Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:44, 24 October 2015

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.

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Disposable Media

I've been wondering if disposablemedia.co.uk could be considered a reliable source. Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual, so you'd have to indicate what you want to cite it for (eg. more controversial or exceptional claims require better sources.) But looking over it it does not look like a great source to me; in particular, there's no indication of editorial oversight I can see, which would make it basically useless for most purpose. How does one become a contributor there? What guidelines to they have? What sort of fact-checking do they do? They need a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" to pass WP:RS, essentially. --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Can Max Blumenthal, writing in Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel be used as a source for "Ben-Zion Gopstein of Lehava, an organization dedicated to anti-assimilation, declared to reporters outside the courtroom that:'It seems that here the youth raised Jewish pride off the floor, and did what the police should have done", which was put in Zion Square assault?
Please note that this is a claim about a 3rd party living person, and should be fairly easily sourced to a news outlet since he says it was told to reporters. Blumenthal is a polemicist, and even some of his political supporters describe him as "deliberately deceptive" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Alterman is not a 'political supporter' of Max Blumenthal. Ist error. Secondly, the cherrypicked 'deliberately deceptive' phrase should be read in context.

Eric Alterman, 'Max Blumenthal’s carelessly constructed case against the Jewish state won’t help the occupation’s victims,' The Nation 16 October 2013 states

'Blumenthal’s accounts are mostly technically accurate, but often deliberately deceptive. In one relatively trivial but revealing example, Blumenthal hides behind the passive voice to repeat the accusation that El Al “airline has been accused of allowing Mossad officers to pose as El Al staffers to collect information on non-Jewish passengers in foreign airports” . Lo and behold, it turns out that the accuser in question was a recently terminated El Al employee who spent nineteen years at the company without ever mentioning any of this (and who presented no evidence for his claim).'

(Alterman was proved wrong in any case, as the South African cables affair revealed earlier this year)

In short Alterman's whole case, and NMMGG's, for saying Max Blumenthal is 'deliberately deceptive' is that he reports an accusation in the passive voice, a voice most editors in Misplaced Pages use in reporting similar claims. That is all Alterman can come up with. There is no other evidence for deception, deliberate or otherwise, in the review. The charge is unsubstantiated.

• Nina Burleigh 'Goliath vs. Goliath: Blumenthal Book Is Right About Israeli Myopia, but Naive on Islamists,' Observer 29 October 2013 found the book accurate.
• Ian Lustick, perhaps the greatest authority on this conflict, took Blumenthal's work seriously, and engaged in a long dialogue before Penn students in which the crisis was discussed amicably. See Max Blumenthal and Ian Lustick speak at Penn
• David Dean Shulman, 'Occupation:The Finest Israeli Documentary,' New York Review of Books 22 May 2014 likewise reviewed it positively.

Blumenthal quotes Ben-Zion Gopstein’s statement. The statement is in keeping with someone who is a Kahanist by background, and a leader of Lehava, an organization that the Government itself has several times considered outlawing as terroristic, as it has Meir Kahane's organization. He regards Palestinian as a form of cancer, and has openly promised that one of their parliamentary representatives in Israel Azmi Bishara will be hung.

There is nothing out of character in the kind of statement Blumenthal attributes to him, and Blumenthal has not been called to account for consistent misrepresentation of sources to my knowledge, neither in the investigative works on American politics nor for the details he has dug up in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal is "deliberately deceptive". His "selectivity often gets in the way of his truth-telling". That's from someone who's on the same side politically as he is. I could bring many more from the other side, naturally. The assistant book editor at the WSJ said the book is garbage . He is making claims you should be able to source to better sources. About living people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contentious claims about living people need better sourcing than this. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source is not contentious. Have you edited wiki under another name?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal quotes Arutz Sheva for this statement. Unless you believe Arutz Sheva will lie about a Kahanite, or that Blumenthal made the quote up, this is rather beside the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to dig up the original Arutz 7 quote and use it instead of this unreliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that Blumenthal is not RS for this per Misplaced Pages policy, and that we should be extra careful with BLP. And that I'm fairly certain I've seen you arguing against the reliability of Arutz 7. Or am I mistaken about the last one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva doesn't quote Ben-Zion Gopstein. Arutz Sheva ran an interview with him, which is on Youtube. It is from this interview that Blumenthal is quoting. So it is immaterial whether the source is Arutz Sheva. The only technical objection can be that of showing that the quoted phrase is not what BenZion Gopstein says in that verifiable interview. So by all means go ahead, and check the translation in Blumenthal against that video-recorded comment (or the following comments made by him in the Arutz Sheva studio debate).Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? I'm not sure about the policies re: youtube. If it can be used, by all means use it. The point still stands about Blumenthal and claims about living persons. He is not a reliable source and should not be treated as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not incumbent on me to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview. Blumenthal quotes them, that is enough. If you have any evidence that Blumenthal made up the quote, feel free to provide it. As to reliability of Arutz Sheva, it is always in context. They are reliable for internal settler matters, and for an interview with a Kahanist guy, who shares their ideology. Why would they make up stuff about a Kahanite? Arutz Sheva is not reliable for Palestinian matters. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is incumbent on you to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview - if Blumenthal is unreliable - how do we know he' accurately quoting his claimed source? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote is also sourced here, which sources it to here; both of them seem reasonably usable. In general I'm not sure I see the argument against Blumenthal in the first place; one person making an accusation against him in an editorial, review, or similar opinion piece doesn't instantly render everything he writes unusable, especially if his books are being published by a respectable publisher. --Aquillion (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

972 is a group blog. It is not reliable. If we have the original source- (INN/Arutz 7 ) - why not use that? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not incumbent on me to find the A7 source, for the simple reason that you are assuming the conclusion in stating that Blumenthal is unreliable. Nobody in this section has charged that he makes up quotes, and there is no reason prima facie to suspect that the quote is wrong. But it turns out that the original A7 article has been found after all, and Google Translate confirms that the quote is real. Can we forget this petty dispute now? Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the way it works around here . You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that a source is presumed reliable unless proven otherwise, but it is in fact the other way around - unless a source is shown to be reliable - by meeting certain criteria spelled out in WP:RS - such as a reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.. - it is presumed not reliable. I have no idea if MB makes up quotes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, seeing as we have sources that say he is deliberately deceptive - which is a reason to suspect he is wrong,or aat least not accurately quoting.. Anyway, now that the A7 source was found, we can certainly use THAT as a source, but not Blumenthal. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is indeed the way it works around here. Blumenthal is a journalist who has been published in many places. Nobody, anywhere, has alleged that he makes up quotes. The book is published by Nation Books, which has editors and fact-checkers. Blumenthal explicitly gives his source, anyone can check it, fulfilling WP:V. If Blumenthal gave his own interpretation of the quote, then it would be relevant for one to consider the general reliability of Blumenthal's political judgements etc. As to using the A7 source, it can be used together with the Blumenthal source, because English language sources are preferred on WP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Though you preface your paragraph with "...that is indeed the way it works around here." - the following text shows you know this to be false, as you then attempt to prove MB's book is a reliable source, using the criteria established by WP:RS, ergo, it is not reliable by default - its reliability needs to be proven. That's good, were making some progress in getting you to understand and correctly apply wikipedia's sourcing policy. As to the arguments themselves - firstly, you should really drop the false line that nobody here has suggested MB is unreliable. Several have, and reliable sources have been produced that explicitly state he is a deliberately deceptive source. That alone should put a huge red flag over using him. Journalists are not inherently reliable - their reliability stems from their association with reliable publishers who employ editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact checking. I am not sure those apply to Nation Books. English wikipedia prefers reliable ENglish sources over reliable non-English ones, but it does not prefer non-reliable English sources over reliable former language ones. If we have the original, we can simply use that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Find me one person in this area who is not criticized by some person or the other? Benny Morris is used in literally hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles, and you can find scholarly opinions on him, tearing him to shreds. But nobody claims that he makes up reports of atrocities. The questions are always about interpretation, emphasis and so on. Blumenthal is used to substantiate a quote, the quote is even found to exist, exactly in the place where he said it existed. If Blumenthal is quoted in his interpretations of Israeli policy, then you may or may not have a point about reliability. Simply insisting over and over that he is "unreliable" because some guy does not like his work is useless. This is too petty a dispute for me to continue. So I am done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly:'sources have been produced that explicitly state he is a deliberately deceptive pluralizes one polemical dismissal by Eric Alterman, which has been shown to be absurd, since it consists in a protest about his grammatical usage of the passive voice. Why Blumenthal should require exceptionalist quarantine, when there is no evidence in sources that he is more, or less, reliable than any other journalist of the numerous we use here, is the query. Could we therefore drop the expostulations and ask some neutral outside experts to make a simple call.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Linkedin / Zoolink

Looking for feedback on whether the statement below employing Linkedin / Zoominfo as the source is realiable or constitures original research.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"According to their linkedin profiles, the CEO of Kromtech, senior executives and nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profies) are based in Ukraine."

The first link doesn't work for me. In general while a LinkedIn profile is a reliable source for any "According to a LinkedIn profile ... " content, the real problem here is WP:WEIGHT. We're meant to be relaying accepted knowledge on topics, not piecing together articles from insignificant primary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My concern is employing a collection of profiles beyond being user generated content also constitute original research.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP|RS Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources addresses this. See the section on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves." Self published Social network profiles can be used as source on themselves in limited circumstances (see 5 criteria in WP:RS) . The 5 criteria for self published/questionable sources in WP:RS are met in this case.Tonyjkent (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Each linked source is reliable for undisputed, non-self-serving facts about each profile's owner, but not to support the proposed text. Editors are not allowed to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.- MrX 17:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input MrX. Isn't each component of the assertion supported by it's own reference? There's a reference for the CEO, References for each of the three executives and a list of employees & their location . I thought each part of the statement stands on its own with its own references. Is there a specific part of the statement that isn't supported by any of those references? Looking at WP:NOTSYNTH "SYTH is not a summary", do you think the statement in question is just a summary, but not synthesis . Also looking at "SYNTH is not obvious" on WP:NOTSYNTH, 'if something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, it is not SYNTH". . After reading WP:NOSYTH, I can't work out which part(s) of the statement, if any, are synthesis. I also looked at NOTOR. Any additional thoughts or insights you have would be helpful. Tonyjkent (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Where is a source that states "senior executives are based in Ukraine" and where is a source that states "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine"?- MrX 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the sources are required to have these statements verbatim or you can't find where on the linkedin profile it states where the person is based? I don't believe sources are required to be verbatim - summarizing / paraphrasing is not synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH . OR requires articles to be written in our own words while retaining the meaning of the source material. Are there policies or guidelines that I missed? . "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine" is a summarization of the first reference. When I scrolled through the list I saw only 2-3 people who weren't in Ukraine so I think the summarization is valid. Reflecting on the statement in the article I do think "senior executives" is an inference not stated in the sources. Their actual titles are stated in the sources so we can use those.

The sources don't need to be verbatim, but the paraphrased content must mean the same thing. The first link in the above list is a search results page, so it's not even a source. You can't conduct your own analysis of that information to form a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Looking at a listing of information and forming your own conclusion is the definition of original research. Zoom info is a site scraper and thus not reliable. The other three links are to individual social media profiles so those can be used to source content about those people, as individuals. - MrX 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi MrX I appreciate your POV and input. However, I think your POV is inconsistent with WP:NOTSYNTH because I've summarized the sources and drawn an obvious conclusion, not drawn conclusions that can't be verified by looking at the profiles. There's no guideline or policy that I'm aware of that requires the conclusion to be explicitly stated in the source. In fact, WP:NOTSYNTH says it doesn't have to be explicitly stated "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources....Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Misplaced Pages policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process"..... The idea here is to summarize all the linked profiles of the employees rather than list them all individually which would make the article worse. The search results just make verification easier - the underlying reliable sources are the individual profiles. Just because a conclusion isn't explicitly stated in the source, it doesn't mean the conclusion is OR. However, if you find a policy or guideline that requires statements to explicitly stated in the source I would really like to take a look at it. I removed the Zoominfo source - I don't know enough about it and I'll take your comment about it at face value. Sorry for the length responses - I want to make sure everyone is on the same page about what the Policies and Guidelines have to say on this issue Tonyjkent (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're misreading WP:NOTSYNTH (and, more importantly, WP:SYNTH, since NOTSYNTH is just an essay, not policy.) WP:SYNTH states that you must not "...combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In other words, if you want to reach the conclusion of "the majority of this company's employees are based in the Ukraine", you most produce a source that explicitly says "the majority of this company's employees are based in the Ukraine" (or words to that effect; you can paraphrase, but the gist of what you're saying must come from a single source.) You cannot go over a list of employees on different LinkedIn pages, look up where they work, then say "all right, the majority of these work in the Ukraine" and put that in the article using those pages as a source. Doing so is textbook WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on your feedback I've fixed "senior executives" and removed the zoominfo reference. I think these are good improvements. Let me see if I can recap / distill the remaining issues - is the remaining issue whether "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine" is original research or a summary? Tonyjkent (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research, not a summary.- MrX 00:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If the article said "97% of employees (with linkedin profiles) are in Ukraine WP:CALC and WP:NOTSYNTH says that is not original research. I don't see any substantive difference between a numerical summation of 97% and "nearly all" - Do you? Is the precision really important? Is the article really improved that much by saying 97% instead of "nearly all". I Would appreciate any specific quotes from the policies and guidelines that show why its not a summary. Tonyjkent (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Either way, it's original research. You should not include the content unless a reliable source states it in terms equivalent to the proposed text. I don't know how to make it more clear.- MrX 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What's not clear is whether your view is consistent with Misplaced Pages editorial policies and guidelines. I've provided lots of evidence and analysis in this discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines. Despite being pressed, if you not willing or able to discuss which specific policy or guideline allows WP:CALC and WP:NOTSYNTH to be set aside in this case, and show where in the policy/guidelines is the requirement for the source to explicitly state the material, I can only conclude that your view is an opinion on what the editorial policy should be rather exegesis of the current editorial policy and guidelines. Tonyjkent (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor - IF the sources are saying that it is above a threshold of around 90%, common sense would dictate that converting that into prose would be synonymous with "nearly all" or "most". I have not seen a source proposed above that actually states in clear language that: nearly all of the employees are based in Ukraine: which would constitute WP:OR rather than be a summary of the sources unless this is a 4/5 person company? Is this what you are getting at MrX? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying any one of the sources states x% of employees are in Ukraine. I'm saying if you look at the 120 linkedin profiles of people who worked at Kromtech (the first reference), nearly all of them are in the Ukraine. I don't understand why this conclusion isn't justified by WP:NOTSYNTH 'Synth is not summary' which states - "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources." I don't understand why 'nearly all of them work in Ukraine' isn't an accurate, neutral summary of those 120 LinkedIn profiles.Tonyjkent (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CALC does not apply. I don't know how else to explain to you that you can't combine sources to reach a conclusion. Perhaps someone else can explain it so that you understand.- MrX 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at.- MrX 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My personal view is it also constitutes WP:OR as the conclusion is not the result of research from a secondary source. A comment from @MrX: I agree with "You should not include the content unless a reliable source states it in terms equivalent to the proposed text"--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Labattblueboy: Primary sources are ok to use in some circumstances. Research doesn't have to be exclusively from secondary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources for details.Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on WP:ORN, really. But I agree that this is synthesis. The sources are not reliable for the proposed statement, {s we would need a third-party, secondary reliable source to make this conclusion. To cobble together a series of primary sources and interpret them in a group is the very definition of synthesis. So, no, the sources can not be used for this statement. But they could conceivably be used as reliable sources for other, non-synthy facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: The reason I think 'nearly all employees are based in Ukraine' its not synth is because the LinkedIn profiles state the location of the employees and all I am doing is summarizing those locations without interpretation. I don't think I've drawn any conclusion than the location of the employees. I think Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary allows this type of summary. If I said "..and therefore the headquarters of the company is effectively in Ukraine then I agree that would be synthesizing a new idea. I also cant find any policy or guideline that says 'we would need a third-party, secondary reliable source to make this conclusion' . Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources allows use of self published sources in certain circumstances (the 5 criteria). Can you take at look atMisplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary and expand on your thinking ? I am struggling to understand why summarizing the location of each person (which is explicitly stated on each profile) is Synth and not summary. Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was recently pointed to WP:BLPPRIMARY which specifically forbids source personal information from primary sources. AFAIU linkedin profile is unquestionably primary self-pub source. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek:It appears self published sources are ok for living people according to. WP:BLPSPS Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be used in very, very limited circumstances per WP:SELFSOURCE, but generally it isn't useful for anything important that you couldn't just as easily find elsewhere. Regardless, this particular usage feels like WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: re 'anything important that you couldn't just as easily find elsewhere' TO my knowledge its not easily available else. Better sources would be great if they exist. Re WP:SYNTH could you take a look at my comments to user:NinjaRobotPirate. It appears in this case the article is summarizing where employees are based (which is explicitly stated in the LinkedIn profiles) and the 5 criteria for self source are met. Can you let us know if you have additional thoughts on whether this is SYNTH or Summary? Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely textbook WP:SYNTH (it's an attempt to stitch together a bunch of unrelated social media pages to invent a new statement about a company, which no source attests to individually.) To me this seems crystal-clear; I don't see this as an edge case. It's textbook WP:SYNTH with no room for doubt. Regardless, it also unequivocally fails WP:SELFSOURCE -- LinkedIn pages generally fail WP:RS and therefore can only be used for the very very narrow exceptions WP:SELFSOURCE defines, which means they can only be used to source specific, limited, uncontroversial statements about the specific people there. Arguing that you can stitch them together to make a statement about a company is absurd and would make a mockery of WP:SELFSOURCE. The only place where a LinkedIn page could even remotely be considered a viable source is when the topic of discussion is the one specific person that page is about, and the only thing it can ever be used to cite are direct, noncontroversial statements about that one person. Bottom line: LinkedIn absolutely cannot be used as a source for this statement; it clearly violates multiple policies. If you want to state that the majority of the company's employees come from a particular place, find a source that says so explicitly. Without that source, it cannot be on the Misplaced Pages page. Aquillion (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Aquillion:,let's unpack that last statement:

• Your statement 'it's an attempt to stitch together a bunch of unrelated social media pages' is not true. The pages are all related because they all (with 1 or 2 exceptions out of 120) state the location of a Kromtech employee.
• Your statement 'invent a new statement about a company' is not true. I'm not making a statement about a company. I'm making a statement about the locations of its employees.
• 'which no source attests to individually' is not true. the statement is about the location of employees which each source attests to individually
• Re 'Regardless, it also unequivocally fails WP:SELFSOURCE' For the individual claim about each employee to pass WP:SELFSOURCE - the following is criteria must be met: it is neither unduly self serving or an exception claim; does not involve claims about third parties; does not involve claims about events directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as it's authenticity, the article is not based primarily on such sources.' None of the criteria unequivocally fail.
• Re 'Arguing that you can stitch them together to make a statement about a company is absurd and would make a mockery of WP:SELFSOURCE. ' I'm not making a statement about a company. I'm making a statement about the location of its employees which is the explicitly stated in each LinkedIn profile;
• RE 'a LinkedIn page could even remotely be considered a viable source is when the topic of discussion is the one specific person that page is about, and the only thing it can ever be used to cite are direct, noncontroversial statements about that one person' . This is not true. There is no prohibition on summarizing multiple sources - in fact its the essence of NPOV. See Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary - 'As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Misplaced Pages policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process'.
• Re 'Bottom line: LinkedIn absolutely cannot be used as a source for this statement; it clearly violates multiple policies' - as the above analysis shows it doesn't clearly violate multiple policies. WP:NOR doesn't apply to accurate, neutral summaries of multiple sources. WP:RS is statisfied because WP:SELFSOURCE is statisfied for the location of each individual employee.Tonyjkent (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland

There is an ongoing dispute regarding my use of the following source at Polish census of 1931. Source- US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland Ed. W. Parker Mauldin, Washington-1954. pp.74-75 Content in question A 1954 study of the Polish population by the United States Census Bureau concluded that " in presenting the results, the Central Statistical office emphasized the central role played by the Polish ethnic group by increasing the number of minority groups, and thus reducing the size of a given group, shown in the results, Ukrainian and Ruthenian were tabulated as separate langauges, although Ukrainian was simply the newer name for Ruthenian used by the more politically conscious and nationalistic elements. In the Province of Polesie, the census authorities returned most of the Belorussians there as speaking "local languages" My Argument -I maintain that this source is reliable because it was written by the demographic professional W. Parker Mauldin, the author of numerous works on demographic topics. The Population of Poland received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . I not saying that this analysis by the US Census Bureau is the final word on the topic. I maintain that we should include this analysis of the 1931 census in order to maintain a NPOV. We should not take sides and present only the figures of the Polish government as being correct since the results of the 1931 Polish census are disputed we should not present the raw data on Misplaced Pages ,which is primary source material, without analysis by reliable secondary sources. I own a hard copy of The Population of Poland and will be glad to provide jpgs of the pages I cited. Please contact me on Wiki Email and I will be glad to forward the copies for your review.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution