This 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. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 |
The prompting for making this came from this section on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page, but i'd like to ask about the site in general. The prompting article page at the Daily Dot is also here. Is this site reliable is the basic question i'm asking, obviously?
They were discussed on Gigaom here, where they were annoying vague (and said Daily Dot was vague with them as well) on what exactly the site is meant to be. The creators of the site seem reliable, but the article states that "crowdsourcing stories will be one part of it, but there will be traditional staff writers as well." So...part of it will be community stories, which would be unreliable because they're essentially like random people making news posts, but then they would have traditional staff writers, which might be considered reliable. But they annoyingly don't have a staff page, beyond a page that lists the three founders. So how do we know who is staff writers? The writer of the article in question, Fruzsina Eordogh, seems to be some sort of blogger. It says here that she's a "freelance writer/blogger" and, from the sites she's on, she seems to specialize in blogging for internet specific sites. What I mean by that is sites tailored for the internet, like this Daily Dot site.
So, i'm not quite sure what to make of this. What do we do with these community-based internet-directed news sites? I mean, I would compare them to internet gaming sites, but they seem a bit different. Silver seren C 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that the Fruzsina Eordogh took great care when creating this article. Everything said within the article is cited or quoted. The author even went out of her way to contact Daniel Brandt and the anonymous user(s) behind josephevers.blogspot.com. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any baseless, uncited, or unquoted claim or statement within the article. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if a source from a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization, is a reliable source, for a Class A review of the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States). -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be trivial, but a discussion arose on the talk page over the reliability of such source , cited here Mutual_intelligibility#References.
Can someone shed some light? -- Itemirus Message me! 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Are forum posts by experts on a topic considered reliable sources? I can provide a link to the specific example if required. Furthermore, is a post by a person who has worked on a specific project, that did not publish its results, considered a reliable source? Furthermore, when the project is mentioned in a book that is considered a reliable source, but the project was still in progress, when the book was published, are forum posts by a person involved in the project about the results considered a reliable source? I can get more specific on all these points if desired. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetical 1- I've gotten noticed enough to get a Wikipedia article, I guess it doesnt matter what I've done I could be anything from a philanthropist to a full-on rapist (gotta watch Always Sunny in Philadelphia to get that joke I suppose). Now most newspapers rely on either Bloomberg or the AP for national/international stories, even the big names; lets suppose they get my age wrong. Now every single reliable source we can find shows me to be younger/older than I am. Encyclopedia's normally have birthdates, so to have it in an article about me is encyclopedic. So can I, as a veteran Wikipedia editor, who now sees someone has made an article about me, change my age/add my birthdate based on... well, because I said so, or not much better- "my Mother was THERE and she says so", or even quite a bit better- I have these things called a driver's license and a birth certificate (but those are primary sources). Could I- A) prove my identity to someone and get my word taken at face value; B) scan and give you the primary documents proving my age and those primary sources would be ok to over-ride the secondary.
Not-as-hypothetical-I'd like to, if I continue to not find it in Wikipedia, create an article on the "South Carolina Bandit" who robbed banks 2-3 years ago throughout the South and Midwest, ending in his capture in Missouri which was covered nationally and even internationally including by America's Most Wanted. Many of the secondary sources, newspapers and such, have outright wrong information. I know because I was there and witnessed his capture personally. America's Most Wanted did the best job of getting it right (partly because they were the only one's I gave an interview to). Now, I have that episode on my DVR but unless I let another editor over to my house (no, you cant), how is an episode of a tv show that doesnt do repeats as far as I know going to be verifiable? Can I use the episode as a source? And hypothetically if they got his age wrong, would I be able to use the copy of his driver's license as primary evidence to prove them wrong (see above hypothetical question; and yes I do have a copy of his driver's license, and no it's not illegal). Camelbinky ( talk) 04:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
1. You are a primary source for information about yourself. However, that information has to be verifiable. Getting a newspaper to publish a statement from you would work, but nowadays, it might be easier just to post it on your web site. Most people with articles in Wikipedia already have one, sometimes through their work. Posting the information there then takes about as much time as typing it. If you don't have one, make one: there are dozens of free personal web space providers. Make it convincing enough that it is, in fact, yours (get a link from a few similarly notable friends who do have established sites, or post a personal photo with you holding up a "welcome to my web site at [this address]" sign or something). Post the information there. That's a few hours work, maybe a few days if you really want to do it right.
2. A AMW television episode is a (reasonably) reliable source (reasonably sensational mass media, and all), and if you don't have another choice, I'd say use it. It's like a magazine that's out of print, presumably there is a way to get at it. Having it available would be a definite help, yes. Have you checked http://www.amw.com/show_archive/past_shows.cfm ? That seems to have quite a lot of info, even though "south carolina bandit" doesn't show in the search. Look under his real name, since you seem to know it. No, you would not be able to use your copy of his driver's license to prove them wrong; that's a primary source, and since you're claiming a reliable secondary source is wrong, this is by definition a controversial fact, and for controversial facts we need good evidence, for example another reliable secondary source to say as much. (If you think a picture of a driver's licence is clearly reliable, you've obviously never worked in a bar or selling cigarettes retail. :-) ) -- GRuban ( talk) 23:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The article To Heart 2, about a work of anime, has an InfoBox which says "Genre = harem". An RfC was created here to ask whether that was the correct genre. In the RfC, that led to questions about whether editors were able to determine the genre on their own, without a reliable source stating the genre. Or, would an editor be violating the OR policy by stating (in the absence of a reliable source) that the genre was such-and-such. This question (do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source) must have come up before, so any help from experienced RS experts would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a very Important issue
It is about Dr. Garnik Asatrian which is used in the English Wikipedia as a source in Kurdish matters. Garnik Asatrsian is already disqualified as a Source in the German Wikipedia because he has obvious anti Kurdish agendas and he and his Institute give false and unconfirmed claims as facts.
I searched some days now for sources to demonstrate my claims.
1. Most of his controversial claims are in fact anti Kurdish and refer to Kurdish minorities.
2. The Yazidi for example. He creates on his own within his institute, a new ethnic identity for them. He claims that they are non Kurds while they speak Kurdish and the large majority considers themselves as such according to the representatives of the Yazidis
Here are two interviews. One with Garnik Astarian claiming a non Kurdish identity for them. And the other with the Yezidi and Kurdish representative which confirms that the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds.
Here are two interviews which show us the anti kurdish and unprofessional behave of Garnik Asatrian.
http://groong.usc.edu/orig/ok-19980630.html
I will cite one of his whole unproven and made up claims. However you should read the interviews if you have some time because they are important to see his behave.
"Although they speak Kurdish - Kurmanji - they do not consider themselves as Kurds, so this is the problem."
Now an Interview with the Yezidi/Kurdish representatives Hasan Tamoyan/Knyaz Hassanov http://www.groong.com/orig/ok-20061011.html
"OK: What is your opinion on the fact that some Yezidis consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds while others do not?
KH: The overwhelming majority consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds. This issue is one of concern to us, but it is not so worrying as the number of Yezidis who don't consider themselves Kurds is quite small. All over the world the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds, so if 1-2,000 Yezidis [in Armenia] do not consider themselves as such it's not significant enough of an issue. It's also their human right."
How can a Doctor give such statements like "Most Yezidis feel not Kurdish" as if it is a fact while at the same time the representatives of Yezidis/Kurds agree that the majority of Yezidi do feel Kurdish and speak Kurdish.
Here is another interview with Dr. Karlene Chachani who is President of the Department of the Kurdish Writers of the Writers' Union of Armenia, and Chief Editor of "Friendship" - an Armenian-Kurdish political Journal.
http://www.oneworld.am/journalism/yezidi/chachani.html
In his interview he explains very well the Issue. And he also notes that Garnik Asatrian has joined the Dashnakutuune (Dashnak) Party.
For more informations about the Dashnak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation
"The ARF advocates socialism and is a member of the Socialist International.[1] It possesses the largest number of members from the political parties present in the Armenian diaspora, having established affiliates in more than 200 countries.[2] Compared to other Armenian parties which tend to primarily focus on educational or humanitarian projects, the Dashnaktsutiun is the most politically oriented of the organizations and traditionally has been one of the staunchest supporters of Armenian nationalism.[2]"
How can a man who belongs to a Nationalist Party be used as reference in other Issues belonging to geopolitical neighbors?
3. On This Example we see the behave of Garnik Asatrian when he calls a Professor of the Harvard University a stupid man.
"for example, Mehrdad Izady in "Kurdish Life" has accused some Armenian nationalist newspapers of printing racist articles regarding the Kurds and the Yezidi-Kurdish identity.
Garnik Asatrian: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing."
Is this how someone with the Doctor title should behave? How can Doctor G. Asatrian be taken as a reliable source, while he calls Professor of the Harvard University Mehrdad Izady a stupid man, just because Izady supposes a Armenian Nationalism behind this Yezidi/Kurdish division. In which Izady didn´t called any names but seems to have been right with his suppose. Like we can see on the Dashnak Party and G. Astarian relation.
4. The same Armenian institute which belongs to G. Asatrian made some books in Kurdish and called it "Ezdiki" while this name is not in use by any Yazidi family and most of those families refused to use this books.
" OK: From speaking to some visiting academics researching Yezidis in Armenia as well as hearing reports from some [Yezidi] villages, it would appear that some [Yezidi] schools are refusing to accept textbooks supplied the Armenian Government written in `Ezdiki.' Have you also heard about this?
KH: Not some, but many. Out of 12 [Yezidi] villages in Aragatsotn, only 1 has accepted these textbooks. The rest are not using them and nor do they accept them."
Garnik Asatrian however claims in one of his other biased works. That the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki
on page Eleven.
http://www.hra.am/file/minorities_en.pdf
5. I have read some of his other (obviously biased) books and they are full of wrong and unsupported claims.
Just like this. Page 5.
http://www.archive.org/stream/ProlegomenaToTheStudyOfTheKurds/Asatrian_kurds#page/n3/mode/2up
He claims that Assyrians, Armenians are traditionally considered Kurds (This is wrong there is no single Historian or scholar which could confirm this claim. The Kurds did never claim Armenians or Assyrians for Kurds.
However at the same time he calls the Laks as a other ethnic group. Another false and unproven claim of him. The Laks are known as accepted by all Ethnologues and recent linguistic researches as Kurds and speaking one of the languages belonging to Kurds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran)
There are many other examples which show that Garnik Asatrian has a obvious nationalistic and anti Kurdish Agenda. The use of Garnik Asatrians works as source is already disqualified in the German Wikipedia and I ask to do this on the English Wikipedia too.
He is used as a source in diverse Articles about the Zaza and their language to make the historic connection of them to the Kurdish identity smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaza_people
Wikisupporting (
talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Having noticed some dubious information in the Wiki article Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (see Talk: Mein Kampf in the Arabic language for details), I looked into the source of this dubious information ie " Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam". I am now of the opinion that this book dose not belong in a list of reliable sources which should be used to build an encyclopaedia. Whilst a few critics seem to have liked the book (eg "'the authors tell this story soberly and well"), non seem prepared to praise it for it's accuracy or scholarship. In fact most are damning about it's lack of balance, and factual unreliability. Here are a few examples:
The previous discussion on this book did not appear to reach any satisfactory resolution re. the books reliability as a source. However, dubious information, sourced from this book, is still being inserted in the encyclopaedia, which suggest to me that this needs to be re-examined and a resolution reached. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon problems once again. A couple editors insist on keeping the following dubious material (some of which was deleted years back as NOT WP:RS). There are a number of WP:RS sources that make similar accusations already in a more encyclopedic fashion, so it's not like these are desperately needed.
Hopefully we can ignore the inevitable soapbox and breast beating on this issue and have a rational discussion of proper sourcing. ;-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, just because an article is behind a paywall does not mean it is not a reliable source; it is no worse than a non-digitized book. -- Avi ( talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, the paywall issue is settled. Obviously the other aspects of the quote would have to be contested at BLP if it was worth doing so, probably as complain about a larger pattern of biased editing.
On the four questionable sources, User:Kmhkmh is the only editor to comment who has not previously edited the article. Other non-involved editors care to comment? Especially on the specious argument this is only a self-published "organizations' opinion of Atzmon." Obviously, if these four sources can be used, half the sources of similar genre that like Atzmon also could be used -- if someone went against clear policy they can NOT be used. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Google finds some 50 Wikipedia articles sourced to books published by Melrose Press, better known as the parent company of the vanity scammers at the International Biographical Centre. Can these books be considered to be valid reliable sources? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Would this interview in Inked magazine be a reliable source for the claim that Evan Seinfeld is Jewish? He's interviewed there, the interviewer describes him as Jewish, and Seinfeld doesn't deny it. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a problem with a web source that I have noticed on quite a few music-related articles. The source is www.UKchartsplus.co.uk which is often used as a source for UK singles and album charts details. However, despite the fact they have plastered the logo for the Official Charts Company (OCC) on their website, UKchartsplus are not an official organisation. By their own admission, they are just a group of four music fans (they call themselves "chart watchers") who do the website in their spare time as a hobby (as confirmed here). The OCC are part of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) (as confirmed here) who are the UK's official music industry authority, but UKchartsplus are not affiliated with either the OCC or the BPI. The problem lies in the fact that some of the data on the UKchartsplus website (particularly year-end charts about sales of albums and singles for each year) are often quite different to the official year-end sales charts published by the BPI. Since the OCC/BPI are the only official body that can provide sales data information, should UKchartsplus be deemed as an unreliable website and therefore not appropriate to use as a source? 88.104.30.153 ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the subject of a fierce debate on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) in reference to the Russian oligarch in exile in UK, who had won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed article repeats these allegations in minute detail, with a disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libelous off these pages?-- Kolokol1 ( talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
At Joel McDonald I added links to That Anime Show, which is done by J. Michael Tatum.
Is that website a reliable source? Dream Focus 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Cmadler has added information to the cast section of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? article, claiming that the character Governor "Pappy" O'Daniel is probably based on former Texas governor W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. I removed it once as unreferenced, and he has restored it with the following source:
The relevant quote in this blog entry is as follows: "Many cultural and political historians think the character Gov. Menelaus “Pappy” O’Daniel of Mississippi is based on the notorious Texas politician, Wilbert Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel." But, she does not cite any of these "many cultural and political historians." Given the vagueness of this statement, the lack of verification, and the fact that this is a blog, I want to know if this can be accepted as a reliable source for the purposes of this article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
My policy WRT the sldinfo.com site has been to accept anything that is quoted from a known person (until that person objects) and reject anything based on unknown sources like say:
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086 Former Senior USAF Officer: When I was with the F-22 program ...
Right? Hcobb ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I assume that BNET is considered reliable, since it's notable enough to have its own article, and is owned by CBS Interactive, but in reading Interactive this page, which the writers/editors of the Alexandra Govere article cited in that article, much of it, including explanations of the things that would make her notable, is written by Govere herself in the first person. This doesn't disqualify it as user-generated, does it? Is this page okay to use to cite for this material in Govere's article? Up until now, all of the material in her article was either unsourced, or supported by sources that were self-published, user-generated, or which failed verification, with the exception of one passage sourced to an Elle Girl article. But now in looking at this BNET article, I wondering if this is a valid second one, and if it confers notability on her. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 08:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Digital Blasphemy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS issue or a WP:NPOV one, but is it acceptable practice to cite an article almost exclusively to the topic's website? This would appear to be a violation of WP:PSTS and/or WP:ABOUTSELF to me, but I have an editor on this article claiming that "primary sources [no matter how pervasive] are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt" and that "you only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability" on an AfD -- inclusion of them in the article itself isn't necessary. This strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING that subverts the whole reason for having a requirement for third party sources. Opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A number of articles on WP about web sites have "Alexa rankings" in their infoboxes or bodies - which get updated with "increase" or "decrease" on almost a monthly basis. Two questions - is Alexa really a "reliable source" for ranking web sites? And is an uptick or downtick in a ranking of sufficient value to be noted in any inbox or article? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Alexa is the only company that gives this info for free. The other web trends firms require payment for their reports. So, I don't see a good substitute for the majority of Wikipedia articles on web sites, unless someone here feels very generous... FuFoFuEd ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been seeing a number of people using the "Sugar" websites, such as Buzzsugar.com and/or Popsugar.com, as sources in articles. They are published by Sugar Inc.. I was wondering what the opinion is of these websites. (I wasn't able to find anything about them in the archives.) The Popsugar homepage uses the word "gossip" several times, which sends up a red flag for me. Thanks. -- Logical Fuzz ( talk) 23:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor Simple Blue ( talk · contribs) has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by Relpmek ( talk · contribs) is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.
Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous reports published by various organizations with certain POVs. For example, Wikipedia's articles on renewable energy cites many reports published by various renewable energy trade or industry organizations or otherwise by clearly pro-renewable energy organizations. Such reports seem to fall outside WP:RS. They are not academic reports or newspapers. Neither are they self-published material by a single person which seem to be the case for all examples of self-published material in the policy. Another example would be reports by political parties or by special interest groups. So are they allowed or not? Miradre ( talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Some editors claim that The Register is not reliable in quoting Jimmy Wales or Seth Finkelstein (the latter individual however wrote the quote is accurate). FuFoFuEd ( talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
LaMarche, Una (2011-08-03). "Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies". New York Observer. Retrieved 2011-08-03.
Noted in
the Friendship is Magic talk page, the Observer article consists of interviews of a few convention-goers who misquote Know Your Meme. The article has seems to have no editorial oversight and contains obvious factual mistakes. It is used to cite the firing of a moderator from 4chan, but there are no reliable sources for this claim, and I feel the article itself is unreliable because of its many mistakes. -
IsaacAA (
talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There's one of those standard "sources say" reports on various sites that the TV show Desperate Housewives will end after the upcoming season. ABC is supposedly making an announcement Sunday. I would think that this is a matter where encyclopedic values would call for us to wait until the announcement, or at least until someone with actual knowledge says this on the record. This isn't exactly an earthshaking matter that we need to urgently stay on top of in real time, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Joel Templeton. I have just received some news on my family tree that James Naismith(he would have been her uncle)was related to my Great grandmother Mrs. Peter Templeton. The Templeton side of my family came from Scotland, then to Canada, then some came to Wisconsin(that's where I'm from). Any information regarding this is helpful and appreciated. Thanks. Joel Templeton
I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.
General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Wikipedia? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span ( talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A Tiny Mix Tapes post ( http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/big-boi-names-his-next-solo-album-daddy-fat-sax-honor-great-service-he-received-white-castle) is used as the source for a section of the Big Boi article on Wikipedia, purportedly explaining the title of his upcoming album "Daddy Fat Sax: Soul Funk Crusader." The section in question:
"The album's title originates from when Big Boi and André 3000 would visit a local White Castle in between recording/writing in their earlier years before ATLiens (1996), because of an employee known as Daddy Fat Sacks, for his habit of including multiple extra sliders in every 10-sack that they purchased, as he was a fan of their music.[8] Upon hearing of his death after visiting the same location after completing Sir Lucious Left Foot, Big Boi decided to name his follow-up solo album after Daddy Fat Sacks, but intended to use "Sax" instead of "Sacks" as he is "planning on a doing a bunch of sax samples, tenor, soprano, and probably have at least a couple sax players come into the studio for the next record".[8]"
From the humorous tone of the article ("...Daddy Fat Sacks had passed away in a horrible chicken-ring accident. Distraught, Big Boi bought 50 sliders and returned home, where, after eating 30 burgers in one grief-fueled sitting..."), lack of any sources elsewhere online to corroborate this information, and TMT's established penchant for inserting bizarre, humorous anecdotes into their news stories (further reading: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/david-bowie-says-buy-station-station-again-and-ill-bring-back-tin-machine, http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/doom-heads-europe-little-tapas-brings-ghostface-london-get-fishscale-and-chips), I think it is safe to infer that this is not a reliable source.
Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span ( talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so? Span ( talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream ( talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.) -- Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Lonely Planet's guides are not reliable sources at all. It's contents are based on user contributions to their website. It's for adventurers travelers that don't mind having to deal with some misinformation, and not for writing an encyclopedia.
And yes, we need a reliable source for that translation. It's not uncommon for misconceptions to appear in what some place's names means or where did they come from. -- damiens.rf 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Damiens.rf that Lonely Planet is not a reliable source for a translation. To me this is a simple issue--if an editor does not speak or read Armenian, I don't believe they can evaluate the google translation. A much better source for this kind of translation would be a dictionary, and I expect that most major uni libraries would have one at hand. I disagree that BBC's ownership of LP has anything to do with either's reliability, our policies do not base RS decisions on who owns the source. The notion that the editor removing badly sourced content bears the burden of finding a better source is not supported by any policy of which I am aware, in fact, we have WP:BURDEN which puts that burden on the editor wishing to restore content. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. -- Lexein ( talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.
So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George talk 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation used: Malayala Manorama, P. Kishore (25 July 2011). "IT Growth Slows". Retrieved 25 July 2011.
Article: Technopark, Trivandrum
Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.
Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum#Reliability_of_Newspaper_Report_as_Reference
Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.
Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS( talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011.
Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".
Publication | Dated | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Hindu | Aug 17, 2010 | 1,387.8 crore | 2,192.26 crore | 2,412 crore |
Times of India | Nov 3, 2009 | 1,853 crore | ||
Hindu Business Line | Jun 24, 2008 | 1,568 crore | ||
Thaindian - report from IANS | March 27, 2009 | 1,750 crore | ||
Kaumudi online | Oct 22, 2010 | 2,930 crore |
Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.
Publication | Technopark: 2007-2008 | Infopark: 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|
The Hindu | 896.75 cr | 247.05 cr |
IT mission | 1,200 cr | 368.55 cr |
Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. -- Samaleks ( talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The following is a paragraph from Yadav
Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. [2] There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. [3] [4] Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that "[with the rise of] backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, [with] even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically." [5]
MangoWong keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:
The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).
There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue
I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush ( talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush ( talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, so I'll try for here.
Several teams (examples include Barca, Madrid, and Inter) use the official club websites as sources, and have done so for years.
Not only that, but they have turned those 'official' sources into exclusive sources for some sections of the articles. In seasons past I have inserted match results into articles using non-official sources, only to see them changed. The official sources are also the only ones that are allowed to be used for transfers. In both cases, these official sources might be slower or contain less information than reliable third party sources, and yet the other sources get shut out.
Should we continue to use 'official' club websites at all? They are not neutral third party sources by a long shot. True, they're only used to source raw numerical information in most cases, but there are other sources, reliable third party sources, that can be used.
If we do decide to continue to use the 'official' sources, is there consensus for disallowing their exclusivity?
Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on an article talk page? It would help to know what the reverter's concern was about the use of non-official sources. I consider a website to be a reliable source for factual information about that website, so I see no problem with the use of 'official' club websites for such information. But prima facie I see no reason not to use unofficial stats, at least until the official ones are available. Brmull ( talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule that the official sites should not be used for fetching information for the article. Offical sites of the football clubs may contain peacock terms to describe the club and may contain exaggerated contents. Care should be taken in maintaining the NPOV. Unofficial sites can also be used, if it is a valid source. Discussing in the article talk page is a better idea, as the scenario differs in each article. -- Freknsay ( talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at The Birthday Massacre, making some minor edits, and I am struck by the plethora of video interviews used as references--besides tons of MySpace and other websites. I've placed a refimprove tag on the article, but there is so much of it (and so little other referencing) that going in to edit is a gargantuan task. Does anyone have any suggestion, or is anyone feeling the spirit move them? Drmies ( talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is really about a "further reading" section, but this is the closest noticeboard that I can find, as the issue does deal with reliable sourcing.
I've started removing Weebly blogs when they fail appropriate guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and so on. I removed one book from Corset and Neo-Victorian whose publisher site was a Weebly page. The "publisher" happens to be the sole author, meaning these books are self-published. Since the book is not about the author, they cannot be used under WP:SELFPUB. According to WP:Further reading one of the considerations to be taken when adding a book is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source. This book does not meet WP:RS. The only purpose for including it would be to advertise this and other rather expensive books by this author, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
The book in question is "Waisted Curves" from Aegis & Owl Publishing/Sarah Chrisman.
I removed the book, and was reverted and told my edit was unconstructive. I removed the book again, pointing to appropriate guidelines on the reverting user's talk page, and he reverted me again, calling me a single purpose account (even though I've been here since 2006 and have worked on a variety of articles). Could we get some consensus here? Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
We just had a similar discussion on DRN, turns out that See also entries are not required to be sourceable in the same way as material in the article body, and I would argue the same holds for external links. WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy. I believe that that appropriate criteria is whether the link is would be reasonable interest to readers of the article. I have not looked at the link targets, so I cannot comment on the relative spamminess of the links. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know -- any cite of any book is liable to possibly lead people to buy it, if it's in print, so is inherently promotional. I guess one question would be, is the book a piece of crap that a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about wrote off the top of his head and mimeographed, or is it any good, or at least arguably any good? If it's any good, why not include it? If there are better books that the plaintiff can point to, that's different and we can talk about including them instead (or maybe in addition, unless it's a matter of the list being too long). Herostratus ( talk) 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian, although I happen to agree with you, we are SOL because Wikipedia does not have a coherent policy on this issue, unfortunately. In the absence of a policy pretty much anything goes in the "Further Reading" section provided that the author/publisher is not also an editor of the article. Brmull ( talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Found something: The book was originally added by the user Sorcha Ban, whose only actions were to add the book repeatedly. As we see here, "Sorcha" is another username for the author. This was a case of spam by a real SPA, nothing more. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a problem at User talk:Nathan2055/Archive 1#Sir. I'm not sure whether army publications are a reliable source in this case. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: [23]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [24]. According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 ( talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to our own article ( AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case? Griswaldo ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used -- Hemshaw ( talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: [28]. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh, seems to have copied stuff from the Daily Mail before [29]. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Is Lifehacker considered a reliable source for software? Joe Chill ( talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead to Transcendental Meditation movement includes the following phrase: "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." The source for that is a book titled The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart .
This is what the source says:
Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.
The source says nothing about the TM movement beyond this single sentence, gives no evidence, quotes, citations or anything to support this passing assertion which is taken out of context. Given that the assertion is unsupported and taken out of context, is this book a reliable source, as used? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Frankly a book that purports to give "a compelling presentation of the theory that there is a measurable life force in the universe" strikes me as unreliable for any purpose outside an article about itself or its author, Lynne McTaggart. Or maybe Jedis exist? FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, a Google News search for "Maharishi" and "scam" easily find less dubious and less vague sources you could cite instead [31] ( Statesman Journal) "Many TM teachers and students claim the technique has changed their lives, yet some scientists, scholars and former TM practitioners criticize TM as a deceitful money-making scam." FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That particular sentence is unreliable because it is an anomaly. The paragraph is about something entirely different and that isolated phrase is an unsubstantiated statement by the author. Thus,the source is unreliable in the way it is being used. As, I think, Brmulls says, the sentence is just left dangling there. --
Luke Warmwater101 (
talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
McTaggart is also used as a source in another TM-related article, TM-Sidhi program
If we're going to consider tossing out McTaggart than this passage should probably go too. Will Beback talk 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
They are two different articles and the source is used in differently in each, so I suggest we stick with the subject at hand. This thread is about an unsubstantiated single sentence in the lead of the TMM article. As far as I can read, most people feel it is not appropriately placed.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Similar instances arise here at RSN, and I'd appreciate clarification on the general issue: Is a passing, unsupported assertion in a book a reliable source? The above is a good example. The source says: "Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling." This is the ONLY mention of the TM organization in the book. There are no facts or examples or quotes or evidence of any kind to support the assertions regarding the TM organization. In instances like this, in which the source is being used in Wikipedia to state the assertion as fact, is the book a reliable source for the particular assertion? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to our own article ( AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case? Griswaldo ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Would Soapdom.com be considered a reliable source for information on soap operas. -- Nk3play2 my buzz 08:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated raising the question of whether or not a given dog-fancier web site is an acceptable source for dog-oriented WP articles. Editors with experience in RS issues would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
9X19mm is .380 ACP or .380 auto (in Europe - 9mm kurz - kurz means short) 9X21mm is 9mm Parabellum (9mm Luger) Ask anyone who knows firearms.
I had asked the editors to give their opinion about as under contents but I am still waiting for it.Can you spare the time to make any review please?. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Urdutoday.com a website or forum/blog?.I would like to bring this matter to the experienced editors to decide that,that Urdutoday.com is a website or a just forum.In my opinion it is a standard website consist of editorial board,chief editor and administrator,see, http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions in enlish and urdu.Please be fair clear and bold to give your opinion regardless any language. Please see Talk:page or article discussion Ehsan Sehgal.I hope editors who know the Urdu may take part in this discussion.If it is not a website,can be used as a external link?.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the key phrase: Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing. Its content is still user submitted even though there is a level of editorial oversight, in much the same way IMDB is and we don't accept that as a RS. Unless there are areas of the site that are published strictly by professional staff I'd have to say it isn't a RS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As the matter of fact, User:Biker Biker has rejected urdutoday as a reliable source,therefore, article of the subject has been edited by multiple editors,and some sections and many phrases have been removed from the article, in result,the article's contents are not accord with,what should be.
On my request, User:LadyofShalott and User:Drmies have helped me a great to expanding the article,but it still needed more,that's why I need the reliability of urdutoday.com,sothat it can be used as a reliable source,if not then,can it be used as a external links?. Please take a look at article Ehsan Sehgal discussion page,then may you reach the final opinion.Once again thanks for your kind attention. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
and I have asked that.Just a short reply to your this point that"violation of username policy",I am not expertise,but what I know a little,that,well it is strongly discouraged,but not forbidden.
I think mostly websites have many sections,as like,Culture,Literature,Article,Poetry,Politics, religion,discussion page,blogs,forums and etc,similarly,many daily newspapers include that all. Your assessment is weak and poor,you did not see the homepage,Urdutoday.com, with this Urdu poetry, Article,Literature,Afsana (in english) and 11 sections,(in urdu).
and see also this, http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor name and photo of chief editor. and see this, http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions, specially this sentence, "Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing."
Tell me please what is the more reliability,and high quality of any website,you are looking for and searching?. you should not ignore intirely the reliability of urdutoday.com. I am looking towards other editors opinion in this regard.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no any objection,but what you have referred Byline it does not cite any references or sources,thus not reliable,and you did not see Anonymity this also needs additional citations for verification.I have not said that all editors don't use their name.In our part of the world mostly do not use name in news items and editorials,though in exclusive news they do.Anyway thanks for your review I am learning much in this regard. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Some sources are problematic not due to offensive, or restricted material but due to its technical content and information, while most people who use these sites are mature and know the difference between right and wrong, there is the small population that who giving specific content would be like giving a 4 year old a loaded gun, while the kid can use it, is it really safe or sane to give it to them? Should some posts be excluded from sourcing or citing information as part of its content? A classic example would be "How to split the world in two halfs like a knife through a apple" as referenced in the book Tesla a man out of time by margaret cheney Is it right to make reference and links to tesla's theory when writting about new types of high explosives, even though the linked subjects are necessary in the explination, description (process) or danger, even with all contents for each subject being freely available? Crackpot1234 ( talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
David Tatham (1 June 2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 9780955898501. http://books.google.com/books?id=0D0VNAAACAAJ. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
Is extensively used in this article. The work, however, is clearly and absolutely "self-published." Seeking a library to borrow it from finds one copy in Germany and one in South Africa, which means that they are the only two in the world AFAICT.
I suggest it is not a "reliable source" as a result, but would appreciate input from others here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The review makes clear that it is self-published. That the articles were autobiographies of islanders which were then "embellished." The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>. The "editorial board" exists only with regard to the book - making use of it as somehow increasing his notability rather outre. The editor of a book is perforce the head of the "editorial board" for the book. So scratch that one. <g>. By the way, being Her Majesty's Governor does not make one an historian of any great repute. As for the 3RR notice:
Seems to be a 3RR notice by any standards I have ever seen. I take it that the big "3RR" at the top refers to the three main railroads in the Falklands? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands is very much a niche topic in the English language and as such sources are rather difficult to obtain. It has taken me years to track down the 1960 copy of Mary Cawkell's The Falkland Islands for example. But on this occasion that claim is utter nonsense, the work is readily available [38] albeit expensive. You don't have to go to Germany or South Africa, there is a copy in the British Library, which means you can obtain a copy from any public library upon request. You simply fill in an inter-library loan request, the fee is around £25. Similarly there is more to Tatham's qualifications that his service as the Falkland Islands Governor, yet you seem hell bent on ignoring that to launch attacks on his integrity and credibility. Really you have lost your sense of perspective when you have to resort to such hyperbole in order to rubbish a source in this manner. Finally, that was not intended as a 3RR warning, if you take it as such that is your problem not mine. Pointedly I was trying to initiate a discussion and to stop your edit warring to impose a change claiming a consensus that doesn't in fact exist. The alleged consensus you refer to was disruptive editors who have plagued the page for months, including the prodigious use of sock puppets and these are the editors you've chosen to back. You have seriously lost the perspective here. As regards Tathams use in reliable 3rd party sources, cited here [39], Google Scholar turns up plenty [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] it is regularly cited in works related to the Falkland Islands. It is a WP:RS and should not be excluded as demanded. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Contributors include, for example Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon). Those are just a brief sample. This is a reliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
OK a review of this thread
A) Availability in libraries. See
[46] Copy is available in the British Library, any public libary in the UK can obtain a loan via a BL request.
B) Availability: see
[47],
[48]. It is available new and second hand from Amazon UK and it seems Amazon US. Its covering a niche topic so the fact it is only available from specialists is not significant.
C) It is claimed again that it is not widely cited in 3rd party sources. See
[49], Google Scholar turns up plenty
[50],
[51],
[52],
[53],
[54]. I would point out that constructing an academic search with the format '"David Tatham" Falkland Islands' would bring up significantly less hits as most academics use
Turabian and would only use the Author's initial. Note again this is a niche topic and you would not expect a huge number of hits anyway.
D) The editorial process is described in the book itself, I have accurately transcribed how it was compiled. In particular I addressed the claim of "embellishment" and noted that the biographies were peer reviewed. In addition, academic reviews cited to claim it as an "SPS" acknowledge the accuracy of the content.
E) It is neither a personal website, nor did David Tatham pay for the book to be published. This is the criteria for
WP:SPS. It was published by the editorial board led by Tatham, if we apply this new criteria then we exclude many academic journals as "SPS".
F) Although David Tatham led an editorial board, the contributors on articles of noted individuals are noted academics I can name any on request. Tatham did not write the article on Vernet I quoted, that was compiled by the noted experts in the field Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe.
G) David Tatham is noted for being published in 3rd party sources for this project
[55] Note ready availability in numerous libraries.
H) Tatham has other qualifications for having expertise on the Falkland Islands. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995.
I) Re-inforcing the point that Tatham was the editor, other noted contributors include as a sample Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon).
The start of this thread was misleading as to the availability of the book, how it was published, the compilation process. Nor it is extensively used for cites it is used for 4 of 126.
Further, WP:SPS (and I don't accept this is an SPS for the reasons stated above) has an exception for Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe certainly meet that criteria and David Tatham would as well. This work meets every requirement to be a WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
References
{{Cite book | chapter = Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders | publisher = Verlag | isbn = 9783837614336 | last = Mareke | first = Arends | author2 = Fangerau, Heiner | editor = Fangerau, Heiner |editor2=Jörg, Fegert |editor3=Mareke, Arends | title = Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation | date = 2010 | page = 138 | url = http://books.google.ie/books?id=pzI0Kj21KIcC&pg=PA138 }} :::::: This produces: :::::: Mareke, Arends; Fangerau, Heiner (2010). "Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders". In Fangerau, Heiner; Jörg, Fegert; Mareke, Arends (eds.). Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation. Verlag. p. 138. ISBN 9783837614336.
See [57], publisher is listed as POLAR RECORD in 2009 in this library catalogue. I believe AerobicFox was correct, unless you can tell me the library record is wrong?
Pepper and Pascoe are noted experts in the field, it is a field of mainly amateurs. Klaus Dodds is the only UK historian I'm aware of to have interest since the death of Professor Metford. Mary Cawkell is also a noted expert but an amateur and the only other English language history was written by Ian Strange a naturalist.
The citation is not used for any controversial claims and the reference work is particularly useful as it includes information you won't find elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Addendum, its been claimed the above link is for the review. The review [58] appeared in Polar Record 45, the link refers to the publication in 235. Its not the review. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
1. See Talk:Falkland Islands#Claimed vs. stated the facts this is used to cite is neither contentious or disputed. 2. See this diff [59] I fixed the problem of attribution. 3. You might care to look at [60], see also his contribution history [61] and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818. Alex has been disrupting Falkland Islands articles since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 |
The prompting for making this came from this section on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page, but i'd like to ask about the site in general. The prompting article page at the Daily Dot is also here. Is this site reliable is the basic question i'm asking, obviously?
They were discussed on Gigaom here, where they were annoying vague (and said Daily Dot was vague with them as well) on what exactly the site is meant to be. The creators of the site seem reliable, but the article states that "crowdsourcing stories will be one part of it, but there will be traditional staff writers as well." So...part of it will be community stories, which would be unreliable because they're essentially like random people making news posts, but then they would have traditional staff writers, which might be considered reliable. But they annoyingly don't have a staff page, beyond a page that lists the three founders. So how do we know who is staff writers? The writer of the article in question, Fruzsina Eordogh, seems to be some sort of blogger. It says here that she's a "freelance writer/blogger" and, from the sites she's on, she seems to specialize in blogging for internet specific sites. What I mean by that is sites tailored for the internet, like this Daily Dot site.
So, i'm not quite sure what to make of this. What do we do with these community-based internet-directed news sites? I mean, I would compare them to internet gaming sites, but they seem a bit different. Silver seren C 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that the Fruzsina Eordogh took great care when creating this article. Everything said within the article is cited or quoted. The author even went out of her way to contact Daniel Brandt and the anonymous user(s) behind josephevers.blogspot.com. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any baseless, uncited, or unquoted claim or statement within the article. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if a source from a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization, is a reliable source, for a Class A review of the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States). -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be trivial, but a discussion arose on the talk page over the reliability of such source , cited here Mutual_intelligibility#References.
Can someone shed some light? -- Itemirus Message me! 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Are forum posts by experts on a topic considered reliable sources? I can provide a link to the specific example if required. Furthermore, is a post by a person who has worked on a specific project, that did not publish its results, considered a reliable source? Furthermore, when the project is mentioned in a book that is considered a reliable source, but the project was still in progress, when the book was published, are forum posts by a person involved in the project about the results considered a reliable source? I can get more specific on all these points if desired. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetical 1- I've gotten noticed enough to get a Wikipedia article, I guess it doesnt matter what I've done I could be anything from a philanthropist to a full-on rapist (gotta watch Always Sunny in Philadelphia to get that joke I suppose). Now most newspapers rely on either Bloomberg or the AP for national/international stories, even the big names; lets suppose they get my age wrong. Now every single reliable source we can find shows me to be younger/older than I am. Encyclopedia's normally have birthdates, so to have it in an article about me is encyclopedic. So can I, as a veteran Wikipedia editor, who now sees someone has made an article about me, change my age/add my birthdate based on... well, because I said so, or not much better- "my Mother was THERE and she says so", or even quite a bit better- I have these things called a driver's license and a birth certificate (but those are primary sources). Could I- A) prove my identity to someone and get my word taken at face value; B) scan and give you the primary documents proving my age and those primary sources would be ok to over-ride the secondary.
Not-as-hypothetical-I'd like to, if I continue to not find it in Wikipedia, create an article on the "South Carolina Bandit" who robbed banks 2-3 years ago throughout the South and Midwest, ending in his capture in Missouri which was covered nationally and even internationally including by America's Most Wanted. Many of the secondary sources, newspapers and such, have outright wrong information. I know because I was there and witnessed his capture personally. America's Most Wanted did the best job of getting it right (partly because they were the only one's I gave an interview to). Now, I have that episode on my DVR but unless I let another editor over to my house (no, you cant), how is an episode of a tv show that doesnt do repeats as far as I know going to be verifiable? Can I use the episode as a source? And hypothetically if they got his age wrong, would I be able to use the copy of his driver's license as primary evidence to prove them wrong (see above hypothetical question; and yes I do have a copy of his driver's license, and no it's not illegal). Camelbinky ( talk) 04:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
1. You are a primary source for information about yourself. However, that information has to be verifiable. Getting a newspaper to publish a statement from you would work, but nowadays, it might be easier just to post it on your web site. Most people with articles in Wikipedia already have one, sometimes through their work. Posting the information there then takes about as much time as typing it. If you don't have one, make one: there are dozens of free personal web space providers. Make it convincing enough that it is, in fact, yours (get a link from a few similarly notable friends who do have established sites, or post a personal photo with you holding up a "welcome to my web site at [this address]" sign or something). Post the information there. That's a few hours work, maybe a few days if you really want to do it right.
2. A AMW television episode is a (reasonably) reliable source (reasonably sensational mass media, and all), and if you don't have another choice, I'd say use it. It's like a magazine that's out of print, presumably there is a way to get at it. Having it available would be a definite help, yes. Have you checked http://www.amw.com/show_archive/past_shows.cfm ? That seems to have quite a lot of info, even though "south carolina bandit" doesn't show in the search. Look under his real name, since you seem to know it. No, you would not be able to use your copy of his driver's license to prove them wrong; that's a primary source, and since you're claiming a reliable secondary source is wrong, this is by definition a controversial fact, and for controversial facts we need good evidence, for example another reliable secondary source to say as much. (If you think a picture of a driver's licence is clearly reliable, you've obviously never worked in a bar or selling cigarettes retail. :-) ) -- GRuban ( talk) 23:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The article To Heart 2, about a work of anime, has an InfoBox which says "Genre = harem". An RfC was created here to ask whether that was the correct genre. In the RfC, that led to questions about whether editors were able to determine the genre on their own, without a reliable source stating the genre. Or, would an editor be violating the OR policy by stating (in the absence of a reliable source) that the genre was such-and-such. This question (do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source) must have come up before, so any help from experienced RS experts would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a very Important issue
It is about Dr. Garnik Asatrian which is used in the English Wikipedia as a source in Kurdish matters. Garnik Asatrsian is already disqualified as a Source in the German Wikipedia because he has obvious anti Kurdish agendas and he and his Institute give false and unconfirmed claims as facts.
I searched some days now for sources to demonstrate my claims.
1. Most of his controversial claims are in fact anti Kurdish and refer to Kurdish minorities.
2. The Yazidi for example. He creates on his own within his institute, a new ethnic identity for them. He claims that they are non Kurds while they speak Kurdish and the large majority considers themselves as such according to the representatives of the Yazidis
Here are two interviews. One with Garnik Astarian claiming a non Kurdish identity for them. And the other with the Yezidi and Kurdish representative which confirms that the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds.
Here are two interviews which show us the anti kurdish and unprofessional behave of Garnik Asatrian.
http://groong.usc.edu/orig/ok-19980630.html
I will cite one of his whole unproven and made up claims. However you should read the interviews if you have some time because they are important to see his behave.
"Although they speak Kurdish - Kurmanji - they do not consider themselves as Kurds, so this is the problem."
Now an Interview with the Yezidi/Kurdish representatives Hasan Tamoyan/Knyaz Hassanov http://www.groong.com/orig/ok-20061011.html
"OK: What is your opinion on the fact that some Yezidis consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds while others do not?
KH: The overwhelming majority consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds. This issue is one of concern to us, but it is not so worrying as the number of Yezidis who don't consider themselves Kurds is quite small. All over the world the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds, so if 1-2,000 Yezidis [in Armenia] do not consider themselves as such it's not significant enough of an issue. It's also their human right."
How can a Doctor give such statements like "Most Yezidis feel not Kurdish" as if it is a fact while at the same time the representatives of Yezidis/Kurds agree that the majority of Yezidi do feel Kurdish and speak Kurdish.
Here is another interview with Dr. Karlene Chachani who is President of the Department of the Kurdish Writers of the Writers' Union of Armenia, and Chief Editor of "Friendship" - an Armenian-Kurdish political Journal.
http://www.oneworld.am/journalism/yezidi/chachani.html
In his interview he explains very well the Issue. And he also notes that Garnik Asatrian has joined the Dashnakutuune (Dashnak) Party.
For more informations about the Dashnak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation
"The ARF advocates socialism and is a member of the Socialist International.[1] It possesses the largest number of members from the political parties present in the Armenian diaspora, having established affiliates in more than 200 countries.[2] Compared to other Armenian parties which tend to primarily focus on educational or humanitarian projects, the Dashnaktsutiun is the most politically oriented of the organizations and traditionally has been one of the staunchest supporters of Armenian nationalism.[2]"
How can a man who belongs to a Nationalist Party be used as reference in other Issues belonging to geopolitical neighbors?
3. On This Example we see the behave of Garnik Asatrian when he calls a Professor of the Harvard University a stupid man.
"for example, Mehrdad Izady in "Kurdish Life" has accused some Armenian nationalist newspapers of printing racist articles regarding the Kurds and the Yezidi-Kurdish identity.
Garnik Asatrian: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing."
Is this how someone with the Doctor title should behave? How can Doctor G. Asatrian be taken as a reliable source, while he calls Professor of the Harvard University Mehrdad Izady a stupid man, just because Izady supposes a Armenian Nationalism behind this Yezidi/Kurdish division. In which Izady didn´t called any names but seems to have been right with his suppose. Like we can see on the Dashnak Party and G. Astarian relation.
4. The same Armenian institute which belongs to G. Asatrian made some books in Kurdish and called it "Ezdiki" while this name is not in use by any Yazidi family and most of those families refused to use this books.
" OK: From speaking to some visiting academics researching Yezidis in Armenia as well as hearing reports from some [Yezidi] villages, it would appear that some [Yezidi] schools are refusing to accept textbooks supplied the Armenian Government written in `Ezdiki.' Have you also heard about this?
KH: Not some, but many. Out of 12 [Yezidi] villages in Aragatsotn, only 1 has accepted these textbooks. The rest are not using them and nor do they accept them."
Garnik Asatrian however claims in one of his other biased works. That the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki
on page Eleven.
http://www.hra.am/file/minorities_en.pdf
5. I have read some of his other (obviously biased) books and they are full of wrong and unsupported claims.
Just like this. Page 5.
http://www.archive.org/stream/ProlegomenaToTheStudyOfTheKurds/Asatrian_kurds#page/n3/mode/2up
He claims that Assyrians, Armenians are traditionally considered Kurds (This is wrong there is no single Historian or scholar which could confirm this claim. The Kurds did never claim Armenians or Assyrians for Kurds.
However at the same time he calls the Laks as a other ethnic group. Another false and unproven claim of him. The Laks are known as accepted by all Ethnologues and recent linguistic researches as Kurds and speaking one of the languages belonging to Kurds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran)
There are many other examples which show that Garnik Asatrian has a obvious nationalistic and anti Kurdish Agenda. The use of Garnik Asatrians works as source is already disqualified in the German Wikipedia and I ask to do this on the English Wikipedia too.
He is used as a source in diverse Articles about the Zaza and their language to make the historic connection of them to the Kurdish identity smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaza_people
Wikisupporting (
talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Having noticed some dubious information in the Wiki article Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (see Talk: Mein Kampf in the Arabic language for details), I looked into the source of this dubious information ie " Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam". I am now of the opinion that this book dose not belong in a list of reliable sources which should be used to build an encyclopaedia. Whilst a few critics seem to have liked the book (eg "'the authors tell this story soberly and well"), non seem prepared to praise it for it's accuracy or scholarship. In fact most are damning about it's lack of balance, and factual unreliability. Here are a few examples:
The previous discussion on this book did not appear to reach any satisfactory resolution re. the books reliability as a source. However, dubious information, sourced from this book, is still being inserted in the encyclopaedia, which suggest to me that this needs to be re-examined and a resolution reached. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon problems once again. A couple editors insist on keeping the following dubious material (some of which was deleted years back as NOT WP:RS). There are a number of WP:RS sources that make similar accusations already in a more encyclopedic fashion, so it's not like these are desperately needed.
Hopefully we can ignore the inevitable soapbox and breast beating on this issue and have a rational discussion of proper sourcing. ;-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, just because an article is behind a paywall does not mean it is not a reliable source; it is no worse than a non-digitized book. -- Avi ( talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, the paywall issue is settled. Obviously the other aspects of the quote would have to be contested at BLP if it was worth doing so, probably as complain about a larger pattern of biased editing.
On the four questionable sources, User:Kmhkmh is the only editor to comment who has not previously edited the article. Other non-involved editors care to comment? Especially on the specious argument this is only a self-published "organizations' opinion of Atzmon." Obviously, if these four sources can be used, half the sources of similar genre that like Atzmon also could be used -- if someone went against clear policy they can NOT be used. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Google finds some 50 Wikipedia articles sourced to books published by Melrose Press, better known as the parent company of the vanity scammers at the International Biographical Centre. Can these books be considered to be valid reliable sources? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Would this interview in Inked magazine be a reliable source for the claim that Evan Seinfeld is Jewish? He's interviewed there, the interviewer describes him as Jewish, and Seinfeld doesn't deny it. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a problem with a web source that I have noticed on quite a few music-related articles. The source is www.UKchartsplus.co.uk which is often used as a source for UK singles and album charts details. However, despite the fact they have plastered the logo for the Official Charts Company (OCC) on their website, UKchartsplus are not an official organisation. By their own admission, they are just a group of four music fans (they call themselves "chart watchers") who do the website in their spare time as a hobby (as confirmed here). The OCC are part of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) (as confirmed here) who are the UK's official music industry authority, but UKchartsplus are not affiliated with either the OCC or the BPI. The problem lies in the fact that some of the data on the UKchartsplus website (particularly year-end charts about sales of albums and singles for each year) are often quite different to the official year-end sales charts published by the BPI. Since the OCC/BPI are the only official body that can provide sales data information, should UKchartsplus be deemed as an unreliable website and therefore not appropriate to use as a source? 88.104.30.153 ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the subject of a fierce debate on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) in reference to the Russian oligarch in exile in UK, who had won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed article repeats these allegations in minute detail, with a disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libelous off these pages?-- Kolokol1 ( talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
At Joel McDonald I added links to That Anime Show, which is done by J. Michael Tatum.
Is that website a reliable source? Dream Focus 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Cmadler has added information to the cast section of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? article, claiming that the character Governor "Pappy" O'Daniel is probably based on former Texas governor W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. I removed it once as unreferenced, and he has restored it with the following source:
The relevant quote in this blog entry is as follows: "Many cultural and political historians think the character Gov. Menelaus “Pappy” O’Daniel of Mississippi is based on the notorious Texas politician, Wilbert Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel." But, she does not cite any of these "many cultural and political historians." Given the vagueness of this statement, the lack of verification, and the fact that this is a blog, I want to know if this can be accepted as a reliable source for the purposes of this article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
My policy WRT the sldinfo.com site has been to accept anything that is quoted from a known person (until that person objects) and reject anything based on unknown sources like say:
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086 Former Senior USAF Officer: When I was with the F-22 program ...
Right? Hcobb ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I assume that BNET is considered reliable, since it's notable enough to have its own article, and is owned by CBS Interactive, but in reading Interactive this page, which the writers/editors of the Alexandra Govere article cited in that article, much of it, including explanations of the things that would make her notable, is written by Govere herself in the first person. This doesn't disqualify it as user-generated, does it? Is this page okay to use to cite for this material in Govere's article? Up until now, all of the material in her article was either unsourced, or supported by sources that were self-published, user-generated, or which failed verification, with the exception of one passage sourced to an Elle Girl article. But now in looking at this BNET article, I wondering if this is a valid second one, and if it confers notability on her. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 08:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Digital Blasphemy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS issue or a WP:NPOV one, but is it acceptable practice to cite an article almost exclusively to the topic's website? This would appear to be a violation of WP:PSTS and/or WP:ABOUTSELF to me, but I have an editor on this article claiming that "primary sources [no matter how pervasive] are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt" and that "you only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability" on an AfD -- inclusion of them in the article itself isn't necessary. This strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING that subverts the whole reason for having a requirement for third party sources. Opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A number of articles on WP about web sites have "Alexa rankings" in their infoboxes or bodies - which get updated with "increase" or "decrease" on almost a monthly basis. Two questions - is Alexa really a "reliable source" for ranking web sites? And is an uptick or downtick in a ranking of sufficient value to be noted in any inbox or article? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Alexa is the only company that gives this info for free. The other web trends firms require payment for their reports. So, I don't see a good substitute for the majority of Wikipedia articles on web sites, unless someone here feels very generous... FuFoFuEd ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been seeing a number of people using the "Sugar" websites, such as Buzzsugar.com and/or Popsugar.com, as sources in articles. They are published by Sugar Inc.. I was wondering what the opinion is of these websites. (I wasn't able to find anything about them in the archives.) The Popsugar homepage uses the word "gossip" several times, which sends up a red flag for me. Thanks. -- Logical Fuzz ( talk) 23:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor Simple Blue ( talk · contribs) has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by Relpmek ( talk · contribs) is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.
Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous reports published by various organizations with certain POVs. For example, Wikipedia's articles on renewable energy cites many reports published by various renewable energy trade or industry organizations or otherwise by clearly pro-renewable energy organizations. Such reports seem to fall outside WP:RS. They are not academic reports or newspapers. Neither are they self-published material by a single person which seem to be the case for all examples of self-published material in the policy. Another example would be reports by political parties or by special interest groups. So are they allowed or not? Miradre ( talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Some editors claim that The Register is not reliable in quoting Jimmy Wales or Seth Finkelstein (the latter individual however wrote the quote is accurate). FuFoFuEd ( talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
LaMarche, Una (2011-08-03). "Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies". New York Observer. Retrieved 2011-08-03.
Noted in
the Friendship is Magic talk page, the Observer article consists of interviews of a few convention-goers who misquote Know Your Meme. The article has seems to have no editorial oversight and contains obvious factual mistakes. It is used to cite the firing of a moderator from 4chan, but there are no reliable sources for this claim, and I feel the article itself is unreliable because of its many mistakes. -
IsaacAA (
talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There's one of those standard "sources say" reports on various sites that the TV show Desperate Housewives will end after the upcoming season. ABC is supposedly making an announcement Sunday. I would think that this is a matter where encyclopedic values would call for us to wait until the announcement, or at least until someone with actual knowledge says this on the record. This isn't exactly an earthshaking matter that we need to urgently stay on top of in real time, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Joel Templeton. I have just received some news on my family tree that James Naismith(he would have been her uncle)was related to my Great grandmother Mrs. Peter Templeton. The Templeton side of my family came from Scotland, then to Canada, then some came to Wisconsin(that's where I'm from). Any information regarding this is helpful and appreciated. Thanks. Joel Templeton
I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.
General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Wikipedia? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span ( talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A Tiny Mix Tapes post ( http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/big-boi-names-his-next-solo-album-daddy-fat-sax-honor-great-service-he-received-white-castle) is used as the source for a section of the Big Boi article on Wikipedia, purportedly explaining the title of his upcoming album "Daddy Fat Sax: Soul Funk Crusader." The section in question:
"The album's title originates from when Big Boi and André 3000 would visit a local White Castle in between recording/writing in their earlier years before ATLiens (1996), because of an employee known as Daddy Fat Sacks, for his habit of including multiple extra sliders in every 10-sack that they purchased, as he was a fan of their music.[8] Upon hearing of his death after visiting the same location after completing Sir Lucious Left Foot, Big Boi decided to name his follow-up solo album after Daddy Fat Sacks, but intended to use "Sax" instead of "Sacks" as he is "planning on a doing a bunch of sax samples, tenor, soprano, and probably have at least a couple sax players come into the studio for the next record".[8]"
From the humorous tone of the article ("...Daddy Fat Sacks had passed away in a horrible chicken-ring accident. Distraught, Big Boi bought 50 sliders and returned home, where, after eating 30 burgers in one grief-fueled sitting..."), lack of any sources elsewhere online to corroborate this information, and TMT's established penchant for inserting bizarre, humorous anecdotes into their news stories (further reading: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/david-bowie-says-buy-station-station-again-and-ill-bring-back-tin-machine, http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/doom-heads-europe-little-tapas-brings-ghostface-london-get-fishscale-and-chips), I think it is safe to infer that this is not a reliable source.
Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span ( talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so? Span ( talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream ( talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.) -- Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Lonely Planet's guides are not reliable sources at all. It's contents are based on user contributions to their website. It's for adventurers travelers that don't mind having to deal with some misinformation, and not for writing an encyclopedia.
And yes, we need a reliable source for that translation. It's not uncommon for misconceptions to appear in what some place's names means or where did they come from. -- damiens.rf 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Damiens.rf that Lonely Planet is not a reliable source for a translation. To me this is a simple issue--if an editor does not speak or read Armenian, I don't believe they can evaluate the google translation. A much better source for this kind of translation would be a dictionary, and I expect that most major uni libraries would have one at hand. I disagree that BBC's ownership of LP has anything to do with either's reliability, our policies do not base RS decisions on who owns the source. The notion that the editor removing badly sourced content bears the burden of finding a better source is not supported by any policy of which I am aware, in fact, we have WP:BURDEN which puts that burden on the editor wishing to restore content. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. -- Lexein ( talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.
So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George talk 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation used: Malayala Manorama, P. Kishore (25 July 2011). "IT Growth Slows". Retrieved 25 July 2011.
Article: Technopark, Trivandrum
Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.
Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum#Reliability_of_Newspaper_Report_as_Reference
Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.
Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS( talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011.
Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".
Publication | Dated | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Hindu | Aug 17, 2010 | 1,387.8 crore | 2,192.26 crore | 2,412 crore |
Times of India | Nov 3, 2009 | 1,853 crore | ||
Hindu Business Line | Jun 24, 2008 | 1,568 crore | ||
Thaindian - report from IANS | March 27, 2009 | 1,750 crore | ||
Kaumudi online | Oct 22, 2010 | 2,930 crore |
Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.
Publication | Technopark: 2007-2008 | Infopark: 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|
The Hindu | 896.75 cr | 247.05 cr |
IT mission | 1,200 cr | 368.55 cr |
Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. -- Samaleks ( talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The following is a paragraph from Yadav
Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. [2] There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. [3] [4] Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that "[with the rise of] backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, [with] even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically." [5]
MangoWong keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:
The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).
There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue
I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush ( talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush ( talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, so I'll try for here.
Several teams (examples include Barca, Madrid, and Inter) use the official club websites as sources, and have done so for years.
Not only that, but they have turned those 'official' sources into exclusive sources for some sections of the articles. In seasons past I have inserted match results into articles using non-official sources, only to see them changed. The official sources are also the only ones that are allowed to be used for transfers. In both cases, these official sources might be slower or contain less information than reliable third party sources, and yet the other sources get shut out.
Should we continue to use 'official' club websites at all? They are not neutral third party sources by a long shot. True, they're only used to source raw numerical information in most cases, but there are other sources, reliable third party sources, that can be used.
If we do decide to continue to use the 'official' sources, is there consensus for disallowing their exclusivity?
Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on an article talk page? It would help to know what the reverter's concern was about the use of non-official sources. I consider a website to be a reliable source for factual information about that website, so I see no problem with the use of 'official' club websites for such information. But prima facie I see no reason not to use unofficial stats, at least until the official ones are available. Brmull ( talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule that the official sites should not be used for fetching information for the article. Offical sites of the football clubs may contain peacock terms to describe the club and may contain exaggerated contents. Care should be taken in maintaining the NPOV. Unofficial sites can also be used, if it is a valid source. Discussing in the article talk page is a better idea, as the scenario differs in each article. -- Freknsay ( talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at The Birthday Massacre, making some minor edits, and I am struck by the plethora of video interviews used as references--besides tons of MySpace and other websites. I've placed a refimprove tag on the article, but there is so much of it (and so little other referencing) that going in to edit is a gargantuan task. Does anyone have any suggestion, or is anyone feeling the spirit move them? Drmies ( talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is really about a "further reading" section, but this is the closest noticeboard that I can find, as the issue does deal with reliable sourcing.
I've started removing Weebly blogs when they fail appropriate guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and so on. I removed one book from Corset and Neo-Victorian whose publisher site was a Weebly page. The "publisher" happens to be the sole author, meaning these books are self-published. Since the book is not about the author, they cannot be used under WP:SELFPUB. According to WP:Further reading one of the considerations to be taken when adding a book is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source. This book does not meet WP:RS. The only purpose for including it would be to advertise this and other rather expensive books by this author, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
The book in question is "Waisted Curves" from Aegis & Owl Publishing/Sarah Chrisman.
I removed the book, and was reverted and told my edit was unconstructive. I removed the book again, pointing to appropriate guidelines on the reverting user's talk page, and he reverted me again, calling me a single purpose account (even though I've been here since 2006 and have worked on a variety of articles). Could we get some consensus here? Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
We just had a similar discussion on DRN, turns out that See also entries are not required to be sourceable in the same way as material in the article body, and I would argue the same holds for external links. WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy. I believe that that appropriate criteria is whether the link is would be reasonable interest to readers of the article. I have not looked at the link targets, so I cannot comment on the relative spamminess of the links. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know -- any cite of any book is liable to possibly lead people to buy it, if it's in print, so is inherently promotional. I guess one question would be, is the book a piece of crap that a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about wrote off the top of his head and mimeographed, or is it any good, or at least arguably any good? If it's any good, why not include it? If there are better books that the plaintiff can point to, that's different and we can talk about including them instead (or maybe in addition, unless it's a matter of the list being too long). Herostratus ( talk) 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian, although I happen to agree with you, we are SOL because Wikipedia does not have a coherent policy on this issue, unfortunately. In the absence of a policy pretty much anything goes in the "Further Reading" section provided that the author/publisher is not also an editor of the article. Brmull ( talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Found something: The book was originally added by the user Sorcha Ban, whose only actions were to add the book repeatedly. As we see here, "Sorcha" is another username for the author. This was a case of spam by a real SPA, nothing more. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a problem at User talk:Nathan2055/Archive 1#Sir. I'm not sure whether army publications are a reliable source in this case. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: [23]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [24]. According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 ( talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to our own article ( AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case? Griswaldo ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used -- Hemshaw ( talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: [28]. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh, seems to have copied stuff from the Daily Mail before [29]. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Is Lifehacker considered a reliable source for software? Joe Chill ( talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead to Transcendental Meditation movement includes the following phrase: "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." The source for that is a book titled The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart .
This is what the source says:
Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.
The source says nothing about the TM movement beyond this single sentence, gives no evidence, quotes, citations or anything to support this passing assertion which is taken out of context. Given that the assertion is unsupported and taken out of context, is this book a reliable source, as used? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Frankly a book that purports to give "a compelling presentation of the theory that there is a measurable life force in the universe" strikes me as unreliable for any purpose outside an article about itself or its author, Lynne McTaggart. Or maybe Jedis exist? FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, a Google News search for "Maharishi" and "scam" easily find less dubious and less vague sources you could cite instead [31] ( Statesman Journal) "Many TM teachers and students claim the technique has changed their lives, yet some scientists, scholars and former TM practitioners criticize TM as a deceitful money-making scam." FuFoFuEd ( talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That particular sentence is unreliable because it is an anomaly. The paragraph is about something entirely different and that isolated phrase is an unsubstantiated statement by the author. Thus,the source is unreliable in the way it is being used. As, I think, Brmulls says, the sentence is just left dangling there. --
Luke Warmwater101 (
talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
McTaggart is also used as a source in another TM-related article, TM-Sidhi program
If we're going to consider tossing out McTaggart than this passage should probably go too. Will Beback talk 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
They are two different articles and the source is used in differently in each, so I suggest we stick with the subject at hand. This thread is about an unsubstantiated single sentence in the lead of the TMM article. As far as I can read, most people feel it is not appropriately placed.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Similar instances arise here at RSN, and I'd appreciate clarification on the general issue: Is a passing, unsupported assertion in a book a reliable source? The above is a good example. The source says: "Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling." This is the ONLY mention of the TM organization in the book. There are no facts or examples or quotes or evidence of any kind to support the assertions regarding the TM organization. In instances like this, in which the source is being used in Wikipedia to state the assertion as fact, is the book a reliable source for the particular assertion? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to our own article ( AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case? Griswaldo ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Would Soapdom.com be considered a reliable source for information on soap operas. -- Nk3play2 my buzz 08:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated raising the question of whether or not a given dog-fancier web site is an acceptable source for dog-oriented WP articles. Editors with experience in RS issues would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
9X19mm is .380 ACP or .380 auto (in Europe - 9mm kurz - kurz means short) 9X21mm is 9mm Parabellum (9mm Luger) Ask anyone who knows firearms.
I had asked the editors to give their opinion about as under contents but I am still waiting for it.Can you spare the time to make any review please?. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Urdutoday.com a website or forum/blog?.I would like to bring this matter to the experienced editors to decide that,that Urdutoday.com is a website or a just forum.In my opinion it is a standard website consist of editorial board,chief editor and administrator,see, http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions in enlish and urdu.Please be fair clear and bold to give your opinion regardless any language. Please see Talk:page or article discussion Ehsan Sehgal.I hope editors who know the Urdu may take part in this discussion.If it is not a website,can be used as a external link?.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the key phrase: Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing. Its content is still user submitted even though there is a level of editorial oversight, in much the same way IMDB is and we don't accept that as a RS. Unless there are areas of the site that are published strictly by professional staff I'd have to say it isn't a RS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As the matter of fact, User:Biker Biker has rejected urdutoday as a reliable source,therefore, article of the subject has been edited by multiple editors,and some sections and many phrases have been removed from the article, in result,the article's contents are not accord with,what should be.
On my request, User:LadyofShalott and User:Drmies have helped me a great to expanding the article,but it still needed more,that's why I need the reliability of urdutoday.com,sothat it can be used as a reliable source,if not then,can it be used as a external links?. Please take a look at article Ehsan Sehgal discussion page,then may you reach the final opinion.Once again thanks for your kind attention. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
and I have asked that.Just a short reply to your this point that"violation of username policy",I am not expertise,but what I know a little,that,well it is strongly discouraged,but not forbidden.
I think mostly websites have many sections,as like,Culture,Literature,Article,Poetry,Politics, religion,discussion page,blogs,forums and etc,similarly,many daily newspapers include that all. Your assessment is weak and poor,you did not see the homepage,Urdutoday.com, with this Urdu poetry, Article,Literature,Afsana (in english) and 11 sections,(in urdu).
and see also this, http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor name and photo of chief editor. and see this, http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions, specially this sentence, "Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing."
Tell me please what is the more reliability,and high quality of any website,you are looking for and searching?. you should not ignore intirely the reliability of urdutoday.com. I am looking towards other editors opinion in this regard.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no any objection,but what you have referred Byline it does not cite any references or sources,thus not reliable,and you did not see Anonymity this also needs additional citations for verification.I have not said that all editors don't use their name.In our part of the world mostly do not use name in news items and editorials,though in exclusive news they do.Anyway thanks for your review I am learning much in this regard. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Some sources are problematic not due to offensive, or restricted material but due to its technical content and information, while most people who use these sites are mature and know the difference between right and wrong, there is the small population that who giving specific content would be like giving a 4 year old a loaded gun, while the kid can use it, is it really safe or sane to give it to them? Should some posts be excluded from sourcing or citing information as part of its content? A classic example would be "How to split the world in two halfs like a knife through a apple" as referenced in the book Tesla a man out of time by margaret cheney Is it right to make reference and links to tesla's theory when writting about new types of high explosives, even though the linked subjects are necessary in the explination, description (process) or danger, even with all contents for each subject being freely available? Crackpot1234 ( talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
David Tatham (1 June 2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 9780955898501. http://books.google.com/books?id=0D0VNAAACAAJ. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
Is extensively used in this article. The work, however, is clearly and absolutely "self-published." Seeking a library to borrow it from finds one copy in Germany and one in South Africa, which means that they are the only two in the world AFAICT.
I suggest it is not a "reliable source" as a result, but would appreciate input from others here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The review makes clear that it is self-published. That the articles were autobiographies of islanders which were then "embellished." The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>. The "editorial board" exists only with regard to the book - making use of it as somehow increasing his notability rather outre. The editor of a book is perforce the head of the "editorial board" for the book. So scratch that one. <g>. By the way, being Her Majesty's Governor does not make one an historian of any great repute. As for the 3RR notice:
Seems to be a 3RR notice by any standards I have ever seen. I take it that the big "3RR" at the top refers to the three main railroads in the Falklands? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands is very much a niche topic in the English language and as such sources are rather difficult to obtain. It has taken me years to track down the 1960 copy of Mary Cawkell's The Falkland Islands for example. But on this occasion that claim is utter nonsense, the work is readily available [38] albeit expensive. You don't have to go to Germany or South Africa, there is a copy in the British Library, which means you can obtain a copy from any public library upon request. You simply fill in an inter-library loan request, the fee is around £25. Similarly there is more to Tatham's qualifications that his service as the Falkland Islands Governor, yet you seem hell bent on ignoring that to launch attacks on his integrity and credibility. Really you have lost your sense of perspective when you have to resort to such hyperbole in order to rubbish a source in this manner. Finally, that was not intended as a 3RR warning, if you take it as such that is your problem not mine. Pointedly I was trying to initiate a discussion and to stop your edit warring to impose a change claiming a consensus that doesn't in fact exist. The alleged consensus you refer to was disruptive editors who have plagued the page for months, including the prodigious use of sock puppets and these are the editors you've chosen to back. You have seriously lost the perspective here. As regards Tathams use in reliable 3rd party sources, cited here [39], Google Scholar turns up plenty [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] it is regularly cited in works related to the Falkland Islands. It is a WP:RS and should not be excluded as demanded. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Contributors include, for example Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon). Those are just a brief sample. This is a reliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
OK a review of this thread
A) Availability in libraries. See
[46] Copy is available in the British Library, any public libary in the UK can obtain a loan via a BL request.
B) Availability: see
[47],
[48]. It is available new and second hand from Amazon UK and it seems Amazon US. Its covering a niche topic so the fact it is only available from specialists is not significant.
C) It is claimed again that it is not widely cited in 3rd party sources. See
[49], Google Scholar turns up plenty
[50],
[51],
[52],
[53],
[54]. I would point out that constructing an academic search with the format '"David Tatham" Falkland Islands' would bring up significantly less hits as most academics use
Turabian and would only use the Author's initial. Note again this is a niche topic and you would not expect a huge number of hits anyway.
D) The editorial process is described in the book itself, I have accurately transcribed how it was compiled. In particular I addressed the claim of "embellishment" and noted that the biographies were peer reviewed. In addition, academic reviews cited to claim it as an "SPS" acknowledge the accuracy of the content.
E) It is neither a personal website, nor did David Tatham pay for the book to be published. This is the criteria for
WP:SPS. It was published by the editorial board led by Tatham, if we apply this new criteria then we exclude many academic journals as "SPS".
F) Although David Tatham led an editorial board, the contributors on articles of noted individuals are noted academics I can name any on request. Tatham did not write the article on Vernet I quoted, that was compiled by the noted experts in the field Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe.
G) David Tatham is noted for being published in 3rd party sources for this project
[55] Note ready availability in numerous libraries.
H) Tatham has other qualifications for having expertise on the Falkland Islands. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995.
I) Re-inforcing the point that Tatham was the editor, other noted contributors include as a sample Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon).
The start of this thread was misleading as to the availability of the book, how it was published, the compilation process. Nor it is extensively used for cites it is used for 4 of 126.
Further, WP:SPS (and I don't accept this is an SPS for the reasons stated above) has an exception for Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe certainly meet that criteria and David Tatham would as well. This work meets every requirement to be a WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
References
{{Cite book | chapter = Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders | publisher = Verlag | isbn = 9783837614336 | last = Mareke | first = Arends | author2 = Fangerau, Heiner | editor = Fangerau, Heiner |editor2=Jörg, Fegert |editor3=Mareke, Arends | title = Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation | date = 2010 | page = 138 | url = http://books.google.ie/books?id=pzI0Kj21KIcC&pg=PA138 }} :::::: This produces: :::::: Mareke, Arends; Fangerau, Heiner (2010). "Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders". In Fangerau, Heiner; Jörg, Fegert; Mareke, Arends (eds.). Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation. Verlag. p. 138. ISBN 9783837614336.
See [57], publisher is listed as POLAR RECORD in 2009 in this library catalogue. I believe AerobicFox was correct, unless you can tell me the library record is wrong?
Pepper and Pascoe are noted experts in the field, it is a field of mainly amateurs. Klaus Dodds is the only UK historian I'm aware of to have interest since the death of Professor Metford. Mary Cawkell is also a noted expert but an amateur and the only other English language history was written by Ian Strange a naturalist.
The citation is not used for any controversial claims and the reference work is particularly useful as it includes information you won't find elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Addendum, its been claimed the above link is for the review. The review [58] appeared in Polar Record 45, the link refers to the publication in 235. Its not the review. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
1. See Talk:Falkland Islands#Claimed vs. stated the facts this is used to cite is neither contentious or disputed. 2. See this diff [59] I fixed the problem of attribution. 3. You might care to look at [60], see also his contribution history [61] and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818. Alex has been disrupting Falkland Islands articles since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)