Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 1 January 2018

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

George Forty - Authority on Tanks/Tank combat or Amateur

I'd like an opinion on whether this man is seen as a notable authority, and as to otherwise, whether his works are seen as RS. There is a conversation going on at the Panzer ace article about George Forty. His works there *were* quoted in the article and treated as RS, including:

• "Tank Commanders" (Firebird books)
• "Tank Warfare in WW2 (Magpie Books)

Forty was Curator of the Bovington tank museum, and has written over 70 books on tanks and military history, as well as serving in the military just after ww2. He was praised by the Museum, when he died recently and he was noted by The Times as being a "leading authority" on the area. However, he has not worked for a university, so I don't believe has University qualifications. Can anyone give an opinion on whether his work counts as RS?, his references were in the article for a while, but were removed from the article recently by one user, who sees him as an "amateur". Given his history, I don't see this to be the case. IMHO his references establish some points that add to the article, and maintain WP:BAL, so would be good to have them back in again.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/George_Forty
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lieutenant-colonel-george-forty-mpgzvcnlb
• http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/obituaries/14534276.Lt_Col_George_Forty_____Father_of_the_Tank_Museum___/

"British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again. However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. . Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. "

and

"There are numerous factors established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace (and tank crews generally), though not all of them agree. Training was one issue, with writers establishing the difference in quality of training depending on the country. George Forty concludes that German tank training had the edge on other nation's training, at least partially because they had started training programs before the other countries, though he notes they still had their problems. . In comparison, he notes that Russian training was seen by some as inadequate, as it was too short.. He noted that for instance, Russian crews drove on the peaks of hills to avoid rough terrain, however this made them more visible targets. They continued to do this throughout the war, with no training or experience correcting this. "

Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Bliztkrieg to the gulf war" Sutton Publishing p 84,
2. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
3. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
4. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 48
5. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
6. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50

• Impeccably reliable. George Forty was an Oxford University educated British Army officer who was chief of staff of the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school and later director of the Tank Museum, and author of more than 70 books with a focus on armoured warfare. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• In a field like this, reputation counts as much as credentials. One can be an expert without being an academic. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I invite editors to visit the Talk page for more background, such as:

• Talk:Panzer_ace#Prior_discussions.

I would not consider opinion by editor Nug to be authoritative. On an earlier occasion, for example, he argued that the pulp writer Franz Kurowski was a suitable source for military biographies; see archives:

• Franz Kurowski for a GA article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to say that Coffman is being misleading with respect to my view on Kurowski, I said:

"WP:BIASED says we don't have to have "reasonable trust in all factual statements" of a source. It is not all or nothing. It depends upon the context. Historians Smelser and Davis acknowledge that authors like Kurowski have a "painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate?"

How can anyone rely upon the opinion of an editor who wilfully misrepresents the arguments of other editors? --Nug (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This section features an inappropriate title. The question is not, whether Forty is an authority on tanks or not, but whether he is a recognized military historian and thus not only a reliable source in an article on tank commanders, but also a prominent one, worthy of numerous citations. His reputation as a tank officer does not enhance his credentials as an historian. In the meantime I have provided one of the rare reviews of the work in question.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of this page, it is for determining whether a source is reliable in context of the claim being made. Read the banner at the top, it states "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." --Nug (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So what? Do you think that Forty's credentials as a military historian are irrelevant when it comes to the question whether he is an authoritative source for historical information? And do you think that his military career in the British army renders any review of his work in question superflous? I am genuinely surprised.--Assayer (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So what indeed. So you think university trained career military officer who taught at the Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery School is clueless in military history and science in the context of armoured warfare? --Nug (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Above all I do not believe in analogisms. Not every military officer is also an able military historian and not every military historian is a capable military officer, either. Furthermore, as you underlined, this is about reliability in the context of the claim being made. It is not necessary to assume reliability by some reverse ad hominem argument. We may just as well stick to the book in question and the claims it makes.--Assayer (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer I have changed the title to be tank/tank combat. Nug's view that his service and training in tank combat doesn't "renders any review of his work in question superflous" but it certainly establishes him as an expert in the field, which helps in establishing his work as RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, editor Assayer agrees we should stick to the claims made by Forty. As an armoured warfare officer who was a veteran of the Korean War and other campaigns, is Forty qualified to comment on the factors (including equipment quality, expertise and bravery) that contribute to the survivability of tank crews as desceibed in this quote:

"British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again. However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. . Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. "

As a staff member at the Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery Schools, is Forty qualified to comment on the quality of training given to tank crews as described in this quote:

"There are numerous factors established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace (and tank crews generally), though not all of them agree. Training was one issue, with writers establishing the difference in quality of training depending on the country. George Forty concludes that German tank training had the edge on other nation's training, at least partially because they had started training programs before the other countries, though he notes they still had their problems. . In comparison, he notes that Russian training was seen by some as inadequate, as it was too short.. He noted that for instance, Russian crews drove on the peaks of hills to avoid rough terrain, however this made them more visible targets. They continued to do this throughout the war, with no training or experience correcting this. "

This is the scope of the query to this noticeboard, anything beyond that is basically irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Bliztkrieg to the gulf war" Sutton Publishing p 84,
2. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
3. Forty, George "Tanks Aces: Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War" Sutton Publishing p viii
4. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 48
5. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50
6. Forty, George "Tank Warfare In World War Two" Magpie Books 1998, page 50

