This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

→

Archive 145

• "Darío Fernández-Morera: "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise", The Intercollegiate Review, Fall 2006, pp. 23–31 (30)

Roscelese talk delets

Her Spanish colleague Darío Fernández-Morera takes the opposite view, arguing that "Islamic Spain was not a model of multicultural harmony. Andalusia was beset by religious, political, and racial conflicts controlled in the best of times only by the application of tyrannical force (by its rulers)

‎saying; (a source from an agenda-based organization does not refute real sources) I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) The claim is contrary to the poets claim just above but the article is referenced and I will leave it to user Roscelese and others to make a case J8079s (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intercollegiate Review, contrary to its academic-sounding name, is a publication from an, ahem, "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" think tank, not a scholarly institution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's putting it lightly. It's religious/political propaganda thinly disguised as a scholarly journal. Not reliable for anything on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all about context. The bar is set very low when it comes to who holds an opinion. Regardless of the direction of the "bais" they are still Reliable for the claim that the author of the article holds the views expressed. The edit summaries and talk here leads me to believe this is a content dispute.J8079s (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's not an "opinion". It's a statement about a scholarly topic. Sorry, even for scholarly opinions, your going to need a genuine scholarly source, and this is most certainly not one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that I might have given you the wrong impression this is not a scholarly debate it is a debate among scholars. The Ornament of the World is also editorial opinion by María Rosa Menoca (a love song to the poets) she does not cite any sources and makes no attempt at balance, closer to historic fiction than a reliable source. Reducing 800 years of history to he said/she said is not how we build an encyclopedia. J8079s (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so! In order to avoid "he said"-"she said", we admit only reliable sources, rather than including inferior sources as "balance" to better sources. That's what I've been explaining to you the whole time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of any perceived bias by the Intercollegiate Review's parent organization, the author's bio suggests a serious and perfectly authoritative scholar at a major university that's certainly not known as a religious-extremist institution: "Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese and of Comparative Literature at Northwestern University. He is also a member of the National Council on the Humanities. His most recent book is Cervantes in the English-Speaking World (2006), co-edited with Michael Hanke." I can't conceive of any neutral, non-political reason why his scholarly paper is any less acceptable than one of any comparable professor / editor / NCH member. His view can always be balanced by an opposing view. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a scholarly paper. You're begging the question here and it undermines your entire comment. If his argument is sound from a scholarly perspective, why has he been unable to get it published by a source that meets the standards of WP:RS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I may be misreading, but I'm afraid It sounds as if you're accusing the author of illegitimate thought because his politics don't align with yours. You may not agree with him, but to denigrate a professor at Northwestern University and say his thoughts on a subject matter in which he's well-versed are invalid I find remarkable. Perhaps it's how you're expressing yourself, but it sounds as if you're pursuing a political agenda and squelching a view in opposition to yours. Where is it said that the publication does not meet WP:RS? I couldn't find that in the Noticeboard archives. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you ask about past occasions where it's been brought up at RSN, I'll point you to the only other occasion, where it was soundly rejected as a reliable source. However, if it hadn't been - that's why we're discussing it here, to determine whether or not it's reliable. As for the other point of your comment, that he is a professor so it doesn't matter in what venue he expresses his opinions - WP:V and WP:SCHOLARSHIP disagree with you, stating that the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking and quality is the important consideration. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction; that was considerate, and I thank you. I don't actually read that it was "soundly rejected": I see one editor saying, "Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute," while another editor says, "Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required." No other editors commented after this, so it reads as if there was a stalemate and no consensus to reject it.

I do see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP that, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do we know for sure it's not peer-reviewed? I'm not sure where the reputation of the publisher as having poor fact-checking and quality is coming from. I can see there's disagreement with its political stance — and I'm no conservative, so I understand and I know it's a principled disagreement. Still, it sounds as if one wants to reject this article because of the publication's politics. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see Taemyr rejecting it as a "very biased source" (that, if used at all, would need to be explained as such), Paul B rejecting it, LK rejecting it, and Squidfryerchef saying it's not terrible but that the material should be able to be found in other sources. (Which seems like something we could do here, too - if a scholar has published a similar opinion in a reliable source, fair game.) It looks fairly conclusive to me, but that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions.

I don't see that it even claims to be peer-reviewed, and if it did, such a claim would be highly suspect because it is not published by an academic institution. That's the problem with it - not its bias per se, but the fact that it comes from a source where bias is the point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did see the back-and-forth, but it didn't seem definitive. Far more convincing is your point that it's not published by an academic institution, which does open up reasonable charges of bias. On the other hand, the author isn't an employee of the institute but a presumably independent scholar at a respected university.

I've looked around and I'm finding it's hard to say definitively whether or not it's peer-reviewed. The library software company ExLibris lists it as peer-reviewed here, here and elsewhere, though it does say that the Intercollegiate Review supplement Academic Review is, indeed, not peer-reviewed, here.

It's a tough call, and I completely see your point and the need for caution. Obviously, we don't want to disseminate deliberately biased, unscientific material. On the other hand, finding and keeping jobs in academia is so much tougher these days, and the imperative to publish stronger than ever, so I can understand how a neutral scholar may not get his article into his first choice of journals and have to settle. I probably don't have much else to contribute to this discussion, but I thought I should add these considerations to the mix. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly this "settling" for an inferior outlet that is the big red flag here. As you rightly point out, getting one's work publish in prestigious journals is a matter of academic bread and butter. Getting the paper published by the Intercollegiate review did little to further the career of the author. The fact that the author had to "settle" is a good sign that their work was of insufficient merit to publish elsewhere, and probably had been rejected by peer-reviewed journals. Or that the author realized that the work was of insuficient merit and didn't even bother to submit it to peer-reviewed journal. Away from the prying eye of peer-review, the author is free to spin just about any nonsense they please, and no one spins nonsense better than an academic who is "off the clock", so to speak. That the journal has a strong ideological mission to promote "the core ideas behind the free market, the American Founding, and Western civilization that are rarely taught in the classroom" brings into question their motives for publishing this paper, and it is much more reasonable to presume that they published it because it advanced their own ideology rather than because it had any real scholarly merit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really related to this particular instance, but to the vagaries of publishing in general, I think it's important to throw out any automatic assumption that he only published it in this journal since the paper was crap and no "real" publication would run it. The point I was making is that competition is so much fiercer now that even great papers can't easily get published. I and many of my peers who work for major newspapers can still find ourselves publishing material on websites rather than real magazines though our material is as good as anything we normally write. I'm talking about film critics and writers whose names you'd recognize. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Try publishing a children's book or a cookbook, for example, through a legacy publishing house if you're not a celebrity — the nurturing midlist is virtually gone, and publishers only want what they think will be home runs and not solid singles or doubles. (How'd that work out, New York Yankees / A-Rod?) Whatever the merits or not of the Intercollegiate Review, please don't make assumptions castigating the author.

Unless you write for a living, you have no idea how harsh it is. I've written hardcover books, including one on a weighty topic of national concern, as well as substantive trade paperbacks on entertainment topics.Yet my very-well-paying bread-and-butter is writing about celebrity crap. I still write comics and still write substantive magazine pieces on non-entertainment topics, but they don't pay like the celebrity crap for which I'm way overqualified. Get yourself a mortgage and kids in college, and you'd do the same. So unless you know this academic personally, don't make assumptions on why he chose that venue in which to seek publication. If the cases of good, name writers whom I know are any indication, choices are limited if you're not already a celebrity or a brand name in your field. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's all just special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish people would read more carefully before speaking. As I said at the very beginning, my post was "Not really related to this particular instance." I was not speaking about the Intercollegiate Review, but cautioning that people should not make ignorant comments about publishing if they have no idea how it works. I really don't care about the Intercollegiate Review. But you took a cheap shot at a professor and made POV assumptions. That is what I was commenting on. Not the Intercollegiate Review, but your snide and ignorant comments about publishing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The "journal" is not a reliable source. Fernández-Morera may be a serious scholar, but he is a professor of literature, not a historian. Not a reliable source for any statement of fact, and I see not reason why this would be a notable and weighty opinion that should be included. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is WP:reliable, the scholar holds a post at Harvard university (see Darío Fernández-Morera). The opposition to it seems to be driven mainly from ideological reasons (allegedly "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" for some taste as if this were a valid reason for exclusion even if true). His critical stance on the "tolerance" of Al-Andalus is anyway echoed by several colleagues, so this discussion is pretty moot: there are other scholarly sources in Spanish which share his view and which can be quoted in support. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed according to the database of the Colorado State University Libraries which is also used by a number of other scholarly institutions. Since WP:SOURCES stipulates that "where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science", we can close this discussion with good faith: being published by a Harvard academic in a peer-reviewed journal, "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" is nothing but WP:reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, even if it is peer reviewed and may considered as formally reliable it still a long shot away from a reputable history journal. The latter should be used for sourcing disputed historical claims. It is true that Fernández-Morera seems to be a reputable scholar, however he is a professor for comparative literature and not for history/archeology/islamic studies. So polemically speaking we have an academic publishing on a subject outside his core expertise in a second rate christian oriented journal. That is anything but an optimal source and needs to be treated with caution. Personally I find the title and subject already dubious. Maybe his so called "myth" does indeed get propagated by some circles, but the notion that any serious historian would claim that the period of Islamic Spain (even at its peak) would have been a "paradise" of a society without violence or religious conflict is rather absurd for the reason alone that a such a thing hardly exists in history at all and certainly does not match what we know about this period. In other words the "myth" that Fernández-Morera claims to destruct seems to be a strawman to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The scholar in question is a reputable scholar. For a source to be considered reliable, that is sufficient for inclusion, even if the journal is not quite peer-reviewed. In such an instance, the opinion should be attributed ("According to..."), but there is no reason the material should be excluded. Athenean (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. The domain of the scholar and the journal matters and its reputation in the domain to which the subject of the WP article belongs. To give an extreme example we usually do not include (dubious) math claims made by English professor in literary magazine into the according math article, no matter whether that literary magazine is peer reviewed or not. Now in the case at hand it is less extreme/obvious and hence a bit of grey area, that article could be included, but there may also grounds to exclude it or rather to drop it for better sources (an article in a peer reviewed history journal by some reputable historian for instance). The same thing however does not only apply to Fernández-Morera but also to the source for the opposing view (another professor for literature). It would be better for the WP article to drop such "second rate" partially agenda driven sources and cite some proper historian instead. In the end this comes to editorial discretion for the editor involved with the article. In that their consideration they should use the result of the notice board, that is that we have a reputable scholar publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but neither the scholar nor journal seem to have a particular reputation in the domain required for the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: Less controversial sources should be found if available. And to state something else becoming increasingly obvious by the way new objections keep being raised ("It's not peer-reviewed." "Yes, it is." "Well, that's still not good enough.") ("The scholar's a hack." "No, he's a reputable Harvard scholar." "Well, that's still not good enough.") leads to a distinct appearance that the real objections to him are ideological: Some editors don't agree with what he wrote, and are looking for reasons to exclude him. I'm not saying that's the definite reason, but that's unquestionably the appearance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is probably part of the problem. But the fact remains that the Intercollegiate Review is not a reliable source in general - it's not better than e.g. the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or Chaos, Solitons & Fractals or the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. It has the outward trappings of an academic journal, but does not follow normal protocols and, to but it politely, publishes things that suit the agenda of the publisher without serious consideration of the scholarly merit. And no, being "a serious scholar" is not enough to be taken seriously in a field outside ones specialty. It's a bit like me publishing on problems with the fossil record in Creation Research Society Quarterly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, your personal view of a "formally" reliable source has, I am afraid, no basis whatsoever in the WP guidelines - unless you can cite them to support your interpretation. Likewise Stephan theorizing along the lines of "not a reliable source in general". Since WP:SOURCES holds that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources and since it has been now established that The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed, it is a reliable source, and among the most reliable sources at that. This is nothing which can be negotiated against the guidelines.

As for Fernández-Morera's scholarly background as a literary professor, you make it sound a bit as if he were daring to talk about topics as remote as the pleistocene or Japanese history. As it is, his core research interest is the Spanish Golden Age and relations to Islam. If WP were to follow your formal criteria of inclusion, it would have to remove the most notable Western scholar on Chinese technology Joseph Needham, to give but one example, as he was actually a biochemist by profession, and never received any academic training in history or sinology. Despite this, he is widely cited and rightly so.

Tenebrae has rightly pointed out how the constant changing of goalposts evident in the discussion rather points to an underlying WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. Look, it is not like Fernández-Morera is alone in his criticism of the retroconcept of convivencia. Far from it, although he is quite outspoken, he is only one of many scholars sharing such a view. David Nirenberg, Richard A. Fletcher and Bat Ye'or (The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) all have attacked the idea of a "tolerant" Andalusian society on varying grounds. Islam never knew nor wanted tolerance in the modern sense but organized its societies and non-Muslim subjects on the basis of the dhimmi hierarchy which is nothing but a two-class system. Fernández-Morera says only as much.

So, instead of losing ourselves in a proxy debate about the alleged lack of reliability, I volunteer to gather more scholarly, reliable literature in the vein of Fernández-Morera. By doing this we show that he is not an eccentric loner as some editors (like to) portray him, but actually representative of a school of thought critical of what one can call the tolerance myth; we do this of course on the basis of WP:WEIGHT which requires us that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be proportionately included in the article. Since his article is somewhat polemic as he seemed to feel the need to address particularly the laymen, I readily agree to put him at the more radical end of criticism in an attempt to move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to overlook the word "usually" in your quote of WP:SOURCES. The Intercollegiate Review is not a "usual" scholarly journal. It's published by a political organisation with a very determined outlook, and publishes papers supporting that outlook. You are welcome to try to find better sources, but what you describe is a classical fishing expedition feeding into confirmation bias. Given the amount of scholarly publishing, you will find some support for every preconceived notion. This might work on Wikipedia, since WP:V is all we have, and WP:RANDY roams freely, but it is not an approach likely to give you a reasonable overview of the state of the field. The predominant scholarly view is for more nuanced than the straw man "Andalusian Paradise", and also much more nuanced than your "nothing but a two-class system". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is true that personally "don't like" the source since it's content & structure seems somewhat questionable to me as a outlined above. That is a reason why personally would stay away from such a source. However in addition to my personal suspicion, which is not really relevant for the policy but just some context information, I've given policy based reason and is that the domain and reputation matter, which you neglected above and which is essentially the same as Stephan's argument. Fernández-Morera is primarily a reputable scholar for literature not (medieval Spanish) history, you may however argue that there is a certain overlap, that's why I called it a grey area above. If his article had been published in a reputable history journal then there wouldn't be any grey area, but he hasn't. The journal he published is not a reputable academic journal, but a think tank publication, that might apply some sort of peer review. Clearly there are much better academic sources for that period of Spanish history and those should be used in the article. If you think Fernández-Morera's opinion is widely shared but academic historians, just cite such a historian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we found common ground because this is exactly what I already announced to do, namely finding and citing more scholars sharing his overall critical view (actually, Fernández-Morera cites some of them himself; googling for "convivencia mito andalus" gives a first idea of how much criticism of the concept of convivencia has made its way from scholarship into mainstream). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS both say that reliability can reside with the author, rather than the publication. Journals don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, but regardless of that, we can focus on the author, not the journal, per IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

So the question is: can Darío Fernández-Morera, Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University, be regarded as authoritative in relation to the history of Islamic Spain and "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise"? That boils down to whether he has been published before about these issues by independent publishers, per the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS. If he has been published before in this field, then his essay can be used as a source.

If (a) this is the first time he has written about this topic, and (b) he chose to make his only appearance on it in a journal that some say is not an RS, and given that (c) his qualifications (PhD Harvard, comparative literature) are only indirectly related, then no. (Another factor would be what his PhD thesis was on; if it was related to Islamic Spain, that would change things.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again I've come up against the use of a CDP map as an authority for saying that some location is within a certain town. In this case, the claim is that the Howard County Public School System is located in Columbia, Maryland (see this edit for an example). The truth is that the board of education buildings sit on a state road just outside Columbia and are not part of the "new town" land (i.e., they aren't taken from land that the Rouse Company owned and applied it CA covenants to). The post office gives the offices an Ellicott City, Maryland zip code, which is equally misleading.

Howard County, Maryland has no incorporated areas, so truly definitive boundaries for any community are impossible—except in the case of Columbia, because its boundaries are generally bounded by what land the Columbia Association controls through covenants. The Columbia CDP is much larger than that area, and incorporates large areas which anyone who actually lives there never considered part of Columbia (e.g. they simply ignore the town of Clarksville, Maryland and assign all of that area to Columbia). This has led to a lot of implication, particularly in the article on the town itself, that various things are in the town of Columbia proper when they actually are not. All of the former Simpsonville, Maryland surroundings were given Columbia zip codes, but that area lies outside of and preexisted the new town. Clarksville is a somewhat distinct place with its own zip code.

CDPs are lines drawn for statistical collection convenience, because the census has to say that everyone is somewhere. They shouldn't be treated as if they were municipal boundaries. My parents' house appears, from the CDP maps, to lie in Scaggsville, Maryland, but that is incorrect; in fact as far back as I can recall there's never even been a post office for the town. The post office calls the area Laurel, Maryland although it lies outside that city's incorporated limits. I would like to see this use of the CDP maps deprecated. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point and would agree that CDP maps aren't reliable for this use. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to post here again, but I've seen another problem come up a few times, where a simple definition or etymology of a word is tagged as needing a source. I know Wikipedia is supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources, but for simple dictionary definitions is a literal dictionary definition not enough? elvenscout742 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what you are talking about exactly. Generally, a well-regarded etymological dictionary or an academic paper will be the best sources for etymological information. For definitions, dictionaries are generally reliable but (1) the circumstances in which they are useful is limited and (2) the community has rejected the use of dictionaries as imprecise in the past. But there is no way of saying for sure without knowing what the particular issue is. Formerip (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is tanka, and the specific issue was highlighted in my recent edit here. That the word waka (poetry in Japanese) is used as a distinguisher from kanshi (poetry in Chinese) is given most Japanese dictionaries; it isn't even really an etymological issue, since it is a core part of the definition. (I will probably be removing the statement, with its source, to Waka (poetry), where a similar statement already exists, sometime soon anyway, though. I'm asking here for clarification.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good day, I hope this is the right place to ask, but I would like to verify whether YouTube videos of this old TV show (posted by apparently anonymous individuals and not an official broadcaster's account) can be: 1) citations for a table of episode casting and 2) listed as a channel listing in the External Links section? Most of these videos are of entire episodes of the show. I was of the opinion that such is a copyright violation (regardless of the fact that the copyright owner has clearly not taken efforts to enforce their copyright)? I'm sorry if this has been asked/resolved before; I was unable to find any policy that directly speaks to this. DP76764 (Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right: these are copyright violations (almost certainly) and for that and other reasons we should not cite copies of TV shows found on YouTube. I am sure this has been discussed before. I haven't looked back, but I don't believe there was any serious opposition to this conclusion. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the sanity-check assistance; much appreciated! DP76764 (Talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In a recent A-Clase review, the article School of Advanced Military Studies was denied an A rating because of use of a PhD dissertation. The final comments in the discussion, which can found here, were:

To me, that logic would seem to run against WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community", and "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."

I am trying to get a non-copyrighted version of the dissertation and upload it to wikisource so that the community can better judge the work. However, I wanted to start a discussion concerning the use of the dissertation in the article. I asked for a WP:GA review, so I am hoping to come to a consensus on the use of the dissertation and how that should effect the articles quality rating. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand that the issue is not that the source is not scholarly enough, but that is may have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Whether such an conflict of interest matters depends on the particular context. As general rule of thumb: The more controversial or disputed a topic/piece of content is, the more important it becomes, that sources are from a reliable/reputable 3rd parties without a conflict of interest.

Another thing to consider, is that various reviews & rating processes might apply a higher set of standards than the one we ideally expect from normal articles and codify the our policies, which are the ideal minimal standards an article should adhere to.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather that one of my comments being posted slightly out of context (I think), I'd suggest that other people read my full review and the comments left by other editors. My overall concern was that the article was highly sympathetic to this institution, and was largely referenced to works which were either published by the institution or written by people closely associated with it. Given that the source in question here was a history of the institution written by its former director, my concern was that it contained a significant conflict of interest which had probably contributed to the tone of the article (which other editors raised concerns about). As I noted in the above quote, I'm amazed that the university allowed the former head of the institution to submit a history of it as a PhD dissertation (particularly as the University of Kansas is a well regarded university). Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with your overall concern, at least concerning the text of the article. I think a recent copy edit has reduced that a great deal. On the topic of the PhD dissertation, I am not surprised that the university of Kansas allowed that. Most committees judge the work, not ones connection or lack of connection to the subject of the work. Casprings (talk)

Like Casprings, I'm not surprised the University accepted the PhD proposal.

In practice, I'd say, detailed histories of currently active institutions are usually written by employees, retired employees, or authors funded by the institution. COI in all cases. In that context, a retired employee who submits his finished work to an independent PhD committee -- and they accept it -- is about as good as you might expect to get. I'm not saying we on Wikipedia shouldn't strive for balance, find a neutral point of view, and seek independent sources -- we should, of course. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The general topic isn't that controversial. SOme aspects, war planning for the Iraqi war for example, might be controversial. Casprings (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree at first glance i confused it with another (controversial) school.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

On the article Bolshevik, two editors (one subsequently blocked as a sock of the persistent Runtshit vandal) have repeatedly to the lead added a questionable assertion, sourced to an article by Steven Plaut in Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology", subsequently amended to "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism had strong features of theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually described Bolshevism as "a theology"; rather that, in the early days, it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist (Steven Plaut). Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on this board, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"; "FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would recommend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people.". To my considerable surprise, Plaut himself has never been discussed here, though there have been several discussions about use of his opinions at WP:BLPN, where the consensus appears to be not to use him: "Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer."; "Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia.".

My question is, should we allow the inclusion in this article of such an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim? RolandR (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology" is an extraordinary claim for you personally since you are a self-declared Marxist. As an article by me and Steven Plaut was published on the FrontPage Magazine, I cannot impartially argue about its reliability. As for keeping the claim in the article, more sources can be found to support the claim. Anna Geifman, a leading Historian of Russia, has a whole chapter in her book Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia about how Marxism is actually a pagan theology. I will cite the book after I find it in my university's library. Nataev (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, except that your first sentence is an inappropriate ad-hominem characterization that should be struck-out or removed. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It says "This user identifies as a Marxist." on RolandR's user page. So, don't accuse me of an ad-hominem characterization. Nataev (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if you're correct (I haven't checked, and I don't really care one way or the other), your statement is still an ad-hominem characterization. RolandR's beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand you: if consensus appeared not to use this source, what is the reason to return to this issue again? Just delete this source, and if someone will try to re-insert it, go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the consensus related to other articles, and a source's reliability depends on the use that is made of it. I raised the issue of the particular source's validity in this particular article. Also, because the editors re-adding the text (including another blocked sock whose comment on the talk page has been revdelled) were responding in a very hostile manner, and I had no intention of allowing them to lead me into a 3RR trap. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR is not a dogma. You may report them even without that. It seems to me that the consensus was about the source as whole, therefore, if it is being used as a sole source to support some non-obvious claim, you may freely remove it, and, if someone will try to re-insert it once or twice (despite your explanations on the talk page), go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This board and can't be used for blanket exclusion of sources.Each case should be examined separately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Material in FrontPage magazine is not generally regarded as an RS, so everything depends on the author's credentials, and to what extent he can be regarded as an expert on Bolshevism. Has Steven Plaut been published elsewhere on this issue before? If we treat FrontPage mag as self-published, WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced 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."

If Plaut's opinions or research on Bolshevism (or very closely related issues) has been published by third-parties, and if commentators would generally regard him as having expertise in this area, I would consider using his article as a source on it (note: I haven't read the article). If not, then no. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. Breaking it down the way I see it:

• The source can be used as a source for the opinions of Plaut, as long as we do not think the source would fake such a thing.
• The two concepts to be considered about whether to cite Plaut would normally be whether he is likely to have a reputation for expertise and accuracy on this subject (i.e. reliability, the subject of this noticeboard), and secondly whether he is WP:notable. These are linked concepts but not identical. For example (using a deliberately extreme example for simplicity) Hitler's opinions about what Aryan means are perhaps very notable, in the sense we can hardly ignore them, but not necessarily accurate.
• In any case, both notability and reputation for accuracy are things which as SlimVirgin remarks, can be assessed by studying whether a person is widely cited by third party sources in any way.
• Non-neutrality, the initial basis of the concerns in this discussion, is not really a reason not to use a source. Reliability and notability are possible for sources which are not neutral - not only Hilter, but in fact some people would argue that there are no non-neutral sources.
• We use non-neutral sources in a neutral way on Wikipedia by trying to assess how sources reflect mainstream and well-regarded opinions about a subject. We then balance our reporting of opposed non-neutral views, for example by reporting two sides of an argument. But we do not need to report every argument that exists. It should be notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Plaut is considered notable. He is a professor of Business Administration, so his expertise is in neither Marxism nor theology. But he is far better known as a conservative and pro-Israel polemicist; indeed, it is this, rather than his academic career, for which he is notable. In this case, a remark by him has been ascribed to "some authors", and is being added, without any explanation or qualification, to the lead section. The person doing this has identified himself as a graduate student of Plaut. I am arguing that, if this is to be added at all, it should be in the body of the article rather than in the lead; that it should be ascribed to Plaut rather than to "some authors"; and that some context should be given, rather than the bald statement that Bolshevism had "strong features of theology". I would also argue, though that is not within the scope of this noticeboard, that the entire issue is undue and fringe; but what I raised here was the reliability and citation aspect. RolandR (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your style of reasoning sounds very logical to me. But it seems to be a matter of balance which is best dealt with at the article talk page. I think the comments above clarify the RS aspects which might be relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I did raise this in the article talk page. The response was personal attacks (some now redacted), while one editor repeatedly re-added the material, without responding to the points raided. Nor has the editor responded here, although I posted a link to this discussion on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it not blatantly obvious that the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinian News Agency aren't reliable for claims of fact regarding occurrences of vandalism in the West Bank? See, for example, this press release, which is currently citation #48 in said article.

24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it blatantly obvious that the Palestinian News Agency is not reliable for this? nableezy - 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it government agency?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously not a reliable source for claims of fact because, as an organization, it clearly has an axe to grind. Does the list of martyrs to the Palestinian cause they maintain on their Arabic (but not English) web-site convince you? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And the Jerusalem Post or Yedioth Ahronoth dont have an axe to grind? nableezy - 19:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that reliability (the subject of this noticeboard) and neutrality (another aim of Wikipedia) are two different things. Arguably, most sources are NOT neutral, but we still have to use them. We do this by trying to report the mainstream and WP:notable views from all sides. (It is sometimes accepted that extremely non-neutral publications are obviously unreliable as well, but here I am not taking about for example being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel.) Therefore, for more effective discussion, please reconsider what arguments there are about whether these sources are un-reliable, as opposed to being non-neutral. That is how discussion on this noticeboard should be framed. The other two issues relevant are due weight/ balance (WP:NPOV) and notability (WP:NOTE), which can be --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, neutrality is a distinct issue. That said, press agencies in general fall into two broad categories: the ones that are in the business of syndicating content between established news publishers (e.g. Reuters, AFP, United Press, etc.) and those that are effectively advertising agencies (e.g. Hill & Knowlton). The first group are often republishers - the reliability of their stories is as good or bad as the reliability of the original publisher. The second group have next-to-no reliability. Their job is to find ways to distort, select, and spin the facts presented to readers to the advantage of their customers. Even for these, the basic tests remain the same as for any other publisher. Do they have a reputation for objectivity and fact checking? Do they publish corrections or retractions when they get their facts wrong, without being forced to by outside actors? Do they clearly distinguish editorial opinion from factual reportage? Do they provide space for opposing views or just publish one side? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree Twentyfour-dot-something. Any source that has a list of martyrs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And why is that exactly?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That is an activist thing to do. It glorifies giving one's life for a cause. We are interested in knowing whether the source is reliable. If the source compiles a list of people that it is characterizing as being martyrs for a cause, it is playing an activist role. I think that should be seen by us as undermining that source's reliability. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, in fact whether some source contains a list of martyrs says in doubt little to nothing regarding its reliability. Calling someone a martyr might indicate a lack of neutrality, but that's about it, but as pointed out above neutrality and reliability are too different things. Depending on the exact context (possibly in this case) you might argue that the lack of neutrality leads to lack of reliability. However the general claim "Any source that has a list of martyrs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts" is more or less nonsense. The are probably quite a number of scholarly (and otherwise reliable) publications, that contains a list martyrs. We assess reliability by reputation and fact checking/error control mechanisms. LeadSongDog explained that nicely in the posting above AventurousSquirrel.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that everyone is right here: first, it is obvious that a list of martyrs is a possible sign of a probable "POV". But well respected media often contain such idealistic material concerning national heroes. The use of the word martyr has of course become an emotive thing but national heroes and people who sacrifice themselves for a cause etc etc are subjects that all nations are fascinated by, for better or worse. It is not Wikipedia's job to criticize that, except to the extent that we report the criticisms made by notable published people. But second, is a list of martyrs and a strong POV a sign of being a second rate publication? The Wikipedia "answer" is clear: there is no single simple answer. We should discuss which type of information is being sourced. We should discuss real cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and reliability are two separate issues. TFD (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I regret that I have been involved in a content dispute with another editor, regarding which genres to include in the Misha B info box. Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got.

Most sources we have point to including soul music in her genres They may not be the best sources but they are independent and neutral and wide variety sources listed below....are they good enough?

http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y

http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/

http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/http://www.dailystar.co.uk/playlist/view/263170/X-Factor-star-Misha-in-B-line-to-top/%7Caccessdate=21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA

http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags

http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410

http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html

The sources covering her other genres like R&B are weaker, so if these are not good enough for 'Soul' then maybe all her genres ought to be removed.

See (sorry these are not neat Wikipedia internal links...i forget) http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Misha_B ... Genre Changes http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zoeblackmore_reported_by_User:Jennie--x_.28Result:_.29.....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi fellow members, can you tell me if this website is a reliable source? My bait is it being a WP:SPS but I would want to have a better POV from you guys. —Indian:BIO · ^ChitChat 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to expand the Far-left politics article with some parties, movements and people described as far left on the political spectrum. I had previously noted how the article has expanded and then contracted repeatedly and was going nowhere. I used Google Book and searched for far left, radical left and extreme left. However my additions excluded but I am not sure which policy or guideline I am breaching. The reason provided was that while my statements are supported they aren't discussing the same topic as the article. The claim is asserted without providing any proof the topics aren't the same. The implication being that they aren't reliable. Could someone provide a policy page or guideline which explains why my additions should not stay? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." You need to be clear that the authors are talking about the same thing. Other editors do not have to provide proof they are not the same. TFD (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a debate at Talk:Prometheus (film) in regards to using this Forbes article.

In the Forbes article, scientists give their opinions on certain scenarios in the film Prometheus.

I'd appreciate some views on whether it is reliable for the claim that that scientists have "criticised the science" in the movie. On one hand this is a Forbes article which is generally considered an RS, on the other the piece starts with "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions", which suggests that some of the scientists may not have actually watched the film itself.

Is this article appropriate for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film" even though the article implies they may have not watched it, or is the fact it is a Forbes article good enough? Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source but it could be summarised a bit more carefully. I would use the "some leading questions" in quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a film about scientists who follow ancient star maps to mankind's original home. The article criticises the film because its scientists do not behave like real scientists. The real issue is weight. Unless the article was written by a prominent film reviewer or has received widespread attention, it is probably safe to ignore. Odd that the article concentrates on this aspect of why the film is scientifically implausible and ignores such issues as snake venom that melts metal and aliens who impregnate sterile women with killer "squid like" children. Let alone the basic premise of the film. TFD (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism Speaks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Source: "Autism Speaks – Consider the Facts" (PDF). Autistic Self Advocacy Network (Flyer). Autistic Self Advocacy Network. May 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-07.

Statement: Autism Speaks is often criticized by autism rights advocates including many autistic people who claim that it excludes autistic people from leadership positions, uses stigmatizing rhetoric, and focuses on issues that are not relevant to the autistic community.

Is it inappropriate to source claims that autism rights advocates/self-advocates make to an autistic rights/self-advocacy group? Would sources from multiple autism rights groups be better? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If the criticisms have been covered by third parties, then the specific criticisms attributed to the specific speakers / groups making the criticisms probably can be included. basing a generic claim of "criticism" on self published "rants" is probably not acceptable. Again, the specific article content and the specific sources matter. the particular flier is probably not on its own an acceptable source for article content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm confused about the meaning of self-published, then, I guess. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am married to Billy Brandt and I have noticed that his ex's who have issues continue to change his biography to untrue information. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsBillyBrandt (talk • contribs)

Any biographical claims in the article Billy Brandt that are unsourced or poorly-sourced can be removed immediately. What information should be removed? Zad68 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i blanked all the unsourced information about kids, but cannot do any more editing as the article flags "adult content" nannyware and I cannot get in anymore. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a specialist bio covered by WP:PORN, I have notified the project. In my review of the bio I can't tell exactly what is contentious or how difficult it would be to source. Zad68 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.

Here are the sources:

• Primera 24 (Original source in Spanish6)(Google Translate7)
• El Universal (A national newspaper and discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break)(Original source in Spanish8)(Google translate9)
• El Universal (Original source in Spanish10)(Google Translate11)
• Soberania (Original source in Spanish12)(Google Translate13)

Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Caramba, amigo, thanks for asking for my help! I am not sure what to say except that all the sources are from Spanish sites. I was wondering if we could find a source in English. Also, do they think WIKIPEDIA is a government propaganda site, or Derwikk and associates? Antonio Boberto de Bienvenidos Martin (dito, dimelo en esta pagina) 13:01, 3 January, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! My friends in Venezuela tell me that Primicias 24 is a government propaganda site. They also tell me that all the credible news agencies in Venezuela (the ones not run by the government) describe Derwick as a corrupt company that launders money for the government of Chavez. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the free press like El Universal, but that's why I'm bringing it up here! Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a response from User:Hahc21, which was on the talk page:

"Okay. When talking about news from Venezuela, the most reliable sources are well-established newspaper and several websites. As far as I can see, El Universal is the one to trust and follow. It is a very well establshed newspaper (I buy it every week or so although it is daily) and it rarely publishes false information. Press releases are to be treated with extra care if they come from the Venezuelan government, which has been the subject of many controversies regarding the veracity of information published by them (take the current health of Hugo Chavez as an example). My guess is to always try to find information from the most reliable sources, and those with no relationship with the government (if possible)." Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has a section14 sourced to a PDF15 from the UN which is hosted on a blog on the international law bureau website. Does this fall foul of WP:PRIMARY? It is currently used as a source on information about BLP's. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That material appeared to be an accurate reflection of the content of the UN report, and rightly placed it in that context. I'm not seeing the BLP implications given that a) the report is about government institutions and b) the material in the article seems to be an accurate account of what's in the report and c) I'm not seeing any reasons to doubt the credence of the hosting website (what are your specific concerns?). UN reports are often a good source for this kind of topic - I've used comparable UN documents in the FA Timor Leste Defence Force to discuss the failings of that institution and allegations of bad behaviour by named individuals. I note that you'd removed the material in question here, and I've re-added it per the above. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable. UN documents are good for positions taken by UN. If there was press coverage use that as well. Remember WP:RECENT and draw on academic research papers when they become available. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Are the following secondary sources good sources for the content listed below?

Source: Youth Connection charter set to fire teachers, union cries foul

Source: Chicago Charter Teachers Fight for Their Jobs, And a Union

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2011 the teachers at Latino Youth High School formed a union with the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS) in response to what they believed to be administrative mismanagement of the school. Although the union was certified by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board made clear that charter schools are public schools and are allowed to unionize under Illinois state law the administration of Pilsen Wellness Center has refused to negotiate with the school’s teachers.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What article does this relate to? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To the article for Pilsen Wellness Center, the owner of the school. An editor has removed the above content because he feels the sources are biased and won't permit it to be reinstated until RSN states that the sources are acceptable. Kausticgirl (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source from music reviews? I was removing nonprofessional reviews of some music articles, and was wondering if this one is appropriate to stay or not. The website: Chronicles of Chaos. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If the lead in that article is true, then it seems acceptable for the specialized audience it caters to, as those music releases would presumably not receive reviews from the more mainstream, professional review sources. If more professional sources are available for a particular article/album, then they should be used instead, as WP:STICKTOSOURCE suggests, "the most reliable sources on a topic". Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're using it to make statements about a reviewer's opinion, not to cite facts, right? Assuming that's the case, there shouldn't be much question of reliability. An opinion is an opinion. Maybe there's an issue of the notability of the review, but you can judge that case-by-case. TheBlueCanoe 02:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We have an expert, Michel Laurin (talk · contribs), who wants to add paleontology content to the encyclopedia. He needs guidance regarding how we decide which current hypotheses to include in our articles. In medicine it's easy: we generally rely on scholarly reviews and textbooks. In the more poorly-funded sciences, where an important topic may languish for a decade or more between reviews, how do we best serve our readers? Do we wait the ten or fifteen years, or rely on number of citations and article talk page consensus?

The editor has published in the field, and has had WP:COI explained.

What is the status of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? Does it reflect our usual practice in that area? If so, should we point Michel Laurin there? If so, should it be upgraded to guideline status?

The background is at User talk:Michel Laurin#Sources in medicine and paleontology. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Peter Brown (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual standards apply. Yes, point him to the essay. No, it does not need to be upgraded, as it explains how a policy is applied - the policy is what has the force, the essay doesn't need it. KillerChihuahua 15:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking whether it should be a guideline, not whether it should be a policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The essay is concerned, throughout, with whether it is warranted to make a definitive claim. As noted, such a statement must be based on a consensus. Much of the material in paleontology that is of interest to the general reader, however, is uncertain, and neutrality requires presentation, not of a consensus, but of the major competing viewpoints. Which group is more closely related to the birds, the lizards or the turtles? The turtle theory is gaining adherents and may someday become a consensus position, but​—​as with a huge number of issues​—​no definitive answer can responsibly be stated. Besides an exposition of settled matters, an ideal paleontology article will contain snapshots of the current state of research in the major areas within the article's scope but cannot present a consensus that does not exist. The essay does need to be upgraded. Peter Brown (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Where and why exactly does you description require a change of the essay?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave the essay/guideline question for now - perhaps to another thread - and focus on Michel's perceived problem. (I've restored this thread to its original title.) He and Peter above are saying scholarly publication in paleontology is very slow to review even highly-cited taxonomy or phylogeny theories, and there is a lot of contention in this unstable field. I'm suggesting that it may be appropriate in such a field for us to include theories that have been highly-cited but not yet subjected to independent scholarly review. That is, in medicine, reliable sources are almost exclusively secondary; are we more inclusive in fields that are unstable and slow to review? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Peter and Michel; the situation is similar in paleobotany. One exacerbating problem with independent review taking so long is that someone outside the field might discount a new and widely cited theory as having undue weight based on the absence of independent review, when in fact the contrasting theory is merely older. Textbooks in these fields are few and far between, and review articles are most often written by the authors of the primary literature (something common in many other areas of the natural sciences as well).--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Curtis, is there a Wikiproject that covers these fields? If so, should we point them to this discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Generalising is quite tricky. Outside medicine, I have no problem with reporting a primary source and describing it as "Dr X reported Y.." if it has appeared in literature, depending on how far off currently held consensus it is. We really need a link to each example folks are discussing over as it can be hard to generalise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a common challenge and definitely requires some good discussions between editors about how to properly balance things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear opinions about punknews.org 16 as a reliable source. I'm a little uncomfortable with the writers doing articles under psuedonyms (please spare me the historical examples, just because someone notable did it doesn't mean it's ok across the board) and the pro-am feel of the site, but I could be wrong. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i dont see that it would fall into the buckets of sites that we consider generally reliable. In particular instances perhaps. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

hmm it looks like it has been considered one of the acceptable sites at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. You may want to check with the Album review project and see if it is truly acceptable or if it got snuck in at sometime and no one has yet questioned it to cause its removal. the pseudonyms are troubling to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Only staff reviews are accepted from punknews.org. Non-staff reviews are listed under the non professional. It appears that anybody can submit news to the website; if this is the case I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Maybe the listing of staff reviews from punknew.org as a professional review should also be contested? The1337gamer (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The following source: 17

Is the reason for some contention on the article Huey P. Newton: 18

There is also substantial discussion on the Talk page

This is the text:

Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality.¹²³

As outlined in my comments on the talk page, this reference seems to have some POV issues, some WP:V issues, WP:PSTS issues, and does not appear necessary to support the statement, as other references are there. However, this position appears contentious, so I would appreciate some guidance on whether this source should be included or not.

Not a good enough source for contentious political biography. An opinion piece or essay that is part of the cut-and-thrust of the debate, not commentary standing apart from the debate. The author may have published more detailed material elsewhere that might be reliable. The viewpoint she is writing from is a mainstream one that probably needs representing in the article, but better sources are needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Studylight.org is a creationist site affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research.19, 20(which offers courses run by the ICR21. I ran into this at Thomas Chalmers where I discovered that the link that I thought would take me to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition took me instead to studylight.org. It seems to be being used extensively as a source22 and if I'm right needs to be added to the cleanup list at the top of this page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug... hold on, I don't think this is the problem you think it is. (It's actually a different problem!) Studylight hosts a number of public domain reference works, including the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The reference at Thomas Chalmers is supposed to point to this article, which is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article for Thomas Chalmers, and supports biographical background info. I don't see any problem with using Studylight for this purpose--to make public domain reference works available. It's like Bartleby. It would be a problem to use some essay at Studylight to support a theological point in an article, but I did not see that happening in the half-dozen or so uses of Studylight that I clicked on. The problem this might be is that we're using very old public-domain reference works in articles, but that's a different problem. Zad68 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the broken link at the article, check it out now. Zad68 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an essay that discusses this issue: Wikipedia:Convenience link. Convenience links can be used, but should be replaced when better convenience links are available. Some of these links could be replaced with links to Wikisource or Google Books. I'm confident that Wikisource hosts the entire Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.--xanchester (t) 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And it does: wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, although many of the entries are missing.--xanchester (t) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

xanchester, thank you for those, both the Convenience link essay and the Wikisource reference, I will be making good use of both of those!! Zad68 14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another free copy of the EB 11th ed., complete I believe, is at www.1911encyclopedia.org (example page). One reason for avoiding the studylight link, if others are available, is that studylight has a nuisance popup asking for subscriptions. Andrew Dalby 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Wikipedia is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that it's irrelevant where a book is printed. I'd leave Lulu out of the discussion and focus on MET Press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lulu publishes (nearly?) whatever anyone wants to have published. It's effectively not a publisher, but a press. It does no confer reliability. The "real" publisher in this case is MET Press. They also have an agreement that looks more like a self-publishing house, and they specialise in poetry, so I don't think they confer any reliability. In short, unless the author is a recognized specialist, the books in question are not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan, I misread your comment and noticed after posting my general response below. My question is whether their being a self-publishing house that specializes in poetry (i.e., not academic literature) confers unreliability. I know that that is not necessarily the case, but it still seems inappropriate for encyclopedia articles to be citing those kinds of works in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The default state of any piece of writing is "unreliable source". Unless there are good arguments for its reliability (establishing "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it is unreliable. That said, being published by a self-publishing house does not automatically make something unreliable - if Steven Weinberg publishes (hypothetical) On Fundamental Forces in Physics via Lulu, I would at least tentatively accept it as reliable. But the reliability in this case comes from the author, not the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup - I've just come to the same conclusion. Books from MET Press are self-published by any reasonable definition. As Stephan Schulz says though, the key issue is the credibility of the author, not the publisher, and without recognition from credible secondary sources, or evidence that the author is a recognised expert in the subject, it matters little who publishes a work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree about focusing on the author, not the publication. WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS say that reliability can rest with the author. WP:SPS says we can use self-published sources if the author is an expert in the field who has previously been published in that field by independent publishers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to focus of METPress, but I have faced the problem that no matter how many faults I find in works they publish, and no matter how many reliable sources I find that contradict them, it still doesn't seem like absolute evidence that material published by METPress is not reliable in general. My argument has traditionally been that since they do not actually print the books and magazines that they claim to "publish", and do not therefore incur costs of production until after they have received payment (because they publish through Lulu), they seem to generally be lacking in editorial standards. This method of publishing gives them a motivation to put out as much stuff as they can, in the hope that some of it sells.

The authors of most of the questionable material are Jeffrey Woodward and "M.Kei", neither of whom are academics, and both of them are writing in fields that seem to be unqualified in. They generally do not cite sources, and have on numerous occasions made ridiculous assertions about classical Japanese literature despite neither of them understanding Japanese.

However, my problem remains -- is pointing out 100, or 1,000 inaccuracies in a particular author's work enough to discredit him/her as a source on Wikipedia? The reason I went with Lulu was that these authors' refusal to go through mainstream academic publishers seemed to be a decent indicator that they are not reliable academic sources for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts?

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Have the authors been published on this issue before in independent mainstream publications? That is, can they be regarded as authoritative in the field? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they have not. METPress's Author pages for them2324 seem to indicate that neither of them has a strong academic background in the field of classical Japanese literature). They both appear to be career-poets, and have never published scholarly articles in mainstream academic publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I don't see much that would suggest this meets the standard for a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Lulu published stuff can never be considered a reliable source. It is purely user-created material that the user pays to have published. This is not to knock Lulu, however, I have used them to print my own calanders in the past. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If a known authority chooses to self-publish, the material is usable no matter how or where they publish it. But they have first to be shown as an authority. So it isn't actually "never" I think it likely we will see much more of this, especially in the arts and relatedfields, and we will need to find better ways of judging. . DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

while it may come up more, it is already covered in the WP:SPS - without being published first by someone with reputation, self published stuff is not gonna cut it for an encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the following secondary source a good source for the content listed below? All the relevant information is taken from Chapter One, Introduction and Background - Report Conclusions, pg. 1.

Source: MANAGEMENT AUDIT PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2008 a special audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General for the state of Illinois uncovered a number of expenditures, which were inappropriately charged to State programs at taxpayer expense and sometimes without documentation. Additionally, the auditor discovered that a third of employees did not have documentation to prove they were qualified for their positions. At the time of the audit 48 percent of the files also lacked documentation on performance appraisals.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a primary source document, the audit report itself is of limited value. Such a finding should have been covered by the media, though. Use them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. This report by Fox News mentions the audit. Would it in combination with the audit be valid sources? Or should I use only the Fox News report? Kausticgirl (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The coverage in FOX does seem to be reliable coverage (as reliable as FOX gets). note that the article does have a lot of quotes of involved persons and so the coverage will need to be very careful to simply report the "factual" parts of what FOX and the audit specifically present as facts and not opinions or personal experiences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Immersion includes the following statement:

Total Immersion's popularity with triathletes is evident by the many interviews with the founder that have been done by various triathlon coaches, including Kerry Sullivan of the Triathlon Summit and Rockstar Triathlete Academy,1 Patrick McCrann of Inside Endurance,2 Simon Gowen of the Simon Gowen Triathlon Show.3

The three citations point to webpages: 1 http://www.triathlonsummit.com/index1.html, 2 http://www.xtri.com/all-articles/detail/284-itemId.511710350.html, and 3 http://www.latalkradio.com/Simon.php . Are these links sufficient to support the assertion in the statement? Thanks! Location (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No - absolutely not. Citing a list of dubious links to 'demonstrate' popularity is WP:OR. Furthermore, the whole article is far too promotional, and frankly I doubt that it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Incidentally, 'using gravity as a propelling force' as claimed in the lede looks like utter bullshit too - classic WP:FRINGE material. The article needs a complete rewrite if it is to remain on Wikipedia - starting with evidence from independent reliable sources that it is in any way of encyclopaedic note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: 25 I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grandmaster 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because a text has been used in an article does not mean that text has been used as a source. However—generalist encyclopaedia should not be used as sources in history articles as they fail to represent the account of history constructed by appropriate experts. Generalist encyclopaedia have a purpose other than the best representation possible of the current scholarly account, and do not employ as a matter of course persons who can appropriately represent the current scholarly account. See WP:HISTRS for the kinds of sources you should be using in history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that the editors of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia placed their primary emphasis on articles on Armenia and the Armenians. Most of the contributors in the field were prominent and internationally recognized scholars and thus the authoritative figures on topics relating to Armenia's history and culture. I wouldn't use the encyclopedia's article on the United States as a source on its counterpart on Wikipedia, but these guys were the head honchos of the topics they studied. A number of scholars outside Armenia have consulted and cited the encyclopedia as a reliable source numerous times in their studies.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The example I typically give there is Kropotkin's article on Anarchism for EB. I would suggest going through an SPS evaluation (in your head, or on the Talk: page of the article) of expertise in relation to such articles by such persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add few things. Viktor Hambardzumyan, an internationally recognized scientist so is considered on the founders of the Astrophysics, was the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia's head editor. Most of the historical articles were written, obviously, from the Armenian point of view and the modern history, especially the era concerning the First Republic of Armenia was mostly from the communist standpoint and was anti-Dashnak, but its reliability cannot be argued, in my opinion. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a contradiction in what you say, because you admit that the ASE's historical articles were written from the communist standpoint, but then you say that its reliability cannot be argued. Grandmaster 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia should be avoided only in cases when it criticized people and events that were considered anti-Soviet in action or spirit. It is, however, a top source for research on non-modern historical topics. It has been widely quoted internationally and edited by the top internationally-recognized scholars of the time. User Grandmaster who posted this dubious request has been trying to cast doubt and discredit good sources in order to open way to push Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. His actions should be curbed as he is acting in bad faith. As for the Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, it should be avoided both as a source for modern and ancent historical information since it was edited and managed by the Soviet era's most infamous plagiarists and revisionists such as Ziya_Bunyadov#Critics, who were widely criticized in the West for egregious violations of academic ethics and racist attacks . Sprutt (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ASE cannot be considered reliable for a number of reasons. First, it is tainted by Soviet propaganda. Second, it is quite outdated. There are dated sources that have not lost their value to this day, for example Vladimir Minorsky who is widely referred to in the international scholarly community, but ASE is not a source of similar international acclaim. Third, ASE authors like Bagrat Ulubabyan are criticized for promoting nationalist agenda by experts on nationalism such as Victor Schnirelmann. And it is very difficult for people outside of Armenia to verify what ASE actually says, since as far as I know it is available only in Armenian. Also, I find the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions by Sprutt to be in violation of a number of wiki rules. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One more reason why Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia can't be used as reliable source: Anti-turkism was one of the directions of USSR propaganda and it is one of the directions of Armenian propaganda as well, therefore USSR supported all efforts of Armenians on this issue. Best, Konullu (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.

So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Shnirelman is quite critical of Yeremian's articles in ASE. He critically mentions at least 2 of Yeremian's articles in ASE, "Armenians" and "Greater Armenia". According to Schnirelman, Soviet propaganda forced all the ethnicities declare themselves to be autochthons in the areas they inhabited, and Armenian Soviet scholars were actively involved in this process as well. And that includes ancient history. Grandmaster 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As demonstrated by Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov in his book, Schnirelman, who directed his criticism mainly against Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists, reluctantly extended his criticism to some Armenian scholars as well in order to fight accusations of one-sided analysis. As mentioned before, you can therefore safely discount Schnirelman's discussion of Armenian scholars as an awkward attempt at false balance. All this ASE thing is just one big bad faith hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of an Armenian politolgist Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov is not sufficient to discount criticism of Schnirelman, who dedicated large chapters in his book to the criticism of the Armenian historical revisionism, substantial part of which related to Soviet times. Plus, Schnirelman is not alone. You can read about Armenian nationalist scholarship in the book by professor Philip Kohl, for instance: 26 Grandmaster 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:

While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.

Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896

Grandmaster 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).

Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And Yeremian wrote such works as "Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке // Изв. АН АрмССР. Сер. обществ, наук. 1951. N 6.". Translates as "Problem of ethnogenesis of Armenians in the light of the teaching of I.V.Stalin about the language". And you say that this author was free from communist influence while he tried to introduce it into ancient history? You might know that the communist ideology treated history as that of the class struggle. As for Suny, as a scholar of the Soviet Union he is well aware of what was going on in the historical science of the USSR. Again, Suny is not an ideal author either, but at least he is capable of impartial assessment of certain periods of Armenian history. Grandmaster 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_138
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---