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 160 | ← | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 |
On the CFACT page, there have been multiple attempts to add Desmogblog [1] as a source speaking to CFACT's funding in the years 2006 and prior. I recently removed the latest one, but Gaba_p (a user with reviewer & rollback rights) reverted my change and told me to open a section here if I disagreed. So, specifically, Desmogblog is being used to support this paragraph, [2], which makes claims regarding funding from Exxon and the Scaife Foundations. I believe Desmogblog should not qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of CFACT because, 1) it's a group blog (cf. WP:BLOGS) that is not part of a larger news organization ( WP:NEWSBLOG, which are allowed), and all it does is provide links to other sources, 2) the link it provides to support it's claim about the Scaife funding is dead, indicating poor editorial oversight and fact-checking (cf. WP:QUESTIONABLE), and 3) it is strongly ideologically opposed to CFACT and the source it provides for it's claim about Exxon funding is Exxonsecrets, a propaganda arm of Greenpeace and a source other editors had previously agreed on the CFACT talk page should not be used in this context (cf. WP:BIASED). I understand that bias in itself does not always warrant removal of the source, but in this case and context I believe it does. Especially since the funding in question is very old (2006 and earlier) and the amounts of funding are trivial in light of CFACT's $3 million per year budget, making it misleading to include Exxon & Scaife as major donors considering how little information there is in the funding section.
Since I have much less history/experience on Wikipedia than Gaba, I am deferring to him and not reverting his change, but I think this case is pretty clear. Can we get the opinion of an outside editor? Thanks! Turnout8 ( talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the website "Celebrity Net Worth" be considered an RS for a BLP DOB (i.e. Peter Ostrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peter_Ostrum&curid=685962&diff=600075346&oldid=600074356) — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is wetpaint.com a reliable source? It looks like it probably is, but I'm not very familiar with the site and don't see anything about it in the noticeboard archives. According to its Wikipedia page, it started out as a wiki farm, but moved to providing professional content later on. I'm not exactly sure what's meant by "professional content" though. -- Jpcase ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Users Steeletrap and SPECIFICO keep arguing that this self-published piece, filled with undocumented opinions, by an author who only is notable for a few articles published in a metaphysics journal is a more reliable source than information from books published by reliable publishers; they even have removed such info. Anyone want to try to disabuse them of that notion?
Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The content cited to Flood has no controversial claims -- indeed it's obvious that the Rothbard family moved from Bronx to Manhattan because we have multiple other sources which discuss the subject's origin in the Bronx and subsequent coming of age in Manhattan. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a website for a print magazine, being linked in multiple articles, for example [3] in Mary Bell. Examples [4] [5] [6]. Any thoughts? Яehevkor ✉ 19:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past few weeks during the Crimean crisis, many sources have reported a systematic crackdown and enforced bias on Russian and Crimean media. [7] [8] For example, though even in 2005 they were unpopular with Reporters Without Borders, [9] the popular network RT (TV network) and associated web content have gone from being seen as more or less just another network in archive 39 [10] to biased like other news channels only more so in recent discussion. [11] [12] But in the past week or so, there has been unprecedented criticism of the network and allegations that it is nothing more than Russian propaganda period, [13] though as that source points out, there are some holdouts like Larry King who disagree. For their part RT has some content about censorship in Ukraine [14] - admittedly, it is not so simple to be sure sometimes how much of the bias is on the "Western" end and how much on theirs.
Anyway, though the world may discover it is unable to pass sanctions against Russia no matter how much of the Ukraine they take, I'm wondering if it may be time for us to pass one of our own - to formally demote the status of RT and other Russian publications to that of a press release or other primary source, with all the concomitant policy restrictions for BLPs and other uses. This would be on the basis that, if they are really being told what to do by some government official in the shadows, they are no better than his own self-published statement. I'm not confident enough of my judgment here to say we should do that - only that, as someone who has used them without much discrimination in past editing, I'm starting to worry that I've been wrong to do so. Is there any way to develop some confidence about this question? Wnt ( talk) 01:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I had reverted this edit but the IP has reinstated the text and sources [15] so I'm asking for outside input: Are these Twitter and Facebook pages a reliable source for adding the text ["or simply Joy"] after the subject's name? ie. Joy Williams (or simply Joy) [16] [17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing the page The Upper Footage. There's been a bit of a history of edit warring on the page, so I'll state that up front. I originally had a new user come on and try to edit the page and tweak it to be more promotional for the film. Accusations got thrown around fairly freely by this editor (you can see some here) and I seem to remember them trying to add various things that weren't RS. The reason I mention this is because one of the things brought up was that I was deliberately trying to sabotage the film by making it less positive than it was. I do not have any ulterior motives. It's just that the coverage is not exactly glowing for this film. I kind of feel that if I don't mention this, someone might say that I'm trying to discredit every review brought on the page.
OK, that said, one of the reviews is from Daily Grindhouse. ( [18]) It looks to be a non-usable blog source, as I can't really tell the editorial process for the site. I've read their stuff before and I like it, but I don't think it's really a RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is 2014 Ukrainian revolution. See [19] - the link, [20], is to a section of the Ukrainian Constitution. I have no idea why there is a sentence in Ukrainian there rather than English, but it means "(Article 111 of the President of Ukraine may be removed from the post by the Verkhovna Rada in the procedure of impeachment in case of committing it treason or other crimes.)" Dougweller ( talk) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The SOHR's Facebook page [21] is being used to back factual statements of deaths, etc at Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present). When I tried to change this last year I was reverted with an edit summary saying that SOHR was a reliable source. [22]. I left it at that but another issue reminded me of this today, so I'm bringing it here again. We've had earlier discussions at [23] and [24], neither of which seem to suggest we can simply use it as a reliable source. This article comes under WP:SCWGS per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Syrian_civil_war_articles ( [25]) and ultimately community consensus from August 2013 although it hasn't yet been tagged as such, something which I will do next. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@ ZarlanTheGreen: In this revert of material sourced of a PhD thesis study about school uniforms, a Wikipedian said "No. No noticeboard was in favour of including it.)"
It had been discussed on the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_Education-related_PhD_thesis:_School_uniform_.22study.22. My impression was that the noticeboard here saw it as "reliable" and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included
There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation (referring to the study):
School districts themselves talk about the study
According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times. WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I searched the University of Houston library database after reading a textbook page that said that a Columbus Dispatch article talked about the Draa study, and I found this entry. I can get it off Wikipedia:RX if someone wants me to take a bigger look:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
You're saying these comment's where not made?
There's a certain degree of cherry-picking going on as I don't see that this study is all that heavily cited, and some of the references I have found seem to come to conflicting conclusions. Mangoe ( talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I just took a look, and it doesn't look to me like cherry-picking./.../ — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Yes the editor disagrees, but it is a comment on the weight of the source, nonetheless) Do I detect cherry-picking here? yes. And,,, should we be spending time discussing the 1 in a million PhD thesis that was passed through for political - or any other - reasons? No. Why not? Well, for the same reason that we don't allow a single dissenting example to steer the course of an article, namely, Undue weight. /.../ Mercy11 ( talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) It's still not that simple. Another issue that can determine whether we use any peer-reviewed study is whether or not it's gained traction in academic circles. Eg one-off study on DNA 8 years ago that has been completely ignored since shouldn't be used as a source, even if it was a PhD, published paper, etc. There simply is no hard and fast rule that we can apply. And the idea that all peer-reviewed material is neutral simply is wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
What question is being asked here? If the question is "Did this noticeboard 'support' the inclusion of the Virginia Draa school uniform study at School uniforms?", the answer is that the discussion was inconclusive. Some contributors to the discussion said that the Draa thesis is reliable (mainly arguing a PhD thesis is reliable by definition), while others disputed that a thesis is automatically reliable. The latter contributors did not focus so much on the merits of this particular thesis; they instead addressed the question of whether theses should automatically qualify as a reliable sources generally speaking. Dezastru ( talk) 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This article may have sourcing issues (I can't tell for sure, as 2 of the 3 are books and all are in Russian, a language I don't speak). The article's opening sentence is:
The Kinzelyuk Waterfall (Кинзелюкский водопад) is probably the highest waterfall in Russia, after the elusive Talnikovy Waterfall (which may not exist any more).
Can somebody help out? ChromaNebula (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just encountered the article Natalia Turine for the first time. (I hadn't previously heard of the biographee.) At first glance, the sourcing looks insufficient yet not too bad. But click on any of the twelve references and all the text links change color (one's browser shows that it has already displayed the lot). That's because they're all linked to the biographee's own page http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19
This raises at least three questions. One is, even if these are all what they seemm to be, it's not obvious that they're all present with the permission of the copyright holder. And WP mustn't link to copyright violations.
However, sets of reproductions like this are very normal these days. Let's assume for a moment that reproduction on that website isn't problematic, and move on.
Secondly, there's always a possibility that sources such as this could have been tampered with or could even be total fakes. Is there something in a guideline (or policy) about use of primary sources for (what purport to be) secondary sources? (I've a feeling I've read something, but can't remember where.)
And if, or so far as, sources/links such as this are permissible/desirable, how are they best presented via Template:Cite web?
(I tend to avoid this template myself: by avoiding it, I can easily add the text snippet as reproduced [http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19 here] in Turine's website. But I appreciate its value in principle, and if it's already used in an article then I'm reluctant to do away with it.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Are any of the reviewers of comedic video based review sites (e.g. That Guy with the Glasses, The Angry Video Game Nerd, The Spoony Experiment, etc.) considered reliable? They are critics by trade, and their reviews do contain editorial oversight and a history of accuracy. The fact that their sites are more humor driven shouldn't be an issue, as many reliable text reviewers such as IGN also use heavy humor in their reviews. Looking over the policies, I see nothing that precludes such sites from being reliable sources, and some articles do seem to be using some of them without question. (For instance, Whistle (Flo Rida song) already cites a review from That Guy with the Glasses reviewer Todd in the Shadows.) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello I hope this is the right place. I propose a site-wide removal and ban of MuslimHeritage.com and the organisations articles behind it - "Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation" / "Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation (FSTC)" sources as unreliable, as it is still being used on many pages. It has previously been established it misrepresents sources and is unreliable by Wikipedian's and even outside historians:
The organisation looks and sounds reliable so keeps being used, which is why it's such a problem.-- Diamondbuster ( talk) 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Aua, the source wasn't refuted using OR, it was refuted by another academic and many others when looking up the reliable source it supposedly references. When multiple outside reliable sources show this single source as false, it's clearly unreliable.
TFD, these are not differing opinions, these are differing claims and facts not backed up by the sources they used, so is misleading in some cases complete lies.
Sean, this source are articles from the unreliable source being discussed, which have been republished by the same author.-- Diamondbuster ( talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Is a doctoral dissertation apparently published by UC Davis but not nor in any peer-reviewed journal. The author [er GoogleScholar appears to be cited by very few places at all (10 cites for the dissertation total)
It is being used to present as fact that specific people were members of the "Bohemian Club" List of Bohemian Club members
This source specifies that it used lists of guests etc. to determine the interconnected nature of "elite men's clubs" and "capitalism" (i.e. it is focused on economic power and not on the actual individuals, nor does the author try to verify any memberships other than using the SPS primary sources). (Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993 is listed as a source)
Two issues -- while some doctoral dissertations have been deemed RS in the past, where living people are involved, does the\is particular doctoral dissertation meet WP:V and WP:BLP for contentious claims about living people?
Second, for dead people, is reliance on what appears to be only a self-published list of members sufficient to declare that a person was, indeed, a member?
Thanks for any input thereon. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The source stated "guests" to the "encampment" which I trust is the term generally used for the gatherings of that organization, and rather clearly stated that guests did not magically become members -- else the author ought well have listed himself as a member. As he did not, the claim can not be made that guests become members. And if an organization is absolutely pure, but that rumours circulate about the organization making it notorious way, that the claim is contentious -- "truth" has nothing to do with it. And there is clearly an abundance of notoriety about the organization. In short, I regard it as clear that the membership in that organization is, indeed, contentious as a claim. Collect ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This thesis is a reliable source for membership in the Bohemian Club, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for individuals who are deceased, and for most (if not all) who are living. In any case in which a particular living person disputes having been a member, the specific text within the thesis that says the person was a member would need to be examined to determine how Wikipedia should handle the matter. (The principles of WP:BLPCAT would likely apply, since Lists, like Categories, 'do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources'). Dezastru ( talk) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Do organizations ever list non-members as members? That is the gist -- with one asserting that a club's claim that a person was a member is absolutely to be taken as truth. The problem is that organizations have frequently asserted that noted persons were "members". The "thesis" specifies that the club's own publications were used as a source -- we can not assert that the thesis found any other evidence whatsoever for the "membership". Including the Rosicrucians insisting Franklin was a member, onwards. The tendency is to present a "higher level notability" for an organization by asserting that famous people were members. In the case of Twain, absolutely no Twain-related source makes the claim that he ever knew anything about the club, and the anecdotes which had him going to meetings are poor as he was not in San Francisco to "meet Bret Harte at the Bohemian Club" between 1868 and 1906. Indeed, he was in San Francisco for a few hours for a benefit on 21 April 1906, and never otherwise even visited any of California. Few people are as thoroughly documented as Clemens at all. [33]. His famous world wide lecture tour was 1895-6. The chronology of his speeches is at [34]. And there are no records of any "Bohemian Club" in any of the Twain archives AFAICT. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: "The Annals of the Bohemian Club" printed in 1898 [35] make the claim that Twain became a member on 17 October 1873 (before his major works were published) -- quite a feat since he was in Hartford, and no correspondence indicates anything of the sort. (took a whole to find the alleged date -- which is first mentioned a quarter of a century later). [36] which deals with Twain, Harte and the Bohemian Club specifically makes no such claim about any connection between Twain and the club. So what we have is a PR book from a quarter of a century later asserting that Twain was in San Francisco to become an Honorary Member in 1873 -- with the trivial problem that not only was Twain not there, we know quite well where he was. Collect ( talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
One more: [38] " Early in its career the Club developed a mania for collaring celebrities. At first the organization was content with designating notable personages of letters as their honorary co-Bohemians. In 1873, Mark Twain and Bret Harte were elected honorary members. Shortly afterwards, on a Winter evening, the Club sent telegraph greetings across the continent to Oliver Wendell Holmes. The members must have been either drunk or absent-minded at that moment. They did not take into consideration that darkest night reigns in the East while it is early evening in California. Dr. Holmes was got out of his warm bed and away from his slumber by the telegram." In short, people were made "honorary members" for the specific purpose of enhancing the Club's perceived status. "This boast grew more shrill and fantastic as the years rolled by. A painful surprise came in 1892 when James Whitcomb Riley was accosted in his hotel by a proud representative of the Club. (Riley told the person that it would have to go through his business manager!)" Garrets and Pretenders: Bohemian Life in America from Poe to Kerouac Albert Parry; Courier Dover Publications, Jun 17, 2013; 480 pages. the Club comes of as being basically a fraud when it came to adopting "honorary members". Did the Club assert that anyone it named an honorary member was one? Yes. did that make them actually a member of any sort? Not as far as actual Twain researchers are concerned. Cheers - I think this is dispositive. Collect ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Just in: [39] "Mr. Peabody" is an "honorary member" of Mensa. Collect ( talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics> & < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov>. Both of these entries cite as reference 1, John B. Dunlop. "Review: Aleksandr Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics" and link to pdf., < http://lisd.princeton.edu/publications/wp_russiaseries_dunlop.pdf>. However, this website just gives a list of various publications, none of which includes the cited work.
Michael H. Hart's book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is used in a number of articles, eg 2nd millennium to show that people are significant. Hart's field of expertise is astrophysics and he is a self-proclaimed white separatist. My own opinion is that his opinions don't belong in any of our articles, but he currently is used extensively. Dougweller ( talk) 11:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this book self-published? It could be a coincidence that the author and publisher have the same name, but the identifiable "Hart Publishing" is based out of Oxford, not New York, and focuses on law. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead used to say
"Traditional sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10] with the exception of al-Tabari who records that she was ten years old." but now says
"Traditional sources state that Aisha was the only virgin Muhammad married and claim that he married her in Mecca at the age of seven, and consummated his marriage with her, when she was nine or ten, after his migration to Medina.[11][12] However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.[13] Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham mentioned in their books, which are the earliest written books about the biography of Muhammad, that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era and converted to Islam when she was young girl among the first people who converted to Islam.[14][15] This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad."
The statement "However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable." has one source, [42], written by this person. There's no source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad." At Talk:Aisha the editor in question has started a section called "The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims" and states that " It is written, like most of wikipedia's articles, by Wicked Liars" - - bringing it here as I doubt I am going to get a reasonable discussion with someone who starts off like that. Dougweller ( talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2823486/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_8
This is an Imdb credit for a major cable network credit that was passed upon by the network. Wikipedia has a policy of disregarding Imdb credits, for very good reason, but in the capacity of issuing "tv movie" crdits they have a strict editorial team who confirms with the distributors and networks. One cannot fake a "failed" tv pilot. What do I have to use this as a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames ( talk • contribs)
Is the Virtual International Authority File reliable for biographical info in BLP articles? Is this VIAF page reliable for birth info for Eric Kim? I just wanna make sure. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
66.225.160.172 ( talk · contribs) keeps inserting material sourced the the "Law and Freedom Foundation" [45] (formerly "Mosquebusters" [46]. Specifically, [47] added "The authorities in the UK have been slow to identify and prevent this criminal behaviour, as documented by the Law and Freedom Foundation." and a link to Love Jihad with the edit summary "just because dougweller disagrees with the alleged aims of a source does not mean that the source ought to be silenced by wiki. let the readers decide" and [48] added " A more recent concept of localised grooming, in which gangs of reprobates groom neighbourhood victims, was devised of necessity in 2010 by the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,<ref name=ceop>[http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf ceop.police.uk: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CEOP thematic assessment" June 2011]</ref> although this phenomenon had been seen since at least 1990.<ref name=lff>[http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf lawandfreedomfoundation.org: "Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and child sex slavery"]</ref>" Identical material was adding earlier by 69.171.101.3 ( talk · contribs), probably a dynamic IP. I've deleted this a couple of times but I expect the IP to replace it. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This question concerns the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Notability_of_food:_are_recipes_enough.3F, and in particular, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plums in chocolate. Are recipes listings like [49] on the internet good enough for us to 1) link to and 2) use as a reference / proof of notability? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Instagram account of Corey Harrison reliable for the date of birth of his father, Rick Harrison? When you hover the mouse over the photo of the two of them at this page (The one under the heading March 2014), it gives the date March 22, 2014, and when you click on it, the caption indicates that it is Rick Harrison's birthday. His article already has his birth year, but not the day. Is that reliable?
Also, is this Facebook post by Harrison reliable? Is there a way to determine if a Facebook account is the verified one of the person in question, like with Twitter? Looking through the archive for discussions on Facebook used to source dates of birth, I came across this one, in which someone stated that a link from the person's official site would do this, however, the only website I know he has is the one for his business, and I couldn't find any link to a Facebook account there. Nightscream ( talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The link, from Entertainment Weekly talks about how in a Barbara Walters show it was announced that singer Mariah Carey earned 500million throughout her career. My question is are these chat shows reliable at all? Most of the time its for promotion of the said guest who is appearing and has no indication of a journalistic or academic credibility behind the info, except PR fed. What are other's thoughts on this? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The site's sole publisher is Douglas Pucci, who started the site in 2011 using the Blogger service. It specializes in compiling detailed listings of Nielsen ratings data for various major cable channels. Its data has been published by multiple third-party sources, including TV by the Numbers and The Futon Critic, who also publish data provided by Nielsen directly to them; the latter two sites are also used extensively in television research.
Below is a list of some of the site's attributions:
Its data seems to be consistent with other cable rating reports, and all of its entries cite Nielsen Media Research. Per WP:UGC, I believe this meets the criteria of an author who "is an established expert on the subject matter whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Some editors from WP:TV are turned off from using it because of the fact that it is hosted on Blogger, though, and would like another opinion from here. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 04:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This site fails WP:SPS. It is not reliable for sourcing viewership numbers. If all of its content is derived from Nielsen, then Nielsen should be cited directly – or, much better, a secondary source that cites Nielsen, or some other ratings provider, in the context of discussing the show itself should be cited for Wikipedia. (See, for example, [50].) In addition, a number of the Wikipedia articles listed above that cite Son of the Bronx are themselves of dubious notability, judging from the way the articles currently appear. For example, does The Amazing World of Gumball (season 2) really meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? And if it does, is the number of viewers listed for each episode really that important for how Wikipedia covers the show? Take out all of the citations of Son of the Bronx from that article and what is left for the article's sources? Same with AwesomenessTV. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Dezastru ( talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a notice at WT:RS to hopefully encourage others to join the discussion. Dezastru ( talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Would it be too far-fetched to say that given the current wording of WP:UGC, "expertise" can be established or derived from those reliable third-party sources? I've seen the same logic being applied with previous discussions on here about the site: one had asked for third-party articles citing him, and another inferred that his site may qualify as an "expert exemption" when given some of the same articles I've provided above. I doubt that one needs to hold a doctorate in statistics in order to be considered a reliable outlet for the republication of Nielsen ratings, and given that multiple third-party sources have borrowed his numbers and cited him (on top of Nielsen), I think he meets the exception as a reliable self-published source. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 00:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we get some board regulars to weigh in here?
