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 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
Is this a "primary source" which ought to be avoided - and use reliable secondary sources in vast preference? It looks like Paul Ryan is having all his "controversial votes" "explained " in his BLP with conceivably POV intent. IMO. inless an outside source refers to his positions, it is not our proper functiom to do such research. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a lot of context to go on and the exact reference and usage. In general I would say that using a government primary source to cherry pick just one part of a voting record is original research and would need a secondary source to make the actual claim.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Right. First of all, does File:NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate 3b.gif justify he text used to describe it, which doesn't appeared to be in is source, http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Specifically, neither seems to allow a categorical statement that no non-sunspot warming happened before 1980 - but we say that the trend was definitely until 1980, a date nowhere sourced. Secondly, can Roy Spencer be used to describe the mainstrea views, and how they differ from the fringe - an apparently very convenient description that makes the fringe sound more equivalent. sources are his book The Great Global Warming Blunder and the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101 87.238.84.65 ( talk · contribs)
Naked WP:CANVASSING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since the OP has never edited the article nor commented on its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently edited the Mara Bar-Serapion article to include the following info:
Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[1] William Cureton published the first complete English translation of this work in 1855.[2]
[1] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi.
[2] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.
This edit was quickly reverted ( diff) by another user with the note, "VERY interesting info. Yet, I tried to confirm it in recent sources, post 1950 but could not. These sources are too old to be WP:RS. Do you have more recent sources?" Unfortunately I too noticed that more recent reliable sources (at least those freely available on the Web) seem to show little interest in the 19th century history of the manuscript containing the Mara bar Serapion text.
Now I agree that this user would have a point if the argument being referenced involved the interpretation of the manuscript's text within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern literature and culture because historical and social sciences have advanced greatly over the past 150 years. However, as the statements being supported by the references involve specific facts, such as Tattam's discovery of the manuscript in a specific year at a specific place, it seems to me that these references should still qualify as WP:RS despite their age. Is this a correct way of looking at the situation? Thanks in advance for your feedback. -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You can always just attribute and contexualize the claims so that the readers are instantly aware of the age of the scholarship they are viewing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(As an aside, does Wikipedia have a maintenance tag along the lines of {{More recent citation needed|date}}? That could be useful in certain circumstances.) -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...If context is everything, I see no reason why the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia for a statement about archaeology wouldn't be reliable. You do realise that the many sites in Rome required permits and permissions from the church and that many times the church would be directly involved. Take the exact example I gave above about the archaeology of the Comitium. The church was using the Curia Julia as a tomb and the structure itself, a church. If the encyclopedia has information from the church in regards to the archeology of a structure during the transiton from church to public state building , then their documentation would be as reliable as the states documentation and the archaeologist. It would have to be used only to confirm and verify claims in regards to such information that directly pertain to the church and I wouldn't use their mentions for things not related to the church itself, such as them just commenting outside projects etc.. The Catholic archives and publications from that period as a resource are one of the largest depositories of information in the world from that period and older. I don't know if it is that easy to dismiss for aercheology, only because some of the most important digs in Ancient Roman history took place in Rome....and about 100 years ago. To understand the original projects, we need sources that can confirm the information from that period. I don't know...I may have used this source. LOL! That may have actually been me Doug! =)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me tell you guys why I do not trust these 1870 or 1920 sources with no modern scholarship to confirm them. There are several reasons, but one is that for the life of me I do not know if they are not hoaxes. I have often wished I had been part of the group that managed to pull the prank that Henri Cartan did. It was just brilliant and a great laugh. They were laughing at the French Academy for years - and the Academy was frantically searching for Bourbaki. The Wiki article on it is not detailed enough, but there were huge laughs and all kinds of games. It only came out because Dieudonné acted like John Lennon. If they had just stopped, Bourbaki would have existed. But that is another story. Yet, unless things are verified by multiple scholars in a modern setting, you never know... You never know. So I just do not bet on some 100 year old statement. Not that it matters much here, but one can never be sure unless the rigors of modern scholarship have been applied to a topic. History2007 ( talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
An English translation of this work published in 1855 by William Cureton was presented by Cureton as the "publication for the first time of remains of writers who have been the most celebrated in the earliest ages of the Christian Church".[1] According to the preface of an 1867 translation, Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[2]
[1] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.
[2] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi. [modified by dave souza, talk 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)]
Comment: Sorry for being away from this discussion for a few days. I've proposed some changes in my sandbox and provided some explanatory notes on these proposals over on the Mara Bar Serapion Talk page which I invite feedback on. To summarize, I found some additional citations which I worked into the article, so I didn't quite adopt Dave souza's proposal though I did adopt some elements particularly with regards to removing the unsubstantiated (in the secondary sources) claim that Cureton's translation was "first" and "complete". But I would like to thank him and everyone else for their feedback, which I have found helpful both now and in possible future occasions. I'd also like to add a couple general comments on the preceding conversation.
(a) Given that the topic of the age of a RS is clearly an important topic, perhaps it may be appropriate to offer more guidance to editors on this subject in the Wikipedia:RS article. As the article is currently written, I could only find a brief cautionary note that "some scholarly material may be outdated", so it may be helpful to other editors who may encounter similar circumstances in the future to provide more in-depth guidance. For example, perhaps the article should state that an edit should not be reverted *merely* because the source used is old if that source otherwise is of RS quality (unless of course other factors are present, such as the edit involving a non-contextualized statement which more recent research has demonstrated to be inaccurate).
(b) History2007, I agree that it is important to be on the watch for hoaxes and other material which may mislead. Unfortunately though, hoaxes, frauds and misleadingly presented research are not confined to the 19th century. Even so, peer-reviewed journals in general remain reliable sources (unless evidence exists to the contrary in a particular circumstance) just as (in my opinion) older works shouldn't be deemed unreliable merely on account of their age (again, unless other factors are present in a particular circumstance). -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
On the page for the TV series Arrow, user ( SchrutedIt08) is consistently deleting information sourced from GreenArrowTV.com, an offshoot from the KSiteTV.com website, dismissing it as an "unreliable source." Author Craig Byrne is a professional writer who wrote several TV show companion books, and if the news originally came from that site and was linked as such from the sources that ARE linked to, shouldn't it be the source credited and be considered reliable enough? 108.219.213.206 ( talk) 07:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It also has broken unique news related to the show, and provided unique interviews, from a published author. I don't really understand why it would not qualify, especially if other links that are sourced use them as the original resource. 108.219.213.206 ( talk) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Source: [1]
Article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jayvlog89 (Jamie's World)
Context:
In 2010 Jamie's World won a Stony Award for best internet video from High Times Magazine.
The site is blocked where I live so I have no idea what the source says. Though I highly doubt it is reliable, can anyone read the source and tell me what it says so I can review the article when it's up for AfC? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a Spokeo page was added here as this inline citation to support the claim that Pat Condell was born in 1950, so my first question is whether Spokeo is considered reliable enough to support this claim. The first problem is spokeo contradicts itself (it first has "Born Nov 23, 1949" and then "1950 Birth"), the second is the site does not give its sources, only the vague statements that they "aggregate vast quantities of public data " and that they merge "“real life” information (address, email address, marital status, etc.) with social network data (Facebook profiles, Twitter feeds, etc.)" giving the disclaimer "Spokeo does not verify or evaluate each piece of data, and makes no warranties or guarantees about any of the information offered." (see http://www.spokeo.com/blog/about).
This appears to be the definition of an unreliable source, what do others think?
I also notice spokeo is used for several other wikipedia articles, of which this sample makes me dubious of its use: [[Nathan Kelly], Adam Cappa, Lakhai Upazila (which could very well be spokeo getting their information from wikipedia). So my second question is how should editors decide which spokeo claims are reliable? - 84user ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a considerable number of mostly very stubby articles [2] about obscure or minor deities sourced partially or exclusively to the various editions of Michael Jordan's The Encyclopedia of Gods (variously, to the 1993 Facts on File printing or to either the 1999 or 2002 Kyle Cathie Limited editions). I suspect that quite a few of the entirely unreferenced deity articles actually derive from this source as well. Some of these articles date back to 2004, although another batch was created in 2007. Although this book gets fairly good reviews by lay readers on sites like Amazon and Google Books, I have significant concerns about its reliability for the purposes of Wikipedia sourcing.
The book contains very small information snippets about each entity listed (short enough, in fact, that some of these stubs may also be copyright violations). It has no bibliography, and does not in any way indicate where the material originated. Additionally, there are indications from user comments in various review sites that quality control is not good (errors in Norse mythology including equating Freya and Frigga, misidentification of Salus's gender, and conflation of non-divine spirit entities with deities).
Obviously, the long-term solution is across the board article improvement. In the meantime, the two salient questions are: does this book meet our reliability standards and, separately, are the uses of this book sufficiently problematic from a copyright perspective to warrant more urgent action? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What is outrageous and unacceptable in Bat Ye'or's approach, is to see her reproducing an intellectual conspiracy-theory, a shameless propaganda, a way of thinking which she herself was a victim of, as well as millions of her coreligionists. Because, basically, these cries of outrage are not very different than "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", this hoax created by the tsarist police in order to demonize the Jews, all jews. It mimics, in some way, "The Jewish France", the book of the nineteenth century anti-Semitic journalist Edouard Drumont who suggested that his country was dominated by Jews.
Your comments about the reliability of the source are welcome. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Suetonius on Christians will be appreciated. There are a few points and some of them are:
A user wants to reject what scholars say about the confusion of a Roman historian because he thinks "there is no method to test" what the scholars say.... He also thinks books by professors are not WP:RS if they are aimed at a general audience.... Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all 3 of you for pointing out the logic. I will point to this discussion from that talk page. And I think WP:V and WP:RS agree with what you guys have said: that we just summarize what the scholars write (using WP:Due) not decide if their views can be tested. And as stated above, professors can be WP:RS sources even if their books are written for a general audience. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Some content I added has been vehemently removed twice ( diff, diff, talk) from the green coffee article on the basis of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The content cites the Hypertension Research journal, and read:
The Japanese Society of Hypertension published studies in 2002 and 2005, demonstrating that green coffee bean extract has an antihypertensive effect in rats [1] and humans. [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Some more information on the journal:
I am attempting to expand the content of the stub green coffee article in a neutral and verifiable manner but am not an expert, and would appreciate a community read on the reliability of this journal. Regards. -- Ds13 ( talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't find the answer in the archives - do we allow documents stored on sources such as Google or constantcontact.com to be used as references? See DotConnectAfrica. They aren't obvious when you first look, eg ""Open Letter to US Department of Commerce National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA) making a preliminary case for the .africa gTLD". ICANN." is one. [4]. Then there are others on reputable organisations, but can we use [5] for anything? Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Can the following manuscript [6], which has not yet passed peer-review, be considered a reliable source for the claim being made here [7]? They use a sample of size 9+15 individuals to draw conclusions about an entire population. Thanks in advance, Athenean ( talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Easy and fun test:
Then start posting it around the web. Sooner or later, that fact will appear in Wikipedia, under Cheddar.... Not hard to do. History2007 ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Is inagist.com a reliable source, I need to use it as evidence for "the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti site has been blocked by the GoI. [8] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree about wp:ABOUTSELF. I cannot do much about it though. So let us wait and watch? Anyways what does the HJS site say? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As a possible solution, can you take a screenshot of the block notice? Would this be acceptable as a source? I guess that depends on precisely what the notice says (eg: does it say that it is blocked throughout the country). - Sitush ( talk) 06:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone with authority should look at what's going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28from_May_2012%29
Example: "By evening 148 civilians were killed by the Syrian army. 57 were killed in the Damascus suburbs, including over 40 bodies found in Al Tal."
Source: lccsyria
92.15.77.16 ( talk) 19:39, 22 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.
|
There are editors using a website [10] as a reliable source for an article on the ICOC.
When I read WP:SOURCES it leads me to suspect that this doesn't meet the standards required for an encyclopaedia.
This "self-published" website has no professional journalists vouching for the material produced, no editorial oversight, no accuracy checking mechanism, in fact their journalistic standards are so low they state in the ABOUT REVEAL/GETTING INVOLVED tab:
"just write up your story, and let REVEAL make it available in the online library. We only ask that you use your real name on your story. You are free to use pseudonyms for others in your story, provided you identify them as such, and in rare cases we may agree to post a pseudonymous story provided we know who you are."
The only requirement for being pubished is you "use your real name" or "we know who you are"! No fact checking, no interviews, no investigative journalism to determine if these claims are true of false!
The claims being made and referenced on the ICOC page are also not light in nature.
Brainwashing, sexual abuse. Harassment etc...
Can someone please help shine some light here? JamieBrown2011 ( talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you guys say that this book:
is WP:RS? Louis H. Feldman is highly respected as far as I know, but comments will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Can VR-Zone be considered a reliable source? Specifically, I'm asking about the reliability of this article as a source for the following content at 16:10:
On the other hand, there has been criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. For this reason, some consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are usually designed for taller, rather than wider screens.
The site seems like a reliable tech news outlet, referenced by several other established news sites like Engadget, PC Mag, PC World and Tech Report, as well as a number of articles on Wikipedia. The author has written ca. 100 articles on VR-Zone, and has also contributed to several other news sites like PC & Tech Authority, HPCWire.com and The Inquirer (Google search because I couldn't find author profiles on theinquirer.net). Indrek ( talk) 23:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A user has argued that following source cannot be considered reliable for the statement Israeli outposts are illegal under Israeli law, as opposed to authorized settlements which are legal under Israeli law, though all settlements, including outposts, are also considered illegal under international law.: Ġānim, Asʻad (2010), Palestinian Politics After Arafat: A Failed National Movement, Indiana University Press, p. 32, all forms of settlement in the occupied territories are considered prohibited under international law, Israel considers only settlement "outposts" illegal.
Thoughts? nableezy - 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wayback article, originally published January, 2002. It is being argued on K-9 (film) ( talk page) that the e-zine Risk Management is not a reliable source for stating Rando was the canine star of the movie. Source quote:
On the set of K-9, a 1989 Jim Belushi movie, the veritable star of the film was Rando, a German Shepherd. “We actually insured the animal for twenty-five million dollars,” says Kingman, “in the event of a death, injury or sickness that caused an abandonment of the film. There were some backups, but Rando was the hero dog.” To make certain—were something to happen to Rando—that the backup dogs would be able to replace him in his remaining scenes, the dogs were separated in transit in order to diversify the risks of losing the film’s star character.
WP article sentence it relates to:
The dog was actually named Rando,
The "actually" is in reference to the previous sentence, where it is pointed out that the movie credits had Jerry Lee playing himself. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
209.103.209.86 ( talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Fyi: The original editor incorporated your statements within the updated edit which you reverted. However, you totally dismissed all of their edits based on "original research" and "unreliable sources". But the cites aren't [all] from blogs or social sites and there is a concensus. Nor is it original research within the article, only perhaps within the talk page as summarized/generic examples provided. It's not like only one resource is in dispute about Koton/Jerry Lee (and "extras" including Rando) per several sites provided on the talk page. I'm not sure if you took the time to actually read them all or just didn't like the fact that Rando was not the only dog being used in the film to perform in action scenes, the dog's facial expressions, etc.? This is all detailed within the talk page already. Not to mention a statement about the film's reception was removed without discussion. I gave you credit for your good sources (People and LA Times). Others were even found claiming Rando was involved in the film that the other editor found. But the conflict is that other dogs were in the film too. You can't just create a section stating that Jerry Lee wasn't actually played by himself, and only include one dog when there were others involved. Just like the sequel film lists all three dogs used, and Fraiser/The Artist mentions other "stunt/replacement/back-up" dogs used, etc. I can't make my point any more clear than I have here and on the talk page. (Worn out.) Best wishes! :) 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
There's always something reliable and there are some websites having a some rights reserved template for anyone to edit with representation.-- 50.122.9.57 ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
How come no one actually verified if any of those references would work besides the first one this section is about and other than the actual editor who is disputing them in the first place and reverted the edit? His list of "fails reliablity" does not count. Otherwise, all that happened was that the topic was moved from K-9's talk page to here! The point is to ask other users/editors their determination. Thanks! P.S. I also didn't understand 50.122.9.57's response, but I believe he/she is saying some of those have some amount of reliablity. 71.234.215.133 response is not acceptable in this situation. Someone else needs to weigh in like Barnabypage did for 71.234.215.133, otherwise the edit on the article is going back to how it was which included both dogs and not just the one. As well as a reference about the movie getting good reviews. There has to be some truth to all those sites recounting Koton being involved in the movie whether 71.234.215.133 likes the source or not. I was letting this go until it was that users point to claim the problem was Risk Management's source and not admit that the issue is about the other sources not being accepted leading to his/her revert which was not proper (should have discussed on talk page instead of attempt to create an edit war). Just saying... 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what your argument even is when what you actually typed up is not true/reliable. Here is how the article currently reads (since the previous changes you reverted have already been included within this and the talk page):
Casting "Jerry Lee": "Jerry Lee", the German Shepherd Dog, is billed in the credits "as himself". The dog was actually named Rando,[1][2][3] who was found in Germany during an international star search to fill the role. Animal trainer and handler Karl Miller and his daughter Teresa trained Rando for the movie, teaching him a second language in the process.[4] In a 2002 interview, Belushi remembers that "Rondo [sic], who was the first Jerry Lee, was a prima donna: He was a good-looking dog with a close-up that the camera just loved, and he knew it. He was more moody, snotty even."[5]
So let's not debate the sources, instead, I will use what your own edit claims against your argument which is a contradiction. The section must be removed until resolved. Fyi: Primma donna is spelled wrong ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primma_Donna) and the actual sources off IMDB for the positive film reviews are also fine in my opinion. As long as you are claiming "so and so reported/reviewed" within the article, it is acceptable. If the article claims "Crap.com" said K-9 was the best film ever... and it's sourced, that is true/reliable. Enough cherry-picking! I hope you finally understand, because we are almost literally beating a dead dog here. 209.103.207.26 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Enough, let's move on! You can have the final word (again), but the article is fine the way it is and needs to be left alone. I encourage you to focus on another topic. Your sources weren't reliable either. They claim Jerry Lee is the dog, Rando is an extra. Just because a handler says "Rando is the star" doesn't make it "reliable/right/true". You're playing semantics. Stating the sources were less reliable was only for your benefit. No one else cares. You just have a hang up about Rando and Risk Management not being used. Please, get over it. Further inspection of your sources reveal that one article is pre-release. The dog they are reporting about is a dog that may not have made the final film cut. There were possible changes. Who knows? You have failed to prove Jerry Lee is actually Rando because it is not true, and this is what it's really all about. That is why Belushi is quoted in 2002 as saying he remembered the "first Jerry Lee". So all of this was pointless and unproductive. It was never about the Risk Management source. It also means that showing out-dated out-of-context sources to IMDB (whoever did that) and having them change it without analyzing all the facts (as presented on the film's talk page or this notice board for instance), was a bad decision and IMDB should be encouraged to change it back to just "Jerry Lee". And please do not make changes to the article as another user, in case you are doing this or "agreeing with your choices" as another user. You are not reading other/all sources apparently, just your own and the edit made on the article. You want to defend your source and "dog of choice" and it's nonsense. Enough is enough. You are also twisting our words and using rules to defend yourself while missing the pillars of Wikipedia all together. And the review cite was an example of sources available supporting positive reviews which the article did not reflect. It's fine not to use it, that may have been an error. It did not warrant a complete revert. You are "nit picking" and causing discord instead of assisting with improving the article. Maybe next time you can extract the actual information from sources as I have and include it in the article instead of just doing a sweep of reverts and causing incorrect information that is biased and not neutral. I'm done, you may reply which I know you will. I will not. I will however be monitoring the article since you continue to argue something that is trivial. 64.134.151.20 ( talk) 06:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors as to the reliability of Twitter posts such as this as many editors of TV articles are relying on them to support added content. In the example given, which was used at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 6), the included image of a script has two items of concern; the episode title is deliberately concealed and in the bottom right corner the document is identified as a "TABLE DRAFT". It seems that using this as confirmation of the production code relies on WP:SYNTH, as neither the source for the episode, [48] or the tweet explicitly say that 3X7601 is the production code for "The Date Night Variable". There are some commonalities (the episode number 112 is used by both the document and Wikipedia and 601 is used by the Futon critic source while it's partially concealed in the image) but I think this requires personal analysis in order to provide a link. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Would make sense to me that images posted to Twitter are reliable sources only for the premise that said picture exists, and not for any substance of which the picture represents. In legal parlance they would be hearsay -- largely inadmissible for the truth of what they say, but potentially admissible with regard to the fact that they do exist. Using the film script example, the image could be an RS for the statement that a picture of an alleged script exists, but would not be an RS to support a factual statement that a script does actually exist or any content within the script. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently noticed a little over a dozen articles having articles from studentpulse.com added to them as references. I removed those on the assumption that the site does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Yes, the site does claim to have peer review, but, per our guideline, "a claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs". There are several reasons to doubt the respectability of this site.
For one, the papers are all submitted by students, and while the concept of graduate (or even undergraduate) research is not unknown, one does have to look a bit more skeptically at the work, especially when no one with an advanced degree is collaborating. For another, while the site doesn't give information on who its reviewers are, it still seems dubious that a single venue can rigorously evaluate papers in fields ranging from Physics to Theatre to Journalism. Finally, while reputation is somewhat difficult to measure, I very much doubt the site enjoys any sort of credibility among scholars in the respective fields. It may accept students papers and label them as peer-reviewed, but has any academic actually cited one of these papers?
So I would venture that we should not be citing papers from here either. - Biruitorul Talk 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI -- here is a breakdown of topics presented by Student Pulse. Many of them are cross-referenced, so the overall total is much less than enumerated. A total of 183 articles are listed as "Featured Articles". This data suggests that Student Pulse limits what they present. (English & History majors may enjoy an exception!)
In any event, here are some more actual works which cite Student Pulse/Student Pulse articles:
-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As an editor for the publication in question, I would like to thank a kind wikipedia editor for notifying me that this conversation is currently ongoing. Hopefully I can help put this discussion to bed. First, I will make several important clarifications. Student Pulse is an edited publication, with only a small portion of submissions accepted (less than 1/3). Articles are reviewed by persons with expertise relevant to the topic and appropriate to the level of the publication (this is an undergraduate and graduate student publication); reviewers are at least at the graduate level of education, either having obtained or currently pursuing a PhD. As noted above, SP does cover a broad range of topics, however it was also pointed out that the vast majority of published articles fall within the social sciences and humanities -- this is absolutely correct, and a testament to our editorial policy of only accepting material that we are confident has been appropriately reviewed.
I will make my own suggestion as to SP's fulfillment of the WP:RS requirement. Student Pulse is a relatively new publication (first full run in 2010), and given that its focus is on publishing undergraduate and graduate work, it should not be altogether surprising (or taken as a sign that SP does not meet WP:RS requirement) that SP articles have not been widely cited in the academic literature. The academic cycle is slow and long-established publications dominate most fields. On the other hand, SP articles are clearly being consumed by an academic audience, and some reputable citations are already apparent despite the obvious challenges facing any new publication. At the same time, SP articles do meet particular high standards: all are subject to editorial oversight, all are reviewed by members of the academic community, and all conform to standard academic conventions, such as the use of other high-quality sources in clearly indicated reference lists. My personal feeling is that those traits qualify Student Pulse as a reliable source. However, if those factors are not overwhelming in their ability to sway the views of other wiki users at the current time, my suggestion is that instead of making a blanket decision that Student Pulse is either "reliable" or "unreliable," the community of Wikipedia editors instead consider each SP article, where referenced, on its own merits. User:tustind
Is this source [52] reliable, or appropriate, for this contested statement "Another commentator has said, "Try Googling both male or female ACL staff members, and the F word, or the C word. Thousands and thousands of results returned." at this page Australian Christian Lobby. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Al Arabiya is sometimes referred to as a Pan-Arabist news channel. I wonder if this by itself makes it a bad thing to seclude this news channel from BLP articles? The specific question is about an article in Al Arabiya criticizing an Iranian poet who made a poem that some Arabs found insulting. My question is whether I could reflect Al Arabiya's point of view in the Poet's Wiki article by saying "Some Arabic sources found his poem 'XYZ' insulting". Thank You.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In regards to: Mountaintop_removal_mining
I am trying to clean up this article and bring it to the standard of NPOV.
While checking all of the cited sources, I visited www.grist.org and it would not be a choice of mine to cite as a reliable source. Does the site grist.org meet the Wikipedia guidelines as a source?
http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/
The above is an editorial/opinion piece that is clearly not NPOV. Sadly, this source was used to justify the use of a POVTITLE and other aggressive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco ( talk • contribs)
At the Islamophobia article a few editors are trying to consider Islamophobia a form of racism. As we all know the defintion of racism is discrimination, prejudice or stereotypes based on race, ethnicity or nationality. This is there sources. I'm trying to state that just because it has what would normally be considered a reliable source that dosn't mean it is true. There are so called "reliable sources" that state that HIV dosn't lead to AIDS, or that premote holocaust denial or even sources that supposedly prove that certain races are not equal. The fact of the matter is that by defintion I don't believe that the Islamophobia article should call it racism. Especially when the antisemitism article dosn't even call antisemitism racism.
^ Reviewed in: Ayhan Kaya (2011). Fryklund, Björn; Righard, Erica. eds. Islamophobia as a form of governmentality: Unbearable weightiness of the politics of fear. Malmö: Malmö University, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM). Retrieved August 15, 2012. See also: Schiffer, S.; Wagner, C. (2011). "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns". Race & Class 52 (3): 77. doi:10.1177/0306396810389927. edit
Halliday, F. (1999). "'Islamophobia' reconsidered". Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (5): 892–902. doi:10.1080/014198799329305. PMID 20499467. edit Semati, M. (2010). "Islamophobia, Culture and Race in the Age of Empire". Cultural Studies 24 (2): 256–275. doi:10.1080/09502380903541696. edit Webman, E. (2012). "Discourses on Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Arab Media". European Societies 14 (2): 222–239. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.676455. edit
- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, sidebox genres on Allmusic.com surely they're not reliable right? Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd
At Zion square assault, there are some sections, standard for this type of article, dealing with reactions. Rather than limit these to political utterances, I have covered press comment of what public intellectuals think in Israel, and also a section on discussions in the American Jewish community. Two editors are removing material in this section on what strikes me as spurious policy grounds, more out of objections to the content, it strikes me, than anything else. See here and [53]
Of 3 opinion pieces so far, two have been challenged. Exception has been taken esp. to an article by Jessie Benjamin, appearing in Mondoweiss, and the remarks, no different in substance from many others cited in the article, esp. that of Jill Jacobs, above it, runs:-
Jesse Benjamin, an Israeli American Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University, writing for Mondoweiss, the alternative news website run by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, contextualized the incident within a detailed memoir of his own youthful experiences as a Jerusalem yeshiva dropout in Zion Square, and argued the attack constituted a wake-up call to challenge what he called Jim Crow practices. Jewish allies within Israeli society are needed to assist Palestinians in exposing the problem, he argues, but concludes that, 'the globalized West still holds onto Jews as the victims par excellence,' and after 9/11, is even more comfortable in denying humanity to Arabs.
News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
Benjamin appears to be a rather minor academic (asst. prof at a 2nd or 3rd tier state university); his expertise, such as it is, appear to be Bedouins, Nubians and Nabataeans, not Yeshiva dropouts. "Mondoweiss" is a partisan, fringe blog. If, as the OP posits, the remarks attributed to him are no different in substance from many others cited in the article, then why are we resorting to this marginal-of-marginal sources? Let's stick with the more mainstream ones who say the same thing. All Rows4 ( talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Carol, Mondoweiss was addressed slightly as part of the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#IRMEP_-_two_separate_issues. Inevitably that discussion was disrupted by a NoCal sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good day, there are fluctuations on the Chinese Zodiac signs and I can tell by two user and mainly one, User:Bobrayner and User:Drmies both have been supposedly deleting fiction of a source (and the latest user is User:Beyond My Ken), when they are just informational sources from the pseudoscience website, it its the same going with the Western astrology. They were only sample sources and I am hoping you notify them to stop deleting them as they were appropiate for the article, while I was on break they usually sabatoged the signs, although, one IP user did try to undo they believe it was useless, I am trying to configure with the Western Horoscope as well, all I am saying let them know to stop revoming the atributions it's sources from reliable sites, please, and thank you-- GoShow ( ...............) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I am deleting the Ruling countries seems to be fictational, otherwise, most of the attribution are reliable thank you.-- GoShow ( ...............) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am looking into more book sources right now thanks.-- GoShow ( ...............) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I read your comment Beyond My Ken on your talk page and I agree, here's deal I will delete the comment summaries, other than the calendars I will keep and the attributions, the summaries I will delete, they do seem unbias, however I'll let the people decide on other psudoscience webpages to check if they are those characteristics, other than that I agree, I'll delete the characteristics. Be back 3 hours, taken a break but will finish deleting the characteristics unless someones will do it for me.-- GoShow ( ...............) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2 3 4 5 6. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, title says it all. - I want to bring this to the attention of the more experienced Wikipedians, since in the meantime this kind of nuisance might have killed a lot of other reference links on the entire WP as well...
First observed this problem here: Talk:Phantom_of_Heilbronn#Please, somebody check that reference link!. - And please excuse me, if this here is not the right place to share that kind of information. (Should this be the case, please drop me a line on my TP. I'm still a Newbie.) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not challenge the reliability at all.
But should these sources be tagged - and how - to notify the readers? (Who then perhaps could add alternative sources.) I mean, even if you were a subscriber, the links would always first stop you at the customs gate.
Is tagging them as "dead link" completely incorrect then? (If yes, I've made some blunder that I should revert.) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC
Thank you all for your replies. That was very helpful and interesting stuff. - Following your hints, I think that tagging with Template:Subscription_required would be the correct thing to do in these cases, right? - Again thanks and Bye! -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions:
If I read the Archive 129 discussion correctly, the consensus seems to have ended up that glbtq.com is *not* a RS. I take exception to that. From what I understand, if a source has editorial oversight and provides their own sources for their material, then they could be considered "reliable". Glbtq.com seems to pass both these criteria. The presskit at the site claims editorial oversight, and many (if not most) articles include bibliographies. For example, the article about William Inge includes the sources used, and the article about Kenneth Anger does as well.
Question: How does Glbtq.com fail the guidelines on Reliable Sources? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Would the 21st century lexicon ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigo%20child ) be a reliable source for this diff in Indigo children article? The attribution of an "important spiritual impact" is common for the concept in question across multiple primary sources (like published books and interviews with the authors who introduced the term into broad usage). The 21st century lexicon summarizes and defines it in a compact form, while being not a primary source. Thanks in advance. -- Nazar ( talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi All,
I posted a link to more information about the trading financials of the Babylon Bank - and another editor thought it was not appropriate.
Is this link okay: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html On the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Bank
I have read the wikipedia rules and I understand the addition of links is suitable on the basis there is not many as it undervalues the page. The page currently has 1, I was adding 1 more.
Please advise. Though I get the impression, you guys are bored and need to exert some sort of "power" haha
Regards. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I apreciate your response Jp. However, you are misinformed. I was not adding the same link to many diffrent pages. I was adding diffrent links to diffrent pages.
Example: Warka Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Al_Warka_Investment_Bank.html Example: Babylon Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html Example: Bank of Baghdad http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Bank_of_Baghdad.html
I am surprised at his move as I have an understand that wikipedia is in the business of sharing content. I am not interested in self promotion. I am interested in adding worthy links, eg there is only 1 link on Babylon Bank page so surely 1 more is better?!!!
Regards. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So does that mean I am able to place the link? The data came directly from the Iraq Stock Exchange.
Actually I am able to... An example: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html and it is direct from here http://www.isx-iq.net/isxportal/portal/companyGuide.html?companyCode=BBAY Reliable or not?. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just wrote where I got it from and provided a link!!!!! Are you not looking?????? Seriously? 83.41.4.176 ( talk) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This question concerns a part of the infobox of the article Leo Frank regarding his height. The change would only affect the footnote for the 5'6" height. The proposed change would add to the footnote a comment regarding a height of 5'8" along with the Cornell yearbook source.
Height 5'6" [1]
Notes
- 1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.
- (5'8" according to Cornell University Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link))
Is the Cornell yearbook a reliable source for this information? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Other editors currently involved in a related discussion, which is a continuation of a previous discussion, are Carmelmount and Tom (North Shoreman). -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The trial and lynching of Leo Frank were national news at the time and historians and popular writers have continued to write about and analyze the case. The two sources for the height listed in the Info Box are both highly important sources on the subject -- Oney's footnotes show that he consulted a vast amount of primary and secondary sources while Lindemann, writing a different type of book, relied on analyzing the most important secondary sources. Nobody has been able to find ANY reference to a different height in any reliable secondary source.
The yearbook is a primary source with no explanation of how it determined height. Using a primary source, especially when reliable secondary sources are available, is the exception rather than the rule. It is not a reliable source for its apparent purpose -- to propose an alternative height. A two inch differential is insignificant in and of itself and COULD be simply the result of wearing shoes or boots in one of the measurements or a short person deciding to add a couple inches out of vanity. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a page for cortandfatboy, a Portland-based podcast ( talk page) and it was deleted for being a recreation of a previously deleted article. Unbeknownst to me, a prior version was created in 2011 and it was nixed due to an alleged lack of reliable sources. Over the past year, the show has been featured in a cover story in the Portland Mercury, a weekly newspaper, and on the blog of the Oregonian, the state's biggest/most widely read publication. I think the sources are there to warrant an article. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here would be willing to look over the article's citations and tell me if they're up to par. Cheers... Multnomahblues ( talk) 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) This is, of course, a "list of unaccredited institutions of higher education". There are several institutions which are sourced only to this website (and a few which are supplemented with a link to this website) -- as of this writing, it is reference 15. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter challenging the accuracy of this information, but, of course, they do not handle content issues and are thus not in position to make this call. I searched the board for prior discussions about geteducated, but only found one off-topic on its notability.
The Wikimedia Foundation recognizes that the community is the expert on what sources are or are not usable and are hoping that you will review it to see if it is reliable in this context, taking any action you may deem appropriate if you decide it is not. They trust and respect your review and resulting decision and will communicate to the correspondent the result of any discussion.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can Firishta, the historian of the 16/17 centuries be considered a reliable source for the history of the Khokhar community? I don't mean cites of his opinions but rather cites of him as fact. - Sitush ( talk) 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to keep it neutral but, since you appear to insist, then yes, I challenge the usage for factual statements. This is an Indic caste article, it is subject to general sanctions and it is an area in which (a) a lot of puffery goes on; (b) most stuff from centuries ago is either ignored by modern authorities or is deprecated; and (c) I have much experience. You can forget the evolution of historical views and interpretations because that is an issue for an article concerning the historiography of India etc (which would be interesting, to be sure).
I really did not want to say any of this because it moves the query from one that is neutral to one that is clearly biased. But you did ask, sorry. I must admit to getting a bit fed up with the pussyfooting around this subject area and it is all pushing me that much closer to jacking it all in. The odd bad day is becoming the odd bad week and it simply is not worth my effort, especially when it almost invariably ends up as I anticipated and, if you can forgive my ownership, in "my favour". My apologies for the rant: I do appreciate the input and the request for clarification but this type of issue is old news here. I feel like a hamster on a wheel. - Sitush ( talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the following Thomson Reuters page:
http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/healthcare/tr_announces_top_health_systems
A reliable source for the claims made at Prime Healthcare Services#Awards and Recognition? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can "Network Marketing Insider" be relied on as a source to review a network marketing company? For example, would it be legitimate to use the following as a source for the MonaVie article... http://www.networkmarketing247.com/monavie/monavie-review-one-of-the-good-guys/? Tonyhammond ( talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This self titled Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site is being cited in a number of places in the BLP for Steve Earle. Is it a reliable source for his discography? collaborations? TV and movie appearances etc.? Biographical information? It appears that it may be a personal web site with no editorial oversight but I am not sure. Any thoughts? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This actually gets at why I think Wikipedia's appearance of proper sourcing is problematic and an illusion. You are questioning unofficial Steve Earle (USE) site, but were rewriting the article to conform to a CMT bio which takes much of its content from the bio on the same exact site. You have ignored my criticism of the sources you are using. Note the CMT bio is equally unreferenced, has no author, and has a great many sentences and phrases taken from the USE site (which is copywritten and lists it authors). Longtime fans of Earle know this as an old site with some of the most accurate, though in some cases outdated as it is less active, information on Earle. It is written by two people who know subject well and have clearly read the biographies and interviews. Clint and Lisa, the authors, have worked directly with the Earle management on many occasions, especially when there was no official site and this was the Steve Earle site, though fan published. That said, I know that is my personal knowledge and judgement. Would I accept it as a reference for an academic paper? No, but I wouldn't accept Wikipeda, either, for these exact reasons. USE may not be reliable, but the bios you have been using are no more reliable. Just because there may be an editor, or a writer is labeled a journalist, does not mean there is any real oversight or quality control. I think this is probably particularly true of entertainment bios, like those at CMT or AllMusic, which get copied and plagiarized from source to source. (Though at least Allmusic has an identified author, which gives weight over the CMT bio.) One defense of the USE site is that, unlike a great many fan sites, it does have references (including an extensive archive of interviews), though not in-line citations, and the authors are clearly identified. What constitutes a published source on the web? I think that the extensive nature of the site does give it some weight and appearance of authority beyond a typical fan site.
Also, are you willing to do the work to find the same information and cite it to make sure the Wiki article adequately covers the subject? The Grammy site would give you the nominations, but you have to dig. (On a completely different note, I would say collaboration lists and use in other media lists are problematic for a prolific artist like Earle. It can't help being partial and incomplete. Better to trim to most significant.) I am same person you have been conversing with! 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If this is judged unreliable, than so is the CMT site. I see no evidence of fact checking there, either, and in fact know some information is incorrect based on more thorough writing on Earle. 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
CMT has a poor reputation for journalism among music writers I know; it is a entertainment channel. On what basis do you say it is trustworthy? What evidence do they show of fact-checking or authorship (of their bios, not the attributed articles)? Many of their bios are simply taken from artist sites, which is not unusual among promoters, but is not good journalism. By the way, the bio on the unofficial site has been posted on that site for at least 12 years, before CMT started posting bios, and has often been pirated when it was the only Earle site and no official site exists. In any case, it is not perfect (mostly because it relies heavily on one source and is dated) and am not really arguing for the unofficial site, though I in fact largely trust it. What I am arguing that Wikipedia editors often show poor judgement in referencing, and that CMT should not be preferred over more extensive interviews and published bios. I know that people try to make it a reliable site, but this is why Wikipedia is not trusted. 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a questions regarding a reference used at Jorge Otero Barreto. The reference is from geneology.com and am wondering if this is considered a reliable source. I believe that the addition is done in good faith given my notability concerns of the subject of that article, and thus am bring it up here (for the sake of the quality of the article) to ensure it meets our RS requirements.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for: [65]. (all relevant info is in the reference. See the linked article about SPLC. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
How does the SPLC qualify as a RS? They are not a news organization with fact checking. Are their findings and research peer reviewed? They seem to be in a unique position compared to most RS used here. Are there examples of similar sources that fall into neither the two standard categories?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Demar has said that not all homosexuals would be executed under a “reconstructed government", but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.” [1] He also said a “long-term goal” should be “the execution of abortionists and their parents.” [1]( 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda Evelyn Schlatter, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140.)
Is SPLC a reliable source for this purpose? Insomesia ( talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
SPLC has repeated come up on this noticeboard because of the hot responses they get from their strong statements, not because their fact-checking is flawed. It's hard for new editors to understand how highly respected the SPLC is in US universities, law enforcement and government. SPLC is, if anything, more highly respected by scholars outside of the US. Here are the past RSN discussions:
Here are some scholarly thoughts about SPLC:
The issue, quite specifically, is whether the SPLC's identification of a set of conservative advocacy organizations as "hate groups" trumps the objections of conservatives to this identification. The intent is to put this identification in the lede of each of these "family values" groups and suppress mention at that point of conservative objection. If you want to subject yourself to the argument, it's going on in Talk:Family Research Council, but it's not the only article affected.
I'm reasonably willing to take the SPLC as a reporter of what people said, but that's not the authority that's being claimed here. It's their analysis that is at stake, and for that, they are the primary source. In general there's not much controversy over their tracking of hypernationalist and racist groups. They are also widely relied upon in examination of hate crimes, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand because nobody is seriously accusing these groups of committing or abetting criminal acts. It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech. There's an obvious political division between those who accept their analysis, and those who don't; it's bloody well obvious in the discussion. My personal view is that the designation has enough traction in media sources to be mentioned, but that the controversy needs to be admitted to up front. But at any rate in discussing their "reliability", we are really evaluating their authority on this particular point, not a general view of the organization. Mangoe ( talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Query: Has the SPLC ever described or listed a progressive advocacy group as a "hate group" at any point? Which ones? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation (about Illinois Family Institute) was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, [2] the Nebraska Psychological Association, [3] and the Canadian Psychological Association, [4] the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." [4] [5] [6]
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)
Is this text reliable sourced? I've also notified BLPN as the editors at Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute have claimed BLP issues IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The original source from where the above was generated |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've noted what looks like rather close paraphrasing between The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Jurgen Habermas [70] and ours. There are at least a couple of sentences in the biography section that are copypasted. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
71.230.50.24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is persistently inserting information pertaining to student complaints about Peabody Institute, repeatedly claiming that Facebook and a blog are verifiable sources: [71].
I would like a third opinion as to whether or not this information should be included.
69.251.42.0 ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, There has been an ongoing dispute regarding the title of the subject article (which is not the subject of this post, it obviously needs to be dealt with elsewhere). As part of this discussion, several editors have claimed that I have been abusing the sources I have used for the official name of the territory in question. I have used several sources here, so for completeness I will lay out all of them, along with the exact statement in the article that I am using the sources to support. I would appreciate a few more eyes on this to make sure I am not too close to the issue.
1. Sources.
a. Bond, Brian; Roy, Ian (1977). War and society: a yearbook of military history, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-85664-404-7. p. 230 here [72].
b. Deroc, Milan (1988). British Special Operations explored: Yugoslavia in turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British response Volume 242 of East European monographs. East European Monographs, University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-88033-139-5. p. 232 here [73]
c. Hehn, Paul N. (1971).
"Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 13 (4). University of Alberta: 344–373. Retrieved 8 April 2012. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |editorlink=
(
help)
here
[74]
d. Kroener, Bernhard (2000). Germany and the Second World War: Volume V: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power (Part 1: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822887-5. p. 86 here [75].
e. Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). Serbia: the History behind the Name. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. ISBN 978-1-85065-476-6. p. 141 here [76]
f. United Kingdom Naval Intelligence Division (1944). Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration. Michigan: University of Michigan. p. 380 here [77]
g. Kerner, Robert Joseph (1949). Yugoslavia. University of California Press. p. 358 here [78]
2. Content.
The above sources are used to support the following content.
'Official name of the occupied territory translated from German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens' - which is contained in a note to the bolded article title in the lead.
I would greatly appreciate a view whether any or all of these sources can be used to support that content, and/or suggestions on what if any modifications should be made.
Regards, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is source abuse. Peacemaker67 is try to promote name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” in Wikipedia and he have only one source in English that support this name - Hehn, Paul N. (1971). All other sources here do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” and Peacemaker67 list them in pages to create false impression that name that he promote in Wikipedia have support from more sources. Name that he promote have support from only one source in English and that source is 40 years old and no other source support that. Nemambrata ( talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Well, German works verify the German official name so asking for sources that use a translation like Area/Territory of Military Commander in Serbia is rather inane. There's not much to abuse in the first place when the issue revolves around a straightforward translation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, filling up this notice board by the same editors (WW and Nemambrata) that have made their views clear on the talk page is unhelpful and probably repels disinterested experienced editors that are actively involved on this noticeboard. If you have something to add to the actual discussion of whether these sources support the listed content, please try to stay on topic. The title issue is related, but this request is not a content dispute. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have previously been involved in discussing the name of the article in question, please do not comment further on RS/N. Feel free to discuss the results of the RS/N discussion of sources on your article talk page. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Are the sources reliable for the territory being discussed being "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens" and that a reasonable translation of this title being the territory of the military commander in Serbia?
None of this indicates what the common name amongst scholars in English is, or what the common English referent is for the territory directly occupied by Germans containing a large Serbian population in WWII. None of this indicates if the most common name is an English translation, or a German loan word. This indicates that in three reliable scholarly sources, scholars are aware of the german Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens, and that this is a Territory controlled by a Military Commander in or of Serbia. Regarding your name dispute, I suggest mediation on an appropriate forum and a close friendly discussion of title naming policy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:11, 31 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 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
Is this a "primary source" which ought to be avoided - and use reliable secondary sources in vast preference? It looks like Paul Ryan is having all his "controversial votes" "explained " in his BLP with conceivably POV intent. IMO. inless an outside source refers to his positions, it is not our proper functiom to do such research. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a lot of context to go on and the exact reference and usage. In general I would say that using a government primary source to cherry pick just one part of a voting record is original research and would need a secondary source to make the actual claim.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Right. First of all, does File:NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate 3b.gif justify he text used to describe it, which doesn't appeared to be in is source, http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Specifically, neither seems to allow a categorical statement that no non-sunspot warming happened before 1980 - but we say that the trend was definitely until 1980, a date nowhere sourced. Secondly, can Roy Spencer be used to describe the mainstrea views, and how they differ from the fringe - an apparently very convenient description that makes the fringe sound more equivalent. sources are his book The Great Global Warming Blunder and the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101 87.238.84.65 ( talk · contribs)
Naked WP:CANVASSING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since the OP has never edited the article nor commented on its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently edited the Mara Bar-Serapion article to include the following info:
Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[1] William Cureton published the first complete English translation of this work in 1855.[2]
[1] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi.
[2] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.
This edit was quickly reverted ( diff) by another user with the note, "VERY interesting info. Yet, I tried to confirm it in recent sources, post 1950 but could not. These sources are too old to be WP:RS. Do you have more recent sources?" Unfortunately I too noticed that more recent reliable sources (at least those freely available on the Web) seem to show little interest in the 19th century history of the manuscript containing the Mara bar Serapion text.
Now I agree that this user would have a point if the argument being referenced involved the interpretation of the manuscript's text within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern literature and culture because historical and social sciences have advanced greatly over the past 150 years. However, as the statements being supported by the references involve specific facts, such as Tattam's discovery of the manuscript in a specific year at a specific place, it seems to me that these references should still qualify as WP:RS despite their age. Is this a correct way of looking at the situation? Thanks in advance for your feedback. -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You can always just attribute and contexualize the claims so that the readers are instantly aware of the age of the scholarship they are viewing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(As an aside, does Wikipedia have a maintenance tag along the lines of {{More recent citation needed|date}}? That could be useful in certain circumstances.) -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...If context is everything, I see no reason why the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia for a statement about archaeology wouldn't be reliable. You do realise that the many sites in Rome required permits and permissions from the church and that many times the church would be directly involved. Take the exact example I gave above about the archaeology of the Comitium. The church was using the Curia Julia as a tomb and the structure itself, a church. If the encyclopedia has information from the church in regards to the archeology of a structure during the transiton from church to public state building , then their documentation would be as reliable as the states documentation and the archaeologist. It would have to be used only to confirm and verify claims in regards to such information that directly pertain to the church and I wouldn't use their mentions for things not related to the church itself, such as them just commenting outside projects etc.. The Catholic archives and publications from that period as a resource are one of the largest depositories of information in the world from that period and older. I don't know if it is that easy to dismiss for aercheology, only because some of the most important digs in Ancient Roman history took place in Rome....and about 100 years ago. To understand the original projects, we need sources that can confirm the information from that period. I don't know...I may have used this source. LOL! That may have actually been me Doug! =)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me tell you guys why I do not trust these 1870 or 1920 sources with no modern scholarship to confirm them. There are several reasons, but one is that for the life of me I do not know if they are not hoaxes. I have often wished I had been part of the group that managed to pull the prank that Henri Cartan did. It was just brilliant and a great laugh. They were laughing at the French Academy for years - and the Academy was frantically searching for Bourbaki. The Wiki article on it is not detailed enough, but there were huge laughs and all kinds of games. It only came out because Dieudonné acted like John Lennon. If they had just stopped, Bourbaki would have existed. But that is another story. Yet, unless things are verified by multiple scholars in a modern setting, you never know... You never know. So I just do not bet on some 100 year old statement. Not that it matters much here, but one can never be sure unless the rigors of modern scholarship have been applied to a topic. History2007 ( talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
An English translation of this work published in 1855 by William Cureton was presented by Cureton as the "publication for the first time of remains of writers who have been the most celebrated in the earliest ages of the Christian Church".[1] According to the preface of an 1867 translation, Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[2]
[1] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.
[2] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi. [modified by dave souza, talk 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)]
Comment: Sorry for being away from this discussion for a few days. I've proposed some changes in my sandbox and provided some explanatory notes on these proposals over on the Mara Bar Serapion Talk page which I invite feedback on. To summarize, I found some additional citations which I worked into the article, so I didn't quite adopt Dave souza's proposal though I did adopt some elements particularly with regards to removing the unsubstantiated (in the secondary sources) claim that Cureton's translation was "first" and "complete". But I would like to thank him and everyone else for their feedback, which I have found helpful both now and in possible future occasions. I'd also like to add a couple general comments on the preceding conversation.
(a) Given that the topic of the age of a RS is clearly an important topic, perhaps it may be appropriate to offer more guidance to editors on this subject in the Wikipedia:RS article. As the article is currently written, I could only find a brief cautionary note that "some scholarly material may be outdated", so it may be helpful to other editors who may encounter similar circumstances in the future to provide more in-depth guidance. For example, perhaps the article should state that an edit should not be reverted *merely* because the source used is old if that source otherwise is of RS quality (unless of course other factors are present, such as the edit involving a non-contextualized statement which more recent research has demonstrated to be inaccurate).
(b) History2007, I agree that it is important to be on the watch for hoaxes and other material which may mislead. Unfortunately though, hoaxes, frauds and misleadingly presented research are not confined to the 19th century. Even so, peer-reviewed journals in general remain reliable sources (unless evidence exists to the contrary in a particular circumstance) just as (in my opinion) older works shouldn't be deemed unreliable merely on account of their age (again, unless other factors are present in a particular circumstance). -- Mike Agricola ( talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
On the page for the TV series Arrow, user ( SchrutedIt08) is consistently deleting information sourced from GreenArrowTV.com, an offshoot from the KSiteTV.com website, dismissing it as an "unreliable source." Author Craig Byrne is a professional writer who wrote several TV show companion books, and if the news originally came from that site and was linked as such from the sources that ARE linked to, shouldn't it be the source credited and be considered reliable enough? 108.219.213.206 ( talk) 07:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It also has broken unique news related to the show, and provided unique interviews, from a published author. I don't really understand why it would not qualify, especially if other links that are sourced use them as the original resource. 108.219.213.206 ( talk) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Source: [1]
Article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jayvlog89 (Jamie's World)
Context:
In 2010 Jamie's World won a Stony Award for best internet video from High Times Magazine.
The site is blocked where I live so I have no idea what the source says. Though I highly doubt it is reliable, can anyone read the source and tell me what it says so I can review the article when it's up for AfC? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a Spokeo page was added here as this inline citation to support the claim that Pat Condell was born in 1950, so my first question is whether Spokeo is considered reliable enough to support this claim. The first problem is spokeo contradicts itself (it first has "Born Nov 23, 1949" and then "1950 Birth"), the second is the site does not give its sources, only the vague statements that they "aggregate vast quantities of public data " and that they merge "“real life” information (address, email address, marital status, etc.) with social network data (Facebook profiles, Twitter feeds, etc.)" giving the disclaimer "Spokeo does not verify or evaluate each piece of data, and makes no warranties or guarantees about any of the information offered." (see http://www.spokeo.com/blog/about).
This appears to be the definition of an unreliable source, what do others think?
I also notice spokeo is used for several other wikipedia articles, of which this sample makes me dubious of its use: [[Nathan Kelly], Adam Cappa, Lakhai Upazila (which could very well be spokeo getting their information from wikipedia). So my second question is how should editors decide which spokeo claims are reliable? - 84user ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a considerable number of mostly very stubby articles [2] about obscure or minor deities sourced partially or exclusively to the various editions of Michael Jordan's The Encyclopedia of Gods (variously, to the 1993 Facts on File printing or to either the 1999 or 2002 Kyle Cathie Limited editions). I suspect that quite a few of the entirely unreferenced deity articles actually derive from this source as well. Some of these articles date back to 2004, although another batch was created in 2007. Although this book gets fairly good reviews by lay readers on sites like Amazon and Google Books, I have significant concerns about its reliability for the purposes of Wikipedia sourcing.
The book contains very small information snippets about each entity listed (short enough, in fact, that some of these stubs may also be copyright violations). It has no bibliography, and does not in any way indicate where the material originated. Additionally, there are indications from user comments in various review sites that quality control is not good (errors in Norse mythology including equating Freya and Frigga, misidentification of Salus's gender, and conflation of non-divine spirit entities with deities).
Obviously, the long-term solution is across the board article improvement. In the meantime, the two salient questions are: does this book meet our reliability standards and, separately, are the uses of this book sufficiently problematic from a copyright perspective to warrant more urgent action? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What is outrageous and unacceptable in Bat Ye'or's approach, is to see her reproducing an intellectual conspiracy-theory, a shameless propaganda, a way of thinking which she herself was a victim of, as well as millions of her coreligionists. Because, basically, these cries of outrage are not very different than "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", this hoax created by the tsarist police in order to demonize the Jews, all jews. It mimics, in some way, "The Jewish France", the book of the nineteenth century anti-Semitic journalist Edouard Drumont who suggested that his country was dominated by Jews.
Your comments about the reliability of the source are welcome. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Suetonius on Christians will be appreciated. There are a few points and some of them are:
A user wants to reject what scholars say about the confusion of a Roman historian because he thinks "there is no method to test" what the scholars say.... He also thinks books by professors are not WP:RS if they are aimed at a general audience.... Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all 3 of you for pointing out the logic. I will point to this discussion from that talk page. And I think WP:V and WP:RS agree with what you guys have said: that we just summarize what the scholars write (using WP:Due) not decide if their views can be tested. And as stated above, professors can be WP:RS sources even if their books are written for a general audience. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Some content I added has been vehemently removed twice ( diff, diff, talk) from the green coffee article on the basis of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The content cites the Hypertension Research journal, and read:
The Japanese Society of Hypertension published studies in 2002 and 2005, demonstrating that green coffee bean extract has an antihypertensive effect in rats [1] and humans. [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Some more information on the journal:
I am attempting to expand the content of the stub green coffee article in a neutral and verifiable manner but am not an expert, and would appreciate a community read on the reliability of this journal. Regards. -- Ds13 ( talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't find the answer in the archives - do we allow documents stored on sources such as Google or constantcontact.com to be used as references? See DotConnectAfrica. They aren't obvious when you first look, eg ""Open Letter to US Department of Commerce National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA) making a preliminary case for the .africa gTLD". ICANN." is one. [4]. Then there are others on reputable organisations, but can we use [5] for anything? Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Can the following manuscript [6], which has not yet passed peer-review, be considered a reliable source for the claim being made here [7]? They use a sample of size 9+15 individuals to draw conclusions about an entire population. Thanks in advance, Athenean ( talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Easy and fun test:
Then start posting it around the web. Sooner or later, that fact will appear in Wikipedia, under Cheddar.... Not hard to do. History2007 ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Is inagist.com a reliable source, I need to use it as evidence for "the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti site has been blocked by the GoI. [8] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree about wp:ABOUTSELF. I cannot do much about it though. So let us wait and watch? Anyways what does the HJS site say? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As a possible solution, can you take a screenshot of the block notice? Would this be acceptable as a source? I guess that depends on precisely what the notice says (eg: does it say that it is blocked throughout the country). - Sitush ( talk) 06:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone with authority should look at what's going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28from_May_2012%29
Example: "By evening 148 civilians were killed by the Syrian army. 57 were killed in the Damascus suburbs, including over 40 bodies found in Al Tal."
Source: lccsyria
92.15.77.16 ( talk) 19:39, 22 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.
|
There are editors using a website [10] as a reliable source for an article on the ICOC.
When I read WP:SOURCES it leads me to suspect that this doesn't meet the standards required for an encyclopaedia.
This "self-published" website has no professional journalists vouching for the material produced, no editorial oversight, no accuracy checking mechanism, in fact their journalistic standards are so low they state in the ABOUT REVEAL/GETTING INVOLVED tab:
"just write up your story, and let REVEAL make it available in the online library. We only ask that you use your real name on your story. You are free to use pseudonyms for others in your story, provided you identify them as such, and in rare cases we may agree to post a pseudonymous story provided we know who you are."
The only requirement for being pubished is you "use your real name" or "we know who you are"! No fact checking, no interviews, no investigative journalism to determine if these claims are true of false!
The claims being made and referenced on the ICOC page are also not light in nature.
Brainwashing, sexual abuse. Harassment etc...
Can someone please help shine some light here? JamieBrown2011 ( talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you guys say that this book:
is WP:RS? Louis H. Feldman is highly respected as far as I know, but comments will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Can VR-Zone be considered a reliable source? Specifically, I'm asking about the reliability of this article as a source for the following content at 16:10:
On the other hand, there has been criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. For this reason, some consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are usually designed for taller, rather than wider screens.
The site seems like a reliable tech news outlet, referenced by several other established news sites like Engadget, PC Mag, PC World and Tech Report, as well as a number of articles on Wikipedia. The author has written ca. 100 articles on VR-Zone, and has also contributed to several other news sites like PC & Tech Authority, HPCWire.com and The Inquirer (Google search because I couldn't find author profiles on theinquirer.net). Indrek ( talk) 23:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A user has argued that following source cannot be considered reliable for the statement Israeli outposts are illegal under Israeli law, as opposed to authorized settlements which are legal under Israeli law, though all settlements, including outposts, are also considered illegal under international law.: Ġānim, Asʻad (2010), Palestinian Politics After Arafat: A Failed National Movement, Indiana University Press, p. 32, all forms of settlement in the occupied territories are considered prohibited under international law, Israel considers only settlement "outposts" illegal.
Thoughts? nableezy - 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wayback article, originally published January, 2002. It is being argued on K-9 (film) ( talk page) that the e-zine Risk Management is not a reliable source for stating Rando was the canine star of the movie. Source quote:
On the set of K-9, a 1989 Jim Belushi movie, the veritable star of the film was Rando, a German Shepherd. “We actually insured the animal for twenty-five million dollars,” says Kingman, “in the event of a death, injury or sickness that caused an abandonment of the film. There were some backups, but Rando was the hero dog.” To make certain—were something to happen to Rando—that the backup dogs would be able to replace him in his remaining scenes, the dogs were separated in transit in order to diversify the risks of losing the film’s star character.
WP article sentence it relates to:
The dog was actually named Rando,
The "actually" is in reference to the previous sentence, where it is pointed out that the movie credits had Jerry Lee playing himself. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
209.103.209.86 ( talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Fyi: The original editor incorporated your statements within the updated edit which you reverted. However, you totally dismissed all of their edits based on "original research" and "unreliable sources". But the cites aren't [all] from blogs or social sites and there is a concensus. Nor is it original research within the article, only perhaps within the talk page as summarized/generic examples provided. It's not like only one resource is in dispute about Koton/Jerry Lee (and "extras" including Rando) per several sites provided on the talk page. I'm not sure if you took the time to actually read them all or just didn't like the fact that Rando was not the only dog being used in the film to perform in action scenes, the dog's facial expressions, etc.? This is all detailed within the talk page already. Not to mention a statement about the film's reception was removed without discussion. I gave you credit for your good sources (People and LA Times). Others were even found claiming Rando was involved in the film that the other editor found. But the conflict is that other dogs were in the film too. You can't just create a section stating that Jerry Lee wasn't actually played by himself, and only include one dog when there were others involved. Just like the sequel film lists all three dogs used, and Fraiser/The Artist mentions other "stunt/replacement/back-up" dogs used, etc. I can't make my point any more clear than I have here and on the talk page. (Worn out.) Best wishes! :) 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
There's always something reliable and there are some websites having a some rights reserved template for anyone to edit with representation.-- 50.122.9.57 ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
How come no one actually verified if any of those references would work besides the first one this section is about and other than the actual editor who is disputing them in the first place and reverted the edit? His list of "fails reliablity" does not count. Otherwise, all that happened was that the topic was moved from K-9's talk page to here! The point is to ask other users/editors their determination. Thanks! P.S. I also didn't understand 50.122.9.57's response, but I believe he/she is saying some of those have some amount of reliablity. 71.234.215.133 response is not acceptable in this situation. Someone else needs to weigh in like Barnabypage did for 71.234.215.133, otherwise the edit on the article is going back to how it was which included both dogs and not just the one. As well as a reference about the movie getting good reviews. There has to be some truth to all those sites recounting Koton being involved in the movie whether 71.234.215.133 likes the source or not. I was letting this go until it was that users point to claim the problem was Risk Management's source and not admit that the issue is about the other sources not being accepted leading to his/her revert which was not proper (should have discussed on talk page instead of attempt to create an edit war). Just saying... 209.103.209.86 ( talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what your argument even is when what you actually typed up is not true/reliable. Here is how the article currently reads (since the previous changes you reverted have already been included within this and the talk page):
Casting "Jerry Lee": "Jerry Lee", the German Shepherd Dog, is billed in the credits "as himself". The dog was actually named Rando,[1][2][3] who was found in Germany during an international star search to fill the role. Animal trainer and handler Karl Miller and his daughter Teresa trained Rando for the movie, teaching him a second language in the process.[4] In a 2002 interview, Belushi remembers that "Rondo [sic], who was the first Jerry Lee, was a prima donna: He was a good-looking dog with a close-up that the camera just loved, and he knew it. He was more moody, snotty even."[5]
So let's not debate the sources, instead, I will use what your own edit claims against your argument which is a contradiction. The section must be removed until resolved. Fyi: Primma donna is spelled wrong ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primma_Donna) and the actual sources off IMDB for the positive film reviews are also fine in my opinion. As long as you are claiming "so and so reported/reviewed" within the article, it is acceptable. If the article claims "Crap.com" said K-9 was the best film ever... and it's sourced, that is true/reliable. Enough cherry-picking! I hope you finally understand, because we are almost literally beating a dead dog here. 209.103.207.26 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Enough, let's move on! You can have the final word (again), but the article is fine the way it is and needs to be left alone. I encourage you to focus on another topic. Your sources weren't reliable either. They claim Jerry Lee is the dog, Rando is an extra. Just because a handler says "Rando is the star" doesn't make it "reliable/right/true". You're playing semantics. Stating the sources were less reliable was only for your benefit. No one else cares. You just have a hang up about Rando and Risk Management not being used. Please, get over it. Further inspection of your sources reveal that one article is pre-release. The dog they are reporting about is a dog that may not have made the final film cut. There were possible changes. Who knows? You have failed to prove Jerry Lee is actually Rando because it is not true, and this is what it's really all about. That is why Belushi is quoted in 2002 as saying he remembered the "first Jerry Lee". So all of this was pointless and unproductive. It was never about the Risk Management source. It also means that showing out-dated out-of-context sources to IMDB (whoever did that) and having them change it without analyzing all the facts (as presented on the film's talk page or this notice board for instance), was a bad decision and IMDB should be encouraged to change it back to just "Jerry Lee". And please do not make changes to the article as another user, in case you are doing this or "agreeing with your choices" as another user. You are not reading other/all sources apparently, just your own and the edit made on the article. You want to defend your source and "dog of choice" and it's nonsense. Enough is enough. You are also twisting our words and using rules to defend yourself while missing the pillars of Wikipedia all together. And the review cite was an example of sources available supporting positive reviews which the article did not reflect. It's fine not to use it, that may have been an error. It did not warrant a complete revert. You are "nit picking" and causing discord instead of assisting with improving the article. Maybe next time you can extract the actual information from sources as I have and include it in the article instead of just doing a sweep of reverts and causing incorrect information that is biased and not neutral. I'm done, you may reply which I know you will. I will not. I will however be monitoring the article since you continue to argue something that is trivial. 64.134.151.20 ( talk) 06:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors as to the reliability of Twitter posts such as this as many editors of TV articles are relying on them to support added content. In the example given, which was used at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 6), the included image of a script has two items of concern; the episode title is deliberately concealed and in the bottom right corner the document is identified as a "TABLE DRAFT". It seems that using this as confirmation of the production code relies on WP:SYNTH, as neither the source for the episode, [48] or the tweet explicitly say that 3X7601 is the production code for "The Date Night Variable". There are some commonalities (the episode number 112 is used by both the document and Wikipedia and 601 is used by the Futon critic source while it's partially concealed in the image) but I think this requires personal analysis in order to provide a link. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Would make sense to me that images posted to Twitter are reliable sources only for the premise that said picture exists, and not for any substance of which the picture represents. In legal parlance they would be hearsay -- largely inadmissible for the truth of what they say, but potentially admissible with regard to the fact that they do exist. Using the film script example, the image could be an RS for the statement that a picture of an alleged script exists, but would not be an RS to support a factual statement that a script does actually exist or any content within the script. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently noticed a little over a dozen articles having articles from studentpulse.com added to them as references. I removed those on the assumption that the site does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Yes, the site does claim to have peer review, but, per our guideline, "a claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs". There are several reasons to doubt the respectability of this site.
For one, the papers are all submitted by students, and while the concept of graduate (or even undergraduate) research is not unknown, one does have to look a bit more skeptically at the work, especially when no one with an advanced degree is collaborating. For another, while the site doesn't give information on who its reviewers are, it still seems dubious that a single venue can rigorously evaluate papers in fields ranging from Physics to Theatre to Journalism. Finally, while reputation is somewhat difficult to measure, I very much doubt the site enjoys any sort of credibility among scholars in the respective fields. It may accept students papers and label them as peer-reviewed, but has any academic actually cited one of these papers?
So I would venture that we should not be citing papers from here either. - Biruitorul Talk 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI -- here is a breakdown of topics presented by Student Pulse. Many of them are cross-referenced, so the overall total is much less than enumerated. A total of 183 articles are listed as "Featured Articles". This data suggests that Student Pulse limits what they present. (English & History majors may enjoy an exception!)
In any event, here are some more actual works which cite Student Pulse/Student Pulse articles:
-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As an editor for the publication in question, I would like to thank a kind wikipedia editor for notifying me that this conversation is currently ongoing. Hopefully I can help put this discussion to bed. First, I will make several important clarifications. Student Pulse is an edited publication, with only a small portion of submissions accepted (less than 1/3). Articles are reviewed by persons with expertise relevant to the topic and appropriate to the level of the publication (this is an undergraduate and graduate student publication); reviewers are at least at the graduate level of education, either having obtained or currently pursuing a PhD. As noted above, SP does cover a broad range of topics, however it was also pointed out that the vast majority of published articles fall within the social sciences and humanities -- this is absolutely correct, and a testament to our editorial policy of only accepting material that we are confident has been appropriately reviewed.
I will make my own suggestion as to SP's fulfillment of the WP:RS requirement. Student Pulse is a relatively new publication (first full run in 2010), and given that its focus is on publishing undergraduate and graduate work, it should not be altogether surprising (or taken as a sign that SP does not meet WP:RS requirement) that SP articles have not been widely cited in the academic literature. The academic cycle is slow and long-established publications dominate most fields. On the other hand, SP articles are clearly being consumed by an academic audience, and some reputable citations are already apparent despite the obvious challenges facing any new publication. At the same time, SP articles do meet particular high standards: all are subject to editorial oversight, all are reviewed by members of the academic community, and all conform to standard academic conventions, such as the use of other high-quality sources in clearly indicated reference lists. My personal feeling is that those traits qualify Student Pulse as a reliable source. However, if those factors are not overwhelming in their ability to sway the views of other wiki users at the current time, my suggestion is that instead of making a blanket decision that Student Pulse is either "reliable" or "unreliable," the community of Wikipedia editors instead consider each SP article, where referenced, on its own merits. User:tustind
Is this source [52] reliable, or appropriate, for this contested statement "Another commentator has said, "Try Googling both male or female ACL staff members, and the F word, or the C word. Thousands and thousands of results returned." at this page Australian Christian Lobby. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Al Arabiya is sometimes referred to as a Pan-Arabist news channel. I wonder if this by itself makes it a bad thing to seclude this news channel from BLP articles? The specific question is about an article in Al Arabiya criticizing an Iranian poet who made a poem that some Arabs found insulting. My question is whether I could reflect Al Arabiya's point of view in the Poet's Wiki article by saying "Some Arabic sources found his poem 'XYZ' insulting". Thank You.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In regards to: Mountaintop_removal_mining
I am trying to clean up this article and bring it to the standard of NPOV.
While checking all of the cited sources, I visited www.grist.org and it would not be a choice of mine to cite as a reliable source. Does the site grist.org meet the Wikipedia guidelines as a source?
http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/
The above is an editorial/opinion piece that is clearly not NPOV. Sadly, this source was used to justify the use of a POVTITLE and other aggressive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco ( talk • contribs)
At the Islamophobia article a few editors are trying to consider Islamophobia a form of racism. As we all know the defintion of racism is discrimination, prejudice or stereotypes based on race, ethnicity or nationality. This is there sources. I'm trying to state that just because it has what would normally be considered a reliable source that dosn't mean it is true. There are so called "reliable sources" that state that HIV dosn't lead to AIDS, or that premote holocaust denial or even sources that supposedly prove that certain races are not equal. The fact of the matter is that by defintion I don't believe that the Islamophobia article should call it racism. Especially when the antisemitism article dosn't even call antisemitism racism.
^ Reviewed in: Ayhan Kaya (2011). Fryklund, Björn; Righard, Erica. eds. Islamophobia as a form of governmentality: Unbearable weightiness of the politics of fear. Malmö: Malmö University, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM). Retrieved August 15, 2012. See also: Schiffer, S.; Wagner, C. (2011). "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns". Race & Class 52 (3): 77. doi:10.1177/0306396810389927. edit
Halliday, F. (1999). "'Islamophobia' reconsidered". Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (5): 892–902. doi:10.1080/014198799329305. PMID 20499467. edit Semati, M. (2010). "Islamophobia, Culture and Race in the Age of Empire". Cultural Studies 24 (2): 256–275. doi:10.1080/09502380903541696. edit Webman, E. (2012). "Discourses on Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Arab Media". European Societies 14 (2): 222–239. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.676455. edit
- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, sidebox genres on Allmusic.com surely they're not reliable right? Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd
At Zion square assault, there are some sections, standard for this type of article, dealing with reactions. Rather than limit these to political utterances, I have covered press comment of what public intellectuals think in Israel, and also a section on discussions in the American Jewish community. Two editors are removing material in this section on what strikes me as spurious policy grounds, more out of objections to the content, it strikes me, than anything else. See here and [53]
Of 3 opinion pieces so far, two have been challenged. Exception has been taken esp. to an article by Jessie Benjamin, appearing in Mondoweiss, and the remarks, no different in substance from many others cited in the article, esp. that of Jill Jacobs, above it, runs:-
Jesse Benjamin, an Israeli American Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University, writing for Mondoweiss, the alternative news website run by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, contextualized the incident within a detailed memoir of his own youthful experiences as a Jerusalem yeshiva dropout in Zion Square, and argued the attack constituted a wake-up call to challenge what he called Jim Crow practices. Jewish allies within Israeli society are needed to assist Palestinians in exposing the problem, he argues, but concludes that, 'the globalized West still holds onto Jews as the victims par excellence,' and after 9/11, is even more comfortable in denying humanity to Arabs.
News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
Benjamin appears to be a rather minor academic (asst. prof at a 2nd or 3rd tier state university); his expertise, such as it is, appear to be Bedouins, Nubians and Nabataeans, not Yeshiva dropouts. "Mondoweiss" is a partisan, fringe blog. If, as the OP posits, the remarks attributed to him are no different in substance from many others cited in the article, then why are we resorting to this marginal-of-marginal sources? Let's stick with the more mainstream ones who say the same thing. All Rows4 ( talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Carol, Mondoweiss was addressed slightly as part of the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#IRMEP_-_two_separate_issues. Inevitably that discussion was disrupted by a NoCal sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good day, there are fluctuations on the Chinese Zodiac signs and I can tell by two user and mainly one, User:Bobrayner and User:Drmies both have been supposedly deleting fiction of a source (and the latest user is User:Beyond My Ken), when they are just informational sources from the pseudoscience website, it its the same going with the Western astrology. They were only sample sources and I am hoping you notify them to stop deleting them as they were appropiate for the article, while I was on break they usually sabatoged the signs, although, one IP user did try to undo they believe it was useless, I am trying to configure with the Western Horoscope as well, all I am saying let them know to stop revoming the atributions it's sources from reliable sites, please, and thank you-- GoShow ( ...............) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I am deleting the Ruling countries seems to be fictational, otherwise, most of the attribution are reliable thank you.-- GoShow ( ...............) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am looking into more book sources right now thanks.-- GoShow ( ...............) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I read your comment Beyond My Ken on your talk page and I agree, here's deal I will delete the comment summaries, other than the calendars I will keep and the attributions, the summaries I will delete, they do seem unbias, however I'll let the people decide on other psudoscience webpages to check if they are those characteristics, other than that I agree, I'll delete the characteristics. Be back 3 hours, taken a break but will finish deleting the characteristics unless someones will do it for me.-- GoShow ( ...............) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2 3 4 5 6. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, title says it all. - I want to bring this to the attention of the more experienced Wikipedians, since in the meantime this kind of nuisance might have killed a lot of other reference links on the entire WP as well...
First observed this problem here: Talk:Phantom_of_Heilbronn#Please, somebody check that reference link!. - And please excuse me, if this here is not the right place to share that kind of information. (Should this be the case, please drop me a line on my TP. I'm still a Newbie.) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not challenge the reliability at all.
But should these sources be tagged - and how - to notify the readers? (Who then perhaps could add alternative sources.) I mean, even if you were a subscriber, the links would always first stop you at the customs gate.
Is tagging them as "dead link" completely incorrect then? (If yes, I've made some blunder that I should revert.) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC
Thank you all for your replies. That was very helpful and interesting stuff. - Following your hints, I think that tagging with Template:Subscription_required would be the correct thing to do in these cases, right? - Again thanks and Bye! -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions:
If I read the Archive 129 discussion correctly, the consensus seems to have ended up that glbtq.com is *not* a RS. I take exception to that. From what I understand, if a source has editorial oversight and provides their own sources for their material, then they could be considered "reliable". Glbtq.com seems to pass both these criteria. The presskit at the site claims editorial oversight, and many (if not most) articles include bibliographies. For example, the article about William Inge includes the sources used, and the article about Kenneth Anger does as well.
Question: How does Glbtq.com fail the guidelines on Reliable Sources? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Would the 21st century lexicon ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigo%20child ) be a reliable source for this diff in Indigo children article? The attribution of an "important spiritual impact" is common for the concept in question across multiple primary sources (like published books and interviews with the authors who introduced the term into broad usage). The 21st century lexicon summarizes and defines it in a compact form, while being not a primary source. Thanks in advance. -- Nazar ( talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi All,
I posted a link to more information about the trading financials of the Babylon Bank - and another editor thought it was not appropriate.
Is this link okay: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html On the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Bank
I have read the wikipedia rules and I understand the addition of links is suitable on the basis there is not many as it undervalues the page. The page currently has 1, I was adding 1 more.
Please advise. Though I get the impression, you guys are bored and need to exert some sort of "power" haha
Regards. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I apreciate your response Jp. However, you are misinformed. I was not adding the same link to many diffrent pages. I was adding diffrent links to diffrent pages.
Example: Warka Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Al_Warka_Investment_Bank.html Example: Babylon Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html Example: Bank of Baghdad http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Bank_of_Baghdad.html
I am surprised at his move as I have an understand that wikipedia is in the business of sharing content. I am not interested in self promotion. I am interested in adding worthy links, eg there is only 1 link on Babylon Bank page so surely 1 more is better?!!!
Regards. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So does that mean I am able to place the link? The data came directly from the Iraq Stock Exchange.
Actually I am able to... An example: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html and it is direct from here http://www.isx-iq.net/isxportal/portal/companyGuide.html?companyCode=BBAY Reliable or not?. 80.39.19.147 ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just wrote where I got it from and provided a link!!!!! Are you not looking?????? Seriously? 83.41.4.176 ( talk) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This question concerns a part of the infobox of the article Leo Frank regarding his height. The change would only affect the footnote for the 5'6" height. The proposed change would add to the footnote a comment regarding a height of 5'8" along with the Cornell yearbook source.
Height 5'6" [1]
Notes
- 1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.
- (5'8" according to Cornell University Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link))
Is the Cornell yearbook a reliable source for this information? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Other editors currently involved in a related discussion, which is a continuation of a previous discussion, are Carmelmount and Tom (North Shoreman). -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The trial and lynching of Leo Frank were national news at the time and historians and popular writers have continued to write about and analyze the case. The two sources for the height listed in the Info Box are both highly important sources on the subject -- Oney's footnotes show that he consulted a vast amount of primary and secondary sources while Lindemann, writing a different type of book, relied on analyzing the most important secondary sources. Nobody has been able to find ANY reference to a different height in any reliable secondary source.
The yearbook is a primary source with no explanation of how it determined height. Using a primary source, especially when reliable secondary sources are available, is the exception rather than the rule. It is not a reliable source for its apparent purpose -- to propose an alternative height. A two inch differential is insignificant in and of itself and COULD be simply the result of wearing shoes or boots in one of the measurements or a short person deciding to add a couple inches out of vanity. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a page for cortandfatboy, a Portland-based podcast ( talk page) and it was deleted for being a recreation of a previously deleted article. Unbeknownst to me, a prior version was created in 2011 and it was nixed due to an alleged lack of reliable sources. Over the past year, the show has been featured in a cover story in the Portland Mercury, a weekly newspaper, and on the blog of the Oregonian, the state's biggest/most widely read publication. I think the sources are there to warrant an article. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here would be willing to look over the article's citations and tell me if they're up to par. Cheers... Multnomahblues ( talk) 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) This is, of course, a "list of unaccredited institutions of higher education". There are several institutions which are sourced only to this website (and a few which are supplemented with a link to this website) -- as of this writing, it is reference 15. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter challenging the accuracy of this information, but, of course, they do not handle content issues and are thus not in position to make this call. I searched the board for prior discussions about geteducated, but only found one off-topic on its notability.
The Wikimedia Foundation recognizes that the community is the expert on what sources are or are not usable and are hoping that you will review it to see if it is reliable in this context, taking any action you may deem appropriate if you decide it is not. They trust and respect your review and resulting decision and will communicate to the correspondent the result of any discussion.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can Firishta, the historian of the 16/17 centuries be considered a reliable source for the history of the Khokhar community? I don't mean cites of his opinions but rather cites of him as fact. - Sitush ( talk) 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to keep it neutral but, since you appear to insist, then yes, I challenge the usage for factual statements. This is an Indic caste article, it is subject to general sanctions and it is an area in which (a) a lot of puffery goes on; (b) most stuff from centuries ago is either ignored by modern authorities or is deprecated; and (c) I have much experience. You can forget the evolution of historical views and interpretations because that is an issue for an article concerning the historiography of India etc (which would be interesting, to be sure).
I really did not want to say any of this because it moves the query from one that is neutral to one that is clearly biased. But you did ask, sorry. I must admit to getting a bit fed up with the pussyfooting around this subject area and it is all pushing me that much closer to jacking it all in. The odd bad day is becoming the odd bad week and it simply is not worth my effort, especially when it almost invariably ends up as I anticipated and, if you can forgive my ownership, in "my favour". My apologies for the rant: I do appreciate the input and the request for clarification but this type of issue is old news here. I feel like a hamster on a wheel. - Sitush ( talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the following Thomson Reuters page:
http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/healthcare/tr_announces_top_health_systems
A reliable source for the claims made at Prime Healthcare Services#Awards and Recognition? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can "Network Marketing Insider" be relied on as a source to review a network marketing company? For example, would it be legitimate to use the following as a source for the MonaVie article... http://www.networkmarketing247.com/monavie/monavie-review-one-of-the-good-guys/? Tonyhammond ( talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This self titled Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site is being cited in a number of places in the BLP for Steve Earle. Is it a reliable source for his discography? collaborations? TV and movie appearances etc.? Biographical information? It appears that it may be a personal web site with no editorial oversight but I am not sure. Any thoughts? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This actually gets at why I think Wikipedia's appearance of proper sourcing is problematic and an illusion. You are questioning unofficial Steve Earle (USE) site, but were rewriting the article to conform to a CMT bio which takes much of its content from the bio on the same exact site. You have ignored my criticism of the sources you are using. Note the CMT bio is equally unreferenced, has no author, and has a great many sentences and phrases taken from the USE site (which is copywritten and lists it authors). Longtime fans of Earle know this as an old site with some of the most accurate, though in some cases outdated as it is less active, information on Earle. It is written by two people who know subject well and have clearly read the biographies and interviews. Clint and Lisa, the authors, have worked directly with the Earle management on many occasions, especially when there was no official site and this was the Steve Earle site, though fan published. That said, I know that is my personal knowledge and judgement. Would I accept it as a reference for an academic paper? No, but I wouldn't accept Wikipeda, either, for these exact reasons. USE may not be reliable, but the bios you have been using are no more reliable. Just because there may be an editor, or a writer is labeled a journalist, does not mean there is any real oversight or quality control. I think this is probably particularly true of entertainment bios, like those at CMT or AllMusic, which get copied and plagiarized from source to source. (Though at least Allmusic has an identified author, which gives weight over the CMT bio.) One defense of the USE site is that, unlike a great many fan sites, it does have references (including an extensive archive of interviews), though not in-line citations, and the authors are clearly identified. What constitutes a published source on the web? I think that the extensive nature of the site does give it some weight and appearance of authority beyond a typical fan site.
Also, are you willing to do the work to find the same information and cite it to make sure the Wiki article adequately covers the subject? The Grammy site would give you the nominations, but you have to dig. (On a completely different note, I would say collaboration lists and use in other media lists are problematic for a prolific artist like Earle. It can't help being partial and incomplete. Better to trim to most significant.) I am same person you have been conversing with! 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If this is judged unreliable, than so is the CMT site. I see no evidence of fact checking there, either, and in fact know some information is incorrect based on more thorough writing on Earle. 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
CMT has a poor reputation for journalism among music writers I know; it is a entertainment channel. On what basis do you say it is trustworthy? What evidence do they show of fact-checking or authorship (of their bios, not the attributed articles)? Many of their bios are simply taken from artist sites, which is not unusual among promoters, but is not good journalism. By the way, the bio on the unofficial site has been posted on that site for at least 12 years, before CMT started posting bios, and has often been pirated when it was the only Earle site and no official site exists. In any case, it is not perfect (mostly because it relies heavily on one source and is dated) and am not really arguing for the unofficial site, though I in fact largely trust it. What I am arguing that Wikipedia editors often show poor judgement in referencing, and that CMT should not be preferred over more extensive interviews and published bios. I know that people try to make it a reliable site, but this is why Wikipedia is not trusted. 65.185.126.6 ( talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a questions regarding a reference used at Jorge Otero Barreto. The reference is from geneology.com and am wondering if this is considered a reliable source. I believe that the addition is done in good faith given my notability concerns of the subject of that article, and thus am bring it up here (for the sake of the quality of the article) to ensure it meets our RS requirements.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for: [65]. (all relevant info is in the reference. See the linked article about SPLC. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
How does the SPLC qualify as a RS? They are not a news organization with fact checking. Are their findings and research peer reviewed? They seem to be in a unique position compared to most RS used here. Are there examples of similar sources that fall into neither the two standard categories?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Demar has said that not all homosexuals would be executed under a “reconstructed government", but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.” [1] He also said a “long-term goal” should be “the execution of abortionists and their parents.” [1]( 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda Evelyn Schlatter, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140.)
Is SPLC a reliable source for this purpose? Insomesia ( talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
SPLC has repeated come up on this noticeboard because of the hot responses they get from their strong statements, not because their fact-checking is flawed. It's hard for new editors to understand how highly respected the SPLC is in US universities, law enforcement and government. SPLC is, if anything, more highly respected by scholars outside of the US. Here are the past RSN discussions:
Here are some scholarly thoughts about SPLC:
The issue, quite specifically, is whether the SPLC's identification of a set of conservative advocacy organizations as "hate groups" trumps the objections of conservatives to this identification. The intent is to put this identification in the lede of each of these "family values" groups and suppress mention at that point of conservative objection. If you want to subject yourself to the argument, it's going on in Talk:Family Research Council, but it's not the only article affected.
I'm reasonably willing to take the SPLC as a reporter of what people said, but that's not the authority that's being claimed here. It's their analysis that is at stake, and for that, they are the primary source. In general there's not much controversy over their tracking of hypernationalist and racist groups. They are also widely relied upon in examination of hate crimes, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand because nobody is seriously accusing these groups of committing or abetting criminal acts. It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech. There's an obvious political division between those who accept their analysis, and those who don't; it's bloody well obvious in the discussion. My personal view is that the designation has enough traction in media sources to be mentioned, but that the controversy needs to be admitted to up front. But at any rate in discussing their "reliability", we are really evaluating their authority on this particular point, not a general view of the organization. Mangoe ( talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Query: Has the SPLC ever described or listed a progressive advocacy group as a "hate group" at any point? Which ones? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation (about Illinois Family Institute) was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, [2] the Nebraska Psychological Association, [3] and the Canadian Psychological Association, [4] the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." [4] [5] [6]
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)
Is this text reliable sourced? I've also notified BLPN as the editors at Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute have claimed BLP issues IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The original source from where the above was generated |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've noted what looks like rather close paraphrasing between The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Jurgen Habermas [70] and ours. There are at least a couple of sentences in the biography section that are copypasted. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
71.230.50.24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is persistently inserting information pertaining to student complaints about Peabody Institute, repeatedly claiming that Facebook and a blog are verifiable sources: [71].
I would like a third opinion as to whether or not this information should be included.
69.251.42.0 ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, There has been an ongoing dispute regarding the title of the subject article (which is not the subject of this post, it obviously needs to be dealt with elsewhere). As part of this discussion, several editors have claimed that I have been abusing the sources I have used for the official name of the territory in question. I have used several sources here, so for completeness I will lay out all of them, along with the exact statement in the article that I am using the sources to support. I would appreciate a few more eyes on this to make sure I am not too close to the issue.
1. Sources.
a. Bond, Brian; Roy, Ian (1977). War and society: a yearbook of military history, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-85664-404-7. p. 230 here [72].
b. Deroc, Milan (1988). British Special Operations explored: Yugoslavia in turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British response Volume 242 of East European monographs. East European Monographs, University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-88033-139-5. p. 232 here [73]
c. Hehn, Paul N. (1971).
"Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 13 (4). University of Alberta: 344–373. Retrieved 8 April 2012. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |editorlink=
(
help)
here
[74]
d. Kroener, Bernhard (2000). Germany and the Second World War: Volume V: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power (Part 1: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822887-5. p. 86 here [75].
e. Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). Serbia: the History behind the Name. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. ISBN 978-1-85065-476-6. p. 141 here [76]
f. United Kingdom Naval Intelligence Division (1944). Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration. Michigan: University of Michigan. p. 380 here [77]
g. Kerner, Robert Joseph (1949). Yugoslavia. University of California Press. p. 358 here [78]
2. Content.
The above sources are used to support the following content.
'Official name of the occupied territory translated from German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens' - which is contained in a note to the bolded article title in the lead.
I would greatly appreciate a view whether any or all of these sources can be used to support that content, and/or suggestions on what if any modifications should be made.
Regards, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is source abuse. Peacemaker67 is try to promote name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” in Wikipedia and he have only one source in English that support this name - Hehn, Paul N. (1971). All other sources here do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” and Peacemaker67 list them in pages to create false impression that name that he promote in Wikipedia have support from more sources. Name that he promote have support from only one source in English and that source is 40 years old and no other source support that. Nemambrata ( talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Well, German works verify the German official name so asking for sources that use a translation like Area/Territory of Military Commander in Serbia is rather inane. There's not much to abuse in the first place when the issue revolves around a straightforward translation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, filling up this notice board by the same editors (WW and Nemambrata) that have made their views clear on the talk page is unhelpful and probably repels disinterested experienced editors that are actively involved on this noticeboard. If you have something to add to the actual discussion of whether these sources support the listed content, please try to stay on topic. The title issue is related, but this request is not a content dispute. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have previously been involved in discussing the name of the article in question, please do not comment further on RS/N. Feel free to discuss the results of the RS/N discussion of sources on your article talk page. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Are the sources reliable for the territory being discussed being "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens" and that a reasonable translation of this title being the territory of the military commander in Serbia?
None of this indicates what the common name amongst scholars in English is, or what the common English referent is for the territory directly occupied by Germans containing a large Serbian population in WWII. None of this indicates if the most common name is an English translation, or a German loan word. This indicates that in three reliable scholarly sources, scholars are aware of the german Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens, and that this is a Territory controlled by a Military Commander in or of Serbia. Regarding your name dispute, I suggest mediation on an appropriate forum and a close friendly discussion of title naming policy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)