thing about the source. This argument is a waste of editor's time. If you like what they say, or not, they are a reliable source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More of the JVL's propaganda nature can be seen with statements over the attack on the USS Liberty eg "None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship" when the main motive is clearly understood (explanation follows:)- President Johnson wanted Nasser humiliated, and had given Moshe Dayan the green-light to attack Egypt, preventing the UN Security Council agreeing on a mandatory cease-fire. But Moshe Dayan had spent years stealing parts of the Golan Heights under the noses of the UN (as he famously told the Israeli journalist Rami Tal), and was determined to create more of "Greater Israel" while he had the chance. Hence, in defiance of the US and in great secrecy, he moved his armor from the Suez Canal all the way back through the Sinai and through Israel to the Golan Heights, where, long after the ceasefire was fully accepted, he would carry out an attack everyone could see was unprovoked. (Other motives have been alleged - they're complimentary and not contradictory, so perhaps all could be true).

Note that, according to the 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence “all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately”, so the JVL really is way, way out on left-field with this denial.

Lastly, I don't understand why editors believing that verifiability trumps reliable source have not been slapped into shape long before they arrive at RSN with their profoundly anti-policy and anti-scholarly ways. PR 11:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Francis Frith website

Is the Francis Frith website a reliable source to use as a reference. Concern has been raised that the site exists primarily to sell photographs, thus qualifying as SPAM. Whilst I agree that the website being used in External Links could fall foul of SPAM, historical photographs that are dated showing buildings in years past should qualify as reliable sources in themselves. This photo shows that Shiremark Mill, Surrey had all four sails intact in 1928, and I used it as a reference for that fact, but another editor removed it as a spamlink. The opinions of other editors as to the validity of the Frith website as a reference would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret F Harker is certainly a reliable source. She's written widely on Frith and other Victorian photographers. The site is probably just using words she has published elsewhere, proably in Victorian and Edwardian Photographers. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It was my deletion of a number of Francis Frith external links and references which prompted this. Thanks to Mjroots for engaging in a constructive and civil discussion! My principal objection to the Francis Frith website is that it is a commercial venture setup with the sole purpose of selling historical photographs and books. Francis Frith is obviously a respected individual and Francis Frith books are indeed suitable reference works, but the website itself is not. Using the website as a reference simply drives more clicks to a commercial website and potentially boosts their sales of copyright works. If the photographs can be identified in Francis Frith books then they could and should be used as a reference. --TimTay (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments above more carefully than I did earlier, it seems that the particular information that is being used is not about Frith himself, but about a photograph published by his company, which existed long after his death. The photograph dates from the '20s, so is not likely to be discussed in the writings of Harker. The question is whether the website can be relied upon as a source for the statement that this photograph documents a windmill in the 1920s. In reality it is the photograph that is being used as a source, the only question of reliability is whether we can be confident that the company using the website can be trusted to have accurately described it. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that this is false information. We are not using the site for facts or opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict here. I'd suggest that the issue here is essentially whether it is a reputable company. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay's supposed affair

In the article discussion, I broached the topic of noting the picked up news story regarding Ramsay's affair(s). The initial source is NotW, but the story was then picked up by outlets all over the world, none of them with the stigma of tabloid. As per BLP, the verifiability of the source is there, the reliability of the sourced info is there (and duplicated by other news outlets who likely provide redundant fact-checking), and the notability of both subjects is apparent. As we have a citation (actually, something on the order of a dozen of them), we are well-protected mentioning that at least one woman (a notable person in her own right) has admitted to having an affair with the chef. I am finding some resistance with the article editors, though I haven't tried to add it to the article without giving heads-up. - Arcayne () 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Admitted" is a weasel word. If this story is to appear, it should be in the form "reports appeared in newspapers that Ramsay..." rather than "Ramsay did..."/ Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's given, to be sure. It was going to be something along the lines of blankety-blank reported that X claimed Y. The reliability of the source, and not the format of the inclusion, is what is being questioned. - Arcayne () 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

d20zines

Would a webzine such as d20zines.com be classed as a reliable secondary source? This reivew is being cited in the article Races of Stone as evidence of notability. I consider this to be a type of self-published source as the format of this website is similar to a web forum. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely leaning towards saying "Not reliable"... but we need to know more about the site and its owners to make a full determination. Notability needs to be established by "reliable sources that are independant of the subject". So we need to ask two questions: a) is it a reliable source? and b) is it independant of the subject?

The review in question is credited to a "staff reporter", which seems to indicate that this is more than just a forum site... that there is some degree of editorial control (which might make it reliable). However, I can not find any "about us" type link to show who the editors who oversee the "staff reporter" might be. Who runs and owns the zine? Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

d20 Zine was owned by Steven Creech, also the owner of Dragonwing Games. It is now owned by Jonathan M. Thompson, owner of Battlefield Press. In the past reviews were handled by the staff of Dragonwing Games. I do not know if they were peer-reviewed internally. I do know that d20 Zines was online since August of 2001 and reviewing d20 content since that time. Web Warlock (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic pertaining to Dungeons & Dragons articles, Ravenloft (D&D module) is a current FAC, and the reliability of the indexes in this website has been questioned. Any outside input would be great. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Additions to WP:BADCHARTS

We are having a discussion of two charts over in WP:Record charts at Top40-charts.com and Chartblue.com. These are candidates to be added to the WP:BADCHARTS list. For those that don't get involved in the song articles, being listed on WP:BADCHARTS makes all references to that chart in any music article open season for deletion, so a false listing has unpleasant consequences. That's why I'm posting here to get a reasonably broad consensus.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft (D&D module)

The reliability of this article's sources is in question. It's currently an FAC, so any help would be great. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical Key Signatures

I would like to propose the addition of the musical key when a song warrants its own article. I was referred here by another editor to help with the establishment of what a reliable sourcing would be for the key of a song. The limited discussion we have had so far can be found at this page. What are some opinions on this, would a key need to be sourced to written literature? Or is the fact that it is recorded and published and competent musicians could establish the key enough to not require other citation? Occidental (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I could see this for some forms of music (say a Mozart violin concerto)... but I am not sure if it would work for all forms of music. For example, is there always a pre-determined key for a hip hop song? What if different artists have recorded the same song in different keys? I would say that noting the key should be optional... and we should only list the key if it has been written down some where (sheet music, or discussed by a reliable source). Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources would vary depending on the song but musician magazines such as American Songwriter, Guitar for the Practicing Musician, Keyboard Magazine, Guitar Player, Guitar World, Songwriter magazine and Mix Magazine would all be good sources to cite as they are prone to discuss more technical aspects of music. They also regularly have/had interviews with musicians, producers, songwriters, and others in the industry who discuss techniques that may shed light on a particular album or piece of music. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to clarify the question. Are we looking for the key that the song was arranged in or the key as performed on the specific recording? The first is simply a question of knowing how to read the notation and to distinguish between major and minor keys. The second is not quite as obvious, but just as unambiguous and reducible to software. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I see the editor is asking "when a song warrants its own article" can they add the key, so that implies it would be for a song that has it's own article. Or, "performed on the specific recording" as you have worded. "Wannabe", "You Light Up My Life" and "Jump" would be examples of articles about a song where technical information could be added, although in some cases, such as "You Light Up My Life", there is more than one version discussed. (as opposed to only listed/mentioned such as in the "Wannabe" article). Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would have to be for the specific recording rather than the arrangement in this circumstance. I think ultimately it would be nice to have the key of the song recorded in the main title table on the right of the page. I do not want to get quite to that as I have seen the massive title table discussions on the music page and would like to be prepared with reliable sourcing agreement prior to the introduction of the idea to add it to the table. As Soundvisions stated, those magazines are decent sources with regards to pop/rock music. Also the published song books, which most popular music have printed, would be a good source as well as the key is stated. Classical music's keys are very well documented and I believe that we can reduce it from this discussion, although jazz would definitely be good to think about sourcing as I am not sure of the sourcing available for it.Occidental (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bounty Books

Is something published by Bounty Books a reliable source? Bounty Books does not appear to be a notable press and I am wondering if it is just a WP:FRINGE press and so the book cited is not reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be more than one such publisher. Are you referring to the publisher of Henry Gray, Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical: A Revised American, from the Fifteenth English, Edition (New York: Bounty Books, 1977)? They were part of Crown Publishers, now part of Random House.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the publisher of although another listing says it is published by Llewellyn which may be this: Llewellyn Worldwide?-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Exclaim.ca

I noticed that Genghis spawn (talk · contribs) is making over a dozen edits inserting links to articles from Exclaim.ca. Not knowing anything about Canadian music media, how notable/reliable is this site? In any case, it seems poor practice to randomly add links to references or external links sections, as this user has done, so I'm going to remove their edits, but I was wondering if the site was appropriate as an inline-cited source. --Mosmof (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage

Is this talking points memo put out by 6 Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee of the US House in 1995, and cited in the lede of Mininum wage a reliable source? Reliable sources are defined as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"... I don't see how a partisan set of talking points fits this description. (see this revert and this talk page discussion.) Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no. I've removed this clear example of POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't clear that this is a clear example of POV pushing, but I agree with removing the citation to the talking points memo. The talking points memo (NOT a reliable source) cites many studies from economics journals (reliable sources, if they are indeed academic journals--I didn't research it, but they looked good at first glance). Somebody needs to take the citations in the talking points and put them directly into the article. There's a lot of work involved, but it's a way to make a point. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Towns' websites as a source for history

(1) Are towns' websites a reliable source for information on the town's history? I am currently involved in a dispute about this question at the Darlowo article, where information was added to the history section sourced by . The website itself does not cite sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(2) Would the website be reliable if it quoted sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the website is reliable. It is, however, a primary source, and therefore does not help to establish information about the town's notability. I think that it can be used for sourcing normally, although reliable secondary sources would be preferred. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The official town authorities definetely are notable enough that their information on history should be noted, if controversy arises it is best to mark the information as coming from the town authorities. --Molobo (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy who makes a town's website is a reliable source? I cannot really believe that. Per WP:RS opening sentence: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can one really attribute that to a town's website?

What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over? The depicted scenario is the case for the town in question, there are many other towns in Europe where similar scenorios apply. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A official city, state, town authorities are notable information sources to the point that their view on the location they administrate is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Obviously you seem to regard a certain opinioneted view since Darłowo was included in several countries throughout its history and none of it included "700 year history" in any of the countries it existed in, including Poland. Of course you are welcome to add claims as such but do remember WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.--Molobo (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument "What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over" can be easly turned into: "What if the country A that has a 1000+ year history of invasions and hostility from country B and 200 years ago country B took over, discriminated its citizens, finally classified the population as below animal status, tried to exterminate it and present its history as belonging to contry and people of country B is being portayed historians from country B. Are publicatons from country B reliable regarding the history before country B took over country A ?" That's quite easy and won't get us into solution. It is best to avoid such argumentation if possible. Only in obvious cases where this relevant that's needed.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A website maintained by a governmental organization is more reliable then a random website maintained by a private, anonymous party. It is of course not as reliable as an academic publication. Still, they are somewhat reliable. See also WP:SPS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS states they are "acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see any requirement fulfilled.

Websites of municipalities are - at least concerning history - not written by experts, and are not reviewed by experts. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They represented the official statement of the city and its position. Thus they are notable and should be presented.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• No -- is not a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Town websites are not a "primary source" but the reliability on other than obvious facts might be questioned. Fortunately a lot of towns have had their histories published, and google has indexed a lot of them, so you might have a good shot at getting a ref from such a book. Collect (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if a published academic work is contradicted by city's website, the academic work takes precedence. When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. PS. Care should be taken with regards to NPOV: for example, if a German book contradicts a Polish city's website, it may not be the case of inaccurate website, but of different POVs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

made the replies an own section: see below

• Please note, this entire thread is yet another example of geopolitical irredentism plaguing Eastern European disputes. Contrary to claims made by User:Skäpperöd, there was no formally established country named by him as “A” with a 700+ year history in this case. There was however, multi ethnic presence at the disputed location for almost a thousand years. I wonder when this bickering is going to stop. --Poeticbent talk 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this has nothing to do with "geopolitical irredentism". The current article looks like this:

German historian Werner Bucholz names Dirlovo as town of "Rügenwalde" and claims it received city law in 1270 by the Wizlaw II of the Danish Principality of Rügen, at that time also ruler of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. According to him the town however decayed and in 1312 received Lübeck law from the Brandenburg margraves, who then were in charge of the area.. Authorities of the town, however, provide that the town rights were given by three brothers Jaśko, Piotr and Wawrzyniec Święc . Werner Bucholz claims that after a short rule by Brandenburg, the town passed to the Duchy of Pomerania in 1347

So the RS history book on this area is a German historian who makes claims, and the non-RS website is authorities of the town who provide. This is utterly inacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not some "website"-this official page of the city itself, and thus quite notable. I would caution against using German history books on Polish cities without criticism. The German history towards Poland is one of Germanisation and eradication of Polish culture which unfortunetely sometimes gives way to some POV in German works-for example the implementation of certain city laws is often wrongly portayed as beginning of the city. However off-topic aside-this seems like limited content dispute which you are unhappy with. The obvious solution is of course to mark the official history by city officials versus version offered by certain German historian. This largly seems to be already implemented in the above text. Your claim that city authority is not reliable in that regards holds no ground.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I edit Lower Silesian towns and run into these problems several times. Sometimes the claims of the city authorities were clearly wrong as every academic work states the opposite (see Jelenia Gora), sometimes they claimed highly unlikely things where neither the old German authorities before '45 nor any old or modern publication knows anything about it (see Szklarska Poręba). Sometimes they are highly biased and overestimate the Polish part of the history (see Zielona Gora (influence of Poles in the 19th century in a city with less than 5% Poles)), often they forget important parts of the history like the Reformation, the Ostsiedlung or the population exchange after 1945 (like Ząbkowice Śląskie, Lubomierz or Złotoryja). Karasek (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself, but should not be considered reliable for an unatributed statement of fact. So... you can cite it for the statement: "According to the town's website, blah blah blah is true", but you should not cite it for the blunt statement: "Blah blah blah is true". Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Karasek-they are not "wrong". They are not just what your German books are writing. That is difference. The German books-and I might remind you that you support using XIX century German books and Nazi Germany books as sources, as far as your past comments in that matter indicate, aren't you ?-are not per definition the ultimate source of objective information. You should accept that the version that the German books present are not the only side of history and Misplaced Pages has to present several sides. Could you tell me Karasek-why is that you believe modern Polish authorities of cities to be wrong but support using XIX century German books and Nazi era books as sources ? Obviously the modern Polish authorities are of better reliability then XIX century German sources or from 1933-1945 Germany.--Molobo (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo. As far as I remember in said cases I used only very new sources (not more than 10 years old) and sources from the early 20th and 19th century. The source from the early 19th century was an eye-witness account. Until now I never used Nazi sources, which I could since Communist sources for the history of Lower Silesia are accepted here too. I'm all for Polish sources for the history of Lower Silesia, but they should be scientific and not published between 1945 and 1990. The Polish historiography published some outstanding material lately (Teresa Kulak, Katarzyna Stoklosa, Wlodzimierz Borodziej), but strangely these sources don't appear here. Instead we get propaganda from someone like Karol Maleczynski.

And I can tell you why I don't trust Polish city authorities: because many of them "forget" very important parts of their own history (do all those small communities, for example, never wonder why they have two churches but need only one?). If we, on the other hand, trust the statements of the city authorities of Jelenia Gora we have to rewrite the history of both Silesia and Bohemia. All this brings me to the question: who writes these articles and what sources are used? A historian would never forget the Reformation. Some of these articles are so full of holes that most probably a complete layman like the secretary of the mayor or the webmaster wrote it. Karasek (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Poland was never communist, and please don't equalise the the totalitarian genocidal racist state of Nazi Germany with post-war socialist Poland, that of course was sometimes authoritarian but to the extent of party holding power. As to your claims about propaganda-showing Polish history is hardly propaganda. As a person who finished university with major in history and German history, I hardly can accept the claim that history presented by them is 'full of holes'-if anything the holes are more evident in quasi-nationalistic German publications who Germanise Latin names of Polish citizens, give the start of cities as the time they adopted law from Germanic countries, or neglect any mention of Polish population in them. You have to accept that German historians or historians working on German grant for German universitites are only one part of the picture.--Molobo (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history, Molobo says they are, Drilnoth, Blueboar and Piotrus say they are only under certain conditions, with every one of these editors proposing different conditions (Piotrus: for temporary use, Drilnoth: not for notability, but for everything else; Blueboar: for attributed statements regarding the town's oppinion about itself). Maybe the policy needs to be clarified ? I opened Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Websites_of_towns. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history"

Neither Dlabtot or Collect make such definitive statement. Only you and Karasek.--Molobo (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you misunderstood me. Towns' websites are not a RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A town's website is a self-published source... so WP:SPS should apply. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the town's view of its own history notable? Yes. Is this website a reliable source as to what their own view is? Certainly. Line 1 of WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Whether it is a reliable source of the "true" history is certainly debatable. It is, however, a verifiable and reliable source of the town's view of its own history - so use it as such, and as nothing more. Knepflerle (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please clarify "the town's view of its own history - so use it as such"? What use exactly do you have in mind? To source statements in a history article/section marked as "the town's view"? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when can a town write about itself? Who is the author? All we have is a website with a history about the town that stops at the year 1941 ... Sciurinæ (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you require clarification, the view's printed on the town's official webspace are referred to as "the town's" for brevity. That they were solicited from a carbon-based lifeform at some point was an unspoken assumption I have now clarified. Knepflerle (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi dear Sciurinae-how did you find this dicussion may I ask ?. "Since when can a town write about itself? "Was there a ban or order against it anytime in history ? Strange question.--Molobo (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A "town" cannot and does not write about itself. The town's current administration has a "human" to write something for its web presence. This human is not a RS. It is not even sure if the website guy ever consulted the town's archive or a book other than a travel guide. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again - you are repeatedly missing a very fundamental point of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy. Sources are not rarely "unreliable" or "reliable" per se. They are unreliable or reliable for providing a given piece of information. Read WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts very carefully.

Is this website a reliable source for the history of the village? Well, it's hard to say without much more knowledge of the writers and historical methodology followed.

However, is it a reliable source for how the town's administration have chosen for their town's history to be portrayed in a public forum? Undoubtedly.

The fact that your historian's views differ from those that the town publically associate with itself is notable and begs questions. We're not here to comment on the merit of these views, we're here to report notable views and who holds them. Tell the reader what each source says and who says it. Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is were inline references come in nicely. A reader can see which facts are referenced to what: an academic publication, or a town website :) Is a town website highly reliable? Probably not. Is it self-published? Close. Is it better than no source at all? Quite so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Towns' websites acceptable as a temporary source for history

based on this statement from the above section:

"When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. " --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also object to have this kind of information as a "temporary" solution. Either one can source one's statement or one can not - one should not give an impression of RS sourced sentences by adding footnotes that turn out to be non-reliable already by definition. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the the city official position is notable it is a perfect source to source some information.If controversy arises and is justified then it can be written that is the statment of the city. Also the thing is that If I write what the position of the city is there is no argument that would deny the fact that the best source for that kind of information would be the city's official page.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not even go so far. Many cities have histories researched and written by proper historians. Some don't. Web sites, on the other hand, are often written by web experts, and not always with proper input or oversight. As far as I know, the history on the website of my small home-town was written by a retired teacher who researched it as a hobby. This does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Stephan Schulz from Germany :) Well we have no way of checking that, so I would avoid making personal comparisions. Also the site is still official and can be sources as to the official stance on the issue by the town's authorites.--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv as a source

The German Federal Archiv Bundesarchiv has recently uploaded several images and is going to do so with about 100.000 pics. Some of them were made in 1933 - 45 and used by Nazi Germany for propaganda purposes. I tried to add a picture of killed civilians at the Bromberg Bloody Sunday, which is a controversial topic even though the incident itself is undisputed. This picture was removed by several editors based on the claim the Bundesarchiv would publish Nazi propaganda (). No sources were provided that the image was "faked", not made in Bromberg or does not show victims of the incident. The removals were simply based on the fact, that pictures were made by Germans in 1939 (e.g. ) and as such are propaganda.

The point is how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933 - 45. Are they reliable? How should they be used? I'd like to hear some other editor's POV. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ekhem. You yourself confirmed that pictures were made by Nazi German propaganda, that the Bundesarchive distributes them doesn't change that fact. Nazi media are per defeault not reliable and can't be presented as objective portayal of reality unless it concerns a clear non-propaganda subject. This however is a propaganda subject The burden of proof in this regard is on the provided of such information. For all we know those can be victims of Operation Tannenberg and titled "german victims".

The proper place for such things is Nazi propaganda article.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They were used by propaganda does not mean, they are propaganda by themself. If a reliable source would claim these pictures show infact victims of the Op. Tannenberg, it wouldn't be a matter of dispute (off course not). Up to now I havn't seen anykind of such source. If your position is the majority POV, Bundesarchiv should stop to upload images made in 1933 - 45.HerkusMonte (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should Bundesarchiv stop relasing them ? I think besides far right and extremists nobody takes Nazi claims seriously. If anything is true then it can be sourced by non-Nazi sources--Molobo (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about who took the pictures, it's about proper attribution of the subject: who were these dead? who killed them? were they killed indeed - it could be a staged set? etc. These questions remain unanswered, so the photograph may appear only with a caption with something like Here's a contemporary German interpretation of the event (and be deleted as unnecessary decoration). On less controversial subjects (i.e. portraits of well known public persons) the archive is a fine source as such. But anything that can be interpreted as a staged propaganda piece should, indeed, be left out. NVO (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The incident itself is not disputed, even not by "far right or extremists". The background and the number of victims is disputed, but as I said above, up to now no source was provided, that these pictures show anything else but (undisputed!) victims. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Nazi propaganda the burden of proof falls on the one providing it, not on the people who question it Herkus. Btw;the incident is now considered by modern research to be a German SD operation, we will need to add this to the article.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question here isn't the photographs... photographs on their own do not make claims as to what they depict, they simply show what was in front of the camera. The question is the caption. Captions are claims as to what the photo is depicting. Captions are text, no less than the text of the main article. So, if there is any question as to the text of the caption, that text must be supported by citation to a reliable source, just like the main text of the article.

In this case, the caption claims that the photo depicts "Victims of the Bloody Sunday" and attributes that claim to Bundesarchiv: "(according to Bundesarchiv)". So can this claim be supported by a reliable source? That is a simple question to answer... does the Bundesarchiv (which is a reliable sourse for its own claims) actualy say somewhere that this picture depicts "Victims of the Boody Sunday"? If so, then the caption is verifiable. We may caption that picture "Victims of the Bloody Sunday (according to Bundesarchiv)" and cite Bundesarchiv as the source. If not, then the caption is not verifiable, and we can not caption the picture that way. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar-I must warn that there is a tactic I observed that is potentiall destructive. One can create whole article using texts as "according to" or with short notice "at least according to nazi propaganda". The end result could be actually a very POV-ed article with lots of pictures and texts that gives an undue weight to certain point by overexposing it. --Molobo (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note-we can't use the picture anyway, there is no clear copyright regarding this source and the debate is ongoing on Wikimedia.--Molobo (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The text caption used by Bundesarchiv is the copy of the Nazi caption as stored in the archives. It is not made by Bundesarchiv.

Bundesarchiv uses name "Signature: "Bild 183-E10612" for the picture itself. It gives full description made by Nazis later. It seems no statement on truth or actual situation is made by the archive itself. --Molobo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The full title is "Bild 183-E10612: Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des Bromberger Blutsonntags)" ~ Dead bodies of killed Germans (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)] HerkusMonte (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv gives signature then archived title of the photo and later the full text from the archive. Somehow I doubt current Bundesarchiv makes claims about "consequences of English blank check to Poland" and "barbarity" and "eternal shame of Poland"-all of which are in the text of the caption.

All in all this is the full caption:

"Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher

Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939" So it is obvious that the title is archived name from 8.9.1939 and thus made by Nazis.

--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, there is no dispute that ethnic Germans were killed in the war at this point. There also no dispute that the Nazis made the most of this for propaganda purposes. There is also no dispute that the photograph was published as a part of that propaganda. Since that is the case there is no reason to exclude the photographs as long as they are properly labelled to explain this context. Articles should have images where they are appropriate, and there is no reason why these should not be considered to be so. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The image's place is Nazi propaganda article. As to your claim killed indicates a crime, and modern research is of the opinion that what happened was a badly gone SD provocation.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. "As to your claim killed indicates a crime" is an unintelligable phrase. The image is about the subject of the article. Virtually every image made of events in the war was used for propaganda by both sides. It irrelevant to the issue of its appropriateness for an article. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Paul Barlow, its been long time since we discussed. I just remembered that we did talked once about if Germans supported extermination of Jews and Poles or "just" expulsion and denial of citizenship) ,nice to see you again.

Anyway; your argument is not convincing: "The image is about the subject of the article" For example propaganda picture of Jews compared to rats conspiring are about Jews but we wouldn't put them in article about Jewish people but in Nazi Propaganda article or Antisemitism. Likewise this picture as it is a propaganda should belong in the article about the subject. Your claim "both sides used propaganda" is a understatement, that dangerously equalises both sides(if not unintentionally)-we should not forget that Nazi regime was totalitarian regime bent on genocide and thus its claims can't be compared to morale boosting attempts by Allies.--Molobo (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now (and don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true). We would put a photo of Jews compared to rats in the relevant articles, which would be about antisemitism, because that's what the pictures illustrate. Indeed, such pictures are in those very articles. Images are to be placed in the articles that are most relevant to them. Articles should have images if those images are relevant and appropriate. In this case the images are appropriate to this article, since they represent German propaganda about the event. We also have photographs from Nazi Germany in the Holocaust article and many other relevant articles about events in WWII. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now "

Now ? Rejecting Nazi propaganda imagery is anti-German nationalist view ? I am sorry but your views seem rather extreme and In my book such incivility and extremism can't lead to fruitfull debate nor judge as objective observer. However you yourself noted 'in relevent' article. Such article is Nazi propaganda. However I did note that is a general term. Perhaps Nazi propaganda against Poland is in order. Oh well, even the worst beginnings can't be turned to some good ideas as the debate showed up. Cheers--Molobo (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no incivility and you are not addressing the issue. The relevant article is the article on the event that the photographs are claimed to document, just as we have many photographs taken by Nazis in the Holocaust article. No-one has ever suggested that the inclusuon of such photograps implies a pro-Nazo POV, indeed they have been uploaded and included by undeniably anti-Nazi - and often Jewish - editors. your "argument" is contradicated by all the relevant evidence. Paul B (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What "evidence" and about what ? You presented nothing relavant. And in fact I am not sure what you are talking about. It's obvious that Nazi propaganda claims against Poland deserve their place and such imagery and description. Likewise potential untermensch portayals belong to racism articles or sections about discrimination of Poles, but not in the main article about Poles. I'm afraid for some reason you have a very emotional stance of this issue, perhaps it would be better if you try to distance yourself to such topics.--Molobo (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The general question is, how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933-45, should we use the BA description or is it Nazi propaganda?

As an example: This picture shows (according to BA) US POW's at the Battle of the Bulge. I'd rather say it's showing Germans, dressed in US uniforms and the picture was made for Nazi propaganda. Sources? None, but it's up to you to proof the BA title is true and not a Nazi lie. A picture of a German Nazi general/politician - no it's an actor dressed in a Nazi uniform, and it's your job to proof the opposite. Do we have a Liberum Veto on BA images or should the doubts be sourced? HerkusMonte (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between historical original captions, which are often suspicious, and modern captions added by historians at the Bundesamt, which will usually be as reliable as neutral academic opinion - in fact, academic use and historical research is the main reason why the archive exists. This particular image of US POVs has been recaptioned after 1945, as is obvious from the original German comment, and so in the absence of strong other evidence I would accept that caption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda and which one isn't? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not Nazi-propaganda or not, the question is wether it is a contemporary caption, or a modern informed one. In this case, the language and the content (referring back to the ultimate 1945 defeat of the Nazis) makes it obvious that it is a modern source. This problem exists for all historical pictures, and has to be solved on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the title "Kriegsgefangene amerikanische Soldaten" a "modern informed one"? The comment below is post-war ("faschistische Wehrmacht" - probably a GDR comment), but nobody want's to use the full text comments of BA pictures. As you said above "so in the absence of strong other evidence" - doubts have to be sourced, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as always the onus is on the proponent of the information. Why would you not want to use the full text? Anyways, in this case the heading is effectively repeated in the modern description ("Eine Kolonne gefangengenommener amerikanischer Soldaten") . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda Herkus, do you believe comments about 'eternal shame of Poland' 'barbarity' 'consequences of English actions', 'disgusting bestiality against German honour" are made by modern Bundesarchiv ? I really think this is not the case. --Molobo (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only and exclusively referring to the title description. That's why I said, noone want's to use the full text. In fact nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures. So the question is, do we have a Liberum veto on BA pictures or not and under which circumstances should such pictures be used. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". The caption in this case is together with the rest of the propaganda text and thus its obvious it is Nazi propaganda claim. Even you now write that :"nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures"-and using even that we can't give a green light to Nazi propaganda claim as factual.--Molobo (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All that is necessary is that the image be properly labelled as having been used for propaganda purposes at the time. That the image is relevant to the article is undeniable, and that it is properly sourced as an authentic image used for that purpose. It is "authentic" in the sense that a reliable source asserts that it is a genuine photograph of the period used at the time for propaganda purposes. Whether the people shown in it were genuinely victims of a massaacre or not is a wholly separate issue, and not one for this board to determine. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". Have a look at this picture for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R83186,_Eger,_beim_Einr%C3%BCcken_deutscher_Truppen.jpg. It shows Sudeten Germans during the German invasion in 1938. The description says this Hitler salute was forced, the woman cries because of this and because she knows how much she suffered and will suffer under the Nazi rule. This description is bollocks, most probably written directly after the war and now utterly obsolete. So, the description was added after the war, but isn't trustworthy either. Karasek (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example of how propaganda might use a picture, even though the picture itself is not a propaganda picture. The title is ~ "Eger, on the arrival of German troops", which is quiet factual, only the full text turns it into propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And as you see the text has to be judged by case to case basis. In the case of Bydgoszcz we have no way knowing who the people are, although as mentioned the most likely answer is the victims of Operation Tannenberg.--Molobo (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny, some Germans were killed at Bromberg in early September 1939? I can't see any evidence nor plausibility why the picture should show victims of the Op. Tannenberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We know Germans murdered people in Gliwice to portay them as German victims. Now we are dealing with such claims and know that they were fabricated by German Nazi propaganda then I am more to believe that is German Nazi propaganda then believe take it as truth.--Molobo (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear a noninvolved editor on how to use BA images. I added a "(according to Bundesarchiv)" and would like to see any other suggestions. Right now every single image is supposed to be removed without explanation as Molobo prefers the Liberum Veto. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Schulz and Karasek are uninvolved, German and they both noted that those are not reliable title quotations. Also it is not "according to Bundesarchiv". Please read:"often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme"--Molobo (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that if a photo would clearly state it is a product of Nazi propaganda, we may consider its inclusion. But there is also a question of balance: what if only pictures of the event are Nazi propaganda? Do we allow Nazi propaganda, even marked as such, to monopolize visual aspect of a subject? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Every picture of the Katyn massacre was made as a product of Nazi propaganda. Goebbels used Katyn for his propaganda, which does not mean the massacre IS propaganda. And I don't think anybody wants to delete these "propaganda" pictures. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-Nazi propaganda pictures of Katyn massacre (ex. this one). If there are no non-Nazi pics of the Bromberg massacre, well... that doesn't really help the credibility of this story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you understood what I ment: contemporary pictures showing the victims of Katyn, not the modern memorial. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda is obviously not reliable, and unless we can agree that a given photo is noncontroversial, it should not be used to illustrate the subject. Even on Commons, Nazi era German photos from Bundesarchiv (a pitful stub...) are tagged with a template that states clearly: For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. What more needs to be said? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comment from an uninvolved editor. Bundesarchiv is a highly reliable source. If they have a copy of a photo then that photo certainly exists. If they make a statement as to what the photo represents then that is also reliable. If there is no statement made by Bundesarchiv but only a caption that we do not know to be from a reliable body, then we do not have a reliable source for speculating what the photo might represent. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I think we have to see the difference between the original image captions at the bottom of the pictures, often "erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme" and the headline, which contains the registration number of the BA and a short descriptive title. This headline was obviously created by the BA and should be used, while the contemporay comment is most likely of unclear origin and shouldn't be used. User:Karasek's picture of Eger above is a perfect example for that (I don't think Karasek wanted to say, that picture shouldn't be used at all) HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a staged photo reliable? The Nemmersdorf massacre describes one of such cases. Any part involved used to produce war propaganda and this Misplaced Pages should warn the readers. I have watched a number of the BA pictures, they show disciplined, uniformed Germans, profesionally staged German victims, bad looking prisoners in KZs and no non-German victims. The non-Germans had little chance to be professionally photographed under German occupation. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So the question boils down to whether the BA's "headlines" are to be considered reliable. Does the BA say anywhere that it has done its best to ensure that these "headlines" are accurate? Or on the contrary does it say that it cannot guarantee that? In the absence of any such statement I think we must conclude that they have been created in order for people to find the archived photos and are thus not reliable as to what the pictures represent. A parallel would be a university library classifying Marx's Capital in the Economics section. It does not guarantee that it is a reliable work of economics, only that people who are looking for the work would expect to find it there. On a general point, history articles should be sourced from texts by academic historians, not from photographs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be confusing the issue here. The archive is recording that the photographs exist and were used in a certain context. It is a reliable source for that fact. A photograph of a Nazi officer arresting someone might be captioned "victim of oppression arrested by by Nazi thug" or "Officer detaining thug who murdered innocent Germans". Photographs in themselves are not source for facts unless the circumstances in which they were taken are undisputed. Both captions are POV, what matters is whether the source identifies this as an authentc photograph of the period and how it was used at the time. We can then use an NPOV caption which imporoversd the article by showing the kind of images that were made and circulated at the period and in what context. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Media Awareness Network

At Media Awareness Network, an exercise in decontructing a website uses an article about aspartame from http://www.rense.com, which is an anti-semitic site full of nonsense. Can Media Awareness Network in this matter be used as a source to make valid claims on aspartame research? They also claim that the writer of the article is a pseudonym for Betty Martini, which Martini officially denied to be in any way involved with. Nevertheless, Media Awareness Network states it was she who was behind it, without mentioning any proof. (Immortale (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

The MAN is a reliable source. The website rense is not, but the MAN is a reliable source about rense. Verbal chat 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As you, Verbal, are the original poster of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, I have no doubt that you consider it a reliable source. In my opinion a website, may it be a reliable source or not, that uses an article from a website that is obviously not a reliable source, cannot be used as evidence or facts regarding research. If this is allowed, any type of research can be ridiculed or hoaxed on unreliable websites and then used as evidence that the original research is a hoax. I like to hear some unbiased opinions on this. I also like to know Verbal's arguments why Media Awareness Networkis a reliable source. According to Misplaced Pages's policy, the burden lies on the editor that uses the source, to prove it's reliable. (Immortale (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Is The Daily Bruin a reliable source? (In this case?)

I cited this article as a reference. Another editor removed the citation. It was in the controversy section of the ITT Technical Institute article.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/34042/

Veecort (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the Daily Bruin should be seen as an reliable source. But does this source provide anything that the the other sources doesn't? Taemyr (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It states the 1.3 percent figure and quotes a UCLA professor giving his opinion. So do I just put it back then? It also mentions the Indiana lawsuit which is in the other sources but is buried within long financial reports.Veecort (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

Is Urban Dictionary a reliable source? I ask, because I notice that the Generation X article relies on it as the fourth citation listed in that article. But that raised a red flag with me, as a rather churlish editor took out his frustrations with me earlier this year by starting an article on UD denigrating me here, and perusing through that site further, I find further such articles on John McCain, apple bottoms, etc. Does any portion of that site, vis a vis the Generation X entry, have editorial control that would deem it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is not at all a reliable source; it consists of user-contributed entries which are judged by other users. Skomorokh 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to come up every couple of months. Maybe we should start compiling a list of previously discussed sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe - Lithuanian

The Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe - Lithuanian claims that Lithuanian was forbodden on the phone in Poland till 1990: http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA305&dq=glanville+proce+telephone+lithuanian&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U1QOroh2Q96OIWCltH9hMMoDeb6yA

The story is totally absurd, no other source conforms it. There existed limitations on foreign langauges usage under martial law in Poland 1981/1982, but hundreds languages were forbidden and not till 1990.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that Blackwell Publishing, which published the Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe, appears to be a reputable publisher of the kind whose books are considered reliable sources. (I also note that the cited excerpt appears to claim only that Lithuanian was forbidden on the telephone in three particular districts of Poland, not nationwide.) The next questions I have are: (1) Do we have a claim in Misplaced Pages that Lithuanian was forbidden on the telephone until 1990? (2) Is it cited to that book? (3) Are there any reliable sources that indicate that Lithuanian was not forbidden on the telephone during that period? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean Lithuanian minority in Poland, History:In Sejny and Suwalki districts prohibition to speak Lithuanian in the public lasted until 1950 (on phone in 1990) and it was in the 1950s that teaching of Lithuanian was introduced as a subject in schools..Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ad 3 - the article in the Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe isn't purely academic one, but includes Lithuanian POV historical comments. The source doesn't quote primary source of the story. Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Glanville Price. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. 1998, p.305 ISBN 0631220399

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution