This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The map is objetivelly reliable
In resume, this discussion has been going to nowhere, because the user tobus refuses to admit the map as reliable despite being faced by strong evidence, he keeps making up policies and relying on baseless assumptions. The map i'm presenting here is reliable, here is why:
The original creator of this map, Jonathan Hagos is an stablished expert in the subject of migration, backed up by the Oxford Brookes University [1] citation below:
Research Interest and consultancy expertise:
My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.
For an average human being is clear that this means that Hagos is a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration, but tobus makes a huge show for this, and his medular argument right now is that somehow the excerpt above doesn't means that Hagos is a consultancy expertise, but in fact (on his own words) it's The opposite when i ask him why he believes this he starts saying non-sense that is not backed up by any source, right now he is for some reason demanding a hire-proof despite no policy asking for it. I asked him to cite the policy that states that a "hire-proof" is mandatory, but instead of answering he reported me to the edit warring noticeboard (despite that i didn't broke any rule) and the slick kid did it at a time on which he knows that i'm not present so i couldn't defend myself. For all the reasons above I don't think that his point of view is correct and that his behavoir is civil or acceptable on wikipedia. And more importantly, the map is reliable until he brings real evidence that it's not. Czixhc (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You are assuming that's what he's talking about, but to me it's clear he is not talking about consultancy expertise at all but about his research interests. Consider the verifiable facts: Hagos has no education, qualifications, experience or publications in migration[2][3], other staff pages list only research interests under the "Research interests and consultancy expertise" heading[4][5], the description of the "work and research" matches Hagos's artistic design work[6][7] and Hagos uses virtually the same description when describing this artistic design work on his website[8]. All this strongly suggests that the phrase "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes" under the heading "Research interests and consultancy expertise" is talking about his research interests, and not some assumed employment in a consultancy service that Oxford Brookes doesn't even provide[9].
Can you provide any evidence to support your assumption? If not I think you need to accept that you might have misunderstood, and Hagos is not an expert in migration at all.
It doesn't matches at all, the text written in the Oxford University website is way smaller. And why would the Oxford Brookes University bring up "art" when the section is solely titled AND only asks for research interests and consultancy expertise? you are assuming things that are impossible. Czixhc (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to support your assumption or not? Tobus2 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that you can verify by yourself that the Oxford University website only refers to "research interest and consultancy expertise" not "art" simply because the section is titled that way. Czixhc (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So no sources? Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is my source: [10] verify by yourself what's the title of the section. Czixhc (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said above it's clear to me he's talking about research interests in that source. I've explained why and provided numerous sources that support my interpretation. If you want to claim he's talking about consultancy expertise you need to provide some source that support that interpretation - otherwise it's just your personal opinion. Tobus2 (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
But he says "my work and research" he clearly means more than one thing, and that thing can't be art because art it's not the topic of the section. Czixhc (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It can't be consultancy expertise because he hasn't done any consulting.
You are confusing yourself - it's basically the same statement as on his website with "and research" added in so he can include it under "Research interests" - the "work" bit is still about his artistic design wok, it hasn't magically changed into consultancy expertise because he added "and research" to it.
No sources confirm what you are saying, please consider that you might be wrong here.
While i still hold that he is a consultancy expertise, i have to let you know that a researcher has plenty of credibility too, specially if backed up by a top class University even if you were right (which clearly isn't the case) It's pointless for you to argue about this. Czixhc (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Having done research into a field doesn't make someone an expert, particularly when the research was just "re-illustrating" a "post-colonial theme" in an artistic design work.
You seem to be forgetting that the WP policy says a self-published source has to be "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Even if you could provide evidence to back up your assumption that Hagos has worked as an expert consultant in migration (which you can't, because he hasn't), it still doesn't satisfy the established and published requirements of the policy. I think we've both wasted enough time on this, there is absolutely no evidence to support the assumption you've been making, so please just accept that you've misunderstood the Oxford Brookes page. Hagos is clearly not an established and published expert in migration and the Oxford Brookes page doesn't say that he his.
That's false, besides having very notable third party support (that clearly states that he is a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration, and that lists the multiple publications on which he has been featured) he is working on Simshar, That film's topic is migration, you can confirm this via multiple publication news sites, therefore he has been featured on third party publications in the relevant field. Now you will probably come up with something like "We aren't sure if he working as a production designer in a film whose topic is migration makes him an expert on the topic of the film he is in charge of designing!!" but that doesn't changes that the film is about migration, and that Hagos is designing it. Therefore for Simshar touching the topic of migration the publication requeriment is meet too, and way too well. Czixhc (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what's false and where are your sources to prove what you are saying? Tobus2 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've replied there. It isn't acceptable and has been removed by a second editor. I will also remove it if it's added to any articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And there is no RS from a 3rd party saying he's a migration expert. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There have been considerable progress in the reliable sources noticeboard during the last days, this discussion is about to reach it's end. Czixhc (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It certainly should. Five editors say it isn't, and no one has agreed with you. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If i recall correctly it was agreed that he was an expert at ilustrating maps that demostrate skin color among other subjects [11] and you, by yourself accepted that he is a valid production designer [12] since the field of the proyect on which his valid work is taking place is a field that is pertinent to this discussion, per wikipedia´s self published sources criteria [13] he is reliable for migration topics, and while there have been people that have disagreed with me, no one have been able to make a solid point against my instance, and wikipedia is not a matter of votes, but a matter of sources [14]. Czixhc (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Then you recall incorrectly, it was never agreed that Hagos is an expert at illustrating maps. One user suggested Hagos might be considered an expert on how to make maps, but this was questioned since the only evidence was an art exhibition with a misleading title. In the diff you provided that same user goes on to say "but that doesn't make him an expert on the underlying issue of the actual distribution of skin colours.", meaning you can't use Hagos as a source since your map is about the distribution of human skin colour, not about how to make maps.
Dougweller said (in the diff you provided) "working as a production designer might just give him credibility for production design, but definitely not for migration". How on earth can you take that to mean Hagos is reliable for migration topics? It clearly says the exact opposite.
Every single editor who commented, including two admins, confirmed that Hagos's map is not a reliable source. You can try to spin it anyway you like but it's over. Without a reliable source we can't use your map on Wikipedia, please just accept that and let it go.
Tobus, i already know that you rather die than to accept the map as reliable source, but this is a new level, firstly, it was agreed that he is an expert at ilustrating maps, it really doesn't matters if you subjetivelly consider the exhibition to be misleading or whatever by a cryptic reason that only you can understand (and that is sourceless by the way). Second, Dougweller clearly accepted his work as a production designer to be valid, this is unquestionable. And the policy for self-published sources states that an expert is reliable for the topic at hand if has work on the relevant field, which in this case is migration. 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Czixhc (talk)
I went to the RS Noticeboard because I'm tired of your constant misinterpretations and spurious logic. Five experienced editors replied and confirmed that Hagos's map is not a reliable source. I'm going to listen to them and I suggest you do the same. Tobus2 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Then go (and stay there instead of duplicating the discussion) and see why most of these editors aren't experienced at all. Czixhc (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
