Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:12, 3 June 2010

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Today.az and U.S. Azeris Network

There is a dispute at Khojaly Massacre talk about the reliability of two Azerbaijani sources: Today.az and the U.S. Azeris Network. The latter features a PDF image of document, most likely a scan, which is genuine in my opinion. User Divot in the talk thread thinks otherwise, without any evidence, on the ground of alleged Azeri propaganda. Can we use those refs to support the sentence in question? Brandmeister 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az is probably the best examples of the types of websites that should be excluded from Misplaced Pages. For anyone who has visited it daily, they will see that, regarding issues to Armenia and Armenians, it regularly publishes information which is not corroborated by third-party sources, attributes quotes to Armenian officials where they are not recorded elsewhere, always ascribes the cease fire violations in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on the Armenian side, calls on Azerbaijans to mass edit Misplaced Pages articles for supposed "falsification" in articles related to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and the language and the tone of the article virtually wax lyrical against Armenia and Armenians, etc., etc. In short, it's an agit-prop type website and third party sources should always take precedent over it. Unfortunately, media originating from Azerbaijan, with the exception of the IWPR and RFE/RL's service, are much the same.

I have little reason to believe that U.S. Azeris is any better, based on the text found in "The Issues" section. One of the issues describes the supposed failure of democratization of Armenia as "a heist worth $2,6 billion dollars to US taxpayers" and in general other activities aimed at vilifying Armenians. Regarding the document, I too, have e-mailed the Massachusetts House of Representative leaders and have not received a response. There is no record of it being passed in the official journal of the Massachusetts HoR website or any other mainstream American newspaper. Furthermore, the awkward grammar in the text almost gives it away as being a forgery: it writes that the Massachusetts HoR "Offers its sincerest acknowledgment of: The 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre." The definite article "the" is missing in the space between "of" and "Khojaly", a glaring oversight for a government document but a common error found on English-language Azeri websites. Unless we receive some word from the HoR leaders, we should probably regard this as yet another hoax.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked WP:RELIABLE, Today.az seems to fall within reliable News organizations. Obviously the proof of the statement in question is not exclusively reserved for third-party, but for national sources as well since it tackles the Azerbaijani matter. USAN does not look like a questionable source either, the info presented there is highly prone to double check, so I don't think they would publish fakes or some other kind of falsified data for propaganda purposes. Brandmeister 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction: while Today.az publishes information on national and international events daily, it does so in a highly tendentious manner. It's useless to find a single newspaper, anywhere in the world, that does not lean in this or that direction regarding a political issue or political party but Today.az's malicious reporting (as well as other Azerbaijani newspapers such as APA) is akin to agit-prop and it does almost nothing to hide its virulent anti-Armenian reporting. It has none of the high reporting standards of say, the Washington Post or Le Monde. Since no one is finding the information published in these Azeri or Turkish sources in third party sources, it's not unreasonable to conclude, given their past track record of falsification, that this is just another hoax. In 2008, when the war between Georgia and South Ossetia broke out, APA (and only other Azerbaijani-based sources) circulated a report that Russian fighter jets had taken off from an air base in Armenia to bomb Tbilisi, thus signifying that Armenia violated a treaty it had concluded with Georgia. The article supposedly cited the Russian Defense Ministry but this news was almost immediately denied and the report turned out to be a hoax. I don't think we can expect real reporting when such blatantly dishonest information is circulated.

At best, you should wait until an official from the state sends you a response or directs you to officially published material.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already waited for DeLeo's e-mail, nothing. Vast side accusations do not contribute well here, I still do not see evidences of alleged forgery either from you or Divot, despite of asking him about the base of his doubts. APA is not newspaper, it is Azerbaijan Press Agency, being the official informational outlet (like Reuters or Associated Press). Brandmeister 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the scan of the original document to wiki commons and wikisource. See here: Also there's a confirmation of the authenticity of the document from Mrs. Ellen Story, the State Representative. Anyone can contact the House of Representatives of Massachusetts or its individual members to check for themselves. Plus, I added a link to report from Azertaj, which is the State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan Republic, an official governmental source. I think this should suffice to eliminate any doubts of the authenticity of the document. Grandmaster 10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az is a major Azeri mainstream news organisation, little doubt that they are reliable similar to other major mainstream news organisation from other countries. If the claims are controversial we might attribute them, similar to what we do with controversial claims in other major mainstream news outlets such as the BBC or Le Monde or the New York Times. Pantherskin (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But at least you can see a sincere desire of neutrality from sources such as CNN, the BBC, Le Monde and the NYT, whatever controversial material may come up every once in a while. When every article or news piece on Armenians is systematically slanted and worded to demonize or vilify them, then that just makes it no better than the commentary given by the personalities on Fox News. It's not just one or two pieces but a whole slew of them. The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a joke. The same problems plaguing Today.az, APA and other forms of Azerbaijani media I outlined above are found there as well. The government of Azerbaijan is just as big a party in spreading malicious propaganda and misinformation against Armenians while at the same time puffing up its own ego.

Is it not suspicious that none of this is being reported in mainstream news sources and especially not by the media in Massachusetts or state websites? It is not even mentioned being discussed on the Massachusetts House of Representatives schedule . When, for example, a country or national parliament has recognized the Armenian Genocide, it's been pasted all over the news and not just Armenian news sites. I have sent a few e-mails to the representatives and am still awaiting a response from them. This seems to be the most prudent course.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a serious source. It reports official documents, which it receives thru official channels. It even provides a scan of the document. I have uploaded the hi-res scan to wikicommons. Also, a friend of mine contacted Rep. Story, and she said: Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself. So the scan of citation has been provided, and there's also a confirmation from a secondary source, Azertaj. Anyone wishing to further verify the authenticity of this document can contact the Massachusetts House of Representatives or its individual members, like I did. Grandmaster 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Story's notice clarified the matter, I think this thread could be closed now. Brandmeister 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself." - That is all, that she said? Are you sure? Divot (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, who is "a friend of mine"? Is he Reliable source? Divot (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all she said. I can forward the correspondence to any admin, on a condition that the private info will not be disclosed. He can check and confirm to anyone what she said. Grandmaster 08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So where is any mention in a U.S. newspaper? Also, why did this site, take a two months to mention this ground-breaking event? At a listing of Massachusetts newspapers, searching through the FOUR Boston papers,,,, resulted in no mention of the Massachusetts House of Rep recognizing Khojaly. How odd, since there are articles mentioning Khojaly dated 1992! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing odd since local Boston issues are hardly interested in mentioning the recognition of some remote massacre by the House of Representatives. I think the basic reason is that MHP has not shared the relevant info with local media, so the only interested side became Azerbaijani itself. Brandmeister 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just giving random excuses. Something as groundbreaking as this would have cropped up somewhere in the American media, local or national, even if it was a brief little mention or a tiny paragraph, and especially since it involves international events. The fact that this is only being reported by the Azerbaijani and Turkish media only leads one to believe that there is more here than meets the eye. Given their track record for distortion and falsification and for prematurely publishing reports on unverified events, the wisest choice, as I've said, is to directly receive a response from state leaders. Until then, it should stay out of the mainspace of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The scan of the document has been provided. It is more than enough. Also, you can contact the MA House of Reps, or Mrs. Ellen Story. Like she said, they do not publish commemoratory documents in their journal. I could not find any there, which does not mean that they do not adopt such documents. Grandmaster 08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Azeris Network doesn't appear to be notable, however Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency, Today.az and International Security Research and Intelligence Agency all appear to be reasonably reliable sources who are unlikely to mis-report an event like this. John Vandenberg 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, the International Security Research and Intelligence Agency claims the source comes from an Azeri source agency. Why is to so hard to just request from some official any record of it? Today.az and the Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency may be credible when covering uninvolved events, but one regarding the enemy of a war? Not to forget that independent organizations place freedom of press in Azerbaijan to be near to non-existant. Users should be searching a confirmation by now. Ionidasz (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation has been received from Rep. Ellen Story. I already posted here what she wrote, and I can forward the correspondence to any admin. This is a real document. If anyone is in doubt, he can contact the same or other persons in MA House of Representatives. And AzerTAj has no history of reporting false international documents. They even have a scan on their page, and you can see the same scan in wikicommons. According to the rules, a scan is a sufficient proof. Grandmaster 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"I already posted here what she wrote" - plese posted whole correspondence with Story. Divot (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

this is not describing the actions of an enemy of war - it is report the events of a U.S. state govt, and it sticks very close to the text provided by the U.S. state govt. Where is the POV, and why do you believe it is unreliable in this context? John Vandenberg 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will answer both of you once. There is a reason why in a court of law, evidences provided should be disclosed in full to both sides and the sources too. Confirmations like this are acceptable for an author who writes a book, because he takes responsability for what he writes. That's why secondary sources are what everyone search for. But here, everyone who questions the claim has to contact some official. That's sure not acceptable. We don't know what happened, for all we know there might have been three person in the house that day which would be worth clarifying, but since no info is available nothing can be writen about it. We also have a line or two provided by Grandmaster, I doubt that the reply limited to a line or two. He should be disclosing it in full. Ionidasz (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The correspondence contains private info, which I'm not going to reveal here. It is against the Misplaced Pages rules. However like I said before, I can forward the correspondence to any admin trusted by both sides, so that he could verify the authenticity of correspondence without disclosing the private information. Grandmaster 07:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion still continues on the article page and the above mentioned Agencies, that some editors advocate here, want to represent an anouncement (though an official) by an individual member of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts to commemorate the event as a recognition. No evidence of the HoR having even had hearings on the event. This is a propaganda-manner presented disinformation by the above news agencies. Aregakn (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not propaganda, we have the scan of the document, and a confirmation from the member of the MA House. Plus, it has never been presented as recognition, the proposed edit only provides the accurate summary of the document, without calling it recognition or anything else. Grandmaster 06:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you can notice, that I said those news agencies have presented it as recognition. Those are news agencies of propaganda I said and advocating them means advocating sources of propaganda. Aregakn (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Azertaj did not call it recognition. It called it acknowledgment, like it was written in the document. Check for yourself, it is not different from the scan available at commons: Grandmaster 07:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you want to say that Ellen Story wrote that "Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre"", but it didn't publish in official site? Divot (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are not being true again. It says: "The Massachusetts State House of Representatives adopted a document on February 25, acknowledging the Khojaly massacre." The House adopted a doc? And acknowledging the massacres? Here is the quote of the quote of the codument from the same news agency: "Be it hereby known to all that: Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" Clearly there was no document by the House ADOPTED. Neither there was acknowledgment of massacres but of commemoration. Assuming good faith, I cannot see why you continue advocating these after obvious false claims and propaganda that can be noted even from their own written article. Aregakn (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording could be adjusted. Like I suggested before: on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives offered "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". This wording is 100% accurate in description of the citation. Grandmaster 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This suggest it's the house doing, which is not true. Ionidasz (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A statement by Ellen Story is RS for the content of a decision of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is not the existance of something, but rather what this something really was. Story confirmed it was a citation, it was proposed by her. See on the Khojali massacre page, Divot just provided more correspondance from her. The wording Grandmaster propose is misleading. Ionidasz (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is my wording misleading? It just accurately reflects what the document says. MA House offered "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". That's what the document says, and it is a real deal, which the letters provided by Divot prove once again. Grandmaster 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, Story proposed a citation, it's like a citation of the day. The citation includes the wording that the Massachusetts House of Representatives..., it's part of the citation and not that it was the Massachusetts House of Representatives which proposed the citation. It makes a huge differences, if not, you would not have fght for that wording to begin with. Ionidasz (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read her letters? It is an official document of the MA House. That's what she said. You may agree or disagree with that, but if we are to chose between your opinion and the opinion of Mrs. Story, we will have to go with the latter, as she is more knowledgeable in this issue. Grandmaster 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works, those are not my opinions against her, those are rather what it means to offer a citation in a House in a US state. Ionidasz (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if any uninvolved editor could help to draft the best wording to describe the content of the discussed document. I don't really think that edits like this accurately describe the document. Any help for dispute resolution will be appreciated. The authenticity of the document is not disputed anymore. Grandmaster 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources to represent the views of a country's government

Is the Iranian media and Al Jazeera reliable sources to represent the views of a country's government (beyond Iran) about the Nuclear program of Iran? Users Lihaas (talk · contribs) and Evenfiel (talk · contribs) think they are.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Iranian media is subject to strict censorship. Can be used in order to show the position of the Iranian regime but always attribute. Al Jazeera is as a general rule to be regarded as reliable and doesn't need attributing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Like Itsmejudith, I would not endorse using Presstv.ir (part of Press TV, a government-owned television network in Iran) to source the views of other countries about Iran's nuclear program. (On the other hand, Press TV would be a reliable source as to what the Iranian government says about its own nuclear program, without assuming that those statements are true.) In the case of Al Jazeera, the events discussed in the article were presumably covered by other media sources in other countries, so one should be able to refer to other media sources to confirm whether Al Jazeera got the story right. By the way, the secure link to the diff cited above works only intermittently for me; this link should be the same diff. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear about my opinion: I agree with Metropolitan: the news is all around, get a better source! There is no reason to rely on such questionable sources.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no basis for describing Al Jazeera as a 'questionable source' that I am aware of. Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would expect to hear the opinion of unbiased editors.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You usually edit in a pro Arab POV--Nutriveg (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a falsehood and a personal attack that you should retract. Alternatively, you could provide diffs to support this wild accusation. Afaik, you and I have never interacted on Misplaced Pages before. Dlabtot (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to hear what you think about Al-Manar the satellite television station of Hezbollah also used in that problematic edit.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Al-Manar and Al Jazeera have only one thing in common - an Arabic name. Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Both are used in that problematic edit, that's why we are talking about them if you didn't realize.--Nutriveg (talk)

Yes, I do realize that. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith pointed insertion of the term "regime" in her comment drew my attention. However, I would tend to cautiously agree, best to attribute inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

These are issues that have come up before. The Iranian media carefully follows the line of the Iranian government (if you prefer). Al Jazeera is a totally different case, far more independent and highly regarded, should be fine for the description of governmental positions in international relations. Reports in other international news media will generally agree with those on Al Jazeera with only some nuance of political stance that is unimportant for our purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is the ascertation that Press TV (or al Manar for that matter (although i can see where you are coming from here)) makes up news to be unreliable? The BBC/France 24/Russia Today are all government-funded international news outlets. heck the BBC has already had an established allegation proven that they took the line to ratchet up the case to the Iraq war? should we now de-list BBC from across wikipedia?Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read a great deal of Press TV over the past year, I would agree w/the above who don't view it as an RS. The New York Times, it ain't.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On what basis? Has it falsified news? The NYT, as with the BBC, has already been proven to have falsified news. It's got a point of view, i agree. but then again the others are also quite clearle western-centric. I havent yet seen/heard any allegations OR admissions of falsifying news, but i maybe wrong. Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

see Press TV controversies. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between government funded (like the BBC) and government controlled (Press TV & presstv.ir). The former has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", while the second is widely known to be biased. (see the link given by Dlabtot, and read the references if you don't believe the article).  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen and as per the Ofcom allegation it mentions "impartiality" which is a controversy on Fox News just the same (still cited on wikipedia), ynet. The 2nd and last para's in "Allegations of bias and error" lend some credence to thsi theory. but you look at the sources and you have to be kidding that those allegation are not biased itself (why are they are all western-centric as per the 2 sources in the last para?). As per above, i agree Press TV does have a point of view but there are no affirmed falsities. In the case of the NYT and BBC they have proven and admitted as such. (If the BBC has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" where Press TV is "widely known to be biased" (where there are no non-western sources at that) then what happened in the buildup to the Iraq War? There was clear admitance and recognitition of falsity) Furthermore, Jpost is used in the article on Press TV where it is suspect and yet Press TV can't be used on this article where it is pseudo-suspect?

Also on what basis is press tv govt. "controlled" as opposed to simply "funded." that's synthesis. Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Roxana Saberi of The Washington Post: "Some Iranian decision-makers do care what outsiders say about the Islamic Republic. If they didn't, Iran would not have satellite television networks such as the English-language Press TV trying to spread state-sanctioned messages to international audiences." If you don't take their word, Iran claims that the station is government controlled: . The Telegraph calls them "an English language mouthpiece of the regime". I would say that these cast serious doubts on their credibility as an independent news organization.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to re-clarify, i did say Press TV certainly has its point of view but to say is credibility is at stake says it falsified news. The above accomodation to cite Press TV along with another seems fair. Of course even the above say they are fair game on issues pertaining to Iran especially from Iran.

But as per the source quoted to assert that iran admit it is "controlled," the source doesn't say that. "where he said "hegemonic powers"were using world media as a tool and that Iran feels the need for having its own international news network" could very well be alternatively read as expressing another point of view. Al Jaz. (with its large western crew) also says he seeks to "alter the new agenda" or bring a "southern perspective" that hardly equates to controlled/manipulated.Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The heading talks of "views" of a government. Governments will often lie. What they say their views are isn't necessarily what they really believe. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So no consensus on the ban on Press TV/Al Jazeera/Al Manar?Lihaas (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't 'ban' nor 'approve' sources at this noticeboard. Rather, we ask:

• What is the url of the source in question?
• In which article is the source being used?
• What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
• Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?

And judge the use of a particular citation in context. Dlabtot (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that Al Jaz. is acceptable, and Press TV needs another supporting source when no concerning the Iran view? (already clarified that as per the discussion) Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

That seems to be the consensus here in general, but for specific cases, please give the information Dlabtot asked for. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)

I am in dispute with User:HCPUNXKID over his edits to this article, which lists diplomatic missions of a largely unrecognised country, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)

User:HCPUNXKID wishes to mention that the SADR has "general delegations" to Australia, the United States and a number of European countries.

For partially recognised country or entity (where it is recognised by at least one generally recognised country) we have allowed their representative offices to be included as long as they perform a quasi-diplomatic function. This has allowed us to include for example Palestinian representative offices abroad, or de facto missions in Taipei.

HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has general delegations in several countries. I do not find this source to be convincing because:

• the website does not appear to represent the SADR
• the website lists embassies and representatives (EMBAJADAS Y REPRESENTACIONES), not "General delegations"
• I cannot find any other article that corroborates these assertions. A Google search on "General delegation" and "Sahwari" only produces 97 references, with almost nothing relating to a supposed diplomatic presence of the SADR in a particular place.

HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has a general delegation in Australia. Australia is not even mentioned in the article.

Anybody can claim to be a "representative". It is a tall order to then say they are the "general delegation" of a self-declared country to another.

HCPUNXKID has offered to withdraw these changes if I agree to the withdraw of unreferenced diplomatic missions in all the other (200+) articles. In most cases the other articles are referenced, either through references or through links to a credible source (usually the sending country's ministry for foreign affairs). In my view the absence of a reference in one article does not justify a wholesale policy change.

The matter has been edit-warred and extensively debated:

• Talk:List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic
• User_talk:HCPUNXKID
• User_talk:Kransky

Could you please review the discussions (and by all means, seek HCPUNXKID's side of the story), and advise if you consider his/her sources are reliable or not.

Kransky (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have looked up each individual website of each country that HCPUNXKID claims that host a 'general delegation' of the SADR, and I cannot find any proof that such missions exist. The one website which HCPUNXKID uses as a reference, I cannot open or have access to. I hearby ask that user HCPUNXKID stops adding such missions to the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic page. Aquintero (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added not one, but 2 official SADR pages with the list of embassies & delegations in the world. I don't know if the representations in countries that haven't recognized the SADR are general delegations, Sahrawi representations or whatever other name. Because, what's the difference between them? Who gives the "General delegation" title?. The Sahrawi offices made a quasi-diplomatic function, see the case of the South African one (present from the mid-ninetees to the establishment of the embassy in 2004), the Lybian one (present from the 70's, thousands of Sahrawis study in Lybia by this work) or the Europeans (that delegations have gained, for example, the recognition of the SADR by political parties in Sweden, Norway, Germany or Spain, as they work for state recognition). Discriminate the SADR ones from others like Palestine or Taiwan is, at least, suspicious. Also, I beg for fairness, I have provided 3 or 4 links for the Australian delegation, but curiously my friend Kransky only refers one :-(. I only claim for a fair treatment in comparison with equal status entities. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the two sources you list are official SADR websites.

• my Firefox web brower warns me that http://www.amb-rasd.org/ES/1e2es.htm is a reported attack page.
• http://76.162.150.8/relaciones_dib.htm is a proxy address. Why would an official organisation use a proxy address? Why are there no hyperlinks to the main homepage (if one exists?)? It just seems to be a stand-alone page.

Regarding your other link to the Australian delegation:

• http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2634574.htm only mentions a particular guy is the Chief Representative of the Polisario Front. There is no mention of a "General Delegation" in Sydney

Nevertheless, thank you for confirming that you are not sure if they are general delegations or what names they use. I have searched extensively and could not find anything that confirmed the presence of a SADR General Delegation in those countries.

A "General Delegation" is quite a significant name, and signifies a significant presence where normal diplomatic relations have not been established. A representation would generally give itself a name appropriate to the relationship - if the Taiwanese in Madrid started calling their offices an embassy, they may very quickly be shown the door.

I do not believe I have discriminated against the SADR in favour of other DMBC articles. If you find one article lacks a reference to a particular diplomatic mission, a productive editor would find and insert a reliable reference, or perhaps add a "needs citation" tag. A productive editor would not assume an omission means that an entire fundamental policy is no longer in effect.

I would add that that the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article is only one of two DMBC articles for a self-declared state that does not actually control territory (in the Montevideo Convention sense). The other article concerns the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which has sovereignty under international law. The envoys of Palestine, Taiwan, the TRNC etc all represent a sovereign, if not universally recognised, state. The SADR does not fall under this discription, however I would not let this be a reason for deleting the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article. Kransky (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For second time in this issue, update your knowledge in the issues (if it's ignorance) or stop lying (if it's manipulation), the SADR controls today (2010) between 15%-20% of the territory of Western Sahara, including some little setlements like Bir Lehlou, Dougaj or Tifariti. On talking about Palestine, Taiwan & Northern Cyprus as sovereign states and avoiding the SADR you are showing your lack of neutrality. For example, on declaring sovereignty under international law (Montevideo convention, as you mention it), you have to control at least a part of the territory claimed. Polisario Front controlled the desertic interior zones of Western Sahara near the Mauritanian border when they declared independence in Bir Lehlou (Western Sahara) February 27, 1976. However, in comparison, the PLO didn't control any part of Palestine when they declared independence in Algiers (note that it was declared on a foreign soil) November 15, 1988.

I think that your problem is a problem of words. I repeat, who gives the title of General Delegation? The state who receives the mission?. Because if it's like that, perhaps much "General delegations" on some pages (not only the Sahrawi) must change their names...

The ] link, I repeat again is the official page of the Embassy of the SADR in Algeria, you can see the link on many Sahrawi pages. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. If you don't want to accept facts... Hope your biased point of view could change someday.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would urge you to assume good faith. I am not the person in this debate with the “I support the Sahwari people” logo on my user page. Most of your edits are about the SADR; mine are about the DMBC articles.

Receiving states are not responsible for designating the names for the missions of sending states. That is the responsibility of the sending state, for which they would follow international practice. Speculation aside, I have not found a thread of evidence that those “missions” you have cited in Europe are “general delegations”. The only evidence you have provided is a link to a malicious website; this is confirmed through Google (http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.amb-rasd.org/&hl=en)

The issue at hand is verifiability. Your goal seems to be promoting the SADR; my goal is to maintain the integrity of these articles. These are not mutually incompatible objectives, but your stubborn approach and aggressive demeanour is not helpful in resolving this solution. Kransky (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I will give the SADR reference regarding Dili more thought – it is certainly more credible than the other links you provided. I note that the SADR does not appear in the diplomatic list of the East Timorese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mfac.gov.tp/)

As long as I (and yourself!) remain uncertain that General Delegations exist in those places, then there is no point in you inserting them in. The references you recently provided are unconvincing.

• this document makes no reference to a SADR General Delegation in Rome. The contents and its letterhead refer to the Polisario Front representative.

• this link is a statement by the Polisario Front, published on a person’s private website apparently. It identifies the office’s address in London, but it is not a General Delegation.

• the Austrian website denotes the Polisario representative offices (Vertretung) in Austria and Spain, and the SADR Embassy (Botschaft ) in Algiers. It seems that the Sahawari community in Austria (Österreichischen Sahrauischen Gesellschaft) can make a distinction between the two types of representations.

The other references you provide (which are accessible) also concern Polisario representations, not SADR General Delegations.

You say that “my problem” is “a problem of words”. Well, there is a significant difference between calling something a representative office, and calling it a General Delegation, and it lies straight at the heart of sovereignty. There is a Palestinian General Delegation in Canberra, and an Australian representative office in Ramallah, as both countries have official contacts. No such contact exist between Australia and the SADR, so you cannot consider that the Polisario Front representative as the General Delegation of the SADR in Sydney. If you do not have the ability to understand this, I don’t know how to reason with you. Just remember that the Polisario Front probably would not be happy with their position being provocatively misrepresented on a highly sensitive issue. Kransky (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. The Australian government doesn't recognize neither the SADR, neither Palestine. So, how can be a Palestine General Delegation if Australia doesn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state?. Having official contacts doesn't mean recognition. It seems that it's a PLO representative office instead (as you argue on the Sahrawi case). Also, in the "General Delegation" pages I browse, (for example, this ]) they use indifferently the terms "general delegation","embassy",or "diplomatic mission". How that could it be??. It seems that they play with the words depending on the situation, sometimes embassy, sometimes diplomatic mission, or they can't make a distinction between the two types of representations. So, if the sending entity can label it's representation as it wants... I think that a compromise & fair solution, as the Sahrawi case & the Palestinian case are on the same category in this issue (Unrecognized states), the non-embassadorial delegations should be labelled as representative offices of their national liberation movements (Polisario & PLO respectively, both recognized by the UN). I hope you agree with this. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Government recognises the Palestinian National Authority. That is not the same thing as recognising a Palestinian state.

If you believe, based on a verifiable source, that a particular Palestinian embassy should be a delegation general (or vice versa, or something else), then make the change. We can compare the reliability of our sources if there is any dispute

However I don't think it is appropriate to make up facts just because you think another unrecognised state inconsistently names its missions (when there is ample evidence those general delegations do not exist). Kransky (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

• Is the Wayback Machine a reliable source?
• Is the Wayback Machine results considered a secondary source in the in the case of proving a website existed and that the contents haven't changed?
• Can the Wayback Machine be used to verify a blogger hasn't changed his post in the last few years when an article is just trying to prove the bloogers page existence? Alatari (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the Internet Archive? Its contents are considered reliable copies, like WebCite. The archive itself is a primary source for proving a website existed at a given time with the given contents; they don't interpret, evaluate, or summarize, they just copy mechanically. "hasn't changed his post" seems to require interpretation of the kind they don't make, and I can imagine might be considered original research: can you cite the specific statement being backed by the Archive? --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't call the Wayback Machine a source at all, I'd call it an archive of other material (in this case web pages, which would be primary sources). As far as I can tell their copies are considered to be accurately rendered, but I do not think we should ever be making any interpretations based on archived versions of web pages.--Cúchullain /c 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree... Wayback Machine/Internet Archive/etc is a tool not a source. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have another question? On the grounds that the archives of material are accuret renderings of what was on a site mean that it can be used to souce content that is no longer on the site in question for reason such as reorginzation etc. For example, the Ace Attorney page originally used an interview on Nintendo.com with people who were localisers of the series to cite that the American and European versions of the game took place In Los Angelas. The site reorginized later and that particular page and many others were removed. The article then used an archived link or the interview in question. That page is at ].--76.66.180.142 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The original site is still the source. The reference would look exactly like it was if the information was still on the website (even if the link is dead or the content has changed), except you would also add the archive link to the end of the reference. See the references in List of snooker player nicknames for an example. Some of those references might be dead now, but you still retain all the original reference information so people can see where it came from and people can access the archive copy instead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Hormova

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Need third party opinions on highly divisive Balkans related history. Particularly in reference to sourcing. Savonneux (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Main article Massacre of Kodra, talk page: Talk:Massacre_of_Kodra, deletion discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_of_Hormova. The article and talk page have been deleted but I still want feedback on sources. --Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the contention of Users Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs), and that the sources listed below fail WP:V and WP:RS. Users also maintain that the authors are essentially pro Albanian (it's on the talk page, I'm terrible at diffs).

Newspapers in English:

• Multiple newspaper coverage at the time including the NY Times

US Congressional Record: United States Senate, 66th Congress, First Session (1919). "Albania: Statement by C.A. Dako". Congressional Serial Set, Treaty of Peace with Germany, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations. http://books.google.com/books?id=z0FUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1005#v=onepage&q&f=false: G.P.O. pp. 1006–1010. {{cite book}}: External link in |location= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Books:

• Edwin E. Jacques (1995). The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present. McFarland. pp. pp. 347–349. ISBN 9780899509327. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) -- Contested that book is inadmissable and the author supposed Albanian nationalist. Publisher website McFarland
• Owen Pearson (2004). Albania in the twentieth century. I.B.Tauris. pp. p. 63. ISBN 9781845110130. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) -- Contested that book is inadmissable because author is self described Albanophile. Publisher website I.B. Tauris

Source material in Dutch:

• J. Fabius (1965). Met Thomson in Albanië: voorspel tot de eerste wereldoorlog.
• J. Fabius (1991). Zes maanden in Albanië. ISBN 9789029515955.
• Doe Hans (1917). Majoor Thomson. ISBN 9789029515955. Doe Hans bio apparently was a journalist.

• Colonel Thomson in Albania, exhibition by Harrie Teunissen (freelance curator/historian) in Groningen Public Library http://www.siger.org/albania/nl/ (includes pictures from Instituut voor Militaire Geschiedenis (Institute Military Research), The Hague).

I asked generally if anyone involved would like to bring it to this notice board was ignored (dif deleted). So I made this. I never edited the article (dif deleted you'll have to take this on good faith now) it only came to my attention because it was nommed for deletion and most of my contributions are on AFD. --Savonneux (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Updated --Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I concur with Savonneux' concerns and request as many eyes as possible on the article and the related AfD page. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Still want third party opinions.--Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as delete. I can confirm Savonneux's (now-deleted) diffs, though. My take on the sources, copied from my talk page: the problem isn't with confirming that the Times, etc., said something about an incident. The problem is that those articles were all based on uncomfirmed rumors, and each reported different information. There's no consistency with which to say what might have happened, and the general lack of scholarly inquiry means that there's nothing to rely upon except those initial reports. As far as the books, Pearson definitely appears partisan. The Dutch books may have material allowing for the recreation of the article, though. It would be nice if we could find something written about the incident by a historian. Shimeru (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the Dutch link siger.org (titled 'Thompson in Albania'), where a Dutch officer (Thompson), that commanded Albanian gendarmerie units that time, claimed that 'there was said that this incident happened'. Actually, this is another primary source (in fact another rumor). What's important reliable secondaries&tertiary sources are absent and the major parts of this puzzle are still nowhere to find. According to the afd this was one of the reasons of deletion. However, J. Fabius could help the situation but he is offline.Alexikoua (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On the books that covered it you checked their sources and said the books use primary sources, so they themselves are primary. Everything can eventually be traced back to some primary source. On a side note, that website actually says Thomson did not go: Een commissie, onder leiding van De Veer onderzoekt de zaak in opdracht van de Internationale Controle Commissie en maakt proces verbaal op. A commission led by De Veer investigated for the International Control Commission and made a report. Fabius' book is non circulation, but I have a journal article coming (which took forever to track down). --Savonneux (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it Savonneux! As you pointed out, not everything is online and most of the comments of many users for a deletion were based on the fact that there was almost nothing online , but there are offline secondary sources and the photos that you brought, which make this article worthy of this Noticeboard. However I also have to add that I found suspicious and very odd that user:Michael_IX_the_White and user:Megistias voted after a long time that they hadn't been active on wiki (see Special:Contributions/Michael_IX_the_White and Special:Contributions/megistias, so I find that this may have been fruit of an off-wiki canvasssing activity. --_Sulmues 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Probably the biggest reason people don't get responses from uninvolved editors is that they don't bother to read and follow the directions for asking questions at the top of this page. Dlabtot (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I assume you mean? The thing where it says link to article/source of question/exact statement? Because those are all linked... Vague complaints arent really helpful. --Savonneux (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah nvm, you did said the same thing to every single post on this board.--Savonneux (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a journal article now that someone was kind enough to download for me, it covers the political situation more than anything else but confirms the names of the Dutch officers involved and that there was Greek activity: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..."

• Erwin A. Schmidl (1999). "The international operation in Albania, 1913-14". International Peacekeeping. 6 (3): 1–10. doi:10.1080/13533319908413782.

With a reference to

• T.A. Goslinga Gorrit (1972). The Dutch in Albania: A history of the first Albanian gendarmerie organized and directed by Dutch officers 1913-14. Shejzat.

Which is completely unavailable to me. --Savonneux (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: I would appreciate if you avoid wp:npa vios against other users here. By the way the creator of this article ] is a national advocative spa, with only sporadic edits and 'pretents' that he is online in the Albanian wiki, as User:Future Perfect noted too .Alexikoua (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is some problem with this ], but even if it says: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..." The incident is nowhere mentioned here. On the other hand this can be added in the relevant article (Principality of Albania)Alexikoua (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

o.O I wasn't going to use it, sometimes you look at related things to accumulate a list of information. Related to that, I found this my german is not so good but somethign like "According to telegram from Ablanian gendarmes in Tepeleni... Greeks massacred 200 Muslims in Church in Kodra", I dont understand all the words. Author is Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Austrian Chief of Staff in WW1. I can't place it in context though =/ --Savonneux (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he speaks about rumors and the work is also from that era. What's more important these rumors were in disagreement with eachother. For example I've found this, by a French, ], who's descriping crimes committed by Albanians in the very same period. I disagree that we should create articles for every rumor of wwi, as the closing admit concluded, especially if they are completely absent in contemporary bibliography (lack of secondaries&tertiaries).Alexikoua (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, wasn't a historian but an Austrian officer. I don't see a reason why we should play with unconfirmed and contradicting rumors, this time by an Austrian officer of that time. For history Austrian officers organized and directed Albanian gendarmerie units in wwi which makes the incident even more questionable ].Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua it seems like you said that you would need further secondary sources. The even is from 1914. However now it seems that we have further three (3) reliable secondary sources, and the event has not been notable for a determinate period of time, but for a larger frame. In fact we have the following secondary sources:

1. Jacques 1995
2. Pearson 2004
3. Fabius 1965
4. Goslinga Gorrit 1972

(The first two are declared partisan by the Greek side, but I'm sure that are many more in the History of Albania, however I am far from a library). When Fabius is brought here, I really think we should go to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_undeletion. --_Sulmues 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To summ up: Jaques& Pearson are far from considered wp:rs. Fabius, Gorrit are offline. Some unconfirmed rumors of officers (that's we've got now) that commanded and organized Albanian armed groups that time are far below wp:n. As I've stated, I agree with you about Fabius. He might have to say something.13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk)

A question (which I would have raised at the AfD if it were still open)... do sources support the use of the title "Massacre of Hormova"?... I am not asking if sources say a massacre occurred, I am asking whether there are reliable sources that clearly refer to the event by the name "Massacre of Hormova". If not, then per WP:TITLE we would, at minimum, have to change the title of the article to something more neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the images of the massacre from Area 15: The fight in South Albania (continued)(there is a whole report on that page)

• Exposing a mass grave near Kodra

• Church at Kodra, probably with Captain De Iongh--— ZjarriRrethues —  16:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... if that was in response to my question... the images do not support the title. In fact, they do not even support the idea that a massacre took place ... one image does show dead bodies, but gives no context as to how they died... a massacre? An accident? The plague? you can not tell from just looking at the picture. The other just shows people standing on a church wall, again with no context. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually these where found by Savonneux, before the deletion of the article (just check the afd process). The closing admin was well aware of this stuff (part of the memoirs of an Dutch officer of the Albanian gendarmerie as the site says, nothing to do with a 'report', just primary rumors that are inconsistent with the rest of the primaries-as stated in the closing comments on afd).Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is siger.com? Why should we rely on it? All we have are some old photographs on a website. This doesn't prove anything, and for all we know the images may have nothing to do with the specific incident. Until the event is treated in by modern historians, I cannot agree to the article being re-created. To do so without general consensus would be disruptive so soon after it was deleted. Athenean (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Signs as Self-Published Sources

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A discussion has been going on here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether publicly posted signs can be cited as sources. I think this is an important issue and would like to open it up to a larger pool of editors for consensus. The issue was discussed by a few editors that had consensus, and then it was archived, but the issue was raised again as an article that cites a sign is now at FAC, so I have resurrected the archived discussion and added a few comments. ɳorɑfʈ 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."

I'd also like to add that since WP:SELFPUBOK clearly states guidelines for when self-published material can be cited in Misplaced Pages, the question is not about the reliability of a sign, as an entity conveying information about itself is considered reliable unless it is self-serving. The question is a matter of precedent: are signs sources or not?

Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to a photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can upload one, yes, but I'm trying to get a consensus on whether a sign can be cited as a source, so if you could weigh in on that, it would be helpful. As you can see by the entry below mine, I'm not the only one with the issue. ɳorɑfʈ 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, I reckon, and while a linked photo would be nice it's not essential (just as links to other sources are not). Barnabypage (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also think that a sign duly posted by an organization is a self-published source. I'm going to lay out why, because I plan to cite this discussion later if challenged.

• Wikt:publish: from the Latin publicare (to make public, show or tell to the people, make known, declare)

1. intransitive: To issue a medium (e.g. publication).
2. transitive: To issue something (usually printed work) for sale and distribution.
3. transitive: To announce to the public.

A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Misplaced Pages's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that a sign "clearly" is published: When we speak of something being published, we usually mean that more than one copy existed. A written statement, even when displayed in a public location, is not published in the same sense that a magazine or newspaper is. We would not accept a hand-written note, "Please open door slowly", as a "published" statement, even if thousands of people saw the note. Similarly, we do not usually consider displaying original artworks in a museum as "publication" of the artworks. These may be known to the public (your third definition is irrelevant to Wikipdia's use of the term), but they are neither properly "issued" (sent away from the person who made it) nor made available for "distribution" (you cannot distribute a unique object).

However, while rejecting your reasoning, I believe that this particular use is reasonable and acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of "published" is not supported by the great majority of dictionaries. And the information is what is distributed. If you google "publish a sign" there are three hits on the first page that use the word "publish" to refer to disseminating information via a sign. If you google "published a sign" there are two more, and one in particular clearly is talking about a single sign. Aside from this actual use of language, what I'm saying fits the definitions I've given. Princeton defines "publish" as "To put into print." Regardless of how you "usually" (your word) use language, signs fit the definitions of publishing as given here and in other dictionaries. ɳorɑfʈ 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Noraft, can you explain how a sign meets your definitions? Specifically, how is a unique object in a permanently fixed location "issued for sale and distribution"? Is this a special concept of the distribution of a printed work that involves non-distribution of the printed work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, a unique object in a fixed location is not distributed, but the information it presents is. Remember that the word "work" when referring to intellectual property, is referring to information irrespective of its form. That's why we have to say "printed work," which specifies the medium the work is transmitted through. I'm happy to explain how a sign meets Wiktionary's definitions. In the first Wiktionary definition "To issue a medium (e.g. a publication)" A sign is a medium, and it is issued. Notice that it says e.g. ("for example") and not i.e. ("in other words") meaning that a publication is one example of a medium but not necessarily the only example. The second definition is not a good fit, but that's okay, because there's another intransitive, and when multiple definitions of the same form of a part of speech exist, it is because they differ according to usage. The other intransitive (the third definition) is "To announce to the public." A sign posted in a public place is clearly announcing something to the public. A sign in someone's living room would not meet this definition, and would not be a reliable source. Finally, as I mentioned above, Misplaced Pages's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ 01:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points above (in both posts). I think in instances where a sign has been produced for the deliberate act of imparting (educational) information (as oppose to street signs etc...) it has the potential to be used as a source. Technically only one copy of a website exists, but it is seen by hundreds of people. In the same way, an interpretation board does the same job (its just a little more static). In that sense, it strikes me as verifiable and no different to using other offline sources. Establishing reliability is important (as with any source), so it should be produced by a reputable company. I would not for instance accept a typed, laminated sheet of paper stuck to a museum piece with no indication as to who produced it (even in a museum). However, a professionally produced interpretation board (these can cost upwards of £1k in England), appropriately branded and ideally stating sources, strikes me as just a reliable as if that museum had produced a book.

It could be argued that a picture would support this as a reference, but we don't require scans of books to assure their accuracy and there is the risk of breaching copyright. It could also be argued that a board would have been sourced from a book or other source, and that should be used instead. I disagree - we're here to produce a record of what information is 'out there', and I don't think wikipedians should have to become full blown historians! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about it from another perspective, if an organization can spend little to no money or time to launch a website, and the information contained in that website is admissible to Misplaced Pages under the self published sources rule, then why would we exclude information from that same source when they've spent a lot of money to post a permanent signboard in a location viewable by the public? Quite literally, if they copied the information off the sign and slapped it onto their site, then it becomes allowable. ɳorɑfʈ 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement about what "self-published" means, when the publisher is a organization rather than an individual person. Furthermore, if the information is copied from some source other than the organization that made the sign, it certainly isn't self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) I disagree that there is no agreement about what "self-published" means, regardless of who the publisher is. (2) If is copied, then it isn't self-published, and doesn't fall under the self-published source guidelines. Surely you aren't saying that can only happen on signs and not websites? ɳorɑfʈ 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An official sign is generally an attributable (or verifiable) document. If it's produced by some historical society and/or city government, it's a reliable source, since it normally undergoes quite a bit of vetting by different people before it's posted. I would consider it a primary source since it is typically created by people connected or related to the material in the sign. Also, knowing which organization produced the sign is important, although if it's in a public place and seems official, odds are good it was produced by an official agency. Crum375 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would say no. Signs are not published according to the normal, accepted meaning of the word published. It is also not always clear who erected a sign or what 'editorial process' the verbiage on the sign went through, even when erected by a responsible entity. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're misunderstanding the original question. Nobody is asking for signs to be considered reliable secondary sources. You are correct that there may be little to no editorial process. However, as per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." We all know that someone's personal blog has not gone through any editorial process, but it is considered acceptable for use when citing information about that person. For example, if a famous actor had a blog, and on it he related a story about his decision to take up acting, we could mention it and cite his blog. This is acceptable under current rules. If self-publishing in a book or on a website is okay, how is a sign different? If we're okay with the former, why would we not be okay with the latter? ɳorɑfʈ 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding the question, I simply disagree with you about the answer. Yes, questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. So I suppose that one could make an argument if there were a Misplaced Pages article about a sign, than the sign would be an acceptable source in that article for stating what the sign said. That is if one believed that signs are 'published' rather than 'erected'. I don't. Dlabtot (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You said "It is also not always clear who erected a sign or what 'editorial process' the verbiage on the sign went through, even when erected by a responsible entity." I think most people would interpret this as: "Signs are questionable/unreliable sources." Now you're saying "Yes, questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Glad we're clear on that one now. Regarding the definition of the word "published" I'd encourage you to step back and look at the bigger picture. If an old church has a signboard that states the date the church was consecrated, why should that sign not be cited, if there are not better sources available? It is a source (the church in this case) writing about itself, using a medium (a signboard) to spread information to the general public. Please explain to me why that should not appear in Misplaced Pages. ɳorɑfʈ 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're interpretation of my comments is neither what I said, nor what I meant. What I said and what I meant is that signs are not published sources and are not reliable sources. Obviously that is not the answer you want to hear. But telling me that I meant something else won't change my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An interpretation is never what someone said. That's why its called an interpretation. If it was exactly what someone said, it would be a quote. I hear you loud and clear that you think signs are not published. We disagree there and we'll see what consensus says. I hear you that you think signs are not reliable sources, and it appears you're not hearing me that I think your logic is faulty. By the way, please refrain from shouting. The bolded sentence doesn't make your point stronger, nor does it cause someone to read something they wouldn't have otherwise. ɳorɑfʈ 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your criticism rings hollow considering you've got bold type all over this section. I bolded that statement so that my comment could not be misinterpreted or misconstrued. Please don't edit my comments again. Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The word publishing is in bold because its quoted in bold (emphasis not mine). The only other sentence (below) was supposed to be italics, and I got lost in the code when I tried to fix it, so I accidentally changed yours. And you notified me of this on my talk page too...but wait, aren't you the person who asked me not to repeat myself? Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle... ɳorɑfʈ 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you don't edit my comments again, or engage in other breaches of policy, I won't have any reason to go to your talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page again, so we can stay on topic here. ɳorɑfʈ 02:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would say yes. If it is an official-looking, permanent sign, chances are that someone, somewhere checked things before having it created. Could there be errors? Sure, same as any source. The old World Book Encyclopedia used to publish yearly updates with stickers to fix typos and other corrections. If there is a discrepancy between the sign and another source, it will work out, just as with any other conflicting sources. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate the support, I think you're also misunderstanding the situation. It doesn't matter if things were checked or not as per WP:SELFPUBOK. ɳorɑfʈ 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the current guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

— Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

So the question is: If a sign exists, and the material meets the criteria set forth above, is there any reason why it should not be cited in Misplaced Pages? ɳorɑfʈ 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you reposting the same question you asked at the top of the section? Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because in long discussions, some people only read the top, and some only read the bottom, and the fact that I posted WP:SELFPUBOK and folks still said "I don't know if its reliable," tells me repetition may not be a bad thing. But we're digressing from the point of the thread, so if you want to talk to me more about this, we can do it on your talk page or mine. ɳorɑfʈ 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeating yourself. Give the benefit of the doubt to other editors and assume good faith. Any attempt on your part to 'shape' the discussion is going to be fruitless anyway. You've asked your question - endlessly repeating it or arguing with everyone who doesn't give the answer you want is poor form and probably quite counterproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left my response on your talk page, so that the thread can stay on topic. ɳorɑfʈ 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Museum placards have a procedure for citation in MLA 6th ed. (§5.8.2). If an academic procedure exists to cite signage, I think that helps put this question into perspective: it certainly isn't a new practice to scholarly writers. ɳorɑfʈ 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've read this entire discussion and I agree with Dlabtot that signs are not published sources and are not reliable sources. I have no idea what you're trying to source, but we should definitely not be using a sign or brochure or any other marketing tool as a source for an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet many signs are not marketing tools. Noraft mentions museum placards above, for example. What about mileage signs erected by highway authorities? Or blue plaques? Barnabypage (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the sign is reliable as a self-published source writing about itself. We don't know what editing procedure any organization-published pamphlet or brochure went through either, and I see no reason that a sign would have gone through any less strict review. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://navweaps.com

Please see previous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Neutral opinion needed for a website source. An editor in a FAC discussion (here) claims that the reasoning in the prior discussion was faulty; was it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This book describes Tony Digiulian (the operator of Navweaps.com) as a "Gun control system expert." Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've compared NavWeaps to dead-tree sources in the past (the site's been around for years) and haven't noted any reliability issues. IMHO, it's accurate, authorative, and high-quality, and shouldn't have any problems at all. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example in that same vein: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 has a table for gun characteristics in the German navy of the period (see page 140). There are no discrepancies between the book and the relevant Navweaps pages. Parsecboy (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Every page tends to have a list of sources, and as far as I can tell the information therein is represented accurately. Tony DiGiulian as a "Gun control system expert" is a gross exaggeration though. He has, as far as I can see, authored two essays on fire control systems on the page, both WWII-related. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This page appears to be a self-published source. What indication is there that Tony Digiulian is a "gun control systems expert"? The book provided is an autobiography by D. Gossman, published by iUniverse, a "self-publishing company" (i.e. vanity press), so it's not clear why his opinion would carry any weight. Jayjg 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a drive-by assessment. A website should be judged just like a book; on its sources. I could care less if it's self-published. What I care about are its sources, if any. If they're reputable, as John Campbell's books and articles on naval weapons are, which navweaps.com references, then it is, Q.E.D. If it lacks sources then all the other criteria can come into play to evaluate its reliability such as self-published, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have very specific rules for deciding when a self-published website qualifies as a reliable source, which you can find at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, as Dlabtot notes, Misplaced Pages has specific rules for deciding which self-published sources are reliable, and those rules are quite different from the ones you propose. Jayjg 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite the books of John Campbell, you should do so directly. Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's rather hard to do as Campbell's book was published during the Cold War and is unreliable about large caliber Soviet naval weapons. Digiulian translates data from recent books on Soviet naval weapons that I cannot read. The value to Digiulian's site is that it compiles multiple sources, all of which are referenced. And the definition of WP:SPS is sadly lacking in that it ignores sources entirely, presumably relying on the general WP:RS criteria to screen out the crap. I've personally confirmed Navweaps.com meets the normal criteria of WP:RS and WP:V; the fact that WP:SPS is narrowly written and ignores sources doesn't trump the fact that the site meets the overarching requirements to be regarded as a reliable source. In fact, SPS seems to be best suited for website that offer opinions and conclusions rather than sourced facts. Joe Six-pack's opinion on the best brown ale is meaningless unless it turns out that Joe Six-Pack has been a judge at the Great American Beer Festival for the last decade and a half and is a recognized expert in the industry despite never quite finishing that book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've sent Tony an email (we've been in contact before). Let's see what he has to say and if he knows of any books that (a) have cited him and (b) we have missed. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Text supported:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment