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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
Someone posted an edit request at The Dark Knight Rises talk page saying 'box office wordwide $268,387,000 reference - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm'. Is this website reliable? Floating Boat A boat that can float! 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This website is the sole source for a new article, Grandes de España (Current). I know there are a number of websites making claims for nobility that don't stand up when examined, and I'm concerned that there is a BLP article with only one source (and which doesn't even explain much about its subject. Anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class" [1] is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir".[12]" Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have another concern the author of this piece is not an Academic in the field does it acceptable?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes that very nice but I like to hear comment from uninvolved editors-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed a lot of info from this article. A sample is below.
In general, the problem is that information is cited to self-published sources.
When it is not, the sources sometimes do not support the statements. For example:
They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various -- and usually, bizarre -- ways. [1]
If we want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. This article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children.
This pattern crops up again and again. Statement that some people think white people are bad. Example of white people doing something bad.
Is the point of the article supposed to be that white people are bad? Or is it supposed to document the stereotypes believed about them?
I think the problem is the wiki community doesn't think this is very important and can't be bothered to improve the article, which means it is neglected and fills up with rubbish.
Some selfpub examples. [11]
A popular origin story in the U.S for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy/useful/pdf/hygiene.pdf
and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves. This also has a strong basis in European history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene#Hygiene_in_medieval_Europe
as personal hygiene was seen as something of a fashion choice, akin to whether one should wear a hat outside or not. dhr.history notes: "The cities Europeans lived in exposed them to "crowd" diseases, or those spread by close contact, poor sanitation, and poor personal hygiene (Europeans rarely bathed). http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html
Risingrain ( talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
http://GuitarGeek.com hosts diagrams and lists of equipment used by famous guitarists. The site was created by Adam Cooper, a published illustrator who interviews guitarists and guitar techs for the info.
Usage: In Adrian Belew#Musical_style "In 2010, Guitar Geek interviewed Belew's guitar technician Andre’ Cholmondeley, creating a list and diagram of Belew's guitar setup at the time." [12]. Here, Cooper directly interviewed one of Belew's guitar techs. I consider this one reliable enough for inclusion in Adrian Belew, at the end of the Musical Style section.
Bad usage: Nirvana (band). GuitarGeek states the reliability of diagrams, such as in Nirvana where it states "STAGE RIG COMPILED FROM VARIOUS BIOGRAPHIES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, CONCERT FOOTAGE AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. THE ACCURACY OF THIS SETUP IS NOT GUARANTEED." As a result, I support this source's recent removal from Nirvana (band).
So, I propose that GuitarGeek is reliable when used carefully. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Adam Cooper" guitar -site:guitargeek.comshow that Adam Cooper and his site make significant strides toward meeting the "self-published expert" criterion. Cooper is active and successful professionally in his field. He's widely cited. Where he and the site are weak is trying to find how much they've been "published by reliable third-party publications" as this is a specialist world Cooper's an expert in. I did find this independent, professional site using his work:
Zad
68
19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Moving Jetpack66's comments out from inside my comment, for chronological order. Thank you for the additional information! -- Lexein ( talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Adam Cooper, along with Nick Bowcott (of Grim Reaper fame and long-time artist relations manager for Marshall Amplifiers), created the "Vulgar Display of Power" column for Guitar World which ran over 10 years. The popular column featured famous guitar player rigs and was the longest running column in the magazine's history. GuitarGeek.Com has been online since 1995. The vast majority of the rigs are compiled from actual interviews with the artists and/or their techs. Jetpack66 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
From Adam's bio: "Adam Cooper's award winning GuitarGeek rig illustrations have appeared in GuitarPlayer, Total Guitar UK, Guitarist, Alternative Press, History of Marshall Amplifiers, Roland/Boss User Guides, Ibanez Steve Vai Jemini & Paul Gilbert Airplane Flanger Instruction Manuals, as well as the longest running monthly column in Guitar World Magazine's history: Vulgar Display of Power. Before launching GuitarGeek.Com in 1995, Adam published the highly respected music zine, Whirlpool, which was distributed worldwide via major record store chains." Jetpack66 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue ( talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a current dispute at Falun Gong at least in part relating to the source www.facts.org.cn here. Does this source qualify as a reliable source for the material it is sourcing, which seems to be basically critical of Falun Gong? John Carter ( talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited. See for instance secondary reliable source citing this website: Benjamin Penny (13 April 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65501-7. Retrieved 26 July 2012. With that not sure why anyone would want to cite facts.org.cn, given the wide selection and availability of secondary scholar reliable sources on the topic of Falun Gong. In fact, facts.org.cn currently is not being used for any citation at Wikipedia, so it is not a big problem. With that not everything is perfect:
The Epoch Times using epochtimes.com or Falun Gong using faluninfo.net citations appear ridiculous and those citations should be replaced with higher quality secondary sources, per explained above. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX, RS/N is not a venue for political soapboxing regarding national politics. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:
The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam [16]
The reference given is
S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."
This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page ( Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and lastly to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.
The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.
The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:
The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.
This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 [14]. Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 [15]).
The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.
Chaipau ( talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Wikipedia's policy.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?
When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Wikipedia's policy of differences between order and recommendations.
I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. If you gone through previous discussions here and in others, you can find that consistency is there what i said based on sources, it is another matter that disputing user tried to misguide here to gain advantage. As matter is controversial, i suggested the disputing user to put POV's of scholars, which is not acceptable to disputing user maybe due to against his interest. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it. The solution cannot be said article because same was entirely developed by disputing user and reverted all of my contribution attempts. Concerns are put in talk page. If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. It is disputing user who seems to waste others time as it is not a matter of reliable sources and should not be posted here.
bbhagawati ( talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.
The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".
[19] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.
[20] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.
[21] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.
Please refer to discussion at
Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.
The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.
It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.
The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.
The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.( [23]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.
It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.
It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.
Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.
Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This issue is wrongly brought here as it is not case for recommendations for reliable sources. It maybe closed now.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:
Banikanta Kakati says -
The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.
Satyendranath Sarma says:-
Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.
Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names.
Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link
As for English spelling I like to say, (i) "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya.
(ii) The name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained is matter of another discussion.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (
talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes last line that Assam is an English word and referred to land not any tribe makes sense and resolves this dispute. Hope this concludes this discussion.
I have nothing else to say and signing off from this discussion.
Thanking all !
bbhagawati (
talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:
I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself. [24]
I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all,
I want outside opinion on this source, [ [25]] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for wikipedia article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This source is used four times in the Transcendental Meditation technique article. However:
At present the source is being used to support the article text listed below:
Is this an appropriate source for this article and the content specified above? Or should other sources be used in its place? A prior discussion at WP:RSN regarding the Maharishi University of Management article, indicated that sources with a narrow Christian point of view should be avoided. Is it true in this case also? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the Mangalwadi article, the website hosting it (theologicalstudies.org.uk), and the RSN archived discussion Keithbob mentioned. Considering these, it looks like the rule is that sources with a narrow Christian view should not be relied on as sources of factual information. Here, the website and the book it hosts promote a narrow Christian view and have been sited as the source of factual information. IMO the rule applies here and a different source should be used. Coaster92 ( talk) 07:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently came across these sites being used as references by Mubashir09 ( talk · contribs). These appear to be rather disorganized, multi-user blogs trying to be news aggregators. They each appear to have a few main contributors, but allow "guest writers" to contribute. Many of the articles appear to be little beyond opinion pieces. The English is often very poor, sometimes to the point where the meaning is undecipherable. There is no indication of when (or if) they are doing their own reporting rather than simply translating news from other sources. Granted, it's difficult to tell and I haven't spent much time going through their articles let alone looking for possible sources for their reports.
Anyone have time to look into this further? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks like these sites plagiarize, should they be blacklisted? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Question Is the KNMG's official viewpoint document a sufficient source to support the claim being made?
In my evaluation, the KNMG's official viewpoint document is not a sufficient source to support as strong and as broad a statement as is being made. To call it a "summary statement" as the article claims, I think we would require a statement from a neutral, peer-reviewed source such as a law or ethics journal, with a clear description of how the survey of the many world-wide professional associations of physicians was performed, what the inclusion criteria were, some discussion of the primary sources themselves, and description of how the conclusion was drawn. I'd also expect that a neutral overview to be the stated goal of such a journal article. But, we don't have any of this:
I don't see how the KNMG official viewpoint document could be used to support anything other than the positions of the KNMG itself.
Input please!
Zad
68
20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)"Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style, I don't like that. This does give me motivation to offer some new ideas for different phrasings to the article's regulars. Hope we can get consensus. Also hoping to see input from others here as well.
Zad
68
02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)I agree completely with Zad68's post above. I don't think they have the authority to make that broad statement, and I'm very suspicious that it's accurate. Jesse V. ( talk) 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
We have no reason to believe they would misrepresent the facts in order to support a point of view, we have no reason to believe that such a prestigious organisation would lower itself to bending the truth about the matter, we have no reason to believe they would have any motive to do so anyway, and as WAID said, we have no reason to believe the fact itself is untrue. We should include the statement as we have no reason to doubt its accuracy. If a reader is sceptical of the statement they can always follow the reference and decide for themselves. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Allrovi controls Allmovie and Allmusic. Allmusic has the wrong birth year for Kitty Wells and Allmovie has one that differs from other sources for Sondra Locke. Hal Erickson wrote the one bio but didn't have input on the birth date. This is the same for his Imdb bio work of the same subject. Should we compare Allrovi sites to other sources and possibly not use them for birthdates if they aren't reliable? I have emailed two of their departments, asked about their sources, but no response in weeks.
Can an interview given by an actor to a tv channel be used as a reliable source?? Roshan ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if this particular hellosomaliyouth article is a reliable source. It has been linked to using the Wayback Machine because the original webpage is dead. The HSY link is in a foreign language, Somali. According to WP:NONENG, although "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones", non-English sources can be used unless "a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information", in which case "relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". However, no one seems to be able to provide a professional translation of much less understand/ WP:VERify what that Somali language page actually says. Despite this, it is being used on the Scouting in Somalia article to reference sensitive WP:REDFLAG material not covered elsewhere in mainstream sources. Specifically, the following statement [27]: "In February 2007, UNICEF sources reported the existence of a local Scout group, Boy Scouts of Somaliland, in Ceerigaabo, Somaliland." This is problematic because the HSY page does not use the term Boy Scouts of Somaliland anywhere, while other sources [28] indicate that it is specifically the local Sanaag administration where Ceerigaabo is situated (a disputed region which Somaliland claims) that is actually responsible for this scouting group. The HSY article also seems quite spammy in that it features a bunch of porn- and cheap laptop-related links in the comments section. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Brian Rockwell Williams contains the statement:
At the time of her death Briana Williams was 18 years old,[6] and had recently graduated from Mount Carmel High School.[7]
Citation #7 sources The Huffington Post (i.e. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/brian-williams-not-guilty-plea_n_905671.html) which is an excerpt credited to RanchoBernardoPatch (i.e. http://ranchobernardo.patch.com/articles/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering-mother-sister-in-rancho-peasquitos). I am wondering if one is more credible than the other and which, if any, should be cited? Thanks! Location ( talk) 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This would be quite a handy article to use in the Sherlock (TV series) article, but I'm concerned about its reliability. Before I spend time integrating it into the article, just for it to be removed later, I would like some thoughts on its reliability. Thanks. The JPS talk to me 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Early Childhood and Education paragraph
Having trouble with Wiki reviewer accepting the following as reliable source: Book: Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Troubador Books, UK (Isbn: 978 1780882154) plus my edits <His mother Lina was a devotee of Santeria, a fusion of African mysticism and orthodox Catholic scripture> I have published 10 books by mainstream publishers and am an expert in child and adolescent mental health- hence a reliable author to add to Fidel Castro's biographical details and especially his childhood. Note these previous books: Walker S (2003). Social Work and Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S. (2003). Working Together for Healthy Young Minds, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S & Beckett C (2004), Social Work Assessment and Intervention, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S & Akister J (2004), Applying Family Therapy, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S (2005) Culturally Competent Therapy- working with children and young people, Basingstoke, Palgrave
Walker S & Thurston C (2006), Safeguarding Children and Young People: a guide to integrated Practice, Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers.
Walker S (2011) The social workers guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health, London, Jessica Kingsley
Walker S (2011) Social Work Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed), Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers
Walker, S. (2012) Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Leicester, UK, Troubador
Walker, S. (2012) Effective Social Work with Children and Families- putting systems theory into practice, London, Sage Walker, S. (Ed). (2013) Mental Health Madness- an antidote to modern psychiatry, Herefordshire, PCCS Books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Could I get some feedback on whether this author Frank Collin, writing as Frank Josph and used as a source for these additions to Adena culture, is considered in any way a WP:RELIABLE source, not to the mention the obvious WP:FRINGE problems? After removing here and advising the editor, User:Iansayers, what the problems with this author were here, they have re-inserted (although I have once again removed). Since the editor declined to bring the matter here as I advised, I figured I would and get it out of the way. Thoughts? He iro 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education ( see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we get some uninvolved commentary on whether the Taliban: The Unknown Enemy is a reliable source for the article University of al-Karaouine, and also if the book Islamic Education in Europe is a reliable source for that same article? Thank you, nableezy - 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So I looked at these sources.
As a personal comment on this debate: We should remember that places like Oxford in the early days had the production of clerygmen as one of their prime functions. It isn't really clear to me that the choice between madrassa and university is one with an objective answer. Quoting both viewpoints would be good (but find a better source than Ferguson). Zero talk 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What counts as a criticism bearing weight? For example, a notable author wrote an article criticizing Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. How should I prove that his criticism bears weight and should be mentioned in the article? Is it enough to show the place were the original article was published was a prestigious magazine or newspaper? Or the fact that the critic was cited by other people?(perhaps by those who wrote other criticism books in response to Dawkins). Your help is appreciated to avoid a dispute on Dawkins page.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The argument is about a comment Richard Dawkins makes about suicide terrorism [33], and the book is The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath quoting a paper [34] by Robert Pape. Dawkins is talking about religious motivations in suicide attacks, and is clearly not stating all suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Pape's paper looked at some (he says all, but I think that's debatable) suicide bombings and concluded that the majority was not religiously motivated. McGrath uses that to try to discredit Dawkins. Clearly Dawkins didn't say all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, and Pape isn't saying suicide bombers are never religously motivated (just the majority of attacks he looked at wasn't), so the use of Pape's paper in this situation is fallacious in my opinion. — raeky t 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: the authors who criticized Dawkins (directly) did not mention the Guardian article as the hook per say. The Guardian article was just an example of such claims by Dawkins that is currently present in the article. User Reak has no authority to read the author's mind.
You may want to bear in mind the reception of McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion and how much citation Pape's paper received, before drawing a conclusion.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! Kazemita1 ( talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentleman, Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper:
"If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."
http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&q=good+bet#v=snippet&q=good%20bet%20suicide&f=false
This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing.
@Stephan and company: Please revise Kazemita1 ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), the website http://sfcrowsnest.com is cited for news, reviews and interviews. It is published by Stephen Hunt, with articles contributed by writers. In my opinion, the site seems to be reliable based on its longevity, and editorial staff. I don't know how much it has been cited in other works, so I'm bringing it up here. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Could this [35] be used for this claim [36].It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Does Glasswerk appear to be a reliable source for music-related articles? I am unable to find an 'About us' information section from the site. Till I Go Home 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether [38] is an RS or not. The proposed change is below, reproduced from the talk page on the New Party's article:
Proposed article change
Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results).
Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).
Reasons it could be considered an RS:
Reasons not -- I'll let opponents speak for themselves. William Jockusch ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Put another way: on the day after the election, will anyone care about this? We don't work on a deadline, and we're not a news site. If you feel this is essential to include, would you be willing to wait until after the election to include it? Will you still feel the same sense of urgency? MastCell Talk 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Some anti-RS folks appear to be raising the question of whether or not Kurtz is believable. First of all, I just want to say that I find this question wholly appropriate, and 100% germane to this discussion. Therefore, I am going to summarize the reasons I do find him believable:
The next issue is whether or not Kurtz' allegations have been "widely reported". In this regard, it is worth noting that it has appeared in the National Review, the LA Times, a WaPo blog, and Fox Business With Lou Dobbs. This shows wider reach than merely appearing on Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, etc. [all of which it has also done]. William Jockusch ( talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The material, properly ascribed as opinion for opinions, and as fact for uncontroverted facts, is usable. I found no source saying the minutes were fake, so what the minutes state is clearly allowed. The opinion that Obama lied is clearly opinion, and is properly ascribed to the person holding it. I do not consider the LA Times to be a politically disreputable site, thus it is absolutely RS for this sort of issue. There is at least as much solid sourcing as for the "dog incident" which has its own article re: Romney. Collect ( talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if it makes any difference to the "extraordinary claims" contingent here, but it doesn't seem that Obama personally denied involvement in the NP -- it was a campaign manager who spoke on his behalf in his 2008 Fight the Smears website. So Kurtz's research would seem to imply that Obama's campaign issued a false statement, not necessarily that Obama personally lied. (shrug) Wookian ( talk) 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In November 2010, Richie was interviewed by Dr. Phil during a nationally-televised hour-long episode devotedly exclusively to the subject of online bullying and gossip entitled “Dirt, Lies and the Internet”. Dr. Phil questioned Richie about the morality of a website which allows users to bash each other with hurtful comments, to which Richie responded, “well, there’s a marketplace for it.” Unimpressed, Dr. Phil observed “Well, there’s a marketplace for heroin too, but that doesn’t justify being a heroin addict.”
Coaster92 ( talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)DISCLAIMER: Stupidcelebrities.net contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information.Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Stupidcelebrities.net makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims. Â If you see any images that are in violation of some form of copyright infringement, just contact us and we’ll remove the items.
G'day all, I am currently having discussions with a couple of editors about the reliability of several websites to support the name of an occupied territory per
In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia...
Essentially these editors are stating that the word 'Serbia' on a coin or stamp website) is a reliable sources that 'Serbia' was the name of the territory. This is a long-term issue of contention as you can see from the discussion on WT:MILHIST here. That discussion concluded that the official name of the territory was in fact Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, for which there are reliable published secondary sources. The websites are:
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
Advice on the reliability of these sources to support the quoted statement would be appreciated. Obviously there are other places I will need to go as well, but I just wanted to clarify this issue here first. Thanks,
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Websites which post images of stamps as part of their sales efforts are purely commercial and not WP:RS. The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name ... or primary sources of simple propaganda by feuding entities. Vsmith ( talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Simon Reeve's book One Day in September: the full story of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and Israeli revenge operation "Wrath of God" ISBN 1-55970-547-7 (published by Faber and Faber in the UK and Arcade Publishing in the US) is used extensively as a source in the Munich massacre article (and elsewhere). Reeve is also used as a source in that article via other publications such as The Independent and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He is used both with and without attribution (based on a decision procedure that is a bit opaque...I'm not very familiar with the article...but I assume at least some of the instances are covered by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV...and attribution doesn't hurt).
I'm interested in views on the reliability of the book as a source, Reeve as a source, but not just that.
Background
I contacted the editor and it was a trivial matter to establish that the ~200 people killed were all innocent people including women and children, all PLO members, and all terrorists, obviously, as is often the case in this topic area. Setting aside the inevitability of there being a variety of conflicting published material about this issue and the NPOV requirements that follow from that, I would like some opinions about the sources themselves.
The sources
Thanks in advance. I'm now seeing the advantage of the original text that just said "people". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
On the basis of this source: [52] an anon IP has added [53] this text to the article on Konigsberg:
Unlike in other administrative districts of Eastern Prussia like Rössel, Lyck or Sensburg a Polish minority in Königsberg or the surrounding districts is not documented in the official Prussian census of 1900.
with the edit summary statistics.
On the talk page I pointed out that
I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious, but now, on the talk page User:Skäpperöd chimed in in support of the IP saying "The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. " [54]. Am I missing something? I mean, there's an obvious confluence of common POV-pushing between Skapperod and the IP, but this just seems like denying the obvious.
VolunteerMarek 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{ unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{ citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).
There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:
If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS ( talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi This is probably my first complaint. I want to complain about a new user/account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kanoonkhojer whose sole purpose seems to be substituting / adding links to laws of India on various Wikipedia articles to point to one particular (dubious / non-reliable) website ie " http://khcaa.org" he is promoting. Incidentally the User name "Kanoonkhojer" translates to "Lawfinder". So please can some BigShot/Admin at Wikipedia resolve this without involving me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghore ( talk • contribs)
Zad
68
13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Just a quick question regarding the reliability of the Global Nonviolent Action Database published by Swarthmore College. I'd like to use this page in a future article about the 1962 Asturian miners' strike or possibly a broader topic. Not sure as yet what specific statements I'd be sourcing or using it as a source for – for now I just want to check whether or not it's something I can use in general. Thanks – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
References to the following book on a couple articles are being aggressively purged by a couple of editors who are hostile to the subject matter, with the claim that it is "unreliable". I say, it is being used on these articles to reference a school of thought or viewpoint, following on the books of Barry Fell, Gloria Farley and actually several lesser known authors. What say ye? Is all talk of this stuff now suddenly verboten on wp?
Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
AGF please. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A question has arisen at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about whether or not the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books) by author Paul Harrison (pantheist), founder of the World Pantheist Movement should be used as a source for the Pantheism article. The book is used for about a dozen facts, mostly about modern pantheism. The issue is whether the source is too much of a primary source; or is written by an author that is too much of a partisan. The DRN discussion has quite a bit of background information. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Since new users keep using it as a source, I think this discussion/consensus on Chart News (some Twitter account) should be mentioned at this noticeboard just as a point of reference for addressing the users who use the source; its consensus was unreliable. Here's the diff from the original discussion at Talk:The Light of the Sun, basically revising the date and sales figure in that article. Dan56 ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this interview [57] a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing [58], a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I dont agree with you deleting the Healing Iraq reference - it is not 'just' a commentary but represents a deep source of Iraqi news (which english sources lack), the author himself reads local arabic news sources and performs fact checking (including on english sources). He studied journalism and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian [59] [60].
While he seems to have quit dentistry, (Quote: I have been reluctant to change careers, but quite frankly there is nothing that I can add to dentistry in Iraq, whereas the field of Iraqi online and print journalism is lacking in many aspects, and I hope to contribute to filling that gap.) [61] he still displays 'dentist' on his website and is reluctant to called himself a journalist (possibly because he wants readers to still view him as just an ordinary citizen who is interested in Iraqi news). I dont think its enough to discredit a source just because he states he is a dentist. Healing IRaq is one of the most read blogs for Iraqi news (and maybe even one of the best sources), Ziyad is known for his accurate reporting. Regarding using the 'Healing Iraq' reference for the wiki (especially regarding the battle of najaf), this quote from the OTB journal gives support: "I still haven’t found an official release on the military action that occurred in Najaf but, if you’re confused about what happened there, you’re not the only one. Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq has collected more than a dozen different descriptions of what happened, ranging from..." [62]. Im not too familiar with the wiki rules but this would seem to give support, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
As for using the-savior.com as a reference, it is the website created by his representatives (who are in contract with Ahmad Al-Hassan), I believe it should stay to get some information on him, from him, as per [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source].
I didn't intend this to be an essay, but hopefully it can contribute to the building of the article.
I realise references are limited in english (and I will try to find arabic sources), however this article should be notable considering it constitutes a new movement/sect within Iraq that is spreading internationally (the movement has websites in english and other languages). Further, Middle Eastern issues (Security or other) are of major concern to international policies of US, UK other alliance countries.. which would encompass these rapidly emerging ideologies.
Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your help and assistance. ok I think I understand this now, so the site the-savior.com published by Ahmad AlHassan can be used for claims about himself, but the Healing Iraq reference cannot be used on Ahmad AlHassan because he's a living person. But I can use Healing Iraq (expert journalist on (post-war) Iraqi News) as a source regarding non-living person? This is what I wanted to quote from Healing Iraq, (and it is an extremely relevant analysis of the battle of Najaf reports):
Iraqi American commentator, Zayed, criticised the difference in official reports, “The official U.S. and Iraqi story about what happened in Najaf today, which was swallowed and propagated by news wires (and apparently also the New York Times), is complete nonsense. First of all, they can’t even decide whether they were fighting Sunni insurgents or a “violent Shi’ite cult,” as Reuters’ unnamed self-appointed expert put it in their story. Secondly, the U.S. and Iraqi descriptions don’t match and both contain gross inconsistencies…” [63]
Just one last question.. its a really technical one, if I cant use self-published expert sources on a living person, can I use it on a person's Movement (group of people who follow his ideology)? Many Thanks Truth&bytruth ( talk) 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Homa Katouzian has PH.D in Economy but he wrote Modern history of Iran (because he know Persian language). Recently he wrote a book about History of Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History of iran with name "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" that University Yale has published. i have question that writing a book with University Press can put someone (historian) non-scholar to scholar of Medieval historian scholar ? and can we use Opinion pieces (Interview with radio) by this guy in wikipedia Persian (Medieval) history entries ?-- Espiral ( talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:HISTRS for the reasoning behind this. Katouzian published a scholarly survey history in a scholarly press. Their early work (and thus PhD) appear to be in Political Economy, a bastard child of economics which has a focus on analysis of texts and structures, far more so than Economics. Katouzian transitioned their academic career towards history by publishing historical scholarly works in historical presses and teaching history; and in Iranian studies the text was cited in specialist scholarly journals off-hand for truisms. Katouzian's PhD may be in Economics, but for the purposes of scholarly expertise, they're accepted by the community of historians as a historian—as evidenced by publication in scholarly presses that get expert and discipline specific reader reviews done before acceptance, such as Yale University Press. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
24.94.18.234 ( talk) 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
or another mistake of his interview with radio france in another time, he says :" cyrus cylinder had freedom to people of egypt and Babylon and Jews and Chaldea which cyrus the great was capturing them " but in fact cyrus the great didn`t capture egypt .
all of his interviews is in persian language. how ancient and medieval historian of iran can Notificat of his opinion (for Review of his opinion), when he had too many mistakes and Large claims in persian language ? how many of scholar heared persian (language) interview with a Unknown radio ? -- Espiral ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
I'd like to please request a clarification on what exactly constitutes a "third-party source" in a specific case. If a scholar had been involved in a lawsuit against a person, is he/she a third-party source on the credentials and social standing of said person? Or should the testimony and statements of the scholar on that subject (e.g. during the said trial) be considered to some extent unreliable on the basis that they are directly involved with the person? -- Director ( talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to have the following statement's source be reviewed from the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War:
"He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state."
which is sourced from this book:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
which further cites it from this opinion based article:
I asked about it at the talk page but the major contributor of that article is of the opinion that this opinion based article is cited by an academic published book and that is why it is a reliable source. -- SMS Talk 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your province. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan"
I am unable to find the words "traitor", "communist" in this weblink that you gave. In fact there are Jinnah's speeces/quotes related to the issue and he doesn't call anyone more than "enemy of Pakistan" on this issue. Some of his speeches: [69], [70], [71]. -- SMS Talk 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And about the author (Wahiduzaman Manik), his article says it all about the neutrality. -- SMS Talk 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering about the reliability of the Marvel Comics Database. Its a Wikia, and - on a lark - was able to sign up myself in about 30 seconds. Nott hat that means anything, but I'm not seeing a lot of editorial oversight or permanence. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This source [73] appears to be self published and unverifiable outside of the owner's website. It is extensively used in the Star Wars articles, and I feel it might provide undue weight towards the author's bias.-- 203.29.131.98 ( talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory to believe his/her own theory of how Gawain died is more accurate, but there are many theories, compared to User:Cagwinn who thinks it is idiotic,when there nothing idiotic of how Gawain died and its theories and will you tell the user to stop edit warring I have kept part of the source from this user and added another source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, will some one please explain the user to stop edit warring, now.-- GoShow ( ...............) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop, trying to acknowledge each other know the facts from others, this is not yours or my article it is Wikipedias and every other reliable source is under representation is allowed to use their edit-- GoShow ( ...............) 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
On this article there is a dispute over the use of a book published by International Business Publications, USA. This publisher is a print on demand company, as can bee seen on their website and also on the Cambridge information Group site [77] which ranks them alongside Books LLC AuthorHouse and other self publishing company's. Do books form this publishing house fall under WP:SPS? The book in question is India Foreign Policy and Government Guide, Volume 1 Here on Google books and no authors names are given. Darkness Shines ( talk) 04:59, 7 August 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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
Someone posted an edit request at The Dark Knight Rises talk page saying 'box office wordwide $268,387,000 reference - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm'. Is this website reliable? Floating Boat A boat that can float! 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This website is the sole source for a new article, Grandes de España (Current). I know there are a number of websites making claims for nobility that don't stand up when examined, and I'm concerned that there is a BLP article with only one source (and which doesn't even explain much about its subject. Anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class" [1] is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir".[12]" Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have another concern the author of this piece is not an Academic in the field does it acceptable?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes that very nice but I like to hear comment from uninvolved editors-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed a lot of info from this article. A sample is below.
In general, the problem is that information is cited to self-published sources.
When it is not, the sources sometimes do not support the statements. For example:
They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various -- and usually, bizarre -- ways. [1]
If we want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. This article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children.
This pattern crops up again and again. Statement that some people think white people are bad. Example of white people doing something bad.
Is the point of the article supposed to be that white people are bad? Or is it supposed to document the stereotypes believed about them?
I think the problem is the wiki community doesn't think this is very important and can't be bothered to improve the article, which means it is neglected and fills up with rubbish.
Some selfpub examples. [11]
A popular origin story in the U.S for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy/useful/pdf/hygiene.pdf
and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves. This also has a strong basis in European history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene#Hygiene_in_medieval_Europe
as personal hygiene was seen as something of a fashion choice, akin to whether one should wear a hat outside or not. dhr.history notes: "The cities Europeans lived in exposed them to "crowd" diseases, or those spread by close contact, poor sanitation, and poor personal hygiene (Europeans rarely bathed). http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html
Risingrain ( talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
http://GuitarGeek.com hosts diagrams and lists of equipment used by famous guitarists. The site was created by Adam Cooper, a published illustrator who interviews guitarists and guitar techs for the info.
Usage: In Adrian Belew#Musical_style "In 2010, Guitar Geek interviewed Belew's guitar technician Andre’ Cholmondeley, creating a list and diagram of Belew's guitar setup at the time." [12]. Here, Cooper directly interviewed one of Belew's guitar techs. I consider this one reliable enough for inclusion in Adrian Belew, at the end of the Musical Style section.
Bad usage: Nirvana (band). GuitarGeek states the reliability of diagrams, such as in Nirvana where it states "STAGE RIG COMPILED FROM VARIOUS BIOGRAPHIES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, CONCERT FOOTAGE AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. THE ACCURACY OF THIS SETUP IS NOT GUARANTEED." As a result, I support this source's recent removal from Nirvana (band).
So, I propose that GuitarGeek is reliable when used carefully. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Adam Cooper" guitar -site:guitargeek.comshow that Adam Cooper and his site make significant strides toward meeting the "self-published expert" criterion. Cooper is active and successful professionally in his field. He's widely cited. Where he and the site are weak is trying to find how much they've been "published by reliable third-party publications" as this is a specialist world Cooper's an expert in. I did find this independent, professional site using his work:
Zad
68
19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Moving Jetpack66's comments out from inside my comment, for chronological order. Thank you for the additional information! -- Lexein ( talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Adam Cooper, along with Nick Bowcott (of Grim Reaper fame and long-time artist relations manager for Marshall Amplifiers), created the "Vulgar Display of Power" column for Guitar World which ran over 10 years. The popular column featured famous guitar player rigs and was the longest running column in the magazine's history. GuitarGeek.Com has been online since 1995. The vast majority of the rigs are compiled from actual interviews with the artists and/or their techs. Jetpack66 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
From Adam's bio: "Adam Cooper's award winning GuitarGeek rig illustrations have appeared in GuitarPlayer, Total Guitar UK, Guitarist, Alternative Press, History of Marshall Amplifiers, Roland/Boss User Guides, Ibanez Steve Vai Jemini & Paul Gilbert Airplane Flanger Instruction Manuals, as well as the longest running monthly column in Guitar World Magazine's history: Vulgar Display of Power. Before launching GuitarGeek.Com in 1995, Adam published the highly respected music zine, Whirlpool, which was distributed worldwide via major record store chains." Jetpack66 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue ( talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a current dispute at Falun Gong at least in part relating to the source www.facts.org.cn here. Does this source qualify as a reliable source for the material it is sourcing, which seems to be basically critical of Falun Gong? John Carter ( talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited. See for instance secondary reliable source citing this website: Benjamin Penny (13 April 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65501-7. Retrieved 26 July 2012. With that not sure why anyone would want to cite facts.org.cn, given the wide selection and availability of secondary scholar reliable sources on the topic of Falun Gong. In fact, facts.org.cn currently is not being used for any citation at Wikipedia, so it is not a big problem. With that not everything is perfect:
The Epoch Times using epochtimes.com or Falun Gong using faluninfo.net citations appear ridiculous and those citations should be replaced with higher quality secondary sources, per explained above. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX, RS/N is not a venue for political soapboxing regarding national politics. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:
The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam [16]
The reference given is
S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."
This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page ( Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and lastly to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.
The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.
The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:
The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.
This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 [14]. Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 [15]).
The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.
Chaipau ( talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Wikipedia's policy.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?
When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Wikipedia's policy of differences between order and recommendations.
I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. If you gone through previous discussions here and in others, you can find that consistency is there what i said based on sources, it is another matter that disputing user tried to misguide here to gain advantage. As matter is controversial, i suggested the disputing user to put POV's of scholars, which is not acceptable to disputing user maybe due to against his interest. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it. The solution cannot be said article because same was entirely developed by disputing user and reverted all of my contribution attempts. Concerns are put in talk page. If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. It is disputing user who seems to waste others time as it is not a matter of reliable sources and should not be posted here.
bbhagawati ( talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.
The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".
[19] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.
[20] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.
[21] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.
Please refer to discussion at
Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.
The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.
It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.
The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.
The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.( [23]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.
It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.
It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.
Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.
Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This issue is wrongly brought here as it is not case for recommendations for reliable sources. It maybe closed now.
Thanks !
bbhagawati ( talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:
Banikanta Kakati says -
The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.
Satyendranath Sarma says:-
Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.
Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names.
Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link
As for English spelling I like to say, (i) "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya.
(ii) The name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained is matter of another discussion.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (
talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes last line that Assam is an English word and referred to land not any tribe makes sense and resolves this dispute. Hope this concludes this discussion.
I have nothing else to say and signing off from this discussion.
Thanking all !
bbhagawati (
talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:
I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself. [24]
I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all,
I want outside opinion on this source, [ [25]] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for wikipedia article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This source is used four times in the Transcendental Meditation technique article. However:
At present the source is being used to support the article text listed below:
Is this an appropriate source for this article and the content specified above? Or should other sources be used in its place? A prior discussion at WP:RSN regarding the Maharishi University of Management article, indicated that sources with a narrow Christian point of view should be avoided. Is it true in this case also? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the Mangalwadi article, the website hosting it (theologicalstudies.org.uk), and the RSN archived discussion Keithbob mentioned. Considering these, it looks like the rule is that sources with a narrow Christian view should not be relied on as sources of factual information. Here, the website and the book it hosts promote a narrow Christian view and have been sited as the source of factual information. IMO the rule applies here and a different source should be used. Coaster92 ( talk) 07:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently came across these sites being used as references by Mubashir09 ( talk · contribs). These appear to be rather disorganized, multi-user blogs trying to be news aggregators. They each appear to have a few main contributors, but allow "guest writers" to contribute. Many of the articles appear to be little beyond opinion pieces. The English is often very poor, sometimes to the point where the meaning is undecipherable. There is no indication of when (or if) they are doing their own reporting rather than simply translating news from other sources. Granted, it's difficult to tell and I haven't spent much time going through their articles let alone looking for possible sources for their reports.
Anyone have time to look into this further? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks like these sites plagiarize, should they be blacklisted? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Question Is the KNMG's official viewpoint document a sufficient source to support the claim being made?
In my evaluation, the KNMG's official viewpoint document is not a sufficient source to support as strong and as broad a statement as is being made. To call it a "summary statement" as the article claims, I think we would require a statement from a neutral, peer-reviewed source such as a law or ethics journal, with a clear description of how the survey of the many world-wide professional associations of physicians was performed, what the inclusion criteria were, some discussion of the primary sources themselves, and description of how the conclusion was drawn. I'd also expect that a neutral overview to be the stated goal of such a journal article. But, we don't have any of this:
I don't see how the KNMG official viewpoint document could be used to support anything other than the positions of the KNMG itself.
Input please!
Zad
68
20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)"Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style, I don't like that. This does give me motivation to offer some new ideas for different phrasings to the article's regulars. Hope we can get consensus. Also hoping to see input from others here as well.
Zad
68
02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)I agree completely with Zad68's post above. I don't think they have the authority to make that broad statement, and I'm very suspicious that it's accurate. Jesse V. ( talk) 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
We have no reason to believe they would misrepresent the facts in order to support a point of view, we have no reason to believe that such a prestigious organisation would lower itself to bending the truth about the matter, we have no reason to believe they would have any motive to do so anyway, and as WAID said, we have no reason to believe the fact itself is untrue. We should include the statement as we have no reason to doubt its accuracy. If a reader is sceptical of the statement they can always follow the reference and decide for themselves. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Allrovi controls Allmovie and Allmusic. Allmusic has the wrong birth year for Kitty Wells and Allmovie has one that differs from other sources for Sondra Locke. Hal Erickson wrote the one bio but didn't have input on the birth date. This is the same for his Imdb bio work of the same subject. Should we compare Allrovi sites to other sources and possibly not use them for birthdates if they aren't reliable? I have emailed two of their departments, asked about their sources, but no response in weeks.
Can an interview given by an actor to a tv channel be used as a reliable source?? Roshan ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if this particular hellosomaliyouth article is a reliable source. It has been linked to using the Wayback Machine because the original webpage is dead. The HSY link is in a foreign language, Somali. According to WP:NONENG, although "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones", non-English sources can be used unless "a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information", in which case "relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". However, no one seems to be able to provide a professional translation of much less understand/ WP:VERify what that Somali language page actually says. Despite this, it is being used on the Scouting in Somalia article to reference sensitive WP:REDFLAG material not covered elsewhere in mainstream sources. Specifically, the following statement [27]: "In February 2007, UNICEF sources reported the existence of a local Scout group, Boy Scouts of Somaliland, in Ceerigaabo, Somaliland." This is problematic because the HSY page does not use the term Boy Scouts of Somaliland anywhere, while other sources [28] indicate that it is specifically the local Sanaag administration where Ceerigaabo is situated (a disputed region which Somaliland claims) that is actually responsible for this scouting group. The HSY article also seems quite spammy in that it features a bunch of porn- and cheap laptop-related links in the comments section. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Brian Rockwell Williams contains the statement:
At the time of her death Briana Williams was 18 years old,[6] and had recently graduated from Mount Carmel High School.[7]
Citation #7 sources The Huffington Post (i.e. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/brian-williams-not-guilty-plea_n_905671.html) which is an excerpt credited to RanchoBernardoPatch (i.e. http://ranchobernardo.patch.com/articles/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering-mother-sister-in-rancho-peasquitos). I am wondering if one is more credible than the other and which, if any, should be cited? Thanks! Location ( talk) 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This would be quite a handy article to use in the Sherlock (TV series) article, but I'm concerned about its reliability. Before I spend time integrating it into the article, just for it to be removed later, I would like some thoughts on its reliability. Thanks. The JPS talk to me 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Early Childhood and Education paragraph
Having trouble with Wiki reviewer accepting the following as reliable source: Book: Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Troubador Books, UK (Isbn: 978 1780882154) plus my edits <His mother Lina was a devotee of Santeria, a fusion of African mysticism and orthodox Catholic scripture> I have published 10 books by mainstream publishers and am an expert in child and adolescent mental health- hence a reliable author to add to Fidel Castro's biographical details and especially his childhood. Note these previous books: Walker S (2003). Social Work and Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S. (2003). Working Together for Healthy Young Minds, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S & Beckett C (2004), Social Work Assessment and Intervention, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S & Akister J (2004), Applying Family Therapy, Lyme Regis, RHP
Walker S (2005) Culturally Competent Therapy- working with children and young people, Basingstoke, Palgrave
Walker S & Thurston C (2006), Safeguarding Children and Young People: a guide to integrated Practice, Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers.
Walker S (2011) The social workers guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health, London, Jessica Kingsley
Walker S (2011) Social Work Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed), Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers
Walker, S. (2012) Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Leicester, UK, Troubador
Walker, S. (2012) Effective Social Work with Children and Families- putting systems theory into practice, London, Sage Walker, S. (Ed). (2013) Mental Health Madness- an antidote to modern psychiatry, Herefordshire, PCCS Books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Could I get some feedback on whether this author Frank Collin, writing as Frank Josph and used as a source for these additions to Adena culture, is considered in any way a WP:RELIABLE source, not to the mention the obvious WP:FRINGE problems? After removing here and advising the editor, User:Iansayers, what the problems with this author were here, they have re-inserted (although I have once again removed). Since the editor declined to bring the matter here as I advised, I figured I would and get it out of the way. Thoughts? He iro 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education ( see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we get some uninvolved commentary on whether the Taliban: The Unknown Enemy is a reliable source for the article University of al-Karaouine, and also if the book Islamic Education in Europe is a reliable source for that same article? Thank you, nableezy - 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So I looked at these sources.
As a personal comment on this debate: We should remember that places like Oxford in the early days had the production of clerygmen as one of their prime functions. It isn't really clear to me that the choice between madrassa and university is one with an objective answer. Quoting both viewpoints would be good (but find a better source than Ferguson). Zero talk 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What counts as a criticism bearing weight? For example, a notable author wrote an article criticizing Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. How should I prove that his criticism bears weight and should be mentioned in the article? Is it enough to show the place were the original article was published was a prestigious magazine or newspaper? Or the fact that the critic was cited by other people?(perhaps by those who wrote other criticism books in response to Dawkins). Your help is appreciated to avoid a dispute on Dawkins page.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The argument is about a comment Richard Dawkins makes about suicide terrorism [33], and the book is The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath quoting a paper [34] by Robert Pape. Dawkins is talking about religious motivations in suicide attacks, and is clearly not stating all suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Pape's paper looked at some (he says all, but I think that's debatable) suicide bombings and concluded that the majority was not religiously motivated. McGrath uses that to try to discredit Dawkins. Clearly Dawkins didn't say all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, and Pape isn't saying suicide bombers are never religously motivated (just the majority of attacks he looked at wasn't), so the use of Pape's paper in this situation is fallacious in my opinion. — raeky t 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: the authors who criticized Dawkins (directly) did not mention the Guardian article as the hook per say. The Guardian article was just an example of such claims by Dawkins that is currently present in the article. User Reak has no authority to read the author's mind.
You may want to bear in mind the reception of McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion and how much citation Pape's paper received, before drawing a conclusion.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! Kazemita1 ( talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentleman, Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper:
"If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."
http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&q=good+bet#v=snippet&q=good%20bet%20suicide&f=false
This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing.
@Stephan and company: Please revise Kazemita1 ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), the website http://sfcrowsnest.com is cited for news, reviews and interviews. It is published by Stephen Hunt, with articles contributed by writers. In my opinion, the site seems to be reliable based on its longevity, and editorial staff. I don't know how much it has been cited in other works, so I'm bringing it up here. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Could this [35] be used for this claim [36].It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Does Glasswerk appear to be a reliable source for music-related articles? I am unable to find an 'About us' information section from the site. Till I Go Home 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether [38] is an RS or not. The proposed change is below, reproduced from the talk page on the New Party's article:
Proposed article change
Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results).
Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).
Reasons it could be considered an RS:
Reasons not -- I'll let opponents speak for themselves. William Jockusch ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Put another way: on the day after the election, will anyone care about this? We don't work on a deadline, and we're not a news site. If you feel this is essential to include, would you be willing to wait until after the election to include it? Will you still feel the same sense of urgency? MastCell Talk 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Some anti-RS folks appear to be raising the question of whether or not Kurtz is believable. First of all, I just want to say that I find this question wholly appropriate, and 100% germane to this discussion. Therefore, I am going to summarize the reasons I do find him believable:
The next issue is whether or not Kurtz' allegations have been "widely reported". In this regard, it is worth noting that it has appeared in the National Review, the LA Times, a WaPo blog, and Fox Business With Lou Dobbs. This shows wider reach than merely appearing on Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, etc. [all of which it has also done]. William Jockusch ( talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The material, properly ascribed as opinion for opinions, and as fact for uncontroverted facts, is usable. I found no source saying the minutes were fake, so what the minutes state is clearly allowed. The opinion that Obama lied is clearly opinion, and is properly ascribed to the person holding it. I do not consider the LA Times to be a politically disreputable site, thus it is absolutely RS for this sort of issue. There is at least as much solid sourcing as for the "dog incident" which has its own article re: Romney. Collect ( talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if it makes any difference to the "extraordinary claims" contingent here, but it doesn't seem that Obama personally denied involvement in the NP -- it was a campaign manager who spoke on his behalf in his 2008 Fight the Smears website. So Kurtz's research would seem to imply that Obama's campaign issued a false statement, not necessarily that Obama personally lied. (shrug) Wookian ( talk) 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In November 2010, Richie was interviewed by Dr. Phil during a nationally-televised hour-long episode devotedly exclusively to the subject of online bullying and gossip entitled “Dirt, Lies and the Internet”. Dr. Phil questioned Richie about the morality of a website which allows users to bash each other with hurtful comments, to which Richie responded, “well, there’s a marketplace for it.” Unimpressed, Dr. Phil observed “Well, there’s a marketplace for heroin too, but that doesn’t justify being a heroin addict.”
Coaster92 ( talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)DISCLAIMER: Stupidcelebrities.net contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information.Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Stupidcelebrities.net makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims. Â If you see any images that are in violation of some form of copyright infringement, just contact us and we’ll remove the items.
G'day all, I am currently having discussions with a couple of editors about the reliability of several websites to support the name of an occupied territory per
In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia...
Essentially these editors are stating that the word 'Serbia' on a coin or stamp website) is a reliable sources that 'Serbia' was the name of the territory. This is a long-term issue of contention as you can see from the discussion on WT:MILHIST here. That discussion concluded that the official name of the territory was in fact Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, for which there are reliable published secondary sources. The websites are:
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
Advice on the reliability of these sources to support the quoted statement would be appreciated. Obviously there are other places I will need to go as well, but I just wanted to clarify this issue here first. Thanks,
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Websites which post images of stamps as part of their sales efforts are purely commercial and not WP:RS. The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name ... or primary sources of simple propaganda by feuding entities. Vsmith ( talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Simon Reeve's book One Day in September: the full story of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and Israeli revenge operation "Wrath of God" ISBN 1-55970-547-7 (published by Faber and Faber in the UK and Arcade Publishing in the US) is used extensively as a source in the Munich massacre article (and elsewhere). Reeve is also used as a source in that article via other publications such as The Independent and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He is used both with and without attribution (based on a decision procedure that is a bit opaque...I'm not very familiar with the article...but I assume at least some of the instances are covered by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV...and attribution doesn't hurt).
I'm interested in views on the reliability of the book as a source, Reeve as a source, but not just that.
Background
I contacted the editor and it was a trivial matter to establish that the ~200 people killed were all innocent people including women and children, all PLO members, and all terrorists, obviously, as is often the case in this topic area. Setting aside the inevitability of there being a variety of conflicting published material about this issue and the NPOV requirements that follow from that, I would like some opinions about the sources themselves.
The sources
Thanks in advance. I'm now seeing the advantage of the original text that just said "people". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
On the basis of this source: [52] an anon IP has added [53] this text to the article on Konigsberg:
Unlike in other administrative districts of Eastern Prussia like Rössel, Lyck or Sensburg a Polish minority in Königsberg or the surrounding districts is not documented in the official Prussian census of 1900.
with the edit summary statistics.
On the talk page I pointed out that
I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious, but now, on the talk page User:Skäpperöd chimed in in support of the IP saying "The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. " [54]. Am I missing something? I mean, there's an obvious confluence of common POV-pushing between Skapperod and the IP, but this just seems like denying the obvious.
VolunteerMarek 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{ unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{ citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).
There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:
If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS ( talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi This is probably my first complaint. I want to complain about a new user/account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kanoonkhojer whose sole purpose seems to be substituting / adding links to laws of India on various Wikipedia articles to point to one particular (dubious / non-reliable) website ie " http://khcaa.org" he is promoting. Incidentally the User name "Kanoonkhojer" translates to "Lawfinder". So please can some BigShot/Admin at Wikipedia resolve this without involving me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghore ( talk • contribs)
Zad
68
13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Just a quick question regarding the reliability of the Global Nonviolent Action Database published by Swarthmore College. I'd like to use this page in a future article about the 1962 Asturian miners' strike or possibly a broader topic. Not sure as yet what specific statements I'd be sourcing or using it as a source for – for now I just want to check whether or not it's something I can use in general. Thanks – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
References to the following book on a couple articles are being aggressively purged by a couple of editors who are hostile to the subject matter, with the claim that it is "unreliable". I say, it is being used on these articles to reference a school of thought or viewpoint, following on the books of Barry Fell, Gloria Farley and actually several lesser known authors. What say ye? Is all talk of this stuff now suddenly verboten on wp?
Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
AGF please. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A question has arisen at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about whether or not the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books) by author Paul Harrison (pantheist), founder of the World Pantheist Movement should be used as a source for the Pantheism article. The book is used for about a dozen facts, mostly about modern pantheism. The issue is whether the source is too much of a primary source; or is written by an author that is too much of a partisan. The DRN discussion has quite a bit of background information. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Since new users keep using it as a source, I think this discussion/consensus on Chart News (some Twitter account) should be mentioned at this noticeboard just as a point of reference for addressing the users who use the source; its consensus was unreliable. Here's the diff from the original discussion at Talk:The Light of the Sun, basically revising the date and sales figure in that article. Dan56 ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this interview [57] a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing [58], a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I dont agree with you deleting the Healing Iraq reference - it is not 'just' a commentary but represents a deep source of Iraqi news (which english sources lack), the author himself reads local arabic news sources and performs fact checking (including on english sources). He studied journalism and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian [59] [60].
While he seems to have quit dentistry, (Quote: I have been reluctant to change careers, but quite frankly there is nothing that I can add to dentistry in Iraq, whereas the field of Iraqi online and print journalism is lacking in many aspects, and I hope to contribute to filling that gap.) [61] he still displays 'dentist' on his website and is reluctant to called himself a journalist (possibly because he wants readers to still view him as just an ordinary citizen who is interested in Iraqi news). I dont think its enough to discredit a source just because he states he is a dentist. Healing IRaq is one of the most read blogs for Iraqi news (and maybe even one of the best sources), Ziyad is known for his accurate reporting. Regarding using the 'Healing Iraq' reference for the wiki (especially regarding the battle of najaf), this quote from the OTB journal gives support: "I still haven’t found an official release on the military action that occurred in Najaf but, if you’re confused about what happened there, you’re not the only one. Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq has collected more than a dozen different descriptions of what happened, ranging from..." [62]. Im not too familiar with the wiki rules but this would seem to give support, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
As for using the-savior.com as a reference, it is the website created by his representatives (who are in contract with Ahmad Al-Hassan), I believe it should stay to get some information on him, from him, as per [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source].
I didn't intend this to be an essay, but hopefully it can contribute to the building of the article.
I realise references are limited in english (and I will try to find arabic sources), however this article should be notable considering it constitutes a new movement/sect within Iraq that is spreading internationally (the movement has websites in english and other languages). Further, Middle Eastern issues (Security or other) are of major concern to international policies of US, UK other alliance countries.. which would encompass these rapidly emerging ideologies.
Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your help and assistance. ok I think I understand this now, so the site the-savior.com published by Ahmad AlHassan can be used for claims about himself, but the Healing Iraq reference cannot be used on Ahmad AlHassan because he's a living person. But I can use Healing Iraq (expert journalist on (post-war) Iraqi News) as a source regarding non-living person? This is what I wanted to quote from Healing Iraq, (and it is an extremely relevant analysis of the battle of Najaf reports):
Iraqi American commentator, Zayed, criticised the difference in official reports, “The official U.S. and Iraqi story about what happened in Najaf today, which was swallowed and propagated by news wires (and apparently also the New York Times), is complete nonsense. First of all, they can’t even decide whether they were fighting Sunni insurgents or a “violent Shi’ite cult,” as Reuters’ unnamed self-appointed expert put it in their story. Secondly, the U.S. and Iraqi descriptions don’t match and both contain gross inconsistencies…” [63]
Just one last question.. its a really technical one, if I cant use self-published expert sources on a living person, can I use it on a person's Movement (group of people who follow his ideology)? Many Thanks Truth&bytruth ( talk) 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Homa Katouzian has PH.D in Economy but he wrote Modern history of Iran (because he know Persian language). Recently he wrote a book about History of Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History of iran with name "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" that University Yale has published. i have question that writing a book with University Press can put someone (historian) non-scholar to scholar of Medieval historian scholar ? and can we use Opinion pieces (Interview with radio) by this guy in wikipedia Persian (Medieval) history entries ?-- Espiral ( talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:HISTRS for the reasoning behind this. Katouzian published a scholarly survey history in a scholarly press. Their early work (and thus PhD) appear to be in Political Economy, a bastard child of economics which has a focus on analysis of texts and structures, far more so than Economics. Katouzian transitioned their academic career towards history by publishing historical scholarly works in historical presses and teaching history; and in Iranian studies the text was cited in specialist scholarly journals off-hand for truisms. Katouzian's PhD may be in Economics, but for the purposes of scholarly expertise, they're accepted by the community of historians as a historian—as evidenced by publication in scholarly presses that get expert and discipline specific reader reviews done before acceptance, such as Yale University Press. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
24.94.18.234 ( talk) 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
or another mistake of his interview with radio france in another time, he says :" cyrus cylinder had freedom to people of egypt and Babylon and Jews and Chaldea which cyrus the great was capturing them " but in fact cyrus the great didn`t capture egypt .
all of his interviews is in persian language. how ancient and medieval historian of iran can Notificat of his opinion (for Review of his opinion), when he had too many mistakes and Large claims in persian language ? how many of scholar heared persian (language) interview with a Unknown radio ? -- Espiral ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
I'd like to please request a clarification on what exactly constitutes a "third-party source" in a specific case. If a scholar had been involved in a lawsuit against a person, is he/she a third-party source on the credentials and social standing of said person? Or should the testimony and statements of the scholar on that subject (e.g. during the said trial) be considered to some extent unreliable on the basis that they are directly involved with the person? -- Director ( talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to have the following statement's source be reviewed from the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War:
"He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state."
which is sourced from this book:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
which further cites it from this opinion based article:
I asked about it at the talk page but the major contributor of that article is of the opinion that this opinion based article is cited by an academic published book and that is why it is a reliable source. -- SMS Talk 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your province. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan"
I am unable to find the words "traitor", "communist" in this weblink that you gave. In fact there are Jinnah's speeces/quotes related to the issue and he doesn't call anyone more than "enemy of Pakistan" on this issue. Some of his speeches: [69], [70], [71]. -- SMS Talk 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And about the author (Wahiduzaman Manik), his article says it all about the neutrality. -- SMS Talk 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering about the reliability of the Marvel Comics Database. Its a Wikia, and - on a lark - was able to sign up myself in about 30 seconds. Nott hat that means anything, but I'm not seeing a lot of editorial oversight or permanence. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This source [73] appears to be self published and unverifiable outside of the owner's website. It is extensively used in the Star Wars articles, and I feel it might provide undue weight towards the author's bias.-- 203.29.131.98 ( talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory to believe his/her own theory of how Gawain died is more accurate, but there are many theories, compared to User:Cagwinn who thinks it is idiotic,when there nothing idiotic of how Gawain died and its theories and will you tell the user to stop edit warring I have kept part of the source from this user and added another source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, will some one please explain the user to stop edit warring, now.-- GoShow ( ...............) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop, trying to acknowledge each other know the facts from others, this is not yours or my article it is Wikipedias and every other reliable source is under representation is allowed to use their edit-- GoShow ( ...............) 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
On this article there is a dispute over the use of a book published by International Business Publications, USA. This publisher is a print on demand company, as can bee seen on their website and also on the Cambridge information Group site [77] which ranks them alongside Books LLC AuthorHouse and other self publishing company's. Do books form this publishing house fall under WP:SPS? The book in question is India Foreign Policy and Government Guide, Volume 1 Here on Google books and no authors names are given. Darkness Shines ( talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)