Open main menu

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RSN)
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

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


RfC: TRT WorldEdit

What is the best way to describe the reliability of TRT World? --Jamez42 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It would probably help to use the four-option response format:
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
--Sunrise (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It will not be neutral and will be intrinsically unreliable. Media in Turkey is not classed as Free and TRT is a state-run body fully under the control of the Turkish government. [[1]] (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable for what it's reliable for - I think you're going to have to be more specific about this: what are you relying on TRT to show? FOARP (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This RfC has been renewed for another 30 days due to low participation. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government, not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, otherwise generally reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot)Option 2 per above. SemiHypercube 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Rosguill said it perfectly. petrarchan47คุ 07:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Generally seems to be treated as reliable by other sources with clear exceptions described by Rosguill. Ralbegen (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Per Rosguill. Comatmebro (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I agree with Rosguill, that can be applied to most news outlets. They aren't reliable where they have conflict of interest.--01:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Rosguill · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: DexertoEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against deprecating the use of Dexerto as a source. Some editors suggested it was unreliable but did not rise to the level of being deprecated. However, given the relatively few participants in this conversation, and the fact that some editors did not comment on its reliability at all or said it was an OK if imperfect source, further discussion would be required to establish consensus that it's an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Dexerto be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per a previous discussion[2]? X-Editor (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes per previous discussion linked above. X-Editor (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad Question. Linked discussion didn't establish anything about an edit filter, and edit filters are discouraged when there is little use of the source (see WP:AF, and RfCs are usually for resolving a dispute (which doesn't exist), and WP:RSN is for discussions about use of a source in an article (which isn't stated), and "deprecate" has become a misleading term (the real effect of the filter is far beyond the dictionary meaning "not approve"). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Dexerto is used frequently as a source for Internet and YouTube related articles, so you're wrong there[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Also, If you want to complain about how the term "deprecate" has become "misleading", please don't take it out on me and take that discussion somewhere else. X-Editor (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen via those links, perhaps I'm missing, your talk-page participations and notifications that you're taking the supposed dispute here. As for your suggestion that you aren't responsible for the words you use, well, for me, that helps establish why the question is bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: How was I saying the I'm not responsible for the words I use? I'm just saying the you should discuss whether the term "deprecate" has become misleading somewhere else and not in this RfC. As for the links, they are me getting rid of Dexerto sources. Press Control F or Command F if you use a Mac and type Dexerto and you'll see where the sources are. X-Editor (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This RfC asks a valid question similar to the ones in more than 15 other RfCs. Complaints regarding source deprecation can be made at WT:RSN or WT:DEPS. — Newslinger talk 21:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
You can advertise your essay, and I can comment on bad questions in the place where they're brought up.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. It's not quite there. Not too many articles cite Dexerto, and it does good journalism cited by others. wumbolo ^^^ 22:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No It's not a good RS, but its not that it is a bad site ala Daily Mail. It has some potential uses that make it inappropriate to edit filter it out. Avoided, yes, but not to a point of outright blocking it. --Masem (t) 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No Summoned by a bot. Not an excellent RS, but not a terrible one either. I agree that the website doesn't seem to have mal-intent, so I think outright blocking it is a stretch. Determine if it's reliable on a case by case basis Comatmebro (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not without evidence that it is a common and serious enough issue to warrant an EditFilter. X-Editor I suggest you close this RFC as "Withdrawn". It has gotten no support, and we're not going to create endless editfilters for every website that fails WP:RS. (Note: I have barely glanced at Dexerto and I have no firm opinion on the site, other than the serious lack of indication that an editfilter would be warranted here.) Alsee (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No (via FRS) - Seems unnecessary for its use. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No - No evidence presented of a need for an edit filter. This "let's categorise every source in the world for no reason" tendency needs to be stopped. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help with sources: What is COI and when does it matter?Edit

At this CBD RfC, it was argued that:

Source is not independent (see COI disclaimer in the article): FP is responsible for the development of Cannabis-based products at Entourage Phytolab. AC received monetary compensation for consulting work performed for Entourage Phytolab. LdS works at Bedrocan.)


(is that really a meta-analysis in the MEDRS sense when none of the surveyed papers had an interest in pure vs. non-pure effects?)

I have a few questions:

- What are the ground rules regarding COI and MEDRS, and RS in general?

- Is there ever the case where a paper considered to have COI is included in the encyclopedia with a disclaimer of sorts, noting the COI?

- Are we expected to dig into each study included in a meta analysis for possible COI?

Thank you, petrarchan47คุ 03:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

For reputably-published papers, the assumption is that the publication process adequately deals with any COI so Wikipedia editors are not in a position to revisit it. The paper you cite is in a junk journal so the assumption is that this is just pay-to-publish crapola. There are may shades of grey to this but one cannot legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I have nothing to add to the diff you cited. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have found that the best way to deal with sources that may have a conflict of interest is to use in-line attribution. Tell the reader who says what. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. Where did all the editors go, by the way?

The last time I regularly edited in the MEDRS topic area was around 3.5 years ago, and much has changed. Quite frankly, what continues to emerge from my recent noticeboard queries, besides the profound lack of activity from (the dwindling pool of) editors, is the message that 'rules' regarding sourcing are all over the map; they've become, in practice, almost entirely subjective.

For instance, Alex's opinion about this journal is not supported by outside reliable sources. It is in fact contrary to what they say. Frontiers has been "whitelisted" by the authoritative body that oversees open access journals (DOAJ); the "blacklist" site (Beall's) that erroneously included Frontiers was taken offline immediately after an investigation into their practices was completed, and the blacklist site (Cabell's) that is now considered the go-to source for predatory journals did 'not' see fit to include Frontiers. Frontiers has the stamp of approval from the regulatory bodies that formally decide which journals are not "junk", COPE and OASPA.

Yet we have a few editors who are placing their own opinion above these outside sources, and this is 'not' being challenged. Years ago this would have at least sparked a lively conversation, and ultimately would not be allowed to stand.

I don't feel as though I have any grasp of what MEDRS will be acceptable, when personal opinions can override the normal processes editors use to determine RS. Therefore I do not feel as if I can contribute to WP in certain topic areas. This is unfair and not how WP is supposed to work. petrarchan47คุ 06:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Another problem is that a journal's reputation can change over time, too. It could be okay for a few years, poor for a few years, and then back to okay. Aside from asking some independent expert – and there's only so much of people like User:DGG to go around – it can be really quite difficult. We will get some things wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, Cabell's has a good reputation but they are not open access. I hear they can charge from $35-50K per year. petrarchan47คุ 01:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Do you know whether it is possible for Wikipedia to get access to Cabell's? petrarchan47คุ 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. It sounds like a question for Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Or perhaps someone with access to a big university library could look up individual questions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh FSS, will you just stop beating that WP:DEADHORSE already? How many times must you be told that Frontiers does not qualify as a WP:MEDRES, doubly so when the authors of a specific paper have an obvious COI? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't assess sources by what random Wikipedians say - we use outside sources. Also please don't assume bad faith here and reread what this section is about - it was Alex who completely switched subjects to bring up Frontiers again. I am simply trying to get a grasp for how we assess COI, as the RfC brought up issues new to me. petrarchan47คุ 01:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Source conflicts of interest are governed by WP:QS, which applies equally to medical sources. The very long footnote 9 has useful information about determining whether a COI exists, and the Columbia and New York Times resources listed there may be helpful as well. Alexbrn is incorrect here. There is no "rule" that we assume there's no COI just because the publication is generally reliable; nor is there any "rule" that we assume there's a COI just because the publication is unreliable. R2 (bleep) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I never said there's a "rule" that "we assume there's no COI just because the publication is generally reliable", or vice-versa. So that is a straw man. Alexbrn (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Why don’t you clarify what you meant, then? Because that’s how I read your comment: For reputably-published papers, the assumption is that the publication process adequately deals with any COI so Wikipedia editors are not in a position to revisit it. R2 (bleep) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In the context of the OP's question, about medical sourcing, Wikipedia editors are not in a position to reject the science in a reputably-published article because they assess a contributor has a COI, when the peer-review process has already accounted for that COI. An editor might otherwise claim e.g. that "NEJM may have published this result but it's not RS because contributor X has declared a COI!" If, on the other hand, a publication is not known for having a rigorous peer-review process - or is known for having a lax or non-existent peer-review process, then the COI of contributors does become a concern for WP editors, which is in part why the source being pushed by the OP has been so roundly rejected. There are of course shades of grey for publications which fall between these extremes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"Roundly rejected" by the same 3 people? And not all of those people have zero interest in the field of medical journals. I'm not entirely sure how you justify having a large subscription journal like Wiley as a client and simultaneously go on a tirade against Frontiers which could easily be considered competition.
"Roundly rejected" by the same 3 people who chose to follow this issue, yet they do not represent the community - as you know, at the Project Medicine NB one editor said they've 'never' seen this source rejected before. The people who didn't support your stance did not show up to the RfC, so these NBs don't necessarily represent anything "round". petrarchan47คุ 01:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jeffrey Beall believed open access journals, like Frontier, exist to put subscription journals out of business, and are anti-capitolist. Here is one critique of his conspiracy theory: *; here is another from his boss *.
  • "Blacklists suffer from personal biases (e.g., Beall's own anti-OA views). Quoting Beall (2013): “The open-access movement is really about anti-corporatism. OA advocates want to make collective everything and eliminate private business, except for small businesses owned by the disadvantaged. They don't like the idea of profit, even though many have a large portfolio of mutual funds in their retirement accounts that invest in for-profit companies.” Beall's erroneous views of OA were debunked by his direct supervisor just prior to his retirement (Swauger, 2017)." source
  • "Clemons et al. also point out that Beall's list is curated by a single individual. And a number of journals have found themselves on the list despite a long track record of academic publishing. The Frontiers series is on the list of predatory publishers—and does have a diverse array of journal titles. But it was founded as Frontiers in Neuroscience in 2007 by two neuroscientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published more than 2,400 papers, and has an impact factor of 3.398. Frontiers in Pharmacology has published more than 1,600 papers since 2010 and has an impact factor of 4.418. Frontiers in Oncology has 1,560 online papers and a respected editorial board and field chief editor but doesn't have an impact factor as yet. The journal websites have a very different look and feel, as if imagining a new vision in publishing. Hard to argue these are not academic journals. Given that the number on Beall's list for 2017 exceeds 1,000, even a 5% error rate could entrap and mislabel a significant number of academic journals and, by extension, those who publish therein." source
Beall and a couple WP editors are 'not' acceptable sources for black, or Brown-listing Frontiers journals. You have already admitted you cannot blacklist them, and there is no justification for badmouthing and rejecting them based on nothing but personal opinion (Brown-listing) every chance you get. petrarchan47คุ 01:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
There have been numerous noticeboard postings and an RfC, where is was noted by the closer the only person pushing this is you. The WP:STICK is now being waved around so much, I am beginning to think it might benefit this topic area if Petrarchan47 was removed from it, as this looks like either trolling or incompetence to the point it is wasting precious editors' time. Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I will state again that this thread was sidelined by you, Alex, and was originally intended to clarify how we deal with COI in a meta-analysis. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Frontiers or the CBD RfC until you weighed in. I will also note that your change in attitude to attack-mode comes in lieu of answering my direct question about how you've justified your advocacy and see it as non-conflicted. petrarchan47คุ 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've pinged Alexbrn and WAID, but for others who are interested in following this issue, please see my addition to DGG's talk page, and note that he requests that editors allow him to weigh in on new threads to his TP first. petrarchan47คุ 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In my view, if the journal discloses the authors' COI, then so should we. It's particularly important to do this in contentious areas. We summarize or quote other parts of the source, so there's no reason not to summarize or quote the part that discloses COI. I don't think we should do it only for lower quality publications. SarahSV (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. COI was used in the CBD RfC as a reason to disallow the addition. I've also seen (successful) arguments that a disclosed COI should not be mentioned per NPOV. There is a lack of uniformity in applying the 'rules' that is not only frustrating, it's making the editing process downright impossible on contentious articles, where it seems only 'power users' are able to make or maintain changes. Rules for inclusion should be accessible to all, and their interpretation should not be subjective. But exactly the opposite of this is the reality on WP. Things have changed drastically in the past 3 years. petrarchan47คุ 07:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


This notice is an update to previous discussions, listed here, pinging their creators:

More than 10,000 biographies cite or link to a self-published site that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. The editor is not a genealogist nor is he considered a reliable source. While he does cite some reliable sources, a significant amount of it is personal correspondence, email lists, etc. The site itself says it is full of errors; I have frequently found errors or info contradictory to reliable sources. This is not a slam on Darryl Lundy who works hard to compile this, but a reminder that Wikipedia has a stricter standard. We don't accept self-published for a reason.

The first discussion in 2011 resulted in the conclusion that these sites they should not be used for living people, however, I see the site frequently cited in non-BLP articles to list descendents and heirs who are living.

My Wikipedia history proves I work extensively on these biographies, and I can tell you this biographical data is available elsewhere. The births and deaths for royals, nobilities and landed gentry are recorded extensively, to this day, by reliable sites such as Burke's and Debretts (still publishing), not to mention obituaries, and birth and death records/notices. As was pointed out before, Wikipedia editors use this site because it's more convenient to them than accessing a reliable source, whether online or at a (gasp) library. Convenience does not equal reliability.

I'm really fed up with seeing this site used as a source and it's going to take me years at this point to fix the 10,000 articles. It's time for this site to be blacklisted, with a message similar to that of the Daily Mail blacklist, to alert editors to finding a reliable source instead. МандичкаYO 😜 13:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep I see no reason why we are using this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

── I have posted a long reply to User:Wikimandia about Darryl Lundie's website at MediaWiki Lundy usually cites his sources and many of them are reliable so I think that it is OK to use his site providing it is in line citations in the WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT format to Wikipedia reliable sources. Please read my posting at MediaWiki for more details. "While he does cite some reliable sources, a significant amount of it is personal correspondence, email lists, etc." this has not been my experiance I find that most of his entries for the periods I edit tends to cite

  • G.E. Cokayne; et al (2000, eds) The Complete Peerage of England...
  • Mosley, Charles, (2003 ed.); Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition

-- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not acceptable because in his transfer of information, he can be making mistakes, such as typos for birthdays, or mistake one person for another in his interpretation of this data, such as if someone married the daughter of so-and-so, he mistakes who that person is and links to the wrong person. I have been replacing this site with reliable sources for years. The user should access these sources and cite them normally, including page numbers (REQUIRED). We already have the massive problem of almost all the articles on baronetcies cited exactly like this (copy/paste), without page numbers (indicating they probably never checked). And a significant portion of his content is emails from family members (likely to be full of mistakes) and personal research. This is a self-published site and considered unreliable by wikipedia standards. МандичкаYO 😜 20:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Wikimandia,I think you summed it up well back in 2012:

OK, so if I'm starting to understand this correctly, when I come across an article that uses the website as a reference source, I should work with the authors to improve references (by going back to the original source if available) and agree to remove any dubious information that I don't believe is likely to have originated in a published work. In a small number of circumstances it may be relevant to include an external link. Wikiwayman (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

PBS (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@PBS: I am not and have never been "Wikiwayman". I don't see how this person's comment is relevant to the discussion in any way. is not a reliable source, as I have laid out. Reliable sources ARE available and should be used instead. МандичкаYO 😜 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies my mistake, no offense meant.
BTW did you look at the edit history to "exactly like this" and who added unreliable source template to the sources? I have made it clear that if Lundy cites a Wikipedia unreliable source then his site should not be used. I do not want to repeat my longer posting to you here so please read it as I made this point before. Lundy's own website includes a page number and usually a section number. Lundy does usually cite Wikipedia reliable sources to the page number. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I did a search on [PBS Lundy] in the archives and one of the archived sections returned was Archive 132 § (September 2012) which was not a conversation in which I participated. In the section there was an interesting contribution by User:LeadSongDog (LSD) --who basically agrees with my position--but included an example where LSD took an article in which I had added "unreliable source" to a Lundy citation using AWB, and added the reliable sources Lundy cites, commenting in the RS conversation that "WP is perpetually a work-in-progress. Rather than see editors leaving assertions uncited, it is constructive to capture where they came from and work towards eventually checking the original publication as the article matures". -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Then just find the RS it uses, check them, and cite need to cite at all.
The proposal was to blacklist it, so it doesnt continue to be used, and we end up with more dodgy refs put in the encyclopedia. Last time I came across it being used in an article, I checked it, and Wikipedia was what was being quoted as the source...
So I would support blacklisting. Curdle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Curdle you may have the money to purchase the reliable sources that Lundy cites (have you purchased any of them?), but many people do not. You may have access to the books in a well stocked library, but many editors do not. An editor can not simply removing text from an article if in the opinion of the editor it falls under WP:IMPERFECT and WP:RETAIN. So as Lundy often cites Wikipedia reliable sources for facts, removing such text would often be a breach of RETAIN. So why not use Lundy's site as an interum step (IMPERFECT) until an editor who has access to a Wikipedia reliable source can remove the Lundy citation leaving just the reliable source?
It is because Lundy may have made a mistake, that the editor verifying a fact via Lundy can not simply drop Lundy, but needs to use the formular WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If Lundy cites an unreliable source, such as an email, then I personally would (and I do) remove the text support by Lundy (under WP:CHALLENGE). In cases of Lundy citing Wikipedia as a source, I would check the relevant Wikipedia text. If that text that Lundy cites was supported by a reliable source, then I would replace the Lundy citation with the citation to a reliable source supporting the fact, otherwise, unless I could find an alternative reliable source, I would remove the text commenting in the edit history that I had carried out the deletion because of WP:CIRCULAR.
Lundy at least cites his sources, what about {{Rayment}} who for most of his pages does not? The consensus to date is that the Rayment contains accurate information, even if it is not a Wikipedia reliable source, so citations to the site are acceptable. Personally I am in favour of templates {{better source needed}} being included in the Rayment templates, but the opinion on this is divided, none have advocated removal of the text supported by an inline citation to Rayment. Would you blacklist Rayment as well?
-- PBS (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't need to purchase them, I have a library card. You don't have to live near a library to get a card and get online access to databases. Wouldn't it better to prevent errors before they get input into Wikipedia, and just encourage editors to look up reliable sources in the first place, as opposed to just picking the quickest googleable link. Using that argument, it would be ok to cite any source, reliable or not, hoping that another editor will come along and fix it later. In the particular case I mentioned, Wikipedia had not cited the information either! If I didnt know better than to use the Lundy site, it would have been circular referencing. One of the standard reasons for deeming something an unreliable source, is if they use information from Wikipedia, which Lundy does. Curdle (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Curdle here - while Lundy may occasionally be useful as a pointer to sources - we should not be referencing him even in an indirect way. Better to look up the original source he provides. And yes, library cards are very useful. And there is WP:Resource Exchange, where you can get help with acquiring sources that libraries may not be able to get. We should get rid of and depreciate its use. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@User:Curdle insource:/PastScape/ (used in 1,541 articles) is generally considered to a reliable source, but occasionally the site include Wikipedia as a source. Does that make all citations to PastScape unreliable? As I said I would remove a Lundy citation that was based on his citation to an unreliable source, but that is no reason to remove all of Lundy's citations, better to restructure them to use WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT rather than remove the citation and the information supported by the citation.
@User:Curdle and Ealdgyth I have a number of British library cards (I move around) a few years ago they all supplied access to the ODNB and OED online. Now thanks to cuts in budgets, I do not think that any of them do. Which public library do you use that still gives access to sources behind a paywall that can cover the common reliable sources that Lundy uses? Lets take an example article "John Clinton, 6th Baron Clinton" do you have the sources to replace Lundy? Should I have put the article up for deletion after it was created (as the editor had not looked at the original sources to verify the information), or should I have done what I did? Which is the closer to the spirit of WP:PRESERVE? If Lundy is not to be used then won't editors, as this one did, be tempted to use Lundy's Wikipedia reliable sources without checking them? Surly it is better not to tempt editors to go down that road?
@User:Curdle and Ealdgyth, there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/ (88); insource:/ (1,196); insource:/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
re John Clinton, 6th Baron Clinton- According to the article, he was never called to parliament; he was born, married, produced another Lord Clinton and died. Hard to see a claim to notability there; and hard to see what there is to preserve. Isn't the standard supposed to be at least two indepth sources for a biography? Why do you assume that editor just copied from Lundy? Judging by their other articles, they appear to have used a lot of fairly obscure/subject matter books. Sounds more likely they have access to a good library, and introducing Lundy's site is pointless. My State library gives me access to both OEDB and OED online; I use OEDB all the time. Have you tried signing up to Oxford Press through the Wikipedia Library? And yes, there are a lot of substandard genealogical sources used in articles. I did not address Rayment, or any of the other sites mentioned, as they are not the ones currently up for discussion over possible depreciation. Arguing that should be used because they are too is whataboutism. I already spend the majority of my time here adding references and trying to improve dodgy ones already; that is how I came across Curdle (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── " Why do you assume that editor just copied from Lundy?" It was the format of the two citations given at the creation of the article. Not only are they the same ones as Lundy cites (year and edition), but the format of the citations as laid out in the two articles is almost exactly the same (compare and contrast):

From the Wikipedia article at creation:
  1. Cokayne, G.E.; Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors. The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed.. 13 volumes in 14. 1910-1959. Reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000.
  2. Mosley, Charles, editor. Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003.
From the Lundy article
  1. G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 316.
  2. Mosley, Charles, editor. Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003.

I have not stated that Lundy should be used because others are which is what I think you mean by "whataboutism". I have given detailed reasons why (because of WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia is a work in progress) it is better to analyse citations to Lundy and in descending order:

  1. if there is a reliable source that the editor has read that confirms or modifies the text then cite that source replacing Lundy.
  2. If the text is supported by Lundy cites a reliable source then use WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT
  3. If Lundy does not cite a reliable source then remove the citation and the text (unless there are other reasons to PRESERVE it).

The sites I have mentioned are not "whataboutism" they are examples of genealogical sites that do not cite any sources, and in my opinion are far more questionable than Lundy, or even {{Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} which falls somewhere between the two. Cawley is an unreliable source, but one that cites lots of primary sources, but in places uses them to draw inferences which if copied into an article is a SYN as it is not made by a reliable secondary source (see also WP:PSTS). My point is that Lundy in the format of SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is an acceptable interim until an editor has time to replace the citation with a reliable one. The other sites are not.

Over the years I have been through thousands of the citations to all of the websites I have mentioned in this section adding "unreliable source" templates to them. In many cases they have not been altered since I did that. I suggest that Lundy is one of the better sites because he cites his sources, and as such the use of his site can be useful in judging whether text ought to be PRESERVED.

At the start of this section it was stated "While he does cite some reliable sources, a significant amount of it is personal correspondence, email lists, etc." the use of "some" and "significant" is a biased form of wording to promote one point of view (that the the site should be blacklisted). However as the information in Lundy is supported by citations, in some cases to Wikipidia reliable sources and sometime to Wikipedia unreliable sources, rather than banning Lundy, Lundy can be an interim step (see SAYWHEREYOUREADIT) until the reliable sources are either checked or new ones provided. With the limited exception of Cawley, it is not possible to use this interim step for the other websites I have mentioned in this section.

-- PBS (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter LemmeEdit

Independent, self-published articles of "former Boeing flight control engineer Peter Lemme"[1][2]

The source has been sitting in MediaWiki since 27 April 2019 (*.guru urls are blacklisted).
Edit: thank you for Marc Lacoste and Beetstra for white-listing it. 11:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Seattle Times says "The expert, Peter Lemme, a Kirkland-based former Boeing flight-controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, has no direct personal knowledge of the airplane’s development or certification but he did a detailed analysis of the October crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX. He was extensively cited as an expert in The Seattle Times, and subsequently in multiple press accounts, including in The New York Times."[3]

Articles: Boeing 737 MAX groundings, MCAS (737), Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, Lion Air Flight 610 Aron M🍁 (➕) 15:06, 14 May 2019‎

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ "Grand jury subpoena shows sweep of criminal probe into Boeing's 737 MAX certification". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 3 Apr 2019.

Hello guys. I'm looking for some pros and cons regarding the reliability of these aviation articles. Any opinions?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  05:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Qualifications and relevant jobs of Peter Lemme (thanks to Greenbe for the linkedin research):

  • MIT B.S. in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science 1976 – 1980
  • +1 year in Aeronautics & Astronautics, Avionics 1980 – 1981
  • FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative), Systems and Equipment 1992 – 1996[1]
  • Avionics Engineer at Boeing 1981 – 1982: "Engineer responsible for testing dual channel, in-line signal monitoring and management function of automatic pitch augmentation control system for 757 and 767."
  • Lead Engineer for Thrust Management System 1982 – 1989: "responsible for control law development and test of Thrust Management System (Autothrottle) for 757, 767, and 747-400."[2](Click "Show 5 more experiences")
  • Boeing Everett Division Engineering Employee of the Month, 1990[2]

As Avionics Engineer he worked on a "Pitch Augmentation Control System (PACS) for 767 and 757" ... "testing failure scenarios of inputs and of outputs".[3]

Related discussion: [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings] (version on 21 May 2019‎) —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tl;dr: Further research revealed Peter Lemme is more than qualified to write articles in the context of Avionics (specifically Aircraft flight control systems and Communications). His articles are also endorsed by The Seattle Times and multiple press accounts, therefore qualify as reliable primary sources. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan PageEdit

Hi, My request could you please confirm site can be used as reliable citations for adding a movie name on a Wikipedia Page Movie name: Pyar Ki Jeet (1962)

About the Osianama Archive & Library are two cultural fields - Indian & World Cinema AND Modern & Contemporary Asian Fine & Popular Arts & Crafts, which include thousands of very rare and significant artworks, antiquarian books, memorabilia and documents, systematically collected over decades so as to create a meaningful knowledge-base. Thanks in advance. Yashkkaryan (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Yash Aryan [1]

Hi, could you please update on the above matter. Thanks. Yashkkaryan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Yash Aryan

I would say it should be RS. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Sir Kailash Yashkkaryan (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Yash Aryan

John SolomonEdit

1. Sources.

2. Article. Spygate (conspiracy theory)

3. Content. Wookian has proposed adding content described as follows: The content would be a brief summary of how the FBI used the Steele Dossier in their FISA application(s) for Carter Page, even though State Dept had previously become aware of inaccuracies and partisan motivation of Christopher Steele, and had actually reached out to Strzok's team about the interview. As Solomon documents, the State Dept secretary who met with Steele and then wrote to the FBI discovered that Steele wanted to get his material out before the election to damage Trump (partisan motivation), and that he claimed there was illicit activity at the Russian embassy in Miami - when no such embassy even exists.

R2 (bleep) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Not reliable. The sources are clearly marked as opinion and state: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL These factors indicate that The Hill editorial staff has not applied the same level of scrutiny that it does for its newsroom pieces. John Solomon, the author of these sources, also has a pretty bad reputation in journalistic sources, being excoriated repeatedly by the highly esteemed CJR ([14]) and Erik Wemple (ex: [15]). I could go on. R2 (bleep) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Even worse than i thought. Solomon is a "contributor" to The Hill. Here's the application form to become a contributor. There's already consensus here that articles written by Hill contributors should be treated as self-published. See WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 00:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. The sources are clearly marked as "opinion". Furthermore, they're all authored by John Solomon, a partisan who has a long history of manufacturing fake controversies that all coincidentally insinuate wrong-doing by Democrats. So, no, they shouldn't be used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. He's shown at left among these clowns. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable for attributed opinion. But not for statements of fact. Special care is required, since his pieces are usually presented as investigative reports, when in fact they are marked as opinion, and he is an opinion contributor to The Hill. The view that his opinions are "manufacturing fake controversies" is itself a political opinion. The fact that that his work is marked as "opinion" and "not the view of the hill" does not show that these pieces are treated any differently than other opinion pieces in reliable sources. They should be used in accordance with the standard RS opinion policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, what opinion content are you referring to? Are you suggesting that all of the source content can be used as long as it’s attributed? R2 (bleep) 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo, I'm saying that the content is reliable for attributed opinion. Reliability isn't the only criterion for being used in an article. See WP:ONUS and WP: EXCEPTIONAL, etc. And I'm also saying that the arguments given above (namely: that he was pictured standing with some people that some of us dislike, that some of us disagree with his opinions, or that The Hill has stated that his opinions are not necessarily theirs, or that his non-opinion journalism has been criticized) are obviously not good reasons to treat this differently than we treat any RS opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my question. My question is how to apply your understanding of WP:V to the specific content in question. Of course Wookian hasn’t drafted any language, but they said they want to add “a brief summary of how the FBI used the Steele Dossier.” That sounds like factual content, not opinion, so your comments on attributable opinion don’t seem applicable. R2 (bleep) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would not object just on the basis of unreliability to using Solomon's work with attribution. Using it in this specific context might face other objections that are not relevant on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm not commenting on that. I think it's important to register, however, that Solomon's work is RS opinion, and that the arguments to the contrary above are very weak, even if his work is not usable in the context in question for some other reason. The current consensus, as noted on the summary page, is that opinion contributors at The Hill do not have appropriate editorial oversight. I'm unaware of any good evidence for this, and I think it should be changed. As far as I can tell, these opinion pieces in the Hill should be treated as RS opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand your position. So you're saying that everything in these sources should be treated as "RS opinion" rather than as factual reporting, and therefore citable with attribution (other policies aside), because The Hill has marked them as opinion? R2 (bleep) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, with two additional remarks: first, "other policies aside" is really important there--obviously opinion pieces in the Hill might be fringe or not prominent enough or irrelevant or undue or whatever. Second, it isn't just because the Hill has marked them as opinion; it's because The Hill is a reliable source, and so I'm deferring to the judgment of the editors at that publication. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"Manufacturing fake controversies" is right. Solomon's history of "journalism" is full of instances where he publishes stories that insinuate a controversy for a Democrat (always Democrats) by omitting basic information and crucial context that make clear that there is no controversy. The stories always fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny from reliable sources. [1][2][3][4][5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, the fact that his non-opinion journalism has been criticized does not seem to bear on whether his opinion pieces at the Hill are correctly regarded as reliable with attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not "criticism". The "stories" he publishes are just straight-up misleading and/or false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
He's been criticized. That's a perfectly appropriate word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - We already know that The Hill contributors are essentially unedited opinion columns, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Solomon himself has a reputation for journalistic credibility; to the contrary, he's apparently viewed within the profession as a partisan hack (as per above sources). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    So what? We cite partisan hacks all the time, if they have something noteworthy to say. Attributed of course. — JFG talk 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    The difference here is that the content sought to be added isn't some noteworthy opinion by an involved party, expert, or famous partisan hack. It's factual reporting by a discredited journalist, with the word "opinion" slapped onto it so that the publisher can avoid liability. R2 (bleep) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Kinda like Dan Rather, would you say? Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know Rather had that sort of reputation in the journalism community, but maybe. R2 (bleep) 03:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, of course it is political and controversial, just like with Solomon, and some people won't admit to this day that Rather did anything wrong. He had falsely reported that CBS had obtained and authenticated documents allegedly proving that George W. Bush had failed to live up to his obligations during his National Guard service. This was right about the time that he "retired" (or was forced out), and he's never taken responsibility. But, for all that, I'd be fine with someone citing an opinion piece he wrote in the Atlantic, as long as it met the other relevant criteria for inclusion and as long as it was attributed. Here's why: Wikipedia editors have to defer to the editorial judgment of the Atlantic, just like they have to defer to the editorical judgment of the Hill. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable – We include attributed opinions now and again. But, the source has to have some credibility. Article John Solomon (political commentator) uses cites to show quite the opposite. Opinions from someone with no evidence of credibility have no weight, unless it’s in an article about them. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable for his own views – Can be used with attribution, just like any opinion source. — JFG talk 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable with attribution - like any opinion piece in a RS. Atsme Talk 📧 01:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. As with all sources, he's reliable for his own opinion on his own article, but he's not reliable enough to be used anywhere else. It's rather sad how he used to be a good journalist, but his path has been downward for several years. Now he's extremely partisan, ignores proven facts, and spins everything in one direction, facts be damned. He'd be accepted on Fox News.
We are always tasked with rating sources as RS, opinion, and then fringe and counterfactual. We distribute weight accordingly between the first two, but leave out the last. He's in the last group. Differing opinions about facts are okay, but denying them or hiding them is not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Howell, Deborah (2007-01-28). "Deborah Howell - Accurate, but Not the Whole Story". ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-05-15.
  2. ^ "John Solomon Gives Us Less Than Meets the Eye -- Again". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
  3. ^ "Something fishy?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-05-15.
  4. ^ "Wash. Times' new executive editor, John Solomon, has history of distortion". Media Matters for America. 2008-01-15. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  5. ^ Wemple, Erik (2018-01-17). "Opinion | Staffers at The Hill press management about the work of John Solomon". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-01-23.

Salem-News; Salem-News.comEdit

Salem-News, (NOT the reputable Massachusetts newspaper, The Salem News,, and (NOT the defunct Oregon alt Weekly Salem Weekly The one I'm asking about is, [[Salem-News. The Salem-News bills itself as "Serving Oregon and the Pacific Northwest with Local, National and Worldwide News. The publisher is listed as Bonnie King, about whom I have found only that she is an Oregon activist who promoted RestoreHemp (a legalizaton campaign) on YouTube. Unusually for a local paper, the Salem-News has a "Cannabis" section. The other sections listed are innocuous-sounding stuff like "Road Report," "Weather", "Sports," and "Staff/". click [16] and the picture changes. This Oregon newspaper has correspondents all over the world, including 4 in Iran, 4 in Palestine, 16 in California. The list is not professionally edited: Vittorio Arrigoni is listed, although he died in 2008; "Kourosh Ziabari"'s name appears twice, reducing the number of correspondents in Iran to 3. Here's the search of his name on Wikipedia [17], and his Twitter page [18], which lists affiliations with 4 different publications, NONE of them the Salem-News. Foreign correspondents and journalists routinely list their affiliation on Twitter. I searched spot-checked the twitter pages of several writers listed s staff (many are not professional journalists, but, rather, are employed in other professions and many are described as activists,) and did not find any who mentioned the Salem-News. (Writers checked on twitter include Gilad Atzmon, Mazin Qumsiyeh) and Mamoon Alabbasi, whose twitter page [19], liss him as writing for The Arab Weekly. My suspicion is that this is less a newspaper than an aggregator of material published elsewhere, much of it unreliable propaganda for extremist and fringe points of view. At least one writer, "Dr. Alan Ned Sabrosky Ph.D. - (Professor, National & World Politics, Contributor) is known as a conspiracy theorist and a writer for the propaganda and conspiracy theory website Veterans Today. Also, I cannot find any SECONDARY coverage or this local newspaper. I have created quite a few articles on local U.S. newspapers, and have sourced others that turn up at AfD (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackson Herald). In my experience, it is just about always possible to source a local paper published in the U.S. Even newish ones , defunct ones, and small ethnic papers. The fact that I cannot find anything about this paper makes me seriously doubt its reliability as a source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Given she writes at least some of the content herself, not an RS. If it is worthy of inclusion it will appear somewhere else.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"possible to source a local paper published in the U.S. Even newish ones" a mere presence of independent sources isn't an indication of notability. It must meet the reliable and significant threshold. A reliable evidence of existence of subject organization/publication isn't a valid excuse for inclusion, because, per WP:NORG, a simple existence isn't notability, thus simply proving it exists is inadequate. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not remotely reliable. This is worse than an aggregator. This isn't a local newspaper - it is a website. I think it is known for conspiracy promotion - but I can't find that. However, if you run down their staff - staff - you'll get Kenneth O'Keefe (see SPLC), Gilad Atzmon (see HopeNotHate), and quite a few other red flags. They are also promoting the book of Robert O’Dowd (who seems to be on staff) - BETRAYAL: Toxic Exposure of U.S. Marines, Murder and Government Cover-Up - see Amazon jacket - [20] - whose character is quite clear. The site should probably be blacklisted. Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I support a blacklisting of the site. This discussion has identified several individuals known for promoting bad facts, hate mongering, and conspiracy theories. I have remove it form the page (Joe Meadors) where I found it used as a source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Problem. keying "Salem-News" into the Wikipedia search bar takes you to the reputable Massachusetts newspaper The Salem News, which could mislead our readers .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source. Support blacklisting (and general cleaning up of these sources throughout Wikipedia). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • support a blacklisting of the site. Don't use personal webpages as if they were WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: IMDbEdit

Should IMDb (Internet Movie Database) be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which tells User:XLinkBot to automatically revert edits containing citations of IMDb in <ref> tags by unregistered users and accounts under 7 days old? This behavior is subject to additional limitations described at User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. Most of IMDb is user-generated and unusable for Wikipedia articles, as established by 12 previous discussions on this noticeboard. Despite this, many less experienced editors continue to cite IMDb inappropriately, which introduces violations of the verifiability and living persons policies into articles on a regular basis. Adding IMDb to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList would slow the addition of these inappropriate citations.

    New editors and unregistered users who add a reference to IMDb would be reverted by User:XLinkBot, as seen in Special:Diff/897360391 for Discogs. XLinkBot would then send the user a talk page warning that looks like Special:Diff/897360410. The warning tells the user to undo the bot's revert if they believe the edit was appropriate.

    The RevertReferencesList is currently used to reduce inappropriate citations to Discogs (RSP entry) and Crunchbase (RSP entry). External links to IMDb, which are encouraged in WP:ELP § IMDb, are not affected by this proposed measure. This RfC is the continuation of a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § IMDB. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes I did not know such a thing existed, given this is a user generated content site Yes, yes we should.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - It has been well established that IMDB is not a reliable source and, like Wikipedia, virtually anyone can edit it. DarkKnight2149 18:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic f yeah it's not even that "virtually" anyone can edit it - anyone can edit it and to remove false content (lord knows I've tried, repeatedly) is next to impossible. And also maybe an AWB bot run would be nice to remove it from any existing articles as a reference and replace it with CN.Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: I've had similar experiences. For some reason, the site allows to people to post information without proof, but it's policy you have to prove that it's not true in order for it to be removed. What kind of an information base is that? In one particular instance, someone posted their non-factual subjective opinion of a movie in the "Trivia" section but put an obligatory "It's considered..." in front of it. I tried to have it removed on those grounds, but the change was denied because of their backwards "proof" policy :/ DarkKnight2149 07:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can do better than that! I once contacted IMDb, with proof, that one series in their listing contained a fictitious episode that did not exist, and it was still rejected because "EpGuides (another site that doesn't have perfect trackrecord) agrees with IMDb's current info". So even if you give them proof, IMDb still won't fix wrong stuff! --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If anything I would support reverting anything by non-extended confirmed and/or notification about why this is a bad reference for anyone. It is a great external link so I wouldn't support blacklist but anything we can do to discourage/prevent its use as a serious reference should be done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – IMDb is not a reliable source for anything, which is frequently a source of confusion for new editors. This is a great idea. – bradv🍁 18:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would support this, for all the reasons outlined. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Sir Joseph (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, provided it doesn't affect IMDb-affiliated places such as Box Office Mojo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Please ~ as per everyone above i think, inc. Newslinger, bradv and Barkeep49. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - It would save editors the effort of reverting such poor sources on TV/Movie pages. Esuka (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes anyone can edit IMDb, having the reliability of a personal blog. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - I didn't know that imdb was mostly user-generated and used it with impunity when I first started doing edits. It would have been useful to have some sort of alert about this, in the same way that you are informed about various vanity publishing houses. Also, an additional question - Is the use of imdb discouraged in citing any sort of information or just some? Can it be used, for example, in stubs about obscure films to source the year the film was launched or its length, or even the film's very existence, when a better source isn't available? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Citing IMDb states that it's okay to use IMDb for writing credits that are directly supplied by the Writers Guild of America and for MPAA ratings reasons that are directly supplied by the Motion Picture Association of America. For released films, citing running times is "disputed", and IMDb would definitely not count toward a film's notability. — Newslinger talk 17:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. Well, maybe the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb page should be linked in the alert received by users that are trying to use imdb as a resource. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    I should also mention WikiProject Film's guidance on questionable sources, which discourages the use of IMDb in general, but says that it can be a good tool to help editors find more reliable sources to cite. I don't think it's possible to customize the warning message at the moment, but an entry can be added to User:XLinkBot/Reversion reasons (which is linked to from User:XLinkBot) to explain this to editors. — Newslinger talk 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Surely there are other sources for this information?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I've checked several featured articles of recent films, and it looks like the MPAA rating is usually not included in a film's article unless it was mentioned by reliable sources. The credits can reference official listings published by film companies, TV companies, or other distributors. It's also acceptable omit a citation for the credits, which implies that the credits were sourced from the film itself as a primary source, much like the track listing in album articles. — Newslinger talk 18:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
So we lose nothing by the above suggestion, and avoid any wiklaywering about "butitsreliableforthisism".Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be best to avoid citing IMDb completely. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes of course, and, yes, again per all^^^ ——SerialNumber54129 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. If IMDb is so bad, why is it cited by The New York Times [21]? wumbolo ^^^ 12:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One should note that the New York Times no longer "fact checks" its own articles, as the era of old-time newspapers has faded. That it used sources Wikipedia declines to use does not suddenly make such sources reliable. What it does do is make the "guaranteed reliable sources" no longer able to be guaranteed. They even abolished the Public Editor position with its head saying our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog. Anyone care to defend that statement? Collect (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The New York Times has different goals and a different purpose than Wikipedia. In this context, it's what we would consider a WP:SECONDARY source - it has its own fact-checking mechanisms and reputation, and the journalists it employs are notionally experts, capable of providing interpretation on their own. None of that applies to Wikipedia - we rely on secondary sources like the NYT to provide interpretation and fact-checking for us. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Because we are not discussing it. Moreover I can write for IMDB, I cannot write for the NYT.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 20 mule team yes. It is bad enough that their fact checking is minimal at best but getting them to fix an error is maddening and occasionally impossible. Here you can contact an editor who has posted something to an article - at IMDb you can't get to an individual at all. MarnetteD|Talk 15:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – Proven unreliable over and over again. — JFG talk 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would certainly favor a bot that alerted editors to our guidance on citing IMDb, but I hesitate when it comes to automated removal of citations. The problem with automated bots is that they don’t deal with exceptions well. Can this bot tell when a citation to IMDb falls into one of the rare exceptions mentioned at WP:citing IMDb? If not, then we have to continue to manually sort the good from the bad. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, the bot doesn't identify these exceptions, but the talk page message (example: Special:Diff/897360410) that accompanies the revert tells the editor to undo the revert if the edit is acceptable: "If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert." Also, as I discussed with Slatersteven above, MPAA ratings are usually not mentioned unless covered by a different reliable source, and it's not necessary to cite IMDb for the writing credits, because the film itself can be used as a primary source for this information. Since citations of IMDb are either inappropriate or unnecessary, I think this proposal is a net positive. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hell yeah. Self-explanatory. JOEBRO64 00:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Go on. Sincerely, Masum Reza📞 18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The website being user-generated makes it obviously unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?Edit

For the past few weeks the page Polish Jews has seen back and forth reverts over the inclusion of this source (bibliographical entry). It's a book collecting essays by a number of historians (mostly Polish) or Polish expats, ex. Chodakiewicz himself, Piotr Gontarczyk, Peter Stachura, John Radzilowski, Waldemar Chrostowski) on Polish Jewish history. It has been challenged mostly by User:Icewhiz who pointed out (and who'll likely elaborate on his criticism shortly) that: 1) one of the two co-editors for this, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, has been described by some sources as right-wing activist (my counter: he is nonetheless a professor at some American institutions, his works are cited and reviewed in international academia). The other co-editor for this is relatively uncontroversial Polish scholar Wojciech Muszyński 2) the book seems to have received two relatively negative academic reviews (seen in the paragraph describing this book at MJC bio page; another review [22] has been claimed to be negative as well, but I don't have a copy of it and Icewhiz did not reply to my request to share his copy of it that was posted on the Talk:Polish Jews; I'll also note that this particular review by Krzywiec might be in turn criticized in the letter to the editor published here). The only positive review I've found is non-acdemic in Polish-langage popular history Histmag web magazine/portal. My reply to the relatively negative reviews found is that while the book has been described as having an agenda (likely, right wing and Polish nationalistic), it is nonetheless cited and engaged with by other scholars as part of an academic discourse, and the reviews, while pointing out that bias, are themselves also likely biased, and the do not suggest that this is some Holocaust denial revisionist crap - just a biased, but not unreliable, collection of essays. 3) Finally, Icewhiz has pointed that the book is published by Leopold Press, a small printing press associated with the Institute of World Politics, and that Leopold Press is run by Chodakiewicz, thus raising an issue of potential self-publishing. My reply to this is that it's a minor, but still, academic press, and that while there is some minor COI here, we have no proof that peer review or such were not done. (Polish edition of the book was released by a minor publishing house the facto that I can't find much about, so it's not a great sign, I'll admit). Overall, however, my view is that the book is not self-published (a number of reverts just argued 'removing SPS' and such) and that it can be cited, as long as the author of a particular essay is clearly attributed for any statement that may be seen as controversial or extraordinary. Further comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not remotely reliable. A few points:
  1. To treat this as a RS means we can label, as fact, multiple mainstream academia BLPs and whole academic disciplines as "Neo-Stalinist" - as this is stated as a fact in the book (in a whole chapter devoted to this topic- pages 239-257).
  2. The Facto is a very small and obscure Publishing house in Poland. It does not generally publish academic texts as is quite evident in book depository - even just judging by the cover art - starting with the ugly cover art of our book here, going through a book on a soccer star, and to top it all off - this one with nude (to be precise - they do have shoes and socks) people dancing (uncensored - includes breast shot).
  3. Even The Institute of World Politics, a very-very small (~150 students, and new - founded in 90s) marginal institution which is a recruiting pool for the CIA[1] (IWP offers mainly programs in statecraft and national security - and is a short drive from Langley) - did not publish this - they actually have Institute Of World Politics Press - which I'm not sure would qualify as a RS for academic publishing - but that's separate matter - did not publish.
  4. The book was self-published in English by Leopolis Press. As Leopolis Press states (hosted on (more in a bit)) - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.". A search in worldcat brings up approx. 5 books "published" under this label - a significant chunk of them with Chodakiewicz listed as an author.
  5. Another editor of the volume was per his LinkedIn a student at IWP at the time of publishing. Presently he is at Federation for American Immigration Reform - which is classified by the SPLC as a hate group with ties to "white supremacist hate groups".[23][24]
  6. There is no indication that this book was peer-reviewed in a reputable manner (reputable reviewers, reputable editors).
  7. Lest we grow too enamored with the "Kościuszko Chair" - it itself is a subject of controversy. The chair, founded in 1998, was originally at the University of Virginia. After UVA declined to give Chodakiewicz (received his PhD in 2001, worked in 2001-3 in UVA under the auspices of the chair but did not hold it) an academic position, and wanted to appoint an esteemed scholar to the chair, the donor behind the chair balked and UVA itself pulled its support (didn't provide matching funds). The chair then left UVA, and moved to the very new and small IWP (this was coupled with a fund-raising drive for the require 2 million dollars to fully fund the chair - which I'm not sure was completed (some sources refer to this as partially funded)) - see this paper or this description at - the donor. Chodakiewicz was then appointed to the chair in IWP.
  8. Chodakiewicz - has been mired in controvesy since the beginning of his academic career - there's no need to take my word here - as Chodakiewicz himself, in 2019 published in Tygodnik Solidarność about his struggles with "neo-Stalinists" - starting from his time as a PhD student, going through his short stint at UVA (where there were calls by "neo-stalinists" to get him fired), and persisting through his career. Chodakiewicz, however, notes that (google-translate): "In the Polish People's Republic, under Soviet occupation, my family taught me not to be afraid, I will not be afraid in the USA. For now, they do not put in jail, like my father, even for Solidarity, or grandparents for AK and PSL. I have neo-Stalinists and other leftists and, in general, the forces of evil in the nose in every latitude".
  9. In Reliable sources, Chodakiewicz is described as a far-right activist.[2] His has been profiled extensively by the SPLC in 2009,[3] and 2017.[4] As noted in these sources, Chodakiewicz regularly writes in far-right Polish publications (in Polish) - e.g. "Chodakiewicz is a frequent contributor to several Polish publications, such as the weekly Najwyzszy Czas! (The Time is Now!). That's the magazine of the Real Politics Union party, a fringe, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-property rights, anti-income tax group. It often uses anti-Semitic stereotypes on its pages, according to a Tel Aviv University global "Anti-Semitism Survey." It was in this magazine, in November 2007, that he wrote critically about gays. "If everything is equal, if there is no difference, for example, between Christianity and cannibalism, then — according to the argument of those who have an interest in it — homosexuals should be treated as a norm, so they should have equal rights. In reality it is not about equal rights, but about special privileges. The biological norm is about prolonging the species. A deviation from the norm can not be a norm.".[3] Najwyzszy Czas! is noted by others to have published convicted Holocaust denier Dariusz Ratajczak frequently.[5] He has written that Obama was "Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists",[3] Speaking at a far-right rally in Poland, he said: "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[2] Per the SPLC he has also written on the White genocide conspiracy theory.[3]
  10. To a large extent, he has stopped publishing academically in English. Coverage of him in an academic context has not been favorable. One of his more recent books on Intermarium (advocating the "return" of a large Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) was described as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies".[6] His views on Jews - "Chodakiewicz's work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing[7], "Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian in the postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflication as an explanation and justfication of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland"[8]
  11. This has not been treated as an academic work by anyone. It has been treated as a controversy (due to the very far out claims in the book - both in relation to Jews, and in other contexts - in particular the statement of fact that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s.. Due to the extremeness of the claims - two academics wrote scathing reviews,[9][10] and the work has been studied as a topic - a controversy - in a journal article.[1]
  12. Many of the authors in the book do not have an academic reputation at all. The author of the chapter Piortus wants to use is noted in the journal article covering the controversy as "It seems that it is not a coincidence that [Barbara] Gorczycka-Muszyńska has the same surname as another author and editor of the collection" (and I was unable, as Krzywiec was unable, to find any publications from her in an academic context), another author - Tania C. Mastrapa - runs "Mastrapa Consultants – a company, which according to her short biography, restitutes property on Cuba" and authored a chapter comparing Cuban property to the situation post-war Poland (the author of the journal article deemed fit to sarcastically quote this from the book - "The situation in Cuba is in a way similar to the situation of humiliated wives in the past. It often happened that the husband, who constrained his wife, did not let her study, work outside home or drive a car. Her role was to work, obviously for free, for the sake of the family. She was not allowed to participate in making budget decisions or any other decisions for the money belonged to the husband. Such a woman lived devoid of respect and dignity. In turn the husband wanted her ..... Similarly to that endangered husband who wants to criticize his wife and does not want to give her personal freedom, the Castro regime does not want its property (i.e. the Cubans) to be free […]. When the Cubans recover their freedom they will become lawful owners of real estate and moveable property[1] (read academic much?! Should we place this in, say, Cuba?).
  13. There are red flags on most notable and semi-notable authors of these essays as well - these could be enumerated, though are probably irrelevant unless we are discussing there chapters. I will note that one author (of two separate chapters) - Mark Paul - is published under a pseudonym according to Chodakiewicz himself who notes that Paul is anonymous "Mainly because he does not want (yes, it's a man) to meet my fate. Mark Paul has a dependent family, home and professional life".[25] How many academic works publish anonymous authors? No sane academic publisher would carry this. It bears mentioning we discussed Paul previously on RSN: RSN 241 and in this RfC (published also on RSN) decided to exclude Paul based on reliability concerns.
Even when academically published by a reputable publishing house (mainly in his early career, seems lately - not so much) - Chodakiewicz is a highly questionable source due to scathing reviews and coverage of Chodakiewicz's academic writings by others (in actual WP:RSes - to a large extent, when cited, Chodakiewicz is cited as an example of the extreme viewpoint). When Chodakiewicz is self-published in English (Leopolis being the definition of self-publishing) or in obscure (or in some case - not obscure but far-right media) Polish language outlets - there's no way to consider him remotely as a RS - if we were - then most of US academia (including historians, of course) are "neo-Stalinists" (a whole chapter in the work in question here), Obama is a "Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists"", Gays - are well - all sorts of things, and so forth and so on. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


A sources bias is not an issue that affects RS, being unreliable is. Is there any evidence of factual errors? |I will add we do not need to use English language sources, and that as long as it was published (in it native tongue) by a reputable (size is not an issue) publishing house SPS is a red herring.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Polish publishing house is not reputable. The English is self-published. The book states as a fact that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. (going on to describe how this persists to this day - including naming multiple historians as "neo-stalinists") - does this sound factually accurate? The journal article by Krzywiec covering the controversy enumerates a long list of issues, and notes in summary that "There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11 But could this McCarthyism drenched in the East European “sauce” with the whole peculiar, local color; this “information depositary,” as Chodakiewicz and Muszyński state in the introduction, worthy of 1930s right-wing political leaflets and then slightly filtered through the 2011 Poland political correctness, survive anywhere else abroad?" "This collection is more like the material for a seminar of linguists or even scholars of rhetoric and propaganda. The book will not be good nourishment for readers interested in the Holocaust and its third phase, i.e. the basic topics of the essays by Jan Tomasz Gross and Irena Grudzińska-Gross.. I'll also note that, as the review states, the book is very light on facts or research of any kind - it is for the most part polemic essays from a moral standpoint, and not historical writing. One of the authors is a priest (himself a topic of study in this field, the chapter is titled "Moral Dilemmas in Turbulent Times" - described as a "pseudo-theological lecture"). We generally presume sources are unreliable unless proven otherwise - red flags around this self-published work abound.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
" which is a recruitment pool of the CIA" - LOL. So, how many sooper sekrit agents did this "marginal research centre" actually produce for the CIA? Oh wait! I know - we'll never know! It's sekrit! Gimme a frakkin break. If anything, a source that utilizes ridiculous and laughable conspiracy theories is the one which should be questioned here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
IWP is mainly known for employing Sebastian Gorka,[26] and for many students being CIA - Newsweek: "the Institute of World Politics, a boutique graduate school for wannabe spies and national security nerds in Washington, D.C.".[27].Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
And if we don't believe an academic journal and Newsweek, well, IWP says so themelves in multiple places, e.g. - Employers of IWP Alumni - CIA, DIA, FBI are top 3 (no, not alphabetic - Booz Allen is down below).Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Danusha Goska (lamenting on how this book is a poor response to "Brute Polak" - a topic on which she has studied and had published in Academic Studies Press - Goska, Danusha Veronica. Bieganski: The Brute Polak Stereotype, Its Role in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture. Academic Studies Press, 2010.[28]):
  1. English errors: "This book has more errors in basic English than any other scholarly book I have read ... The Brute Polak stereotype communicates that Poles are inept, uneducated, chauvinists. The many errors in this text could be used, in the wrong hands, to support that stereotype.
  2. Stalinist accusations:: "As readers will suspect, these errors are reflective of larger problems. Most grievously, ‘Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?’ accuses several prominent Polish-studies scholars of Stalinism" ... "Squandering Polonia's energies in fruitless witch-hunts, using paranoia to turn one Polish-American on another, prevents Polonia from uniting and responding strategically to the Brute Polak stereotype."
  3. factual errors: "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? repeatedly identifies Princeton professor Jan Tomasz Gross as the source of the Brute Polak stereotype. This is factually incorrect, and it disserves Polonia. Gross' oeuvre includes a previous work, Revolution from Abroad, that educates the reader about the little-known Soviet occupation of Poland. Too, the Brute Polak stereotype existed before Jan Tomasz Gross was born" ... "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? implies that Jews and leftists are responsible for the Brute Polak stereotype ..... Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost one hundred years ago, Madison Grant and Kenneth L. Roberts were just two of many anti-Communist and arch-Nordic Americans who disseminated immensely influential depictions of Brute Polaks.
  4. qualifications of authors: "Only two of the fourteen authors are PhDs currently employed at universities. The selections do not follow the paradigm of scholarly articles: they do not advance a single thesis and then attempt to prove that thesis through original, peer-reviewed research. Rather, the articles ramble; they are replete with rhetorical questions. Necessary citations are absent. The index is woefully inadequate. The authors comment on stereotypes in popular American culture, yet none are scholars of stereotypes or of American culture, and none cite previous research on stereotypes of Poles in America.".
  5. Denial of the Kielce pogrom: "The book works very hard to produce the impression that Poles have ‘hearts of Gold’ and that they weren't all that antisemitic before World War Two broke out, and that during the war Poles, for the most part, helped Jews. Perhaps the nadir of this aspect of the book is when the 1946 Kielce Pogrom is referred to using scare quotes that suggest either that the pogrom never happened, or that it was not really a pogrom (320). Ethical Poles have acknowledged since 1946 that the Kielce Pogrom happened, that it was carried out by Poles, and that patriotic Poles will resist the kind of anti-Semitism that produced it."
So yes - there are a few errors. Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Poor copyediting is not an academic-level error (of reasoning).
  2. "Stalinist accusation" is an opinion. Just like some sources have criticized the academics who published in this book for being right-wing or such, the criticism of a single scholar who in his essay published in this book accused some of his opponents of being neo-stalinists is an opinion. If you disagree with either (or support it), it your opinion, and does not make it a factual error.
  3. First, I will note that we are not discussing the Brute Polak stereotype here (or in any other place). Anyway. One scholar in the book has made a claim that Brute Polak stereotype has been created by Gross. Another that you cite disagrees. Clearly, it's a matter of academic debate who is right, and we don't get to decide whether this is factual error or not. IF we were using this book as a source for Brute Polak topic, I would fully support noting that another scholar explicitly disagrees with the claim presented in it. But neither, likely, is the final word or authority on this.
  4. "Only two of the fourteen authors are PhDs currently employed at universities" claim is in itself debatable and dubious. At the very list, AFAIK now Chodakiewicz, Stachura, Radzilowski and Chrostowski are "PhDs currently employed at universities", and based on their age, I'd be surprised if they weren't in 2011. So on the subject of factual error, I'd point that the review you are using to debunk this book is itself a good candidate for debunking and finding factual errors in it. Further, some scholars can be employed at research institutes, not universities, and yet still be quite reliable (ex Piotr Gontarczyk who works at the Institute of National Remembrance). I haven't looked at the full list of authors for that book, but as I said on talk earlier, we should attribute opinions to individual scholars. If some of them are less reliable than others (ex. the mysterious Mark Paul, who may be a pseudonym of a group, hard to be sure...), we can agree not to cite them. Lastly, one scholar's judgement on who is an expert on a given field is also an opinion. To claim that none of the authors have expertise on the field of stereotypes is rather unfair. Radzilowski for example co-authored/edited the James Ciment; John Radzilowski (17 March 2015). American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-47716-7. which discusses some stereotypes. And to quote from this academic article "Historians Thaddeus Radzilowski and John Radzilowski also have discussed the anti-working-class content in derogatory anti-Polish stereotypes". So yeah, factual errors abound - but while they may exist in the book, they are also hardly absent in the review you cite. Lastly. The reviewer author who makes this claim about the book problem being its inclusion of authors who are not PhDs employed at universities was not always a PhD employed at university either. From [29]: "Danusha V. Goska: is the daughter of Eastern European immigrants. She has published on Eastern European and other matters in a variety of popular and scholarly journals. She holds an MA from UC Berkeley and a PhD from Indiana University, Bloomington. She now cleans houses for a living." (no, seriously, this seems how she describes herself in mid-2000s, since those academic blurbs are submitted by paper authors themselves). Through from early 2010s she is a adjunct professor William Paterson University (in the Women's and Gender Studies department [30]). Let's leave aside the inderdisciplinary issues in the fields (I have no problem with someone from the 'Women's and Gender Studies' publishing on seemingly irrelevant topics of Polish-Jewish history or offering opinions on Polish research into the Holocaust), but when we talk about minor scholars, Goska's resume is hardly more impressive than that of the individuals she criticizes. Chodakiewicz himself is also an adjunct ([31]) at another minor school (through I think his college is less reputable than her university). But Radzilowski at Alaska-SW, whom she criticizes so much in her review, is an Associate Professor, so [32] so if we were to go by rank, well, there's that. And Chrostowski, for example, is a full professor (highest rank) in Poland: [33]. Rank is not everything, but since you brought such criticism up, well.
  5. Opinion again. And again generalizing an possible error/bias from a single chapter to the entire book (are ALL of the essays using those quotes?). And even the review you are quoting doesn't say that anyone publishing in it is denying that the Kielce pogrom events occurred, it's your own negative view of the source that makes you accuse the authors of "Kielce pogrom denial". Without reading the source text, and considering the errors/bias present in the review, I would hardly agree with the view that the book is 'denying' that the Kielce pogrom happened, by the virtue of that presumably in at least one place it tales about the event using quotations marks. Through, in all honestly, considering the book bias, it may well be that some of the authors there are trying some form of reframing of the event. How to frame and describe this event, including issues such as anti-semitism in Poland, Soviet involvement in that, etc. is still very much an issue being debated by scholars, and it's not Holocaust denial or anti-semitism to question the use of the word pogrom in some circumstances. Not that I am saying I have ever seen a convincing argument that Kielce pogrom shouldn't be called a pogrom, but I wouldn't outright reject a paper which would try to make such an argument without reading it beforehand. But in any case, I don't think anyone is suggesting we should start questioning the usage of the word pogrom in Kielce context on Wikipedia, using this or any other source, so it's again is a straw men argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The origins of "Brute Polack" may be of some debate - but saying this started with Gross is clearly false - it dates more than a 100 years back. Goska, having literally written the book on the topic, is qualified to say this claim in the self published book is an outright falsehood. "Stalinist accusation" is not an opinion - there is a whole chapter in this self published book on this. As for PHDs in universities... IWP is not a university by any stretch of any definition. Chrostowski is a highly criticized priest (in relation to his comments on Jews), was he in a Catholic University in 2011? He definitely is not an authority outside of bible studies. Jewish-Polish relations are a topic written extensively by top tier scholars - we should not be even discussing a source of this highly dubious nature, which is not academic by any stretch.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz summarized the issues with Chod. and this book well. I've only a few notes:
  1. Chod. is not "described by some sources as right-wing" - he is described by virtually all leading sources as a nationalist or as supporting nationalist themes, with some explicitly stating that he's an antisemite (see summary at BLPNB)
  2. Despite the generic "big" names ("Institute of World Politics"...), the two institutions where he teaches are relatively minor. The story of how he got there (see Icewhiz's comments) tells you how just sweeping his rejection in mainstream academia is.
  3. @Slatersteven: Profound bias is an issue of reliability, as in the simplest terms - you can't trust the source to give you the truth. Other than that see Goska's review, parts of which Icewhiz cites above.
François Robere (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If only Goska didn't clearly have an ax of her own to grind... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Against whom? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm failing to see WHAT this source is attempting to be used for - the exact information. I tried looking on the talk page but it was the usual mess of accusations/edit warring/long posts with little actual content relating to the article. Please, someone post the exact information that this source is being proposed to be used for. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh ffs. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to declare a source not-RS. A source may be biased and still be reliable. If there are concerns about bias, then we just make sure to attribute. This is an academic source and easily qualifies for reliability. This is, like, RS101. The notion that it's not reliable is ridiculous and reflection of Icewhiz's WP:TENDENTIOUS approach to editing in this area, nothing more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself... "I'm failing to see WHAT this source is attempting to be used for - the exact information. I tried looking on the talk page but it was the usual mess of accusations/edit warring/long posts with little actual content relating to the article. Please, someone post the exact information that this source is being proposed to be used for." ... would the various parties stop discussing each other and answer the question... briefly and succiently. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a large number of sources as well as versions being discussed. However the WP:STABLE version is from 12 March. This diff from 11 May is one of the versions being edit warred. It replaces content sources to peer reviewed journal articles, Cambridge University Press, Palgrave, Oxford University Press - some of the sources widely cited and well received in reviews:

The Polish government enacted legislation on "abandoned property", placing severe limitations on inheritance not present in pre-war inheritance law which allowed inheritance by second-degree relatives, limiting restitution to the original owners or direct heirs. The unprecedented rate of extermination of Polish Jews in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis suggests "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property".[1] Polish officials did not conceal this, the formulators of the law argued that it was necessary to prevent wealth concentration in the hands of "unproductive and parasite factors".[1] The initial 1945 decrees were superseded by a 1946 law,[2] with a claims deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state.[3] Even if Jews regained de-jure control, when it was occupied by Poles additional lengthy proceedings were required.[4] The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax.[5] Many surviving Polish Jews in the USSR were repatriated only after the end of the claims deadline in 1948, and Polish officials blocked return of Jews from DP camps.[3] While it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back, the number was extremely small. [6]


  1. ^ a b Weizman, Yechiel (2 January 2017). "Unsettled possession: the question of ownership of Jewish sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a local perspective". Jewish Culture and History. 18 (1): 34–53. doi:10.1080/1462169X.2016.1267853 – via Taylor and Francis+NEJM.
  2. ^ Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48, Cambridge University Press, Anna Cichopek-Gajraj, page 72
  3. ^ a b The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust, Palgrave, page 101
  4. ^ Searching for Justice After the Holocaust: Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration and Immovable Property Restitution, Oxford University Press, page 325
  5. ^ false Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48, Cambridge University Press, Anna Cichopek-Gajraj, page 82
  6. ^ Shattered Spaces, Harvard University Press, page 52

with various other content - some of which is sourced to Polish language microhistories (those I've attempted to verify - e.g. Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Krzyżanowski and Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Skibińska actually have opposite conclusions) and some of which is sourced to Hearts of gold (which I did not attempt to verify - as this non-academic text self-published by a SPLC designated individual is not remotely reliable) - the bits sourced from Heats of gold read:

Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their relatives, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures.[1] Until remaining abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures.[2][3]

Although municipal court rulings did not confer immediate ownership on someone who was not a dispossessed owner, successful claimants were able to sell the properties immediately following revendication.[4]

@Ealdgyth: - see above. Some of the text source to Hearts of Gold is not incorrect in and of itself (e.g. the dates of decrees) - what is missing is more in the way of ommission (e.g. the simplified procedure only was opened to "direct-line" heirs (e.g. sons - not cousins), granted only a court order of "possession" and not "ownership" - such possession not being backed up with eviction of the invaders in the property, the violence/murders and threat thereof that compelled those who got such orders (most - per Skibińska for instance, who notes that those in possession of the Jewish houses were at times involved in murdering the occupants - did not even try for fear of violence) to sell immediately the property to the invaders occupying in the house (at a very low price), expenses for the initial decree were not high in and of themselves - the followup procedures to actually gain ownership (as opposed to "possession") and evict the invaders - were very expensive. The low rate of actual return of properties.Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Marek Jan Chodakiewicz; Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński; Paweł Styrna (2012). Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Leopolis Press. pp. 225–230. ISBN 978-0-9824888-1-2.
  2. ^ Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. pp. 73–75. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6.
  3. ^ Marek Jan Chodakiewicz; Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński; Paweł Styrna (2012). Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Leopolis Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-9824888-1-2.
  4. ^ Marek Jan Chodakiewicz; Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński; Paweł Styrna (2012). Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Leopolis Press. pp. 229–230. ISBN 978-0-9824888-1-2.
Okay. So. It's not:
Marek Jan Chodakiewicz; Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński; Paweł Styrna (2012). Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Leopolis Press. pp. 225–230. ISBN 978-0-9824888-1-2.
which is being cited. I got a copy of the book through Kindle Unlimited and the pages 225-230 are actually:
Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska (2012). "Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law". In Marek Jan Chodakiewicz; Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński; Paweł Styrna (eds.). Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews. Washington, DC: Leopolis Press. pp. 223–231. ISBN 978-0-9824888-1-2.
This is actually pretty damn important because much of the verbiage above about Chodakiewicz doesn't actually mean much when the author of the piece is someone else and Chodakiewicz is just the editor. A Google scholar search for Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska shows just two mentions - one a review of Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold, and one in Polish which appears to just be the same author of the English review doing a review in a Polish-language journal. There do not appear to be any works indexed in Google Scholar which cite this particular essay. From this review it appears Gorczycka-Muszynska is a judge? Although - given the other titles of articles in the sidebar on the International Research Center ("Insiders Outsiders:Dilemas of EAst Europen Jewy;An Exotic Rarity: A Jewish Scholar Accepts Collective Jewish Accountability for the Crimes of the ZYDOKOMUNA (Judeo-Bolshevism)" or "Jews and modern capitalism by Werner Sombart;Jewish Economic Successes, Jewish Habits, Accusations of Cheating, and the Jewish Intellect" ... and I note that ALL of the articles I sampled on that site were written by one person... which doesn't exactly give one confidence in the site or it's research skills (hopefully they are better than their English language skills)). Being a judge and the lack of other scholars citing this study, does tend to make it a bit undue, whether or not it's reliable. Generally, judges aren't the best historians. I also did a bit of digging in my own library - and uncovered:
Dariusz Stola (2008). "The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property". In Martin Dean; Constantin Goschler; Philipp Ther (eds.). Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe. New York: Berghahn Books and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. pp. 240–258. ISBN 978-1-84545-593-4. - (a google scholar search shows this cited 6 times)
which appears to have a different view of the situation. Stola points out that first - the claimants to property had to prove "they were the only surviving person entitled to inherit, which was no easy task when no official death records were available" (page 245). Aslo noted is the fact that the expedited procedures only applied to spouses/siblings/grandparents/parents/children/grandchildren - other relatives were not eligible for these expedited procedures. Stola also points out that these expeditated procedures only gave the claimant "possession" of the property, not actual title to the property. Stola also points out several instances where the government made it clear that it desired to avoid the concentration of wealth in a few hands, including foreigners. (p. 244). So it's clear that at the very least, Gorczycka-Muszynska would need attribution, as its not the only interpretation of the situation out there. Given the lack of citations to the work, it very well may be undue to even use it with attribution, as it does not appear to have made much impact in the scholarly corpus. In general, I find that the publisher for Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold is definitely not a hgih level scholarly press - World Cat only shows 5 works put out by it. From this, it appears to have been a small press started by a now-deceased professor, and it now is controlled by the Kościuszko Chair at the Institute of World Politics. While it's not strictly speaking a self-published source, it's definitely not showing any signs of being something along the lines of Cambridge University Press, or even something like the University of Virginia Press. Taking everything together - this particular essay doesn't seem utterly unreliable but it's not exactly highly cited either - there should be better sources out there for such a contentious topic (which, Stola, at least, makes clear is a highly complex and very politicized issue that needs careful research and discussion - not bald statements favoring any one side). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Stola (as several other mainstream scholars in mainstream presses - e.g. Shattered Spaces) is a good source. You missed that Chodakiewicz is also the publisher as Leopolis (indeed set up by the relatives of a deceased professor to publish his memoirs shortly after his death, but afterwards taken over by Chodakiewicz) states: "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.". The judge, AFAICT, never published anything else in an academic context (Also noted by the journal article (on Golden Hearts) that says she has the same surname as an editor of this piece).Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Also - in terms of politics - while this an issue for the Polish far right, which recently held one of the largest antisemitic rallies in recent times over Jewish property - see AP - there is no political disagreement over this outside of Poland (Terezin being signed by 47 countries, mostly implemented outside of Poland). In published mainstream academia there are no substantial disagreement on what happened in 1944-50 in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Terazin declaration is a non binding political statement,it has no legal power to be "implemented" and in fact several countries have withdrawn from it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As to Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold, this seems a reliable publication, perhaps not of highest statues of recognition, but written by notable and reliable scholarly authorts.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Which req. of WP:SCHOLARSHIP does it satisfy? François Robere (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth: Thanks for looking into this. I wasn't able to get my own copy of the book, but as I suggested on talk, we should discuss the authors of specific chapters rather then editors indeed. I generaly concur with you that a judge with no record of previous scholalry research is not the best source, through we have to consider that her essay is published 3 years later than Stola's. Overall I am leaning to the view that this topic should be split of into a subarticle. In it, I think she can be cited, if attributed. Would you concur? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Were there any major changes in the legal status of Jewish property etc. between 2008 and 2011? François Robere (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Polish law doesn't discriminate or give privileged status to any group based on racial or ethnic group.Such discrimination is forbidden by Polish Constitution. All property claims are treated equally, regardless of the ethnicity of the claimant.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what I asked or with this discussion... François Robere (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually it addresses the question appropriately, in that it highlights the fact that your question makes no sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As kind as always! Claiming one source is preferable over the the other because of recency assumes a knowledge gap between the two, ie that significant discoveries have been made or the studied phenomena has changed between the publication dates of both sources. The validity of this argument depends on the on the history and rate of change of the particular field; WWII and Holocaust studies are stable enough that a three year gap is usually insignificant, hence my question about any major changes in law that would make it so, and hence make one source preferable over the other in terms of "up-to-dateness". François Robere (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the view that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies of the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski & Pawel Styrna (Leopolis Press, 2012) is an academic source and easily qualifies for reliability. The notion that it is a self-published book or an unreliable source is baseless. It’s an English language version of a book that was published by The Facto, a Warsaw publishing house (, in March 2011 under the title Złote serca, czy złote żniwa?: Studia nad wojennymi losami Polaków i Żydów. The book in question is a collection of essays by 14 authors. In addition to Chodakiewicz (Institute of World Politics), the authors include professional historians and academics such as Waledmar Chrostowski (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University), Piotr Gontarczyk (IPN--Institute of National Remembrance), Wojciech Muszynski (IPN), John Radzilowski (University of Alaska), Peter Stachura (University of Stirling), Teresa Preker (University of Warsaw). Clearly the authors and publishers are not the same for either the Polish or English language versions, so the book is not self-published. The collection of authors mentioned, their academic and professional credentials, as well as their numerous publications, all clearly indicate that this book meets the test of reliable source. They are by no means fringe or extremist. The fact that some reviewers have criticized the content is immaterial.
In particular, my edit referred to Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article “Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law,” found in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold (at p. 223–231), which deals with the content of postwar legislation on abandoned property. Her treatment is not inconsistent with historians such as Alina Skibinska (Klucze i kasa) and Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (Beyond Violence), it is simply clearer, fuller, more accurate, and much more authoritative. Why? Because, as the book notes, she is a retired judge so she is far better placed to discuss Polish legislation than historians. Gorczycka-Muszynska was a member of the Warsaw Province Administrative Court. She was decorated in 2012 by Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorowski with the Commander’s Cross of the Order of the Rebirth of Poland ( for her “outstanding services for the administration of justice, for shaping the principles of a democratic state of law and legal culture” (za wybitne zasługi dla wymiaru sprawiedliwości, za kształtowanie zasad demokratycznego państwa prawa i kultury prawnej).,1152,odznaczenia-i-nominacje-sedziowskie.html The ugly innuendos being hurled at her, based on speculation as to whether she’s related to Wojciech Muszynski, are both irrelevant and highly distasteful. They are the lowest form of “smeer” tactics – totally inexcusable.
While trashing Gorczycka-Muszynska, although no factual error has been found in her article, Icewhiz is strenuously championing Laurence Weinbaum, whose essay has been thoroughly undermined in the Talk page of the History of Jews in Poland. Laurence Weinbaum is not a reliable, objective source. His essay in the book The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust (New York University Press, 2000), is dated and refers to no sources in his brief treatment of postwar property (p. 101). Weinbaum managed to make the following serious errors in just ten lines. Unclaimed “abandoned” property was nationalized not at the end of 1948, as he claims, but at the end of 1955 (Gorczycka-Muszynska, Golden Harvest, p. 228; Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence, p. 73.) The claim that “the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps” in contradicted by leading Holocaust historians. (Yehuda Bauer estimates that about 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from camps in Germany. See The Nazi Holocaust: Historical Articles on the Destruction of the European Jews, volume 9 (Westport, CT, 1989), p. 527.) There was no new succession law enacted on October 8, 1947, as Weinbaum claims. Intestate succession (under the law of March 8, 1946) was not “restricted to father, mother, descendants and the surviving spouse,” as he claims, but also included siblings and grandparents. As for Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union, Weinbaum failed to notice that many of them settled in the territories acquired from Germany and “receive[ed] material compensation on the same basis as Polish resettlers from the East.” (Dariusz Stola, Robbery and Restitution, Berghahn Books & United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2007, p. 244). Not surprisingly, neither the latter book, Robbery and Restitution, nor Cichopek-Gajraj’s Beyond Violence, nor Meng’s Shattered Spaces, refer to Weinbaum’s article (based on a Google search). Moreover, Weinbaum is not an independent historian. He is the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), for whom he works as a research and editorial officer. The WJC is a decidedly Jewish nationalist organization with an aggressive restitution agenda. Israel Singer, the Secretary General of the WJC at the time, who wrote the preface to this book, declared that Poland would be “publicly attacked and humiliated” unless it gave into Jewish restitution demands. Avi Beker, the editor of this book, is the Director of International Affairs of the WJC and Executive Director of the Israel Office. It’s clearly a POV effort.
Icewhiz’s claim that his text/edit is a “stable version” is patently untrue. Wikipedia states: "The term "stable version" is a concept that refers to the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." Icewhiz introduced his text on March 12, 2019 after reverting my text of February 22, 2019, which was restored by others in the interim. There is no consensus for his text. Moreover, Icewhiz’s text relies on publications that do not look into actual court records and outcomes of property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of the records of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence), and then make sweeping generalizations that the in-depth investigations of court records do not support. A scholarly consensus has emerged among historians who have actually carried out in-depth research into court records -- Krzysztof Urbański, Grzegorz Miernik, Stanisław Meducki, Adam Kopciowski, Sebastian Piątkowski, Mariusz Bechta, Alina Skibińska, Łukasz Krzyżanowski -- that large quantities of property were returned to Jews in 1945-1948 throughout Poland. The historians that claim otherwise (like Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj) appear to be aware of this body of highly reliable scholarship. In particular, the findings of the eight historians I mentioned thoroughly discredit Meng’s speculative claim based on no research into this matter that such properties were “extremely few.”
This is not the first time that Icewhiz and others have ganged up to remove references to books and authors that don’t fit their own POV agenda. Icewhiz & K.e.coffman concocted a similar attempt to discredit a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen: Mythos und Wirklichkeit, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by a renowned German publishing house (Ferdinand Schöningh) and hailed by Yehuda Bauer as “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia Yad Vashem Studies (vol. 38, no. 2). The book was removed from the “Bielski Brothers” article as allegedly “fringe” (!) and “SPS” (self-published sources) (!):
  • 06:16, 28 May 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 20,929 bytes +137‎ Highly questionable fringe SPS.
  • 02:29, 1 June 2018‎ K.e.coffman talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Pls see Talk:Bielski_partisans#"Further_reading"
  • 07:16, 1 June 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work
Icewhiz has also been caught in a flagrant misrepresentation in the Talk page of the History of Jews in Poland, claiming that the following linked source supported Laurence Weinbaum’s claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from Germany -- “Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC): “The "grossly discrimanatory" Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&dq=poland+blocked+"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNqsvnhO3hAhWjAmMBHbQRBPI4FBDoATADegQIARAS.” That text says no such thing. President Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. So, with all due respect, what credibility does Icewhiz have in this regard?
The degree of desperation to discredit Chodakiewicz is apparent in Icewhiz's resorting to the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization. Niall Fergusson called it a “phoney civil rights organisation.” Mark Thiessen wrote an article in the Washington Post aptly titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (
Furthermore, SPLC has no historical credentials, so its views regarding a historian’s writings are worth zero. Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne that is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010).Tatzref (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The claim filing deadline was year end 1948 (originally 1947, was extended by a year) - this is a relevant cutoff date addressed by multiple sources - e.g. Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48, Anna Cichopek-Gajraj, page 79, Cambridge University Press (yes - a source actually published by a reputable academic publisher with a whole chapter on property in Poland (pages 63-90)). The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a "a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization" - it is generally a well-respected organization for far-right figures in the North America - we've had multiple discussions on the subject. One should note that Teresa Prekerowa died in 1998 - some 13 years prior to this book published by Chodakiewicz - the appearance of a reprint of her much earlier work - is not a postmortem endorsement of Chodakiewicz's book by Prekerowa.Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a serious violation of any number of policies. Tatzref's text above has been copied from [34], where it has already been refuted in length [35]. Tatzref then announced he is going to completely ignore the refutation and continue as if nothing happened [36], and he now repeats these claims here. This was accompanied, I should note, by a blatant misrepresentation of several sources, as evident in Icewhiz's and my own analyses in this thread, starting here). François Robere (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I will just note that while some of the claims above might have been refuted, some others have not. And some of your criticism or claims have been refuted, or disagreed with. Please don't say that others have no right to speak here because you disagreed with them elsewhere. If Tatzref wants RSN to consider his views and arguments, he has the right to do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Speak? Yes. Refuse to engage with criticism and then repeat the same claims in a different forum that is unaware of the dispute? That's WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and when the claims are libelous (eg. regarding K.e.coffman and Icewhiz) that's disingenuous. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Are you referring to Icewhiz? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: Please clearly explain whom do you accuse of forum shopping? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, not you dear. RSN is the next step up for disputed sources, and you were right to bring it here if you think it's important. Tatzref, however, should've considered the replies he already got before presenting his claims unchanged before another unsuspecting forum. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref (and others), much of your wall of text is unreadable or deals with other editors, which is not the point of this board. Please re-read the edit notice you get when you edit this board ... the one that says "Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:" This board is set up to discuss issues of reliablity for specific information - not to discuss editor conduct. You'll find that you get much better results if you stick to a brief presentation without mentioning other editors. If the wall of text has indeed just been copied from somewhere else, that's not helpful at all. Want to know why no other editors besides myself have weighed in? It's the endless walls of text and constant bickering between editors on all sides. Until that stops, few uninvolved editors will be willing to deal with the situation. If the opinons of this board are really wanted, everyone involved should seriously try to change their behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally not reliable: no indications of accuracy or fact checking. Reputation of the volume's editors matter, while (contrary to assertions) SPLC is reliable for subjects of right-wing and far-right ideology. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What is your basis for saying "no indications of accuracy or fact checking"? From the quotes/snippets I've seen, the essays seem to be well referenced to other works or primary sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The mere presence of citations and bibliography are insufficient. Holocaust-denialist literature is often heavily footnoted; this does not make it any less fringe. In the area of Polish-Jewish relations, "Mark Paul"'s works are replete with citations. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition of a source of what's up for consideration. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't actually answer Piotrus' question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • An RS. Can we use it to provide an expicitly attributed view by one of authors, like John Radzilowski? Yes, certainly. Merely the fact that it was published in Poland des not invalidate the source. Having a published translation to English also does not hurt. Was it self-published in English? No, if the author was John Radzilowski, but the editor and publisher someone else. Are the views by John Radzilowski "mainstream"? I do not know, but that's a different question. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem isn't that it was published in Poland, but that it was published by an "easy reading" publishing house, then by the editor's own minor publishing outfit; presumably it did not go through the peer review process that it would've gone through in an academic publisher. Add to that, several of the authors are not notable (indeed, one doesn't even exist); the editor, by your own admission, isn't notable; the book is barely cited (is it even listed on Google Scholar?), and the few reviews we have are scathing. Does this sound WP:DUE to you? François Robere (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Not wholly sure what to do here this [[37]] seems to be being used on a number of music articles, as is. Not a link to the specific album, just the search engine page. I am not sure this is acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the website by itself can be used as RS to confirm information that isn't published there. So I'd say not reliable. Ok I now found that some album information can be verified through the website's search engine. The British Phonographic Industry does seem like a legit site, but I'm not sure what the policy here is for industry-specific search engines. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is they are only being linked to (well were, that may in some cases being sorted now) that search page, not any hits.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was also my reaction when I went to the site. It's a URL issue it seems: if search results produced specific URLs, then we would probably consider the site a RS (unless there is a guideline against such search engines specifically?). Some information that's been added to articles, however, is not verified on the search engine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Karol Markowicz writing for TIMEEdit

Is the following a reliable new article, or is it an opinion piece per News organizations?

"America Shouldn't Tolerate 'Biden Being Biden'" by Karol Markowicz, Time Magazine, February 18, 2015. Time says, "Karol Markowicz is a writer in New York City. She has worked on GOP campaigns in four states."

The article is one of three sources used to support the statement, "There have been multiple photographs of Biden engaged in what commentators considered to be inappropriate proximity to women and children, including kissing and or touching" in Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact.

News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

TFD (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is not an exceptional claim. There are dozens of photographs and videos of Biden exhibiting the behavior in question. There are dozens of reliable sources reporting on that behavior (vox, time, slate, salon, npr, politico, usatoday, guardian, wapo, nyt, etc). But beyond that, your argument is nonsense anyway, since what is written in our article is an opinion considered to be inappropriate, in which case opinion articles are entirely valid to show that pov. Markowicz is an example of one person who has that opinion, of which again, there are dozens, on both sides of the isle. If you want to swap out that source for a different source, backing the same content, I would have no objection, but pretending that this is somehow weakly sourced is just posing. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The phrase, quoted above from WP:NEWSORG, is correct. But the op-ed piece in question appeared in Time, which has appropriate fact-checking standards, and the article, itself, has links to videos that show the behavior described. Therefore, the incidents reported on are well-substantiated and the article is "reliable for statements of fact". HopsonRoad (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source saying that Time uses fact-checking for opinion pieces? TFD (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Karol Markowicz is a political operative, not a journalist. R2 (bleep) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@The Four Deuces: What is the fact that in dispute? That he did the actions? That he was photographed/videoed doing the actions? Those are covered by dozens of RS. Whats left is the "fact" that people have "opinions" about those actions, and opinion pieces are perfectly valid to source the fact that those opinions exist, as seen by the very policy you are citing. are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author ResultingConstant (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
ResultingConstant, we already have two reliable sources for the statement, news reports in Vox and Huffpost. In dispute is whether the issue arose in the current presidential campaign or in 2016 and therefore where it should be mentioned in the article. I think it arose as an issue in 2020 and the fact that a GOP operative wrote about it in the 2016 cycle does not mean it was an issue then, since it was not covered in news reporting. TFD (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The_Four_Deuces The answer is both. While it obviously has greatly increased relevance and coverage in the 2020 cycle (and therefore very relevant to the election coverage in the article), it was covered by numerous sources earlier. Mother Jones, Npr,nbc, and other sources all covered this in 2015. [38][39][40][41][42] ResultingConstant (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I agree with The Four Deuces here – since there are two other reliable sources for the statement, I don't think there's a good reason for the op-ed to be used. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should be at Talk:Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. The presence of the commentator (my emphasis) citation supports the statement at Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact, "There have been multiple photographs of Biden engaged in what commentators considered to be inappropriate proximity to women and children, including kissing and or touching." Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Steven NovellaEdit

If this [[43]] an RS for this passage

According to skeptic Steven Novella, a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, Sequenzia's writings under FC are unusually eloquent for a nonverbal autistic individual. He additionally stated that there is no given explanation for how she spontaneously learned to read and write at an advanced level when she was eight years old. Novella also said that he would have to personally meet her understand better.

As can be seen the inclusion of this has been marked as OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Neurologica is Steven Novella's blog. It's on a high level, and is obviously reliable for statements specifically ascribed to Novella. This is about Amy Sequenzia, and I've removed the OR tag. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC).
As per my response on my talk page, I don't see how it is appropriate to include his opinions about her on her page, given that WP:SELFSOURCE itself says...
"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 the following criteria are met: [...] It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
I also already asked whether this source should be included on the BLP noticeboard, and a different admin said it shouldn't be (however, none of the editors are respecting this decision). The user who brought it here is involved in the discussion on that notice board as well. I don't know why this debate is being repeated here for another opinion. --Anomalapropos (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's here because you wont drop the stick everywhere else. If somebody here says "it is an acceptable source in this context" you will have to stop bombarding us with your TLDR screeds. It is an acceptable source in this context. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Can PTC Punjabi be considered reliable when it comes to BLP of actors in Cinema of Punjab? Recently, an article from the website has been used to support the "birth_name" of a subject here. Apart from their own programs, concerts and awards I don't find it to be reliable in other areas. Kindly advice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

For sensitive BLP information of a birth name, I'd like a better source than this reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fylindfotberserk, I didn't check the reliability of PTC Punjabi, but his real name has been appearing in mainstream media at least since 2017. According to Business Standard, his real name is Rupinder Singh Grewal (see here), and according to Hindustan Times, his real name is Rupinder Grewal (see here). In fact, according to The Times of India, he once mentioned that his real name is Rupinder Singh Grewal – see here. So I guess Rupinder Singh Grewal can be added to his BLP without any issue. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking Ronz. I believe I've to replace that with references provided by NitinMlk. Thanks guys. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Desmond is AmazingEdit

On Desmond Napoles I’d like to use the following,

El Periódico de Catalunya, and The Feed, states he is the most famous "drag kid" in the world,[1][2] Los Replicantes states he is the youngest professional drag queen in the world.[3]

Is this appropriate? Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

To give you some feedback regarding the second phrase. Los Replicantes might not be a reliable source, and what they've stated might not be notable. Even on the Spanish Wikipedia, there's no es:Los Replicantes, and here it's barely used as a reference; both of which confirm my suspicion. -- (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into these. That a Spain non-English paper is not widely cited doesn’t surprise me, nor that they don’t yet have a page somewhere else. What they state is certainly noteworthy, how could it not be? The youngest professional drag queen in the world? By my looking into it this is most likely perfectly true. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Any feedback on the other two sources? Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Estirado, Laura (2019-03-15). "Desmond is Amazing, el 'drag kid' más famoso del mundo". elperiodico (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-05-16.
  2. ^ "Being a drag kid in Trump's America". The Feed. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
  3. ^ "Desmond is Amazing: la drag queen más joven del mundo con solo 11 años". Los Replicantes (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-05-16.

Screen RantEdit

Is screenrant considered a reliable source? DCBVS (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I personally consider Screen Rant reliable. It's a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got good editorial oversight. It's also been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, and other RSs, and it's used a lot on comic/film-related GAs. I've never had a problem with using it before. JOEBRO64 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Previous discussion at WT:VG/S/Archive 17#Unclear and WT:VG/S#ScreenRant, if nowhere else. Shortly, WT:VG seems less-than-enthused about the source, leaning to unreliable. --Izno (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable for attributed opinion, marginal for unattributed facts, and unreliable for a BLP. We can do better. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Beyond echoing Blueboar: I've been on the fence about this one. Best to consider it in context per the instructions for this noticeboard. The ways I've seen it used has been fairly harmless, but they appear to be in the business of publishing clickbaity, promotional, churnalism. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    This is a property of Valnet Inc. It shouldn't be used for BLP or notability at all, and highly questionable for anything else. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a reliable source for film material and some other material. Just give WP:In-text attribution when needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Jew with a coinEdit

figures on sale in Poland, middle reads: "Polańczyk $ Jew In the hall, coin in your pocket"

Over at the newly created Jew with a coin, @Volunteer Marek: (VM) has been removing large chunks of content based on - diff:

  1. He has challenged an attributed stmt by scholar Bożena Umińska-Keff [pl] as "rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations". On to talk page he has asserted "It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article."[44]
  2. He has challenged as "most likely a self promo", coverage of Never Again's dr hab. Rafał Pankowski (a leading expert on far-right, racism, and extremism) successful lobbying to remove the offensive figures from sale at the Polish Parliament - the content sourced to: full length piece in The Art Newspaper, a paragraph in Times of Israel (JTA). Reporting on the removal of the offensive statues is also found in Polish-language media (which we should avoid per WP:NOENG as well as other issues), e.g.: full length pieces in Rzeczpospolita and Wirtualna Polska portal. Heck this was widely reported enough that it was the subject of a spoof in aszdziennik (satire news - similar to The Onion).
  3. To top it off, the assertion that the figurines are "common throughout Poland." was challenged on the grounds of: "nonesense" and "The figurines do exist but they are not common".[45] Just about every source in the article notes these figurines are common or popular. Here is a non-exhastive list:
    1. Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (full professor and chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies) - A Jew with a coin conquers Poland (Polish), 2012, and in English (much of the text incorportates the prior Polish piece): The Jew with a Coin: Analysis of a contemporary folkloric emblem (AAPJ), 2019 - "This artifact could be considered an ethnographic banality, were it not for the unique scale of the phenomenon24", " ‘Jew with a coin’ outdoes any other positive mascots".
    2. Philosemitism in History, chapter by Ruth Ellen Gruber, Cambridge University Press, page 324 - "many are clearly mass produced". "apparently popular line of Jewish figures clutching real coins". "I find the number of such "money-blutching" figures, particularly in certain shops, now striking".
    3. Curatorial Dreams: Critics Imagine Exhibitions, page 47, McGill-Queen's Univerity Press by Erica Lehrer - "exploded in popularity with the rise of the post-socialist tourist trade". Lehrer has also spoken - here and here (and in multiple other places).
    4. Diana Wichtel in the award winning Driving to Treblinka: A long Search for a Lost Father. - excerpt in nzherald: "The shops are full of dubious tchotchkes, rows of carved wooden figures of stereotypical Jews. Very popular are zydki, bearded little "lucky" Jews carrying a bag of loot, counting money, or just holding a coin. I read there's a tradition of turning your lucky Jew over on the Sabbath so their money falls out. Some take them along to football games for luck. If your team doesn't win it's the Jew's fault."
    5. "They are so popular that they make common wedding and housewarming gifts." - JTA /TOI 2018
    6. JC 2014: " they became particularly popular after the fall of Communism", "Dr Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre: ... "They are sold in huge numbers outside football matches""
    7. "This stereotypical depiction is thus controversial, although it seems quite innocent next to the common and widespread phenomenon of the Zydki – the figures of a Jew holding a coin, thought to be a talisman that brings good fortune and wealth, which has overtaken nearly all other such depictions." - Haaretz 2014.
    8. VICE 2013 - "I discovered that “lucky Jew statues” ... — are all the rage", "The statues are commonly given as gifts on special occasions, such as to mark a new job or moving to a new house".
    9. Not that we should be using Polish media, but here's a Polish politician defending the sale in the parliament: "He notes that such figurines have gained great popularity in recent years and are treated as an amulet, providing happiness in business" in Rzeczpospolita.
    10. New York Times 2019 - " Many such pieces have been produced in Poland in recent decades.".
    11. Haaretz 2019 - "one display case is filled with “lucky Jews” — little clay figurines of Orthodox Jews clutching a shiny coin, which are popular across Poland.".
    12. JPost - field report, chronicling multiple Zydkis, and saying "Zydkis all over".
    13. TOI 2014 - "Wooden and clay statuettes, known to Poles as “Zydki,” little Jews, populate homes and shops across the country, and far outnumber the remnants of a once populous Jewish community."

Outside input appreciated - are leading scholars in the field and WP:NEWSORGs such as New York Times and Haaretz reliable? Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Bożena Umińska-Keff, Who?
2. Seems like the RS say it was removed, I think he is wrong here.
3. I am not sure all the sourced provided do support common , but at least some of them do.Slatersteven (talk)
1 - See - Bożena Umińska-Keff on plwiki as well as profile on - Bożena Umińska-Keff (often published as just Bożena Keff) is literature researcher (phd) at the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw - and has published extensively. I'll also note that the stmt is attributed to her in any event ("According to..."). 3 - all of the sources support "popular", "common", and/or "widespread".Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So not an expert in Polish history or antisemitism then?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Very much an expert in cultural representations of Polish Jews and antisemitism. Research of cultural items/writings in present (or past use) is done by anthropologists and literature researchers - this is not a field of research that falls into history.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
In writing maybe (the clue is the word literature).Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
In 2013 she published Antysemityzm: niezamknięta historia (Anti-Semitism: an unfinished story). She also published Postać z cieniem : portrety Żydówek w polskiej literaturze od końca XIX wieku do 1939 roku - which analyzes "Analyzes the image of the Jewish woman in Polish literature from the late 19th century to 1939".[46] She's definitely dealt extensively with cultural representations of Jews in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Writing stuff does not make you an acknowledged expert, it being your recognized area of expertise does. I note that at least one of these is about literature.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree - cultural objects are within the bounds of literature study. The editors on Polish Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia disagree as well (I was prompted to add Umińska-Keff after seeing her on both wikis - prior to BEFOREing for English sources). Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I will also note that our Comparative literature article disagrees as well - "Comparative literature is an academic field dealing with the study of literature and cultural expression across linguistic, national, and disciplinary boundaries.". "The interdisciplinary nature of the field means that comparatists typically exhibit acquaintance with sociology, history, anthropology, translation studies, critical theory, cultural studies, and religious studies. As a result, comparative literature programs within universities may be designed by scholars drawn from several such departments". Per Brown's department - "The department performs a role similar to that of the study of international relations, but works with languages and artistic traditions, so as to understand cultures “from the inside.”. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Boys, girls, and everyone in between: let's not play dumb, okay? It's a Jew with a coin. You don't have to be a genius to see the antisemitic connection. If there was any plausible and benign explanation to this imagery it would've been present in literature, film, poetry, daily lingo, wholesale packages and collectible cards. Whatever Keff is or isn't an expert on, she and all of the other dozen sources say the same, as will any sane person who hasn't been living in a cave for the last 2,000 years. This isn't some tiny nuance we're talking about, but the oldest antisemitic stereotype in existence, and anyone editing in these fields should be able to recognize it in an instant. The same goes for antisemitism in Poland - we don't need to be XTRA BLP CAREFUL in stating it exists - it's kind of well known and not exactly recent. As long as we don't make sweeping generalization or OR, this is about as straightforward as it can be. François Robere (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the text based on Bożena Umińska-Keff is not that the source is unreliable, it's that it doesn't say what Icewhiz claims it says. It's not an RSN issue but a WP:COATRACK and straight up misrepresentation of a source (by Icewhiz) issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, after reading the original source once again here, I am at a complete loss as to how Icewhiz managed to pull "the stereotyping of Jews in Poland is widespread" out of it. Most of the article is about the *history* of stereotypes. Icewhiz just made this stuff up himself, then tacked an inline citation at the end to pretend like it was sourced. THAT is the problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The text by Bożena Umińska-Keff states right at the beginning "Żyd z pieniążkiem jest patronem finansowego powodzenia. „Żyd w sieni, pieniądz w kieszeni” – głosi hasło. Kiedy go widzę w domach, sklepach, w galeriach z artystycznymi przedmiotami – czuję się źle" - "A Jew with a coin is the patron of financial success. "A Jew in the hall, money in his pocket," says the slogan. When I see it in homes, shops, galleries with artistic objects - I feel bad" clearly stating the subject of the article. The article then treats Polish stereotyping of Jews, before turning back to Jew with a coin in the last section, where it says: "W Polsce najczęściej antysemityzm nie jest rozpoznawany jako antysemityzm, czyli jako własny, wrogi wobec pewnej grupy mit czy zestaw stereotypów. Jednocześnie treści tego mitu są ogromnie popularne i nadal bierze się je za fakty. I tak trwa powielanie mitów oraz stereotypów, aż do poczucia oczywistości, czyli w sumie do braku refleksji, do otępienia. Jedyną skuteczną odpowiedzią na to byłaby edukacja, ale jej nie ma. Za to powielanie stereotypu zachodzi w wielu miejscach, głównie w Kościele. Jedynie z tych powodów wizerunek Żyda z pieniążkiem może w Polsce uchodzić za neutralny. Ale naprawdę jest on wpisany w długi szereg antysemickich wizerunków: jest w nich Żyd kuzyn świni (Judensau), Żyd diabeł, Żyd czarownik, Żydzi wytaczający krew z dziecka, Żyd gruby kapitalista z cygarem, Żyd chudy bolszewik z nożem, Żyd Trocki ... - (google translate) - "In Poland, the most common anti-Semitism is not recognized as anti-Semitism, ie as its own, hostile to a certain group of myths or a set of stereotypes. At the same time, the contents of this myth are extremely popular and are still taken as facts. And so it continues to duplicate myths and stereotypes, to the feeling of obviousness, that is, to the lack of reflection, to dullness. The only effective answer to this would be education, but it is not. For this, stereotyping takes place in many places, mainly in the Church. It is only for these reasons that the image of a Jew with a coin may be regarded as neutral in Poland. But he is really inscribed in a long series of anti-Semitic images: a Jew, a cousin of a pig (Judensau), a Jew, a devil, a Jewish sorcerer, Jews baptizing blood from a child, a Jew a fat capitalist with a cigar, a Jew a skinny Bolshevik with a knife, a Jew named Trotsky ...". She's rather clear about it. I suppose objecting to what is written black on white in Polish shares a common thread with opposing multiple, clearly reliable, English language sources that state other facts. Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

One more source: According to a 2018 survey conducted at the Center for Prejudice Research at the University of Warsaw,[1] the following percentages of Poles either "agree" or "definitely agree" that:

  • 44.2% "The Jews achieve group goals through secret agreements"
  • 39.3% "The Jews want to have a decisive voice in international financial institutions"
  • 35.8% "The Jews strive to rule the world"
  • 41.5% "The Jews sometimes quietly meet to discuss issues important for them"
  • 38.2% "The Jews often operate covertly, behind the scenes."
  • 36.7% "The Jews strive to expand their influence on the world economy."

Marek, you're fighting for the wrong causes. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, wtf does this have to do with this article? Did I mention that the actual problem here is WP:SYNTH??? Thanks for illustrating my point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No, you didn't, and it's not relevant here as a) I didn't even write the article; and b) the survey supports the conclusion antisemitism is widespread in Poland, making your claims on POV pushing false. What's SYNTH in Icewhiz text? All of "his" sources follow the same lines. François Robere (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bulska, Dominika; Winiewski, Mikołaj (2018). Antisemitism in Poland. Results of Polish Prejudice Survey 3. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Center for Research on Prejudice.

  • Due. Over a dozen sources support the claims that both antisemitism in general and "Jew with a coin" figurines are common throughout Poland, and no sources claim otherwise. Removal on grounds of WP:UNDUE or WP:POV seems nothing more than WP:OR and/or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You can't just declare it "DUE" per IJUSTLIKEIT, when it's clearly an issue of improper WP:SYNTHesis and source misrepresentation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm living in Poland. Polish people living their life - work, shopping, family - don't meet any Jew with a coin. Tourists buy suvenirs - amber, shepherd's axes, sad Jesus Christ and Jew with a coin. The world created for tourists is artificial. Before the war Jews sold Christian souvenirs, was it a part of their identity? Business is business.
Please prove that an important part of POlish society has Jew with a coin at home. Do you have any such study? Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Center for Research on Prejudice are professional anti-anti-Semites. Someone ahould verify their research, but it would be politically incorrect. Rafał Pankowski (a leading expert in creating virtual reality. Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You're in violation of WP:BLPTALK. I suggest striking that comment. François Robere (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone who has not previously edited some aspect of the Jews and Poland question would care to comment?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - lest sources in English and Polish are not sufficient, this - Tartakowsky, Ewa. "Le Juif à la pièce d’argent." La vie des idées (2017). paper by dr. Ewa Tartakowsky - a sociologist - in French - is available in line and has an excellent review of the academic literature on the subject. Per a 2015 survey quoted in this paper - Une enquête réalisée en mai-juin 2015 par Paweł Dobrosielski, Piotr Majewski et Justyna Nowak confirme l’importance de la diffusion de l’image du « Juif à la pièce d’argent » : 65 % des enquêtés l’identifient, 55 % l’ayant vu chez des amis ou dans la famille, 26 % dans le commerce tandis que 18 % en possèdent une chez soi5. L’âge semble sans incidence sur ce niveau de reconnaissance, ce qui tend à confirmer que cette pratique est récente, toutes les générations y ayant été introduites en même temps. Cette image n’est pas que répandue : un enquêté sur deux l’associe à la superstition selon laquelle elle apporte la fortune. Mais son usage à proprement parler ne suit pas automatiquement. D’après Paweł Dobrosielski, « seuls » 24 % des enquêtés savent qu’il faut placer un grosz derrière le cadre et 13 % qu’il faut le retourner le jour du shabbat6 -(google translate) - "A survey conducted in May-June 2015 by Paweł Dobrosielski, Piotr Majewski and Justyna Nowak confirms the importance of spreading the image of the "Jew to the silver coin": 65% of respondents identify it, 55% l having seen friends or family, 26% in commerce while 18% have one at home5. Age does not seem to affect this level of recognition, which tends to confirm that this practice is recent, as all generations were introduced at the same time. This image is not only widespread: one respondent in two associates it with the superstition according to which it brings fortune. But its use strictly speaking does not follow automatically. According to Paweł Dobrosielski, "only" 24% of respondents know that you have to put a grosz behind the frame and 13% that you have to return it on the Sabbath6. So - 18% at their home. Common and widespread. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum. Icewhiz is experienced enough to know that there are several means for resolving this dispute, and RSN isn't one of them. If there's an issue about a specific NY Times or Haaretz source then it can be addressed here, but this isn't that. R2 (bleep) 23:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Ahrtoodeetoo: - while this may go to another forum as well (though the first step for RS policy would be RSN), VM is asserting that The Art Newspaper (which per my check is widely quoted, treated as a leading source for art mews in academic papers, has a good reputation) + TOI/JTA + other sources are unreliable (or connected in some manner to Pankowski) for point 2 (this affects 2 other articles as well). For point 3 (popular / widespread / common) VM is asserting (without sources) that these figurines are "pretty rare" - while sources such NYT, Haaretz, academics, etc. (I listed some 13 of them + Tartakowsky afterwards, and there are more) assert otherwise. Can you please comment on whether these sources are reliable or not for this subject?Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


The website was registered 92 days ago with anonymized records. The site is run by UGMediaLtd a company incorporated by Dan Fisher (not the journalist Daniel Fisher). The site appears to be a rehosting of the content of which is no longer active. As articles hosted at significantly predate the company or website (such as dating back to 2016), these were probably not written to be published at uncommongroundmedia, but either conatusnews or similar. The site makes no attempt to distinguish which (if any) publications were submitted to their site, to those that are recycled from elsewhere. Neither is there any explanation of why conatusnews was abandoned and has been replaced by this site which "legally" has no relationship to the old site.

The site's mission is "anti-left", as confirmed by their statement "Uncommon Ground is a platform for voices critical of political orthodoxy, for secularists, feminists and activists with positions deemed inconvenient or sidelined by the more dominant left-leaning media outlets." The site has no clear editorial standard, neither does it appear to comply with UK regulations for newspapers. There is no editorial board or peer review system, instead the choice of which articles get published is down to the management team which appears to be Dan Fisher and 3 others.

This source was raised for my attention by being inserted three times as a reliable source in Get the L Out by the article's creator. The article in question is The article uses a photo and video from Facebook by someone who is not the writer. The author is Jo Bartosch, who over the last couple of years has written pro-TERF (and anti-Pride and anti-Stonewall) articles on Medium, Mumsnet, lesbianalliance, and so on, making it very easy to replace this source with one of the many alternatives by the same author which are pretty much consistent and interchangeable pro-TERF lobbying editorial pieces, however as the same sentence already has 2 other sources, even that would be unnecessary. -- (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would err on it not being RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Deciding that an RS is not acceptable because it is "pro-TERF" is irrelevant and violates WP:NPOV. Encyclopedias don't suppress sources because they are inconvenient for the desired narrative, or because its existence upsets some editors. That the author's works are also published in other outlets is inconsequential. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The selection of sources is important as Wikipedia should represent the mainstream, not fringe views. A few problems here are self publishing and that it's a primary source. If a particular article was that of a notable person it may be usable as that person's opinion with attribution (about themselves, or on a topic for which they have relevant qualifications). The rest should be avoided. —PaleoNeonate – 02:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The initial reason the editor gave for deleting the RS from the article was that it is an "alt-right website" -- which is a POV not supported by the mission of the website and the content found in it. The site was established after Conatus News ceased operations (Dan Fisher was its Editor). There is nothing marginal, peripheral, and/or extreme about Uncommon Ground and it is not a "fringe" website. Take a look at it. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Correction: The only person stating here that Uncommon Ground is "pro-TERF" is Pyxis Solitary. What has been stated is that Jo Bartosch has written pro-TERF articles over several years, of which their contributions to the "anti-left" Uncommon Ground are identical and easily replaceable, from sites which are neither mass recycling entire texts from other websites without attribution, and have more credible processes for editorial review.
Across the whole of Wikipedia, Uncommon Ground Media is not used as a reference on any article. -- (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, duh. Uncommon Ground was established in February 2019 as a replacement for Conatus News. Editors will eventually find articles in UC that they'll like to use for citations. You've stated that the article cited is authored by someone who "over the last couple of years has written pro-TERF (and anti-Pride and anti-Stonewall) articles"; which was what led you to claim that UC is an "alt-right" website when you deleted it from the article (see above linked edit summaries); and which is why you insist that UC is not a RS.
It is ironic how the article "What Really Happened With Lesbian Protestors At Pride London Yesterday?" by the same author, but published under the Conatus News banner, became an acceptable source in Feminist views on transgender topics on 10:18, 18 August 2018 -- a page that you frequently edit and wherein the citation (# 48) still rests between The Independent (# 47) and The Guardian (# 49).
As for "contributions to the "anti-left" Uncommon Ground are identical and easily replaceable" -- not if the exact same article has not been published elsewhere in a website that you can't accuse of being "alt-right". And when did 'the Left' become the Holy Grail of honesty and accuracy? Pyxis Solitary yak 10:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
You appear to have not addressed any of the issues raised here about this source which demonstrate it is not reliable.
Could you address the serious question of canvassing please, have you been blogging about this topic off-wiki? Thanks in advance for your honesty. -- (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the first mention of canvasing here. If you have evidence of canvasing take it to ANI, if not then stop talking about it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The associated AfD for the one use of this source was canvassed, and Wikipedians were targeted for harassment. Regardless of whether this ever ends up at ANI or as an Arbcom case, it is highly relevant to know that there is related canvassing and that at least one contributor to the AfD has openly confirmed they contributed to the AfD because of that canvassing. These are simple facts that are better shared transparently so that everyone can assess whether votes and consensus processes are being manipulated against our canvassing policy and against our harassment policy. -- (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant, unless you have evidence this user canvased it has no place here. This is about the source, not a users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Certainly we agree that there is an issue for canvassing and targeted harassment off-wiki, nothing has been said here about a user's conduct on-wiki. Where consensus processes are being actively canvassed off-wiki, we should recognize it is happening, not bury the fact. -- (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No we report it. This is my last word on it but I would remind you that accusing a user of canvasing is a serious accusation. It in fact can be (if said without real evidence) be construed as a personal attack (and yes you asked them directly if they had been canvassing "have you been blogging about this topic off-wiki" that is "a user's conduct on-wiki".Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you know of a neutral template that can be added to this thread to mark it as having been potentially influenced by canvassing, that would be helpful, thanks! By the way, there is a real easy answer if anyone asks you "have you been blogging about this topic", if you answer "yes" then asking the question can hardly be called a personal attack, and if you answer "no", I'll thank you for your reply because, you know, it's a very simple question, not a personal attack. -- (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The canvassing implication was first made in an articles for deletion nomination on 22 May 2019. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is consensus that there has been very nasty targeted personal harassment against Wikipedians, and active and successful canvassing of Wikipedia votes, activities which most would see as gaming the system by manipulating votes and quite understandably scaring off Wikipedians from this topic who may have otherwise provided relevant views. Most readers will find it very odd that rather than saying "no, I have not blogged about the vote or other Wikipedians", your only response has literally been an evasive "LOL!" while at the same time lecturing others on "honesty and accuracy". It would be super if you could answer with "no" or "yes", rather than pretending that a straightforward and simple question is a personal attack or playing games. Thanks for your help! -- (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC) and create the impression that they publish submitted content, which is reviewed by their editors. The author, Jo Bartosch, has written 14 articles with them, but has no biographical information of her own. I wouldn't use it in this case, especially if there are better alternatives. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • WP:TOOSOON, avoid for now. We have a 3 month old website with an unclear reputation. Until we have more data on their reputation we should err on the side of not using them. There are plenty of sources with a track record longer than 3-6 months....Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. I see a lot of reactive comments, but no explanation whatsoever for why this source should be considered reliable. That's why new sources like this are so rarely reliable--they haven't had time to establish a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (WP:TOOSOON is about notability, not reliability, but the concept is the same.) R2 (bleep) 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Blogspot blog as a source?Edit

I wrote an article about a non-notable book (My Autobiography (Miedzianik)) by a British poet (David Miedzianik), which cited a blogpost by an American friend of his (Jonathan Mitchell) who had flown to England to meet him, stating that the book was in the process of being adapted to the stage but the idea fell through. This is the source and the text supported by it:

According to American autism activist and author Jonathan Mitchell, in 1992, the book was in the process of being adapted to a play, however by 1993, the plans had fallen through due to the playwright being an "amateur".[1].

Is this acceptable? The article about the book was recently PRODded, but I'd like to incorporate the text into the article about the author. Heepman1997 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Have Autism Will Travel: The Sad Saga of David Miedzianik". Jonathan Mitchell, Autism's Gadfly, 11 August 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2019.
I don't think it should be used. This doesn't meet WP:BLOGS, nor any other exceptions that I can think of offhand. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, its just another blog.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Investigating Stacey DooleyEdit

This edit has recently been made [[47]], but I have some doubts as to the source My concern is that the "in depth investigative reporting" seems to consists of talking to two local tradesmen. It just seems all a bit dodgy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For starters - " The misrepresentation has not yet been addressed by the BBC or by Dooley and casts a shadow over her entire reporting career." does not seem to be supported by Daily Sabah (I'm not sure the BBC actually pulled this, and I don't see Daily Sabah being a particularly good source for a BBC journo's career - nor do I quite see it there (they do have an allusion to Der Spiegel's Relotius - but they don't make a direct tie)). I would think this needs to be attributed as a claim of dailysabah - as at present we have BBC vs. Dailysabah (RS vs. (iffy) RS - BBC being stronger here). I'll note that Daily Sabah seems to be attributing this to Hurriyet (probably this piece, in Turkish). I will also note there are serious press freedom issues in Turkey, particularly post failed-coup - see RSF, Freedom houst. In short - bits here misrepresent the Turkish source. The Turkish source should probably only be used attributed. What's lacking is any coverage by BBC or some British source covering them (e.g. the viewers). I'll also note, and this is WP:OR, but somewhat informed OR, that this isn't necessarily Dooley's "fault" (she seems to be more of a presenter/interviewer) - but rather more a production/preparation issue - so I'm not sure I'd pin it on her bio in any event. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Elite DailyEdit

Can Elite Daily be considered a reliable source and be used as a reference? The Wikipedia entry about the news website shows a rather shady history, so I have some serious reservations regarding its use. The site has used fake names and profile photos for its writers, which seemingly led to the identity theft of a writer from Gawker. Its articles have been written by "contributors", as opposed to its own staff or journalists, which signifies the lack of a vetting process or editorial oversight of its content. It reasonably raises my concern of it being a questionable source. But to what extent is this website reliable, and to what extent, if at all, can it be used? xplicit 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Best to provide a specific link/article/content.
If you have evidence for the "fake names...", that would help.
I wouldn't use it. It's a lifestyle publisher that's churning information to keep their audience engaged. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup needed: "A Concise History of Afghanistan in 25 Volumes"Edit

Copying our articles, eg a sentence from 2007[48] ended up in it.[49] Needs removal from these:[ Self-published through Trafford and here's the author's bio.[50] Doug Weller talk 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A better link.WBGconverse 14:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: - that needs quotation marks, which gives you this - I haven't checked thoroughly but it seems to show a few less than the Google search. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the Library of Congress a reliable and admissible source for a person's birth date?Edit

The Library of Congress authority files often contain biographic information on the writer, such as birth date, birth place, and academic affiliation (e.g. this one). The information that the LOC records in an authority record comes from the resources they catalog, or from references sources that they access (and accordingly list in the "sources" section). All of it is either publicly available information, or provided by the author or his publisher.

Now oftentimes, for us as Wikipedians, this is the most easily accessible source for a person's birthdate and birthplace. But there seems to be disagreement on whether this information should be equated with court records and trial transcripts and thus is violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and, by extension, WP:NOR. I would like to settle this issue here, with feedback from the community. This issue extends beyond just the LOC authority files, to any library catalog, or any biographic database that merely "reprints" a person's information without the (apparently necessary) reflection that makes for a secondary source, such as for American football players. --bender235 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems to be a perfectly fine secondary source for that information, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the LoC is an acceptable secondary source. When it comes to athletes, birth dates have to be considered public but sensitive, as many sports have age-related requirements, and athletes may take an error in a source as an accusation of cheating. I have therefore considered WP:BLPSOURCE to trump WP:BLPPRIMARY in such cases, in line with the objective of WP:BLP, which that we must get the article right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem, LoC is likely to be neutral and probably check their facts better than most. Of course it is possible that they may occasionally be mistaken, but that applies to any source. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Broadly, our policies suggest that any contentious material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." If there is disagreement about a subject's date of birth, it should be removed until there are WP:RS that back up the claim. That said, I believe that the LoC is an acceptable source for the reasons described above. I am not convinced that all "biographic databases" necessarily are acceptable, but those can be discussed on a case by case basis. --Enos733 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is an old adage about the potential flaw with databases: “garbage in then garbage out”. I think a LOT would depend on where the LOC database got its information (the sources listed by the LOC database). If the LOC get their info from a source we would otherwise consider unreliable (ie “garbage in” from our POV), then I don’t think we should cite it here (because it would be “garbage out”). But if their source is reliable then we can cite LOC, it wouldn’t be “garbage in”). Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Then we shouldn't cite the LOC regardless in either of those cases. If we know the source, we should cite that source. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree, but oftentimes the LOC has access to printed sources that aren't in your average library. So unless you want to cite blindly, all you can do is cite LOC. --bender235 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is we can’t blindly cite LOC either... since some of its source material is unreliable by our standards. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an example where LOC is unreliable and/or demonstratively false? --bender235 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC) This is my first guess at something they might get wrong. It's not provably false, but extremely dubious. They likely pulled it from her autobiography. See Talk:Pepa_(rapper)#Year_of_birth. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC) This is my second guess, for Rebecca De Mornay. They got it wrong. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
But our source is LOC, not whatever they cite. LOC are professionals and generally speaking they draw reliable conclusions from whatever their source materials are. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to raise a side issue here about full date of birth. I think many editors think we should routinely include the full date of birth, but WP:DOB says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Doug Weller talk 20:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources..." Hence the question of this thread: is Library of Congress a reliable source? Consensus seems to be that it is. --bender235 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
From the two examples I gave, it doesn't look reliable. If you look closely, they're citing sources like IMDB... --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In the two cases you've cited it seems like no one really knows the DOB in question. But in general, discarding the Library of Congress as unreliable because of these two is like discarding the New York Times as unreliable because of Jayson Blair. --bender235 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
They don't have anything remotely like the reliability of the NYTimes, or we wouldn't be here. Who says they have any reliability? The two examples I give show they use poor and unreliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, so did the New York Times. But it was an exception, not the rule. We could easily avoid this issue but saying "don't rely on LOC information if the source they indicate is IMDB or a comparable source that we deem unreliable." Luckily, LOC lists their source. --bender235 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, this isn't remotely like the NYTimes, where we can easily demonstrate what is the exception and what is the rule.
So we treat it as a source that sometimes uses poor and unreliable sources: We state that it's unreliable, but may be useful for finding sources in their list of references. --Ronz (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No, LOC is reliable like other RS, RS never means perfect, nor does RS mean it has to be used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It's poor like other poor sources that use poor and unreliable sources. Assertions to the contrary need to be backed by something. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I want to stress, aftering spending the last hour on looking at this record and trying to understand the system, that we cannot be assured that the LOC wrote this record. We can look at a record like this [51] and see that the sources for the DOC is from the ECIP record for their book " Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory", with the DOB from the book's "data view" which doesn't appear to be something publicly searchable. These EPIC records are filtered upwards and across other libraries (given how many collect library websites I had to search under). And all those are human generated so there's a potential for human error. I doubt the LOC is mis-reporting what records it is fed, but we cannot be sure about the validity of the records if that's the only source , particularly for a BLP. --Masem (t) 18:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources at The Bible and homosexualityEdit

At Talk:The Bible and homosexuality, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) is arguing that these two books are primary sources and that referencing them therefore constitutes original research, while I am arguing that they are secondary sources and that referencing them is appropriate. Who is right?

The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Books of Samuel has been interpreted by traditional and mainstream Christians as a relationship only of affectionate regard, but has been interpreted by some authors as of a sexual nature.[13][14]

13. Boswell, John. Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Vintage, 1994. (pp. 135–137)

14. Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge, 1999

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably secondary, since the Bible is probably the primary source here. It depends for what they are being used. If you say "Since 1956, it was known that... " cited a source from 1956, then that's likely a primary source for the date. However, it whatever's done with them, those are likely opinions, and would need to be quoted/cited as opinions, rather than fact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that the "some authors" are Boswell and Halperin. Allegedly, both have suggested that David and Jonathan have sexual relationship, that's only according to the passage. The problem here is that I had access to Boswell book from page 135 to page 137. I am not able to explain this in a way that doesn't cause any confusion. Let me give an example: (Both Quran and the Bible prohibit eating pork. <ref>Quran verse<ref/><ref>Bible verse<ref/>)

This is exactly how I see that paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know why Sharab reads the paragraph this way, but regardless, though these are both secondary sources, I actually don't see where either author interprets David and Jonathan's friendship as having a sexual component, nor do I see either author even suggest that anyone else has interpreted it that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I totally thought that the sources are primary. I had a similar issue with Eperoton and this was what he said [52] and I totally agree with what he said. I still feel that these sources are primary because the first source is a lot of content and was like interpreted as "some authors think that Jonathan and David had sexual relationship"--SharabSalam (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a matter of NPOV/significance, not primary-vs-secondary, but getting the name of the issue aside, the advice there is correct - in a field as broad as biblical exegesis, simply being able to point to two secondary sources does not necessarily establish a viewpoint as significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Lee J. Carter and red-baitingEdit

There is a dispute on the article Lee J. Carter over use of the term "red-baiting". Here is the text in question, from [53]:

Carter has been red-baited by Republicans as well as centrist Democrats for his democratic socialist ideology,

sourced to [54], [55], [56], [57] [58], [59], [60]. Three of these sources use the term "red-baiting": a tweet from reporter Graham Moomaw, an article from Slate quotes a tweet where Annie Shields, an editor at The Nation, uses the term, and an interview with Jacobin. The Jacobin article and the tweet in Slate refer specifically to his republican election opponent, while only the Graham Moomaw tweet says democrats are doing it as well. Do these sources support use of the term "red-baiting"? Do they support the part that says that centrist Democrats did it too? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Poking fun at someone for allegedly being sympathetic to communism falls far short of red-baiting. Red-baiting was a serious attack used by people like McCarthy. It wasn't about poking fun, it was about destroying their targets. Nobody's trying to destroy Lee Carter with this, especially not any Democrats. This is hyperbole from an unreliable, extremist source.
There's also no support for saying these Democrats are "centrists". It's biased and misleading, as many Democrats who aren't socialists are not centrists. In fact, most Democrats are liberals, which is to the left, not the center. (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is more then one source, but I have been wondering about this myself. It might be best to not put it in our words.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Only one reliable source (the Jacobin interview) actually uses "red-baiting" in its own words. The Graham Moomaw tweet is only a reliable source for claims about Graham Moomaw (WP:TWITTER), and the Slate article doesn't use the term in the article text, they just include a tweet of some woman using it. I'm not really sure why that tweet is even there. It's not mentioned in the text of the article. They don't even state who the author is. There's zero explanation for its inclusion, so I would say we should just treat that tweet as a SPS. So of all the sources included, only one uses the term "red-baiting", and that's Jacobin. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Jacobin's not reliable when it comes to what counts as red-baiting. (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: Please note that IP is forum shopping as they originally claimed this was a BLP violation and posted about it on ANI two days ago and was told it is no violation. They are now posting here to try to get their personal preference reflected in the article. IP has been combative, insulting, and outright lying, to say nothing of openly flouting several rules such as edit-warring in lieu of finding consensus on the talk page per BRD (and as requested numerous times over the past three weeks). They are an SPA (though they only just now started editing "random page" articles perfunctorily to remove that allegation) and I strongly suspect that they have a COI with regards to the other delegate mentioned in the Carter article, Mark Keam, which they have not yet denied on the talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'm the one who started this thread, and I have nothing to do with whatever issues you had at ANI. Secondly, ANI is not a forum for deciding content issues. If you were discussing content issues there, then that was the wrong forum. This is the appropriate forum for discussing issues with sourcing, and I'd appreciate it if you took your irrelevant accusations elsewhere and focused on the issue at hand. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I brought Jesse up at ANI for edit-warring. They said this was a content issue, which is why Red took it here, so there's no "shopping". Jesse is violating WP:AGF, something he's accused me of doing. He also accused me of edit-warring **while edit-warring**, so this is not the first time he's projected his own faults on others. He's continued edit-warring, so it looks like a second trip to ANI might be warranted. (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't a reliable sources issue. Some of those sources are reliable, some are not, but the problem is that none of them use the loaded term "redbaiting" yet an editor is suggesting that they can be thrown together to show that the subject of the article has been redbaited by unspecified individuals. This is a WP:SYNTH problem as well as a WP:WEASEL problem. The solution is to say so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so have compared the subject to communists. And drop Twitter. R2 (bleep) 23:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
One of the sources uses the term "red-baiting" but that source is Jacobin, which is extremely biased about this exact subject, so it's not reliable for this purpose. This isn't just my subjective opinion. According to Jacobin (magazine), "Jacobin has been described by its founder Bhaskar Sunkara as a radical publication".
I agree about SYNTH and WEASEL, though. The solution is to keep the current version, which uses a neutral, accurate term: "criticizing". (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)