Not quite. Because Deathlibrarian explicitly tied his query to issues of WP:BALANCE. In his words: IMHO his references establish some points that add to the article, and maintain WP:BAL, so would be good to have them back in again. So regardless of Forty's credentials as an authority on tank combat, that does not mean that his work adds to the article Panzer ace. The latter is rather subject to editorial discretion and NPOV, isn't it? So would you say that this whole query is irrelevant?--Assayer (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, George Forty's reliability as a source on armoured warfare was being directly questioned on the article talk page. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That George Forty is a reliable source to comment on matters of military science and history, especially that involving armored warfare, seem self-evident. He was a working professional and teacher at the highest levels of armored warfare and military science, and was the curator of one of the preeminent tank museums in the world. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So then several editors have commented upon George Forty's career and position. But that does not guarantee the reliability of his published works. That should be demonstrated by third-party reviews and opinions. Tank Warfare in the Second World War: An Oral History, e.g., is said to illuminate the experiences of tank warfare through interviews, personal communications and oral histories from American, British, French, German and Soviet soldiers. (Publishers Weekly. Nov 30, 1998, Vol. 245, p. 59) In general oral histories should be treated with extreme caution because of the problem of veracity.--Assayer (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The medium of a reliable source is largely inconsequential if the source is already identified as being reliable. An RS could comment on a subject by writing it on the back of a bar napkin, as long as it can be verified as being from the RS. The medium is more important in establishing the reliability of a source to begin with, or the establish the topical consensus for weight among reliable sources. A professor's blog does less to establish academic consensus than a peer reviewed paper, etc. Oral histories are fine, as long as it is properly framed. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a source can also be affected by the piece of work itself and its publication process. It would be sheer ignorance to focus exclusively on the author. Besides, it should be possible to demonstrate the authoritativeness of an author with reference to his work, not through assumptions about his training and the nature of the positions he held. The context of the claims being made is not military museumology.--Assayer (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If a recognized authority claims, in their own words (as opposed to quoting others) that "X is true" and we have no compelling reason to suspect said authority of lying or joking, then, absent any explicit dissent from other recognized authorities, we can and should state "X is true" in wikivoice without qualification, regardless of the circumstances under which those words were published. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ThanksᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

Yep that pretty much covers practically all cases. I did remove a bit by an expert that was not contradicted by anyone else once and that someone was trying to put in, but I raised an RfC on it and it was done after a number of other editors had agreed it was simply a mistake on the experts part and that was why no-one else said anything about it. I can't see anything like that being the case here. Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was not, whether Forty was an expert on military equipment, but whether he can be considered an expert on military operations, history and historiography, which is not demonstrated by a military career and curatorship of a tank museum. Military historiography might be distinguished from militaria literature or military antiquarianism by the degree of documentation and its perspective. Since the explicit intention of this query is to pit Forty against acknowledged academic military historians, I would expect evidence that he is that kind of a recognized authority. --Assayer (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was not, whether Forty was an expert on military equipment, but whether he can be considered an expert on military operations, history and historiography.

Unless there are experts on military operations, history and historiography who disagree with him, this is a moot point, and the only question remains (as OiD pointed out) one of weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it the idea of WP:ONUS to demonstrate that there are other experts on military operations, history and historiography who recognize him as an authority, and not vice versa? Because I find it hard to come up with references which discuss his works in question either way, critically or positively. I could provide some not so flattering reviews of some of his other works, but the people around here rather seem to be utterly impressed by his career.--Assayer (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the information used, on the article, Forty far surpasses the requirements of a reliable source. 'If' it should be used is a question of weight, not reliability. I however do not see any problems in that area either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Beall's List resurrected and maintained

See https://predatoryjournals.com

Trying to determine the credibility of these Turkish sources -- for an English Misplaced Pages page about Ozan Varol (rocket scientist, author)

Sources are as follows. I am unsure of whether or not they would be considered "fringe" publications. These would be making up the bulk of an initial page about Ozan, with some additional English sources that would support.

NOTE: These are currently being translated by machine but I would be verifying them with a natural-born Turkish speaker before using.

1. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/01/09/yasam/yas00.html
2. http://www.gecmisgazete.com/haber/mars-ta-bir-turk-var-14148
3. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/demokratik-darbe-kuraminin-mucidini-takdimimdir-yazi-769551/
4. http://www.star.com.tr/yazar/marsa-ve-darbeye-merakli-bir-turk-genci-yazi-769936/

It was the year 2000 when Ozan Varol was heard for the first time that our country was informed by NASA that he would be participating in a six-member steering committee to direct space vehicles named 'Apex' and 'Athena' to Mars . At that time, Ozan was studying astronomy at Cornell University in the USA . When he was still a first-year student, he learned that he was carrying out a joint project between NASA and the school and immediately said, "Take me, too . " "Mars has a Turkish" titled News January 9, 2000 dated Radical 'den Let us read: " The victory of perseverance - 
Project manager Dr. Ozan , who said he wanted to send an e-mail to Steven Squyres , was given about 500 pages of scientific texts and a period of two weeks. Ozan who read the texts day and night , Squyres ' oral examination was successful. Success 'I'd been' he explains Ozan , so that five had managed to enter the US as the only foreign team members."

5. http://www.vize.bel.tr/Yz-39-Devlet-adamlarimiz.html

Ozan VAROL: Ozan VAROL, born in Istanbul in 1982, is the grandson of retired teacher Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

6. http://www.trakyanet.com/trakya/kirklareli/vize/175-vizeli-unluler.html

Ozan VAROL Born in Istanbul in 1982, Ozan VAROL is the grandson of retired teacher and Kızılay District President Şakir KAN. Ozan, who graduated from Üsküdar American High School, was studying in the Astronomy Department of Corneil University in America, where he was going to pursue his higher education, while he was studying two instruments to be sent to Mars as part of a project jointly conducted by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Cornell University. he took place as the only Turkish student. On January 9, 2000, Milliyet's headline, "Under the Turks on Mars", emphasized that "Ozan, 18 years old, was on the control team of the vehicle to be sent to Mars.

Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Forebears

Is Forebears reliable for distribution figures as at the Sharma article? In particular, it is difficult to determine exactly which of their many named sources are being used and some are distinctly more reliable than others for sampling purposes, especially when taking into account the massive problem of transliterating over 200 languages in India alone. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking.Winged Blades 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Their surname population figures for the UK may be correct, but the accuracy of their figures for India is doubtful. As already stated, it's not clear what their sources for the specific population figures are: if they rely on the colonial-era registers listed at forebears.io/india, their numbers are obviously obsolete. They seem to be either extrapolating data from previous years, or wrongly comparing population figures from different years for different countries. Moreover, their website allows user submissions, and does not name any editors or compilers on its "About", "Contact" or "Website Credits" pages. As such, I am inclined to classify this source as non-reliable. If they mention their sources for specific data somewhere on their website, it's better to use those sources as citations. utcursch | talk 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Queerty Source/Is it appropriate for an FA?

Hello everyone! I am currently putting this article (Ho Ho Ho) up for FAC, and during the source review, I was asking about the reliability and appropriateness of the following Queerty source here. The source is an interview with American drag queen Hedda Lettuce and I am pulling from the following part of the source: (What’s the Best Holiday Song? I know the worst one, RuPaul singing “Hard Candy Christmas.” Makes me want to shove a candy cane in my eye.). I could not find an about page or page about the site's editors or editorial oversight, though the site has been named as "a leading site for gay issues" Newsweek in 2010. So my question is the following: Is this source appropriate for a featured article? Since this source is not integral to the article, I have no problem with removing it, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Buelow's A History of Baroque Music

• Description of book
• Page on google books (page 566)

This book published in 2004 by Indiana University Press was written by George J. Buelow, emeritus professor of music at Indiana University. It is a standard textbook on the history of baroque music. It contains a section on 19th century criticism of baroque music and in particular Bach and Telemann. Buelow explains how critics systemetically compared the two composers, praising Bach to the detriment of Telemann. User:Francis Schonken has written that he considers that part of the book to be "opinionated" and therefore not usable on wikipedia. Since a relatively long section in the book is devoted to anti-Telemann criticism (Buelow's terminology), I am not sure which wikipedia policies Francis Schonken is applying to suggest that this apparently splendid secondary source is somehow tainted. I used this source to write the following clause, "Spitta's commentary—praising Bach's music while denigrating Telemann's—was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" in the cantata article Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Awaiting opinions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merely being opinionated does not render a source sub-reliable. It may be helpful to refer to WP:BIASED, a subsection of WP:RS: "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Hopefully this will allow you and Francis Schonken to move past any issues of your source's reliability and focus on what sounds like the bigger problem: Presenting that material in a neutral way. The statement you've quoted sounds pretty innocuous, but depending on exactly what Buelow said in that book and how much summarizing you're doing, you might have an OR issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. The reference is to page 566 in the book, which can be seen by clicking on the second link above. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Image not available," I'm afraid, but I can say that this book does appear to meet WP's reliability criteria.

However, upon a read-through of the last thread on the article talk page, it looks like reliability is only one small part of this dispute. Francis S seems more concerned with neutrality and accuracy and whether the content is relevant than with any specific problem with the source you used. I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with baroque music to draw a reliable conclusion as to which of you is supporting the better text for the article.

Ask Francis Schonken if he'd consent to WP:3O. Or you could hold an RfC holding up the two different versions of the text that seem to be the subject of the dispute. A neutrally phrased note publicizing it at WT:WikiProject_Music would bring in editors with the needed experience. I can help you with the drafting and publicizing if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as this source is concerned, the accuracy of the summary cannot be assessed without reading the relevant page in the source, whatever happens. Here is another link to the same page 566 on google books. I hope that new link works better than the other one, but it could depend on location of IP.

This is not the first time this kind of thing has happened: previously postings at WT:WikiProject_Music and reports at WP:ANI have led to Francis Schonken being banned for periods of 6 months from editing certain Bach-related articles, in particular Orgelbüchlein and BWV 39. User:Johnuniq and User:Softlavender offered third opinions then (at ANI, on article talk pages, etc). Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 is on my watchlist and I was going to look at the current fuss soon after it started but frankly the edit summaries put me off—the first shot was diff and that is over the top. That phrases the issue as a battle and there is no way to respond other than by doubling down and fighting. Other editors should not be mentioned in edit summaries in articles. I don't see how the claim (that synthesis using outdated primary sources occurred) can reasonably be discussed now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Francis Schonken's method of synthesising from primary sources (e.g. outdated 18th or 19th century commentaries or raw lists on the Bach archive) has been discussed before and is not the subject of this query. In the exceptional case of this cantata, no longer attributed to Bach, there are very few references indeed, and hardly any online, as the work is no longer discussed in most textbooks on Bach cantatas. The main sources are not on the web and are very few in number. They are in German and can only be found in specialist libraries: the commentaries and official reports of Arnold Schering (1912), Alfred Dürr (1977) and Andreas Glöckner (2000). In comparison, the literature for cantatas known to be written by Bach is very much larger, with many detailed commentaries. A year ago I found and photocopied the relevant literature from Cambridge University Library, including a musical analysis of the cantata from one of the volumes by Whittaker. In 2016 the article was not properly sourced at all.

Returning to the point here, since posting this query I subsequently found the same content in Grove Music Online, under the entry for Georg Philipp Telemann. I will reproduce just two sentences from the very long article of Steven Zohn (to avoid problems of copyvio),

"When, in the second half of the 19th century, music was unfairly judged according to the very different aesthetic standards of J.S. Bach’s, it was considered to be merely ‘fashionable’ and lacking in religious fervour. In their Bach biographies Spitta and Schweitzer denigrated Telemann’s church cantatas while praising works attributed to Bach that have since been shown to be by Telemann."

I have changed "denigrated" to "disparaged" in my text. Again Grove Music Online (Oxford University Press) is a reliable source.

I would not say there is a battle on, but Francis Schonken still persists in using primary sources for writing content; he does not try to locate secondary sources, particularly if they cannot be found online. For Orgelbüchlein, he complained about "religious point of view" and tried to dismiss the OUP book of Stinson devoted to the collection. He is doing the same type of thing here. I found several secondary sources on Spitta/19th century criticism—I was unaware of the literature until a week ago—and then summarised it on wikipedia; I did not invent the content and then try to cobble together primary sources to justify that content, which regrettably is Francis Schonken's modus operandi. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Well sticking strictly to WP policy and guidelines, WP:PRIMARY does permit the use of primary sources, with care, but the Wikieditor must find a secondary or tertiary source for any analysis of that source. It sounds like you are concerned that the text that Francis Schonken bases on these primary sources might constitute original research, and you believe that this is not a one-time thing but rather a persistent part of FS's MO that you think should changes. Is there a non-confrontational way to ask Schonken if you could resolve the issue? Maybe the guys at WP:ORN could help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This has not been resolved at all, in answer to the question of User:Softlavender below.

In fact I waited to see what Francis Schonken would do, as he often lies low when his editing is reported on noticeboards. In this case he started by vandalising the article citing this noticeeboard as a reason. Perhpas that was a mistake, but he removed huge amounts of careful edits. He then replaced the second paragraph with this content:

Uns ist ein Kind geboren is mentioned as a cantata by Bach in 19th-century Bach-biographies by Hilgenfeldt (1850), Bitter (1865), Spitta (1873), and Lane Poole (1882). Spitta compares the BWV 142 cantata, which he assumes to have been composed by Bach, with TVWV 1:1451, a cantata by Telemann on the same libretto by Neumeister: he is fairly dismissive about the Telemann composition (" probably written in half-an-hour " etc.), only finding a few places where Telemann's composition compares favourably to the composition he attributes to Bach. According to Spitta the composer of BWV 142 " adhered throughout the cantata to the subdued minor key, which offers so singular a contrast to the bright joyfulness of Christmas. It gives a tone as of melancholy reminiscences of the pure Christmas joys of our childhood ".

References

1. Hilgenfeldt 1950, p. 99
2. Bitter 1865, Vol. II p. XCVII
3. ^ Spitta 1873, pp. 480–5 and endnote 21 pp. 797–8 (English translation: Spitta 1899, pp. 487–91 and endnote 20 pp. 630–1)
4. Lane Poole 1882, p. 131
5. Swack 1992, p. 139. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSwack1992 (help)
6. ^ Sandberger 1997, pp.188–9

In his cumulative edits he removed Buelow as a source and Zohn's entry in Grove Music Online as a source. He also removed three other secondary sources, by musicologists Andrew Talle, Wolfgang Hirschmenn and Ian Payne. The passage above, which has been removed, is unbalanced original research concocted by Francis Schonken as if her were a musicologist himself. It is written in wikipedia's voice, but the commentary—apparently just Francis Schonken's thoughts—is not a paraphrase or summary of what is in the secondary source (Sandberger's book on Spitta's reception of Bach). It fails verification in the source. The first sentence is sourced to randomly chosen and outdated 19th century sources, written before questions of authenticity has been raised. It can be compared with the currecnt (and previous version) which is very carefully sourced:

In 1873, before questions of authenticity had been raised, Philipp Spitta devoted 18 pages of his two-volume biography of Bach to a comparison of Bach and Telemann cantatas that set the same Neumeister text: Spitta's commentary—praising Bach's music while disparaging Telemann's—was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century. In his description of Telemann's Uns ist ein Kind geboren, TVWV 1: 1451, Spitta wrote, "This piece, probably written in half-an-hour shows us the worst side of the church music of the time." Spitta added that Bach "adhered throughout the cantata to the subdued minor key, which offers so singular a contrast to the bright joyfulness of Christmas. It gives a tone as of melancholy reminiscences of the pure Christmas joys of our childhood ; in contrast to this Telemann's eternal C major is often unutterably shallow and flat."

References

1. Talle 2013, p. 50 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTalle2013 (help)
2. Buelow 2004, pp. 566–567 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBuelow2004 (help)
3. Zohn 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZohn2001 (help), see
4. For further commentary on Spitta's comparison of Telemann and Bach, see also
   • Hirschmann 2013, p. 6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHirschmann2013 (help)
   • Payne 1999, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPayne1999 (help)
   • Swack 1992, p. 139 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSwack1992 (help)
5. Sandberger 1997, pp. 188–189
6. Sandberger 1997, pp. 188–189
7. Spitta 1873, pp. 480–485 and endnote 21 pp. 797–798 (English translation: Spitta 1899, Vol. I, pp. 487–491 and endnote 20 pp. 630–631)

I might add further comments a little later. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping: Has this been resolved? If not, what is the exact wikitext in question which is in dispute? Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not resolved yet: "... was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" is the phrase that is in dispute. Buelow (the source used as a reference for this phrase) does not say that. He speaks about a "concerted attack" which is not the same as saying something is "typical". The difference of opinion is also *not* about the reliability of the source. Describing Spitta's and Bitter's opinions as a "concerted attack" is an "opinionated view" (Spitta and Bitter were not on speaking terms, so describing whatever they did as "concerted" is an opinionated view). Which does not diminish the reliability of the source. Not a WP:RSN matter. Buelow does not mention the cantata BWV 142. There is at least one reliable source describing Spitta's opinions on BWV 142 (Sandberger): such source is more appropriate in the article on BWV 142 than Buelow who doesn't mention BWV 142 specifically. There are a host of sources describing Spitta's views on Telemann without mentioning BWV 142 specifically. Since BWV 142 was not written by Telemann, I don't see why we would need general comments on Telemann from sources not mentioning BWV 142 in the BWV 142 article. In sum:
    1. "... was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" is not an adequate summary of the Buelow source;
    2. "Spitta's commentary praised Bach's music while disparaging Telemann's" or "Spitta, comparing BWV 142 with a cantata by Telemann, is dismissive about the Telemann composition" can be referenced to reliable sources which mention BWV 142.
    3. Further opinionated views about how Spitta saw Telemann (taking part in a "concerted attack" according to Buelow, making an "infamous comparison" according to another reliable source, etc.) are, imho, well outside the scope of the BWV 142 article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • If this is not an issue about the reliability of the source, but rather what the source says and how to incorporate that into the wiki article (if at all), then WP:RSN is apparently the wrong venue/DR-process to discuss the issue. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Francis Schonken, since it appears that you removed five reliable sources from the article, please note that you need to gain article-talkpage WP:CONSENSUS before unilaterally making (and re-removing) such removals. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • As User:Darkfrog24 has said Francis Schonken (FS) cannot dismiss reliable sources like Buelow's A history of Baroque Music and Zohn's entry for Georg Philipp Telemann in Grove Music Online just because he feels they are "opinionated". Apparently if FS read that remark, he ignored it.

I would say that FS is just POV-pushing, while dismissing contemporary musicological literature. Neither of these references can be described as "opinionated", except by a user engaged in WP:disruptive editing, as seem to be the case here. FS says he doesn't like the sources, so editors on wikipedia cannot use them. But that is precisely why this report was made at this noticeboard: to counter the disruptive claims of FS that these perfectly good sources are "opinionated". He is trying to push the use of unusable primary sources over excellent secondary sources. This is a question of FS's confidence in his own abilities as a commentator vs contemporary musicological criticism. As an illustration of the problem, in Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach, FS has written a largely unsourced essay, relegating one of the main secondary sources on the subject to "further reading". The result reads like a blog in pidgin English. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, no problem. At RSN we could still discuss the reliability of the Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole sources in the context, but as that is quite far from the Buelow source mentioned in the OP I suggest a separate (sub)section about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This WP:IDHT response is typical of Francis Schonken's editing and his past conduct on noticeboards. He tries to drown out/ignore valid points and generally tire out other editors. Hence the new section below. Despite that please could the main discussion continue here wothout being sidelined? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Zohn reference ("Zohn 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZohn2001 (help), see ") contains a link to the Bach Cantatas Website: according to the formal closure of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER: "...there seems to be concern that the is, apart from any copyright issues, self-published". The link to that website provided in the Zohn reference ( http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Other/Telemann-Gen1.htm ) is to a discussion page, i.e. a discussion among editors of the Bach Cantatas Website, which has both problems: it fails as a RS per WP:USERGENERATED, and it contains at least one extensive copyright-violating quote (we shouldn't link to such copyvio content per the WP:LINKVIO policy). In sum, we shouldn't link to such page from Misplaced Pages's mainspace, not as an external link, and certainly not as a reference.

Further, not as a reliability issue, so should probably be discussed elsewhere, the entire (lengthy) discussion on the Bach Cantatas Website page does not mention a Uns ist ein Kind geboren cantata—not by any composer—so I'd rather not use it as a reference in the Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142, article for that reason too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole

• Sources:
  1. p. 99 of: Hilgenfeldt, Carl L. Johann Sebastian Bach's Leben, Wirken und Werke: ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Friedrich Hofmeister, 1850 Template:De icon
  2. Vol. II p. XCVII of: Bitter, Karl Hermann. Johann Sebastian Bach. Berlin: Schneider, 1865. Vol. 1 – Vol. 2 Template:De icon
  3. p. 131 of: Reginald Lane Poole. Sebastian Bach. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1882.
• Article: Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 (in a section relating to history or reception)
• Content: "Uns ist ein Kind geboren is mentioned as a cantata by Bach in 19th-century Bach-biographies by Hilgenfeldt (1850), Bitter (1865), ..., and Lane Poole (1882)."

Are the mentioned sources reliable for the proposed content? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Already discussed above and off-topic. user:Darkfrog24 wrote: "Well sticking strictly to WP policy and guidelines, WP:PRIMARY does permit the use of primary sources, with care, but the Wikieditor must find a secondary or tertiary source for any analysis of that source." Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilgenfeldt (1850), Bitter (1865) and Lane Poole (1882) are not WP:PRIMARY sources in this context. They add nothing (not even a personal opinion) to what had already been written down around a century earlier and/or published by others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

They are primary sources in this context because they are historical documents which, as reference texts, are out of date. They have been superseded by later scholarship (Andreas Glöckner (2000), Alfred Dürr (1977), Arnold Schering (1912), etc). That modern scholarship—combined in Glöckner's 2000 editorial appraisal—has shown that BWV 142 is a spurious work, for which many crucial questions remain unanswered. Hence great care has to be taken when writing content on this cantata. FS has randomly selected three books, so no other editor can have any idea whether this was an appropriate choice—why not add Albert Schweitzer? Without access to Glöckner, Dürr or Schering and unable to find the content in another reliable source (written after the work was deemed to be spurious), FS has invented an editorialising sentence himself to make a point. Classic WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"These three sources all mention this other thing" is a perfectly acceptable observation to make of a primary source and it is also acceptable to make that observation of a secondary source, so, in my view, it does not matter. So long as the three sources do indeed mention Uns ist ein Kind geboren, we need look no further. "This says that" is not analysis, so it's not an issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed an issue as Mathsci has stated. Mentioning random mentions is not what an encyclopedia does. Mentions must be mentioned only in proper editorial and accurate context, not randomly out of the blue, especially if there are dozens of other random mentions available and especially if the random mentions themselves are inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, putting it in an adequate context is needed, as suggested by the OP of this subsection ("in a section relating to history or reception"). Compare, e.g., the first paragraph of the "History" section of the BWV 572 article: one can't talk about the name a piece had throughout history without actually talking about the sources that used the different names. Similar about attribution in the BWV 142 case: one can't talk about the different attributions throughout history without actually quoting the sources that used one or another attribution. Sure, in the BWV 572 case, 19th-century sources were "inaccurate" w.r.t. the name of the piece, but you can't explain to a modern readership where the piece got its most used name without referring to these "inaccurate" sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, SoftL. While it is okay per reliability to cite either a primary or secondary source in this way, that by itself does not mean there are no neutrality or notability issues. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I once had a guy go "that source isn't reliable! no not that one either!" over and over and over no matter how many credentials I showed him. What turned out to be going on was that he also objected to the text for other reasons but was just more comfortable talking about reliability. It can feel more concrete and less subjective than other things. A third party had to come in and point this out before we were able to say "Yes, that source isn't reliable but this source is" and move on. So I guess what I'm saying is we've addressed your reliability issues. You can move on to the next part of the problem without reliability baggage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

They aren't "my" reliability issues, and the reliability issue in the OP was only one single source. This red herring sub-thread posted by Francis Schonken was simply another volley in his attack on Mathsci, which he has been engaging in (and has previously been sanctioned for) for over a year and a half by now. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... we've addressed your reliability issues" – If you're speaking about the reliability issues expressed in the OP of this subsection (that's how I understood this) I agree. No remaining reliability issues regarding the Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole sources afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... why not add Albert Schweitzer?" – Schweitzer published Bach-biographies in three languages from 1905 to 1911: that is early 20th century, and doesn't fit in the context of "19th-century Bach-biographies" (the OP of this subsection). Sure, Schweitzer's views on the BWV 142 cantata (including e.g. "... of a more popular character") could be mentioned in the BWV 142 article. That is, unless the reliability of these biographies as expressing Schweitzer's views on the cantata are doubted – in which case I'd start a new (sub)section about these reliability issues on this noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

SoftL, I certainly did not mean to address you specifically with that possessive pronoun. I was addressing both Francis S and Mathsci. In my once-over of the talk page thread in question, I saw only those two people. All of you, good luck with your efforts to improve the article, but this is not the forum to seek remedy for editor conduct.

I will say one thing: If any of you do go to ANI over this, simplify things. I consider myself a well-educated person, and I have to work my butt off to tell which source said what and why it matters. Your best bet is to run an RfC and publicize it at Wiki projects for pre-20th-century music and baroque culture, because I don't think anyone outside those projects is going to want to put in the effort to weigh the facts with the care it would require. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Observations

Francis Schonken, my general observation is that your extensive editing on Uns ist ein Kind geboren BWV 142, and your extensive posts on its talk page, for the past 10 days (that is, since 21 December 2017 UTC) have been disruptive, largely uninformed or insufficiently informed, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish and a continuation of your harassment of, and vendetta against, Mathsci. I suggest that you drop the stick and move on to editing unrelated articles. I am fairly certain that if this goes to ANI, which it easily could and seems well on its way to, you will receive even stricter/longer sanctions than you received previously in regards to your interactions with Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of frustration and other bad feelings here. Mathsci does not appear to be assuming good faith of Francis Schonken. I believe we've addressed the issue of whether the Buelow source is sufficiently reliable; it is. Mathsci, it looks like you object to Francis Schonken's text for more than one reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This query did not concern Francis Schonken's text (posted after this query and possibly as a reaction), but his objections to the secondary sources that I had used to create content. After this report was made, Buelow's book and Grove Music Online were both deleted by him from the references section, citing the discussion here as justification. Francis Schonken then added the off-topic section above. Softlavender has given an explanation of Francis Schonken's editing which seems quite accurate. Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am getting very bored of these two users knocking six bells out of each other in edit wars over their very dogmatic views of this subject area. I think it cannot be long before the two are ibanned and probably tbanned as well. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:JzG: I don't know what you mean by "very dogmatic views": all that is being discussed here is sourcing for a specialist article BWV 142, a baroque cantata written by an unknown composer. You commented on this noticeboard in October 2016 about the article that contains BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 (sections I wrote on wikipedia, with image and audio files on commons). You didn't seem very bored then as far as I remember; you name-dropped about Martin Perkins. You seemed to agree with me about sourcing, i.e. not to use liner notes.

I looked in my contributions to check my activity on noticeboards. That might help you jog your memory. I am sorry that you think my contributions to wikipedia on music might deserve a topic ban: please tell me what's wrong with Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Clavier-Übung III, Canonic Variations, Orgelbüchlein, BWV 105, BWV 39, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1057, BWV 1044. Or Organ concertos, Op. 4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op. 7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel), Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, 52 chorale preludes, Op. 67, ... Best regards for a Happy New Year, Mathsci (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

citypopulation.de

• citypopulation.de: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

As far as I can tell, this is not a WP:RS. It is run by one man and is a self-published source. I can't imagine why we would use this site as a source for what is, in the end, census data. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with you, but further research into Thomas Brinkhoff might be helpful. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

topuniversities.com

• topuniversities.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This looks an awful lot like WP:REFSPAM to me. Is this really a reliable independent source? Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The topuniversities.com site is published by Quacquarelli Symonds. I have no idea how reliable or well-regarded they are. As for the possibility of refspamming it may be relevant to note our article on the Quacquarelli Symonds has been lovingly tended by numerous SPAs and obvious COI editors over the years, such as the imaginatively named User:Quacquarelli Symonds. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the blogs or the actual rankings? I think that the former is not an RS but that the latter could be. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Allsides.com

The following was just added to The Atlantic article:

"The Atlantic" is often considered a left-leaning news organization.

References

1. "Allsides.com", Allsides.com, December 2017.

Is allsides a reliable source for this (or perhaps more generally for other news sources)? They describe here how they come to their bias rating.

I checked the archives and this has not been discussed before. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the use of the word often means the AllSides is definitely unreliable for that claim, as they don't appear to have engaged in a summary or meta-analysis of other views. They also have the disclaimer Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to news articles on their web site, not from opinion pieces or what is broadcasted on TV or radio. The opinion writers from the same media source may have different bias ratings, so individual writers often are rated separately. which means that the rating is not for the whole organization but new articles on their website. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to its About page, its bias rating is crowd-sourced which means it is not reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the example given though they also have editorial review and secondary research used in some ratings (not this one). Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/blog/cnn-media-bias-update Example of them doing their own research However, after spending time reviewing article after article and scrutinizing all previous research --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed an IP user recently did this to the news.com.au article (see history). The page was semi-protected as a result of the information being readded repeatedly by different IPs. It's hard to say if it's a wider spread problem, or whether it's the same user doing it to multiple articles given the IP address keeps changing. Kb.au (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use this for anything in Misplaced Pages's voice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to make my OP neutral so didn't give my opinion there, but now i will. i think it would be OK to use this, attributed (not like it was above). They seem to mostly use focus groups, and they add to that web-based feedback, so i think it is pretty legit. this article from the christian science monitor had good things to say about it. We probably should have an article on it... Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Attributing it to Allsides would settle the reliability issue. Then the question is whether Allsides is notable enough to mention. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand why my article has been rejected. But I want to redouble my efforts to improve it! (Need guidance)

Primo, thanks to Kb.au for reviewing my article submission about "Stuart Candy". Your feedback is precious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Stuart_Candy

Secundo, I really want to improve my references in order to make my article fit with wikipedia's policy. Any suggestions?

Tertio, I started to edit my article with adding a "awards" section (this is a living person case) with some extra references. Do you think it can help my article to be better referenced?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Bappyh (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bappyh, you were advised on your talkpage by Kb.au to visit the WP:Teahouse. It would be best follow his advice! :) Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that this topic doesn't already meet WP:GNG. These two articles seem fairly in-depth. Also, GNG states that significant coverage is coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If this were at AFD, I would !novote keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more potential sources you can use in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Edit other articles and learn how Misplaced Pages works, is my advice. This article reads like it was written by a friend or colleague. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the official reason given for its decline is WP:GNG, but it might be the style in which its written that might be holding it back. @Bappyh: Try to tone down the language. Phrases like, "experiential scenarios, an approach to immersive storytelling at the intersection of futures, transmedia design and politics." aren't helping. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bappyh, I agree with others that you need to edit other articles and learn how Misplaced Pages works. Jumping in right away and trying to create and pass a borderline article, when you are too new to assess for yourself what belongs in the article and what doesn't, is why you are having problems. For one thing, try to do The Misplaced Pages Adventure that I posted on your talkpage a month ago, which would at least get you going in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, Softlavender, Guy Thank you so much for these precious advices. Before send a new submission I'll focus on my article's tone and references that are valuables. Bappyh (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bappyh, A Quest For Knowledge: for the record I rejected the article because my view is that it doesn't meet GNG or NBIO, and because of WP:NOT. Specifically, I feel that the article reads rather like a resume or a promotional about-page than an encyclopaedic article due to the prominence given to information on Candy's various degrees and various roles in a number of organisations. Aside from my WP:NOT concerns, I did not reject the article on the basis of its quality or its citations as that is not the role of an AfC reviewer. The article itself is quite well made.

While a number of people have provided links above that talk about or mention Candy, I will note that this does not prove he his notable. As WP:NRV points out:

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.

I also have some concern that the coverage would not meet WP:SUSTAINED regardless given many of the sources given in the article and above are merely blog posts in response to his talks at summits and the like. The CNN article is not really an indicator of notability as it merely quotes him and is not coverage on him.

Improving the referencing in the article does not fix notability issues (unless, of course, independent RSs that I or others have overlooked are found that show notability).

Obviously different people have different views as to what meets notability guidelines, and this is one of the more borderline articles I've reviewed. But my reject was based on how I would vote if it went to AfD. If someone else wants to move the article to mainspace, so be it. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Caleb H. Johnson

We have a large number of articles referencing The Mayflower and her passengers, a self-published book by Caleb H. Johnson. Google searches for his name turn up very little other than sales pages and references to his small number of self-published books, but after wading through several pages of dross I found a comment tot he effect that he was editor for a while of a journal called Mayflower Decendant, which is privately published by the New England Historical and Genealogical Society. Do we think this is a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like a borderline case. I'll read up later but for anyone else chiming in, this would fall under WP:SPS, the rules for self-published sources. Basically, it says that it's a reliable source if Caleb H. Johnson is an expert but not if he's an amateur. Generally, a self-published book by a guy who, say, has had smaller works published in professionally edited magazines would be considered reliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the Boston Globe did a book review. Also, would it be possible to flip open the dust jacket and see if there are any endorsements by historians whose expertise is not in question? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

More if a namecheck than a review, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, it is sometimes possible to contact an author and ask them about their credentials. I did that once (using a designated "contact us" system) and the people sounded like they might have been flattered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

Hello in the actual Misplaced Pages article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Misplaced Pages articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've always treated it as an WP:RSOPINION source. — Insertcleverphrasehere 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ex Astris Scientia and Star Trek

I've noticed that a few Star Trek-related articles are using a source from www.ex-astris-scientia.org. It doesn't seem to pass the litmus test to qualify as a reliable source. Can someone point out what about it makes it a good source?
Among other places, I found a source from that site used here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked their FAQ. It looks like it's written by one guy, who describes it as one of the top Star Trek sites in the world. Let's see if anyone else thinks so...

Den of Geek uses it as a source in an article. There's an in-text mention and a note at the end. There are a few other articles that mention it, but they tend more to be talking about it than using it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Stopfake.org

• stopfake.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The Ukrainian volunteers' website which allegedly "debunks fakes of Russian propaganda", and is used as an RS in a multitude of articles, including Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, etc. I'm in doubt that it can be used as an RS, and suppose that it may be WP:UNDUE in comparison to, say, Western media sources; besides, it is obviously biased because its very motto implies that "only the Russians lie". --Buzz105 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons

I am posting here regarding the article Babur (cruise missile). When the missile was tested by Pakistan from an underwater platform, a number of Indian media outlets (some of which are RS) quoted a tweet from a satellite imagery enthusiast who claimed that he had obtained satellite imagery of the launch (source of imagery remains unknown) and in his opinion it showed that the launch was a fake. Now do these sources remain reliable to be quoted in an article about Babur missile when i)All international RS are against them ii)Other Indian RS are against them iii)They are quoting a single person tweeting his own opinion. Another issue is that most of these news outlets are leaning towards nationalist/right so should they be considered a RS about Pakistani weapon systems? As India and Pakistan are currently engaged in skirmishes, is it according to policy to consider them RS about pakistani weapon systems when all international opinions and the opinions of a number of Indian sources is against them as well? Adamgerber80 Please be kind enough to give your opinion in this discussion. Elektricity (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution