Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links to past discussion of the source on this board. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard. If an unreliable source is being over-used or spammed, consider the MediaWiki blacklist, where it can be added to the spam blacklist or a revert list for automated reversion of potential good-faith additions.	Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

BLUF: Heaton & Lewis is an acceptable, reliable source for the article. Rationale: H&L have not produced a "scholarly" book on Marseille, but their quality is clear. Simply finding errors in their work(s) does not eliminate them as an acceptable source. (Indeed, scholars seek to "find errors" in the work of others as part of scholarly debate.) The caveat to this closing should be clear – while acceptable, the info H&L provide must be given proper weight per consensus. So, I recommend reducing the length of the Nazism section. In particular: Sheck is over-used; too much emphasis is given to the 1942 Germany visit and his piano playing; we do not have collaboration about his Holocaust concerns; and "several biographies" are not cited for "distain" of Nazism and Nazi leadership. – S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").

A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?

@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.

This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Wikipedia and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

• "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?

So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one wikipedia fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.

And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Wikipedia shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.

It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.

The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.

Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

• this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
• It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
• He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
• I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
• I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told, that you don't get to decide whether a source is reliable. Neither does anybody else, unless they can provide good cause.

The personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are useless. Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I was able to clarify that evaluation of sources is not original research; please see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You were not evaluating a source. You don't like it. You made a decision it had to go, then scoured the internet for anything that would support your pre-existing prejudices against sources that write about German military personnel and that don't label them Nazis or falsifiers of their own records. Using anonymous reviews, from non-experts to ban sources about which they offer only the very slightest of criticism is tendentious AND OR. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources and engage with the editors there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to. You're behaviour encompasses more than OR, also Tendentious and selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The above comment incorrectly identifies historian Horst Boog as a "non-expert". He was the pre-eminent expert on the Luftwaffe operations during World War II, having contributed to three volumes of the seminal series Germany and the Second World War.

General note: this is a noticeboard to discuss reliability of sources, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Second summary on Heaton

• This discussion has been going on for more than a month now. It is fair to say that no consensus has developed that this source is unreliable. Let's close this discussion per WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see it this way.

• Three editors expressed concerns about the source (see above).
• The nom expressed concerns.
• I've not considered Heaton to be reliable since encountering content cited to him at SS Division Das Reich.
• One editor stated that Heaton is probably RS and expressed concerns over OR in evaluating the source, but have not come back to the discussion.
• One editor has expressed an opinion that Heaton is RS.

Thus, the rough consensus seems clear to me that Heaton is not a suitable source for the claims in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Expressing a concern isn't the same as declaring it unreliable. You have misrepresented what the various editors have said in your summary. For example you quote Itsmejudith: this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure but omit her next sentence: I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." --Nug (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He's a reliable source for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. This does not suggest that his interpretations are reliable for the sort of judgements that are being made about "anti-Nazi" attitudes in the early 1940s. He is on the margins of usability, and then only when appropriately framed and very carefully used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I started this debate to get some additional input whether this particular source is reliable for the content it supports and I would like to thank you for the input. As a reminder: In the article in question Heaton's biography of Marseille is not simply used to present Heaton's opinion. Instead numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him at length are presented as facts.(Perma) It seems fair to summarize that Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion and for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. Thus the consensus of this debate is that these opinions and reports are to be carefully attributed.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think that is a fair conclusion. While Heaton's opinion with respect to Marseille's anti-Nazi sentiment should be attributed, there is nothing to suggest that the numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him are unreliable. In fact a review of his book by the journal Military Review in the March-April 2015 edition states "A well-written, insightful, quality book, it entertains while it educates; it is highly recommended."[1] --Nug (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Since you seem to offer dissent to my conclusion that opinions and "decades-later reports" were to be attributed, please clarify: Do you argue that the anecdotes and stories that can be found in Heaton's bio are to be accepted as fact and presented as such in a Wikipedia article? Because my argument is that anecdotes and "decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view" are in general biased and opinionated and thus should be dealt with according to WP:BIASED, i.e., with WP:INTEXT at the least, although in regard to the details I would point to WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. That anecdotes by former Nazis and comrades are quoted at length by Colin Heaton may add color to the picture, but does not transform their anecdotes into truthful, objective, reliable, and accurate representations of historical truth. I have specified my concerns on the talk page of the article, so you might look for examples there.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs your conclusion? I've provided a review published in the journal Military Review that highly recommends the book. I see you have ignored that. This discussion has been going on for weeks here, perhaps time to accept there is no consensus for your opinion and WP:DROPTHESTICK now? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. So I'll take notice, that because of a review by Major Chris Buckham, a Logistics Officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada with a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations, you think that "first-person anecdotes and interviews with many of [Marseille's] former commanders and colleagues" (Buckham) conducted by Heaton are to be considered factual accounts and can be presented accordingly. Since you are asking for sources, please take note of the extensive material I have presented here and on the talk page of the article. I may remind you, moreover, that Dapi89, who is also very much in favor of those anecdotes, has already thrown out a slightly less favorable review of the book in question by stating, and I am quoting only his more civilized words, It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. He considers this as OR and Tendentious. By that logic Heaton cannot be labelled reliable because of some praise he may have received by a non-expert, or can he? Unless, of course, this is not about sorting reviews by pre-existing prejudices in favor of Heaton. Consensus does not necessarily mean that every editor agrees on every issue. It is the quality of the argument that matters.--Assayer (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, are you saying that the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor of unknown academic qualifications, self-published on this notice board, carries more weight than the opinion of an identified academically qualified military officer published in the leading professional journal of the US Army? Seriously? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't say that Dapi89's opinions carry a particular weight, in fact, I find most of them unsubstantiated and focused on personal attacks rather than content. I would not summarily label any reviewer as unqualified, but wanted to point out, that you cannot choose reviews to your liking. I have done what is essential for any historian as for any Wikipedian, namely checked the source against other research sources. In view of the expertise by the MGFA and other evidence I consider Heaton's narrative to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is almost exclusively based upon anecdotal evidence, which, as any textbook on the methods of oral history will tell you, is factually unreliable. As Marc Bloch has famously put it: "The most naĩve policeman knows that a witness should not always be taken at by his word, even if he does not always take full advantage of this theoretical knowledge". (The Historian's Craft, 1954ff.)--Assayer (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your opinion, you seem to be saying that we should place more weight on your opinion than the opinions published in reliable sources like Military Review. Indeed, you cannot choose reviews to your liking, but you have not provided any other review of Heaton's book. MGFA does not mention Heaton's book, so where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? --Nug (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, in his short and broad review Major Buckham does not address the specific issues I have raised. (I might add that he finds nearly every book that he reviews to be "insightful". See his blog, The military reviewer.) Second, above you'll find another reviewer being quoted, who asks how exactly the authors found out about all the details. That review has been discarded by Dapi89 as non-authorative with an argument which basically discards any review as non-authorative. Third, it remains undisputed that Heaton's evidence are anecdotes and interviews. He has somewhat routinely used this "oral history"-method in other books, too, and reviewers have been critical of the reliability of those interviews. And rightly so because, fourth, as of January 2013 the MGFA has denied that any serious historiographical study of Marseille existed, and did not bother to even mention Kurowski's, Tate's and Wübbe's earlier works either. It noted, however, that attempts by popular literature to suggest an ideological distance between Marseille and Nazism are misleading. Thus Heaton's claims are exceptional and should be backed up by multiple high-quality sources, before they are being accepted as plain facts. But I keep repeating myself and would suggest to take further discussion to the talk page.--Assayer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You would. More opinion, no proof. Again, lots of "I think" in all this. I am going to repeat Nug's question: where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? I don't want more elaborate complaints and opinions as to why Heaton should be banned from wikipedia. I want you to tell me where there are concerns from other parties - preferably by published authorities on the Luftwaffe and Marseille. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: that Heaton is "directly contradicted by the military historians at the [[Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr" is false. They do not say that he was or he wasn't a Nazi. They say they are not aware of any 'outstanding' deed to show he wasn't. One doesn't have to show any act or "deed" to show they are/were not a Nazi. Heaton's book is based on those who knew him. And they say his politics were in sharp contradiction to everything National Socialism stood for. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heaton's book is based on decades-later anecdotes related in a deeply-changed political climate. It is at best on the very margins of usability, if carefully attributed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for your claim? Or is this another opinion? Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to comment on this issue, but can better make only a general comment about sources in this area:

Essentially all biographies emphasise the importance of their subject

All biographies contain quotation about what the subject has themselves said at various occasions. It can be assumed that all such statements are self-serving. There will be various statements at various times , and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired..

All references to an author's work are intended to appear balanced, unless intended as an attack piece. They will therefore contain both positive and negative statements, and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired.

All members of an organization involved in immoral or illegal behavior will try to minimize their personal responsibility. In particular, all members of the German army in world war Two writing for an external audience will claim to be anti-Nazi, at least as compared to other people. (though there are a few who will instead glorify their past actions)

It is almost impossible for an historian or biographer to avoid developing a bias about the period or events or people they are describing. Some do this more successfully than others, but bias always exists. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested a close

I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been open for long enough and I would say that no consensus has occurred. But with that said, leave the finial word to the closer. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bleacher Report

Bleacher Report is a content farm that produces content just to be SEO Optimized, with no regard for the truth. Editors are encouraged to use hyperbole and misleading headlines to get more views on their writing. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles using them as a source, and these are either junk sections that should be removed, or news that should have an actual, reliable, source rather than Bleacher Report. http://www.bleacherreport.com

Chin_(combat sports) -- This article is chock-full of click-bait "listicles" about "fighters who have good chins" from Bleacher Report.

Link searches

Consider naturalnews.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com . This is, by common consent, one of the most unreliable sources of health information on the net. I check special:Linksearch/*.naturalnews.com periodically, it takes an age, for reasons which will be obvious when you click the link.

For a brief while we had the ability to filter link search by namespace. It went away again. I think the habitués of this board would agree, being able to filter by namespace would have immense utility. Or am I wrong? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The ability to filter linksearch by namespace would be immensely helpful. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

oh heck yes. pinging the liaison for WMF discovery, User:CKoerner (WMF) Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the ping. This looks like a common request. I just discovered it was in the top 50 of the Community Wishlist for 2015. I'll see if I can find the right person to help. I added a note about this request to the existing phab task on this subject. The good news is that the API already allows this, but the Special:LinkSearch feature does not expose that via the UI (due to performance concerns). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pleading at the phab, and your reply here. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy: Meanwhile, if wanted I could use a script I have to list articles where naturalnews.com is used. As you are doing that periodically it may not be particularly convenient, but I'm happy to do it, say, once a week. If wanted, where would I post a list? A subpage in your userspace? Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please, user:JzG/HealthDanger - or send me a copy of the script, that would be very handy. Thanks.

I created the page; there are currently only two articles. I'll update it each week or so, or ping me anytime, particularly if I forget. If there are more links you want to monitor, add them here or to the page (which I'm watching) and I'll add them. The script is based on stuff I have developed over several years and is not easy to package for someone else—let's see how this goes for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

IOC President?

Is an IOC President reliable when he prizes Olympics co-organized by the IOC?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Presidents of large international organizations are only reliable for statements of fact in a narrow range, such as "my organization has X number of employees" (and maybe not even then -- it depends). Presidents of large international organizations are notable, so their opinion in various things might be worth stating, depending on what it is, as an opinion. "My organization is a fine thing and its outputs are great", probably not. "Over my years as a notable person in this field, I have sadly seen such-and-such trend grow", quite possibly. If this doesn't help, perhaps you could be more specific? Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The President said that he organized fanstastic Olimpics. The statement is quoted here as reliable. I would prefer neutral opinions about the Olimpics.Xx236 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, please be specific. At least mention the Wikipedia page where this is quoted, because it's impossible to discuss this without any context. --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia#Sports Commentators evaluated the Games as having been an overall success - is an IOC President a commentator?Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics#Concerns and controversies Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sochi Olympics postscript: The whole thing was a fake Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This edit is probably the relevant one. The 'successful' comment was referenced with this and this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources about corruption and doping at Sochi. Hello!

Xx236 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The next step

Olympics History Rewritten: New Doping Tests Topple the Podium

has been removed being allegedly part of irrelevant addition containing errors.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the IOC president a "commentator". Also, to present one POV, that the games were a success, without including mention of the doping scandal, probably violates NPOV. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a disagreement, but: the problem is not so much that the IOC president is or isn't right to say the games were a success (that's NPOV and balance issues to make sure that the conclusion is shared by an overwhelming majority of RS). The problem is that the IOC president will never say the games were a failure, because he is not an independent "commentator". If a well-known editorialist wrote the games were a success using exactly the same words, it would be a proper source, but the IOC president is not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, which any reader would realize if they were given the information. In fact, I think anyone who wrote this properly, such as saying, "The IOC president called it a success", would immediately rethink the issue. It's OK to say it, but it's so obvious that it's essentially pointless. The more Wikipedia way would be to include both POVs. Something like, "The games, called a success by some, were marred by a doping scandal among Russian athletes." Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Samaritan Pentateuch translation

POOL CLOSED:

due to sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

My name is Aleksandr Sigalov.

I would like to dispute the Samaritan Pentateuch article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch

In this article, the editors give credit to the Ben Tsedaka for being the first who translated Samaritan Pentateuch in English. This is not true and I request that you give me credit for being the first who translated the Samaritan Pentateuch in English AND Russian (Russian translation is also first in the world).

I am the expert on the Pentateuch (over 10 years of experience). My Russian translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is also first ever made. The English translation of my Pentateuch was published in April 2012. ONE YEAR before Tsedaka's! Not to mention that my work is superior in all ways.

In fact, Tsedaka translation is made according to the Samaritan tradition, therefore he mistranslated many words in his primary translation and even added words to the Torah text which is prohibited. See his translation of Exodus 4:25 as one of the best examples. My translation, on the other hand, faithfully shows the Samaritan Torah text as it was WRITTEN.

Tsedaka is not even fluent in English so I question his ability to translate anything at all in English.

I understand that it is a self-published source but I request that you make an exception because my work was too big to be published on paper. Also, very few serious scholars nowadays read paper books so I do not see any sense in this rule in my case.

My translation is the only one available on the Internet for free use and if you will Google "samaritan pentatuch" you will see that my web site comes up first. Over 22k people read the translation since it was published.

My translation was also published in many free and commercial Bible study software packages such as TheWord or BibleWorks, STEP Bible also. Samaritans themselves link to me in their Newspaper. http://shomron0.tripod.com/2013/novdec.pdf

Also, I my translation is being used/quoted in the article I am disputing and other Wikipedia articles.

The editors of the article have been extremely hostile to me, so I am appealing to you. My numerous attempts to get credit for my work got rejected for no reason. Also, the editors even removed my site from the External Links section, that was there for years, as a retaliation and without giving me the opportunity to respond.

Please help me out with this issue. I would like to get credit for my hard work.

My work is published here: https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/

Thank you.

For us, there are various questions. One is whether the Tsedaka and Sullivan edition is reliable as a source for the article. Then if it is reliable is it notable enough to mention. Then the same can be asked about your own work.

What we can't do is to take up a plagiarism case for you. If you want to do that I would suggest writing to the publishers.

So, on the face of it there are no problems with the Tsedaka and Sullivan edition. It is from a publisher which has been publishing religious works for many decades. So I think we have to count it as reliable. If at any point there is a plagiarism challenge we would have to revisit that. Then your own work. There is no problem with online-only publication, if it is on a well established site that would be considered to be a reliable publisher. My Google search throws up BibleWorks, which is well established, but it is not clear that it operates in the same way as a publishing house. Step Bible looks to be well established as well.

Perhaps someone who knows a lot more about the Bible than me will come along to give further advice. For now, it seems that both versions are OK, either to use as a source or to mention briefly. It is a complicated question, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. All I want is either to get credit for my work. Or, if you can remove the reference that Tsedaka's work is first, this will work too for me. I am very flexible. Plagiarism is a separate issue and this is not why I am here. Also I would love to see my link back in the External Articles section. It was there for many years and it was not harming anyone. Regardless, I would really appreciate if you can help me with this issue. Did you see the Samaritans linking to me link above? Thanks. Please note that Tsedaka's work is absolutely unreliable. His translation is really really bad and inaccurate. 172.58.19.15 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandr Sigalov's translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is not mentioned in any scholarly source, anywhere, as far as I can tell. All sorts of stuff finds its way onto various free online software packages. He self-published it, and despite his frequently repeated claim that he is "the expert on the Pentateuch," no actual Pentateuch scholar ever interacts with his work. This should be a strong red flag. I strongly recommend that his work not be treated as reliable on Wikipedia. The fact that he is referenced on a website associated with Samaritans is irrelevant for our purposes, because there is not a single actual legitimate scholar of Hebrew (Samaritan or otherwise) who considers Mr. Sigalov a reliable source. Personally, I've looked over his work, and it has serious deficiencies. Now, it's true that I'm just some guy on the internet. But so is Mr. Sigalov. When a blogger calls himself "the expert" on an academic field of study, and no academics concur, this should be a pretty much open-and-shut case against using him as a source on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. To untangle what's going on with the BibleWorks mention, see here, where you can see that Mr. Sigalov's work is included via a "User-created database." In other words, a Bibleworks user took Sigalov's work and simply reformatted it so that it can be read using the BibleWorks software. This sort of thing should not be confused with anything resembling academic peer review. All sorts of interesting stuff finds its way into the User-created modules category, and it's not filtered for reliability in anything like the Wikipedia sense of the term. The unofficial Bibleworks blog even includes instructions for users who want to create their own modules/databases. It's pretty much an unfiltered process. Alephb (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are important considerations. Are we just talking here about the quality of the translation? Because even a poor translation could be worth an external link, if it is convenient, and if it passes the minimum standard of not being actually misleading. Or is there another issue at stake? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I had been under the assumption that external links were held to WP:RS standards. Maybe I was wrong about that. If not, I'm not sure where the minimum cut-off is. Definitely the transliterations of Hebrew words given at Sigalov's site throughout are idiosyncratic to the point of being misleading for 99% of readers. Just taking Genesis 1:1, for instance, he reads bareshet/bereshit as b_raShit, bara as bra, elohim as alhim, etc. etc. with virtually every single word given a very strange rendering. His "Modern Literal Torah Translation" is (to be perfectly frank) bewildering and often borders on nonsensical (see here). His translation style is filled with severe and repeated misunderstandings about how the verbal system of biblical Hebrew works, including for simple verbs like "to be." And, whichever of his websites we link to will be full of statements by Mr. Sigalov promoting his eccentric interpretations of biblical passages, and passing himself off (wrongly) as the expert on the Pentateuch. On the list of external links we shouldn't have on Wikipedia WP:LINKNO I think it's pretty clear that points #2 and #11 apply to Mr. Sigalov's websites. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. Alephb (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I do not know why you have a grudge against me, but you are clearly mistaken. You obviously did not even bother to read the "About Translation" page on my web site and I also suspect that you did not even see my English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Also, you judging me as some kind of "expert" while your user page states that you not even fluent in Hebrew (most certainly NOT in Torah Hebrew). Please see this link and please tell me what problems do you find with my translation? https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/online-samaritan-pentateuch-in-english/genesis 172.58.19.156 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a grudge. Your website contains a variety of things, and as far as I know I've seen all the various translations: there's an interlinear, a "literal" translation, and then one based mainly on the KJV. The first two are baffling. For example, here's where you go word by word through the Hebrew text [2]. Anyone who wants can follow along. For the first word in Genesis (Masoretic bereshit, Samaritan barashet) you translate it "in_beginnings" although it should be singular. The third word in Genesis (Masoretic elohim, Samaritan Eluwwem) you translate as "strengths" when it means "God." The fourth word, et, you translate as "with" which is not its meaning in this verse or in most places; it's a less common meaning only found elsewhere. It's usually the objective case marker. In Genesis 1:2, you translate a word as faces_me which means surface of. In Genesis 1:3, you translate Let there be as he-is-becoming. And so on. There's misleading translation choices in every single verse I've looked at so far. More broadly, you translate wayyiqtol verbs as if they're equivalent to the English present tense. So it's not a matter of a grudge. It's a simple disagreement, and disagreements happen on Wikipedia all the time. You think your work is scholarship, and I don't. It's not a personal thing. To avoid disagreements like this, Wikipedia has a set of guidelines about what should or shouldn't go onto the external links section of a Wikipedia page. That guideline is WP:LINKNO. It's criterion #11 eliminates personal websites like yours. Alephb (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you high? Why do still continue to discuss different translation? And you still did not read the About Translation page on my site, which is why your assesment of my translation does not make sense at all. We are discussing my Samaritan Pentateuch translation and so far you have not told me one single thing that was wrong with it. Please follow the link I provided - you are clearly confused which translation we are discussing here. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not high. If you're talking about this About Translation page, I've read it. We are talking about whether we are going to direct readers to your site, which contains multiple translations, some of them clearly very bad, and serious accusations against other people. For example, from your "About Translation" page that you keep accusing me of not reading: Please note that I was the FIRST IN THE WORLD to publish Samaritan Torah translation in English and Russian. Samaritan Ben Tsedaka's translation was SECOND after mine. He is a liar and a thief because he stole credit for my hard work. Not only he published his translation 1 year after mine, but he intentionally mistranslates the text and even ADDS words to the Torah. See Exodus 4:25 for example. His translation is of extremely poor quality and it does not faithfully represent Samaritan Torah text as it was WRITTEN. Not to mention that Tsedaka is not even fluent in English. So if you are looking for accurate translation of the Samaritan Torah text in English, please read my translation. In light of WP:LINKNO, criteria numbers 2 and 11, that's why I'm not recommending your site for use on Wikipedia.

You still have not told us why you think my SP translation is bad? Please be specific! Here is the direct link again just in case you got lost again: https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/online-samaritan-pentateuch-in-english/genesis 172.56.44.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize that you think the discussion over the "SP" translation should be a different question from the issues with the "Literal" and "Interlinear" parts of the site, but I disagree. I really don't think we can separate the one translation from the other two for the purposes of deciding whether to link to your site. The link you gave tohere, for example, lands the reader smack-dab not just in the content on that specific page, but with a navigation bar to the left where all the easiest material to access is from the highly unreliable interlinear. Up above is a link to the "Modern Literal Torah" translation, where the reader can see what happens when a translator misreads how constructs work and treats wayyiqtol as if it were equivalent to English present tense. In other words, I don't think we can effectively separate the English-only text you're asking about from the rest of the site. The moment a reader clicks a link to his left to find another passage, he's smack-dab in the misleading "Interlinear" for instance. The moment a reader clicks the About Translation link, he goes straight to a page which accuses a published scholar of being a "liar and a thief" without citing where this person is said to have lied or stolen. The context in which we're presenting the "SP" translation matters. And even if we don't count any of these things against the site, there is the unfortunate fact that the site still does not meet the "recognized expert" burden set by the Wikipedia WP:LINKNO policy page at bullet point 11. If the other editors on this site think that WP:LINKNO doesn't apply here, and if they don't think the other material on the site is at all a problem for Wikipedia linking to it, I will defer to their judgment. But that's how I see things. I think me and you should wait and see what everyone says now instead of discussing it further. Alephb (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the a more or less honest review of Tsedaka's book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3ANMI9140EDG8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0802865194 172.56.39.182 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction is more or less like Itsmejudith's, that I see no reason in what is written above not to have the translation as an external link. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, man. I appreciate your understanding and support. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, what about criterion #11 of WP:LINKNO? Is that not relevant in this case? Also, the threading here is gotten kind of weird, but I've just added a comment above that works through the first couple verses of Genesis, if that helps. Alephb (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, he is at it again. He is clearly biased against me so please disregard his statements. He also continues to discuss completely different translation and he still did not tell us a thing wrong with the one that is in question here. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is my bibliography in print so you know that I am the expert:

09/2012 “The Corner Boards of the Tabernacle” article and illustrations. Published in Jewish Bible Quarterly journal, issue 40:3 July-September 2012. Republished on Amazon Kindle (ASIN B004QOASUI). Also published as a Google eBook.

09/2012 “Dimensions of the Court of the Tabernacle”. Google eBook.

10/2013 Illustrations of the Menorah and the High Priest for the article by Rev. Robert Hinckley called “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary”, published in LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, Reformation 2013, Volume XXII, Number 4

03/2014 Illustrations of the Utensils of the Altar of Burnt Offering of the Tabernacle for the book “The Mystery of Tabernacle”, Jeyoung Publishers, Korea. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to this "bibliography in print" I think a couple comments are in order. For the second entry, the eBook, was it peer-reviewed or discussed by any scholars? The last two entries would speak more to qualifications as an artist than any scholarly material. And the first entry did make it into an online journal called Jewish Bible Quarterly, but it's also available online here [3]. Jewish Bible Quarterly, as far as I can tell, makes no claim to be a typical peer-reviewed journal either, and I haven't been able to find any regular biblical scholars who make any comment on the corner boards article. Alephb (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like nothing is good enough for you. Maybe problem is you? As far as I can tell you simply attacking me for no reason because you obviously have a personal bias against me and my work. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

None of this is personal. I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motives. Wikipedia has a policy called "assume good faith" WP:GF, which says that I should assume that you are making your arguments in good faith, and you should assume the same about me. This is a simple disagreement about whether or not you are an expert source on the Samaritan Pentateuch. Disagreements are fine -- they happen all the time on Wikipedia. I'm trying to determine whether your blog can meet the hurdle established by criterion 11 of WP:LINKNO. That's why we're discussing whether you have a "recognized expert" status on the topic of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It's not that "nothing is good enough for me." It's that we need to find some evidence that you are "the expert" as you keep claiming. A good start would be at least one mention, by one real scholar, anywhere in the world, who agrees that you are an expert source. That's all. That's not a high bar, and an expert on the Pentateuch should be able to cross it easily. Otherwise WP:LINKNO #11 applies in this case. Alephb (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Now you are talking. Thank you. I already cited the link from Samaritans to my translation: http://shomron0.tripod.com/2013/novdec.pdf. As far as scholarly mentions - I do not have one and maybe you can tell me why? My work had been publicly available on the internet since 2012 so I have no idea why no scholar ever mentioned it. I got a lot of emails with thank you's for my work and over 22k unique users with 150k pageviews. Will this work for you? Other than that, my translation is mentioned in Wikipedia on many pages, including this one. Is this what you need? As far as being the expert source, the only thing I can cite to you is my translation itself. If you claim to know Hebrew like you say you do, you should see that my translation is accurate and true to the text. And you can compare it with Tsedaka's one and see for yourself that his translation is absolutely unreliable and incorrect. See Exodus 4:25 in his translation as a good example. STEP Bible is another place where my work is published (you kinda missed it too). As far as other material on my web site...Why does it matter? As far as I know, we are only discussing the English translation of SP. And the translation that you have been criticizing is not even supposed to be used. It is for reference use only, like my About Page states. But you did not read this part, right?172.56.44.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My position is similar to that of Alephb. This seems to be a writer who has taken "idiosyncratic" to an art form. Also, none of the four publications have any bearing on the ability to translate. For all I know, this writer's translations are entirely right and everyone else's are entire wrong, but we can't make such decisions and I don't think it belongs even as an EL without the positive judgement of an independent expert source. Zero^talk 03:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Aleksandr Sigalov. Are you the same as the Aleksig6 who is banned indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts, and who also made edits to the Samaritan Pentateuch page in favor of including Aleksandr Sigalov's work? Alephb (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Samaritan Pentateuch#Self-published sources where the previous identifies himself as the operator of Sigalov's websites. Alephb (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC) And this: Aleksig6 claiming to be Aleksandr Sigalov [4]. Alephb (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no point to further responding; the IP is socking through a ban. Please just allow this to drift into the archive. Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have blocked the current IP. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to respond any further to the accusations of "Alephb" and "Zero0000". They clearly have personal and religious bias against me and my work, which AFAIK is prohibited by WIkipedia rules. They most certainly NOT acting in good faith. They have not told me still what is wrong with my SP translation. Not to mention that "Alephb" completely misunderstand and misrepresents my other work without even bothering to read the description that was provided on the web site. My translation is absolutely accurate and as I have stated it was published in STEP Bible and Samaritan Newspaper, not to mention that my translation is being used all over wikipedia. After spamming the whole discussion, "Alephb" still have not provided a SINGLE example of what may be wrong with my translation.

As far as Tsedaka work...Please note that even though it was published by what you call a "reliable source", his translation is garbage and absolutely inaccurate and misleading. I have provided the example above many times - See Exodus 4:25 for example. In this verse he grossly mistranslated primary text and even ADDS words to the Torah while passing it up as a legitimate translation. This is most certainly very poor scholarship and anyone with half a brain should see it.

And now they also want to accuse me of sockpuppeting. Great. I have no idea who that user is!

Last, but not least, my work is most certainly notable by the internet standards. Like I posted above, my Samaritan Pentateuch was read by over 22k users with over 150k pageviews, which is quite a lot compared to how many people read the work of those who you call "experts". My work was publicly available on the internet for many years unlike the work of those "experts" that is NOT available for anyone. I have no idea why it was not reviewed by any of them. I am assuming they do not want to give me credit for my work, just like the users above who criticized me. I do not believe Wikipedia rules require me to have a world-wide recognition. I am an independent scholar and my work is very different from traditional Biblical Studies. However, it does not mean that my work is bad or somehow any worse than any other scholarly work.

Please restore my link in External Links section and please give me credit in the article. 172.56.16.13 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I was in favour of your work being linked to but now it seems that you are more interested in criticising the other translation than in proposing your own one. This is very disappointing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please folks, ignore the IP sock puppets. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rachel Caspari: as a source on the satus of race in contemporary biology

At Caucasian race I am discussing whether Rachel Caspari, who is a physical anthropologist and current president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologist, is a reliable and objective enough source for describing the general view of contemporary anthropologists regarding the use of the typological view of biological race.(Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.) Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race. I argue that it is absurd to propose that a professional distinction could be used to disqualify a scientist, and that she is of course entirely able to describe the development of the discipline in a neutral and objective fashion (the article is a review article of the history and the changing positions of the American Anthropological Association). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A president of a scholarly association is a good source for the state of scholarly opinion in the relevant disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race." You are right, that is obviously absurd. It essentially requires that you think the professional organisation is biased for some reason in the first place, or has some underlying monetary interest in pushing a particular viewpoint. If there actually is evidence the AAA has a view that is different from anthropologists (outside the US) in general, this might be an issue, but as far as I am aware they do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

Hi I attempted to add a quick line on Kate Mulgrew's reuniting with a child she gave up for adoption. User User:Bbb23 keeps reverting the line out though I added one citation and then 2 more. This is my last edited page on Mulgrew, [Kate Mulgrew; personal life section]. Another user User:ScrapIronIV has since edited the line out as well. The information is no secret, she mentions it in a memoir in 2015 so it is public knowledge. Koplimek (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

4thMedia

This source has been questioned, is it subject to pertinent questioning? 187.104.26.6 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "pertinent questioning," but that source doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for Reliable Sources. It is not neutral, objective, has no reputation for fact-checking and reliability, etc. It's just one of many extremist partisan websites on the internet. If the statement that you are trying to support is true, then there will be reliable mainstream sources that support it. Please read WP:RS if you want to know how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing. First Light (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with First Light - it is absolutely unreliable. It's a shadowy website that advances various fringe ideas and conspiracy theories; has none of the traditional characteristics of a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ripoff report

In this edit summary a Ripoff Report link is removed with a reasoning that (to me) makes no sense in a Wikipedia context. It looks very much like a representative of the company named in the report wanting to remove the bad rep. The same editor had changed the reference to a different Ripoff report - but when that was reverted, the user suddenly started claiming that Ripoff reports are not useful at all.

However, even if this is is an attempt at whitewashing, it is possible that this particular link is not in fact the best source here. The information being sourced is "The great majority of the complaints and discussion about companies that cold-call and offer "technical support" report them as being not merely incompetent or ineffective, but actively dishonest, doggedly trying to convince the victim of non-existent problems by trickery, and when possible damaging a computer they gain access to." and the reference is this one. I don't think ripoffreport.com is a poor or unreliable source (and the "rebuttals" on the Ripoff report page are a bit silly), but is it really consistent with good sourcing practices to use a report about one specific company to show something about complaints and reports in general? The same thing probably applies to another reference for the same sentence, namely this one. Thoughts on this? Something obvious I have missed, perhaps? --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ripoffreport is the place where everyone can register and leave any opinion without any evidence needed. The Wikipedia should not use it as the trusted source or reference. The Ripoffreport URL added on Wikipedia with the title wording may also be confused and seen as a misleading information of the company among other references.

Furthermore, the Ripoffreport page is clearly not a customer review or a trusted review:

1. Everyone can leave an opinion on Ripoffreport even a malicious-on-purpose one without any evidence backed; Ripoffreport is very controversial website; please see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripoff_Report

In 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Utah stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.

2. The Ripoffreport (as well as the one Bonadea just posted) can most likely be a fake one:

  * the user leaved opinion without any screenshot,or order#
  * the user can't provide further details after the employee rebuff with 'No Davy' agent in the company & asking for the order# on this case
  * the user is leaving an opinion for the service offered in the company's physical operating location, however the company is providing services online only (when publishing on Ripoffreport, there are options whether it is for physical or Internet online; the html title of the page is with the company's physical location while not the 'Internet' wording); both of the reference links on that Wikipage as well as the newly one just posted by Bonadea are left with the opinions on the physical location 
  * there are good reviews also left by other users on this page
  * the user will be offered with a full refund if the issue can't be fixed on this page.

These are my concerns regarding this reference link, which could be a fake/not trustable review on the controversial Ripoffreport website.Johnwiki23 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Random online user-inputted reviews or complaints are pretty much never going to be a reliable or authoritative source for anything, and should rarely if ever be cited on WP pages, surely. Even if they were, in this case, as noted, there's the additional problem that one such review is being used to support a generalised statement about what typical criticism consists of. N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Ripoff Report reviews/complaints are (purportedly) vetted by the website staff so it's not just some general forum or Wiki style website with no editorial oversight. I think I'd still prefer to remove that reference and the mywot one (my second link above) simply because they only discuss individual companies. The remaining reference should be sufficient, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly cursory "vetting" or checking of online content submitted by anonymous/pseudonymous members of the public is not the same thing as fact-checking and formal editorial oversight of professional, expert writing, which is what the RS policy generally calls for. Neither Ripoff Report nor mywot appear to be much of a step beyond a forum tbh. Even if there are other reasons for removal here, that point shouldn't be dodged, for future reference. N-HH talk/edits 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a clear exclude. The link seems designed to crowbar in mention of YooCare, whicih Dr. Google informs me is indeed an amazingly bad company, but this article is not about YooCare. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for Rivington Village

Could I ask opinions please as to the use of:

Source

Rivington web page. A site dedicated to the Rivington and it's history, a village of Rivington, Lancashire.

Booklet published by David Owen M.A Rivington And District 1823 To 1865

Article Rivington

Content

Three engineers Thomas Hawksley, Mr Cubitt and Mr Rendel were employed to draw up proposals in 1846. (section Reservoirs)

Also

The early 16th century chapel was rebuilt in 1666 and internally altered and restored in 1861. (section Religion)

--Pennine rambler (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

rivington.byethost.com is a wiki set up on a free web host. Editing appears to be restricted, but I can't find any information about who actually is editing. So WP:SPS applies: I don't think that this should be considered reliable. However, it does have references at the end of every page, so it might be useful for finding actual reliable sources.

Rivington And District 1823 To 1865 is a collection of extracts of newspaper articles which mention the town, as far as I can tell. The clippings themselves may well count as WP:PRIMARY sources, so are suitable for citing simple statements of fact but not anything requiring complex interpretation. I haven't checked any of these clippings, so you would also be going on faith that the transcriptions are accurate, though I can't see any reason why they would not be. I would cite them in the form: "$Newspaper, $Date, quoted in Rivington and District 1823 to 1865".

I can't see any support for your first statement in the newspaper quotes, but the restoration in 1861 is mentioned, so you could use it as a source for that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Need to show scientific doubt about kratom use and liver toxicity.

...and citing the DEA goes the wrong way. Start here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#DEA_not_a_reliable_scientific_source Kolyvansky (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Marginal Revolution (blog)

An editor wants to include two references to Marginal Revolution (blog) and its "Marginal Revolution University", a free market education project, in Rent-seeking. I think use of blog posts and primary self-published sources are an issue when the source has a clear POV, as this one does, and the sources are redundant to more reliable ones, but it may be that this blog is reliable for this content. Please see Talk:Rent-seeking. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Cowen is a notable guy and his blog is notable, if you want to include his thoughts about possible solutions to the tullock paradox based on the blogpost, then quote him somewhere (with attribution that these are his thoughts) somewhere in the body. More weight should be given to published peer-reviewed research on the topic, and there's no reason to cite MRU or MR for uncontroversial stuff like the defition of the paradox when better sources available. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

marxists.org

• marxists.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com

We have a lot of links to this website, almost all of which seem to be material that was collected and published on the website but did not originate there. The site clearly advances an agenda, though there is less of the overt editorial advocacy than some comparable sites. Is this a problem? Is it link spamming? Should we be citing the books themselves, and not the mirrors on the MArxist site? I would certainly argue the last. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Paging Carrite to this one, since he's connected to the site and probably has a better idea than most as to which elements of it are legitimate sources for a particular historiographical view and which elements are glorified blogging. (This isn't outing, before anyone starts shrieking—the association is disclosed on his WP userpage.) In principle I agree with the second statement about citing the originals rather than mirrors, but in practice a lot of this material probably only exists in print form other than on this site, in which case it's more of a service to the reader to indicate where they can check a Wikipedia article against the source material with a single click, than to just direct them to books which have been out of print for 50 years and only survive in a few specialist libraries. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a fantastic resource. Obviously we usually cite the text itself but can add the Marxists.org URL for convenience. I don't think there's much blogging. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the right play. If there's no easy link to the book at Archive.org, putting up a link to the html text at MIA is a good second choice. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Full disclosure: i'm a volunteer at MIA.) Marxists Internet Archive is a one-stop source for writings by radicals of all stripes (and even a few conservatives). It is completely non-commercial just like Wikipedia is non-commercial, so I wouldn't be worried about link spamming — there is no financial motivation. There's no "agenda" beyond the fact that volunteers at MIA (50 to 100 around the world, working in multiple languages) tend to be......... Marxists. I'd guess that probably half or two thirds are Trotskyists of some stripe or another; I'm a left social democrat; there are Stalinists and Maoists who have been there, Che Guevarra enthusiasts, and so on and so forth. So there's really no "political" agenda in terms of promotion of a party or any specific ideology. Now, putting on my Wikipedian hat. MIA is to a large extent based on the transcription of books and articles and the best footnoting would certainly footnote back to these original hardcopy works, perhaps with a link to the MIA text if there are no linkable editions of the source in question. If one has energy, going through there and improving the links would be a good thing, just so long as we're not losing weblinks for unlinked books, if you follow me. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding copyright: MIA's entire wealth in this world is something like $6,000 (which is probably what WMF spends on company lunches each month) so we are very, very careful not to get sued over copyvio. There have been one or two instances in the last decade in which a copyright holder or claimed copyright holder has grunted at us for this reason or that and the contested material is made to go away very fast. So it is not a warehouse for copyvio material — one lawsuit and MIA dies, gotta be careful. Not stupid megahyperovercareful like Wikimedia Commons, but follow-the-law-of-the-United-States careful. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is as simple as Carrite implies. The website contains short biographies and summaries, apparently written by the site's volunteers, with no clear statement about who wrote and checked them and where they got their information from. These are not RS. The website contains English-language versions of texts originating in other languages. Some of these translations were made and published in the past, and presumably would qualify as RS if accurately transcribed, and some appear to be newly made by site volunteers, in which case they are not RS. The website contains web versions of English language texts. If these have been validated against the source material then they could be used as RS. However the process of conversion is unclear and hard to assess (there is no mention of the specific edition or copy used, the method of transcription, the name and date of the process, what QA checks were carried out). So if there were a quotation drawn from the text on the site, Wikipedia editors and users could have no certainty that the wording as presented was in fact an accurate reflection of the printed text. Martinlc (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we can use MIA with the important proviso that the note must specify both the original source and the MIA link, not just the original title. I agree with Martinlc that there is some risk, but this is also true with printed sources. On balance, the risk is acceptable. ch (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

DEA as a source for deaths

In the article on Mitragyna speciosa (aka Kratom), the following occurs in a subsection of the "Adverse effects" section:

15 deaths in the United States between 2014 and 2016 were kratom-related.

References

At the talk page, the claim has been made that the DEA ref is not reliable for this statement. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, you can plausibly argue the DEA has an agenda, if not to invent things then at least perhaps to overemphasise certain aspects of drug-related issues (it may well be of course for example that the "deaths" attributed to this substance were more complicated causally than this simple statistic suggests). Plus this is just a press release rather than a scientific study. But prima facie the DEA is a sound source for basic drugs statistics, surely. Attributing the figures to the agency would presumably solve any problem. N-HH talk/edits 10:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would consider the DEA reliable when reporting death(s) (in the USA) due to a substance. That they are not a "scientific" body is not really germane to this question. — soupvector (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  TBH I would only consider them reliable for reporting deaths they are aware of related to drugs. As a relevant attributed (to the DEA) figure its perfectly fine. You wouldnt for example state thats its a low impact drug due to 'only 16 deaths' for example, as there are likely more deaths they are unaware of. At best that figure is a minimum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)