Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

Music genre cofounder and website

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(WP:SPS). The Wikipedia art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that.

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(WP:SPS). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, will be removed by the campaigning editor).

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Wikipedia, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Wikipedia. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"

What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."

There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).

What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."

Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.

(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."

Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.

Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: the article version as of the above date was Space Music 18:38, 14 November 2008.]

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with Kosmische musik - and not the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently appropriately weighted within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.

In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ambient, New Age or electronic, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.

It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - none of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does.

The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only original research, for which no citable sources exist - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are not simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers.

A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show.

Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is not and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is entirely inappropriate to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music' ".

Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the neutral point of view policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of dispute resolution available that may be able to help, such as article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends undue weight to the primary source; it does so by synthesising an original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: at this point the article was edited twice: Space Music 21:45, 17 November 2008 and Space music 21:46, 17 November 2008.]

Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably Lanza who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current space music article. The statement above Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago is misleading, not verifiable, and is in actuality false.Be aware also that a number of the cited sources contradict themselves - swinging from 'space-music' as genre descriptor to 'space music' as category of musics. Hill states that all music played on his program, irrespective of era, ethnic origin, or extant definitions, is 'space music' (ranging from Haydn to Yanni), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for making the claim of, "The statement above [quote from 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle ] ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ?

If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false?

Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source??

If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary?

If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect exactly as written and spelled, then you have potentially committed libel per quod - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement.

So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? Milo 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled "The sky's the limit with ambient music". The article's opening paragraph states "spacemusic, also known as ambient...". The article goes on to note "a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre...", and "the best description of what we do is contemplative music". This does not support your WP:OR theory that spacemusic and ambient are somehow different genres, and that Stephen Hill invented spacemusic. The assertion that Stephen Hill invented the term spacemusic 20 years ago is clearly false, as numerous other sources already cited in the Spacemusic article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic interpretation of them is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You struck one problem claim, ok, but your more dangerous claim of "is in actuality false" still stands. Therefore you are still at the previously stated potential risk of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (09:44).

Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."

A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" (two words in English) was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill "coined the term "spacemusic"", and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" (one word in English) throughout the article.

A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: ""Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." Semitransgenic 00:39, 8 November 2008.

If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled (one word), and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44).

You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? Milo 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes the SFC is wrong, Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill coined it. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: "the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material." please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

?Let the record show:

1. Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" (one word in English) was a "branding drive"[1].
2. Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" (one word) is not different from "space music" (two words), and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways.
3. He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself.
4. He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke.

This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders.

To summarize from the top post:

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The RS answers are:

• Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists.
• Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources.
• Additionally, the 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.

Milo 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, you are very confused, read the article, read what you have written in the article, you interchange space-music and spacemusic throughout, but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call one of your lifetime best pieces of analysis (what??) is disintegrating, you want to reconstitute definitions so they substantiate your diabolical delusions. Yes, yawn, it's boring, tiresome, and your lecturing and educating is really quite patronising, so please, stop, we have all had quite enough. So for the last time, let me get this across to you: your WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:OR thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. Milo 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But Milo, in this very declaration you refer to space music?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007): "... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...". "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. Milo 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your first major contribution to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the Hearts of Space website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term Space music throughout. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."

Lose the sophistry.

"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"

No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. Milo 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means "b: to present in detail for examination or consideration" (M-W.com). Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" (one word) and 11 hits on "space music" (two words). The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles.

The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: "Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,...". Milo 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the co-founder of a genre but space-music and spacemusic refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that space-craft & spacecraft mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words space & craft is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under space and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as "the best general treatment of the subject" does not mention spacemusic - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's Ocean of Sound (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book Strange Sound which includes a chapter entitled Space). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention spacemusic/space music directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of Music from the Hearts of Space, Anna Turner, in Birosik, uses the term space music, and not spacemusic. It's clear that spacemusic and space music are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that this has evolved into a content discussion with significant ramifications for the article, I've copied it to Talk:Space_music. Please continue the discussion there. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is IMDb an unreliable source?

[I moved this from the talk page since it is appears to be an inquiry intended for the main page. It regards the same source as the inquiry just above this section, but this one was posted and replied prior to the one above, though on the talk page. Additional replies are welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)]

As follow-up from a recent consensus to remove external links from {{Infobox Film}}, a new section in the template's documentation was created to capture the rationale behind the consensus. This was done at least in part so that editors have something to point other editors to in order to reduce the odds of IMDb links inclusion/exclusion becoming another in a long line of perennial proposals. This seems particularly possible because IMDb has been in {{Infobox Film}} for four years, i.e. since the infobox was created. A well-written draft of the rationale was created, but it includes this statement:

Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles,...

When I asked about it, a couple of editors agreed with this statement made by the editor who wrote it. I also found Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal from July 2007 and found some discussions about IMDb in some FA nominations. So I'm wondering if there a growing sense that IMDb isn't a reliable source? Thanks. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source.

Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of WP:EL to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at WP:CIMDB on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. GDallimore (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections:

1. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
2. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
3. Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at [2]), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
4. Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission.

1. The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Wikipedia.
2. The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Wikipedia should avoid using them.
3. Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.
4. The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as Variety. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted.
5. The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is).

I hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can i ask you for your opinion on bio information? considering WP:BLP and the fact that it has been questioned several times before? --neon white talk 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else that may or may not help: Roger Ebert's opinion about IMDb, taken from this October 2008 blog entry:

I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as [sic] astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.

Thanks. 72.244.200.30 (talk) (same as 72.244.207.57) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (i.e. the one who instigated this discussion)

• OK, the only thing that would be important here, is IMDb a WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes? Nothing else matters really. The way I see it there are no restrictions pr WP:RS using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Wikipedia. That would include anything that's relevant, pointed out by Metropolitan90: the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards etc. Anything that has to do with user comments or any kind of goofs would not be relevant for WP purposes anyway since this is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish any kind of WP:TRIVIA. Now, since this question about IMDb gets raised all the time, and valid references to solid facts get added and then again removed because someone claims IMDb not to be a "reliable source". Therefore I'd encourage everybody to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb so that a some kind consensus for WP:Citing IMDb could be reached. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Andersen Maps

I would like to ask for clarification of the third party opinion regarding this past request. It seems that a third-party opinion clearly concluded that, I quote: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". Yet now, on the same page, User:Meowy is pushing the same map from a controversial blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andrew Andersen [3] and essentially ignoring the third party opinion in his comments. There are dozen other pages, to which these maps made it, and I think they need to be removed from all of them. None of these maps are based on any credible research and only result in edit warring over contested border issues. Thank you in advance. Atab?y (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.-- ??p?t?? ^Talk!! 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where WP:NOR#Original images is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Wikipedia is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks Blueboar for recognising the WP:NOR#Original images issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Wikipedia are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, WP:NOR#Original images points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main text of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on wikipedia is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, the image reinserted by Meowy, edit warring in violation of his parole at Nagorno-Karabakh, is not neutral, because it asserts POV about the existence of some independent fiefdom inside a larger empire, which is false. This POV is not claimed by anyone but Armenian sources, hence is not neutral as it's simply not agreed by the opposite side and no 3rd party sources are offered. Moreover, the images were not made by Meowy but were taken from a blog of Andrew Andersen, who was fired from his job at University of Victoria for racism. These maps are used in several Wikipedia pages only by contributors whose POV they fit. Hence, I think it would be better to remove them and come up with consensus neutral version of maps discussed by several parties and relied upon neutral sources in text. There is a multitude of respected scholars on the subjects of medieval history of the region, and Andrew Andersen is not one of them. Thanks. Atab?y (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory is discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. Grandmaster (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities were independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (WP:NPOV#Undue weight comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. "It was Jahan-Shah [the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note] who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from Karakoyunlu territory. Meowy 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. Meowy 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. [4] The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. Meowy 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians:

the Russian Empire recognized the sovereign status of the meliks in their domains by a charter of the Emperor Paul dated 2 June 1799.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Even when the Persian Empire conquered them and subordinated to the Karabakh Khanate (although this period has no connection with the map in question), these melikdoms could keep their self-government:

The new khanate consisted of the eastern plains between the juncture of the Arak's and Kur (lowland Qarabagh) and the mountainous western half (Highland Qarabagh, ...) inhabited predominantly by Armenians living in five autonomous principalities governed by their own hereditary princes, known as meliks

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 155.

At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. Caucasian Albania, which was formally ruled by Persian Marzbans. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --Vacio (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: [5] Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it?

But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state.

It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were.

The melikdoms of Karabagh have become a legend among the Armenian people as the first rallying centre of modern Armenian nationalism, but their existence was threatened by the jealousies of neighboring Mohammedan rulers and by the suspicions of later Shahs. The melikdoms enjoyed their greatest independence in the 1720's under the Siwnid General David Beg (1674-1728), but after his death they were overrun by the Turks.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Also, you refer to a post mikkalai (talk · contribs) (admin?? no I think) who proposed the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: [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]). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Wikipedia. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --Vacio (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all maps shall be removed and replaced with NPOV based on scholarly sources. There are actually plenty of maps inside publications, not sure why can't we use those or recreate maps based on them, instead of using maps made by blogger accused of racism. Atab?y (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all those maps should go, if there are doubts of their accuracy. After all, I'm not the only one questioning the accuracy of this source, so do even wiki admins. As for Albania, it was an independent state, with its own kings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. And I presented my sources, not agreeing with this map. See Mirza Jamal:

?? ??????? ??????????? /????/ ? ??? ??????????? ?????????, ???????????? ? ?????, ??????????? ???????, ?????, ????????? ?????? ?????, ????????? ?? ?????? /???????/ ?????, ???????, ?????, ???????? ? ?????, ??????????? ???????????? ??????????.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. [36]

Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Atab?y, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the last, as long as you don't have any abjection against itself.

Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster is making claims which he knows aren't true, see above at Vacio's reply. I wonder how long Grandmaster can still refuse to read what others write when others repeat all over again and he closes his ears.

The map represents 1450-1515, the quote he presents speaks of late Safavid, the reign of [Safavid dynasty] was from 1501/1502 to 1722. The second half of their reign was in the 17th century. See how Grandmaster made Beylerbey clickable to it's main page on Wikipedia and has not done so for Safavid. Given that he was corrected previously of the difference of date I hope Grandmaster has just forgotten to do likewise for Safavid which article clearly indicates the date.

It is not the first time Grandmaster has provided sources representing different periods to remove history which is recognized and not denied outside Azerbaijan.

As for Atabek, his continuous attacks on the author of the map rather than addressing what is inaccurate on the map must stop. More particularly is the subject at hand; Atabek was and is currently banned from its main article. Dozens of sources including the authors Grandmaster uses refers to the principalities of Artsakh (Khachen) indicated as Karabakh on the map. Those sources were provided in the two articles from which Atabek was banned from. This is another attempt to game his topic ban and Wokipedia-wide attempt to remove any mention of Armenian past history in NK and the lands of present-day Azerbaijan. - Fedayee (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all just a pointless repeat of the original discussionrequest (and that in turn was a pointless repeat of the article's talk page discussion.) Again Grandmaster / Atab?y don't come up with credible reasons to reject the map, don't address the points made by other editors, and go widely off-topic in an attempt to disguise their weak positions. And again we have disinterest from third-parties. Meowy 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys read the source before saying something bad about other editors and failing to assume good faith time after time? The source says that the Armenian principalities in Karabakh never were independent, they were always subordinate to Muslim rulers, initially to the Khans of Ganja, and later, after Ganja khans remained royal to Safavids and did not support Nadir shah, he subordinated their lands to other rulers. For instance, meliks were subordinated to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, and that arrangement lasted until Karabakh khanate was created:

?? ??????? ??????????? /????/ ? ??? ??????????? ?????????, ???????????? ? ?????, ??????????? ???????, ?????, ????????? ?????? ?????, ????????? ?? ?????? /???????/ ?????, ???????, ?????, ???????? ? ?????, ??????????? ???????????? ??????????. ???? ? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????????, ???????, ????????? ? ??. ??????? ?????? ????, ?? ? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ????????????????? ??????????. ???? ? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ??????????, ???????????, ??????????, ????????????? ? ??????????? ????????, ? ??????? ? ????? ????, ??????????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????????????????? ??????????, ? ?????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????. ????? ?????? ? ? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ? ??????, ??????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???????????????? ???????. ????? ????????? ???????????? ?? 1160 ?????????????? ????, ??????????????? 1743 ????????????? ????, ????? ??? ???? ????? ???.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

I have more sources on this, but this discussion is pointless. The main issue is that the map should be made on the basis of a reliable scholarly source, and not be taken from some amateur website. This is what I propose to do, let's find a map from a professional source, who's qualification cannot be questioned. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). Meowy 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --Brand ????? 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters IT IS AN IMAGE! What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atab?y claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a circulus vitiosus. --Brand ????? 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - Fedayee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to illustrate information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no WP:RS violation involved. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. Meowy 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion on the talk page of the Abkhazia WikiProject, and I want to say that already previously I found that the maps that describe the political situation of the region some 2000 years ago (like here, used on Wikipedia e.g. here) seemed improbably accurate, given the paucity of contemporary sources. Of course, I could be wrong. sephia karta | di mi 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. Meowy 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. Grandmaster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. sephia karta | di mi 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a source for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to illustrate what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Wikipedia editor).

To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it might be an acceptable illustration. Whether it is an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Wikipedia editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. Meowy 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. sephia karta | di mi 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as per WP:OR#Original images a seperate source does not need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should already be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk)