Talk:Greens–European Free Alliance

Parties-and-elections

The self-published website of "Wolfram Nordsieck", an unknown person with no recognised expertise in any topic, is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems ok totally and noone had problem with that source to I saw. http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/referenceguide.html

Nubia86 (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't use self-published sources by non-experts because they are not a reliable source. Is English a second language? Your sentence does not entirely make sense. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Here also https://ec-europa-eu.libguides.com/european-elections/statistics-and-data. "Parties and Elections in Europe provides a comprehensive database about political parties, elections and governments in all European countries. The website contains the results of parliamentary elections from more than 100 countries and autonomous regions in Europe. The parties are classified according to their political orientation. Historical data can be found in the archive." I will restore long-standing and you get some consensus to remove or to call source not reliable. Nubia86 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The presence of a link to the website on one EU site does not render a self-published source reliable. Self-published sources are not used. Nordsieck has no recognised expertise. He self-published a book through a recognised and well-known vanity press, Books on Demand. That it's been used on pages before is irrelevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If the EU commission recognize and listed that, that is pretty notable. And I don't think so to you have any argument. Maybe you just don't like something, but then make a blog. You changed long-standing version and you will have to explain and get consensus about otherwise it will be restored. Nubia86 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you restore it you will be reverted, because we don't use self-published sources. Just because they have - unfortunately - been on the site before, is not a reason to avoid the policy on poor quality sources. You need to familiarise yourself with the reliable source, WP:NPOV and civility guidelines before you continue editing inappropriately. Don't speculate on other editor's motives. Indent your posts. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to get some consenus about your claims. I don't see any problem with that source. Nubia86 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand the policy about self-published sources? Cambial — foliar❧ 01:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Check WP:RS/N and there was already talk about that website. I thought to you checked that. Or start a new one and get consensus, or restore sources what you removed. Nubia86 (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no agreement that it's a reliable source in a brief discussion from fourteen years ago. As admin Jayjg points out, it's a WP:SPS, run by a lawyer...i.e. a non-expert. He too sees no indication it meets WP:RS. Do you understand the policy about self-published sources? We're not going to restore unreliable sources published by unknown nobodies, they're not a useful addition to the encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So it seems to you have to start WP:RS/N if you have some problem, to get consensus, or to restore content that you removed. Maybe not the best, but pretty widely used source. So trust me, it is better like that, or your actions will be just removal of sourced content. Nubia86 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think an exception ought to be made to the site-wide consensus that source material should come from a reputable publisher, an idea that was established very early on in the encyclopaedia project, then seek wider input that agrees with your view. That's unlikely in the extreme. Some guy's home-made website is not a reputable publisher, hence the policy on WP:SPS. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, for me, to that be listed on the EC Library Guide is notable. And they for sure won't list there some biased, pov or really low quality sources. As I said, not the best maybe but it is not a primary source and it is widely used. So start WP:RS/N discussion or you doing just removal of sourced content. And for removal of sourced content you can easily be revered and your actions can be labeled as vandalism. Nubia86 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is about reliability, not notability. A mention on one website does not establish reliability. Nor does it establish notability. You can try to label my edits as "vandalism", but as you evidently have no understanding of what that term means, no-one's going to pay much attention. As this is a self-published source, you would need to establish that we should make an exception to the site-wide consensus against the use of SPS. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You did removal of long-standing sources, I reverted and then you need to make arguments about what and why. Only what I see is that you are removing sources. You should make WP:RS/N if you have some problem. Your personal labeling that something is reliable or not is not enough as this is not your personal blog. Nubia86 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Or to invite more editors to this talk page maybe first? Nubia86 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed unsourced content. If it was sourced it would have a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the content. But the content had a citation to a home-made website - a self-published source - which is not a reliable source. The stated problem with the sourcing - it's self-published, by an unknown person who is not an expert, and is therefore not reliable - must be fixed before the material is added back. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

1st problem is to that source is widely used here, long-standing, and cited also, so in your opinion is not good enough, I say it is ok. So you are making your own personal judgment and that is for personal blog not for Wikipedia. Nubia86 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm applying the site-wide consensus, as established at the WP:Verifiability policy, that self-published websites are not reliable sources. Not my personal opinion; it's a fact. Your opinion is that we should make an exception to that policy because you like the source and because you claim it's longstanding. Neither is a good reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

People use that source, and editors here at wikipedia for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Useful sources so seems to you are only one who have something against that source for now. And as I said this is not a personal blog. Or you get consensus about that source or you are doing vandalism. Nubia86 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That link is a sub-page created almost entirely by one person. It is not Wikipedia policy, and few editors have even seen it. Your claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The actual policy of Wikipedia, agreed to by the entire community, goes against the use of such a source. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The source is self-published, but it is one of the most knowledgeable and complete comparative source on political parties in Europe. It is worth using. --Checco (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)