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 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
The source in question is a review from the gaming website IGN for a game called Mass Effect 3:
and in regards to its use on the Mass Effect 3 WP page [2]. Jessica Chobot, an IGN employee [3], worked on this game [4] and IGN subsequently published a glowing review. Neither on the current WP page or in IGN's review is there any mention of her involvement as an IGN employee. When reading the Mass Effect 3 WP page under the Reception heading, the first review mentioned is that of IGN's. I find her role in the game as a conflict of interest (see WP:QS) that brings into question the validity of IGN as a source used for the reception of this game. Is this a valid reason to remove the IGN review as a reliable source on the Mass Effect 3 WP page? Here is a link to the current Talk page on this issue. [5] Redredryder ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
André du Nay looks like an unreliable author. His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: [6] so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.
Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": [7].
I want a confirmation that I am acting correctly eliminating this source Romorinian ( talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Grizzuti over the acceptability of late US author and journalist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison as an additional source for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly exhibit a dread of demon activity. [9] The statement is contained in her 1978 book, Visions of Glory, which combined a history of Jehovah's Witnesses with a memoir of her time as a member of the religion's headquarters staff and subsequent defection.
User:AuthorityTam has objected to inclusion on the following grounds:
(a) Under the guideline
WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and she was not an objective academic because she was an “unabashedly anti-JW activist”. As a questionable source, she is making a “contentious claim” that disparages “every last adherent” of the religion;
(b) her statement about fear of demons was based on observations made more than 50 years ago;
(c) Her statement about demons is polemic and unencyclopedic because of a metaphorical reference to exorcising personal demons.
I contend:
(a) Grizzuti Harrison was a highly respected author, essayist and journalist whose work has been used by publications including The New York Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. She has interviewed Mario Cuomo, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush among others. She gained wholly complimentary
obituaries in the New York Times (which described Visions of Glory as a mix of autobiography and "detailed historical research") and LA Times
[10]. Wikipedia notes that her background as a JW informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be
cults; she described families affected by the
Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the
Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas." Her book certainly contains criticism of her former religion, but there is no evidence that she was an “anti-JW activist”.
(b) The
WP:NOTRELIABLE guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison’s book was published by Simon & Schuster and Robert Hale Ltd. It was praised by the NYT for its depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Her work was used by newspapers and periodicals that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking and evidently saw no COI in her status as an ex-JW.
(c) Visions of Glory is cited by sociologist Andrew Holden (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, 2002) professor of history and religious studies M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1985), Methodist minister Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ, James Clarke & Co, 1996), professor James A. Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, Welch, 1986) and Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence (Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, Wm Eerdmans, 2004) .
Objections about the currency and accuracy of her observations are invalid. The WP article already cites three RS on the point, and as I point out on the article talk page, a Google search shows widespread discussion online and in print about the continuing JW fixation with demon attacks and harassment. The widespread publication of Grizzuti Harrison’s work in mainstream publications weighs against claims that she was a polemicist.
Her statement on demons is a brief one, but in the face of strident objections by one editor that the claim re JWs and demons is a fiction, her inclusion is helpful, particularly as it also addresses the apparent conflict between what JW publications say about demons and what commentators observe about the actual behaviour of adherents. BlackCab ( talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor at Crime Classification Manual wishes to cite a Google Scholar citation search for the assertion The volume has been cited over 300 times in the scholarly literature. I doubt that Google Scholar is a reliable source, but the editor in question has further claimed that Google Scholar is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source with an active editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy [11]. I thought it was a search engine, but apparently they have had dinner with a member of Google Scholar's editorial staff [12]. I do not think this is enough to make GS a reliable source. In passing, I note that the assertion would consitute original research, but my question is about the source. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question most directly, Google Scholar is not even a source, much less a reliable one. It's a search engine. It can lead you to reliable sources. A high number of results using Google Scholar is a good indication that the subject is well covered in reliable sources. But then you have to take the next step of digging in to those sources to see how the subject is treated in them, and to be sure that those sources are truly reliable. It's clear that not all Google Scholar results are reliable academic sources. First Light ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This is complex matter so I am going to make the first of several inquiries. List of longest novels has been decimated and probably will go up for AfD unless certain sources are deemed reliable. Most of my arguments will be in succession; noting cross references and their publishers of what should be considered non-controversial statements.
Question #1: Specific to Amazon.com
I was under the impression that page counts from Amazon listings (which come from the publisher) are typically allowable sources. In a previous discussion, David Eppstein wrote: "...I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published)..." during a discussion about Amazon's product description being a source. [13] The length of certain books on said list have used this and other sources to back their claim. Currently the page does not use 'word count', but assuming a favorable result on page count I'll continue appropriately.
Observation: Les Misérables
A public domain work. Has several different publications. One from Signet Classics has 1488 pages according to Amazon. [14] Can this product description be used to cite its page count on an article? The same material comes from the publisher which is actually no different in its claim on the Penguin Books Signet webpage at 1488 pages. [15] I was told that sources are unreliable despite making no more claim then the length of their publication. Last I checked Penguin is a reputable book publisher and it serves no purpose to give false information about page count. The instance of the product description is devoid of advertising and states other key information about the product such as its publication date as noted by the ISBN and publisher independently as: Signet Classics; Unabridged Version edition (March 3, 1987). This is independently verifiable and touted by other third parties; mostly sellers of such works. Page count is not the same as an advertising claim; its a statement of fact to the physical description of the book; much like the ISBN number is registered to the work. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
All the discussion above about the suitability of page counts should be moved to the talk page in question, as this page is for discussing source reliability only. To answer the question asked, I believe that Amazon and publishers' listings are reliable for page counts. Things like publishers' blurbs on the content or importance of the book are of course wholly unreliable. There is also another source for page counts that has apparently not been mentioned: library catalogues. If you go to the catalogue of an eminent library, say the Library of Congress, you will find that many listings of books show the number of pages. If that's not a first rate third party source I don't know what is. Zero talk 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Is this considered a reliable source http://www.allmovie.com/artist/p125316 - is a reliable source WP:RS for a disputed date of birth? Youreally can 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I want to use the following as an example of the response to the topic. So, I have two questions: 1] Is this a decent source, and 2] even if this is not considered a reliable source of information, is it acceptable as an example of responses?
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/19/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnational-defense-resources-preparedness%E2%80%9D-executive-order-minor-change-or-prelude-to-martial-law/ Kdammers ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on at Anchor baby over the acceptablility of an online source called the Double-Tongued Dictionary ("DTD"). In addition to whether the DTD itself is fundamentally a self-published source (and thus unusable per WP:SPS), there is controversy over whether a response by the DTD's author to a reader comment is or is not an unusable blog post. See Talk:Anchor_baby#Double_Tongued_Dictionary and Talk:Anchor_baby#.5Bcitation_needed.5D. The dispute here is primarily between the users Factchecker atyourservice and Cuchullain, though some other people (including myself and one or more IP's) have chimed in. The content implications of this dispute may include whether the term "anchor baby" is significantly used to refer to US-born children of any immigrant, or just to children of illegal immigrants; whether users of "anchor baby" tend to be opposed to all US immigration (not just illegal immigration); and possibly also whether "anchor baby" should be definitively and unquestionably tagged as an offensive, pejorative expression. Although the argument has remained mostly a content dispute, there have been some suggestions of possible ulterior motives and/or violations of AGF. To me, it doesn't appear likely that Factchecker and Cuchullain are going to be able to come to any fundamental agreement on their own, so more people need to get involved in order to have any hope of establishing or maintaining a credible consensus. — Rich wales 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't commented on the reliability per se of the DTD since March 11, at which time I acknowledged the consensus Cuchulainn describes, although I'd point out that it is clearly self-published and shouldn't be held out to other editors as having "editorial oversight" when in fact a single person is responsible for compiling, editing, and writing the site. Barrett's forum comments especially should not be represented to others in this way.
But, it should be clear, that was not my main issue with the prior state of the article; rather, it was the manner in which the material was attributed and weighted with respect to the AHD definition. The version of the article that existed before I started editing stated the DTD definition, and only the DTD definition, was listed. Immediately after it was the textual reference to the blog comment post, which reference, itself, was OR as it involved a WP editor scooping primary source materials, the two blog comments, and synthesizing them into original secondary source analysis. The reference footnote contained a quote of the DTD definition, with the rather sensational forum-comment by the blog author appended to the definition using an ellipsis—as if the author had himself decided to include his response in the definition. (The response itself also wasn't really identified as a forum comment.)
The AHD definition... the actual established dictionary with the large institutional infrastructure and staff, meanwhile, was mentioned in passing, only as substantiation for the fact that it was revised after an immigration advocacy group and website spoke out against the failure to identify the term as offensive. The AHD definition said nothing about the term being a mask, or opposition to illegal immigration, being a "mask" to hide the "racism and xenophobia" of the person who uses that term or opposes immigration. Only Barrett said that, and only in his self-published website's forum space. Even Barrett didn't say it in his definition. He could have, but he didn't. This is telling.
So we had what any will agree is a rather contentious claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means you want the best source available. This means you don't bury the best source — the one with an institutional presence and history and likely a substantial number of staff with credentials similar to Barrett's — in a side note about a press release or op-ed by an advocacy org exec, while also going out of your way to quote the most extreme forum-space opinion of someone whom I somehow doubt is even the second-best source on the subject.
That's multiple sourcing and attribution problems combined to make very significant wp:v and weight problems in the core of the article. So I changed it. Anyone care to try and defend the prior version against any of the above complaints? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Factchecker, it would be best if this topic focused on analyzing the source.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Marshall. Barrett's comment isn't an "axe-grinding political opinion", it's his opinion on how the term in question is used. Barrett is certainly qualified to comment on this – political terms are in fact one of his areas of expertise. So long as we properly cite the comment and note where it came from, make it clear that it's Barrett's statement and not Wikipedia's, and indicate what he said correctly, there's no problem with using this. Ironically, the passage was much clearer on all those accounts before Factchecker started fiddling with it. The revised version made it sound more impertinent and political than the quote itself.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you both persist in arguing against positions I'm not taking—while going off on silly non-sequiturs (e.g. "It keeps surprising that you think..."), misrepresenting sources, and otherwise ignoring the question I'm clearly, in plain English, asking you to address—but since it seems neither of you disagrees with me, I can safely conclude my involvement in this verbal exchange with confidence that this issue won't resurface. It will be very disappointing, however, if the passage of time reveals that one or both of you was planning to make edits based on policy rationales you made no attempt to explain or defend here. Cheers and kind regards. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This piece was originally published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs [26], and later in the Jerusalem Post clearly marked as "Analysis" and attributed to the JCPA. [27]
It is currently being used extensively as an RS to support unattributed factual statements on the Rachel's Tomb page. My opinion is that as a piece of analysis (essentially a one sided advocacy of the Israeli establishment position) it is not suitable for this purpose. (From WP:RS, " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.")
The piece does represent a significant published opinion on the topic and information should be included on the basis of attributing to the opinions of the author and the JCPA (as it was presented when published in the Jerusalem Post). Dlv999 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about Rockpool publishing? I've a specific question about this book in particular for doula. Don't know what I think about a book on doulas also published by a company that publishes astrology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/gran-torino-interview-with-clint-eastwood-2/ is the website of a film critic, Emanuel Levy. I want to use the interviews of the Gran Torino actors and staff in the Gran Torino article. Is that fine? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
At Kurdish people a snippet is being used to support the statement "the Kurds are an Iranian people". The problem I have with this is that The link [28]is just a snippet and it is clear that there is a caveat that might be relavant and thus we would need to add. Anyone adding something needs to have read more of the source than just a snippet. Unless we can find out what the caveat is and decide if it needs to be added, I don't think this source belongs here. I added a 'verify source' template and posted the above to the article talk page. The template was removed with the talk page comment "He says: "ethnically the Kurds are an Iranian people" so it really doesn't matter what he said after that. We have a clear sentence and quoted his exact words." My view is that this isn't acceptable - snippets can be used out of context and in this case I'm being told that although there is a context we don't have to consider it. That's not how I understand our verification policy. Dougweller ( talk) 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm been caught by Google snippets. They are very very dangerous. You certainly cannot use it without more of the source. There is something simple you can do, though. Place a query at WP:REX and there is a very good chance someone will come up the rest of the relevant text. The reliability of the source is a separate issue. Zero talk 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Having one of these days, where I've written this post twice only for it to get deleted. While this snippet is particularly dangerous, I wouldn't say the same for all snippets and they need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Particularly if all the context is within the snippet or if it's a simple statement of fact then it should be enough. If part of the context is missing then there are ways around that; with a correctly targeted search term, Google Books Search will return more of the page than snippet view does - but it does making some educated guesses at what words are likely to appear in the bits you can't see. I don't have much to go on in this case but I guessed that "one" would appear somewhere further down the page and it turned out to be the next word after "lingustic" [29] - I could probably make some more guesses and get the full paragraph but it may substantial time that I don't think is worth it in this case as it's not that reliable a source for the claim being made. In a recent BLP case however I was able to draw facts about their life out in context and it was proven to be accurate a couple of days later when another editor was able to examine a physical copy of the source. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia is generally regarded as an unreliable source. WP:SELFSOURCE says that Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. It goes on to give five requirements.
I'm arguing that quoting/citing Conservapedia as a self source in an article about Conservapedia should be allowed. As a particular example of what I'm getting at, I'd like to directly cite their Counterexamples to Relativity article to textually back a claim in the Conservapedia article on their criticism of the Theory of Relativity.
Conservapedia is a text. I think that quoting and referring to Conservapedia in an article about Conservapedia falls under information about themselves clause in WP:SELFSOURCE. An unreliable source as a text can either be used or it cannot be used. Of course, Conservapedia articles can't be used in an article about the Theory of Relativity. But I think they should be allowed as quotes/citations/evidence to back claims in an article about Conservapedia.
The Conservapedia article already cites Conservapedia and I think rightly so. The alternative is to strip these citations from the article and rely entirely on secondary RSs. I think that makes for a weaker less verifiable rather than a stronger article.
For example, the Ted Kaczynski article cites the Unabomber Manifesto and both must be considered unreliable sources. But quoting/citing from an unreliable source as a text in an article about the author/text is different than citing it as an RS in another article.
Yes, Conservapedia is fluid but Wikipedia has mechanisms in its citations to handle that; that's a separate issue. It is always possible to quote/date rather than cite. Citations can include access dates.
This is pretty fundamental but at the same time it is not particularly radical. Still, if this interpretation is the consensus, I think the WP:SELFSOURCE should be clarified.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Coming back to the more formal question, as now defined, for this noticeboard: can primary sources be used to show what those primary sources say. The answer is clearly yes, as per Andrew Dalby. This is of course in the context of all the other doubts that might arise such notability, or whether there is a sort of implicit synthesis happening. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I've opened up a section on WP:NORN.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This is being used to verify Michael Bay's announcement of the character development of the new 2013 Ninja Turtles film. Can this site be deemed as a reliable source? Sarujo ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:
Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".
The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.
The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Wikipedia threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd ( talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if these links are of some use to your discussion. Thanks, Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
HTC, this is not the place to discuss semantics. The purpose of RS/N is for non-involved editors to determine the reliability or otherwise of sources, in the Wikipedia sense of "reliable", and there is a policy governing this. I have addressed your semantic points on the Meher Baba Talk Page, and also clarified the issue concerning reliability. Simon Kidd ( talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Simon, this is exactly the place to study Semantics, the study of meaning. What else is this? I dont edit the Meher Baba page. I have entered this discussion after you, therefore I am more 'non involved' than you are. As you could not refute my logic regarding Hagiography, religion and devotee of a religion these arguments of yours are void Simon. Next. You did not address my points there on Meher Baba talk. You took another course altogether, publishers. -- HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 10:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If this noticeboard is for "non-involved editors", Simon Kidd and Stephen Castro should not be commenting here (beyond initially introducing the issue). The very creation of this discussion arises from the rejection of their primary concern, i.e. Kevin Shepherd as RS and this makes them both very directly "involved". Hoverfish Talk 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I came across a user who was blocked for making legal threats. He said on his talk page that a quote attributed to him was fabricated. I don't know if this is true or not, so can someone check the source to see if it is a reliable one? The source is ref #32 on the London mayoral election, 2012 (sorry, I don't know how to copy refs) Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.
The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according the that article nonetheless but that does not discredits my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.
iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.
Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page
All references to LTE being 4G in the iPad 3 article, this includes content in the infobox and prose.
YuMa NuMa Contrib 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It's taking quite a while to a get response here, not to rush anyone if they're in the process of researching sources in regards to this issue but I will move this dispute/case to the Original research board by the end of this month if a response to issue has not been submitted as I believe that board would be more appropriate. I actually believe the sources I have submitted here are well within the expected level of reliability on Wikipedia but posting this issue here was the advice from an experience editor from the Dispute Resolution Board. YuMa NuMa Contrib 04:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have recently created Prisons in Bahrain and nominated it for DYK where Roscelese told me to drop a line here since no results came up when he searched it. So I'd like to get RSN input on these sources:
And since we are at it, I'd also like to get evaluation of Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a RS on good article nominate Bloody Thursday (2011). Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate some input from the reliable sources community concerning the acceptability of certain sources in the article Tau (2π), and how this impinges on the scope of the article. There is some question about whether it is acceptable to write this article entirely from primary sources that are (almost) entirely self-published. In particular, there is the issue of the title itself. While advocating that 2π be used as the fundamental measure of the circle constant (see turn (geometry)) is not a new thing, fairly recently it has been rebranded as "tau" in some (self-published) sources. There is a discussion on the issue of the title and scope of the article underway at Talk:Tau (2π)#Title. I would appreciate any input that the community may offer. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started an RfC that is relevant to this discussion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement of what consitutes a primary source. I contend that the article Bernie_Siegel consists mostly of primary sources since it lists the opinions of different people and sources it to the original persons comment. Two Examples:
Both these cases appear to be primary sources as they are in one case an opinion sourced to the individual, and in the other case the creator of the rankings. Is this the correct interpretation? Related: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List Talk:Bernie_Siegel#Primary_and_undue_sources IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like the New York Times Bestseller List is a secondary source for bestsellers and not original research. The NY Times does the research:
Rankings reflect sales reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles. The sales venues for print books include independent book retailers; national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; supermarkets, university, gift and discount department stores; and newsstands. [40]
The fact that they put their name to the list in an official sounding way doesn't change the fact that they are merely listing the bestselling books at bookstores, based on their research. The NY Times is a reliable source for that research. Secondary Source. First Light ( talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Can an article on Quackwatch be considered a WP:RS for criticism of Bernie Siegel an alt-med practicioner? This article appears to be self-published, however the author is a well known critic of bogus medicine and is medically qualified. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The article on polonium cites this article from the Australian newspaper The Age to support a statistic that polonium from tobacco causes 11,700 lung cancer deaths worldwide. The newspaper article cites "internal tobacco company documents" as a source for this, but does not give any statistics. The basis for that figure seems very shaky, even the article. The composition of the article also displays a clear anti-tobacco bias. How reliable should this source be considered? TV4Fun ( talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is http://www.disneydreaming.com/ a reliable source? From past experience I want to say no, but I thought I'd ask people who might be able to figure it out better than I. Thanks. - Purplewowies ( talk) 14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In the above discussion (now moved to archive), I quoted what Mr Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board had to say about Qadyanis / Ahmadiyas. Can this source be cited in the article on Ahmadiyas? Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
Copied from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Our_Lady_of_Akita
User History2007 is challenging the validity of MiracleHunter.com as a source of reference for the Catholic Church's position on the article Our Lady of Akita.
Under Vatican Approval in the Talk Page, History2007 claims MiracleHunter.com is full of errors and is non-WP. I asked him what errors are on the site, he didn't explain. He instead claims the site is non-WP because "Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None." and "What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None."
In reply, I quoted the site: "Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) and I told him about the Church documents referenced on the Akita page of MiracleHunter.com, which I have referenced in the article.
Oct13 ( talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I started that discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list a while ago. I will restart it on the talk page again. These really need a bot, and the bot will not be hard to write. It will just need to look up a list and leave a message, like the bot that Blevintron wrote quite recently. History2007 ( talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
[46] in Radical Right uses "courser" as a source to place the Tea Party movement in the category of "Radical Right". Note the person edit warring for this does not even indicate a page number for the claim. There is a reason for this elision, I fear, as the source specifically states:
I submit that where a source not only does not label the TPM as "radical right" but specifically states that it "evinces few similarities" to "radical right" that a reliable source is being fully abused. The source is reliable, the use of it to say the opposite of what the source clearly states is objectionable entirely. The edit warrior [47], [48], [49] however states that "right wing populism" is a "synonym" for "radical right" thus allowing the placement of a current group in that category as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice by so making a section on the specific group in Radical Right. Consider if there were a "John Doe association" which someone said "opposed gay marriage" - would it then be proper to label it "homophobic" and place it in the articles thereon when the source used says "it is not homophobic"? Collect ( talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi: It began with a discussion of the lede at Thomas Jefferson, which led to claims that The Smithsonian and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation websites, used in the body are not RS. Discussion is at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17#Lede and Due and Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17#Redundant statements
The body now reads:
The Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History from 27 January to 14 October, it notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." [1] In her review of the exhibition, NPR reporter Karen Grigsby Bates noted that recent scholarship has been studying the lives of slaves. She also noted the consensus on Jefferson's likely paternity of at least one of Sally Hemings' children and the "heated dissent from a vocal minority," especially the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. [2] The exhibit has been co-curated by the historians Rex Ellis from the National Museum of African American History and Culture of the Smithsonian, and Elizabeth Chew, a curator at Monticello. [3]
Question: Are they RS? Thanks
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is how it now reads:
In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. [1] It is notable as the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the lives of slaves at Monticello. [2] Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." [2] [3]
Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. [1] It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the slaves at Monticello. [2] Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence supports a conclusion that Jefferson sired at least one of Sally Hemings' children. [2] [3]
Which conforms to the factual material actually in the cites, and not perpetuating opinion via footnotes which would be improper in the article. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My first time dipping a toe into the Wiki backwaters, so please bear with me! :)
Dirk Beetstra has suggested that I post here regarding the current status of the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being placed on a list of 'unreliable sources'. Beetstra says "You could try to ask for a review, neutrally answering any questions which arise from that discussion, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard."
So here goes... for some reason, Australian Business Traveller ( www.AusBT.com.au) seems to be on a list of unreliable sources. About a year back, which was around six months after AusBT launched, an observation was made by Bidgee (and I think it'd been deleted, as I can't find it) that AusBT did seem to be more than just a 'blog' (and thus, more authoritative) but there appeared to be a question over what the site actually was, as we're not a print publication (which carries with it some association of authority).
It should be noted that AusBT is a news-based online publication employing professional journalists. We're not a blog run by amateurs which trades on rumour.
The site regularly breaks stories related to travel and aviation, attends media conferences and press trips with airlines, and the content is on a par with comparative publications already in Wikipedia's link-approved 'reliable source' list such as Business Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australia, AAP and others.
AusBT has also been described by the oneworld airline alliance as " a leading independent business travel news website".
And I myself am a professional journalist of several decades' standing, having worked as a journalist and editor at The Sydney Morning Herald and ACP Magazines.
Are there any questions about AusBT, relevant to this status, which I might be able to answer or address, in an effort to see the site rated as a reliable source? Djsflynn ( talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So, what's the timeframe for seeking comments before a call is made on AusBT being RS or not RS? Djsflynn ( talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
A letter from the New York headquarters of the Watch Tower Society (WTS) has been sent to all bodies of elders at 13,000 US congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the basis for deciding whether a congregation elder, deacon (ministerial servant) or full-time preacher (pioneer) should be removed from that position for attending university. The letter has been uploaded to Sendspace by an anonymous Jehovah's Witness and is available for download here.
A section of the article Jehovah's Witness beliefs already covers the fact that Jehovah's Witness leadership strongly discourages university attendance over concerns that members may lose faith in God or become seduced by the immoral atmosphere on campus. This is firmly attested by Jehovah's Witness publications; this view is also supported by RS James Penton, who writes of the religion's "anti-university" spirit". I added a sentence that (after subsequent editing) read: "Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education, and if higher education pursuits interfere with their congregational duties or is pursued for material gain." [52] The sentence used that letter as its source; its usefulness is stating that the JW leadership is prepared to remove elders if they, or family members attend university unless they show respect for the pronouncements of the leadership and maintain meeting attendance and preaching quotas.
The letter, which gives every appearance of being genuine, and which is an appendix to a WTS elders' handbook, is addressed specifically to "all bodies of elders". In the US, this would necessarily mean distribution to more than 13,000 congregations. The Witnesses pride themselves on unity of teaching globally, so I would assume it has in fact been distributed to every one of the 100,000 congregations throughout the world.
My question now is this: has the letter been published to the satisfaction of WP:V? Two editors say "yes"; two say "no." The information page at Wikipedia:Published defines "published" as "Information ... created for distribution and actually distributed with a transfer of ownership to [the public, or a group of people]. (emphasis mine). The letter would not be ordinarily accessible by lay members of a JW congregation; it is a direction by HQ to local elders, but I would argue that the letter has definitely been created with the intention of imparting directions to a sizeable "group of people". Again, so there is no mistake: it was never intended to be read by all JWs. Its intended audience was elder bodies within those 100,000 congregations. My best comparison is a letter written by corporate management to middle management but subsequently leaked to all staff. Decisions made about Wikileaks leaks will clearly have set precedents for such material.
I would appreciate some comments. Is this letter usable as a source or not? BlackCab ( talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the majority here, the letter cannot be shown to be genuine, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion, as it cannot be proved to be legitimate, therefore does not meet WP:RS Willietell ( talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
flayrah.com - Several pages use this blog as a source. Upon doing some research, I find no evidence that it is in the least bit a reliable source. Additionally, most references to it were added by the owner of the site, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of numerous WP policies regarding advertisement. - badmachine 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- badmachine 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion there about whether this is a good source for the material I removed here. Any opinions are welcome, either here or in article talk. -- John ( talk) 09:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Christian Broadcasting Network has come up once before on this noticeboard. [53] In that discussion, one editor says "it's a tough call", a second editor says "it should never be used as a source for statements of fact, but only to represent its own opinion" and a third editor says it's reliable for news. This source in this case is a bio, not news. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but I will at least note it. It seems to be that CBN may fall under questionable sources. The content in question is this:
“ | Branch had left the child briefly, not knowing her daughter had blocked the drain of the tub, which slowly filled up with water. When Branch found her daughter floating in the bathtub, she was certain the child was dead. Kenna Branch was resuscitated when EMTs arrived after the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes. Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long, a CT scan showed the child's brain activity to be normal. | ” |
According to our article on Drowning, "the brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen" Assuming that our article is accurate, the claim that the child went without oxygen for eight to ten minutes or more seems like an exceptional claim. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I don't think that CBN qualifies as a high-quality source for a medical claim. Even if it did, we would need multiple high-quality sources. I recommend at least removing "for eight to ten minutes" and replace it with "several minutes". The claim that "Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long" is problematic because it's dependent on the exceptional claim. I recommend removing that as well. Finally, it might also be a good idea to use in-text attribution ("According to the Christian Broadcasting Network..."). Alternatively, you can try to find multiple high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ultimately, we should not be trying to source how many minutes the child was without oxygen, certainly not to The 700 Club. That's more than the source itself is trying to do, in my view. The point is, the Branch's attribute their child's survival to the power of prayer. The shorter version here is about right, maybe with the addition of something like "Branch tells how..." I think The 700 Club article is an adequete source for that. But, it's only one source, and it's still an open question whether or not this incident belongs in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
He is openly gay.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against |title=Instinct Cover Guy Nick Adams Discriminated Against |publisher=Instinctmagazine.com |date=2009-07-27 |accessdate=2012-03-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html | title=Turtle Gay | publisher=Nick Adams | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://bestgaynewyork.com/2009/07/30/broadway-darling-nick-adams-boycotts-the-anito-gay--turtle-bay-grill-and-lounge.aspx | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref>
WP:BLPCAT requires specifically
Thus the questions are:
The nickadams blog, if it is indeed his, does not make the overt claim, and is the only source used which I consider (per SPS) as valid for declaring him to be "openly gay" - but it does not do that. The second issue always present is whether "openly gay" is "relevant to (his) public life or notability" but the issue of whether these blogs and non-news sources are "reliable sources" is the primary question here. . Thanks
Collect (
talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Your forum-shopping won't help you, Collect, since he's come out in pretty much every medium in which it's possible to come out. And to be frank, if you actually read his blog post and somehow didn't notice the four or so places where he mentioned that he was gay, you need to go to the optometrist. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the woody woodpecker articles particularly his television show articles. I just wish to know if The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia! (see here http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/) is a valid source as the website states that its an unofficial website so surely all these sources on woody woodpecker articles should be removed. I thought I better ask before any militant inclusionists accuse me of "destroying valuable information". Dwanyewest ( talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the site Nowrunning.com, being used in many articles under the Indian cinema task force. The site, shows no signs of notability in any manner, getting 0 hits in the Google News Search. Hence, I wish to get a few opinions on whether the site can be used, in specific, for quoting reviews from the "critics" of the website, as well as for other reports, in articles related to Indian cinema. Secret of success ( talk) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark is a 51-minute award winning documentary by Al Jazeera English on the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. I wonder if it can be used as a reliable source and if so what template can be used for citation (minutes need to be specified)? Also, does this apply to other documentaries published by reliable sources or do they need to be assessed individually? Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English has garnered a rather good reputation as far as its reporting (and in particular its accuracy) is concerned. So in general you might use it as any (good) documentation on CNN, BBC or PBS. So much for generality as far as this concrete documentation of Bahrein is concerned, it seems ok to me to be used as a source. At least i didn't notice any fishy or odd things when browsing it and it received that journalistic awards as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to re-open the discussion. ( Previous thread is here)
As it may involve a rare case of transition from pseudoscience to proto-science, the matter is a bit complicated. Please bear with me.
In brief, a few criticizing sources like blog posts by scientists John Hawks, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, as well as an amateur website are cited extensively in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article, while their reliability is disputed.
This is in the context of another dispute -- a supportive e-book published by Bentham (made it equal to self-publishing), co-authored by scientists Phillip Tobias, Michael Crawford, Anna Gislen, Erika Schagatay, etc. is deemed unreliable and not permitted a mention.
A few thoughts:
Yours, Chakazul ( talk) ( list of RS for/against AAH) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Can any editors assist in determining if the site http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline is a reliable source? There is a discussion at Talk:Dnepr M-72#Dubious fansite but I don't feel like putting up with more personal attacks so I'd rather others took part. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka
in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."
The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Web Sheriff article reads like promotional material from the company itself. This is due in part to the nature of the sources being used, many of which reproduce PR copy from the business itself. Based on my reading of sources, I put forward a list of sources which I felt were inappropriate. Agadant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the primary contributor to the article disagreed with my evaluation of the sources. As such, I am asking the broader community for input on some of sources which I felt were least reliable:
By my estimation, none of these citation are reliable secondary sources. They are all either un-notable blog postings, or press releases based entirely on promotional material from Web Sheriff itself. If someone could clarify whether any of these sources are sufficiently reliable for article content, that would be appreciated. Thank you, aprock ( talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
[69] < The Website in question
"A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions."
But what makes this source reliable is a question raised over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Looking for feedback here as a-lot of articles we have reguarding conventions link to this website. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist. French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison" Do the following sources support this assertion. Have a look at the lead of the article to gauge its context. Thank you
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/europe/france-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9165091/Toulouse-shootings-the-making-of-a-French-jihadi-killer-with-a-double-life.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17481537
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terrorist-mohamed-merah-found-his-inner-jihadi-in-prison/story-fnb64oi6-1226309644280
To access the entire source for the last link, you may have to google "terrorist mohamed merah found his inner jihadi in prison" and select the link for the Australian which should be the first one.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Is this source reliable for this sentence: "After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt"? It seems sufficient to read the last three paragraphs of this piece. ( This is the homepage of the journal) -- Dailycare ( talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of playing games and trolling and have been warned that I may be blocked for libel because I am not providing a source. I claim that I gave a reliable source and would like an opinion. My editing has been limited to talk pages. I have not edited articles.
Pergram, Chad. "Obama Struggles With Smoking 'Addiction' as He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations." Fox News. FOX News Network, 12 June 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. < http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/obama-struggles-smoking-addiction-praises-congress-new-tobacco-regulations/>.
Article in which it is being used:
Obama talk page DD2K talk page
The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
Asked if the president still smoked, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has "a struggle with nicotine addiction" every day.
.
Relevant talk page discussion: Section from Obama talk page Closed Section of DD2K talk page 129.2.64.165 ( talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012 (UTC) In order to further contest this issue, should I post on the talk page of the Obama wiki-project? Or would that be considered canvassing? 129.2.129.220 ( talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Can articles posted on Libya Herald be considered as reliable? It is one of the few english-source, private owned media from post-Gaddafi Libya at a time and their articles were mostly made of first source informations by their own editors at a place of event and especially usufull for articles about current situation in country. IT was suggested here that it is "nowhere near reliable" [74] so I would like to settle this issue. Thanks EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
The source in question is a review from the gaming website IGN for a game called Mass Effect 3:
and in regards to its use on the Mass Effect 3 WP page [2]. Jessica Chobot, an IGN employee [3], worked on this game [4] and IGN subsequently published a glowing review. Neither on the current WP page or in IGN's review is there any mention of her involvement as an IGN employee. When reading the Mass Effect 3 WP page under the Reception heading, the first review mentioned is that of IGN's. I find her role in the game as a conflict of interest (see WP:QS) that brings into question the validity of IGN as a source used for the reception of this game. Is this a valid reason to remove the IGN review as a reliable source on the Mass Effect 3 WP page? Here is a link to the current Talk page on this issue. [5] Redredryder ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
André du Nay looks like an unreliable author. His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: [6] so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.
Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": [7].
I want a confirmation that I am acting correctly eliminating this source Romorinian ( talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Grizzuti over the acceptability of late US author and journalist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison as an additional source for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly exhibit a dread of demon activity. [9] The statement is contained in her 1978 book, Visions of Glory, which combined a history of Jehovah's Witnesses with a memoir of her time as a member of the religion's headquarters staff and subsequent defection.
User:AuthorityTam has objected to inclusion on the following grounds:
(a) Under the guideline
WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and she was not an objective academic because she was an “unabashedly anti-JW activist”. As a questionable source, she is making a “contentious claim” that disparages “every last adherent” of the religion;
(b) her statement about fear of demons was based on observations made more than 50 years ago;
(c) Her statement about demons is polemic and unencyclopedic because of a metaphorical reference to exorcising personal demons.
I contend:
(a) Grizzuti Harrison was a highly respected author, essayist and journalist whose work has been used by publications including The New York Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. She has interviewed Mario Cuomo, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush among others. She gained wholly complimentary
obituaries in the New York Times (which described Visions of Glory as a mix of autobiography and "detailed historical research") and LA Times
[10]. Wikipedia notes that her background as a JW informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be
cults; she described families affected by the
Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the
Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas." Her book certainly contains criticism of her former religion, but there is no evidence that she was an “anti-JW activist”.
(b) The
WP:NOTRELIABLE guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison’s book was published by Simon & Schuster and Robert Hale Ltd. It was praised by the NYT for its depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Her work was used by newspapers and periodicals that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking and evidently saw no COI in her status as an ex-JW.
(c) Visions of Glory is cited by sociologist Andrew Holden (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, 2002) professor of history and religious studies M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1985), Methodist minister Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ, James Clarke & Co, 1996), professor James A. Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, Welch, 1986) and Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence (Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, Wm Eerdmans, 2004) .
Objections about the currency and accuracy of her observations are invalid. The WP article already cites three RS on the point, and as I point out on the article talk page, a Google search shows widespread discussion online and in print about the continuing JW fixation with demon attacks and harassment. The widespread publication of Grizzuti Harrison’s work in mainstream publications weighs against claims that she was a polemicist.
Her statement on demons is a brief one, but in the face of strident objections by one editor that the claim re JWs and demons is a fiction, her inclusion is helpful, particularly as it also addresses the apparent conflict between what JW publications say about demons and what commentators observe about the actual behaviour of adherents. BlackCab ( talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor at Crime Classification Manual wishes to cite a Google Scholar citation search for the assertion The volume has been cited over 300 times in the scholarly literature. I doubt that Google Scholar is a reliable source, but the editor in question has further claimed that Google Scholar is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source with an active editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy [11]. I thought it was a search engine, but apparently they have had dinner with a member of Google Scholar's editorial staff [12]. I do not think this is enough to make GS a reliable source. In passing, I note that the assertion would consitute original research, but my question is about the source. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question most directly, Google Scholar is not even a source, much less a reliable one. It's a search engine. It can lead you to reliable sources. A high number of results using Google Scholar is a good indication that the subject is well covered in reliable sources. But then you have to take the next step of digging in to those sources to see how the subject is treated in them, and to be sure that those sources are truly reliable. It's clear that not all Google Scholar results are reliable academic sources. First Light ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This is complex matter so I am going to make the first of several inquiries. List of longest novels has been decimated and probably will go up for AfD unless certain sources are deemed reliable. Most of my arguments will be in succession; noting cross references and their publishers of what should be considered non-controversial statements.
Question #1: Specific to Amazon.com
I was under the impression that page counts from Amazon listings (which come from the publisher) are typically allowable sources. In a previous discussion, David Eppstein wrote: "...I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published)..." during a discussion about Amazon's product description being a source. [13] The length of certain books on said list have used this and other sources to back their claim. Currently the page does not use 'word count', but assuming a favorable result on page count I'll continue appropriately.
Observation: Les Misérables
A public domain work. Has several different publications. One from Signet Classics has 1488 pages according to Amazon. [14] Can this product description be used to cite its page count on an article? The same material comes from the publisher which is actually no different in its claim on the Penguin Books Signet webpage at 1488 pages. [15] I was told that sources are unreliable despite making no more claim then the length of their publication. Last I checked Penguin is a reputable book publisher and it serves no purpose to give false information about page count. The instance of the product description is devoid of advertising and states other key information about the product such as its publication date as noted by the ISBN and publisher independently as: Signet Classics; Unabridged Version edition (March 3, 1987). This is independently verifiable and touted by other third parties; mostly sellers of such works. Page count is not the same as an advertising claim; its a statement of fact to the physical description of the book; much like the ISBN number is registered to the work. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
All the discussion above about the suitability of page counts should be moved to the talk page in question, as this page is for discussing source reliability only. To answer the question asked, I believe that Amazon and publishers' listings are reliable for page counts. Things like publishers' blurbs on the content or importance of the book are of course wholly unreliable. There is also another source for page counts that has apparently not been mentioned: library catalogues. If you go to the catalogue of an eminent library, say the Library of Congress, you will find that many listings of books show the number of pages. If that's not a first rate third party source I don't know what is. Zero talk 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Is this considered a reliable source http://www.allmovie.com/artist/p125316 - is a reliable source WP:RS for a disputed date of birth? Youreally can 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I want to use the following as an example of the response to the topic. So, I have two questions: 1] Is this a decent source, and 2] even if this is not considered a reliable source of information, is it acceptable as an example of responses?
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/19/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnational-defense-resources-preparedness%E2%80%9D-executive-order-minor-change-or-prelude-to-martial-law/ Kdammers ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on at Anchor baby over the acceptablility of an online source called the Double-Tongued Dictionary ("DTD"). In addition to whether the DTD itself is fundamentally a self-published source (and thus unusable per WP:SPS), there is controversy over whether a response by the DTD's author to a reader comment is or is not an unusable blog post. See Talk:Anchor_baby#Double_Tongued_Dictionary and Talk:Anchor_baby#.5Bcitation_needed.5D. The dispute here is primarily between the users Factchecker atyourservice and Cuchullain, though some other people (including myself and one or more IP's) have chimed in. The content implications of this dispute may include whether the term "anchor baby" is significantly used to refer to US-born children of any immigrant, or just to children of illegal immigrants; whether users of "anchor baby" tend to be opposed to all US immigration (not just illegal immigration); and possibly also whether "anchor baby" should be definitively and unquestionably tagged as an offensive, pejorative expression. Although the argument has remained mostly a content dispute, there have been some suggestions of possible ulterior motives and/or violations of AGF. To me, it doesn't appear likely that Factchecker and Cuchullain are going to be able to come to any fundamental agreement on their own, so more people need to get involved in order to have any hope of establishing or maintaining a credible consensus. — Rich wales 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't commented on the reliability per se of the DTD since March 11, at which time I acknowledged the consensus Cuchulainn describes, although I'd point out that it is clearly self-published and shouldn't be held out to other editors as having "editorial oversight" when in fact a single person is responsible for compiling, editing, and writing the site. Barrett's forum comments especially should not be represented to others in this way.
But, it should be clear, that was not my main issue with the prior state of the article; rather, it was the manner in which the material was attributed and weighted with respect to the AHD definition. The version of the article that existed before I started editing stated the DTD definition, and only the DTD definition, was listed. Immediately after it was the textual reference to the blog comment post, which reference, itself, was OR as it involved a WP editor scooping primary source materials, the two blog comments, and synthesizing them into original secondary source analysis. The reference footnote contained a quote of the DTD definition, with the rather sensational forum-comment by the blog author appended to the definition using an ellipsis—as if the author had himself decided to include his response in the definition. (The response itself also wasn't really identified as a forum comment.)
The AHD definition... the actual established dictionary with the large institutional infrastructure and staff, meanwhile, was mentioned in passing, only as substantiation for the fact that it was revised after an immigration advocacy group and website spoke out against the failure to identify the term as offensive. The AHD definition said nothing about the term being a mask, or opposition to illegal immigration, being a "mask" to hide the "racism and xenophobia" of the person who uses that term or opposes immigration. Only Barrett said that, and only in his self-published website's forum space. Even Barrett didn't say it in his definition. He could have, but he didn't. This is telling.
So we had what any will agree is a rather contentious claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means you want the best source available. This means you don't bury the best source — the one with an institutional presence and history and likely a substantial number of staff with credentials similar to Barrett's — in a side note about a press release or op-ed by an advocacy org exec, while also going out of your way to quote the most extreme forum-space opinion of someone whom I somehow doubt is even the second-best source on the subject.
That's multiple sourcing and attribution problems combined to make very significant wp:v and weight problems in the core of the article. So I changed it. Anyone care to try and defend the prior version against any of the above complaints? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Factchecker, it would be best if this topic focused on analyzing the source.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Marshall. Barrett's comment isn't an "axe-grinding political opinion", it's his opinion on how the term in question is used. Barrett is certainly qualified to comment on this – political terms are in fact one of his areas of expertise. So long as we properly cite the comment and note where it came from, make it clear that it's Barrett's statement and not Wikipedia's, and indicate what he said correctly, there's no problem with using this. Ironically, the passage was much clearer on all those accounts before Factchecker started fiddling with it. The revised version made it sound more impertinent and political than the quote itself.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you both persist in arguing against positions I'm not taking—while going off on silly non-sequiturs (e.g. "It keeps surprising that you think..."), misrepresenting sources, and otherwise ignoring the question I'm clearly, in plain English, asking you to address—but since it seems neither of you disagrees with me, I can safely conclude my involvement in this verbal exchange with confidence that this issue won't resurface. It will be very disappointing, however, if the passage of time reveals that one or both of you was planning to make edits based on policy rationales you made no attempt to explain or defend here. Cheers and kind regards. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This piece was originally published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs [26], and later in the Jerusalem Post clearly marked as "Analysis" and attributed to the JCPA. [27]
It is currently being used extensively as an RS to support unattributed factual statements on the Rachel's Tomb page. My opinion is that as a piece of analysis (essentially a one sided advocacy of the Israeli establishment position) it is not suitable for this purpose. (From WP:RS, " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.")
The piece does represent a significant published opinion on the topic and information should be included on the basis of attributing to the opinions of the author and the JCPA (as it was presented when published in the Jerusalem Post). Dlv999 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about Rockpool publishing? I've a specific question about this book in particular for doula. Don't know what I think about a book on doulas also published by a company that publishes astrology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/gran-torino-interview-with-clint-eastwood-2/ is the website of a film critic, Emanuel Levy. I want to use the interviews of the Gran Torino actors and staff in the Gran Torino article. Is that fine? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
At Kurdish people a snippet is being used to support the statement "the Kurds are an Iranian people". The problem I have with this is that The link [28]is just a snippet and it is clear that there is a caveat that might be relavant and thus we would need to add. Anyone adding something needs to have read more of the source than just a snippet. Unless we can find out what the caveat is and decide if it needs to be added, I don't think this source belongs here. I added a 'verify source' template and posted the above to the article talk page. The template was removed with the talk page comment "He says: "ethnically the Kurds are an Iranian people" so it really doesn't matter what he said after that. We have a clear sentence and quoted his exact words." My view is that this isn't acceptable - snippets can be used out of context and in this case I'm being told that although there is a context we don't have to consider it. That's not how I understand our verification policy. Dougweller ( talk) 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm been caught by Google snippets. They are very very dangerous. You certainly cannot use it without more of the source. There is something simple you can do, though. Place a query at WP:REX and there is a very good chance someone will come up the rest of the relevant text. The reliability of the source is a separate issue. Zero talk 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Having one of these days, where I've written this post twice only for it to get deleted. While this snippet is particularly dangerous, I wouldn't say the same for all snippets and they need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Particularly if all the context is within the snippet or if it's a simple statement of fact then it should be enough. If part of the context is missing then there are ways around that; with a correctly targeted search term, Google Books Search will return more of the page than snippet view does - but it does making some educated guesses at what words are likely to appear in the bits you can't see. I don't have much to go on in this case but I guessed that "one" would appear somewhere further down the page and it turned out to be the next word after "lingustic" [29] - I could probably make some more guesses and get the full paragraph but it may substantial time that I don't think is worth it in this case as it's not that reliable a source for the claim being made. In a recent BLP case however I was able to draw facts about their life out in context and it was proven to be accurate a couple of days later when another editor was able to examine a physical copy of the source. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia is generally regarded as an unreliable source. WP:SELFSOURCE says that Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. It goes on to give five requirements.
I'm arguing that quoting/citing Conservapedia as a self source in an article about Conservapedia should be allowed. As a particular example of what I'm getting at, I'd like to directly cite their Counterexamples to Relativity article to textually back a claim in the Conservapedia article on their criticism of the Theory of Relativity.
Conservapedia is a text. I think that quoting and referring to Conservapedia in an article about Conservapedia falls under information about themselves clause in WP:SELFSOURCE. An unreliable source as a text can either be used or it cannot be used. Of course, Conservapedia articles can't be used in an article about the Theory of Relativity. But I think they should be allowed as quotes/citations/evidence to back claims in an article about Conservapedia.
The Conservapedia article already cites Conservapedia and I think rightly so. The alternative is to strip these citations from the article and rely entirely on secondary RSs. I think that makes for a weaker less verifiable rather than a stronger article.
For example, the Ted Kaczynski article cites the Unabomber Manifesto and both must be considered unreliable sources. But quoting/citing from an unreliable source as a text in an article about the author/text is different than citing it as an RS in another article.
Yes, Conservapedia is fluid but Wikipedia has mechanisms in its citations to handle that; that's a separate issue. It is always possible to quote/date rather than cite. Citations can include access dates.
This is pretty fundamental but at the same time it is not particularly radical. Still, if this interpretation is the consensus, I think the WP:SELFSOURCE should be clarified.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Coming back to the more formal question, as now defined, for this noticeboard: can primary sources be used to show what those primary sources say. The answer is clearly yes, as per Andrew Dalby. This is of course in the context of all the other doubts that might arise such notability, or whether there is a sort of implicit synthesis happening. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I've opened up a section on WP:NORN.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This is being used to verify Michael Bay's announcement of the character development of the new 2013 Ninja Turtles film. Can this site be deemed as a reliable source? Sarujo ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:
Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".
The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.
The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Wikipedia threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd ( talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if these links are of some use to your discussion. Thanks, Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
HTC, this is not the place to discuss semantics. The purpose of RS/N is for non-involved editors to determine the reliability or otherwise of sources, in the Wikipedia sense of "reliable", and there is a policy governing this. I have addressed your semantic points on the Meher Baba Talk Page, and also clarified the issue concerning reliability. Simon Kidd ( talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Simon, this is exactly the place to study Semantics, the study of meaning. What else is this? I dont edit the Meher Baba page. I have entered this discussion after you, therefore I am more 'non involved' than you are. As you could not refute my logic regarding Hagiography, religion and devotee of a religion these arguments of yours are void Simon. Next. You did not address my points there on Meher Baba talk. You took another course altogether, publishers. -- HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 10:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If this noticeboard is for "non-involved editors", Simon Kidd and Stephen Castro should not be commenting here (beyond initially introducing the issue). The very creation of this discussion arises from the rejection of their primary concern, i.e. Kevin Shepherd as RS and this makes them both very directly "involved". Hoverfish Talk 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I came across a user who was blocked for making legal threats. He said on his talk page that a quote attributed to him was fabricated. I don't know if this is true or not, so can someone check the source to see if it is a reliable one? The source is ref #32 on the London mayoral election, 2012 (sorry, I don't know how to copy refs) Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.
The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according the that article nonetheless but that does not discredits my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.
iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.
Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page
All references to LTE being 4G in the iPad 3 article, this includes content in the infobox and prose.
YuMa NuMa Contrib 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It's taking quite a while to a get response here, not to rush anyone if they're in the process of researching sources in regards to this issue but I will move this dispute/case to the Original research board by the end of this month if a response to issue has not been submitted as I believe that board would be more appropriate. I actually believe the sources I have submitted here are well within the expected level of reliability on Wikipedia but posting this issue here was the advice from an experience editor from the Dispute Resolution Board. YuMa NuMa Contrib 04:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have recently created Prisons in Bahrain and nominated it for DYK where Roscelese told me to drop a line here since no results came up when he searched it. So I'd like to get RSN input on these sources:
And since we are at it, I'd also like to get evaluation of Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a RS on good article nominate Bloody Thursday (2011). Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate some input from the reliable sources community concerning the acceptability of certain sources in the article Tau (2π), and how this impinges on the scope of the article. There is some question about whether it is acceptable to write this article entirely from primary sources that are (almost) entirely self-published. In particular, there is the issue of the title itself. While advocating that 2π be used as the fundamental measure of the circle constant (see turn (geometry)) is not a new thing, fairly recently it has been rebranded as "tau" in some (self-published) sources. There is a discussion on the issue of the title and scope of the article underway at Talk:Tau (2π)#Title. I would appreciate any input that the community may offer. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started an RfC that is relevant to this discussion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement of what consitutes a primary source. I contend that the article Bernie_Siegel consists mostly of primary sources since it lists the opinions of different people and sources it to the original persons comment. Two Examples:
Both these cases appear to be primary sources as they are in one case an opinion sourced to the individual, and in the other case the creator of the rankings. Is this the correct interpretation? Related: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List Talk:Bernie_Siegel#Primary_and_undue_sources IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like the New York Times Bestseller List is a secondary source for bestsellers and not original research. The NY Times does the research:
Rankings reflect sales reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles. The sales venues for print books include independent book retailers; national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; supermarkets, university, gift and discount department stores; and newsstands. [40]
The fact that they put their name to the list in an official sounding way doesn't change the fact that they are merely listing the bestselling books at bookstores, based on their research. The NY Times is a reliable source for that research. Secondary Source. First Light ( talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Can an article on Quackwatch be considered a WP:RS for criticism of Bernie Siegel an alt-med practicioner? This article appears to be self-published, however the author is a well known critic of bogus medicine and is medically qualified. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The article on polonium cites this article from the Australian newspaper The Age to support a statistic that polonium from tobacco causes 11,700 lung cancer deaths worldwide. The newspaper article cites "internal tobacco company documents" as a source for this, but does not give any statistics. The basis for that figure seems very shaky, even the article. The composition of the article also displays a clear anti-tobacco bias. How reliable should this source be considered? TV4Fun ( talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is http://www.disneydreaming.com/ a reliable source? From past experience I want to say no, but I thought I'd ask people who might be able to figure it out better than I. Thanks. - Purplewowies ( talk) 14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In the above discussion (now moved to archive), I quoted what Mr Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board had to say about Qadyanis / Ahmadiyas. Can this source be cited in the article on Ahmadiyas? Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
Copied from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Our_Lady_of_Akita
User History2007 is challenging the validity of MiracleHunter.com as a source of reference for the Catholic Church's position on the article Our Lady of Akita.
Under Vatican Approval in the Talk Page, History2007 claims MiracleHunter.com is full of errors and is non-WP. I asked him what errors are on the site, he didn't explain. He instead claims the site is non-WP because "Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None." and "What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None."
In reply, I quoted the site: "Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) and I told him about the Church documents referenced on the Akita page of MiracleHunter.com, which I have referenced in the article.
Oct13 ( talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I started that discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list a while ago. I will restart it on the talk page again. These really need a bot, and the bot will not be hard to write. It will just need to look up a list and leave a message, like the bot that Blevintron wrote quite recently. History2007 ( talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
[46] in Radical Right uses "courser" as a source to place the Tea Party movement in the category of "Radical Right". Note the person edit warring for this does not even indicate a page number for the claim. There is a reason for this elision, I fear, as the source specifically states:
I submit that where a source not only does not label the TPM as "radical right" but specifically states that it "evinces few similarities" to "radical right" that a reliable source is being fully abused. The source is reliable, the use of it to say the opposite of what the source clearly states is objectionable entirely. The edit warrior [47], [48], [49] however states that "right wing populism" is a "synonym" for "radical right" thus allowing the placement of a current group in that category as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice by so making a section on the specific group in Radical Right. Consider if there were a "John Doe association" which someone said "opposed gay marriage" - would it then be proper to label it "homophobic" and place it in the articles thereon when the source used says "it is not homophobic"? Collect ( talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi: It began with a discussion of the lede at Thomas Jefferson, which led to claims that The Smithsonian and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation websites, used in the body are not RS. Discussion is at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17#Lede and Due and Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17#Redundant statements
The body now reads:
The Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History from 27 January to 14 October, it notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." [1] In her review of the exhibition, NPR reporter Karen Grigsby Bates noted that recent scholarship has been studying the lives of slaves. She also noted the consensus on Jefferson's likely paternity of at least one of Sally Hemings' children and the "heated dissent from a vocal minority," especially the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. [2] The exhibit has been co-curated by the historians Rex Ellis from the National Museum of African American History and Culture of the Smithsonian, and Elizabeth Chew, a curator at Monticello. [3]
Question: Are they RS? Thanks
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is how it now reads:
In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. [1] It is notable as the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the lives of slaves at Monticello. [2] Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." [2] [3]
Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. [1] It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the slaves at Monticello. [2] Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence supports a conclusion that Jefferson sired at least one of Sally Hemings' children. [2] [3]
Which conforms to the factual material actually in the cites, and not perpetuating opinion via footnotes which would be improper in the article. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My first time dipping a toe into the Wiki backwaters, so please bear with me! :)
Dirk Beetstra has suggested that I post here regarding the current status of the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being placed on a list of 'unreliable sources'. Beetstra says "You could try to ask for a review, neutrally answering any questions which arise from that discussion, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard."
So here goes... for some reason, Australian Business Traveller ( www.AusBT.com.au) seems to be on a list of unreliable sources. About a year back, which was around six months after AusBT launched, an observation was made by Bidgee (and I think it'd been deleted, as I can't find it) that AusBT did seem to be more than just a 'blog' (and thus, more authoritative) but there appeared to be a question over what the site actually was, as we're not a print publication (which carries with it some association of authority).
It should be noted that AusBT is a news-based online publication employing professional journalists. We're not a blog run by amateurs which trades on rumour.
The site regularly breaks stories related to travel and aviation, attends media conferences and press trips with airlines, and the content is on a par with comparative publications already in Wikipedia's link-approved 'reliable source' list such as Business Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australia, AAP and others.
AusBT has also been described by the oneworld airline alliance as " a leading independent business travel news website".
And I myself am a professional journalist of several decades' standing, having worked as a journalist and editor at The Sydney Morning Herald and ACP Magazines.
Are there any questions about AusBT, relevant to this status, which I might be able to answer or address, in an effort to see the site rated as a reliable source? Djsflynn ( talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So, what's the timeframe for seeking comments before a call is made on AusBT being RS or not RS? Djsflynn ( talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
A letter from the New York headquarters of the Watch Tower Society (WTS) has been sent to all bodies of elders at 13,000 US congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the basis for deciding whether a congregation elder, deacon (ministerial servant) or full-time preacher (pioneer) should be removed from that position for attending university. The letter has been uploaded to Sendspace by an anonymous Jehovah's Witness and is available for download here.
A section of the article Jehovah's Witness beliefs already covers the fact that Jehovah's Witness leadership strongly discourages university attendance over concerns that members may lose faith in God or become seduced by the immoral atmosphere on campus. This is firmly attested by Jehovah's Witness publications; this view is also supported by RS James Penton, who writes of the religion's "anti-university" spirit". I added a sentence that (after subsequent editing) read: "Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education, and if higher education pursuits interfere with their congregational duties or is pursued for material gain." [52] The sentence used that letter as its source; its usefulness is stating that the JW leadership is prepared to remove elders if they, or family members attend university unless they show respect for the pronouncements of the leadership and maintain meeting attendance and preaching quotas.
The letter, which gives every appearance of being genuine, and which is an appendix to a WTS elders' handbook, is addressed specifically to "all bodies of elders". In the US, this would necessarily mean distribution to more than 13,000 congregations. The Witnesses pride themselves on unity of teaching globally, so I would assume it has in fact been distributed to every one of the 100,000 congregations throughout the world.
My question now is this: has the letter been published to the satisfaction of WP:V? Two editors say "yes"; two say "no." The information page at Wikipedia:Published defines "published" as "Information ... created for distribution and actually distributed with a transfer of ownership to [the public, or a group of people]. (emphasis mine). The letter would not be ordinarily accessible by lay members of a JW congregation; it is a direction by HQ to local elders, but I would argue that the letter has definitely been created with the intention of imparting directions to a sizeable "group of people". Again, so there is no mistake: it was never intended to be read by all JWs. Its intended audience was elder bodies within those 100,000 congregations. My best comparison is a letter written by corporate management to middle management but subsequently leaked to all staff. Decisions made about Wikileaks leaks will clearly have set precedents for such material.
I would appreciate some comments. Is this letter usable as a source or not? BlackCab ( talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the majority here, the letter cannot be shown to be genuine, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion, as it cannot be proved to be legitimate, therefore does not meet WP:RS Willietell ( talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
flayrah.com - Several pages use this blog as a source. Upon doing some research, I find no evidence that it is in the least bit a reliable source. Additionally, most references to it were added by the owner of the site, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of numerous WP policies regarding advertisement. - badmachine 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- badmachine 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion there about whether this is a good source for the material I removed here. Any opinions are welcome, either here or in article talk. -- John ( talk) 09:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Christian Broadcasting Network has come up once before on this noticeboard. [53] In that discussion, one editor says "it's a tough call", a second editor says "it should never be used as a source for statements of fact, but only to represent its own opinion" and a third editor says it's reliable for news. This source in this case is a bio, not news. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but I will at least note it. It seems to be that CBN may fall under questionable sources. The content in question is this:
“ | Branch had left the child briefly, not knowing her daughter had blocked the drain of the tub, which slowly filled up with water. When Branch found her daughter floating in the bathtub, she was certain the child was dead. Kenna Branch was resuscitated when EMTs arrived after the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes. Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long, a CT scan showed the child's brain activity to be normal. | ” |
According to our article on Drowning, "the brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen" Assuming that our article is accurate, the claim that the child went without oxygen for eight to ten minutes or more seems like an exceptional claim. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I don't think that CBN qualifies as a high-quality source for a medical claim. Even if it did, we would need multiple high-quality sources. I recommend at least removing "for eight to ten minutes" and replace it with "several minutes". The claim that "Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long" is problematic because it's dependent on the exceptional claim. I recommend removing that as well. Finally, it might also be a good idea to use in-text attribution ("According to the Christian Broadcasting Network..."). Alternatively, you can try to find multiple high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ultimately, we should not be trying to source how many minutes the child was without oxygen, certainly not to The 700 Club. That's more than the source itself is trying to do, in my view. The point is, the Branch's attribute their child's survival to the power of prayer. The shorter version here is about right, maybe with the addition of something like "Branch tells how..." I think The 700 Club article is an adequete source for that. But, it's only one source, and it's still an open question whether or not this incident belongs in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
He is openly gay.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against |title=Instinct Cover Guy Nick Adams Discriminated Against |publisher=Instinctmagazine.com |date=2009-07-27 |accessdate=2012-03-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html | title=Turtle Gay | publisher=Nick Adams | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://bestgaynewyork.com/2009/07/30/broadway-darling-nick-adams-boycotts-the-anito-gay--turtle-bay-grill-and-lounge.aspx | accessdate=March 29, 2012}}</ref>
WP:BLPCAT requires specifically
Thus the questions are:
The nickadams blog, if it is indeed his, does not make the overt claim, and is the only source used which I consider (per SPS) as valid for declaring him to be "openly gay" - but it does not do that. The second issue always present is whether "openly gay" is "relevant to (his) public life or notability" but the issue of whether these blogs and non-news sources are "reliable sources" is the primary question here. . Thanks
Collect (
talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Your forum-shopping won't help you, Collect, since he's come out in pretty much every medium in which it's possible to come out. And to be frank, if you actually read his blog post and somehow didn't notice the four or so places where he mentioned that he was gay, you need to go to the optometrist. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the woody woodpecker articles particularly his television show articles. I just wish to know if The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia! (see here http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/) is a valid source as the website states that its an unofficial website so surely all these sources on woody woodpecker articles should be removed. I thought I better ask before any militant inclusionists accuse me of "destroying valuable information". Dwanyewest ( talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the site Nowrunning.com, being used in many articles under the Indian cinema task force. The site, shows no signs of notability in any manner, getting 0 hits in the Google News Search. Hence, I wish to get a few opinions on whether the site can be used, in specific, for quoting reviews from the "critics" of the website, as well as for other reports, in articles related to Indian cinema. Secret of success ( talk) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark is a 51-minute award winning documentary by Al Jazeera English on the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. I wonder if it can be used as a reliable source and if so what template can be used for citation (minutes need to be specified)? Also, does this apply to other documentaries published by reliable sources or do they need to be assessed individually? Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English has garnered a rather good reputation as far as its reporting (and in particular its accuracy) is concerned. So in general you might use it as any (good) documentation on CNN, BBC or PBS. So much for generality as far as this concrete documentation of Bahrein is concerned, it seems ok to me to be used as a source. At least i didn't notice any fishy or odd things when browsing it and it received that journalistic awards as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to re-open the discussion. ( Previous thread is here)
As it may involve a rare case of transition from pseudoscience to proto-science, the matter is a bit complicated. Please bear with me.
In brief, a few criticizing sources like blog posts by scientists John Hawks, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, as well as an amateur website are cited extensively in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article, while their reliability is disputed.
This is in the context of another dispute -- a supportive e-book published by Bentham (made it equal to self-publishing), co-authored by scientists Phillip Tobias, Michael Crawford, Anna Gislen, Erika Schagatay, etc. is deemed unreliable and not permitted a mention.
A few thoughts:
Yours, Chakazul ( talk) ( list of RS for/against AAH) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Can any editors assist in determining if the site http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline is a reliable source? There is a discussion at Talk:Dnepr M-72#Dubious fansite but I don't feel like putting up with more personal attacks so I'd rather others took part. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka
in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."
The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Web Sheriff article reads like promotional material from the company itself. This is due in part to the nature of the sources being used, many of which reproduce PR copy from the business itself. Based on my reading of sources, I put forward a list of sources which I felt were inappropriate. Agadant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the primary contributor to the article disagreed with my evaluation of the sources. As such, I am asking the broader community for input on some of sources which I felt were least reliable:
By my estimation, none of these citation are reliable secondary sources. They are all either un-notable blog postings, or press releases based entirely on promotional material from Web Sheriff itself. If someone could clarify whether any of these sources are sufficiently reliable for article content, that would be appreciated. Thank you, aprock ( talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
[69] < The Website in question
"A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions."
But what makes this source reliable is a question raised over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Looking for feedback here as a-lot of articles we have reguarding conventions link to this website. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist. French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison" Do the following sources support this assertion. Have a look at the lead of the article to gauge its context. Thank you
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/europe/france-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9165091/Toulouse-shootings-the-making-of-a-French-jihadi-killer-with-a-double-life.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17481537
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terrorist-mohamed-merah-found-his-inner-jihadi-in-prison/story-fnb64oi6-1226309644280
To access the entire source for the last link, you may have to google "terrorist mohamed merah found his inner jihadi in prison" and select the link for the Australian which should be the first one.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Is this source reliable for this sentence: "After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt"? It seems sufficient to read the last three paragraphs of this piece. ( This is the homepage of the journal) -- Dailycare ( talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of playing games and trolling and have been warned that I may be blocked for libel because I am not providing a source. I claim that I gave a reliable source and would like an opinion. My editing has been limited to talk pages. I have not edited articles.
Pergram, Chad. "Obama Struggles With Smoking 'Addiction' as He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations." Fox News. FOX News Network, 12 June 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. < http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/obama-struggles-smoking-addiction-praises-congress-new-tobacco-regulations/>.
Article in which it is being used:
Obama talk page DD2K talk page
The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
Asked if the president still smoked, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has "a struggle with nicotine addiction" every day.
.
Relevant talk page discussion: Section from Obama talk page Closed Section of DD2K talk page 129.2.64.165 ( talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012 (UTC) In order to further contest this issue, should I post on the talk page of the Obama wiki-project? Or would that be considered canvassing? 129.2.129.220 ( talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Can articles posted on Libya Herald be considered as reliable? It is one of the few english-source, private owned media from post-Gaddafi Libya at a time and their articles were mostly made of first source informations by their own editors at a place of event and especially usufull for articles about current situation in country. IT was suggested here that it is "nowhere near reliable" [74] so I would like to settle this issue. Thanks EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)