Dezastru (
talk) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, bad timing. Anyway, I'll watch to see whether anyone replies to this, but am proceeding on the assumption that this is done. So:
Synopsis I knew Wikipedia frowned on interpreting primary sources as original research. I didn't know Wikipedia accepted interpreting primary sources for the purpose of synopsising a work of fiction. I'd be interested in knowing whether interpretations of this cognitive dissonance are documented.
Judiciary Act of 1793 More seriously, how far does this exception extend? This article was my first substantial Wikipedia writing, and despite a thin veneer of references and framing, it's essentially a synopsis of the law in question, which is not fiction. Good or not good?
Secret Garden (TV series) In this framework, it's clear what I should have done. I should have expanded the synopsis, perhaps removing the plagiarism at the same time, to English Wikipedia's normal spoiler-heavy length, and included in it something like this: "Meanwhile, the central relationship remains stalled in pursuit and flight until, in episode thirteen's famous "bed scene", Kim Joo-Won's second sexual assault on Gil Ra-Im convinces her that he really loves her, and she begins to return his feelings." Since I hate the show, I'm quite unlikely actually to do this, but at least now I know.
Dramabeans That said, this is where y'all disappointed me greatly. With regard to the particular person I was citing, javabeans, there's no question that this is self-publication, and she herself refers to it as a blog. I was citing her reaction to the bed scene. I'm getting two sorts of explanations for why that's no good. One is that because she self-publishes a blog, she MUST NOT be quoted except via a third party. Note that in this case, where I'm talking about her opinion, there is no issue of reliability per se: to get someone's opinion, you quote them. But because it's a self-published blog, it can't be quoted. Um, this isn't an explanation, this is a reiteration, and of a silly rule that isn't made less silly by reiteration.
More seriously, I'm told her reaction isn't notable. ("My uncle Al".) I've presented evidence of its notability, which has not been challenged. (Really. I'm physically near a complete collection of the YA Entertainment K-drama releases. Challenge me: I can go there and *count* how many times they quoted each blurb source. Dramabeans will win.) I can add to that: two days ago, I went to a lecture on K-dramas at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The speaker, Bonnie Tilland, who is ABD in the University of Washington Anthropology Department, who taught a class at the UW last fall about K-dramas, and whose dissertation, almost finished, deals inter alia with the effects K-dramas have on Korean women's aspirations, was asked by the lecture organisers to cite a book attendees could read for more information. Her choice? Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday. I suppose your obvious reply is that unreliable sources ("She's ABD!") stick together, but isn't this getting to be an untenable line of argument?
English Wikipedia has done an excellent job of purging all explicit references to Dramabeans. To the extent that Dramabeans is a source for K-drama news and gossip, this is probably appropriate, although they normally link to their (Korean-language) sources. But I don't think citing their recaps and evaluative writing has been shown inappropriate. It's only inappropriate by undefended shibboleth. I expect English Wikipedia to continue refusing to cite Dramabeans, and I expect it to continue to have no good reason for that refusal. I'd like to be proven wrong on one of those expectations.
Korean drama I've posted in a bunch of places looking for help with this article and/or its Korean counterpart; I haven't contacted the final list of Wikipedians I was given, but have written to Ms. Tilland, within hours of her talk. So far, no results. As to the references which, contrary to the claims of Kuyamarco123, I did provide:
Jeon This is the central reference without which the "History" section collapses. It is a dissertation approved by the University of Glasgow Department of Theatre Film and TV Studies in 2013. Unfortunately, while its supervisors' online biographies make a convincing case for their authority in media policy studies generally, they make no case at all for those supervisors knowing Korean. Moreover, much of Jeon's writing - which is focused on media policy, turning historical primarily to document past policy and justify claims concerning the future - rests on a considerable number of interviews she did (although relatively less of what I cited is based on these). I don't see a persuasive way to rescue this source's reliability until and unless, in a year or three, people y'all see as reliable start citing it; and its topical reliabity is anyway doomed because what such people would cite for K-dramas' history isn't Jeon, but the books already extant in Korean.
With S2 This is an important source for the first half of the section, and although it's clearly based on research, it just as clearly doesn't provide any pointers to that research; it's self-published; it's pretty much the epitome of unverifiable.
DramaWiki I've shown that in a sample of over 4% of Wikipedia's 500+ K-drama articles, one fourth plagiarised DramaWiki. This fairly obviously calls for a system of vigilance, which could probably be automated: survey all articles in List of South Korean dramas and all additions thereafter (and since DramaWiki also covers Japanese and Chinese dramas, ...); find in each article the title in Hangul; find the DramaWiki page citing that Hangul title; compare for plagiarism. How could I find out whether anyone is working on, or even suggesting, such a system? Or does Wikipedia have a policy against being proactive?
Separately, DramaWiki can't be cited because its parent site, D-Addicts, is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Nobody offered suggestions as to how I could find out why this blacklist exists.
Separately, is DramaWiki an unreliable source? Several verifiability-related pages refer specifically to "open" wikis as especially unreliable. DramaWiki requires registration, but anyone can register; I don't know how open that makes it. Probably a lost cause, though, which is unfortunate, given that I also documented a habit of starting Wikipedia articles after a drama finishes airing, which makes Wikipedia's writers all the more dependent on DramaWiki for factual data. (I depend on D-Addicts itself for a list of YA Entertainment releases, for that matter, although archive.org offers an alternative involving original research...)
History of Usenet Here's an irony. Not only my work, but most of my sources, are in fact peer-reviewed. That's what posting to Usenet (unequivocally self-publication) did, in the 1990s and early 2000s: assuming your post was on-topic, it became available to peers to review. The difficulty, of course, is that such posts normally aren't revised to take this peer review into account; see, for example, at archive.org, my hierarchy summary of the NET.* hierarchy, which isn't safe to rely on without checking a later post. (Note that this is a different post from the summary of the net.* hierarchy. Detailed guidance to my sources, as of the end of my two main bursts of work on the topic, is available here and here.) In contrast, however, note Lee Bumgarner's pioneering oral history of Usenet, the "Great Renaming FAQ", an important source for all his successors, which he did revise to take peers' comments into account. (Then again, it's cited heavily in Great Renaming, also in Backbone cabal. So that's sorta fair.)
As it happens, there has been scholarly work on the history of Usenet, well, um, at least sorta, by one Ronda Hauben, but it doesn't extend much past the beginnings. Non-scholarly, but published, work which Wikipedia would probably find acceptable sources are cited in the NET.* post, with regard to a group called NET.test, which they (and Lee Bumgarner, following them) make false statements about. So in this case, verifiability seems to require propagating a falsehood. (To be fair, it's been about a decade since I last worked on this; I don't know how much the landscape in print has changed.)
Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?
I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.
The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
205.175.116.106 ( talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Persianfootball.com an RS? And if not, how do we address an editor who keeps on posting it in article talkpages across the Project? And reverting editors who delete it?
See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Epeefleche ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Soka Gakkai ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soka Gakkai - Revised
Most of your source citations for the Soka Galkai post are erroneous and misleading; you should reference Dr. Dayle Bethel's work The Value Creator which discusses the life of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and his reform efforts within the Japanese Education system prior to WW II. His successor, Josei Toda also reformed Japanese society after the war by alleviating the public's suffering based in their beliefs in false religions which brought the Japanese defeat and misery. To be sure, Toda spoke out against the use of Nuclear weapons in 1957 long before the peace movement of the 1960s; hence the motto: Peace, Culture and Education. We're you aware of that? Now, Honorary SGI President Ikeda (who simply recieves a salary from the organization) carries on the efforts of his mentor Toda as it concerns Peace, Culture and Education. As an academic, I am voicing my opposition to your assertions in the article posted as your ideas are either false or one-sided.
Sincerely,
Paul Neuhausen, MSCIS
Please verify source 5, 6, and 7 (those new Russian sources).The phenotype is prevalent to the following ethnicities: Azerbaijanis[5][6][7]...
Copied this here from the Reference Desk Miscellaneous. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the Henry Kriete Letter that exposed a lot of abuses in the International Churches of Christ. Because Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter (husband and wife) aren't they the best source on the letter that they wrote?
In several posts I tried to explain something to User JamieBrown2011, but he keeps saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website and Henry and Marilyn themselves are not reliable sources on the letter that they themselves wrote. I don't understand that.
Here is some of my reasoning:
@Qewr4231, personal blogs are not Reliable Sources for Wikipedia, yet you insist in trying to insert content from them. Even if you agree with the opinions of the authors it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
I quote from WP:RS
"Definition of a source
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis ( http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis ( http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.
Qewr4231 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually now it's a 12 or 13 part series that is still continuing. But you know what? Here's the kicker . . . The Henry Kriete Letter was written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Qewr4231 ( talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Do the following count as WP:RS sources?
> [52] WSJ Republican David Jolly beat his Democratic opponent Alex Sink on Tuesday in a Florida special election for Congress seen as a bellwether for this year's midterms.
[53] TheHill.com Lackluster candidates, millions spent, a third-party candidate: Every detail of Tuesday’s special election in Florida’s 13th District makes it unusual, but the bellwether district is still the first indication of the 2014 electoral mood.
[54] CNN But the contest for Florida 13 has landed smack in the middle of the national political spotlight. It's seen by some pundits as a bellwether for November's midterm elections. (written before the election, and pretty dang close to the Wikipedia usage)
[55] HuffPo Florida's 13th District Bellwether Report: Why Obamacare's Least Of Democrats' Worries (post-election)
[56] Reuters Florida election a bellwether for fall U.S. mid-term race (pre-election)
[57] Orlando Sentinel Republican David Jolly narrowly took the contentious and expensive special election on Tuesday to replace his former boss, the late Rep. Bill Young, in the Pinellas County seat in Congress that some believe is a bellwether for contests nationally this autumn.
[58] New York Magazine Whether or not it’s a bellwether, “It's now likely impossible for Democrats to pick enough seats in November to even have a chance of regaining the House of Representatives,” writes Ben Jacobs in The Daily Beast. Gaining 17 seats was always a long shot. But the fact that Obama won the 13th district twice made it one that was potentially up for grabs after the death of Bill Young, who held the seat for 40 years. The big question now is if Republicans can pick up six seats for control of the Senate in November.
[59] AP After months of railing against President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.
[60] CBS DC The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama’s health care law. (considered a major player in political punditry in DC)
[61] Canada Free Press (not in the US, d'oh) In a bellwether special Congressional race, a long-time aide for a long-time Congressman, a flawed (and former lobbyist) Republican David Jolly faced off against Florida’s 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink to finish out the term of recently deceased Bill Young, who had represented the district for forty-two years, the longest serving Republican in the House of Representatives.
[62] Sunshine State News In what was billed as a bellwether for November, Republican David Jolly defeated Democratic rival former state CFO Alex Sink by nearly 2 percentage points in a special election Tuesday to win the seat held for decades by his former boss, the late U.S. Rep. Bill Young.
[63] WSJ Professional political observers and journalists touted the election as a bellwether. "It's rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a 'must win'--but the special election in Florida's 13th District falls into that category for Democrats," wrote Stuart Rothenberg back in January:
[64] DigiNews But Young was a moderate, and his district is a swing district; both sides treated it as a bellwether.
[65] NY Mag citing Frank Rich - noted liberal "pundit" This race was a bellwether to be sure — not of what’s going to happen in November, but of the true idiocy of our political culture. A ludicrous $12 million in campaign spending was poured into this single district in which fewer than 200,000 people voted. Much of the bloviocracy hyped the race before and after as a battle akin to Ali-Frazier or, perhaps given the Florida setting, Bush vs. Gore, and as a decisive verdict on the political valence of Obamacare. And now both sides are overreading meaning into an election decided by less than 2 percent of the vote (under 4,000 votes) in a race where a third-party Libertarian candidate received almost 5 percent of the vote.
[66] WWSB (pre-election) Today's special election to replace District 13's late congressman C.W. Bill Young is being watched closely by both political parties as a possible bellwether of things to come in the 2014 midterms.
Do they furnish sufficent basis to the claim"
One editor insists that only people with specific degrees in Political Science so qualify, although several of the "pundits' appear to have such degrees, they are not all given full WP biographies stating such. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 11:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Problem: The IP appeared after the election to change language which had been there since November 2013 without any problems. He forumshops when an RfC is open but not going his way, edit wars while an RfC is ongoing, and makes ad hom comments on a noticeboard about reliable sources and what they reasonably can be stated to claim. Cheers -- but AGF is being bungeed. Why did you wait until after the election to insist on your own version? Note also that many quoted are not "journalists" in any case.
Collect (
talk) 13:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim is that people called it a "possible bellwether" which is proper wording for opinions cited as opinions. Your aside here that only "political science" experts can hold opinions goes against reason -- the top political reporters and political experts cited by them are surely sufficient here for the claim made. Cheers. And please start signing your posts. Collect ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past we have talked about celebritynetworth.com and its reliability. I am bringing this up again as we have a few editors this week going over many bios adding net worth based on celebritynetworth.com. What if any decision has been made about this site? I am concerned because of the parameter "net_worth" at Template:Infobox person that does not explain in any way what is a reliable source for this parameter. In a few cases I have seen Forbes estimates replaced with celebritynetworth because it looks more upto date. Lets look they are close but in a few cases billions off the mark from one and other Forbes list vs Celebritynetworth list -- Moxy ( talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs) has added two Patheos blog articles ( Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to the article God's Not Dead (film) in order to prove his point that the film is based off of an urban legend. Are Patheos blogs acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia? Furthermore, my assessment was that adding in a link to that urban legend in the article as a reference violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because this website does not even discuss the film. It seems to be used only to support the user's claim that the film is based off of an urban legend. The sentence that User:MjolnirPants is using these sources for reads as follows ( diff):
Numerous sources have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban legend. The basic structure -that of a Christian student debating an atheist professor and winning in front of the class- has been the subject of at least two popular legends and a popular Chick tract".
I would appreciate any comments and feedback. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like more input on the use of the website menaopportunities.info as a source. This page has been used to support the inclusion of two people on the page List of Lebanese by net worth ; what makes it especially problematic is the fact that one of the main contributors to the menaopportunities.info website is the person who has repeatedly used it as a source in the Wikipedia article, and there is a very clear conflict of interest in that the editor is repeatedly adding the name of a relative against consensus. Even discounting the COI issue, the website does not appear to meet WP:RS at all, to me, but I would welcome other opinions and insights on this. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this paper reliable for this reverted edit? The paper has reported that the government forces now control 80% of Aleppo. But it is being removed for no good reasons that I can see. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To put it another way, the thing that's missing here is the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. If the World Tribune website doesn't have this, then it's not likely to be considered a reliable source. "No reputation at all" is not a substitute.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, after a recent discussion, we over at WP:PW would prefer a second opinion on whether PWInsider is a reliable source for professional wrestling. Frankly, our style guide's list of reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling is quite few, so we would like to add more sources to it. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The site is primarily a "
content aggregator" and blog AFAICT, existing primarily to provide many ads (more than twenty per page) and very little actual factual content. It cites reliable sources where it does have content, and it is those sources which ought to be cited, not an ad site.
Collect (
talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The material written by Scherer specifically should be citeable per WP:SPS, but I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight, fact checking or corrections when it comes to the site at large. Do established reliable sources ever cite the site? That could help. Siawase ( talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on http://www.pwinsider.com/contact.php it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a RS. If you want to review the other sources, that's a separate discussion. This one doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
OK -- three outsiders state it is not WP:RS on a prima facie basis (one says it may fall under SPS for limited use -- but that only applies to statements about that person writing). Zero agree that it is fundamentally WP:RS. As for why you claim that was I said was "false" - you concede that it is a "content aggregator" and that it has a huge number of ads - for which your claim is that they are there to annoy people <g> (to annoy you into signing up for the paid service). In short -- it is a content aggregator with lots of ads. As stated. Cheers -- but when no one agrees with your position, accept the fact that your position might be wrong. BTW, I am unsure that "slam.canoe.ca" meets RS either as it appears to be primarily blogs not associated with a newspaper or the like. It subscribes to CMI (whatever that is - it is not apparently findable on Wikipedia or Google) and Reuters, but appears to have no' actual "reporters" of its own (checking major stories). Collect ( talk) 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer - I brought up the addition of this category to articles at WP:FTN. It was only after the editor justified his addition of this category to articles that have no mention of reported hauntings stating that "I would also ask you to read WP:REF, which nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles. Which there are. Basically he has added over 630 articles to this category "semi-automatically" on the basis they the articles are in a poorly sourced article List of reportedly haunted locations. He is being reverted by myself and at least one other editor but continues to reinsert, and for Great Wall of China the best source he can come up with is About.Com [73]. I think that it is up to the editors of the articles in the list to decide whether a category belongs in an article they edit, not the list compiler, and that there must be well-sourced mention of the subject of the category in the article, eg if Giza Necropolis has a mention of hauntings that manages to stick, only then should it be in the category. This issue probably involves three areas or Wikipedai - fringe, reliable sources and I guess categorization, although I don't know of a venue where this particular type of problem should be discussed. Dougweller ( talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
in some articles on Computer Science or Information Technology, such as Application Portfolio Management, Automated Document Factory, Big data, and Mobile enterprise application platform, there are references to articles written by analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester. These firms specialize in creating research for the consumption of subscribers. Access to the articles is generally not available to non-subscribers. However, for any subscriber, it is fairly easy to verify that the articles do, in fact, exist and have the content indicated.
Are citations made to articles written by these firms considered to be reliable sources?
Also, in some cases, through prior arrangement with the analyst firm, a company or individual may be allowed to make an article available for examination by the general public. The organization making the article available usually has to pay for that right (although universities and government institutions often do not have to pay). Clearly, firms that make the article available are hoping to benefit because their firm was reviewed favorably by the analyst firm in their report. Those articles usually appear on the web site of the vendor or company that licensed them. In these cases, 100% of the content of the original article, and the logo of the analyst firm, is retained. They are simply "reprints" in an electronic form.
Are these articles to be considered reliable sources? Nickmalik ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
From time to time I use advanced searches to try to locate spam links. Today I looked for Amazon.com and came across a page I would like some advice on before taking further action. Here is the basic information:
1.Source.62 separate Amazon.Com product pages (and 1 Itunes + 1 Target sales page). Here is one example (they are all the same, different songs):
http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Beautiful-Glee-Version/dp/B007YO6ZUO
2.Article.
List_of_songs_in_Glee_(season_3)
3.Content.Here is one example:
! scope="row" | "
Bamboleo" / "
Hero"
|
Simon Diaz /
Enrique Iglesias ||
Sam Evans and New Directions males || 12. "
The Spanish Teacher" || style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes || The Complete Season Three || <!!ref!!cite!!web|url=
http://www.amazon.com/Bamboleo-Hero-Glee-Cast-Version/dp/B0072T976K/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327797395&sr=1-1%7Ctitle=Bamboleo / Hero (Glee Cast Version)|publisher=amazon.com|accessdate=January 28, 2012
Summary: This is a discography for the Third Season of the TV show Glee (Disclosure: I have never seen the TV Show). The page is entirely sourced by sales pages fro various retailers for individual MP3 download pages. The use of the pages is not necessary: Although the third season page is almost entirely sourced based on these sales pages, articles for seasons 1 and 2 are not. Further, a small number of the links for the season 3 article are not to sales pages. I performed a brief Google search and was able to find a number of alternative sources; although most of what I found had some sort of COI problem, almost none of them were selling something directly on the page containing the information that would need to be referenced. For example, see:
The Problem: This is the first time I have approached the Noticeboard for advice. Typically in this situation, I would change the references an note the changes on the Talk page. In this case, I checked the talk page before making changes, in order to determine what happened to allow the article to get into its current state. You can view the Talk page here. Amazon and Itunes show up in various discussions with a number of different users going back to 2012. All of the discussions seem to take it for granted that Amazon and Itunes are non-controversial, reliable sources. I am concerned that if I simply remove these links my edit will simply be reversed as soon as I stop watching the page. I do not want to watch a page; I find it leads to emotional investment/stress, prevents me from working on more constructive things, and is not a long-term solution any way.
Proposed Solution: I will be frank. While there may be some scenarios in which linking to retail sales pages is considered a legitimate reference for this encyclopedia, I have never seen a legitimate use of such a link in an actual article. 99% of the Amazon links I have seen is someone too lazy to use Template:Cite_book. The other 1% are on these Glee pages that I am consulting with you about now. IMO, they should be removed immediately and replaced with citations from the sources I listed above. These sources are widely known and respected for listing and tracking music production, or it is a list produced by the distributor of the music.
Anyway, that is the problem and my proposed solution. This seems to be the place to go to get consensus from people not involved with any specific page. I look forward to your feedback and will respect whatever the consensus decision here happens to be. Thanks. Jay Dubya ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (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 160 | ← | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 |
On the CFACT page, there have been multiple attempts to add Desmogblog [1] as a source speaking to CFACT's funding in the years 2006 and prior. I recently removed the latest one, but Gaba_p (a user with reviewer & rollback rights) reverted my change and told me to open a section here if I disagreed. So, specifically, Desmogblog is being used to support this paragraph, [2], which makes claims regarding funding from Exxon and the Scaife Foundations. I believe Desmogblog should not qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of CFACT because, 1) it's a group blog (cf. WP:BLOGS) that is not part of a larger news organization ( WP:NEWSBLOG, which are allowed), and all it does is provide links to other sources, 2) the link it provides to support it's claim about the Scaife funding is dead, indicating poor editorial oversight and fact-checking (cf. WP:QUESTIONABLE), and 3) it is strongly ideologically opposed to CFACT and the source it provides for it's claim about Exxon funding is Exxonsecrets, a propaganda arm of Greenpeace and a source other editors had previously agreed on the CFACT talk page should not be used in this context (cf. WP:BIASED). I understand that bias in itself does not always warrant removal of the source, but in this case and context I believe it does. Especially since the funding in question is very old (2006 and earlier) and the amounts of funding are trivial in light of CFACT's $3 million per year budget, making it misleading to include Exxon & Scaife as major donors considering how little information there is in the funding section.
Since I have much less history/experience on Wikipedia than Gaba, I am deferring to him and not reverting his change, but I think this case is pretty clear. Can we get the opinion of an outside editor? Thanks! Turnout8 ( talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the website "Celebrity Net Worth" be considered an RS for a BLP DOB (i.e. Peter Ostrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peter_Ostrum&curid=685962&diff=600075346&oldid=600074356) — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is wetpaint.com a reliable source? It looks like it probably is, but I'm not very familiar with the site and don't see anything about it in the noticeboard archives. According to its Wikipedia page, it started out as a wiki farm, but moved to providing professional content later on. I'm not exactly sure what's meant by "professional content" though. -- Jpcase ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Users Steeletrap and SPECIFICO keep arguing that this self-published piece, filled with undocumented opinions, by an author who only is notable for a few articles published in a metaphysics journal is a more reliable source than information from books published by reliable publishers; they even have removed such info. Anyone want to try to disabuse them of that notion?
Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The content cited to Flood has no controversial claims -- indeed it's obvious that the Rothbard family moved from Bronx to Manhattan because we have multiple other sources which discuss the subject's origin in the Bronx and subsequent coming of age in Manhattan. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a website for a print magazine, being linked in multiple articles, for example [3] in Mary Bell. Examples [4] [5] [6]. Any thoughts? Яehevkor ✉ 19:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past few weeks during the Crimean crisis, many sources have reported a systematic crackdown and enforced bias on Russian and Crimean media. [7] [8] For example, though even in 2005 they were unpopular with Reporters Without Borders, [9] the popular network RT (TV network) and associated web content have gone from being seen as more or less just another network in archive 39 [10] to biased like other news channels only more so in recent discussion. [11] [12] But in the past week or so, there has been unprecedented criticism of the network and allegations that it is nothing more than Russian propaganda period, [13] though as that source points out, there are some holdouts like Larry King who disagree. For their part RT has some content about censorship in Ukraine [14] - admittedly, it is not so simple to be sure sometimes how much of the bias is on the "Western" end and how much on theirs.
Anyway, though the world may discover it is unable to pass sanctions against Russia no matter how much of the Ukraine they take, I'm wondering if it may be time for us to pass one of our own - to formally demote the status of RT and other Russian publications to that of a press release or other primary source, with all the concomitant policy restrictions for BLPs and other uses. This would be on the basis that, if they are really being told what to do by some government official in the shadows, they are no better than his own self-published statement. I'm not confident enough of my judgment here to say we should do that - only that, as someone who has used them without much discrimination in past editing, I'm starting to worry that I've been wrong to do so. Is there any way to develop some confidence about this question? Wnt ( talk) 01:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I had reverted this edit but the IP has reinstated the text and sources [15] so I'm asking for outside input: Are these Twitter and Facebook pages a reliable source for adding the text ["or simply Joy"] after the subject's name? ie. Joy Williams (or simply Joy) [16] [17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing the page The Upper Footage. There's been a bit of a history of edit warring on the page, so I'll state that up front. I originally had a new user come on and try to edit the page and tweak it to be more promotional for the film. Accusations got thrown around fairly freely by this editor (you can see some here) and I seem to remember them trying to add various things that weren't RS. The reason I mention this is because one of the things brought up was that I was deliberately trying to sabotage the film by making it less positive than it was. I do not have any ulterior motives. It's just that the coverage is not exactly glowing for this film. I kind of feel that if I don't mention this, someone might say that I'm trying to discredit every review brought on the page.
OK, that said, one of the reviews is from Daily Grindhouse. ( [18]) It looks to be a non-usable blog source, as I can't really tell the editorial process for the site. I've read their stuff before and I like it, but I don't think it's really a RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is 2014 Ukrainian revolution. See [19] - the link, [20], is to a section of the Ukrainian Constitution. I have no idea why there is a sentence in Ukrainian there rather than English, but it means "(Article 111 of the President of Ukraine may be removed from the post by the Verkhovna Rada in the procedure of impeachment in case of committing it treason or other crimes.)" Dougweller ( talk) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The SOHR's Facebook page [21] is being used to back factual statements of deaths, etc at Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present). When I tried to change this last year I was reverted with an edit summary saying that SOHR was a reliable source. [22]. I left it at that but another issue reminded me of this today, so I'm bringing it here again. We've had earlier discussions at [23] and [24], neither of which seem to suggest we can simply use it as a reliable source. This article comes under WP:SCWGS per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Syrian_civil_war_articles ( [25]) and ultimately community consensus from August 2013 although it hasn't yet been tagged as such, something which I will do next. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@ ZarlanTheGreen: In this revert of material sourced of a PhD thesis study about school uniforms, a Wikipedian said "No. No noticeboard was in favour of including it.)"
It had been discussed on the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_Education-related_PhD_thesis:_School_uniform_.22study.22. My impression was that the noticeboard here saw it as "reliable" and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included
There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation (referring to the study):
School districts themselves talk about the study
According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times. WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I searched the University of Houston library database after reading a textbook page that said that a Columbus Dispatch article talked about the Draa study, and I found this entry. I can get it off Wikipedia:RX if someone wants me to take a bigger look:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
You're saying these comment's where not made?
There's a certain degree of cherry-picking going on as I don't see that this study is all that heavily cited, and some of the references I have found seem to come to conflicting conclusions. Mangoe ( talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I just took a look, and it doesn't look to me like cherry-picking./.../ — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Yes the editor disagrees, but it is a comment on the weight of the source, nonetheless) Do I detect cherry-picking here? yes. And,,, should we be spending time discussing the 1 in a million PhD thesis that was passed through for political - or any other - reasons? No. Why not? Well, for the same reason that we don't allow a single dissenting example to steer the course of an article, namely, Undue weight. /.../ Mercy11 ( talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) It's still not that simple. Another issue that can determine whether we use any peer-reviewed study is whether or not it's gained traction in academic circles. Eg one-off study on DNA 8 years ago that has been completely ignored since shouldn't be used as a source, even if it was a PhD, published paper, etc. There simply is no hard and fast rule that we can apply. And the idea that all peer-reviewed material is neutral simply is wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
What question is being asked here? If the question is "Did this noticeboard 'support' the inclusion of the Virginia Draa school uniform study at School uniforms?", the answer is that the discussion was inconclusive. Some contributors to the discussion said that the Draa thesis is reliable (mainly arguing a PhD thesis is reliable by definition), while others disputed that a thesis is automatically reliable. The latter contributors did not focus so much on the merits of this particular thesis; they instead addressed the question of whether theses should automatically qualify as a reliable sources generally speaking. Dezastru ( talk) 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This article may have sourcing issues (I can't tell for sure, as 2 of the 3 are books and all are in Russian, a language I don't speak). The article's opening sentence is:
The Kinzelyuk Waterfall (Кинзелюкский водопад) is probably the highest waterfall in Russia, after the elusive Talnikovy Waterfall (which may not exist any more).
Can somebody help out? ChromaNebula (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just encountered the article Natalia Turine for the first time. (I hadn't previously heard of the biographee.) At first glance, the sourcing looks insufficient yet not too bad. But click on any of the twelve references and all the text links change color (one's browser shows that it has already displayed the lot). That's because they're all linked to the biographee's own page http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19
This raises at least three questions. One is, even if these are all what they seemm to be, it's not obvious that they're all present with the permission of the copyright holder. And WP mustn't link to copyright violations.
However, sets of reproductions like this are very normal these days. Let's assume for a moment that reproduction on that website isn't problematic, and move on.
Secondly, there's always a possibility that sources such as this could have been tampered with or could even be total fakes. Is there something in a guideline (or policy) about use of primary sources for (what purport to be) secondary sources? (I've a feeling I've read something, but can't remember where.)
And if, or so far as, sources/links such as this are permissible/desirable, how are they best presented via Template:Cite web?
(I tend to avoid this template myself: by avoiding it, I can easily add the text snippet as reproduced [http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19 here] in Turine's website. But I appreciate its value in principle, and if it's already used in an article then I'm reluctant to do away with it.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Are any of the reviewers of comedic video based review sites (e.g. That Guy with the Glasses, The Angry Video Game Nerd, The Spoony Experiment, etc.) considered reliable? They are critics by trade, and their reviews do contain editorial oversight and a history of accuracy. The fact that their sites are more humor driven shouldn't be an issue, as many reliable text reviewers such as IGN also use heavy humor in their reviews. Looking over the policies, I see nothing that precludes such sites from being reliable sources, and some articles do seem to be using some of them without question. (For instance, Whistle (Flo Rida song) already cites a review from That Guy with the Glasses reviewer Todd in the Shadows.) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello I hope this is the right place. I propose a site-wide removal and ban of MuslimHeritage.com and the organisations articles behind it - "Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation" / "Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation (FSTC)" sources as unreliable, as it is still being used on many pages. It has previously been established it misrepresents sources and is unreliable by Wikipedian's and even outside historians:
The organisation looks and sounds reliable so keeps being used, which is why it's such a problem.-- Diamondbuster ( talk) 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Aua, the source wasn't refuted using OR, it was refuted by another academic and many others when looking up the reliable source it supposedly references. When multiple outside reliable sources show this single source as false, it's clearly unreliable.
TFD, these are not differing opinions, these are differing claims and facts not backed up by the sources they used, so is misleading in some cases complete lies.
Sean, this source are articles from the unreliable source being discussed, which have been republished by the same author.-- Diamondbuster ( talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Is a doctoral dissertation apparently published by UC Davis but not nor in any peer-reviewed journal. The author [er GoogleScholar appears to be cited by very few places at all (10 cites for the dissertation total)
It is being used to present as fact that specific people were members of the "Bohemian Club" List of Bohemian Club members
This source specifies that it used lists of guests etc. to determine the interconnected nature of "elite men's clubs" and "capitalism" (i.e. it is focused on economic power and not on the actual individuals, nor does the author try to verify any memberships other than using the SPS primary sources). (Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993 is listed as a source)
Two issues -- while some doctoral dissertations have been deemed RS in the past, where living people are involved, does the\is particular doctoral dissertation meet WP:V and WP:BLP for contentious claims about living people?
Second, for dead people, is reliance on what appears to be only a self-published list of members sufficient to declare that a person was, indeed, a member?
Thanks for any input thereon. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The source stated "guests" to the "encampment" which I trust is the term generally used for the gatherings of that organization, and rather clearly stated that guests did not magically become members -- else the author ought well have listed himself as a member. As he did not, the claim can not be made that guests become members. And if an organization is absolutely pure, but that rumours circulate about the organization making it notorious way, that the claim is contentious -- "truth" has nothing to do with it. And there is clearly an abundance of notoriety about the organization. In short, I regard it as clear that the membership in that organization is, indeed, contentious as a claim. Collect ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This thesis is a reliable source for membership in the Bohemian Club, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for individuals who are deceased, and for most (if not all) who are living. In any case in which a particular living person disputes having been a member, the specific text within the thesis that says the person was a member would need to be examined to determine how Wikipedia should handle the matter. (The principles of WP:BLPCAT would likely apply, since Lists, like Categories, 'do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources'). Dezastru ( talk) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Do organizations ever list non-members as members? That is the gist -- with one asserting that a club's claim that a person was a member is absolutely to be taken as truth. The problem is that organizations have frequently asserted that noted persons were "members". The "thesis" specifies that the club's own publications were used as a source -- we can not assert that the thesis found any other evidence whatsoever for the "membership". Including the Rosicrucians insisting Franklin was a member, onwards. The tendency is to present a "higher level notability" for an organization by asserting that famous people were members. In the case of Twain, absolutely no Twain-related source makes the claim that he ever knew anything about the club, and the anecdotes which had him going to meetings are poor as he was not in San Francisco to "meet Bret Harte at the Bohemian Club" between 1868 and 1906. Indeed, he was in San Francisco for a few hours for a benefit on 21 April 1906, and never otherwise even visited any of California. Few people are as thoroughly documented as Clemens at all. [33]. His famous world wide lecture tour was 1895-6. The chronology of his speeches is at [34]. And there are no records of any "Bohemian Club" in any of the Twain archives AFAICT. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: "The Annals of the Bohemian Club" printed in 1898 [35] make the claim that Twain became a member on 17 October 1873 (before his major works were published) -- quite a feat since he was in Hartford, and no correspondence indicates anything of the sort. (took a whole to find the alleged date -- which is first mentioned a quarter of a century later). [36] which deals with Twain, Harte and the Bohemian Club specifically makes no such claim about any connection between Twain and the club. So what we have is a PR book from a quarter of a century later asserting that Twain was in San Francisco to become an Honorary Member in 1873 -- with the trivial problem that not only was Twain not there, we know quite well where he was. Collect ( talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
One more: [38] " Early in its career the Club developed a mania for collaring celebrities. At first the organization was content with designating notable personages of letters as their honorary co-Bohemians. In 1873, Mark Twain and Bret Harte were elected honorary members. Shortly afterwards, on a Winter evening, the Club sent telegraph greetings across the continent to Oliver Wendell Holmes. The members must have been either drunk or absent-minded at that moment. They did not take into consideration that darkest night reigns in the East while it is early evening in California. Dr. Holmes was got out of his warm bed and away from his slumber by the telegram." In short, people were made "honorary members" for the specific purpose of enhancing the Club's perceived status. "This boast grew more shrill and fantastic as the years rolled by. A painful surprise came in 1892 when James Whitcomb Riley was accosted in his hotel by a proud representative of the Club. (Riley told the person that it would have to go through his business manager!)" Garrets and Pretenders: Bohemian Life in America from Poe to Kerouac Albert Parry; Courier Dover Publications, Jun 17, 2013; 480 pages. the Club comes of as being basically a fraud when it came to adopting "honorary members". Did the Club assert that anyone it named an honorary member was one? Yes. did that make them actually a member of any sort? Not as far as actual Twain researchers are concerned. Cheers - I think this is dispositive. Collect ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Just in: [39] "Mr. Peabody" is an "honorary member" of Mensa. Collect ( talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics> & < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov>. Both of these entries cite as reference 1, John B. Dunlop. "Review: Aleksandr Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics" and link to pdf., < http://lisd.princeton.edu/publications/wp_russiaseries_dunlop.pdf>. However, this website just gives a list of various publications, none of which includes the cited work.
Michael H. Hart's book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is used in a number of articles, eg 2nd millennium to show that people are significant. Hart's field of expertise is astrophysics and he is a self-proclaimed white separatist. My own opinion is that his opinions don't belong in any of our articles, but he currently is used extensively. Dougweller ( talk) 11:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this book self-published? It could be a coincidence that the author and publisher have the same name, but the identifiable "Hart Publishing" is based out of Oxford, not New York, and focuses on law. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead used to say
"Traditional sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10] with the exception of al-Tabari who records that she was ten years old." but now says
"Traditional sources state that Aisha was the only virgin Muhammad married and claim that he married her in Mecca at the age of seven, and consummated his marriage with her, when she was nine or ten, after his migration to Medina.[11][12] However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.[13] Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham mentioned in their books, which are the earliest written books about the biography of Muhammad, that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era and converted to Islam when she was young girl among the first people who converted to Islam.[14][15] This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad."
The statement "However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable." has one source, [42], written by this person. There's no source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad." At Talk:Aisha the editor in question has started a section called "The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims" and states that " It is written, like most of wikipedia's articles, by Wicked Liars" - - bringing it here as I doubt I am going to get a reasonable discussion with someone who starts off like that. Dougweller ( talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2823486/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_8
This is an Imdb credit for a major cable network credit that was passed upon by the network. Wikipedia has a policy of disregarding Imdb credits, for very good reason, but in the capacity of issuing "tv movie" crdits they have a strict editorial team who confirms with the distributors and networks. One cannot fake a "failed" tv pilot. What do I have to use this as a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames ( talk • contribs)
Is the Virtual International Authority File reliable for biographical info in BLP articles? Is this VIAF page reliable for birth info for Eric Kim? I just wanna make sure. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
66.225.160.172 ( talk · contribs) keeps inserting material sourced the the "Law and Freedom Foundation" [45] (formerly "Mosquebusters" [46]. Specifically, [47] added "The authorities in the UK have been slow to identify and prevent this criminal behaviour, as documented by the Law and Freedom Foundation." and a link to Love Jihad with the edit summary "just because dougweller disagrees with the alleged aims of a source does not mean that the source ought to be silenced by wiki. let the readers decide" and [48] added " A more recent concept of localised grooming, in which gangs of reprobates groom neighbourhood victims, was devised of necessity in 2010 by the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,<ref name=ceop>[http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf ceop.police.uk: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CEOP thematic assessment" June 2011]</ref> although this phenomenon had been seen since at least 1990.<ref name=lff>[http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf lawandfreedomfoundation.org: "Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and child sex slavery"]</ref>" Identical material was adding earlier by 69.171.101.3 ( talk · contribs), probably a dynamic IP. I've deleted this a couple of times but I expect the IP to replace it. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This question concerns the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Notability_of_food:_are_recipes_enough.3F, and in particular, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plums in chocolate. Are recipes listings like [49] on the internet good enough for us to 1) link to and 2) use as a reference / proof of notability? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Instagram account of Corey Harrison reliable for the date of birth of his father, Rick Harrison? When you hover the mouse over the photo of the two of them at this page (The one under the heading March 2014), it gives the date March 22, 2014, and when you click on it, the caption indicates that it is Rick Harrison's birthday. His article already has his birth year, but not the day. Is that reliable?
Also, is this Facebook post by Harrison reliable? Is there a way to determine if a Facebook account is the verified one of the person in question, like with Twitter? Looking through the archive for discussions on Facebook used to source dates of birth, I came across this one, in which someone stated that a link from the person's official site would do this, however, the only website I know he has is the one for his business, and I couldn't find any link to a Facebook account there. Nightscream ( talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The link, from Entertainment Weekly talks about how in a Barbara Walters show it was announced that singer Mariah Carey earned 500million throughout her career. My question is are these chat shows reliable at all? Most of the time its for promotion of the said guest who is appearing and has no indication of a journalistic or academic credibility behind the info, except PR fed. What are other's thoughts on this? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The site's sole publisher is Douglas Pucci, who started the site in 2011 using the Blogger service. It specializes in compiling detailed listings of Nielsen ratings data for various major cable channels. Its data has been published by multiple third-party sources, including TV by the Numbers and The Futon Critic, who also publish data provided by Nielsen directly to them; the latter two sites are also used extensively in television research.
Below is a list of some of the site's attributions:
Its data seems to be consistent with other cable rating reports, and all of its entries cite Nielsen Media Research. Per WP:UGC, I believe this meets the criteria of an author who "is an established expert on the subject matter whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Some editors from WP:TV are turned off from using it because of the fact that it is hosted on Blogger, though, and would like another opinion from here. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 04:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This site fails WP:SPS. It is not reliable for sourcing viewership numbers. If all of its content is derived from Nielsen, then Nielsen should be cited directly – or, much better, a secondary source that cites Nielsen, or some other ratings provider, in the context of discussing the show itself should be cited for Wikipedia. (See, for example, [50].) In addition, a number of the Wikipedia articles listed above that cite Son of the Bronx are themselves of dubious notability, judging from the way the articles currently appear. For example, does The Amazing World of Gumball (season 2) really meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? And if it does, is the number of viewers listed for each episode really that important for how Wikipedia covers the show? Take out all of the citations of Son of the Bronx from that article and what is left for the article's sources? Same with AwesomenessTV. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Dezastru ( talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a notice at WT:RS to hopefully encourage others to join the discussion. Dezastru ( talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Would it be too far-fetched to say that given the current wording of WP:UGC, "expertise" can be established or derived from those reliable third-party sources? I've seen the same logic being applied with previous discussions on here about the site: one had asked for third-party articles citing him, and another inferred that his site may qualify as an "expert exemption" when given some of the same articles I've provided above. I doubt that one needs to hold a doctorate in statistics in order to be considered a reliable outlet for the republication of Nielsen ratings, and given that multiple third-party sources have borrowed his numbers and cited him (on top of Nielsen), I think he meets the exception as a reliable self-published source. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 00:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we get some board regulars to weigh in here?
Dezastru (
talk) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, bad timing. Anyway, I'll watch to see whether anyone replies to this, but am proceeding on the assumption that this is done. So:
Synopsis I knew Wikipedia frowned on interpreting primary sources as original research. I didn't know Wikipedia accepted interpreting primary sources for the purpose of synopsising a work of fiction. I'd be interested in knowing whether interpretations of this cognitive dissonance are documented.
Judiciary Act of 1793 More seriously, how far does this exception extend? This article was my first substantial Wikipedia writing, and despite a thin veneer of references and framing, it's essentially a synopsis of the law in question, which is not fiction. Good or not good?
Secret Garden (TV series) In this framework, it's clear what I should have done. I should have expanded the synopsis, perhaps removing the plagiarism at the same time, to English Wikipedia's normal spoiler-heavy length, and included in it something like this: "Meanwhile, the central relationship remains stalled in pursuit and flight until, in episode thirteen's famous "bed scene", Kim Joo-Won's second sexual assault on Gil Ra-Im convinces her that he really loves her, and she begins to return his feelings." Since I hate the show, I'm quite unlikely actually to do this, but at least now I know.
Dramabeans That said, this is where y'all disappointed me greatly. With regard to the particular person I was citing, javabeans, there's no question that this is self-publication, and she herself refers to it as a blog. I was citing her reaction to the bed scene. I'm getting two sorts of explanations for why that's no good. One is that because she self-publishes a blog, she MUST NOT be quoted except via a third party. Note that in this case, where I'm talking about her opinion, there is no issue of reliability per se: to get someone's opinion, you quote them. But because it's a self-published blog, it can't be quoted. Um, this isn't an explanation, this is a reiteration, and of a silly rule that isn't made less silly by reiteration.
More seriously, I'm told her reaction isn't notable. ("My uncle Al".) I've presented evidence of its notability, which has not been challenged. (Really. I'm physically near a complete collection of the YA Entertainment K-drama releases. Challenge me: I can go there and *count* how many times they quoted each blurb source. Dramabeans will win.) I can add to that: two days ago, I went to a lecture on K-dramas at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The speaker, Bonnie Tilland, who is ABD in the University of Washington Anthropology Department, who taught a class at the UW last fall about K-dramas, and whose dissertation, almost finished, deals inter alia with the effects K-dramas have on Korean women's aspirations, was asked by the lecture organisers to cite a book attendees could read for more information. Her choice? Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday. I suppose your obvious reply is that unreliable sources ("She's ABD!") stick together, but isn't this getting to be an untenable line of argument?
English Wikipedia has done an excellent job of purging all explicit references to Dramabeans. To the extent that Dramabeans is a source for K-drama news and gossip, this is probably appropriate, although they normally link to their (Korean-language) sources. But I don't think citing their recaps and evaluative writing has been shown inappropriate. It's only inappropriate by undefended shibboleth. I expect English Wikipedia to continue refusing to cite Dramabeans, and I expect it to continue to have no good reason for that refusal. I'd like to be proven wrong on one of those expectations.
Korean drama I've posted in a bunch of places looking for help with this article and/or its Korean counterpart; I haven't contacted the final list of Wikipedians I was given, but have written to Ms. Tilland, within hours of her talk. So far, no results. As to the references which, contrary to the claims of Kuyamarco123, I did provide:
Jeon This is the central reference without which the "History" section collapses. It is a dissertation approved by the University of Glasgow Department of Theatre Film and TV Studies in 2013. Unfortunately, while its supervisors' online biographies make a convincing case for their authority in media policy studies generally, they make no case at all for those supervisors knowing Korean. Moreover, much of Jeon's writing - which is focused on media policy, turning historical primarily to document past policy and justify claims concerning the future - rests on a considerable number of interviews she did (although relatively less of what I cited is based on these). I don't see a persuasive way to rescue this source's reliability until and unless, in a year or three, people y'all see as reliable start citing it; and its topical reliabity is anyway doomed because what such people would cite for K-dramas' history isn't Jeon, but the books already extant in Korean.
With S2 This is an important source for the first half of the section, and although it's clearly based on research, it just as clearly doesn't provide any pointers to that research; it's self-published; it's pretty much the epitome of unverifiable.
DramaWiki I've shown that in a sample of over 4% of Wikipedia's 500+ K-drama articles, one fourth plagiarised DramaWiki. This fairly obviously calls for a system of vigilance, which could probably be automated: survey all articles in List of South Korean dramas and all additions thereafter (and since DramaWiki also covers Japanese and Chinese dramas, ...); find in each article the title in Hangul; find the DramaWiki page citing that Hangul title; compare for plagiarism. How could I find out whether anyone is working on, or even suggesting, such a system? Or does Wikipedia have a policy against being proactive?
Separately, DramaWiki can't be cited because its parent site, D-Addicts, is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Nobody offered suggestions as to how I could find out why this blacklist exists.
Separately, is DramaWiki an unreliable source? Several verifiability-related pages refer specifically to "open" wikis as especially unreliable. DramaWiki requires registration, but anyone can register; I don't know how open that makes it. Probably a lost cause, though, which is unfortunate, given that I also documented a habit of starting Wikipedia articles after a drama finishes airing, which makes Wikipedia's writers all the more dependent on DramaWiki for factual data. (I depend on D-Addicts itself for a list of YA Entertainment releases, for that matter, although archive.org offers an alternative involving original research...)
History of Usenet Here's an irony. Not only my work, but most of my sources, are in fact peer-reviewed. That's what posting to Usenet (unequivocally self-publication) did, in the 1990s and early 2000s: assuming your post was on-topic, it became available to peers to review. The difficulty, of course, is that such posts normally aren't revised to take this peer review into account; see, for example, at archive.org, my hierarchy summary of the NET.* hierarchy, which isn't safe to rely on without checking a later post. (Note that this is a different post from the summary of the net.* hierarchy. Detailed guidance to my sources, as of the end of my two main bursts of work on the topic, is available here and here.) In contrast, however, note Lee Bumgarner's pioneering oral history of Usenet, the "Great Renaming FAQ", an important source for all his successors, which he did revise to take peers' comments into account. (Then again, it's cited heavily in Great Renaming, also in Backbone cabal. So that's sorta fair.)
As it happens, there has been scholarly work on the history of Usenet, well, um, at least sorta, by one Ronda Hauben, but it doesn't extend much past the beginnings. Non-scholarly, but published, work which Wikipedia would probably find acceptable sources are cited in the NET.* post, with regard to a group called NET.test, which they (and Lee Bumgarner, following them) make false statements about. So in this case, verifiability seems to require propagating a falsehood. (To be fair, it's been about a decade since I last worked on this; I don't know how much the landscape in print has changed.)
Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?
I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.
The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
205.175.116.106 ( talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Persianfootball.com an RS? And if not, how do we address an editor who keeps on posting it in article talkpages across the Project? And reverting editors who delete it?
See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Epeefleche ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Soka Gakkai ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soka Gakkai - Revised
Most of your source citations for the Soka Galkai post are erroneous and misleading; you should reference Dr. Dayle Bethel's work The Value Creator which discusses the life of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and his reform efforts within the Japanese Education system prior to WW II. His successor, Josei Toda also reformed Japanese society after the war by alleviating the public's suffering based in their beliefs in false religions which brought the Japanese defeat and misery. To be sure, Toda spoke out against the use of Nuclear weapons in 1957 long before the peace movement of the 1960s; hence the motto: Peace, Culture and Education. We're you aware of that? Now, Honorary SGI President Ikeda (who simply recieves a salary from the organization) carries on the efforts of his mentor Toda as it concerns Peace, Culture and Education. As an academic, I am voicing my opposition to your assertions in the article posted as your ideas are either false or one-sided.
Sincerely,
Paul Neuhausen, MSCIS
Please verify source 5, 6, and 7 (those new Russian sources).The phenotype is prevalent to the following ethnicities: Azerbaijanis[5][6][7]...
Copied this here from the Reference Desk Miscellaneous. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the Henry Kriete Letter that exposed a lot of abuses in the International Churches of Christ. Because Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter (husband and wife) aren't they the best source on the letter that they wrote?
In several posts I tried to explain something to User JamieBrown2011, but he keeps saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website and Henry and Marilyn themselves are not reliable sources on the letter that they themselves wrote. I don't understand that.
Here is some of my reasoning:
@Qewr4231, personal blogs are not Reliable Sources for Wikipedia, yet you insist in trying to insert content from them. Even if you agree with the opinions of the authors it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.
I quote from WP:RS
"Definition of a source
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis ( http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis ( http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.
Qewr4231 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually now it's a 12 or 13 part series that is still continuing. But you know what? Here's the kicker . . . The Henry Kriete Letter was written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Qewr4231 ( talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Do the following count as WP:RS sources?
> [52] WSJ Republican David Jolly beat his Democratic opponent Alex Sink on Tuesday in a Florida special election for Congress seen as a bellwether for this year's midterms.
[53] TheHill.com Lackluster candidates, millions spent, a third-party candidate: Every detail of Tuesday’s special election in Florida’s 13th District makes it unusual, but the bellwether district is still the first indication of the 2014 electoral mood.
[54] CNN But the contest for Florida 13 has landed smack in the middle of the national political spotlight. It's seen by some pundits as a bellwether for November's midterm elections. (written before the election, and pretty dang close to the Wikipedia usage)
[55] HuffPo Florida's 13th District Bellwether Report: Why Obamacare's Least Of Democrats' Worries (post-election)
[56] Reuters Florida election a bellwether for fall U.S. mid-term race (pre-election)
[57] Orlando Sentinel Republican David Jolly narrowly took the contentious and expensive special election on Tuesday to replace his former boss, the late Rep. Bill Young, in the Pinellas County seat in Congress that some believe is a bellwether for contests nationally this autumn.
[58] New York Magazine Whether or not it’s a bellwether, “It's now likely impossible for Democrats to pick enough seats in November to even have a chance of regaining the House of Representatives,” writes Ben Jacobs in The Daily Beast. Gaining 17 seats was always a long shot. But the fact that Obama won the 13th district twice made it one that was potentially up for grabs after the death of Bill Young, who held the seat for 40 years. The big question now is if Republicans can pick up six seats for control of the Senate in November.
[59] AP After months of railing against President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.
[60] CBS DC The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama’s health care law. (considered a major player in political punditry in DC)
[61] Canada Free Press (not in the US, d'oh) In a bellwether special Congressional race, a long-time aide for a long-time Congressman, a flawed (and former lobbyist) Republican David Jolly faced off against Florida’s 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink to finish out the term of recently deceased Bill Young, who had represented the district for forty-two years, the longest serving Republican in the House of Representatives.
[62] Sunshine State News In what was billed as a bellwether for November, Republican David Jolly defeated Democratic rival former state CFO Alex Sink by nearly 2 percentage points in a special election Tuesday to win the seat held for decades by his former boss, the late U.S. Rep. Bill Young.
[63] WSJ Professional political observers and journalists touted the election as a bellwether. "It's rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a 'must win'--but the special election in Florida's 13th District falls into that category for Democrats," wrote Stuart Rothenberg back in January:
[64] DigiNews But Young was a moderate, and his district is a swing district; both sides treated it as a bellwether.
[65] NY Mag citing Frank Rich - noted liberal "pundit" This race was a bellwether to be sure — not of what’s going to happen in November, but of the true idiocy of our political culture. A ludicrous $12 million in campaign spending was poured into this single district in which fewer than 200,000 people voted. Much of the bloviocracy hyped the race before and after as a battle akin to Ali-Frazier or, perhaps given the Florida setting, Bush vs. Gore, and as a decisive verdict on the political valence of Obamacare. And now both sides are overreading meaning into an election decided by less than 2 percent of the vote (under 4,000 votes) in a race where a third-party Libertarian candidate received almost 5 percent of the vote.
[66] WWSB (pre-election) Today's special election to replace District 13's late congressman C.W. Bill Young is being watched closely by both political parties as a possible bellwether of things to come in the 2014 midterms.
Do they furnish sufficent basis to the claim"
One editor insists that only people with specific degrees in Political Science so qualify, although several of the "pundits' appear to have such degrees, they are not all given full WP biographies stating such. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 11:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Problem: The IP appeared after the election to change language which had been there since November 2013 without any problems. He forumshops when an RfC is open but not going his way, edit wars while an RfC is ongoing, and makes ad hom comments on a noticeboard about reliable sources and what they reasonably can be stated to claim. Cheers -- but AGF is being bungeed. Why did you wait until after the election to insist on your own version? Note also that many quoted are not "journalists" in any case.
Collect (
talk) 13:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim is that people called it a "possible bellwether" which is proper wording for opinions cited as opinions. Your aside here that only "political science" experts can hold opinions goes against reason -- the top political reporters and political experts cited by them are surely sufficient here for the claim made. Cheers. And please start signing your posts. Collect ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past we have talked about celebritynetworth.com and its reliability. I am bringing this up again as we have a few editors this week going over many bios adding net worth based on celebritynetworth.com. What if any decision has been made about this site? I am concerned because of the parameter "net_worth" at Template:Infobox person that does not explain in any way what is a reliable source for this parameter. In a few cases I have seen Forbes estimates replaced with celebritynetworth because it looks more upto date. Lets look they are close but in a few cases billions off the mark from one and other Forbes list vs Celebritynetworth list -- Moxy ( talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs) has added two Patheos blog articles ( Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to the article God's Not Dead (film) in order to prove his point that the film is based off of an urban legend. Are Patheos blogs acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia? Furthermore, my assessment was that adding in a link to that urban legend in the article as a reference violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because this website does not even discuss the film. It seems to be used only to support the user's claim that the film is based off of an urban legend. The sentence that User:MjolnirPants is using these sources for reads as follows ( diff):
Numerous sources have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban legend. The basic structure -that of a Christian student debating an atheist professor and winning in front of the class- has been the subject of at least two popular legends and a popular Chick tract".
I would appreciate any comments and feedback. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like more input on the use of the website menaopportunities.info as a source. This page has been used to support the inclusion of two people on the page List of Lebanese by net worth ; what makes it especially problematic is the fact that one of the main contributors to the menaopportunities.info website is the person who has repeatedly used it as a source in the Wikipedia article, and there is a very clear conflict of interest in that the editor is repeatedly adding the name of a relative against consensus. Even discounting the COI issue, the website does not appear to meet WP:RS at all, to me, but I would welcome other opinions and insights on this. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this paper reliable for this reverted edit? The paper has reported that the government forces now control 80% of Aleppo. But it is being removed for no good reasons that I can see. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To put it another way, the thing that's missing here is the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. If the World Tribune website doesn't have this, then it's not likely to be considered a reliable source. "No reputation at all" is not a substitute.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, after a recent discussion, we over at WP:PW would prefer a second opinion on whether PWInsider is a reliable source for professional wrestling. Frankly, our style guide's list of reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling is quite few, so we would like to add more sources to it. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The site is primarily a "
content aggregator" and blog AFAICT, existing primarily to provide many ads (more than twenty per page) and very little actual factual content. It cites reliable sources where it does have content, and it is those sources which ought to be cited, not an ad site.
Collect (
talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The material written by Scherer specifically should be citeable per WP:SPS, but I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight, fact checking or corrections when it comes to the site at large. Do established reliable sources ever cite the site? That could help. Siawase ( talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on http://www.pwinsider.com/contact.php it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a RS. If you want to review the other sources, that's a separate discussion. This one doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
OK -- three outsiders state it is not WP:RS on a prima facie basis (one says it may fall under SPS for limited use -- but that only applies to statements about that person writing). Zero agree that it is fundamentally WP:RS. As for why you claim that was I said was "false" - you concede that it is a "content aggregator" and that it has a huge number of ads - for which your claim is that they are there to annoy people <g> (to annoy you into signing up for the paid service). In short -- it is a content aggregator with lots of ads. As stated. Cheers -- but when no one agrees with your position, accept the fact that your position might be wrong. BTW, I am unsure that "slam.canoe.ca" meets RS either as it appears to be primarily blogs not associated with a newspaper or the like. It subscribes to CMI (whatever that is - it is not apparently findable on Wikipedia or Google) and Reuters, but appears to have no' actual "reporters" of its own (checking major stories). Collect ( talk) 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer - I brought up the addition of this category to articles at WP:FTN. It was only after the editor justified his addition of this category to articles that have no mention of reported hauntings stating that "I would also ask you to read WP:REF, which nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles. Which there are. Basically he has added over 630 articles to this category "semi-automatically" on the basis they the articles are in a poorly sourced article List of reportedly haunted locations. He is being reverted by myself and at least one other editor but continues to reinsert, and for Great Wall of China the best source he can come up with is About.Com [73]. I think that it is up to the editors of the articles in the list to decide whether a category belongs in an article they edit, not the list compiler, and that there must be well-sourced mention of the subject of the category in the article, eg if Giza Necropolis has a mention of hauntings that manages to stick, only then should it be in the category. This issue probably involves three areas or Wikipedai - fringe, reliable sources and I guess categorization, although I don't know of a venue where this particular type of problem should be discussed. Dougweller ( talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
in some articles on Computer Science or Information Technology, such as Application Portfolio Management, Automated Document Factory, Big data, and Mobile enterprise application platform, there are references to articles written by analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester. These firms specialize in creating research for the consumption of subscribers. Access to the articles is generally not available to non-subscribers. However, for any subscriber, it is fairly easy to verify that the articles do, in fact, exist and have the content indicated.
Are citations made to articles written by these firms considered to be reliable sources?
Also, in some cases, through prior arrangement with the analyst firm, a company or individual may be allowed to make an article available for examination by the general public. The organization making the article available usually has to pay for that right (although universities and government institutions often do not have to pay). Clearly, firms that make the article available are hoping to benefit because their firm was reviewed favorably by the analyst firm in their report. Those articles usually appear on the web site of the vendor or company that licensed them. In these cases, 100% of the content of the original article, and the logo of the analyst firm, is retained. They are simply "reprints" in an electronic form.
Are these articles to be considered reliable sources? Nickmalik ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
From time to time I use advanced searches to try to locate spam links. Today I looked for Amazon.com and came across a page I would like some advice on before taking further action. Here is the basic information:
1.Source.62 separate Amazon.Com product pages (and 1 Itunes + 1 Target sales page). Here is one example (they are all the same, different songs):
http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Beautiful-Glee-Version/dp/B007YO6ZUO
2.Article.
List_of_songs_in_Glee_(season_3)
3.Content.Here is one example:
! scope="row" | "
Bamboleo" / "
Hero"
|
Simon Diaz /
Enrique Iglesias ||
Sam Evans and New Directions males || 12. "
The Spanish Teacher" || style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes || The Complete Season Three || <!!ref!!cite!!web|url=
http://www.amazon.com/Bamboleo-Hero-Glee-Cast-Version/dp/B0072T976K/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327797395&sr=1-1%7Ctitle=Bamboleo / Hero (Glee Cast Version)|publisher=amazon.com|accessdate=January 28, 2012
Summary: This is a discography for the Third Season of the TV show Glee (Disclosure: I have never seen the TV Show). The page is entirely sourced by sales pages fro various retailers for individual MP3 download pages. The use of the pages is not necessary: Although the third season page is almost entirely sourced based on these sales pages, articles for seasons 1 and 2 are not. Further, a small number of the links for the season 3 article are not to sales pages. I performed a brief Google search and was able to find a number of alternative sources; although most of what I found had some sort of COI problem, almost none of them were selling something directly on the page containing the information that would need to be referenced. For example, see:
The Problem: This is the first time I have approached the Noticeboard for advice. Typically in this situation, I would change the references an note the changes on the Talk page. In this case, I checked the talk page before making changes, in order to determine what happened to allow the article to get into its current state. You can view the Talk page here. Amazon and Itunes show up in various discussions with a number of different users going back to 2012. All of the discussions seem to take it for granted that Amazon and Itunes are non-controversial, reliable sources. I am concerned that if I simply remove these links my edit will simply be reversed as soon as I stop watching the page. I do not want to watch a page; I find it leads to emotional investment/stress, prevents me from working on more constructive things, and is not a long-term solution any way.
Proposed Solution: I will be frank. While there may be some scenarios in which linking to retail sales pages is considered a legitimate reference for this encyclopedia, I have never seen a legitimate use of such a link in an actual article. 99% of the Amazon links I have seen is someone too lazy to use Template:Cite_book. The other 1% are on these Glee pages that I am consulting with you about now. IMO, they should be removed immediately and replaced with citations from the sources I listed above. These sources are widely known and respected for listing and tracking music production, or it is a list produced by the distributor of the music.
Anyway, that is the problem and my proposed solution. This seems to be the place to go to get consensus from people not involved with any specific page. I look forward to your feedback and will respect whatever the consensus decision here happens to be. Thanks. Jay Dubya ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)