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 110 | ← | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 |
I recently added an "Early life" section to the biography of John Searl, an inventor of a "free energy" device. Now, me and RSN regular IRWolfie- are having a bit of a dispute about the aptness of the source I used for the information which I added (see our talk page discussion).
These are the statements in the article section that are all referenced to the documentary:
To me this all looks like uncontroversial information, but IRWolfie- finds that "John Searl appears heavily involved in the production of the promotional video and it is published by a company that appears to have only ever made that one documentary. This seems like a self published source by any stretch." On the premise that this documentary is an SPS IRWolfie- also writes, "The self published source has no due weight attached to it, due weight is established by secondary sources." I don't know why this user finds as they do. I don't find this documentary to be compromised in the way the IRWolfie- does, having only watched the first 30 minutes of it, but then the user also doesn't present an argument, merely their opinion. But my immediate evaluation would also extend itself to finding this source applicable for the listed statements even were it a self-published source. The video's IMDB entry can be seen here, and I observe a number of people having been involved in the production. What is an appropriate assessment of this source for the statements listed above? __ meco ( talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 ( talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:
In stead of, for example:
You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream ( talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there some particular reason you archived this discussion only five days after you asked that last question above, when threads are usually archived after six weeks of inactivity, as you yourself note in the white box at the top of the archived version of this discussion?
In answer to your question, material is encyclopedically relevant, event if it isn't in a secondary source by virtue of the fact that those two things are not causally linked.
Adam Hughes is such a noteworthy illustrator in his field that his techniques and materials are obviously encyclopedic in nature. Are you saying that that entire Tools and materials section in the Penciller article is not encyclopedic?
And how would a secondary source be likely to better cover a living comic book artist and cover/pinup illustrator's techniques and materials than the illustrator himself? Such information is usually documented in one of two places:
While some information does appear in the first type of source, it is my observation that more often it tends to appear in the latter. Perhaps this is because artists tend to be better at explaining their own processes and the tools they use in free-form explanation, than in the format of a rigid, question-and-answer text format. A good illustration of this is the fact that in the penciller article, of the 23 citations for the material in the Tools and materials section, only five are of publications that were published independently of the artist himself. Of these, two of them (Citations 1 and 2) are essentially the same publisher repackaging much of the same material. And of these five, or two of them present the material in paraphrased, third-person form (Citations 4 and 18).
Part of the reason I make that last point because I'm wondering if there is much of a difference between an interview conducted by and published by an industry publication that is generally considered to be reliable TwoMorrows Publishing (Citations 1 & 2) or Comic Book Resources (Citation #22) and a column published by such a publisher in which the artist merely explains his techniques and materials without an interviewer acting as a middleman (as in the case of the Comic Book Resources articles/columns by Joe Quesada that are cited as Citations #14 & 15). Nightscream ( talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed a big chunk from this article, some unsourced, some from Usenet involving discussions and added by an editor who was involved in those discussions. That editor restored it all, but most was then deleted, leaving only [3] which has 3 links to a usenet group. What do others think? Is this an instance when we can use such groups? Dougweller ( talk) 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I need advice on how to deal with sourcing at Plummer v. State (of Indiana). On Wikipedia:Help desk#Newbie file uploader questions the issue was brought up about using primary vs. secondary sources, in particular the use of a 1893 Indiana Supreme Court decision. I think I will be within Wikipedia policies if all I do is to provide an external link to the text of the decision and depend on reliable secondary sources for everything else. (The article is not properly sourced yet; I am working on it and have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Plummer v. State (of_Indiana)) Would that be acceptable? I really want to do the right thing here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I found about 30 or so Indiana cases citing Plummer and its rule of law appears to stand today.(I am wondering whether these could be thought of as secondary sources.) I did not find any law review articles on Plummer but found references to treatises on the case in Indiana Pleading and Practice. I wasn't able to have access to these books yet. I am happy to share all I have found if needed. The google books references from Fladrif sound like a good starting place and I am glad to know about these. I am also wondering if this case can be considered notable,ie, WP:NOTABILITY: .."if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Could the cases citing Plummer create notability? Now I am curious about how this will go. Coaster92 ( talk) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this is, but it is being added to many articles. It seems to be a site analyzing twitter posts to determine whether individual Venezuelans are chavistas or not, resulting in a "chavista" score at the top of the page ( sample). I removed one and was reverted. Do we want this in External links? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
After warning, after removal, still at it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
While I've got your collective attention :) Could folks please watchlist Henrique Capriles Radonski? He is a candidate for presidential elections in Venezuela to be held this October, and there have already been some pretty awful state-sponsored anti-semitic attacks on him. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought at one point this guideline differentiated between an individual signed editorial position, and an (unsigned) editorial written by a newspaper's editorial board. One would assume that the latter would be more reliable than the former, since it would have to go through the exact same legal and fact checking process as any news story in the newspaper. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is a reliable source? It doesn't seem to exercise editorial control over the articles its members post. Found it at Knai Thomman but there are a number of other articles using it. [9]. Dougweller ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Specifically this article which an editor is trying to use as a reference: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13215&page=2 I can't tell whether or not this website is just a glorified blog site where anyone can write an opinion of anything. Freikorp ( talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This is for your information: m:Wikimedia Fellowships/Project Ideas/InCite. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing an ever increasing reliance on the use of blogs from non-authoritative sources as citations in articles, where research has been undertaken (presumably), however on the blogs there is not citation of sources, no evidence of authority of the writer, and this would seem to trivialise the works that we do about citing sources, and brings us in to a contemporary space where the written web word is taken as a reality. If you have a look at Special:LinkSearch/*.wordpress.com you will see an indicator of the issue. I am not going to blame the users as it seems that we are not educating sufficiently about the use and value of reliable sources. Seems like there could be a series of essays that we could be looking to put into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost that looks lift the standard. Plus to me it would seem that we need to be starting to hassle for some more prominence and rigour around this subject matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on articles for the television series Millennium, and although I can reliably source the series' Nielsen ratings, I don't have any sources which state the actual viewing numbers. However, another book I have here, concerning The X-Files, gives the number of households that each ratings point represents in that same year (1996–1997). Would it be considered original research to take the ratings listed in one book, multiply this by the number of households a point represents given in another, and produce a viewing figure that isn't given explicitly in either source; or would this conclusion be considered an appropriate one to arrive at given the sources? GRAPPLE X 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a user on my talk page attempting to place his own original research in articles like Philistines and History of ancient Israel and Judah (claims he's "just reading" primary sources, despite having been told repeatedly that doesn't work here). He's made the claims that:
Are these in any way valid criticisms of sources on the Philistines, ancient Israel and Judah, etc? Or are they unnecessarily questioning the reliability of apparently good sources?
The sources in question are:
Does using these sources count as promoting a religion?
Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Once again I am here with a completely ridiculous question because the user on whom the WP:BURDEN lies refuses to seek support for the material he is repeatedly adding.
Is this page from the website of the "Pro Life Campaign," an anti-abortion organization, sufficient to source the claim that the polling organization Red C conducted a survey which found X, Y, and Z? No reliable sources cover this survey and Red C's website itself shows no trace of it, but the user in question, editing under his own username and under an IP, has repeatedly [12] [13] [14] added it even after being informed that neither newspaper-type RS nor the organization which supposedly conducted the poll have ever said that it happened, instead preferring to make personal attacks.
To me, it is obvious that if neither third-party reliable sources nor primary sources from Red C say that Red C conducted a survey, we cannot say that Red C conducted a survey. Liamfoley/86... apparently believes that RS requirements are waived if the poll results support his agenda. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Article: Far-left politics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Source: Woshinsky, Oliver H. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Routledge, 2008.
The section "Socialism and communism" (pp. 144-149) [15] of the book is used as a source for the lead.
My concern with this source is that appears to be an introductory U.S. polisci textbook, and therefore is tertiary. The terminology used is not explained, there is no dicsussion about its usage by other authors, different terms are used interchangeably, and it is U.S. specific. (In the U.S., modern liberalism is called "left-wing".) Another issue is that the body of the article uses a source, a Socialist research paper, that also provides a different definition.
TFD ( talk) 15:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm working to improve the very limited sourcing on the Autoweek article. I'd like to use this as one of the sources: http://roaringracers.livejournal.com/679.html. While this is a blog and self-published sources do not normally count as reliable sources, this may be considered an exception according to WP:SPS. This states that "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." The author of the post is Jim MacQueen, who can be considered an established expert and has had his work published in reliable third-party publications. He has been a reporter and the Contributing Editor of Motor Trend ( [16]) and several other automotive publications. An example of his previously published work is here: [17].
Based on the information presented above, would others consider this blog post to be a reliable source according to the expert exception outlined in WP:SPS? -- DetroitSteele ( talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In the course of another RSN thread a few weeks ago, I noted that a monograph by an editor involved in that discussion was being cited in some articles. The monograph is Castro, Stephen J. "Hypocricy and Dissent Within the Findhorn Foundation: Toward a Sociology of a New Age Community" ISBN: 978-0-9526881-0-5, ISBN-10: 0-9526881-0-7 New Age Books, Forres Scotland (1996), and it is cited in three articles at Wikipedia, all relating to the Findhorn Foundation, of which the author is apparently a disaffected former member. [18] It would appear to me that this is a SPS. The publisher "New Media Books" is located in the small town of Forres, Scotland, no address, just a PO Box, and has published only two books: this one, and one other four years later. [19] The second book is Thomas, Kate, "The Kundalini Phenomenon: The Need for Insight and Spiritual Authenticity", ISBN 978-0-9526881-1-2 ISBN-10: 0-9526881-1-5A , New Media Books, Forres Scotland (2000). The Thomas book is cited as a source in three Wikipedia articles, one overlapping with the Castro book. [20]
A distributor for the imprint, Kevin Shepherd, the son of Thomas, denies being the publisher. [21] Shepherd states that he, Thomas and Castro all lived in the same house together in Forres, where the publisher's PO Box is located. [22] Castro says in his Wikipedia profile that his background is in publishing. [23] The only logical conclusion is that one of these three, probably Castro, is the actual publisher, and that this is a SPS. Now, Castro's book does appear to have been cited in a handful of journals per Google Scholar [24] and Thomas' book once [25] I see no indication that either Castro or Thomas have been published by any reputable, independent publishers, though I have not made any exhaustive search. The use to which these sources are being used does not seem to be confined to statements by the authors about themselves.
I know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter or the authors. This is just one of those thing you stumbled across by virtue of participating at RSN, which leads to interesting diversions such as this. Thoughts on these books and this imprint as sources? Fladrif ( talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A predominance of sources about NDAA 2012 focus on the issue of indefinite detainment. Other aspects, including those which account for the majority of the text of the bill itself, and the funding it provides are only briefly mentioned. Is this Congressional Research Service report considered a secondary, reliable, and/or independent source for summarizing the rest of the bill? Link to report Thanks, Ocaasi t | c 00:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I’ve been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard by Tom Reedy pursuant to a source objection I raised on the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, regarding a “study” by Dean Kieth Simonton that was published in, Emperical Studies of the Arts. My objection is twofold. First, Simonton’s “study” falls completely outside of his specialty and he has no academic standing in the subject matter of the “study”. Second, and more importantly, the “study” is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions. The published “paper” contains no data or information. Moreover, Dr. Simonton advises that there is no supporting information. So, it may be that, on the surface, or technically speaking, Dr. Simonton and his paper meet the requirements for source citation, however, looking below the surface, the author’s authority in this case is highly questionable and the paper is utterly without substance. To appreciate the gross shortcomings of the paper one does, of course, need to read it and, technicalities of policy aside, one would hopefully consider whether a “study” that is nothing more than a summary of methods and highly questionable conclusions, with no supporting information, should be treated as worthy of citation. 79.200.96.122 ( talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision and would like to know your thoughts on the references. It's a 3 paragraph article with 4 references, the Forex News blog articles are not linked but they are found here - 2 3. I'm discussing it with the admin here, thanks -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I was forwarded to here. The source of which I doubt the reliability is the website AgoraVox.it. According to the wiki-article about Agoravox: "a French website of news powered by volunteers and non-professional writers". And: "As of April 2009, nearly 40,000 volunteers were enrolled as editors of the French version. They were 70,000 in April 2011.[citation needed] At that time, the site had over 1900 volunteer moderators.[citation needed] An Italian version of the site was launched at the end of 2008".
In particular, it concerns this article: http://www.agoravox.it/Guerra-a-Gaza-La-rete-estremista.html . An article written bij "di Lameduck", which is - as can be fairly assumed - an alias. It is used in Jewish Defense League as the source to back up the claim that: "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers"."
LevelBasis ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
These two guys have been writing profusely about Falkland Islands' history, and expressing their views about the sovereignty issue and related conflicts, which is a British and (IMHO) anti-Argentinian POV. This includes the often cited paper Getting It Right, a reply to an official Argentine seminar.
I tried to get information about Pascoe & Pepper but I got lost in Google. I appreciate any help or thought. Thanks. -- Langus ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Peter Pepper and Dr Graham Pascoe are reliable, they are well know academics who have done a considerable amount of historical research in the area of the Falkland Islands. Its an area where few UK researchers work, so the number of UK sources is relatively scarce. This is not a concern over the reliability of these sources, rather its another attempt by Langus to force his desired content into articles by having the sources discredited. If you refer to Talk:Falkland Islands, Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands and Talk:Luis Vernet, you will find plenty of vexatious argument from Langus where he is seeking to impose a solely Argentine POV rather than presenting all of the views available in the literature. This is yet another example of Langus trying to use wikipedia's processes to impose content, rather than establishing a consensus in talk. He has taken this to WP:ANI, WP:WQA and forum shopped in general trying all ways to skew the POV of articles. It is relatively easy to confirm their bona fides, their work has been endorsed by the noted British historian Sir Lawrence Freedman see [30]. The link also gives a clue why there is so much effort on wikipedia to discredit their work. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I really want to know If Artistdirect is a FA reliable source? I mean particularly this one. It's a real interview made by the stuff with Rihanna. It is very important cause it represents nearly the whole Background on " Unfaithful". Thanks :) ! — Tomica (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I recently removed some text from the article George Lewith ( diff) critical of Lewith as it relied on a blog post ( here) written by David Colquhoun and I was uncertain as to whether it met the criteria for a reliable source or not. However, looking at WP:RSEX, it appears that a blog may be considered reliable if it is hosted by a university and written by a professional in that field. The blog post mentioned above can also be found hosted by UCL (here) and Colquhoun was a pharmacologist at UCL who has served on the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council and has also published several articles on alternative medicine (mostly comment pieces, the odd editorial), so I wonder if the blog might qualify as a reliable source in this context? Randomnonsense ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor on the Old Testament article appears to be inserting information into referenced sources. The editor feels justified because he has information that is not included in those references. Could someone please explain why the additional material should be added as new sentences and with the appropriate references? Please see Talk:Old Testament#Hashem sfarim's additions? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Majority_Judgment#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria has a "Primary" tag, presumably because it references papers by the method's inventors. However, aren't peer-reviewed mathematical proofs valid sources, even if they're "affiliated" with the subject of the article? Homunq ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am Elizabeth Falkner the San Francisco chef and pastry chef and someone has edited my DOB an location. I was born in San Francisco in 1966 and not in Boston in 1975! Thanks, Elizabeth
About book:
We have problem about it in Azerbaijani people [31].
We talk is available in Talk:Azerbaijani people#Number of Azeris in Iran& Talk:Azerbaijani people#Alireza Asgharzadeh's publication's are not reliable sources
According to Alireza Asgharzadeh (2007-above source):
“ | The population of Azeris in today's world is approximately 44 million, of which 20 to 30 milliom are believed to be living in iran, over 8 million in the Republic of Azerbaijan, close to 2 million in Turkey, and the rest in countries such as Russia, Georgia, Iraq, and Ukraine. | ” |
I think this source is reliable by WP:RS WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Thanks -- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly Reliable: Academic publisher, specifically regarding ethnicity in the area, and cited favourably (Gilles Riaux (2011) Ethnicite et nationalisme en Iran Paris: Karthala) by another expert publishing in precisely the field. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not reliable on this topic - when there is a wide array of expert sources, including renowned linguists, available. Asgharzadeh's area of study is Africa, not Iran. He does political activism vis-a-vis Iran, but that doesn't make him a specialist. In addition, the "44-million" number he's advocating, is contradicted by EVERY academic and official source. We're talking about dozens of academic sources that put the number between 20 to 35 million, which means this is clearly
WP:Fringe. --
Wayiran (
talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about reliable sources. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the quality and sufficiency of the reliable sources used (or not used) in this article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If an awarding body, in this case the Motion Picture Sound Editors, who are responsible for the Golden Reel Awards, provides a link to the Internet Movie Database's own list of past award winners and nominees rather than maintaining their own (as seen here, though it should be noted that they are asking for an archivist to help create their own listing), would these listings be considered reliable? IMDB is usually (justly) seen as bargepole territory, but my understanding is that some of their content is sanctioned by, if I recall, either the Writers Guild of America or the Directors Guild of America and that content has been seen as okay when no alternative presents itself. Without any official listing, but with what seems to be a sanctioned list on an otherwise-unreliable site, could the IMDB listing be used, or is it better to leave these out of articles and hope that the MPSE finds that volunteer they're looking for? GRAPPLE X 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I wish to use this site to source this [32] CN tag which just popped up on my watchlist. The site is run by this fellow Sami Moubayed and he is an historian, would this pass the SPS test? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of working on the article for I Survived BTK and found this article [33]. It's not about the movie but it does mention it at the end and gives a mini-review in 1-2 sentences. (It was originally released under a different name, Feast of Assumption.) I'm not very sure if this could be usable even as a trivial source since it's so brief, so I thought I'd ask. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
And I do not believe I have so should like some opinions. I added this to the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
According to Christian Gerlach the mass rapes were not just a result of state policy, but were in fact the product of a highly violent society.( Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0521706810. )
This addition was reverted [34] and in the edit summary I was accused of having misrepresented the source. I asked on the talk page [35] how it had been misrepresented and even supplied a full quote from the book
Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)
but the chap who reverted me does not seem to want to talk. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Without much doubt there was much sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 1971. It can be attributed to ideas about changing the genetic make-up of east Bengal or forcing out Hindus, but mostly to lust, colonial racism against Bengali's in general, the desire to humiliate Bengali men and women and sadism. Military involvement reveals some degree of organization but not much of a clear purpose. Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)
It seems obvious to me that the mass raoe being discussed here are those carried out by the Pakistani army. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Company that the article was mostly sourced to Soompi, which appears to be an English language site covering K-pop. It is unclear to me, however, whether it is a news site (semi-pro or otherwise) or simply a collection of amateur blogs/fora. This article seems to indicate that it once was the latter and is now the former, so I'm not convinced a priori that the reasons given in the six year old deletion discussion apply anymore. Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the Center for Immigration Studies considered a reliable source for content in the Illegal_immigration article such that their claims and research can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, or are they an advocacy group whose opinions need to specifically attributed to them within the article. see [36] and Talk:Illegal_immigration#CIS_does_not_seem_unreliable_per_se -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is being used as a source in this article. It was suggested for use on the article talk page [39] were I remarked it was not really a reliable source. The report is an inquiry into the actions of the Pakistani army during the 1971 war. It is a primary source I believe but not only that the author of the report only interviewed western Pakistani politicians and officers, I do not see how this report can make statements of fact on actions carried out by rebel forces when the author did not actually speak to anyone in the east. Can this source be used for statements of fact? Darkness Shines ( talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Some sources have been objected on at FAC of Pakistan article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. I'll like RSN input on which of those sources are really unreliable. These were the comments of a reviewer:
Please comment on the sources. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding another to consider. September88 ( talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
JCAla ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i know there has been many discussion in the past about toonzone. www.toonzone.net
Currently a lot of articles use toonzone for sources
What i would like to estbalish is a consesus on toonzone as a source how ever i do not want to establish is toonzone a reliable source as it would fail under reliable sources criteria, but at the same time reliable source criteria also states no on source is 100% reliable so what i am suggesting is we break toonzone down into multi parts and determine each part whether it is reliable or not or whether they need to be condition on certain parts of the site being used as source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
ok so here goes
Ok this is a bit of a no brainer but still a i like to have it so can be search and verified in the future by other editors. My personal view is the forums can never be seen as a reliable as a source on the article, maybe can be used in a article talk page if maybe the forum has pointed to a something that can be discussed and then another source found to use in a article..-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i have seen much debate on this one before, i believe that the news section can be used as as source but scrutiny over what news sources are used.
if the news story provide a link to the original news story then this can be deemed reliable but might be best using the original.
If the news story is something written by one of there admins who say have been to local event and writing on that event this could be deemed reliable.
If however the news story gives a link to where the news story came from and the source for there story is from a source deemed to be unreliable then the it can not be used as a source.--
Andrewcrawford (
talk -
contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i think these can be used as source for titles, airdates where available and production code information as the site gets there listings direct from the broadcast so input the information as the broadcaster give it to them. Obviously we would have to hope the broadcaster would have the correct information but sometimes they get it wrong so if any article has information sourced from here but the information can be proved wrong by another source then articles are amended with a cite to the new source to show why the amended would be different to this source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be similar to the news site so i say the same criteria as i said for the new site would need to be applied here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe these should be consider unreliable as any register user of the site can edit it so it be like here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This links to a new site called cartoonsdammit.com and am not really able to determine it reliability so i would say just now unreliable until it can be determine-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be the same as news and blog it is admin edited so can be deemed relible-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
These appear to be able to be edited by register users so as such i say there unreliable as as source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
As i say i am trying to determine the reliability of the site in separate parts rather than in a whole as the site is massive and different section it unfair to say just cause one bit is unreliable the whole site is, reliable sources does state no source is 100% reliable and a whole site doesn't have to be reliable for it to be used as a source it is the part of the site you are using as a source that has to be determine if it is reliable, by having this discussion on separate parts of the site and determining a reliability for each we can then know if article will need sources removed or can be left or used in more articles, if we cant get a consensus on this i am affaird it will come back again and again and will always be arguments by editors as whether the source can be used, so it be nice to get a consensus on each section and then editors can refer to this discussion as to a whether it is seen reliblke-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I use the following reference to make this statement on the criticism section of the article Australian Christian Lobby? I understand it is hearsay, but it was a thorough investigation and if I word it in this neutral manner will it be ok?
It is an edited piece of journalism. You should attribute it to "Mark Serrels," the journalist responsible though, and the way you're using quotation marks it appears you're quoting the bishop, not Serrels. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(Question originally asked at WP:HD, I have moved here on advice of responder)
Alexandra Robbins published Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities in 2004. In one of the sections of that book, she includes almost a random lists of secrets, private knocks, methods of sisters verifying each other's membership (signs and countersigns) and what the letters stand for. While there are a significant number of footnotes in the book, there aren't on these claims of secrets. Now for at least one of the sororities in there, the book is used as a reference on Wikipedia to include the secret on the Wikipedia page for that Sorority. Firstly, what are the options for removing the book as a Wikipedia appropriate reference? (given that these pieces of information are not footnoted)
Secondly, lets say that part one is not immediately possible but (hypothetically) that the book had included my co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega and said that our letters stood for Angry Pink Ocelots. My fraternity wants it removed from the page, but does not want to make the ritual public, is it appropriate to arrange to send a copy of our ritual to either a specific individual at Wikimedia Foundation or an Oversighter who could do something (not quite sure what). Naraht ( talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the protocol for using an article from a paid-access site such as Highbeam.com. I'm assuming that free alternatives should always be used if available, but if they are not , is there any guidance on when, whether, or how to link to paid access versions? For example, in some cases an article might be available through an Economist subscription, or through HighBeam.com. Which should be linked to, or both? The one where it was actually accessed during research, or the one that is cheaper to access? Also, any further guidance about using paid research databases would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm here to seek some advice regarding the reliability of sources cited in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article.
A few blog posts written by John Hawks, Greg Laden, and PZ Myers, hosted in ScienceBlogs, are being cited. A personal website written by Jim Moore is also mentioned as being recommended in those blogs. These sources are under much dispute in the editing of the article.
Blogs: Although ScienceBlogs has a good reputation, and the 3 bloggers are respected experts on human evolution or evolutionary biology, I think blogging is essentially self-publishing -- posts are not reviewed by the site owners nor other scientists. ScienceBlogs has no control on what he write in his own blog, no matter it's scientific stuff or just "yawn, bored today."
I am aware that a SPS can be considered reliable if the author has previously published on the topic in RS, and AFAIK, the 3 scientists haven't published anything related to the subject, or produced arguments supporting or disputing it.
In such context, John Hawks's blog has been cited disproportionally (presumably because of his fame in the internet).
Website: Jim Moore's website is notable in the debate of the subject, but the personal website is SPS and the author is an amateur, citing the source will be OR even under due weight. (Note that this website has been cited extensively before, now the citing tags were removed, leaving a lot of OR stuff in the article)
In summary, I believe the blogs and websites mentioned are non-RS and thus should not be cited, regardless of the good/bad contents inside. There are many good RS available, and we should use them instead. I and some other editors have removed those citations, but then reverted by others and they suggested to have a consensus first. I guess a consensus is hard to get there because of the antagonistic atmosphere. Chakazul ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found from only one location, then that information is—by definition—— not important enough to include. Moxy ( talk) 23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
My five cents. I'd say AAH is definitely not fringe enough to be ignored by WP, but if we are going to cover it we need to look outside of mainstream academic publications unless we want to unbalance our coverage ( WP:NPOV problem). Of course we may not present this theory as widely accepted by the mainstream. We have to present it as it exists out there in the "real world". Rather than fringe I would say that mainstream academics treat most theories about the origins of bipedality as speculative. AAH is one of the various speculations, or perhaps more accurately it is a word used to describe a stream of discussion about one type of idea. But there is nothing wrong with speculation as such, and this speculation is notable. As a speculative discussion, aspects of this subject tends to be debated on places like SPS blogs. I think the best results for something like this will come from attributing everything so the readers can see that things come from blogs and so on, and "feel" that this is a public and on-going debate, happening partly outside of normal academia.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Whilst researching an unconnected issue, I noticed that Wikipedia has a page about ex-Bolton millionaire businesswoman Hilary Devey. The page claims Ms Devey was born in 1957. The conflict being that I went to primary school, and was even in the same class as Hilary. Yet I was born in 1944. How curious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 March 2012
Hello,
I am currently working on Sundiata Keita's article. For some time, there has been controversy as to where Disney got its idea regarding the lion king which went on to be a musical ( the Lion King (musical)), etc. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the reliability of this source [41]. An abstract was also published here [42]. I intend to use it in the legacy section of Sundiata Keita's article. The article is being improved at the moment, I have not finished yet. Thank you so much for your time.
Just one more point if I may. I've gone through the Lion King's article and its talk page but found no mention of this rather important point not even in the Controversy Section (unless I've accidently missed it). It was probably an unintentional oversight. I will be raising the issue in the article's talk page.
Thanks again for your time.
Best Regards
Tamsier ( talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Best Regards
Tamsier ( talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to have addition input on the above page regarding which sources are acceptable for inclusion. Thanks! Location ( talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source about using Twitter pages as reliable sources. Apparently there are some editors who feel that any Twitter page can be used to source anything on Wikipedia, and they are using that rationale to repeatedly restore Twitter pages as sources. I would appreciate some comments there or here. Thanks. 24.163.38.176 ( talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Am i allowed to cite the book "Life of Mahomet", by William Muir, he is an academic figure from Cambridge University. However he is a Christian and has been accused of not being a reliable source by some users who accuse of having an anti-Islamic slant.
I have quoted him in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article mainly to give a contrasting view:
The Muslim Scholar Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri suggest that the reason for the attack was that the Banu Mulawwih were being provocative (without further details),[4] whereas the Non Muslim historian Sir William Muir claims the reason for the attack is unknown.[3]
I have also found that the primary sources (Ibn Sa'd volume 2 p 156) support Muirs view in this occasion, as it does not mention what Mubarakpuri claims. Should Muir's opinion be removed or is it allowed?
Help preventing edit war: 1 user added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute but wanted to here al-Andalusi's (disputing user) view first.( see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved.
Please advise -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
First, don't get drawn into an edit war. You've had your revert. It's just a tag on an article, not a dispute about content at the moment. The next step is discussion. Invite that user here.
After looking at the William Muir article, it seems even today his work on the life of Muhammad is considered authoritative albeit biased — but I daresay the same could be said of Muslim historians. Having a bias doesn't automatically invalidate his historical claims, it just means one must be careful about presenting his claims as fact, particularly if there are no corroborating sources. It is perfectly valid to reference him, because he is a notable historian.
In the passage you quoted above, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. The problem the other editor might have with this is the appearance of giving both sources equal weight, if one actually has greater credibility than the other. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Muir is fine, but there is particularly one editor who will not let you reference Muir unless you were writing an article about worst historians of all time. He tried to get me banned (lol) because I thought Muir bio got vandalized. I would stay away from any references more liberal than bin Laden for now. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 05:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how can anybody seriously consider a 150 year out-of-date book as a WP:RS? When the book was published, the steam engine was high-tech, people were laughing at Semmelweiss, and Lister's use of antiseptics still a decade in the future. This book is historically interesting, but not a useful source for factual information. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should a 150 year old source on anything be used for anything other than as a primary source. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposed edit (actually currently in the article, but opposed by one editor) (now removed per [43] with the edit summary: (POV) by an editor who also removed a quote from Thomas Sowell with [44] this doesn't deserve its own section. okay? excising a section which had been fully discussed on the talk page :
[45] "The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." source: Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages
The book, as far as I can tell is widely used (559 articles citing it per Google Scholar) etc. It is described as:
One editor however says: The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. and The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it.
I suggest, however, that "Social Cognition" is a proper area (likely the best single area, in fact) for describing the problems of defining "right wing" in any absolute manner, and that refusal to allow a standard text is verging on tendentiousness. Is the source a reliable source for the claim to which it is attached? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
A re-wording might help. I suspect one problem you have come up against here is that while the fact you have made is pretty straightforward, you are writing in a paragraph which some people would consider "turf" of a specific but different discipline than the one you are now citing. I would try breaking out this statement and making a less academic looking comment about how "Perceptions about the exact meaning of ... etc. On the whole I doubt that RSN can help this discussion. Have you tried writing drafts on the talk page, and getting discussion there? It can sometimes be amazing how quickly such things can be resolved once a good discussion starts. Maybe people are concerned about something else than what I am guessing.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently an SPA has been trying to add content to the AIPAC article sourced to irmep.org. The website gives no information as to who is behind it – no names or background or mission. Its raison d'etre appears to be to malign the image of lobbies operating on Israel's behalf in Washington, with a particular focus on traducing AIPAC. There has been no mainstream coverage of IRmep, only its own press releases through PR Newswire and Business Wire and links to antiwar.com articles that echo the sentiment disseminated by IRmep. In addition to failing the criteria at WP:RS, IRmep doesn't merit mention in the article on account of its decidedly fringe character.— Biosketch ( talk) 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I found it funny that the following two articles posted on en:wp are almost identical: Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan's_Public_School,_BHEL and Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan_Public_School . In order to reliably showcase the institution, should we delete one article and retain the other? Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
Cleaning up Grette Law Firm I'm wondering if either of these two sites can be used to source the statement "Grette has received very good reviews in recent years in several ratings."
__ meco ( talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Can this be used as a reliable source in the article National Masturbation Day? -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Could a couple of you guys please give an opinion on Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies? Per the WP:RSN archive link there, LuLu has been questioned. So comments on the journal will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In looking to continue to improve the article regarding CPT Jose Calugas, I found images taken by a retired United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer of exhibits at a museum in Iloilo City. They reportedly are of artifacts of CPT Calugas, mainly being two images of his uniform ( 1, 2), an image of a certificate, and an image of the subject meeting President Kennedy. Are these images useful as reliable sources, or would they be considered original research? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notice I have used the Please See template at relevant wikiproject talk pages and a notice at the talk page regarding the subject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Would this source be considered notable? [48] I'm not familiar with Russian sites and while the site appears to be bigger than your standard and obvious Blogger account, I know that appearances can be misleading. Is anyone familiar with this site at all?
I'm leaning towards not reliable, but I wanted to drop a note just in case. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Described as "pro-Israel" by bone fide RS [49], [50], it would seem to fail the third party requirement for Reliable Sources ( "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered").
Barbara Matusow writing in the American Journalism review called the organisation a "pro-Israeli pressure group". She went on to say, "Frequently, these so-called media monitors, who say they are only interested in fairness and balance, will seize on a word or a phrase and leave out the context. Take the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial that called both PLO leader Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "pigheaded and destructive." In a communiqué urging readers to complain to the Inquirer, HonestReporting.com omitted the reference to Arafat to make the editorial sound like a one-sided attack on Sharon." [51].
The source is currently being used on a number of highly contentious articles to justify statements of fact in the wikipedia voice without attribution. E.g Rachel Corrie(citation 1 and 45); Saeb Erekat, a living person; and even on its own page HonestReporting to justify unattributed factual statements in the Wiki voice about a journalist who had criticized the organisation. Dlv999 ( talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It can be used a source for its opinions, properly attributed. The specif examples you called out are not problematic- the Saeb Erekat reference is corroborated by 3 additional sources, who say the exact same thing, the Rachael Corrie one has similar claims attributed to the Guardian, etc... The claim that being describes as pro-Israel makes it non independent is a wholly incorrect reading or WP:RS Iric2012 ( talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In Bernie Siegel, an author has added a reference to a table Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012 (published by Mind Body Spirit magazine), presumably to emphasize the importance of this author within the new-age/esoteric community. I have contended that this source is self-evidently not reliable since it ranks relatively unknown figures as being more important than very notable global figures such as The Pope and the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore I do not think a publisher known for it's WP:FRINGE topics can be considered a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion, and this certainly is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The source supports the Wikipedia article statement. The source is reliable to claim that Siegel ranks #25 on the Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012. That is what the editor posting the info would like to focus on. However, the problem is the opinion it implies - the list's ranking gives an opinion about the importance of Siegel. For that, you need to figure out whether the source is a questionable source ( wp:QS. Questionable sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties which seems to be the issue. As for questionable sources, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Do you have an issue along any of these lines? The external link you provided reads: ""Watkins’ Mind Body Spirit magazine (previously Watkins Review) is a quarterly publication by Watkins Books, London’s oldest and largest independent esoteric bookshop, established in 1893." -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked Siegel #25 on their 2012 "List of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People". [56]
This is concerning an AfD where a representative for the company is trying to insist that they're notable. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbie", I'm asking here to see if it'd be considered to be notable. The only problem is that it was launched in 2010 and doesn't seem to have reached that "absolute authority" level yet. [57] Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like some advice, from those conversant with Wikipedia's consensuses on the topic, of whether, for example, the primary source of a photo of the 1926 gravestone of Geo. Romney's mother, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave, might be acceptable on Wikikpedia as a supplementary source.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
For those interested. Concerns with lack of Reliable Sources.( olive ( talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
I believe that the Chronicle Review, specifically this article is a reliable source. I believe it is particularly reliable, because not only is it an award winning news organization, it is academic. Per WP:MAINSTREAM I consider this somewhat significant. At the very least, I consider it a very good source. On the other hand, it is not straight reporting, but it is in their opinion section as are nearly all the sources for Occupy Wall Street. What do you think of this source?
Background: an editor says using a quote for a generalization is undue WEIGHT to the source. The text is "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." I contend that because the overall gist of the quote is backed up by numerous other reliable sources and is not contradicted, using this quote to get the generalization is acceptable and not UNDUE. The question being answered in the paragraph is "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" Be——Critical 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An historian specializing in education in the US seems to me more appropriate for analyzing OWS than a political scientist, who focuses on politics not the general context. Andrew Hartman is currently writing a book entitled "A War for the Soul Of America: A History of the Culture Wars, From the 1960s to the Present" and my guess is that at least the Chronicle Review thought him an expert appropriate to the subject. Be——Critical 08:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!.
How I used this discussion
Be——Critical 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A published letter ( second letter on the page) to the editor of the New York Times by the director of a non-profit organisation, the Central Fund of Israel is being used to justify factual statements about the organisation's activities in the Wiki voice, without attribution. [61] The claims made in the letter have not been corroborated by other RS, which actually give a rather different account of the organisation (I have summarized on the talk page of the article [62])
Is this a reliable source? Is it being used appropriately in this context? Dlv999 ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the article Ahmadiyya, there is a section on India. The present discussion focuses on the following aspects:
However there are two additional aspects which I would like be included here:
1. There seems to be a general acceptance of this community as a distinct religious group (Cf: my upload of the nonfree image
File:Shadi.com AhmediSeparate.JPG from one of the leading matrimonial site Shadi.com listing Ahmedis (this community) as separate group altogether. The aim of this image, now tagged for deletion, is to be used in the article to highlight this).
2. One of the states in India has recently (unfortunately) declared this community as "not Muslim". This is the first sign that the secular government of India is towing a hardline attitude for the community just as in Pakistan. (Cf:
my edit. Although this edit is properly referenced, as can be seen from the history,
user:Altetendekrabbe is threatening a possible ban on me if my re-edit the article with this input. I request the admins to please decide on this and the above issue.
Regards,
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC).
As the above was copied to my talk page, I'll reply here. You weren't referred to by region, but by a shortening of your username. And calling someone 'disingenuous' could just barely be a personal attack if it was blatantly wrong, but even then it's hardly comparable to your comments. Dougweller ( talk) 06:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
(Restarting, hopefully without any personal attacks.) This is about these edits on the article Ahmadiyya, backed by this article from Siasat. From what I read about Siasat, it seems to be an established and popular mainstream newspaper, so should be a reliable source. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
In a major decision, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board has unanimously resolved to remove four religious places belonging to Qadayani sect from its list.Making the announcement, Wakf Board chairman Syed Shah Ghulam Afzal Biyabani said that the four properties belonging to Ahmediyas sect were registered with the Wakf Board. Since Qadyanis (Ahmediyas) are not Muslims, the Wakf Board has decided to remove them from the list. The properties include Ahmedi Jubilee Hall at Afzalgunj, Anwar Manzil and Baitul Irshad at Barkatpura and Masjid Chinna Kunta in Mahabubnagar.The State Government has been asked to take control of religious properties belonging to Qadayanis under its direct management or hand them over to Endowments Department.Similarly, the Wakf Board has decided to take one mosque at Falaknuma Railway Station under its direct management. The mosque belonging to Sunni Muslims is presently under the control of Qadayanis.The Wakf Board chairman said that a comprehensive State-wide survey has been ordered to identify the properties belonging to Muslims which are presently under the control of Qadayanis.Rajya Sabha MP and Wakf Board member MA Khan said that the State Government would be pressurised to accept the Wakf Board resolution. Another member and IAS officer Omar Jaleel said that the Muslim community should maintain restrain over the issue as the Wakf Board.Former Wakf Board chairman Ilyas Seth said that all Qazis have been asked not to perform the Nikah of Qadyanis. He also demanded that the State Government provide adequate security to Wakf Board chairman who has been facing threats from the Qadayanis.The Wakf Board has also identified about 45 places of worship of Qadayanis in the State which are not registered with the board. They include Masjid Alhamd at Madannapet in the Old City.The Wakf Board's decision evoked celebrations by Sunni Muslims at several places across the city. Congress MLC and Jamiyatul Ulema-e-Hind State president Hafiz Peer Shabbir Ahmed, Shaik-ul-Islam Academy chairman Moulana Yehya Ansari Ashrafi, Anjuman-e-Qadaria president Syed Ifteqar Hussaini, Sunni United Federation of India convenor Hafiz Mohammad Muzaffar Hussain, Idara-e-Tehqiqaat Ilmiya director Syed Khaja Moizuddin Ashrafi and other religious leaders welcome the decision.
I don't advocate quoting this Facebook posting into the article but surely this is a major development and has to be included on Wikipedia. So I await a decision on which source to choose. Regards,
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva_World_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_National_News
Are these two news sites considered reliable sources?
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
IsraelNationalNews is one of the most unreliable news sources in the Middle East. It exists for the purpose of promoting the politics of the Israeli settlers. That's why it was founded and that's why it exists today. Many times information taken from that source has proved to be wrong. These quotations are from five different serious academic studies (sources on request): "considered the mouthpiece of the Gush Emunim Movement--supports the concept of the Greater Land of Israel"; "identified with the religious right"; "a group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" (note that INN is the internet arm of Arutz Sheva); "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement"; "voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories"; "the settlers' radio station"; "settlers' radio station". The evidence suggests that it can be used as a valid source of the settlers' opinion. Trusting it for general news is not an option. Putting this into perspective, there is no reason to believe INN is more reliable than, say, the official newspaper of the PLO. Nobody even tries to cite the latter; we should apply the same standard to the former. Zero talk 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeshiva World News is an outlet internal to a particular community of orthodox Jews and is concerned with that community. I think it can be trusted for uncontroversial news about that community (for example, if it tells us some famous rabbi died, we can cite it). I don't see any reason to treat it as reliable on wider issues. Zero talk 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question ( Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).
I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.
Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.
I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Are there any references that state reliability of sources Christian Today, The Milli Gazette to be considered as a reliable source.
My understanding is that these are not at all reliable. Per discussion here, I had pointed out why. Here it is:
I would like to know how these sources are considered reliable, if at all.
Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Humour you did not yet really explain what the sources are being used for. Please do not try to cut the discussion off too quickly. Maybe this already helps:
Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)In 2005 John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) and a member of the National Integration Council expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority, in order to "prevent conversions of tribals to Christianity by missionaries."
There seems to be a bias problem here in that the Times article shows that this is essentially and quite openly a project of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the major Hindutva organizations. It is hardly surprising that Christian groups oppose this (since it is explicitly targeted agianst them), and there's no reason to doubt that Dayal is reported accurately; and as he can be taken as a spokesman, he ought to appear in the article as such. I have less familiarity with Islamic material and therefore have not dared to speak concerning The Milli Gazette. The contrary view, however, is presented in the mouth of François Gautier, and he is notorious and controversial as a defender of Hindutva, to the point where a novel attacking British correspondent Mark Tully was widely assumed to have been penned by him [66]. As it stands the article tends to play down the Hindutva aspect of the project, and to the degree it can't, tends to mark it as a sidelight instead of as a core aspect of the program. Mangoe ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What Mangoe said does not appear true. The article does not play down Hindutva aspect, it is clearly stated the organization is affiliated to RSS, so is VHP. If Mangoe had their way, the article would begin and end with controversy and that would have been the only section, LOL. And don't get us started on the notoriety thing, Gautier is much less notorious than Dayal, who has been criticized for his Hindu-bashing hobby in the guise of Dalit activism by even Indian Christians like P N Benjamin, see here. On the sources I have to say that IMHO Christian Today is fine for quoting Dayal, but Milli Gazette may be removed as we have another source for it already - The Hindu newspaper which though leftist in its views is widely considered reliable. Nmisra ( talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Humour, the 3 key policies about what to include in WP are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. You should also consider WP:NOTE. But in the context of this discussion it might be neater to just say that what WP aims to do is to summarise what notable and relevant people have properly published about subjects, even if we disagree with them. If a person or publication is controversial, the trick is to make sure we mention who they are, to help readers see it, and also that we put in balancing views. So if this charity is controversial then WP should report the controversy. If it's critics and defenders are controversial, we should help readers to be able to see this, and study it further if they so choose.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That is not the consensus. The consensus is that reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. The same report may be reliable for one thing cited from it, and unreliable for the other one. As pointed out on Talk Page here, this particular citation from MG is unreliable since it has factual inaccuracies. Nmisra ( talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
"Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting."
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 110 | ← | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 |
I recently added an "Early life" section to the biography of John Searl, an inventor of a "free energy" device. Now, me and RSN regular IRWolfie- are having a bit of a dispute about the aptness of the source I used for the information which I added (see our talk page discussion).
These are the statements in the article section that are all referenced to the documentary:
To me this all looks like uncontroversial information, but IRWolfie- finds that "John Searl appears heavily involved in the production of the promotional video and it is published by a company that appears to have only ever made that one documentary. This seems like a self published source by any stretch." On the premise that this documentary is an SPS IRWolfie- also writes, "The self published source has no due weight attached to it, due weight is established by secondary sources." I don't know why this user finds as they do. I don't find this documentary to be compromised in the way the IRWolfie- does, having only watched the first 30 minutes of it, but then the user also doesn't present an argument, merely their opinion. But my immediate evaluation would also extend itself to finding this source applicable for the listed statements even were it a self-published source. The video's IMDB entry can be seen here, and I observe a number of people having been involved in the production. What is an appropriate assessment of this source for the statements listed above? __ meco ( talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 ( talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:
In stead of, for example:
You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream ( talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there some particular reason you archived this discussion only five days after you asked that last question above, when threads are usually archived after six weeks of inactivity, as you yourself note in the white box at the top of the archived version of this discussion?
In answer to your question, material is encyclopedically relevant, event if it isn't in a secondary source by virtue of the fact that those two things are not causally linked.
Adam Hughes is such a noteworthy illustrator in his field that his techniques and materials are obviously encyclopedic in nature. Are you saying that that entire Tools and materials section in the Penciller article is not encyclopedic?
And how would a secondary source be likely to better cover a living comic book artist and cover/pinup illustrator's techniques and materials than the illustrator himself? Such information is usually documented in one of two places:
While some information does appear in the first type of source, it is my observation that more often it tends to appear in the latter. Perhaps this is because artists tend to be better at explaining their own processes and the tools they use in free-form explanation, than in the format of a rigid, question-and-answer text format. A good illustration of this is the fact that in the penciller article, of the 23 citations for the material in the Tools and materials section, only five are of publications that were published independently of the artist himself. Of these, two of them (Citations 1 and 2) are essentially the same publisher repackaging much of the same material. And of these five, or two of them present the material in paraphrased, third-person form (Citations 4 and 18).
Part of the reason I make that last point because I'm wondering if there is much of a difference between an interview conducted by and published by an industry publication that is generally considered to be reliable TwoMorrows Publishing (Citations 1 & 2) or Comic Book Resources (Citation #22) and a column published by such a publisher in which the artist merely explains his techniques and materials without an interviewer acting as a middleman (as in the case of the Comic Book Resources articles/columns by Joe Quesada that are cited as Citations #14 & 15). Nightscream ( talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed a big chunk from this article, some unsourced, some from Usenet involving discussions and added by an editor who was involved in those discussions. That editor restored it all, but most was then deleted, leaving only [3] which has 3 links to a usenet group. What do others think? Is this an instance when we can use such groups? Dougweller ( talk) 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I need advice on how to deal with sourcing at Plummer v. State (of Indiana). On Wikipedia:Help desk#Newbie file uploader questions the issue was brought up about using primary vs. secondary sources, in particular the use of a 1893 Indiana Supreme Court decision. I think I will be within Wikipedia policies if all I do is to provide an external link to the text of the decision and depend on reliable secondary sources for everything else. (The article is not properly sourced yet; I am working on it and have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Plummer v. State (of_Indiana)) Would that be acceptable? I really want to do the right thing here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I found about 30 or so Indiana cases citing Plummer and its rule of law appears to stand today.(I am wondering whether these could be thought of as secondary sources.) I did not find any law review articles on Plummer but found references to treatises on the case in Indiana Pleading and Practice. I wasn't able to have access to these books yet. I am happy to share all I have found if needed. The google books references from Fladrif sound like a good starting place and I am glad to know about these. I am also wondering if this case can be considered notable,ie, WP:NOTABILITY: .."if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Could the cases citing Plummer create notability? Now I am curious about how this will go. Coaster92 ( talk) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this is, but it is being added to many articles. It seems to be a site analyzing twitter posts to determine whether individual Venezuelans are chavistas or not, resulting in a "chavista" score at the top of the page ( sample). I removed one and was reverted. Do we want this in External links? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
After warning, after removal, still at it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
While I've got your collective attention :) Could folks please watchlist Henrique Capriles Radonski? He is a candidate for presidential elections in Venezuela to be held this October, and there have already been some pretty awful state-sponsored anti-semitic attacks on him. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought at one point this guideline differentiated between an individual signed editorial position, and an (unsigned) editorial written by a newspaper's editorial board. One would assume that the latter would be more reliable than the former, since it would have to go through the exact same legal and fact checking process as any news story in the newspaper. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is a reliable source? It doesn't seem to exercise editorial control over the articles its members post. Found it at Knai Thomman but there are a number of other articles using it. [9]. Dougweller ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Specifically this article which an editor is trying to use as a reference: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13215&page=2 I can't tell whether or not this website is just a glorified blog site where anyone can write an opinion of anything. Freikorp ( talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This is for your information: m:Wikimedia Fellowships/Project Ideas/InCite. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing an ever increasing reliance on the use of blogs from non-authoritative sources as citations in articles, where research has been undertaken (presumably), however on the blogs there is not citation of sources, no evidence of authority of the writer, and this would seem to trivialise the works that we do about citing sources, and brings us in to a contemporary space where the written web word is taken as a reality. If you have a look at Special:LinkSearch/*.wordpress.com you will see an indicator of the issue. I am not going to blame the users as it seems that we are not educating sufficiently about the use and value of reliable sources. Seems like there could be a series of essays that we could be looking to put into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost that looks lift the standard. Plus to me it would seem that we need to be starting to hassle for some more prominence and rigour around this subject matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on articles for the television series Millennium, and although I can reliably source the series' Nielsen ratings, I don't have any sources which state the actual viewing numbers. However, another book I have here, concerning The X-Files, gives the number of households that each ratings point represents in that same year (1996–1997). Would it be considered original research to take the ratings listed in one book, multiply this by the number of households a point represents given in another, and produce a viewing figure that isn't given explicitly in either source; or would this conclusion be considered an appropriate one to arrive at given the sources? GRAPPLE X 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a user on my talk page attempting to place his own original research in articles like Philistines and History of ancient Israel and Judah (claims he's "just reading" primary sources, despite having been told repeatedly that doesn't work here). He's made the claims that:
Are these in any way valid criticisms of sources on the Philistines, ancient Israel and Judah, etc? Or are they unnecessarily questioning the reliability of apparently good sources?
The sources in question are:
Does using these sources count as promoting a religion?
Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Once again I am here with a completely ridiculous question because the user on whom the WP:BURDEN lies refuses to seek support for the material he is repeatedly adding.
Is this page from the website of the "Pro Life Campaign," an anti-abortion organization, sufficient to source the claim that the polling organization Red C conducted a survey which found X, Y, and Z? No reliable sources cover this survey and Red C's website itself shows no trace of it, but the user in question, editing under his own username and under an IP, has repeatedly [12] [13] [14] added it even after being informed that neither newspaper-type RS nor the organization which supposedly conducted the poll have ever said that it happened, instead preferring to make personal attacks.
To me, it is obvious that if neither third-party reliable sources nor primary sources from Red C say that Red C conducted a survey, we cannot say that Red C conducted a survey. Liamfoley/86... apparently believes that RS requirements are waived if the poll results support his agenda. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Article: Far-left politics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Source: Woshinsky, Oliver H. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Routledge, 2008.
The section "Socialism and communism" (pp. 144-149) [15] of the book is used as a source for the lead.
My concern with this source is that appears to be an introductory U.S. polisci textbook, and therefore is tertiary. The terminology used is not explained, there is no dicsussion about its usage by other authors, different terms are used interchangeably, and it is U.S. specific. (In the U.S., modern liberalism is called "left-wing".) Another issue is that the body of the article uses a source, a Socialist research paper, that also provides a different definition.
TFD ( talk) 15:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm working to improve the very limited sourcing on the Autoweek article. I'd like to use this as one of the sources: http://roaringracers.livejournal.com/679.html. While this is a blog and self-published sources do not normally count as reliable sources, this may be considered an exception according to WP:SPS. This states that "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." The author of the post is Jim MacQueen, who can be considered an established expert and has had his work published in reliable third-party publications. He has been a reporter and the Contributing Editor of Motor Trend ( [16]) and several other automotive publications. An example of his previously published work is here: [17].
Based on the information presented above, would others consider this blog post to be a reliable source according to the expert exception outlined in WP:SPS? -- DetroitSteele ( talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In the course of another RSN thread a few weeks ago, I noted that a monograph by an editor involved in that discussion was being cited in some articles. The monograph is Castro, Stephen J. "Hypocricy and Dissent Within the Findhorn Foundation: Toward a Sociology of a New Age Community" ISBN: 978-0-9526881-0-5, ISBN-10: 0-9526881-0-7 New Age Books, Forres Scotland (1996), and it is cited in three articles at Wikipedia, all relating to the Findhorn Foundation, of which the author is apparently a disaffected former member. [18] It would appear to me that this is a SPS. The publisher "New Media Books" is located in the small town of Forres, Scotland, no address, just a PO Box, and has published only two books: this one, and one other four years later. [19] The second book is Thomas, Kate, "The Kundalini Phenomenon: The Need for Insight and Spiritual Authenticity", ISBN 978-0-9526881-1-2 ISBN-10: 0-9526881-1-5A , New Media Books, Forres Scotland (2000). The Thomas book is cited as a source in three Wikipedia articles, one overlapping with the Castro book. [20]
A distributor for the imprint, Kevin Shepherd, the son of Thomas, denies being the publisher. [21] Shepherd states that he, Thomas and Castro all lived in the same house together in Forres, where the publisher's PO Box is located. [22] Castro says in his Wikipedia profile that his background is in publishing. [23] The only logical conclusion is that one of these three, probably Castro, is the actual publisher, and that this is a SPS. Now, Castro's book does appear to have been cited in a handful of journals per Google Scholar [24] and Thomas' book once [25] I see no indication that either Castro or Thomas have been published by any reputable, independent publishers, though I have not made any exhaustive search. The use to which these sources are being used does not seem to be confined to statements by the authors about themselves.
I know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter or the authors. This is just one of those thing you stumbled across by virtue of participating at RSN, which leads to interesting diversions such as this. Thoughts on these books and this imprint as sources? Fladrif ( talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A predominance of sources about NDAA 2012 focus on the issue of indefinite detainment. Other aspects, including those which account for the majority of the text of the bill itself, and the funding it provides are only briefly mentioned. Is this Congressional Research Service report considered a secondary, reliable, and/or independent source for summarizing the rest of the bill? Link to report Thanks, Ocaasi t | c 00:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I’ve been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard by Tom Reedy pursuant to a source objection I raised on the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, regarding a “study” by Dean Kieth Simonton that was published in, Emperical Studies of the Arts. My objection is twofold. First, Simonton’s “study” falls completely outside of his specialty and he has no academic standing in the subject matter of the “study”. Second, and more importantly, the “study” is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions. The published “paper” contains no data or information. Moreover, Dr. Simonton advises that there is no supporting information. So, it may be that, on the surface, or technically speaking, Dr. Simonton and his paper meet the requirements for source citation, however, looking below the surface, the author’s authority in this case is highly questionable and the paper is utterly without substance. To appreciate the gross shortcomings of the paper one does, of course, need to read it and, technicalities of policy aside, one would hopefully consider whether a “study” that is nothing more than a summary of methods and highly questionable conclusions, with no supporting information, should be treated as worthy of citation. 79.200.96.122 ( talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision and would like to know your thoughts on the references. It's a 3 paragraph article with 4 references, the Forex News blog articles are not linked but they are found here - 2 3. I'm discussing it with the admin here, thanks -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I was forwarded to here. The source of which I doubt the reliability is the website AgoraVox.it. According to the wiki-article about Agoravox: "a French website of news powered by volunteers and non-professional writers". And: "As of April 2009, nearly 40,000 volunteers were enrolled as editors of the French version. They were 70,000 in April 2011.[citation needed] At that time, the site had over 1900 volunteer moderators.[citation needed] An Italian version of the site was launched at the end of 2008".
In particular, it concerns this article: http://www.agoravox.it/Guerra-a-Gaza-La-rete-estremista.html . An article written bij "di Lameduck", which is - as can be fairly assumed - an alias. It is used in Jewish Defense League as the source to back up the claim that: "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers"."
LevelBasis ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
These two guys have been writing profusely about Falkland Islands' history, and expressing their views about the sovereignty issue and related conflicts, which is a British and (IMHO) anti-Argentinian POV. This includes the often cited paper Getting It Right, a reply to an official Argentine seminar.
I tried to get information about Pascoe & Pepper but I got lost in Google. I appreciate any help or thought. Thanks. -- Langus ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Peter Pepper and Dr Graham Pascoe are reliable, they are well know academics who have done a considerable amount of historical research in the area of the Falkland Islands. Its an area where few UK researchers work, so the number of UK sources is relatively scarce. This is not a concern over the reliability of these sources, rather its another attempt by Langus to force his desired content into articles by having the sources discredited. If you refer to Talk:Falkland Islands, Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands and Talk:Luis Vernet, you will find plenty of vexatious argument from Langus where he is seeking to impose a solely Argentine POV rather than presenting all of the views available in the literature. This is yet another example of Langus trying to use wikipedia's processes to impose content, rather than establishing a consensus in talk. He has taken this to WP:ANI, WP:WQA and forum shopped in general trying all ways to skew the POV of articles. It is relatively easy to confirm their bona fides, their work has been endorsed by the noted British historian Sir Lawrence Freedman see [30]. The link also gives a clue why there is so much effort on wikipedia to discredit their work. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I really want to know If Artistdirect is a FA reliable source? I mean particularly this one. It's a real interview made by the stuff with Rihanna. It is very important cause it represents nearly the whole Background on " Unfaithful". Thanks :) ! — Tomica (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I recently removed some text from the article George Lewith ( diff) critical of Lewith as it relied on a blog post ( here) written by David Colquhoun and I was uncertain as to whether it met the criteria for a reliable source or not. However, looking at WP:RSEX, it appears that a blog may be considered reliable if it is hosted by a university and written by a professional in that field. The blog post mentioned above can also be found hosted by UCL (here) and Colquhoun was a pharmacologist at UCL who has served on the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council and has also published several articles on alternative medicine (mostly comment pieces, the odd editorial), so I wonder if the blog might qualify as a reliable source in this context? Randomnonsense ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor on the Old Testament article appears to be inserting information into referenced sources. The editor feels justified because he has information that is not included in those references. Could someone please explain why the additional material should be added as new sentences and with the appropriate references? Please see Talk:Old Testament#Hashem sfarim's additions? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Majority_Judgment#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria has a "Primary" tag, presumably because it references papers by the method's inventors. However, aren't peer-reviewed mathematical proofs valid sources, even if they're "affiliated" with the subject of the article? Homunq ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am Elizabeth Falkner the San Francisco chef and pastry chef and someone has edited my DOB an location. I was born in San Francisco in 1966 and not in Boston in 1975! Thanks, Elizabeth
About book:
We have problem about it in Azerbaijani people [31].
We talk is available in Talk:Azerbaijani people#Number of Azeris in Iran& Talk:Azerbaijani people#Alireza Asgharzadeh's publication's are not reliable sources
According to Alireza Asgharzadeh (2007-above source):
“ | The population of Azeris in today's world is approximately 44 million, of which 20 to 30 milliom are believed to be living in iran, over 8 million in the Republic of Azerbaijan, close to 2 million in Turkey, and the rest in countries such as Russia, Georgia, Iraq, and Ukraine. | ” |
I think this source is reliable by WP:RS WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Thanks -- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly Reliable: Academic publisher, specifically regarding ethnicity in the area, and cited favourably (Gilles Riaux (2011) Ethnicite et nationalisme en Iran Paris: Karthala) by another expert publishing in precisely the field. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not reliable on this topic - when there is a wide array of expert sources, including renowned linguists, available. Asgharzadeh's area of study is Africa, not Iran. He does political activism vis-a-vis Iran, but that doesn't make him a specialist. In addition, the "44-million" number he's advocating, is contradicted by EVERY academic and official source. We're talking about dozens of academic sources that put the number between 20 to 35 million, which means this is clearly
WP:Fringe. --
Wayiran (
talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about reliable sources. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the quality and sufficiency of the reliable sources used (or not used) in this article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If an awarding body, in this case the Motion Picture Sound Editors, who are responsible for the Golden Reel Awards, provides a link to the Internet Movie Database's own list of past award winners and nominees rather than maintaining their own (as seen here, though it should be noted that they are asking for an archivist to help create their own listing), would these listings be considered reliable? IMDB is usually (justly) seen as bargepole territory, but my understanding is that some of their content is sanctioned by, if I recall, either the Writers Guild of America or the Directors Guild of America and that content has been seen as okay when no alternative presents itself. Without any official listing, but with what seems to be a sanctioned list on an otherwise-unreliable site, could the IMDB listing be used, or is it better to leave these out of articles and hope that the MPSE finds that volunteer they're looking for? GRAPPLE X 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I wish to use this site to source this [32] CN tag which just popped up on my watchlist. The site is run by this fellow Sami Moubayed and he is an historian, would this pass the SPS test? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of working on the article for I Survived BTK and found this article [33]. It's not about the movie but it does mention it at the end and gives a mini-review in 1-2 sentences. (It was originally released under a different name, Feast of Assumption.) I'm not very sure if this could be usable even as a trivial source since it's so brief, so I thought I'd ask. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
And I do not believe I have so should like some opinions. I added this to the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
According to Christian Gerlach the mass rapes were not just a result of state policy, but were in fact the product of a highly violent society.( Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0521706810. )
This addition was reverted [34] and in the edit summary I was accused of having misrepresented the source. I asked on the talk page [35] how it had been misrepresented and even supplied a full quote from the book
Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)
but the chap who reverted me does not seem to want to talk. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Without much doubt there was much sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 1971. It can be attributed to ideas about changing the genetic make-up of east Bengal or forcing out Hindus, but mostly to lust, colonial racism against Bengali's in general, the desire to humiliate Bengali men and women and sadism. Military involvement reveals some degree of organization but not much of a clear purpose. Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)
It seems obvious to me that the mass raoe being discussed here are those carried out by the Pakistani army. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Company that the article was mostly sourced to Soompi, which appears to be an English language site covering K-pop. It is unclear to me, however, whether it is a news site (semi-pro or otherwise) or simply a collection of amateur blogs/fora. This article seems to indicate that it once was the latter and is now the former, so I'm not convinced a priori that the reasons given in the six year old deletion discussion apply anymore. Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the Center for Immigration Studies considered a reliable source for content in the Illegal_immigration article such that their claims and research can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, or are they an advocacy group whose opinions need to specifically attributed to them within the article. see [36] and Talk:Illegal_immigration#CIS_does_not_seem_unreliable_per_se -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is being used as a source in this article. It was suggested for use on the article talk page [39] were I remarked it was not really a reliable source. The report is an inquiry into the actions of the Pakistani army during the 1971 war. It is a primary source I believe but not only that the author of the report only interviewed western Pakistani politicians and officers, I do not see how this report can make statements of fact on actions carried out by rebel forces when the author did not actually speak to anyone in the east. Can this source be used for statements of fact? Darkness Shines ( talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Some sources have been objected on at FAC of Pakistan article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. I'll like RSN input on which of those sources are really unreliable. These were the comments of a reviewer:
Please comment on the sources. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding another to consider. September88 ( talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
JCAla ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i know there has been many discussion in the past about toonzone. www.toonzone.net
Currently a lot of articles use toonzone for sources
What i would like to estbalish is a consesus on toonzone as a source how ever i do not want to establish is toonzone a reliable source as it would fail under reliable sources criteria, but at the same time reliable source criteria also states no on source is 100% reliable so what i am suggesting is we break toonzone down into multi parts and determine each part whether it is reliable or not or whether they need to be condition on certain parts of the site being used as source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
ok so here goes
Ok this is a bit of a no brainer but still a i like to have it so can be search and verified in the future by other editors. My personal view is the forums can never be seen as a reliable as a source on the article, maybe can be used in a article talk page if maybe the forum has pointed to a something that can be discussed and then another source found to use in a article..-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i have seen much debate on this one before, i believe that the news section can be used as as source but scrutiny over what news sources are used.
if the news story provide a link to the original news story then this can be deemed reliable but might be best using the original.
If the news story is something written by one of there admins who say have been to local event and writing on that event this could be deemed reliable.
If however the news story gives a link to where the news story came from and the source for there story is from a source deemed to be unreliable then the it can not be used as a source.--
Andrewcrawford (
talk -
contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok i think these can be used as source for titles, airdates where available and production code information as the site gets there listings direct from the broadcast so input the information as the broadcaster give it to them. Obviously we would have to hope the broadcaster would have the correct information but sometimes they get it wrong so if any article has information sourced from here but the information can be proved wrong by another source then articles are amended with a cite to the new source to show why the amended would be different to this source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be similar to the news site so i say the same criteria as i said for the new site would need to be applied here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe these should be consider unreliable as any register user of the site can edit it so it be like here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This links to a new site called cartoonsdammit.com and am not really able to determine it reliability so i would say just now unreliable until it can be determine-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be the same as news and blog it is admin edited so can be deemed relible-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
These appear to be able to be edited by register users so as such i say there unreliable as as source-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
As i say i am trying to determine the reliability of the site in separate parts rather than in a whole as the site is massive and different section it unfair to say just cause one bit is unreliable the whole site is, reliable sources does state no source is 100% reliable and a whole site doesn't have to be reliable for it to be used as a source it is the part of the site you are using as a source that has to be determine if it is reliable, by having this discussion on separate parts of the site and determining a reliability for each we can then know if article will need sources removed or can be left or used in more articles, if we cant get a consensus on this i am affaird it will come back again and again and will always be arguments by editors as whether the source can be used, so it be nice to get a consensus on each section and then editors can refer to this discussion as to a whether it is seen reliblke-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I use the following reference to make this statement on the criticism section of the article Australian Christian Lobby? I understand it is hearsay, but it was a thorough investigation and if I word it in this neutral manner will it be ok?
It is an edited piece of journalism. You should attribute it to "Mark Serrels," the journalist responsible though, and the way you're using quotation marks it appears you're quoting the bishop, not Serrels. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(Question originally asked at WP:HD, I have moved here on advice of responder)
Alexandra Robbins published Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities in 2004. In one of the sections of that book, she includes almost a random lists of secrets, private knocks, methods of sisters verifying each other's membership (signs and countersigns) and what the letters stand for. While there are a significant number of footnotes in the book, there aren't on these claims of secrets. Now for at least one of the sororities in there, the book is used as a reference on Wikipedia to include the secret on the Wikipedia page for that Sorority. Firstly, what are the options for removing the book as a Wikipedia appropriate reference? (given that these pieces of information are not footnoted)
Secondly, lets say that part one is not immediately possible but (hypothetically) that the book had included my co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega and said that our letters stood for Angry Pink Ocelots. My fraternity wants it removed from the page, but does not want to make the ritual public, is it appropriate to arrange to send a copy of our ritual to either a specific individual at Wikimedia Foundation or an Oversighter who could do something (not quite sure what). Naraht ( talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the protocol for using an article from a paid-access site such as Highbeam.com. I'm assuming that free alternatives should always be used if available, but if they are not , is there any guidance on when, whether, or how to link to paid access versions? For example, in some cases an article might be available through an Economist subscription, or through HighBeam.com. Which should be linked to, or both? The one where it was actually accessed during research, or the one that is cheaper to access? Also, any further guidance about using paid research databases would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm here to seek some advice regarding the reliability of sources cited in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article.
A few blog posts written by John Hawks, Greg Laden, and PZ Myers, hosted in ScienceBlogs, are being cited. A personal website written by Jim Moore is also mentioned as being recommended in those blogs. These sources are under much dispute in the editing of the article.
Blogs: Although ScienceBlogs has a good reputation, and the 3 bloggers are respected experts on human evolution or evolutionary biology, I think blogging is essentially self-publishing -- posts are not reviewed by the site owners nor other scientists. ScienceBlogs has no control on what he write in his own blog, no matter it's scientific stuff or just "yawn, bored today."
I am aware that a SPS can be considered reliable if the author has previously published on the topic in RS, and AFAIK, the 3 scientists haven't published anything related to the subject, or produced arguments supporting or disputing it.
In such context, John Hawks's blog has been cited disproportionally (presumably because of his fame in the internet).
Website: Jim Moore's website is notable in the debate of the subject, but the personal website is SPS and the author is an amateur, citing the source will be OR even under due weight. (Note that this website has been cited extensively before, now the citing tags were removed, leaving a lot of OR stuff in the article)
In summary, I believe the blogs and websites mentioned are non-RS and thus should not be cited, regardless of the good/bad contents inside. There are many good RS available, and we should use them instead. I and some other editors have removed those citations, but then reverted by others and they suggested to have a consensus first. I guess a consensus is hard to get there because of the antagonistic atmosphere. Chakazul ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found from only one location, then that information is—by definition—— not important enough to include. Moxy ( talk) 23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
My five cents. I'd say AAH is definitely not fringe enough to be ignored by WP, but if we are going to cover it we need to look outside of mainstream academic publications unless we want to unbalance our coverage ( WP:NPOV problem). Of course we may not present this theory as widely accepted by the mainstream. We have to present it as it exists out there in the "real world". Rather than fringe I would say that mainstream academics treat most theories about the origins of bipedality as speculative. AAH is one of the various speculations, or perhaps more accurately it is a word used to describe a stream of discussion about one type of idea. But there is nothing wrong with speculation as such, and this speculation is notable. As a speculative discussion, aspects of this subject tends to be debated on places like SPS blogs. I think the best results for something like this will come from attributing everything so the readers can see that things come from blogs and so on, and "feel" that this is a public and on-going debate, happening partly outside of normal academia.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Whilst researching an unconnected issue, I noticed that Wikipedia has a page about ex-Bolton millionaire businesswoman Hilary Devey. The page claims Ms Devey was born in 1957. The conflict being that I went to primary school, and was even in the same class as Hilary. Yet I was born in 1944. How curious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 March 2012
Hello,
I am currently working on Sundiata Keita's article. For some time, there has been controversy as to where Disney got its idea regarding the lion king which went on to be a musical ( the Lion King (musical)), etc. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the reliability of this source [41]. An abstract was also published here [42]. I intend to use it in the legacy section of Sundiata Keita's article. The article is being improved at the moment, I have not finished yet. Thank you so much for your time.
Just one more point if I may. I've gone through the Lion King's article and its talk page but found no mention of this rather important point not even in the Controversy Section (unless I've accidently missed it). It was probably an unintentional oversight. I will be raising the issue in the article's talk page.
Thanks again for your time.
Best Regards
Tamsier ( talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Best Regards
Tamsier ( talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to have addition input on the above page regarding which sources are acceptable for inclusion. Thanks! Location ( talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source about using Twitter pages as reliable sources. Apparently there are some editors who feel that any Twitter page can be used to source anything on Wikipedia, and they are using that rationale to repeatedly restore Twitter pages as sources. I would appreciate some comments there or here. Thanks. 24.163.38.176 ( talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Am i allowed to cite the book "Life of Mahomet", by William Muir, he is an academic figure from Cambridge University. However he is a Christian and has been accused of not being a reliable source by some users who accuse of having an anti-Islamic slant.
I have quoted him in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article mainly to give a contrasting view:
The Muslim Scholar Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri suggest that the reason for the attack was that the Banu Mulawwih were being provocative (without further details),[4] whereas the Non Muslim historian Sir William Muir claims the reason for the attack is unknown.[3]
I have also found that the primary sources (Ibn Sa'd volume 2 p 156) support Muirs view in this occasion, as it does not mention what Mubarakpuri claims. Should Muir's opinion be removed or is it allowed?
Help preventing edit war: 1 user added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute but wanted to here al-Andalusi's (disputing user) view first.( see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved.
Please advise -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
First, don't get drawn into an edit war. You've had your revert. It's just a tag on an article, not a dispute about content at the moment. The next step is discussion. Invite that user here.
After looking at the William Muir article, it seems even today his work on the life of Muhammad is considered authoritative albeit biased — but I daresay the same could be said of Muslim historians. Having a bias doesn't automatically invalidate his historical claims, it just means one must be careful about presenting his claims as fact, particularly if there are no corroborating sources. It is perfectly valid to reference him, because he is a notable historian.
In the passage you quoted above, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. The problem the other editor might have with this is the appearance of giving both sources equal weight, if one actually has greater credibility than the other. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Muir is fine, but there is particularly one editor who will not let you reference Muir unless you were writing an article about worst historians of all time. He tried to get me banned (lol) because I thought Muir bio got vandalized. I would stay away from any references more liberal than bin Laden for now. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 05:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how can anybody seriously consider a 150 year out-of-date book as a WP:RS? When the book was published, the steam engine was high-tech, people were laughing at Semmelweiss, and Lister's use of antiseptics still a decade in the future. This book is historically interesting, but not a useful source for factual information. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should a 150 year old source on anything be used for anything other than as a primary source. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposed edit (actually currently in the article, but opposed by one editor) (now removed per [43] with the edit summary: (POV) by an editor who also removed a quote from Thomas Sowell with [44] this doesn't deserve its own section. okay? excising a section which had been fully discussed on the talk page :
[45] "The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." source: Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages
The book, as far as I can tell is widely used (559 articles citing it per Google Scholar) etc. It is described as:
One editor however says: The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. and The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it.
I suggest, however, that "Social Cognition" is a proper area (likely the best single area, in fact) for describing the problems of defining "right wing" in any absolute manner, and that refusal to allow a standard text is verging on tendentiousness. Is the source a reliable source for the claim to which it is attached? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
A re-wording might help. I suspect one problem you have come up against here is that while the fact you have made is pretty straightforward, you are writing in a paragraph which some people would consider "turf" of a specific but different discipline than the one you are now citing. I would try breaking out this statement and making a less academic looking comment about how "Perceptions about the exact meaning of ... etc. On the whole I doubt that RSN can help this discussion. Have you tried writing drafts on the talk page, and getting discussion there? It can sometimes be amazing how quickly such things can be resolved once a good discussion starts. Maybe people are concerned about something else than what I am guessing.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently an SPA has been trying to add content to the AIPAC article sourced to irmep.org. The website gives no information as to who is behind it – no names or background or mission. Its raison d'etre appears to be to malign the image of lobbies operating on Israel's behalf in Washington, with a particular focus on traducing AIPAC. There has been no mainstream coverage of IRmep, only its own press releases through PR Newswire and Business Wire and links to antiwar.com articles that echo the sentiment disseminated by IRmep. In addition to failing the criteria at WP:RS, IRmep doesn't merit mention in the article on account of its decidedly fringe character.— Biosketch ( talk) 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I found it funny that the following two articles posted on en:wp are almost identical: Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan's_Public_School,_BHEL and Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan_Public_School . In order to reliably showcase the institution, should we delete one article and retain the other? Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
Cleaning up Grette Law Firm I'm wondering if either of these two sites can be used to source the statement "Grette has received very good reviews in recent years in several ratings."
__ meco ( talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Can this be used as a reliable source in the article National Masturbation Day? -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Could a couple of you guys please give an opinion on Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies? Per the WP:RSN archive link there, LuLu has been questioned. So comments on the journal will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In looking to continue to improve the article regarding CPT Jose Calugas, I found images taken by a retired United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer of exhibits at a museum in Iloilo City. They reportedly are of artifacts of CPT Calugas, mainly being two images of his uniform ( 1, 2), an image of a certificate, and an image of the subject meeting President Kennedy. Are these images useful as reliable sources, or would they be considered original research? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notice I have used the Please See template at relevant wikiproject talk pages and a notice at the talk page regarding the subject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Would this source be considered notable? [48] I'm not familiar with Russian sites and while the site appears to be bigger than your standard and obvious Blogger account, I know that appearances can be misleading. Is anyone familiar with this site at all?
I'm leaning towards not reliable, but I wanted to drop a note just in case. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Described as "pro-Israel" by bone fide RS [49], [50], it would seem to fail the third party requirement for Reliable Sources ( "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered").
Barbara Matusow writing in the American Journalism review called the organisation a "pro-Israeli pressure group". She went on to say, "Frequently, these so-called media monitors, who say they are only interested in fairness and balance, will seize on a word or a phrase and leave out the context. Take the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial that called both PLO leader Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "pigheaded and destructive." In a communiqué urging readers to complain to the Inquirer, HonestReporting.com omitted the reference to Arafat to make the editorial sound like a one-sided attack on Sharon." [51].
The source is currently being used on a number of highly contentious articles to justify statements of fact in the wikipedia voice without attribution. E.g Rachel Corrie(citation 1 and 45); Saeb Erekat, a living person; and even on its own page HonestReporting to justify unattributed factual statements in the Wiki voice about a journalist who had criticized the organisation. Dlv999 ( talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It can be used a source for its opinions, properly attributed. The specif examples you called out are not problematic- the Saeb Erekat reference is corroborated by 3 additional sources, who say the exact same thing, the Rachael Corrie one has similar claims attributed to the Guardian, etc... The claim that being describes as pro-Israel makes it non independent is a wholly incorrect reading or WP:RS Iric2012 ( talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In Bernie Siegel, an author has added a reference to a table Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012 (published by Mind Body Spirit magazine), presumably to emphasize the importance of this author within the new-age/esoteric community. I have contended that this source is self-evidently not reliable since it ranks relatively unknown figures as being more important than very notable global figures such as The Pope and the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore I do not think a publisher known for it's WP:FRINGE topics can be considered a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion, and this certainly is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The source supports the Wikipedia article statement. The source is reliable to claim that Siegel ranks #25 on the Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012. That is what the editor posting the info would like to focus on. However, the problem is the opinion it implies - the list's ranking gives an opinion about the importance of Siegel. For that, you need to figure out whether the source is a questionable source ( wp:QS. Questionable sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties which seems to be the issue. As for questionable sources, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Do you have an issue along any of these lines? The external link you provided reads: ""Watkins’ Mind Body Spirit magazine (previously Watkins Review) is a quarterly publication by Watkins Books, London’s oldest and largest independent esoteric bookshop, established in 1893." -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked Siegel #25 on their 2012 "List of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People". [56]
This is concerning an AfD where a representative for the company is trying to insist that they're notable. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbie", I'm asking here to see if it'd be considered to be notable. The only problem is that it was launched in 2010 and doesn't seem to have reached that "absolute authority" level yet. [57] Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like some advice, from those conversant with Wikipedia's consensuses on the topic, of whether, for example, the primary source of a photo of the 1926 gravestone of Geo. Romney's mother, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave, might be acceptable on Wikikpedia as a supplementary source.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
For those interested. Concerns with lack of Reliable Sources.( olive ( talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
I believe that the Chronicle Review, specifically this article is a reliable source. I believe it is particularly reliable, because not only is it an award winning news organization, it is academic. Per WP:MAINSTREAM I consider this somewhat significant. At the very least, I consider it a very good source. On the other hand, it is not straight reporting, but it is in their opinion section as are nearly all the sources for Occupy Wall Street. What do you think of this source?
Background: an editor says using a quote for a generalization is undue WEIGHT to the source. The text is "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." I contend that because the overall gist of the quote is backed up by numerous other reliable sources and is not contradicted, using this quote to get the generalization is acceptable and not UNDUE. The question being answered in the paragraph is "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" Be——Critical 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An historian specializing in education in the US seems to me more appropriate for analyzing OWS than a political scientist, who focuses on politics not the general context. Andrew Hartman is currently writing a book entitled "A War for the Soul Of America: A History of the Culture Wars, From the 1960s to the Present" and my guess is that at least the Chronicle Review thought him an expert appropriate to the subject. Be——Critical 08:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!.
How I used this discussion
Be——Critical 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A published letter ( second letter on the page) to the editor of the New York Times by the director of a non-profit organisation, the Central Fund of Israel is being used to justify factual statements about the organisation's activities in the Wiki voice, without attribution. [61] The claims made in the letter have not been corroborated by other RS, which actually give a rather different account of the organisation (I have summarized on the talk page of the article [62])
Is this a reliable source? Is it being used appropriately in this context? Dlv999 ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the article Ahmadiyya, there is a section on India. The present discussion focuses on the following aspects:
However there are two additional aspects which I would like be included here:
1. There seems to be a general acceptance of this community as a distinct religious group (Cf: my upload of the nonfree image
File:Shadi.com AhmediSeparate.JPG from one of the leading matrimonial site Shadi.com listing Ahmedis (this community) as separate group altogether. The aim of this image, now tagged for deletion, is to be used in the article to highlight this).
2. One of the states in India has recently (unfortunately) declared this community as "not Muslim". This is the first sign that the secular government of India is towing a hardline attitude for the community just as in Pakistan. (Cf:
my edit. Although this edit is properly referenced, as can be seen from the history,
user:Altetendekrabbe is threatening a possible ban on me if my re-edit the article with this input. I request the admins to please decide on this and the above issue.
Regards,
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC).
As the above was copied to my talk page, I'll reply here. You weren't referred to by region, but by a shortening of your username. And calling someone 'disingenuous' could just barely be a personal attack if it was blatantly wrong, but even then it's hardly comparable to your comments. Dougweller ( talk) 06:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
(Restarting, hopefully without any personal attacks.) This is about these edits on the article Ahmadiyya, backed by this article from Siasat. From what I read about Siasat, it seems to be an established and popular mainstream newspaper, so should be a reliable source. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
In a major decision, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board has unanimously resolved to remove four religious places belonging to Qadayani sect from its list.Making the announcement, Wakf Board chairman Syed Shah Ghulam Afzal Biyabani said that the four properties belonging to Ahmediyas sect were registered with the Wakf Board. Since Qadyanis (Ahmediyas) are not Muslims, the Wakf Board has decided to remove them from the list. The properties include Ahmedi Jubilee Hall at Afzalgunj, Anwar Manzil and Baitul Irshad at Barkatpura and Masjid Chinna Kunta in Mahabubnagar.The State Government has been asked to take control of religious properties belonging to Qadayanis under its direct management or hand them over to Endowments Department.Similarly, the Wakf Board has decided to take one mosque at Falaknuma Railway Station under its direct management. The mosque belonging to Sunni Muslims is presently under the control of Qadayanis.The Wakf Board chairman said that a comprehensive State-wide survey has been ordered to identify the properties belonging to Muslims which are presently under the control of Qadayanis.Rajya Sabha MP and Wakf Board member MA Khan said that the State Government would be pressurised to accept the Wakf Board resolution. Another member and IAS officer Omar Jaleel said that the Muslim community should maintain restrain over the issue as the Wakf Board.Former Wakf Board chairman Ilyas Seth said that all Qazis have been asked not to perform the Nikah of Qadyanis. He also demanded that the State Government provide adequate security to Wakf Board chairman who has been facing threats from the Qadayanis.The Wakf Board has also identified about 45 places of worship of Qadayanis in the State which are not registered with the board. They include Masjid Alhamd at Madannapet in the Old City.The Wakf Board's decision evoked celebrations by Sunni Muslims at several places across the city. Congress MLC and Jamiyatul Ulema-e-Hind State president Hafiz Peer Shabbir Ahmed, Shaik-ul-Islam Academy chairman Moulana Yehya Ansari Ashrafi, Anjuman-e-Qadaria president Syed Ifteqar Hussaini, Sunni United Federation of India convenor Hafiz Mohammad Muzaffar Hussain, Idara-e-Tehqiqaat Ilmiya director Syed Khaja Moizuddin Ashrafi and other religious leaders welcome the decision.
I don't advocate quoting this Facebook posting into the article but surely this is a major development and has to be included on Wikipedia. So I await a decision on which source to choose. Regards,
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva_World_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_National_News
Are these two news sites considered reliable sources?
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
IsraelNationalNews is one of the most unreliable news sources in the Middle East. It exists for the purpose of promoting the politics of the Israeli settlers. That's why it was founded and that's why it exists today. Many times information taken from that source has proved to be wrong. These quotations are from five different serious academic studies (sources on request): "considered the mouthpiece of the Gush Emunim Movement--supports the concept of the Greater Land of Israel"; "identified with the religious right"; "a group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" (note that INN is the internet arm of Arutz Sheva); "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement"; "voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories"; "the settlers' radio station"; "settlers' radio station". The evidence suggests that it can be used as a valid source of the settlers' opinion. Trusting it for general news is not an option. Putting this into perspective, there is no reason to believe INN is more reliable than, say, the official newspaper of the PLO. Nobody even tries to cite the latter; we should apply the same standard to the former. Zero talk 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeshiva World News is an outlet internal to a particular community of orthodox Jews and is concerned with that community. I think it can be trusted for uncontroversial news about that community (for example, if it tells us some famous rabbi died, we can cite it). I don't see any reason to treat it as reliable on wider issues. Zero talk 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question ( Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).
I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.
Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.
I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Are there any references that state reliability of sources Christian Today, The Milli Gazette to be considered as a reliable source.
My understanding is that these are not at all reliable. Per discussion here, I had pointed out why. Here it is:
I would like to know how these sources are considered reliable, if at all.
Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Humour you did not yet really explain what the sources are being used for. Please do not try to cut the discussion off too quickly. Maybe this already helps:
Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)In 2005 John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) and a member of the National Integration Council expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority, in order to "prevent conversions of tribals to Christianity by missionaries."
There seems to be a bias problem here in that the Times article shows that this is essentially and quite openly a project of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the major Hindutva organizations. It is hardly surprising that Christian groups oppose this (since it is explicitly targeted agianst them), and there's no reason to doubt that Dayal is reported accurately; and as he can be taken as a spokesman, he ought to appear in the article as such. I have less familiarity with Islamic material and therefore have not dared to speak concerning The Milli Gazette. The contrary view, however, is presented in the mouth of François Gautier, and he is notorious and controversial as a defender of Hindutva, to the point where a novel attacking British correspondent Mark Tully was widely assumed to have been penned by him [66]. As it stands the article tends to play down the Hindutva aspect of the project, and to the degree it can't, tends to mark it as a sidelight instead of as a core aspect of the program. Mangoe ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What Mangoe said does not appear true. The article does not play down Hindutva aspect, it is clearly stated the organization is affiliated to RSS, so is VHP. If Mangoe had their way, the article would begin and end with controversy and that would have been the only section, LOL. And don't get us started on the notoriety thing, Gautier is much less notorious than Dayal, who has been criticized for his Hindu-bashing hobby in the guise of Dalit activism by even Indian Christians like P N Benjamin, see here. On the sources I have to say that IMHO Christian Today is fine for quoting Dayal, but Milli Gazette may be removed as we have another source for it already - The Hindu newspaper which though leftist in its views is widely considered reliable. Nmisra ( talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Humour, the 3 key policies about what to include in WP are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. You should also consider WP:NOTE. But in the context of this discussion it might be neater to just say that what WP aims to do is to summarise what notable and relevant people have properly published about subjects, even if we disagree with them. If a person or publication is controversial, the trick is to make sure we mention who they are, to help readers see it, and also that we put in balancing views. So if this charity is controversial then WP should report the controversy. If it's critics and defenders are controversial, we should help readers to be able to see this, and study it further if they so choose.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That is not the consensus. The consensus is that reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. The same report may be reliable for one thing cited from it, and unreliable for the other one. As pointed out on Talk Page here, this particular citation from MG is unreliable since it has factual inaccuracies. Nmisra ( talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
"Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting."