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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
Harvey Levin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Albert14nx05y insists on adding the following sentence to the article: "During the Vietnam-era, Levin served as a sergeant in the Air National Guard in Reseda, CA." His reference in support is here. He's acknowledged in a rather difficult discussion on the Talk page that there is no support for the Reseda part. However, he bases the Vietname-era/sargeant part on the uniform Levin is wearing in the image. I'm not sure if the uniform even supports his interpretation of it, but I pointed out that the image is a primary source that requires interpretation of what it means and is therefore not a reliabl source for the assertion. What is needed is a secondary source saying that Levin was a sergeant and served during Vietnam. That has fallen on deaf ears and has provoked a threat to delete images from Wikipedia.
Putting aside the threat for the moment, comments on the sourcing?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Under the photo, the caption says Levin served in the air national guard. The source is TMZ. Is that considered reliable? I would say without the caption, the picture is not sufficient for the factual assertion. How do we know he wasn't in a play or borrowed someone else's uniform? But the caption does say he served. I am just not sure if TMZ is recognized as reliable. Coaster92 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
In any event, I think that this policy statement here applies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot and this one, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22
Albert14nx05y (
talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think drawing conclusions from photos is OR. Especially if we aren't certain of the circumstances which these photos were taken under. If we can't find something that mentions his rank or his service, so be it. Something might come along later. I think it's better to have a little discipline and leave out unessential factoids gained from iffy sources that could be false. In the end, all the photo proves is that someone took a picture of him in a uniform. I agree with Bbb23.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
A note to all who want to toss their two cents in here and claim to be "experts": A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/
Oh, and speaking of stupid study topics, the GAO has started a new one" Gov’t Issues Study of Study of Studies http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-kidding-govt-issues-study-of-study-of-studies/ -- Albert14nx05y ( talk)
Hiding as this noticeboard is for discussing reliable sources for citations, not editor profiles. Dmcq ( talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Images may be used as illustrations without citation. If they introduce new material then they need to be reliable sources of that. They need to be from a reliable source and be produced to show the fact or have the fact pointed out by the reliable source. Here the only real question is whether TMZ is a reliable source or not for this, and if they are okay then they should be cited for it. Dmcq ( talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
If TMZ is considered reliable, at least the information in the caption under the photo could be used, ie, that he served in the air national guard, nothing about his rank or where he was stationed, but at least that much. I have been searching for another source about his rank and location but could not find anything. One comment said Harvey made a statement about his service on air on 3/8/11 but I could not find the video. Coaster92 ( talk) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The source say that Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard. It doesn't say anythinge about where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era. Why not just say, "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard." and be done with it? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) To respond to everyone's latest points. Coaster, I agree that the prose under the three pictures can be used. The problem is that if the only thing we say in the article is "Levin served in the Air Guard", it's almost meaningless. It has no context, no time frame, nothing. Thus, if say only what we can say "reliably" we don't have enough material to use. Blueboard, we are not putting the picture in the article, so your point isn't relevant in this case. Dmcq, as to what we can interpret from the picture, that's a judgment call. The more "obvious", as you say, the easier it is to justify. I don't know how obvious rank is from a uniform, but let's assume it is. Did you look at the picture? Can you say he's a sergeant? There's no insignia on his uniform I can see. The only thing that might indicate something is the hat he's wearing, and I can't see it well enough, nor do I know what it means. Do you? Finally, with respect to Blueboar's other point that anyone can dress up as they please, I don't think that's fair. If we accept TMZ as a reliable source (as everyone keeps repeating), then we have to assume that they vet text AND pictures, not just text and that they aren't using a picture that misrepresents a fact.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If one wanted to be a stickler about interpreting the picture, one could only deduce that someone was photographed wearing a particular style of US Army uniform at some undetermined point. There's no provenance, no date, and no assurance that it's even him. To the degree that one can deduce rank from the uniform, the person might have been a buck private, but there's no indication of any higher rank; there's no indication of a particular unit. There's no firm indication that it was worn in an official capacity. About the best one can get out of the website is the page's assurance that Levin served in the army, and since it's his website saying that, it's not exactly a great source. Mangoe ( talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that the picture cannot be used as a reliable source. I will remove the material and the source from the article. Thanks for everyone's comments.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Lonsdorf ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article [1] states that the subject appeared on several talk shows, on National Public Radio, Voice of America, TV-MD (PBS), the Geraldo Rivera show, CNN and The Donahue Show. The sources used as references are the subject’s professional page on Ayurvedic.net [2] which appears to be her own website, and a second Ayurvedic health website [3]. Both confirm the talk show appearances. Alternate verification does not appear to be readily available. Is this sufficiently reliable for the sort of information reported? Thank you.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Is fallingrain.com (in general) considered a reliable source for geographical and statistic information?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's vague and why you asking for diff-link. The question states explicitly in general. I'm asking for a general assessment of that source for geographical and statistic information. To be a bit more specific here, things like: Is its population information reliable? Is its geographical information reliable (coordinates, altitude, classification/type)? Does anybody know where they actually get their data from?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I can find no source for their data, and therefore can't say it's RS. Is there something else I should be looking at to assess them? At the very least, it seems their data is 2 years out of date. There is also no other site listed for "Falling Rain Genomics" that might shed some more detail on this. There does seem to be a lot of information there, but I don't see how it falls under WP's definition of reliable. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this web site [ http://www.limebrook.com] is being used as a reference for information in the saddle article, the web site is maintained by a private horse stable as far as I can tell, I just want a third party opinion as to the validity of using information from this site as I believe it does not qualify as a valid reference for Wikipedia artiucles, thanks. Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The question is a simple one. Are anti-fluoridation groups reliable sources for material in the wikipedia tone? It is being used as a source in a BLP article here John_F._Ashton#Views. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This source [4] from a questionable fringe group [5] is being used to give due weight to the paragraph. 1. Is it a reliable source for this purpose, does it give due weight? Particularly relevant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Charles Birch). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminium, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome.
a user keeps reverting reliable sources that indicate the capital of the sultanate was first "Dakar" and instead includes zeila which was not the capital during the sultanate..source used [6] Adal Sultanate.
Adal. Its capital was first Dakar, and then in 1520 moved to Harar.
. Baboon43 ( talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Rob Bowman (filmmaker) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As stated and verified by www.imdb.com, it needs to be included in Mr. Bowman's entry that he and his wife, Dusty welcomed their first son Jack in 2006. You may contact me personally to verify this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustybowman ( talk • contribs)
Is this site an RS for claims about people being cheerleaders in college? [9] looks from here to be "cheap features to fill in Yahoo! Sports". [10] makes clear that the site's main function is providing discussion about player recruitment - unsigned features do not appear to have "fact checking" etc. AFAICT. The site is aimed at people seeing that young Johnny from Oak High School is being watched by scouts. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
From his autobiography:
Although my grades were higher than average, my principal academic ambition at Eureka was to maintain the C average I needed to remain eliglible for football, swimming, track, and the other school activities I participated in-two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, two years as yearbook features editor, and during my last year, student body president and captain and coach of the swim team.
-- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm working to assist an editor on finding sources for an article that hasn't been created yet. One I found was this article from Business Insider. The source seems legitimate but it is so negative it is hard to believe in its legitimacy. Still, in the interests of NPOV I thought I would ask here and if it is reliable, then I'll find a way to incorporate it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The question: Is the Pew Research Center a reliable source for describing media reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin? The specific source in question is here. I believe that the Pew Center is reliable for this indication; it's generally respected and bipartisan (it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State in a Democratic Administration, and John Danforth, a former Republican U.S. Senator), and specializes in looking at this sort of issue.
The discussion to date: See the bottom of this thread at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. At least one editor has objected to using Pew, calling them "determinedly ignorant" and accusing me of "insist[ing] that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a 'reliable source' for it." ( [13]) I would appreciate outside opinions on the reliability of the Pew Research Center for this material.
A request: More involvement on Shooting of Trayvon Martin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by editors familiar with this site's sourcing guidelines would be incredibly helpful. In my view, the article and talkpage are dominated by editors with a clear idea of the material they want in the article, but a very poor understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. Even removing patently unsuitable personal blogs requires a federal case. In lieu of opening a new thread here for every issue, more eyes on the article/talkpage would be useful. I don't care whether you agree with me or not; as long as you have some basic grasp of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, please contribute. MastCell Talk 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Are video game manuals considered to be reliable sources? They appear to be first party sources but are only are likely, and not certainly, objective. I'm not sure why they would lie about facts in the game (or be less accurate), I thought it better to ask. Sazea ( talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Background: I am mediating on a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion. Also see Wiley protocol and T. S. Wiley.
In the discussion, there was a question about the following:
http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?bypassSSO=1
The theory of modulated hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women by Teresa S. Wiley (Wiley Systems, Santa Fe, New Mexico) and Jason T. Haraldsen (Los Alamos National Laboratory).
http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?view=fulltext&bypassSSO=1
AIP Advances, ( American Institute of Physics)
First, is this considered a peer reviewed scientific paper that is suitable for use as a citation on the
Wiley protocol page? If so is it possible to see the peer reviews?
Second, I am concerned about the statements "it is our goal to present an alternate theory to the standard of care for treatment of midlife and onward breast cancers" and "the standard of care for the treatment of breast cancers may be inherently flawed" in the paper, Sounds a bit fringy to me...
Third, is it just me, or does it seem weird reading about hormone replacement therapy in a physics journal instead of a medical journal?
Fourth (unrelated to whether this is a RS) did my tax money pay for this? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm at a loss what to do about Valhall (band). It has not apparent references, and the issue is whether is satisfies WP:BAND or should be deleted. I had originally prod'ed it, but the prod was removed and the notability issue was addressed by simply adding record label names to the three albums that this group has released. I wonder if that is sufficient in itself. Identifying the label on which an album is released would address the criterion of the notability guideline for musical groups which reads in part "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Should there be a demand for more formal referencing. If so, how should that be presented? __ meco ( talk) 07:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Squeeze (The X-Files), currently at FAC, makes use of this and this, from the website Den of Geek. One is a review of the episode the article is about, the other is an article about characters which mentions the episode's villain. The articles are used to source the following piece of text:
Writing for Den of Geek, John Moore listed Eugene Tooms as one of his "Top 10 X-Files Baddies", noting that the popularity of both "Squeeze" and "Tooms" "was largely responsible for shifting the emphasis of the show away from concentrating on alien-related conspiracies and onto the 'myths and monsters' format ... ", while fellow columnist Matt Haigh wrote that the character was "a skin-crawlingly brilliant villain; the sight of his yellow eyes glowing in the shadows is truly spine-tingling ... ".
The question is whether the site is considered reliable enough for its reviews and opinion pieces to be used in an article. I believe so, as the site is operated by Dennis Publishing (operators of Fortean Times, Bizarre and Maxim, etc), and has listed (albeit in a joking manner) its editorial staff on the site. The contact address for the website is at Dennis Publishing's editorial offices which to me shows a dedicated editorial practice is at work; this isn't a personal blog or small operation. However, the content which the sources are being used to support isn't crucial to the article and it could be removed without any real bother if the consensus is that the site isn't reliably edited or overseen. Additional comments would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Noida double murder case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Many Indian media sources use unattributed and poorly attributed sources, not to forget plain plagiarism of their competitors. Probably that is the way of the world, and I tend often to overlook it for that reason. I'll accept [The Hindnu]] and (sometimes) [The Times of India]], but really would prefer that all the rest that I have come across were binned. However, Redif and DNA India have always struck me as being particularly problematic. This one, from DNA, might bear closer investigation and I would welcome opinions regarding reliability and WP:MIRROR. Compare the DNA article here, published on 14 May, with our article at 11 May, and in particular our article section "CBI Investigation". Can we really trust a major news source that appears quite blatantly to have copied our content? Or am I misreading things due to it being darn near 0100 here? The article in question is Noida double murder case, but the principle extends well beyond this and so I am going to drop a note at WT:INB about this query. - Sitush ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
“ | In addition, the police allowed doctors, not specifically trained in forensic pathology, to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi. While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints (of both murderers and victims) from the skin of the victims.[8] the doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists to lift fingerprints from the cadavers. | ” |
“ | In addition, police allowed doctors not specifically trained in forensic pathology to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi, he said.
While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints from the skin of victims, doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists for the job, the sources said. |
” |
Is this a reliable source to use in the Sweet 7 article? I have seen Drowned in Sound used in other articles, however the actual review appears to have been written by a user. [14] Till I Go Home ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In the article Cold fusion section "Subsequent research/Ongoing" I want to add "The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at NASA Langley Research Center".
This is a direct quote from: this article by Dennis Bushnell. It is further verified by this NASA video.
Both sources are WP:ABOUTSELF. Nasa tells about their own work in their self published media.
So I think this is all perfectly reliably sourced.
I would really appreciate some comments.
Thank you. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor, User:Tjtrower, insists on re-adding (now five times in a few days) a large section of material that is supposedly sourced to some private papers. This seems to be the importation of some dispute among Titanic history buffs, and he claims to be an expert Titanic historian. No amount of pointing him to WP:RS and WP:V seems to work. I'm sort of worn out arguing over it and am losing interest, so some other eyes on it might be worthwhile. Bad Gopher Gear ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
My name is Timothy Trower, Wikipedia user ID Tjtrower; when an editor writes this, and I quote, "for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are generally not acceptable" then I, and the rest of the world of academia, laugh and give Bronx cheers to Bad Gopher Gear, the unfortunate author of this quote. Is anyone actually serious that original research is bad? If you are, I sincerely pity you whilst simultaneously viewing you with the disgust I generally reserve for dog droppings tracked across a clean, white carpet.
When I research and write, be it a murder that occurred in Springfield, Missouri, in 1956, a ship named the Oceanic (III) of 1928, or the death of Barbara West, Titanic survivor, I'd better damn well get my facts straight, and that means interviewing eyewitnesses, relatives, finding and viewing original source documents, tracking down original photographs (it's a shame what people do with Photoshop these days), and then writing it in a well organized, well written and cognizant manner, heavily footnoted to reflect where each piece and bit of information came from, and finally, publishing it in a reputable journal, book, magazine, newspaper or web site.
The point that I am making, and that Bad Gopher Gear is feebly attempting to counter, is that the source documents in the Allison question exist. What I now charge is that Bad Gopher Gear has a hidden and personal agenda and is repeatedly vandalizing the Allison Family page through his/her repeated pulling of information, written from source documents, and posted for the edification of the Wikipedia community and the web-searching public at large.
To make the claim, whether Wikipedia guidelines or a figment of the imagination, that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" is laughable. No wonder that any college class I've taken in continuing education has a not in the syllabus that Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for research. Kudos to those wise college and university professors!
The Allison family question is this: Did Loraine Allison die on board the Titanic, or, as Loraine Kramer, did she escape the sinking ship? It is a matter of public record that this topic has surfaced, has been given a great deal of attention in the Titanic community (we who find, rely on, and use extensive primary source material) and, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Allison did not die on the ship but instead died a grandmother, will literally rock the world -- and I do not mean just the Titanic community. Likewise, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Kramer was not the Allison child, then this revelation will finally put to rest the seventy-five year quest by the Kramer family to find out the truth of Loraine Kramer's claim. Either way, this is information that should indeed be made a part of the Wikipedia record so that the casual web searcher will find this information readily available so that they can then read and judge for themselves.
Finally, the line directly below where I am typing this line reads "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The second section of this line gives lie to the quote from Bad Gopher Gear in which he/she states that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" as reason for the deletion of the 2012 information in the Allison page. Clearly, he/she and everyone else needs to clearly examine what this really means. Right now, I don't have any idea of what Bad Gopher Gear is saying, and I don't think that he/she has any idea, either.
I deal in facts. What do you say? Tjtrower ( talk) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE note that the web address listed in this 2012 section goes not to any page dealing with the Smithsonian but rather to the web site set up by Debrina Woods to publicize this new information. http://www.titanicslastmystery.com/
Sheesh. Again, people, I deal in facts, not in suppositions. Did anyone reading this page actually follow the link as posted as a reference? Tjtrower ( talk) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I dunno how long some of you have been "editors" but I've been a user and editor since the mid 2000s (I think 2007) and am a) not a Johnny come lately and b) am someone who deals in facts, not suppositions and the vagaries of those who know nothing of the subject of which they write. That is why I have limited those areas I've contributed to to those of which I have actual knowledge of -- not using a scattershot approach that leaves me, and my contributions, open to scorn. Wikipedia is created by and edited by its users. As an editor and user, I am doing so. That so-called made-up rules that cater to the informed and lazy are present simply means that those rules, wrong as they are, should be changed.
Tjtrower (
talk) 12:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I shall pose a question to all of you reading this discussion. As a source for the Titanic, do you consider the use of the book "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison to be what you term as a secondary source? I seriously ask this question without prejudice -- and I'd love to see your answers. Tjtrower ( talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band
Deftones, the source says:
I have to point that a source from the
post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor
[16] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.
[17]
What does the people at RS/N think?
Thrash Hits homepage: [18]
- Trascendence ( talk) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that thrash hits can be reliable because, it was founded by Raziq Rauf, he have wrote for the Guardian [19] he seems to be a very competent writer, he also wrote the site's about page: [20] Trascendence ( talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
He is the chief editor, of course that he vets every article. that's his work. Trascendence ( talk) 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Its self published, and therefore should be avoided for sourcing any controversial topics, including genre classification. — GabeMc ( talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Charles Nicoletti (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Chauncey Marvin Holt (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
James Files (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
In Charles Nicoletti, I found the following statement:
It has also been alleged by a number of sources that Nicoletti was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. [21]
The unformatted citation links to the website of Wim Dankbaar. A Google search indicates that Dankbaar appears to be relatively notable within the "conspiracy community" (i.e. he is referenced in what appear to be various self-published works) and his views have been incorporated into a few Wikipedia articles, especially James Files and Chauncey Holt. His book is published by TrineDay. (Trine Day has been discussed in RSN previously here.) His website covers much of the same material, but appears to be self-published and very heavily into promoting his book. Although he is a reliable source for his opinions, do those opinions have to be mentioned in other reliable sources in order to be included in Wikipedia article? Or does his notability need to be determined elsewhere to find out if his views can be included per WP:RSOPINION? Thanks! Location ( talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is a bit of a train wreck (eg should we really be doing our own timeline?). At the moment I just concerned with this link being used as a source for a transcript [23]. Over at [24] it has already been said that a website that has been able to download directly from official sources isn't a reliable source as it is self-published, so is this about.com site a reliable source? Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
← Shooting of Trayvon Martin is a Superfund site of an article. It requires a federal case to address even the most blatant and unequivocal violations of this site's content policies. It's a function of the editor pool active on the article; over time it has become increasingly dominated by editors with strong personal viewpoints on the incident, most of whom edit little or nothing else on this project besides the shooting article. Meanwhile, most of the more experienced editors and those with less personal investment in the incident have given up and fled the article. It's like bizarro Wikipedia at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and spending too long there will make you question your own sanity.
Eight case studies of sourcing insanity. For the nutshell version, see [25] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Occasionally, of course, the mask drops and it's evident that we're simply dealing with agenda-driven editing. But mostly it's too much of a slog; if it takes multiple trips to WP:RS/N to address even the most basic content-policy violations (after which the article's editors refuse to listen to outside input and keep reverting anyway), then there's really no way a sane person can justify investing time in fixing the article's more substantial problems. MastCell Talk 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Muhammad Iqbal, contain some doubtful sources, I am listing few of those please advice if these are Unreliable sources to claim in the article.
there are some more to be listed, :) Regards.-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 08:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the Legacy section of the Kid Icarus page regarding a fan game called Super Kid Icarus. The sources I used to establish notability were from Joystiq [2], Siliconera [3] and Screwattack [4]. There is a debate around if these sources are valid for establishing notability of the fan game and I have been accused of being biased for having only edited related to Super Kid Icarus on Wikipedia. As such, I wanted to reach out and get some external opinions from the sourcing gurus. Thanks in advance. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The paragraph in question, that the sources are supporting and which has been suggested to be removed is currently contained in the article at the very bottom of the Legacy section and begins with "In May 2011..." You will also notice a heated debate currently taking place on the Talk page for the Kid Icarus article under the "Unauthorized Kid Icarus Game" heading. Basically, the past 17 edits on the Kid Icarus page have been related to this matter. I am not all that familiar with the list your referring to, would it maybe be possible to include a link and I can have a look? When determining notability, I considered that there is a lower standard for including a paragraph in an existing article and I also looked at other fan games and video game websites to see what they were using and, Joystiq for example, has been used to establish notability by itself with no other sources in some instances. Please let me know if I can clarify more. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. Could you help me understand how sources from Joystiq, Boing Boing, Slashdot, and Attack of the Show are sufficient to establish enough notability for an entire article for VGMaps. Further, there was a discussion regarding illegality and copyright concerns regarding VGMaps on the VGMaps talk page as well and the editors were instructed that "If you add anything about copyrights in it needs to be specific about this site and it can not be your personal interpretation of anything. This is not the place to discus copyrights in general there is an article about that. This is not the place to offer your personal interpretation about whether they are in compliance or not." Finally, on the VGMaps page, could you help me understand why an article written by the site owner was a "RS" in regards to establishing the site launch date, but is disallowed for Super Kid Icarus. Note: I am not the creator of Super Kid Icarus or the website, if that is relevant in any way.
High level, I am curious if there are hard and fast rules regarding any of this or does it simply come down to whoever vocalizes their opinion the strongest and the number of people that care one way or the other on a given topic. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My original question didn't have anything to do with VGMaps so I agree there, but don't think it matters at all. I also apologize you had trouble understanding what I meant, I will type more clearly. I was comparing how similar sources were deemed as acceptable to establish notability for an entire article in one instance, and not another. In my opinion it is completely relevant to a discussion on the validity of sources. Isn't it a common step to compare what has been used to establish notability of other video game related articles? However, if you don't wish to address my questions in this section, and prefer I create a separate section then I will do that but it feels like red tape. Finally, how is people fighting imaginary enemies relevant in any way to this discussion regarding sources? That is what tilting at windmills means right? Or at least as written by Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, that vaguely addressed some of what I was asking, I mean you are saying the web site owners own article is ok to use on the VGMaps article to establish the launch date of VGMaps, but a page from Super Kid Icarus cannot be used to establish the release date of Super Kid Icarus and "should be ripped out immediately as not RS." I was simply asking because a complete understanding of the differences would help make me a better editor. However, as a resolution to this particular section/discussion, I will remove the paragraph about the fan game from the Kid Icarus article because it appears it is the opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines from four Wikipedia editors that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability for its inclusion in Wikipedia and I will respect that. Though I am adamant that most Wikipedia editors edit articles because they have an interest in the subject and not because they are neutral parties editing an article they don't care about and that this leads to varying interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines which are not hard and fast rules. For example, I am interested in Super Kid Icarus and that is why my edits relate to it. Take care. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thestopbutton.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I noticed an anonymous IP sytematically adding film review blurbs from thestopbutton.com to many articles about films. The pattern of edits gave the appearance of someone trying to build traffic to the site via refspam. After a quick search for news references to either the site or its author Andrew Wickliffe and finding no signficant coverage in reliable sources, I determined that this film critic is not notable, although he seems good at self-promotion. Therefore, I blocked the IP user and proceeded to remove all those references to thestopbutton.com.
Due to the pattern of spamming I was considering adding the site to the blacklist as well, until I noticed that a few articles have had these references restored by User:Bzuk with the rationale: this review is listed in the Turner Classic Movies website which is a moderator-controlled website.
I don't see this as a valid rationale for including a review by a non-notable critic. An example of being "listed" is here. It's simply a link. That doesn't constitute significant coverage, and doesn't confer notability, and doesn't really meet the WP:BURDEN for supporting the inclusion of thestopbutton.com as a reference in Wikipedia film articles. I'd like to see the community's thoughts. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Wickliffe is the author of 250 250 Word Film Responses: Volume One available in a Kindle version. AFAIK, the Wickliffe reviews are also never the sole review listed by TCM, but complement other reviews. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
Bzuk, aside from the sub-plot going on directly above, the fact that reviews for older movies is hard to find, unfortunately, does not mean the standards change, it just means it's more work for you to find sources that do meet the requirements. I can find no indication from Andrew Wickliffe's wordpress/blog site (thestopbutton.com) that he is any kind of expert in this area, I can find no corroboration anywhere else either. I do not find this source to be RS. Sorry, I understand the difficulty you're dealing with, really I do (but unfortunately the policy doesn't change because it's tougher to find any in this instance). -- Despayre tête-à-tête 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
As indicated before, the reviews are accepted by Turner Classic Movies, a moderated and RS website, which does indicate an acceptance of the value of the reviews, which is what I believe The Bushranger is stating. The original contention of the challenge was that postings of Wickliffe's reviews were amounting to blogspam, even though the submissions were, in some cases, ones that I had added in trying to expand some movie articles that had very few reference sources listed. The Wickliffe reviews are not cited for information on background or other aspects of the production, but as examples of later-day reviews of the film. Although the above posts are decrying the use of the reviews, they have risen to a level above a "fan site" and are the basis of an anthology. I have yet to find any of the Wickliffe reviews to be anything but well-considered, researched and written out in a suitable way. The search, however, continues to find some verification for Wickliffe's status. FWiW, Andrew Wickliffe is currently listed as a member of the 2012 Grand Jury adjudicating the Beneath the Earth Film Festival; he is also listed by IMDb as a reviewer, is listed as the #1 contributor to Four Word Film Reviews, but again as a product of a digital world, his resume and portfolio is just emerging. Bzuk ( talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need an opinion about the use of this website as a multiple reference (at least 14) for New Forest pony. This article has been nominated as a featured article candidate. I have some doubts as to the validity of this website as a Wikipedia reference. I brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Forest pony/archive1 and one of the supporters of the articles nomination made this comment,
("that is the website for the breed registry, which is obviously a recognized expert on the breed (not to mention this is not exactly contentious information). This is not some backyard breeder's blog, it is the website for the government-recognized organization in charge of the breed that has been in place since, I think, 1905. Breed registries have been found to be a reliable source in many previous FACs and GANs - I can point you to specific links if you want, but there are a lot of them. Dana boomer")
This is an example of the information that is being used as a references in the article, [ History of the New Forest Pony], there is an authors name and date at the bottom of the article but no footnotes and no mention were how this particular author obtained the information used in the article.
Here are two examples were this web site is being used as a history reference.
Ponies have grazed in the area of the New Forest for many thousands of years, dating back to before the last Ice Age.
As part of ongoing efforts to improve the hardiness of the breed and return it to a more native type in the 20th century, animals of other breeds (notably Welsh, Hackney, Fell, Dales, Highlands, Dartmoors, and Exmoors) were introduced to the Forest, but since 1930 only pure-bred New Forest stallions may be turned out.
The website is used as a reference on its self about the history and work of the website as in this example, which may be a justifiable reference but I feel that this website should not be use a reference for other types of information.
The Society for the improvement of New Forest Ponies was founded in 1891; they organised a stallion show and offered financial incentives to the owners of good stallions to run them on the Forest.
According to my understanding of WP:SPS this is a self published web site for the registering of a certain breed of horse and as far as I can see there is no personal information listed on who owns and runs the web site or their professional qualifications . Can someone take a look as I could be wrong about this particular situation but this website is quite similar to other so called professional web sites that were not recognized as being valid Wikipedia references, thanks for any help in this matter. Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked above, why is the discussion being carried on here and not on the article talk page. The answer is: so that you can get input from editors interested in sourcing issues. To get maximum input you need to phrase your questions carefully and then sit back and let the board regulars respond. We are used to answering questions about whether books are self-published or from normal publishers. Despayre has already worked out that Dionis Macnair is a published writer on the topic, and I can confirm that her book was with a minor natural history publisher and not self-published. I have already commented on the "ice age" question. Unless you get comments from other regulars, which would be welcome, the consensus is that this website is generally RS for the topic. It may be overused in the context of FA candidacy, though. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
@Samurai, it is not up to the readers of Wikipedia to be entrusted with "knowing the validity" of a website used as a source (however, for the ambitious readers, all sources *are* listed), it's up to the editors here. That's been done in this case, Chedzilla is correct (although I will say it wasn't quite *that* obvious for this particular website). If you have other questions about other content and it's sources, please don't hesitate to bring them here. But in the meantime, please take this quarrel elsewhere as it is off-topic for this board. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that those in doubt about the presence of prehistoric horse in this area actually read the rest of the section, and also read History of the horse in Britain, and take note of the fact that the presence of Ice-Age-and-before equids in southern England has multiple and extremely reliable achaeological sources. Please also be aware that the area of the New Forest was not under an ice sheet during the last Ice Age - the ice sheet didn't come down that far.Though the official Breed Registry site (and the NFPB&CS is a registered charity in the UK) states "since the last Ice Age", it is readily apparent to anyone who actually reads the sources on the archaeological records (and has no axe to grind and a smidge of nouse) that there can be no question that, for example, horse bones dating to 500,000 BC have been found in the immediate area. FYI, User:Samuraiantiqueworld and I have crossed paths before, and he/she is one of only two editors in my more-than-17,000 edits whom I have had to ask not to post on my talk, as a result of battleground behaviour. (The other one has been reprieved).
Editors who know me will know that I am notorious(?) for taking WP:AGF to extremes, rather than otherwise, but in this instance I simply cannot do so. Pesky ( talk) 09:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm just going to paste this bit in, straight from the article. I'm not feeling very charitable towards Samurai, and I'd hope it's clear to everyone here, once they've read this bit, that this issue has been predominantly a point-scoring exercise. It takes a vast amount to make me angry, but this has done so. What a waste of a lot of people's resources.
"Spear damage on a horse shoulder bone discovered at Eartham Pit, Boxgrove (only about 50 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest), dated 500,000 BC, demonstrates that early humans were hunting horses in the area at that time, [1] and the remains of a large Ice Age hunting camp have been found close to Ringwood (on the western border of the modern New Forest). [2] Evidence from the skeletal remains of ponies from the Bronze Age suggests that they were similar to the modern Exmoor pony. [3] Horse bones excavated from Iron Age ritual burial [4] sites at Danebury (about 25 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest) indicate that the animals were about 12.2 hands (50 inches, 127 cm) – the same size as the smaller New Forest ponies of today." [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
I started a wiki for my old boss Rick Hendrix. I have attempted to maintain it even after I left the company. We have been in an out of many edits, vandalism's and folks that have discredited him and myself. I am only writing it and feel horrible it keeps getting hit with not being reliable. When Mr Hendrix received these awards the Internet was just getting hot. The newspapers that carried the articles archives only go back to 97. These clippings I have go back to 1994 when the award or honor was given. I have copies of the awards and copies of the clippings. What can I do to get these items added back to this wiki page? Please advise, I am exhausted with it.
68.84.91.197 ( talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Dale
Is Weather2travel.com reliable? It is used in this edit that adds a weatherbox to Munnar but I cannot spot where the source is obtaining its information (and rather suspect that we should be using whatever that may be). - Sitush ( talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In general, I am wondering whether or not the website of the The Officer Down Memorial Page is considered a reliable source. It appears as though readers can submit additional information, however, there also seems to be some sort of editorial review process before updates are made. For a specific example, I am wondering if this page is a reliable source for San Francisco 8. The information appears to be presented neutrally and jibe with what I have seen in newspaper reports Thanks! Location ( talk) 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to use this interview with Cory Edwards- http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html - as a reference for the Hoodwinked! article, and maybe include a quote by Edwards from the interview as well. I know that blogs are not generally accepted as reliable references, unless maintained by a professional journalist, and I do not believe that that is the case here, even though the blog is full of interviews with famous people. However, I can verify the authenticity of the interview since it is mentioned on Cory Edwards official website; see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95
Would this be an acceptable reference?-- Jpcase ( talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this video ( link here, at the 2:40 mark of the second video) a reliable source for the claim that Prem Rawat has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? -- Maelefique (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your opinions/comments. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Source: * [28]
Would this be labeled as a reliable source? The source is used in alot of the Lupin III articles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Luis A. Cruz self-publishes lupinencyclopedia. There is no editorial control. Despite a single paragraph in a low grade US otaku magazine suggesting that readers look at the website, there is no recognition in a community of expertise of Cruz as an expert. SPS, no editorial control, no expert exemption: unreliable. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Expertise, in relation to anime, means something well along the way to why Hiroki Azuma would have an expert exemption; or why Scott McCloud would have an expert exemption; or why Katherine Dacey would have an expert exemption. I'm not seeing this with Cruz. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Mania.com is an industry website written by a team with editorial oversite, see the Web site's About Us section. Mania.com is regularly used as a source in many anime, manga, and comic articles on Wikipedia -- AutoGyro ( talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Reed Nelson runs LupinTheThird.com. He provides audio commentaries, expert notes, and checks English subtitles for Diskotech Media's Lupin the 3rd Releases (see here, hereand here). Note that LupinTheThird.com used to be LupinTheThird.net ([see here). He would be used a source for all Lupin III articles. Thanks for your help as we work to improve Lupin III content on Wikipedia :) -- AutoGyro ( talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find anything on the website that indicates the level of involvement or control that Luis Cruz has. That's a problem for RS-ness, I don't find that Cruz's work has risen to a level for an expert exemption. My opinion on Reed Nelson stays the same, he *may* be RS for this topic, he does have a certain expertise here, reviews of his DVD work seem quite favorable. But his small "check out LE.com" comment on his website doesn't rise to the level of "endorsement" for me, in terms of RS-ness. Is there somewhere else that he specifically endorses it, or Cruz? You can always use an inline attribution for non-contentious facts as well, such as "According to lupinencyclopedia.com, blah blah blah", or Luis Cruz of le.com said that "blah blah blah". If it's not contentious, and the view of the editors there is that its "good enough" as a source, there shouldn't be a problem with that. But if there is disagreement about using it, I would still say, take it out. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've recently produced three new drafts of articles on financial topics, each of which used an article from the website Lexology.com as one of their sources. Since the articles were written on behalf of a client, I submitted them for review by volunteer editors at WikiProject Cooperation, where a discussion has begun about whether Lexology is a reliable source or not. I've seen the source used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it was suggested to me that I should come here to see if editors can provide clarification on whether it can be used or not.
To provide some more context, I've highlighted below the facts that I have used the Lexology article to support.
Draft for Commodity trading advisor:
Draft for Commodity Pool Operator:
Draft for Managed futures account:
References
I'd appreciate the input of editors here as to whether this is an appropriate source to use, particularly to support the above facts. Due to these changes being very recent, the majority of other sources I've found are similar to Lexology, in that they publish articles prepared by law firms. From what I've seen, all provide essentially the same commentary regarding CFTC rule changes that would increase the number of funds defined as commodity pools. Is there a particular legal source that is best to use for this sort of information?
If none of these are suitable, I've found an article in the Wall Street Journal and one from Hedgeweek that explain this, but not as clearly as the Lexology source. I'm interested to get an independent opinion about the best course of action here. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
According to their web page, http://anna-news.info/about, "The Agency has officially registered as mass media in the Republic of Abkhazia, 18 July 2011." The web site is in Russian only, so the above went through Google Translate. Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA) has published an article including a video documenting eyewitness accounts of the 2012 Houla massacre that took place on May 25. Here's there article with the Google Translate link:
I basically wonder if ANNA and this article can be used in the Houla massacre article to attest to claims that contradict the western and mainstream media narrative of how the events went down that led to so many people being basically butchered. We've had some discussion already at Talk:2012 Houla massacre#Testimony from villagers blaming bandits, but this is a situation where input from this noticeboard will be needed.
There is in addition the ancillary issue of one news report which cites the ANNA news story, from a news outlet called Syria News, both as to whether it strengthens the RS status of the ANNA article and if it is itself an RS:
As far as I'm able to investigate this site is based in Los Angeles, CA, but that's all I can figure out. __ meco ( talk) 09:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I quote Wikipedia:RS in saying "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sopher99 ( talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not bring your talk page arguments to RSN, the editors here are quite capable of researching the problem on their own, and speaking for at least some, I don't really want to read your reasonings, I just want the facts, which I had in the first 3-4 sentences. I/we don't have a lot of interest in your views of what is or isn't ok to use. Obviously, if you both agreed, you wouldn't be here, and if someone didn't disagree in the first place, the question wouldn't be brought here. Bickering about it here only diminishes input from others. Having said that, I am examining your sources, and will have some further thoughts shortly (I only get them in short bursts [and none at all yesterday]).-- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
@D well forget about explaining policies to me, - two reliable sources are not disagreeing in this case, a reliable source is being 'disagreed with' by a propaganda source ,bleedin' obvious - anyway, when will you come to a decision? is it reliable? where are the judges? are you on your own? Sayerslle ( talk) 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
While understanding the policies makes the answers here easier to understand (truth can be irrelevant according to WP:V), it's not necessary to ask questions here. I've given my answer to the question brought here already (up top). I do not see the site as a "propoganda site", although I'm sure they have some kind of agenda, especially in the "analysis" articles. But that doesn't make them blanket non-RS. You may not quite follow how RSN works either, you'll be happy to know I don't make any "judegments". I have presented my opinion here, as someone who has looked at a lot of source issues. Often there are several regular editors here who will leave an opinion, but almost never when other involved editors come over and attack the question and create a wall of text for them to read first. As I said, I will send out a couple of msgs to see if anyone else will comment on their opinions either way. *IF* there's a consensus here (which I said waaaay up at the top there might not be, because this one is a little close to the line), you can take that back to the article and say it appears to be RS. That doesn't mean you can't keep it out because of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTABLE, or even WP:FRINGE if you think they apply. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
(I am an RS/N editor, whose opinion was solicited to help clarify the discussion). The article Ольга Драфт [Olga Draft] (2012-05-25) "Сирия новости: рассказывают жители Таль - Дау и Аль- Хула" ANNA is not reliable. It is attempting to rely upon the "eye witness claims" of the interviewees, and not the considered journalism. We do not accept random individual's claims, and attempting to construct an article from eye witness interviews is an attempt to turn an encyclopaedia into a newspaper. We would want to rely on the journalistic opinion, subject to editorial review, of Драфт—but Драфт's statements aren't the subject of the reliability issue: random villager's interviews are, and they're primary sources with no reliability. Meanwhile, even if Драфт did draw a journalistic conclusion, there's no indication that Драфт's article received editorial scrutiny per the About page for ANNA. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Meco appears to have concerns regarding the reliability of other sources, but has not specified the source, or claims being made based on the source. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC) If Meco could specify these sources here, preferably one section per source, or initiate entirely new RS/N discussions on those sources it would be appreciated. Discussion two sources in one section doesn't work on RS/N due to the wiki discussion format. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with the website thedigitalfix.com? The site's music page is being used in the Naked Lunch film article to source the claim that samples from the film were used in the Bomb The Bass single " Bug Powder Dust". The review does source the claim, but I cannot determine whether this site is reliable. I can find no list of authors, editors, or an editorial policy. I would like to hear some other opinions on this, please. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this self-published writer a reliable source? His website, jefflindsay.com, is used in a number of articles. Most of these are to do with Mormonism, but I've also found Hmong American where he is used although when you check the article on his website it's just his self-published opinion.
More typical examples are at Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Here he's used 3 times. The first time he is attributed, but not the next two times. The 2nd time he is used, rather bizarrely, for the statement "However, critics dispute the existence of figs in the pre-Columbian Americas". THe source, [36] does mention critics but with no names, and I say bizarrely because you would expect a source for this to link to critics, but of course his web page is a criticism of the critics. The next link backs a statement about apologists beliefs, although Lindsay, who is an apologist (singular), doesn't mention any other apologists. And his article says "Richard Abanes, a writer critical of Mormonism, refers to Lindsay's work as "numerous self-published articles, not scholarly, extremely biased, articles often based on misinformation". Some LDS people also disagree with some of Lindsay's viewpoints. Lindsay has no formal education in molecular biology, Mormon history, or several of the other topics he explores on his website." Which raises not just the question of whether he is a reliable source but also if he can be used to represent Mormonism in general.
At Archaeology and the Book of Mormon he is used as a source for a letter from the Smithsonian and at a section on cattle he becomes a 'they' again ( [37] is the url cited). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Dougweller ( talk) 17:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is some debate about whether http://twitaholic.com/ and/or http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 count as reliable sources for articles like Justin Bieber on Twitter, Barack Obama on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The are desired for citation of current follower, followee and tweet counts. In addition, pages like http://twitaholic.com/justinbieber/ are desired as sources for Twitter account launch dates. Are these websites reliable sources for these types of information?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I am having trouble identifying whether [38] is a reliable source. The site is currently used in List of Formula One polesitters, and is a very useful, as it provides a plethora of statistical information, which appears to be unavailable elsewhere on the web. Currently, the aforementioned list is at FLC, and a few reviewers have concern over its reliability. I was unaware of this page before a reviewer mentioned, so i've come here to see what other editors think of the site, cheers. NapHit ( talk) 09:37, 2 June 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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
Harvey Levin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Albert14nx05y insists on adding the following sentence to the article: "During the Vietnam-era, Levin served as a sergeant in the Air National Guard in Reseda, CA." His reference in support is here. He's acknowledged in a rather difficult discussion on the Talk page that there is no support for the Reseda part. However, he bases the Vietname-era/sargeant part on the uniform Levin is wearing in the image. I'm not sure if the uniform even supports his interpretation of it, but I pointed out that the image is a primary source that requires interpretation of what it means and is therefore not a reliabl source for the assertion. What is needed is a secondary source saying that Levin was a sergeant and served during Vietnam. That has fallen on deaf ears and has provoked a threat to delete images from Wikipedia.
Putting aside the threat for the moment, comments on the sourcing?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Under the photo, the caption says Levin served in the air national guard. The source is TMZ. Is that considered reliable? I would say without the caption, the picture is not sufficient for the factual assertion. How do we know he wasn't in a play or borrowed someone else's uniform? But the caption does say he served. I am just not sure if TMZ is recognized as reliable. Coaster92 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
In any event, I think that this policy statement here applies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot and this one, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22
Albert14nx05y (
talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think drawing conclusions from photos is OR. Especially if we aren't certain of the circumstances which these photos were taken under. If we can't find something that mentions his rank or his service, so be it. Something might come along later. I think it's better to have a little discipline and leave out unessential factoids gained from iffy sources that could be false. In the end, all the photo proves is that someone took a picture of him in a uniform. I agree with Bbb23.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
A note to all who want to toss their two cents in here and claim to be "experts": A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/
Oh, and speaking of stupid study topics, the GAO has started a new one" Gov’t Issues Study of Study of Studies http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-kidding-govt-issues-study-of-study-of-studies/ -- Albert14nx05y ( talk)
Hiding as this noticeboard is for discussing reliable sources for citations, not editor profiles. Dmcq ( talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Images may be used as illustrations without citation. If they introduce new material then they need to be reliable sources of that. They need to be from a reliable source and be produced to show the fact or have the fact pointed out by the reliable source. Here the only real question is whether TMZ is a reliable source or not for this, and if they are okay then they should be cited for it. Dmcq ( talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
If TMZ is considered reliable, at least the information in the caption under the photo could be used, ie, that he served in the air national guard, nothing about his rank or where he was stationed, but at least that much. I have been searching for another source about his rank and location but could not find anything. One comment said Harvey made a statement about his service on air on 3/8/11 but I could not find the video. Coaster92 ( talk) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The source say that Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard. It doesn't say anythinge about where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era. Why not just say, "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard." and be done with it? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) To respond to everyone's latest points. Coaster, I agree that the prose under the three pictures can be used. The problem is that if the only thing we say in the article is "Levin served in the Air Guard", it's almost meaningless. It has no context, no time frame, nothing. Thus, if say only what we can say "reliably" we don't have enough material to use. Blueboard, we are not putting the picture in the article, so your point isn't relevant in this case. Dmcq, as to what we can interpret from the picture, that's a judgment call. The more "obvious", as you say, the easier it is to justify. I don't know how obvious rank is from a uniform, but let's assume it is. Did you look at the picture? Can you say he's a sergeant? There's no insignia on his uniform I can see. The only thing that might indicate something is the hat he's wearing, and I can't see it well enough, nor do I know what it means. Do you? Finally, with respect to Blueboar's other point that anyone can dress up as they please, I don't think that's fair. If we accept TMZ as a reliable source (as everyone keeps repeating), then we have to assume that they vet text AND pictures, not just text and that they aren't using a picture that misrepresents a fact.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If one wanted to be a stickler about interpreting the picture, one could only deduce that someone was photographed wearing a particular style of US Army uniform at some undetermined point. There's no provenance, no date, and no assurance that it's even him. To the degree that one can deduce rank from the uniform, the person might have been a buck private, but there's no indication of any higher rank; there's no indication of a particular unit. There's no firm indication that it was worn in an official capacity. About the best one can get out of the website is the page's assurance that Levin served in the army, and since it's his website saying that, it's not exactly a great source. Mangoe ( talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that the picture cannot be used as a reliable source. I will remove the material and the source from the article. Thanks for everyone's comments.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Lonsdorf ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article [1] states that the subject appeared on several talk shows, on National Public Radio, Voice of America, TV-MD (PBS), the Geraldo Rivera show, CNN and The Donahue Show. The sources used as references are the subject’s professional page on Ayurvedic.net [2] which appears to be her own website, and a second Ayurvedic health website [3]. Both confirm the talk show appearances. Alternate verification does not appear to be readily available. Is this sufficiently reliable for the sort of information reported? Thank you.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Is fallingrain.com (in general) considered a reliable source for geographical and statistic information?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's vague and why you asking for diff-link. The question states explicitly in general. I'm asking for a general assessment of that source for geographical and statistic information. To be a bit more specific here, things like: Is its population information reliable? Is its geographical information reliable (coordinates, altitude, classification/type)? Does anybody know where they actually get their data from?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I can find no source for their data, and therefore can't say it's RS. Is there something else I should be looking at to assess them? At the very least, it seems their data is 2 years out of date. There is also no other site listed for "Falling Rain Genomics" that might shed some more detail on this. There does seem to be a lot of information there, but I don't see how it falls under WP's definition of reliable. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this web site [ http://www.limebrook.com] is being used as a reference for information in the saddle article, the web site is maintained by a private horse stable as far as I can tell, I just want a third party opinion as to the validity of using information from this site as I believe it does not qualify as a valid reference for Wikipedia artiucles, thanks. Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The question is a simple one. Are anti-fluoridation groups reliable sources for material in the wikipedia tone? It is being used as a source in a BLP article here John_F._Ashton#Views. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This source [4] from a questionable fringe group [5] is being used to give due weight to the paragraph. 1. Is it a reliable source for this purpose, does it give due weight? Particularly relevant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Charles Birch). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminium, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome.
a user keeps reverting reliable sources that indicate the capital of the sultanate was first "Dakar" and instead includes zeila which was not the capital during the sultanate..source used [6] Adal Sultanate.
Adal. Its capital was first Dakar, and then in 1520 moved to Harar.
. Baboon43 ( talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Rob Bowman (filmmaker) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As stated and verified by www.imdb.com, it needs to be included in Mr. Bowman's entry that he and his wife, Dusty welcomed their first son Jack in 2006. You may contact me personally to verify this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustybowman ( talk • contribs)
Is this site an RS for claims about people being cheerleaders in college? [9] looks from here to be "cheap features to fill in Yahoo! Sports". [10] makes clear that the site's main function is providing discussion about player recruitment - unsigned features do not appear to have "fact checking" etc. AFAICT. The site is aimed at people seeing that young Johnny from Oak High School is being watched by scouts. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
From his autobiography:
Although my grades were higher than average, my principal academic ambition at Eureka was to maintain the C average I needed to remain eliglible for football, swimming, track, and the other school activities I participated in-two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, two years as yearbook features editor, and during my last year, student body president and captain and coach of the swim team.
-- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm working to assist an editor on finding sources for an article that hasn't been created yet. One I found was this article from Business Insider. The source seems legitimate but it is so negative it is hard to believe in its legitimacy. Still, in the interests of NPOV I thought I would ask here and if it is reliable, then I'll find a way to incorporate it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The question: Is the Pew Research Center a reliable source for describing media reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin? The specific source in question is here. I believe that the Pew Center is reliable for this indication; it's generally respected and bipartisan (it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State in a Democratic Administration, and John Danforth, a former Republican U.S. Senator), and specializes in looking at this sort of issue.
The discussion to date: See the bottom of this thread at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. At least one editor has objected to using Pew, calling them "determinedly ignorant" and accusing me of "insist[ing] that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a 'reliable source' for it." ( [13]) I would appreciate outside opinions on the reliability of the Pew Research Center for this material.
A request: More involvement on Shooting of Trayvon Martin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by editors familiar with this site's sourcing guidelines would be incredibly helpful. In my view, the article and talkpage are dominated by editors with a clear idea of the material they want in the article, but a very poor understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. Even removing patently unsuitable personal blogs requires a federal case. In lieu of opening a new thread here for every issue, more eyes on the article/talkpage would be useful. I don't care whether you agree with me or not; as long as you have some basic grasp of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, please contribute. MastCell Talk 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Are video game manuals considered to be reliable sources? They appear to be first party sources but are only are likely, and not certainly, objective. I'm not sure why they would lie about facts in the game (or be less accurate), I thought it better to ask. Sazea ( talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Background: I am mediating on a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion. Also see Wiley protocol and T. S. Wiley.
In the discussion, there was a question about the following:
http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?bypassSSO=1
The theory of modulated hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women by Teresa S. Wiley (Wiley Systems, Santa Fe, New Mexico) and Jason T. Haraldsen (Los Alamos National Laboratory).
http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?view=fulltext&bypassSSO=1
AIP Advances, ( American Institute of Physics)
First, is this considered a peer reviewed scientific paper that is suitable for use as a citation on the
Wiley protocol page? If so is it possible to see the peer reviews?
Second, I am concerned about the statements "it is our goal to present an alternate theory to the standard of care for treatment of midlife and onward breast cancers" and "the standard of care for the treatment of breast cancers may be inherently flawed" in the paper, Sounds a bit fringy to me...
Third, is it just me, or does it seem weird reading about hormone replacement therapy in a physics journal instead of a medical journal?
Fourth (unrelated to whether this is a RS) did my tax money pay for this? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm at a loss what to do about Valhall (band). It has not apparent references, and the issue is whether is satisfies WP:BAND or should be deleted. I had originally prod'ed it, but the prod was removed and the notability issue was addressed by simply adding record label names to the three albums that this group has released. I wonder if that is sufficient in itself. Identifying the label on which an album is released would address the criterion of the notability guideline for musical groups which reads in part "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Should there be a demand for more formal referencing. If so, how should that be presented? __ meco ( talk) 07:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Squeeze (The X-Files), currently at FAC, makes use of this and this, from the website Den of Geek. One is a review of the episode the article is about, the other is an article about characters which mentions the episode's villain. The articles are used to source the following piece of text:
Writing for Den of Geek, John Moore listed Eugene Tooms as one of his "Top 10 X-Files Baddies", noting that the popularity of both "Squeeze" and "Tooms" "was largely responsible for shifting the emphasis of the show away from concentrating on alien-related conspiracies and onto the 'myths and monsters' format ... ", while fellow columnist Matt Haigh wrote that the character was "a skin-crawlingly brilliant villain; the sight of his yellow eyes glowing in the shadows is truly spine-tingling ... ".
The question is whether the site is considered reliable enough for its reviews and opinion pieces to be used in an article. I believe so, as the site is operated by Dennis Publishing (operators of Fortean Times, Bizarre and Maxim, etc), and has listed (albeit in a joking manner) its editorial staff on the site. The contact address for the website is at Dennis Publishing's editorial offices which to me shows a dedicated editorial practice is at work; this isn't a personal blog or small operation. However, the content which the sources are being used to support isn't crucial to the article and it could be removed without any real bother if the consensus is that the site isn't reliably edited or overseen. Additional comments would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Noida double murder case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Many Indian media sources use unattributed and poorly attributed sources, not to forget plain plagiarism of their competitors. Probably that is the way of the world, and I tend often to overlook it for that reason. I'll accept [The Hindnu]] and (sometimes) [The Times of India]], but really would prefer that all the rest that I have come across were binned. However, Redif and DNA India have always struck me as being particularly problematic. This one, from DNA, might bear closer investigation and I would welcome opinions regarding reliability and WP:MIRROR. Compare the DNA article here, published on 14 May, with our article at 11 May, and in particular our article section "CBI Investigation". Can we really trust a major news source that appears quite blatantly to have copied our content? Or am I misreading things due to it being darn near 0100 here? The article in question is Noida double murder case, but the principle extends well beyond this and so I am going to drop a note at WT:INB about this query. - Sitush ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
“ | In addition, the police allowed doctors, not specifically trained in forensic pathology, to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi. While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints (of both murderers and victims) from the skin of the victims.[8] the doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists to lift fingerprints from the cadavers. | ” |
“ | In addition, police allowed doctors not specifically trained in forensic pathology to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi, he said.
While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints from the skin of victims, doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists for the job, the sources said. |
” |
Is this a reliable source to use in the Sweet 7 article? I have seen Drowned in Sound used in other articles, however the actual review appears to have been written by a user. [14] Till I Go Home ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In the article Cold fusion section "Subsequent research/Ongoing" I want to add "The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at NASA Langley Research Center".
This is a direct quote from: this article by Dennis Bushnell. It is further verified by this NASA video.
Both sources are WP:ABOUTSELF. Nasa tells about their own work in their self published media.
So I think this is all perfectly reliably sourced.
I would really appreciate some comments.
Thank you. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor, User:Tjtrower, insists on re-adding (now five times in a few days) a large section of material that is supposedly sourced to some private papers. This seems to be the importation of some dispute among Titanic history buffs, and he claims to be an expert Titanic historian. No amount of pointing him to WP:RS and WP:V seems to work. I'm sort of worn out arguing over it and am losing interest, so some other eyes on it might be worthwhile. Bad Gopher Gear ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
My name is Timothy Trower, Wikipedia user ID Tjtrower; when an editor writes this, and I quote, "for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are generally not acceptable" then I, and the rest of the world of academia, laugh and give Bronx cheers to Bad Gopher Gear, the unfortunate author of this quote. Is anyone actually serious that original research is bad? If you are, I sincerely pity you whilst simultaneously viewing you with the disgust I generally reserve for dog droppings tracked across a clean, white carpet.
When I research and write, be it a murder that occurred in Springfield, Missouri, in 1956, a ship named the Oceanic (III) of 1928, or the death of Barbara West, Titanic survivor, I'd better damn well get my facts straight, and that means interviewing eyewitnesses, relatives, finding and viewing original source documents, tracking down original photographs (it's a shame what people do with Photoshop these days), and then writing it in a well organized, well written and cognizant manner, heavily footnoted to reflect where each piece and bit of information came from, and finally, publishing it in a reputable journal, book, magazine, newspaper or web site.
The point that I am making, and that Bad Gopher Gear is feebly attempting to counter, is that the source documents in the Allison question exist. What I now charge is that Bad Gopher Gear has a hidden and personal agenda and is repeatedly vandalizing the Allison Family page through his/her repeated pulling of information, written from source documents, and posted for the edification of the Wikipedia community and the web-searching public at large.
To make the claim, whether Wikipedia guidelines or a figment of the imagination, that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" is laughable. No wonder that any college class I've taken in continuing education has a not in the syllabus that Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for research. Kudos to those wise college and university professors!
The Allison family question is this: Did Loraine Allison die on board the Titanic, or, as Loraine Kramer, did she escape the sinking ship? It is a matter of public record that this topic has surfaced, has been given a great deal of attention in the Titanic community (we who find, rely on, and use extensive primary source material) and, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Allison did not die on the ship but instead died a grandmother, will literally rock the world -- and I do not mean just the Titanic community. Likewise, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Kramer was not the Allison child, then this revelation will finally put to rest the seventy-five year quest by the Kramer family to find out the truth of Loraine Kramer's claim. Either way, this is information that should indeed be made a part of the Wikipedia record so that the casual web searcher will find this information readily available so that they can then read and judge for themselves.
Finally, the line directly below where I am typing this line reads "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The second section of this line gives lie to the quote from Bad Gopher Gear in which he/she states that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" as reason for the deletion of the 2012 information in the Allison page. Clearly, he/she and everyone else needs to clearly examine what this really means. Right now, I don't have any idea of what Bad Gopher Gear is saying, and I don't think that he/she has any idea, either.
I deal in facts. What do you say? Tjtrower ( talk) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE note that the web address listed in this 2012 section goes not to any page dealing with the Smithsonian but rather to the web site set up by Debrina Woods to publicize this new information. http://www.titanicslastmystery.com/
Sheesh. Again, people, I deal in facts, not in suppositions. Did anyone reading this page actually follow the link as posted as a reference? Tjtrower ( talk) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I dunno how long some of you have been "editors" but I've been a user and editor since the mid 2000s (I think 2007) and am a) not a Johnny come lately and b) am someone who deals in facts, not suppositions and the vagaries of those who know nothing of the subject of which they write. That is why I have limited those areas I've contributed to to those of which I have actual knowledge of -- not using a scattershot approach that leaves me, and my contributions, open to scorn. Wikipedia is created by and edited by its users. As an editor and user, I am doing so. That so-called made-up rules that cater to the informed and lazy are present simply means that those rules, wrong as they are, should be changed.
Tjtrower (
talk) 12:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I shall pose a question to all of you reading this discussion. As a source for the Titanic, do you consider the use of the book "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison to be what you term as a secondary source? I seriously ask this question without prejudice -- and I'd love to see your answers. Tjtrower ( talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band
Deftones, the source says:
I have to point that a source from the
post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor
[16] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.
[17]
What does the people at RS/N think?
Thrash Hits homepage: [18]
- Trascendence ( talk) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that thrash hits can be reliable because, it was founded by Raziq Rauf, he have wrote for the Guardian [19] he seems to be a very competent writer, he also wrote the site's about page: [20] Trascendence ( talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
He is the chief editor, of course that he vets every article. that's his work. Trascendence ( talk) 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Its self published, and therefore should be avoided for sourcing any controversial topics, including genre classification. — GabeMc ( talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Charles Nicoletti (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Chauncey Marvin Holt (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
James Files (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
In Charles Nicoletti, I found the following statement:
It has also been alleged by a number of sources that Nicoletti was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. [21]
The unformatted citation links to the website of Wim Dankbaar. A Google search indicates that Dankbaar appears to be relatively notable within the "conspiracy community" (i.e. he is referenced in what appear to be various self-published works) and his views have been incorporated into a few Wikipedia articles, especially James Files and Chauncey Holt. His book is published by TrineDay. (Trine Day has been discussed in RSN previously here.) His website covers much of the same material, but appears to be self-published and very heavily into promoting his book. Although he is a reliable source for his opinions, do those opinions have to be mentioned in other reliable sources in order to be included in Wikipedia article? Or does his notability need to be determined elsewhere to find out if his views can be included per WP:RSOPINION? Thanks! Location ( talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is a bit of a train wreck (eg should we really be doing our own timeline?). At the moment I just concerned with this link being used as a source for a transcript [23]. Over at [24] it has already been said that a website that has been able to download directly from official sources isn't a reliable source as it is self-published, so is this about.com site a reliable source? Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
← Shooting of Trayvon Martin is a Superfund site of an article. It requires a federal case to address even the most blatant and unequivocal violations of this site's content policies. It's a function of the editor pool active on the article; over time it has become increasingly dominated by editors with strong personal viewpoints on the incident, most of whom edit little or nothing else on this project besides the shooting article. Meanwhile, most of the more experienced editors and those with less personal investment in the incident have given up and fled the article. It's like bizarro Wikipedia at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and spending too long there will make you question your own sanity.
Eight case studies of sourcing insanity. For the nutshell version, see [25] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Occasionally, of course, the mask drops and it's evident that we're simply dealing with agenda-driven editing. But mostly it's too much of a slog; if it takes multiple trips to WP:RS/N to address even the most basic content-policy violations (after which the article's editors refuse to listen to outside input and keep reverting anyway), then there's really no way a sane person can justify investing time in fixing the article's more substantial problems. MastCell Talk 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Muhammad Iqbal, contain some doubtful sources, I am listing few of those please advice if these are Unreliable sources to claim in the article.
there are some more to be listed, :) Regards.-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 08:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the Legacy section of the Kid Icarus page regarding a fan game called Super Kid Icarus. The sources I used to establish notability were from Joystiq [2], Siliconera [3] and Screwattack [4]. There is a debate around if these sources are valid for establishing notability of the fan game and I have been accused of being biased for having only edited related to Super Kid Icarus on Wikipedia. As such, I wanted to reach out and get some external opinions from the sourcing gurus. Thanks in advance. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The paragraph in question, that the sources are supporting and which has been suggested to be removed is currently contained in the article at the very bottom of the Legacy section and begins with "In May 2011..." You will also notice a heated debate currently taking place on the Talk page for the Kid Icarus article under the "Unauthorized Kid Icarus Game" heading. Basically, the past 17 edits on the Kid Icarus page have been related to this matter. I am not all that familiar with the list your referring to, would it maybe be possible to include a link and I can have a look? When determining notability, I considered that there is a lower standard for including a paragraph in an existing article and I also looked at other fan games and video game websites to see what they were using and, Joystiq for example, has been used to establish notability by itself with no other sources in some instances. Please let me know if I can clarify more. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. Could you help me understand how sources from Joystiq, Boing Boing, Slashdot, and Attack of the Show are sufficient to establish enough notability for an entire article for VGMaps. Further, there was a discussion regarding illegality and copyright concerns regarding VGMaps on the VGMaps talk page as well and the editors were instructed that "If you add anything about copyrights in it needs to be specific about this site and it can not be your personal interpretation of anything. This is not the place to discus copyrights in general there is an article about that. This is not the place to offer your personal interpretation about whether they are in compliance or not." Finally, on the VGMaps page, could you help me understand why an article written by the site owner was a "RS" in regards to establishing the site launch date, but is disallowed for Super Kid Icarus. Note: I am not the creator of Super Kid Icarus or the website, if that is relevant in any way.
High level, I am curious if there are hard and fast rules regarding any of this or does it simply come down to whoever vocalizes their opinion the strongest and the number of people that care one way or the other on a given topic. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My original question didn't have anything to do with VGMaps so I agree there, but don't think it matters at all. I also apologize you had trouble understanding what I meant, I will type more clearly. I was comparing how similar sources were deemed as acceptable to establish notability for an entire article in one instance, and not another. In my opinion it is completely relevant to a discussion on the validity of sources. Isn't it a common step to compare what has been used to establish notability of other video game related articles? However, if you don't wish to address my questions in this section, and prefer I create a separate section then I will do that but it feels like red tape. Finally, how is people fighting imaginary enemies relevant in any way to this discussion regarding sources? That is what tilting at windmills means right? Or at least as written by Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, that vaguely addressed some of what I was asking, I mean you are saying the web site owners own article is ok to use on the VGMaps article to establish the launch date of VGMaps, but a page from Super Kid Icarus cannot be used to establish the release date of Super Kid Icarus and "should be ripped out immediately as not RS." I was simply asking because a complete understanding of the differences would help make me a better editor. However, as a resolution to this particular section/discussion, I will remove the paragraph about the fan game from the Kid Icarus article because it appears it is the opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines from four Wikipedia editors that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability for its inclusion in Wikipedia and I will respect that. Though I am adamant that most Wikipedia editors edit articles because they have an interest in the subject and not because they are neutral parties editing an article they don't care about and that this leads to varying interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines which are not hard and fast rules. For example, I am interested in Super Kid Icarus and that is why my edits relate to it. Take care. PeterAmbrosia ( talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thestopbutton.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I noticed an anonymous IP sytematically adding film review blurbs from thestopbutton.com to many articles about films. The pattern of edits gave the appearance of someone trying to build traffic to the site via refspam. After a quick search for news references to either the site or its author Andrew Wickliffe and finding no signficant coverage in reliable sources, I determined that this film critic is not notable, although he seems good at self-promotion. Therefore, I blocked the IP user and proceeded to remove all those references to thestopbutton.com.
Due to the pattern of spamming I was considering adding the site to the blacklist as well, until I noticed that a few articles have had these references restored by User:Bzuk with the rationale: this review is listed in the Turner Classic Movies website which is a moderator-controlled website.
I don't see this as a valid rationale for including a review by a non-notable critic. An example of being "listed" is here. It's simply a link. That doesn't constitute significant coverage, and doesn't confer notability, and doesn't really meet the WP:BURDEN for supporting the inclusion of thestopbutton.com as a reference in Wikipedia film articles. I'd like to see the community's thoughts. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Wickliffe is the author of 250 250 Word Film Responses: Volume One available in a Kindle version. AFAIK, the Wickliffe reviews are also never the sole review listed by TCM, but complement other reviews. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
Bzuk, aside from the sub-plot going on directly above, the fact that reviews for older movies is hard to find, unfortunately, does not mean the standards change, it just means it's more work for you to find sources that do meet the requirements. I can find no indication from Andrew Wickliffe's wordpress/blog site (thestopbutton.com) that he is any kind of expert in this area, I can find no corroboration anywhere else either. I do not find this source to be RS. Sorry, I understand the difficulty you're dealing with, really I do (but unfortunately the policy doesn't change because it's tougher to find any in this instance). -- Despayre tête-à-tête 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
As indicated before, the reviews are accepted by Turner Classic Movies, a moderated and RS website, which does indicate an acceptance of the value of the reviews, which is what I believe The Bushranger is stating. The original contention of the challenge was that postings of Wickliffe's reviews were amounting to blogspam, even though the submissions were, in some cases, ones that I had added in trying to expand some movie articles that had very few reference sources listed. The Wickliffe reviews are not cited for information on background or other aspects of the production, but as examples of later-day reviews of the film. Although the above posts are decrying the use of the reviews, they have risen to a level above a "fan site" and are the basis of an anthology. I have yet to find any of the Wickliffe reviews to be anything but well-considered, researched and written out in a suitable way. The search, however, continues to find some verification for Wickliffe's status. FWiW, Andrew Wickliffe is currently listed as a member of the 2012 Grand Jury adjudicating the Beneath the Earth Film Festival; he is also listed by IMDb as a reviewer, is listed as the #1 contributor to Four Word Film Reviews, but again as a product of a digital world, his resume and portfolio is just emerging. Bzuk ( talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need an opinion about the use of this website as a multiple reference (at least 14) for New Forest pony. This article has been nominated as a featured article candidate. I have some doubts as to the validity of this website as a Wikipedia reference. I brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Forest pony/archive1 and one of the supporters of the articles nomination made this comment,
("that is the website for the breed registry, which is obviously a recognized expert on the breed (not to mention this is not exactly contentious information). This is not some backyard breeder's blog, it is the website for the government-recognized organization in charge of the breed that has been in place since, I think, 1905. Breed registries have been found to be a reliable source in many previous FACs and GANs - I can point you to specific links if you want, but there are a lot of them. Dana boomer")
This is an example of the information that is being used as a references in the article, [ History of the New Forest Pony], there is an authors name and date at the bottom of the article but no footnotes and no mention were how this particular author obtained the information used in the article.
Here are two examples were this web site is being used as a history reference.
Ponies have grazed in the area of the New Forest for many thousands of years, dating back to before the last Ice Age.
As part of ongoing efforts to improve the hardiness of the breed and return it to a more native type in the 20th century, animals of other breeds (notably Welsh, Hackney, Fell, Dales, Highlands, Dartmoors, and Exmoors) were introduced to the Forest, but since 1930 only pure-bred New Forest stallions may be turned out.
The website is used as a reference on its self about the history and work of the website as in this example, which may be a justifiable reference but I feel that this website should not be use a reference for other types of information.
The Society for the improvement of New Forest Ponies was founded in 1891; they organised a stallion show and offered financial incentives to the owners of good stallions to run them on the Forest.
According to my understanding of WP:SPS this is a self published web site for the registering of a certain breed of horse and as far as I can see there is no personal information listed on who owns and runs the web site or their professional qualifications . Can someone take a look as I could be wrong about this particular situation but this website is quite similar to other so called professional web sites that were not recognized as being valid Wikipedia references, thanks for any help in this matter. Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked above, why is the discussion being carried on here and not on the article talk page. The answer is: so that you can get input from editors interested in sourcing issues. To get maximum input you need to phrase your questions carefully and then sit back and let the board regulars respond. We are used to answering questions about whether books are self-published or from normal publishers. Despayre has already worked out that Dionis Macnair is a published writer on the topic, and I can confirm that her book was with a minor natural history publisher and not self-published. I have already commented on the "ice age" question. Unless you get comments from other regulars, which would be welcome, the consensus is that this website is generally RS for the topic. It may be overused in the context of FA candidacy, though. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
@Samurai, it is not up to the readers of Wikipedia to be entrusted with "knowing the validity" of a website used as a source (however, for the ambitious readers, all sources *are* listed), it's up to the editors here. That's been done in this case, Chedzilla is correct (although I will say it wasn't quite *that* obvious for this particular website). If you have other questions about other content and it's sources, please don't hesitate to bring them here. But in the meantime, please take this quarrel elsewhere as it is off-topic for this board. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that those in doubt about the presence of prehistoric horse in this area actually read the rest of the section, and also read History of the horse in Britain, and take note of the fact that the presence of Ice-Age-and-before equids in southern England has multiple and extremely reliable achaeological sources. Please also be aware that the area of the New Forest was not under an ice sheet during the last Ice Age - the ice sheet didn't come down that far.Though the official Breed Registry site (and the NFPB&CS is a registered charity in the UK) states "since the last Ice Age", it is readily apparent to anyone who actually reads the sources on the archaeological records (and has no axe to grind and a smidge of nouse) that there can be no question that, for example, horse bones dating to 500,000 BC have been found in the immediate area. FYI, User:Samuraiantiqueworld and I have crossed paths before, and he/she is one of only two editors in my more-than-17,000 edits whom I have had to ask not to post on my talk, as a result of battleground behaviour. (The other one has been reprieved).
Editors who know me will know that I am notorious(?) for taking WP:AGF to extremes, rather than otherwise, but in this instance I simply cannot do so. Pesky ( talk) 09:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm just going to paste this bit in, straight from the article. I'm not feeling very charitable towards Samurai, and I'd hope it's clear to everyone here, once they've read this bit, that this issue has been predominantly a point-scoring exercise. It takes a vast amount to make me angry, but this has done so. What a waste of a lot of people's resources.
"Spear damage on a horse shoulder bone discovered at Eartham Pit, Boxgrove (only about 50 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest), dated 500,000 BC, demonstrates that early humans were hunting horses in the area at that time, [1] and the remains of a large Ice Age hunting camp have been found close to Ringwood (on the western border of the modern New Forest). [2] Evidence from the skeletal remains of ponies from the Bronze Age suggests that they were similar to the modern Exmoor pony. [3] Horse bones excavated from Iron Age ritual burial [4] sites at Danebury (about 25 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest) indicate that the animals were about 12.2 hands (50 inches, 127 cm) – the same size as the smaller New Forest ponies of today." [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
I started a wiki for my old boss Rick Hendrix. I have attempted to maintain it even after I left the company. We have been in an out of many edits, vandalism's and folks that have discredited him and myself. I am only writing it and feel horrible it keeps getting hit with not being reliable. When Mr Hendrix received these awards the Internet was just getting hot. The newspapers that carried the articles archives only go back to 97. These clippings I have go back to 1994 when the award or honor was given. I have copies of the awards and copies of the clippings. What can I do to get these items added back to this wiki page? Please advise, I am exhausted with it.
68.84.91.197 ( talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Dale
Is Weather2travel.com reliable? It is used in this edit that adds a weatherbox to Munnar but I cannot spot where the source is obtaining its information (and rather suspect that we should be using whatever that may be). - Sitush ( talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In general, I am wondering whether or not the website of the The Officer Down Memorial Page is considered a reliable source. It appears as though readers can submit additional information, however, there also seems to be some sort of editorial review process before updates are made. For a specific example, I am wondering if this page is a reliable source for San Francisco 8. The information appears to be presented neutrally and jibe with what I have seen in newspaper reports Thanks! Location ( talk) 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to use this interview with Cory Edwards- http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html - as a reference for the Hoodwinked! article, and maybe include a quote by Edwards from the interview as well. I know that blogs are not generally accepted as reliable references, unless maintained by a professional journalist, and I do not believe that that is the case here, even though the blog is full of interviews with famous people. However, I can verify the authenticity of the interview since it is mentioned on Cory Edwards official website; see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95
Would this be an acceptable reference?-- Jpcase ( talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this video ( link here, at the 2:40 mark of the second video) a reliable source for the claim that Prem Rawat has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? -- Maelefique (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your opinions/comments. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Source: * [28]
Would this be labeled as a reliable source? The source is used in alot of the Lupin III articles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Luis A. Cruz self-publishes lupinencyclopedia. There is no editorial control. Despite a single paragraph in a low grade US otaku magazine suggesting that readers look at the website, there is no recognition in a community of expertise of Cruz as an expert. SPS, no editorial control, no expert exemption: unreliable. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Expertise, in relation to anime, means something well along the way to why Hiroki Azuma would have an expert exemption; or why Scott McCloud would have an expert exemption; or why Katherine Dacey would have an expert exemption. I'm not seeing this with Cruz. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Mania.com is an industry website written by a team with editorial oversite, see the Web site's About Us section. Mania.com is regularly used as a source in many anime, manga, and comic articles on Wikipedia -- AutoGyro ( talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Reed Nelson runs LupinTheThird.com. He provides audio commentaries, expert notes, and checks English subtitles for Diskotech Media's Lupin the 3rd Releases (see here, hereand here). Note that LupinTheThird.com used to be LupinTheThird.net ([see here). He would be used a source for all Lupin III articles. Thanks for your help as we work to improve Lupin III content on Wikipedia :) -- AutoGyro ( talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find anything on the website that indicates the level of involvement or control that Luis Cruz has. That's a problem for RS-ness, I don't find that Cruz's work has risen to a level for an expert exemption. My opinion on Reed Nelson stays the same, he *may* be RS for this topic, he does have a certain expertise here, reviews of his DVD work seem quite favorable. But his small "check out LE.com" comment on his website doesn't rise to the level of "endorsement" for me, in terms of RS-ness. Is there somewhere else that he specifically endorses it, or Cruz? You can always use an inline attribution for non-contentious facts as well, such as "According to lupinencyclopedia.com, blah blah blah", or Luis Cruz of le.com said that "blah blah blah". If it's not contentious, and the view of the editors there is that its "good enough" as a source, there shouldn't be a problem with that. But if there is disagreement about using it, I would still say, take it out. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've recently produced three new drafts of articles on financial topics, each of which used an article from the website Lexology.com as one of their sources. Since the articles were written on behalf of a client, I submitted them for review by volunteer editors at WikiProject Cooperation, where a discussion has begun about whether Lexology is a reliable source or not. I've seen the source used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it was suggested to me that I should come here to see if editors can provide clarification on whether it can be used or not.
To provide some more context, I've highlighted below the facts that I have used the Lexology article to support.
Draft for Commodity trading advisor:
Draft for Commodity Pool Operator:
Draft for Managed futures account:
References
I'd appreciate the input of editors here as to whether this is an appropriate source to use, particularly to support the above facts. Due to these changes being very recent, the majority of other sources I've found are similar to Lexology, in that they publish articles prepared by law firms. From what I've seen, all provide essentially the same commentary regarding CFTC rule changes that would increase the number of funds defined as commodity pools. Is there a particular legal source that is best to use for this sort of information?
If none of these are suitable, I've found an article in the Wall Street Journal and one from Hedgeweek that explain this, but not as clearly as the Lexology source. I'm interested to get an independent opinion about the best course of action here. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
According to their web page, http://anna-news.info/about, "The Agency has officially registered as mass media in the Republic of Abkhazia, 18 July 2011." The web site is in Russian only, so the above went through Google Translate. Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA) has published an article including a video documenting eyewitness accounts of the 2012 Houla massacre that took place on May 25. Here's there article with the Google Translate link:
I basically wonder if ANNA and this article can be used in the Houla massacre article to attest to claims that contradict the western and mainstream media narrative of how the events went down that led to so many people being basically butchered. We've had some discussion already at Talk:2012 Houla massacre#Testimony from villagers blaming bandits, but this is a situation where input from this noticeboard will be needed.
There is in addition the ancillary issue of one news report which cites the ANNA news story, from a news outlet called Syria News, both as to whether it strengthens the RS status of the ANNA article and if it is itself an RS:
As far as I'm able to investigate this site is based in Los Angeles, CA, but that's all I can figure out. __ meco ( talk) 09:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I quote Wikipedia:RS in saying "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sopher99 ( talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not bring your talk page arguments to RSN, the editors here are quite capable of researching the problem on their own, and speaking for at least some, I don't really want to read your reasonings, I just want the facts, which I had in the first 3-4 sentences. I/we don't have a lot of interest in your views of what is or isn't ok to use. Obviously, if you both agreed, you wouldn't be here, and if someone didn't disagree in the first place, the question wouldn't be brought here. Bickering about it here only diminishes input from others. Having said that, I am examining your sources, and will have some further thoughts shortly (I only get them in short bursts [and none at all yesterday]).-- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
@D well forget about explaining policies to me, - two reliable sources are not disagreeing in this case, a reliable source is being 'disagreed with' by a propaganda source ,bleedin' obvious - anyway, when will you come to a decision? is it reliable? where are the judges? are you on your own? Sayerslle ( talk) 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
While understanding the policies makes the answers here easier to understand (truth can be irrelevant according to WP:V), it's not necessary to ask questions here. I've given my answer to the question brought here already (up top). I do not see the site as a "propoganda site", although I'm sure they have some kind of agenda, especially in the "analysis" articles. But that doesn't make them blanket non-RS. You may not quite follow how RSN works either, you'll be happy to know I don't make any "judegments". I have presented my opinion here, as someone who has looked at a lot of source issues. Often there are several regular editors here who will leave an opinion, but almost never when other involved editors come over and attack the question and create a wall of text for them to read first. As I said, I will send out a couple of msgs to see if anyone else will comment on their opinions either way. *IF* there's a consensus here (which I said waaaay up at the top there might not be, because this one is a little close to the line), you can take that back to the article and say it appears to be RS. That doesn't mean you can't keep it out because of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTABLE, or even WP:FRINGE if you think they apply. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
(I am an RS/N editor, whose opinion was solicited to help clarify the discussion). The article Ольга Драфт [Olga Draft] (2012-05-25) "Сирия новости: рассказывают жители Таль - Дау и Аль- Хула" ANNA is not reliable. It is attempting to rely upon the "eye witness claims" of the interviewees, and not the considered journalism. We do not accept random individual's claims, and attempting to construct an article from eye witness interviews is an attempt to turn an encyclopaedia into a newspaper. We would want to rely on the journalistic opinion, subject to editorial review, of Драфт—but Драфт's statements aren't the subject of the reliability issue: random villager's interviews are, and they're primary sources with no reliability. Meanwhile, even if Драфт did draw a journalistic conclusion, there's no indication that Драфт's article received editorial scrutiny per the About page for ANNA. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Meco appears to have concerns regarding the reliability of other sources, but has not specified the source, or claims being made based on the source. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC) If Meco could specify these sources here, preferably one section per source, or initiate entirely new RS/N discussions on those sources it would be appreciated. Discussion two sources in one section doesn't work on RS/N due to the wiki discussion format. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with the website thedigitalfix.com? The site's music page is being used in the Naked Lunch film article to source the claim that samples from the film were used in the Bomb The Bass single " Bug Powder Dust". The review does source the claim, but I cannot determine whether this site is reliable. I can find no list of authors, editors, or an editorial policy. I would like to hear some other opinions on this, please. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this self-published writer a reliable source? His website, jefflindsay.com, is used in a number of articles. Most of these are to do with Mormonism, but I've also found Hmong American where he is used although when you check the article on his website it's just his self-published opinion.
More typical examples are at Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Here he's used 3 times. The first time he is attributed, but not the next two times. The 2nd time he is used, rather bizarrely, for the statement "However, critics dispute the existence of figs in the pre-Columbian Americas". THe source, [36] does mention critics but with no names, and I say bizarrely because you would expect a source for this to link to critics, but of course his web page is a criticism of the critics. The next link backs a statement about apologists beliefs, although Lindsay, who is an apologist (singular), doesn't mention any other apologists. And his article says "Richard Abanes, a writer critical of Mormonism, refers to Lindsay's work as "numerous self-published articles, not scholarly, extremely biased, articles often based on misinformation". Some LDS people also disagree with some of Lindsay's viewpoints. Lindsay has no formal education in molecular biology, Mormon history, or several of the other topics he explores on his website." Which raises not just the question of whether he is a reliable source but also if he can be used to represent Mormonism in general.
At Archaeology and the Book of Mormon he is used as a source for a letter from the Smithsonian and at a section on cattle he becomes a 'they' again ( [37] is the url cited). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Dougweller ( talk) 17:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is some debate about whether http://twitaholic.com/ and/or http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 count as reliable sources for articles like Justin Bieber on Twitter, Barack Obama on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The are desired for citation of current follower, followee and tweet counts. In addition, pages like http://twitaholic.com/justinbieber/ are desired as sources for Twitter account launch dates. Are these websites reliable sources for these types of information?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I am having trouble identifying whether [38] is a reliable source. The site is currently used in List of Formula One polesitters, and is a very useful, as it provides a plethora of statistical information, which appears to be unavailable elsewhere on the web. Currently, the aforementioned list is at FLC, and a few reviewers have concern over its reliability. I was unaware of this page before a reviewer mentioned, so i've come here to see what other editors think of the site, cheers. NapHit ( talk) 09:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)