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 170 | ← | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | → | Archive 180 |
Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The text of the document related to the claim is:
There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou ( talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this document (section 9) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The advocating that, at the time of the AIDS epidemic, the document disapproved of was the advocating of "the practice of homosexuality", not the advocating for "gay rights" (whatever the document might conceivably have meant by this). It also did not say that "homosexuality", without distinction between homosexual orientation and homogenital activity, threatened the lives of many people. The relevant sentence is: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." One may indeed ask what is "its" other than a reference to "the practice of homosexuality".
The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This interview has extensive information about the career of Alfonso Gomez-Rejon who is an Emmy-nominated director for this year's 66th Primetime Emmy Awards. I can't seem to find that type of detail anywhere else. Is this a RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it fine to use Press TV to report Hamas claims of Israeli soldiers killed? Article is 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict.
This has been repeatedly added and removed. Examples are here and here. -- Kingsindian ( talk) 11:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this website
[1] can be considered a reliable source? It's author, Simon Ager, lists no academic training or specialization.
[2]
The Punic article, for example, has no sources or referencing,
[3] yet gives a link to wikipedia! --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Disclosure: This issue was raised at BLPN because of a potential BLP issue.
I am requesting opinions on whether or not this self-published paper is a reliable source for the following passages at EmDrive:
Egan has also recommended that New Scientist publish Dr. Costella's refutation of Shawyer's theory paper.
Shawyer's article in the New Scientist was indeed almost immediately challenged[10] by Dr. John P. Costella, a theoretical physicist and electrical engineer who works for the Australian Department of Defence, whose Ph.D. is in relativistic electrodynamics, the field of physics that Shawyer relies on to support his theory. According to Costella, the angles of the force vectors are calculated incorrectly. You can use high school physics to find the correct angles and reach the conclusion that momentum is conserved and the drive can't work as postulated. He says that the rest of of the paper has theory that is correct, but which doesn't demonstrate anything about how the drive works.
“ Look at the arrows that Shawyer labels Fs1 and Fs2 on his Figure 2.4. These are supposed to be the forces that the particle imparts to the wall of the conical part of his contraption. But hang on a minute! When a particle bounces elastically off a wall, doesn't the wall feel a force that is perpendicular to the wall? Of course it does: if you remember your high school physics, you subtract the initial momentum vector from the final momentum vector, and the resultant force points into the wall. (OK, it's actually called the impulse, not the force, but it's effectively the same thing for what we're talking about here). Now look back at Shawyer's Figure 2.4. He has Fs1 and Fs2 pointing perpendicular to the axial direction, not perpendicular to the cone's walls. His arrows are wrong. This is the fundamental blunder that renders Shawyer's paper meaningless. There is no 'drive'. [...] Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud.
” — Dr. John Costella, Why Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud (in reference to version 9.3 of Shawyer's theory paper.
A significant portion of this article is based on this one self-published paper. As far as I can tell, no other reliable sources have cited it. I would like others opinions and help bringing the article in line with our policies.- Mr X 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered that this self-published blog article, also byCostella, is being used to support this:
Contacted again in 2013 by Wired magazine about Shawyer's math being validated and his experiments successfully reproduced by the Chinese team at Northwestern Polytechnical University, Dr. Costella critiqued the claims and also suggested that the authors should send their paper to a peer reviewed journal like Physical Review, for a review of the computational methods and theory. Dr. Costella suggested to test a completely closed EmDrive in space.
Notably, Costella claims to have been asked by Wired magazine to provide a response to an article, but that it was "too long" for them to include. - Mr X 23:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
the fact that Costella has critiqued Shawyer's physics is cited in magazines? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
[8] states that "Native Advertising" is being used in some reliable sources.
Where a reliable source engages in such journalistic practices, should Wikipedia continue to regard them as "reliable sources"? If I recall correctly, the concept of companies writing their own Wikipedia articles is not favoured - but if the company writes its own "reliably sourced" article, how can we prevent that back door into Wikipedia? Note that the NYT currently does separate the Dell ads with the wording "This page was produced by the Advertising Department of The New York Times in collaboration with Dell. The news and editorial staffs of The New York Times had no role in its preparation." But what about future ads on various sites which are not so clearly demarcated? [9] indicates the pixels are blurred already: It's a little hard to tell unless you zoom in, but the small words above the headline do not say "advertisement," or "paid post," or anything like that. They say: "Cancer News." (illustration on web page).
Bob Garfield of
The Guardian
[10] states:
Does "native advertising" affect how we must treat reliable sources in the future? If a newspaper gets millions of dollars for a paid advertorial, are their articles on the advertiser going to be conceivably tainted? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this John Birch Society publication a reliable source for these statements at National Security Agency:"Numerous conflicting stories have been put forward by the Obama administration in response to new revelations in the media", " Alexander later admitted that "content" is collected, but stated that it is simply stored and never analyzed or searched unless there is "a nexus to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups".""Obama has also claimed that there are legal checks in place to prevent inappropriate access of data and that there have been no examples of abuse;" See [11] for a search on its use. Some of course will be appropriate. Others probably not, eg at Internment of Japanese Americans and Church attendance. 17:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A line from the first paragraph of this article [12] has been proposed as support for this statement [13] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode " Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in this series.)
Wikipedia article: "Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."
Source article: "Foram adaptados neste episódio os capítulos Dany VI (pág 583), Sansa V (pág. 624), Sansa VI (pág 694) e Jaime IX (pág 744) de ATdE."
("ATdE" stands for A Tormenta de Espadas/A Storm of Swords.)
All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per WP:USERG because the author is a named member of the site's staff rather than an anonymous contributor, and credentials are listed [14] (credentials in English: [15]). Other users state that her credentials are not sufficient per WP:BLOGS, stating that the author is not an established expert. The first user also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS conceding that the author would not be considered an expert for literary analysis but should be considered so for observable facts about the novel and episode. Please note that the author is a member of the staff of the website, not of the Game of Thrones TV show.
To other participants in this dispute: Suggest changes to this filing at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for this article? Specifically, I am interested in the content in this section.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugatti Veyron has had a section removed with the argument of "removing top gear "factual" references, since it is a scripted entertainment show and not a news source" Whereas I maintain that in this context anyway, Top Gear can be considered reliable, given the involvement of Bugatti/VW themselves and the nature of the test.
Diff of removal: [16]
Whilst I have myself removed some of the more ludicrous claims regarding Top Gear, (James May discovers source of the Nile, [17]) this is not one of them. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It has nothing to do with whether we think the claim may be true, but how extraordinary a claim it is. If it's ever taken seriously, it will be reported in other reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the following source RS for being used in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict as a source showing the quietness of the region?
[1] talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]] 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not original reseach, I do not see a reason to negate the information issued by the Israeli government in the Shabak site. [2]. Where else would you find how many rockets were shot into Israel? If you look at the numbers in the monthly reports, you will see that they match the graph.05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) gever_tov ( talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The Shabak data indeed seems to be highly suspect, in that it shows some very puzzling internal inconsistencies. For each month of the year 2014 the PDF file (note, NOT the web page text) is inconsistent. Using June 2014 as an example: The June 2014 web page [18]states "The Gaza Strip – 36 attacks: 31 rocket launchings; 3 mortar shell launching; 1 small arms shooting; 1 IED. The PDF file is where the problems lie [19]. On page 2 the same data as on the web page are repeated, both as text and in the red/blue bar chart. The problem appears on p.4 on the blue/yellow bar chart. There it reflects 65 launchings, 62 of which were rockets, which is a figure double (fortuitous for this particular month) that of all the other information.
I can only conclude that Shabat's PDF files are internally inconsistent and should be avoided. Unless new information becomes available,I will only use the data on the web page and avoid the "yellow" data on the PDF file. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 17:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Erictheenquirer: Perhaps the difference is due to "rocket launchings" and "rockets". There can be multiple rockets in a single launching. I remember seeing this somewhere in Shabak's figures. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Good thought. However I was aware of that issue and already checked it: The inconsistent data both clearly refer to the same thing - 'rocket launchings'. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
1.Source - PopDust 2.Aricle - 4x4 (song) 3.Content - I was thinking if the above source is enough for the song to be mentioned as a single here. There is also a source confirming a music video being directed. No matter how obvious it might be, there should be consensus. So please comment.-- 219.90.98.28 ( talk) 11:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that many blogs from Reliable sources are considered reliable, but can someone who can read Italian give me the analysis behind it.paperblog.com? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films appears to be almost entirely sourced to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).
Is IMDb a WP:RS for a claim that a person is a "pornographic actor" in itself? Is it then also a reliable source for the same person appearing in "mainstream films"? Collect ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
IMDb was used as the source to connect the listed actors to their respective mainstream productions not to declare, affirm, assert, etc. that they porn actors. Before this whole mess started, their respective articles were used to state with sources that they are in fact porn actors.
With regard to IMDb, its owned by a for profit company (Amazon) that has no more desire to be sued than any other company for any reason. They have paid staff that add each individual production (movie, tv show, etc.) and that review cast & crew submissions. This is especially true since the 2011 lawsuit where an actress sued because the site accurately listed her age. She sued on the basis that she would not get work because casting directors would know her real age. If the site is being depended on in this way by the Entertainment industry, it would seem that there is a basic level of confidence we can have in its contents as others have already mentioned.
In response to Ninja's comment about errors, I challenge Ninja or anyone else to find a database as large and complex as IMDb that does not contain errors. I'm sure the U.S. Trademark and Patent databases have errors, but no one is contesting their accuracy. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I see it continually be used, badly, as a source. My own opinion is that it should be used for nothing but sports (but hey, I know nothing about sports so maybe they get that wrong also). It would be useful to be able to point to a discussion about it when trying to tell editors they shouldn't use it. Dougweller ( talk) 09:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Something to remember... the fact that a source is deemed reliable does not mean that we are in any way required to mention what it says. When constructing an article, it is best to read lots and lots of sources that cover the topic... This will give you an idea of which sources represent the accepted norm, and which sources stand out as being outliers. You can then apply DUEWEIGHT. If the DM (or NYT, or any other normally reliable media source) is the only source to mention that X occured, then X is probably not (yet) worth noting in an article ... and if other sources do report on X, and the DM deviates from the norm in its reporting ... you can often just ignore it as being an outlier (or alternativly, if you do think the DM's reporting on X is worth mentioning, don't present what it says as accepted fact. Attribute it.) Blueboar ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That said, there's no point in singling out the Mail or categorically forbidding it, since it's no worse than many other tabloids (except insofar as it has some particularly tenacious and misguided defenders). Besides, the Mail is useful as a litmus test of editors' understanding of proper sourcing; see rule #21. MastCell Talk 05:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Any editor with concerns about a specific use of the Daily Mail is encouraged to post that concern here, where there will inevitably be considerable support (and only a small minority of bizarre contrarian nonsense) for deleting any material that relies solely on such a dodgy source. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As you may or may not know, this article - List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films - has recently generated some discussions across various boards on Wikipedia. The article was recently nominated at a AfD with the result being Keep. At the closure of that discussion, a few volunteers started working on the article to provide references to help bring the article into compliance with WP policies and guidelines. An editor has now questioned the reliability of one particular source which is being relied upon in the article content. The source being questioned is Adult Video News, hereafter referred to as AVN. The specific objection to it being used is in relation to the porn actors "Profile Pages" being used as a reliable source. Please Note: Some of the links being provided as evidence may not be suitable for work. Here are some relevant links about this source.
So the question is, can Profile Pages from AVN be used as a reliable source in porn related articles and/or lists.
If anyone else knows of any relevant discussions that took place in relation to profile pages from AVN being used as a reliable source for porn related article and/or lists - please provide a link. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you cannot ask for blanket, absolute declarations of a source's reliability. Reliability always depends on context. This question can only be answered in a case by case basis. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Given that AVN is one of the more long standing (30+ years) and well known sources of information on the Adult industry, its by no means alone. There is also XBIZ.com which mirrors quite a bit of AVN's content plus porn is becoming so "mainstream" it pops up in press like Forbes, NY magazine, LA Times, and others regularly. Their advertising (and possible COI issues) notwithstanding, I can't imagine what they have to gain in having inaccurate or non-widespread information on their website or publication. I receive the print version and I'm hardpressed to see any clear favoritism towards advertisers. As its been said, its a problem in the mainstream world as well. Furthermore, any lack of coverage seems to have been addressed. For example by other award programs such as the Urban X Awards which is minority focused or the Fanny Awards which are fan voted. These potential "competitors" seem to receive ample coverage by AVN dispelling the impression that its purpose is exclusively self serving. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time I have been questioned on my use of game shows as reliable sources; first The Chase, now The 21st Question. I say they are reliable as they are published by major networks, are usually set by professional question-setters (e.g. Olav Bjortomt, David J. Bodycombe) and, if wrong, are corrected by newspapers.-- Laun chba ller 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am rechecking for a bit more clarification: While io9 is indeed a
reliable source of information, does its subset forum area, called
Observation Deck also qualify as a reliable source? I note that this has come up before in (
Archive 172 and commented upon by admin
Shii, and
Archive 174, entitled "Self-published blogs run by Gawker Media".
I think that there remains some confusion about io9 (which seems fairly legit-y) and Observation Deck, which seems to be a user-created forum. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/ WP:RS? (RE: List of police dog breeds https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_police_dog_breeds&oldid=620765298&diff=prev) I've reason to be skeptical about the claim and have an eye toward future claims cited to this source. Chrisrus ( talk) 14:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ynetnews have reported a claim that Sami Abu Zuhri was attacked by Palestinians, a news which is backed only by Israel-sided sources. I could not find this news in other sources. Can it be counted as reliable here? Mhhossein ( talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ynet is reliable, but as mentioned above, the source they are quoting is somewhat dubious, with strong hostility to Hamas. That should be considered whether to include in the article or not. Those issues should probably be raised on the article talk page, and not here. Kingsindian ( talk) 15:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Should The Guardian be considered a reliable source? They generally regarded as a poor quality source, but they are cited frequently throughout Wikipedia. This recent article [47] about Wikipedia being edited from the United States Congress is a perfect example of their misrepresentation of the facts. In it they claim that there was an edit that accused the Cuban Government of faking the Moon landings, where in actuality the edit [48] stated that the conspiracy theories about the Moon landing were promoted by the Cuban Government (almost the exact opposite of what The Guardian claimed). The Guardian also claimed that there was an edit that accused Donald Rumsfeld of being an alien wizard, where in actuality the edit [49] stated that he was an alien lizard. 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 18:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was this discussion closed without even responding to the legitimate points raised? Responding to these blatant errors in reporting with the statement "it is a highly-respected newspaper" is just dodging the issue at hand. 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, apparently a lot of editors think the Guardian is a great source if they're themselves leftists, and an unreliable one if they are right-wing. [/exaggeration] But to be honest I don't see a problem. Since we avoid weasel words, the article should read that the Guardian writes that or ...in the Guardian so every reader can use his own judgment if the issue in question is of a nature that could be affected by the newspaper's left-wing views. I firmly believe in trusting readers to use their own source criticism. -- Pudeo ' 19:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please allow me to clear up a potential misconception. While Wikipedia articles are required to be NPOV, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. As a classic example, the Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias whereas the Washington Times tends to have a conservative bias. They are both considered, generally speaking, to be reliable sources. See WP:BIASED for more. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable. The Guardian is left wing, and we should be always careful of introducing their bias into our articles. We should attribute them when necessary, and/or look for additional sources making the same claim. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a homegrown website to me, but another editor wants to use it as a source for substantial text at Necedah Shrine, claiming that it's "affiliated with" the Necedah Shrine because it has a link to the shrine. 32.218.34.133 ( talk) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a daily newspaper [59] in Los Angeles, a sufficiently reliable source to verify the claim that " Judgepedia is an online wiki-style encyclopedia covering the American legal system" ? Here's a diff [60] and the newspaper source [61]. Schematica ( talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Age has nothing to do with reliability; sometimes old mastheads get bought or repurposed by companies with different abilities (I hear Newsweek went through something like that). 113 years is also a long time to have developed more of a reputation too. But I think this source is generally legitimate and the LA Times helps show that more that they do themselves on first glance. That's why I asked. It is generally similar to Courthouse News Service, another quiet workhorse that looks underdeveloped at first glance. It's a specialty news service, so I'd expect them to be good for news within their field. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Schematica presented this as a question of whether the source is reliable to support a specific statement, but the broader question being raised is whether it's sufficiently notable to establish notability. S. Rich rightly pointed out that reliability depends on context. So you're invited to opine on this broader context (and participate in the AFD). -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Transadvocate's site "about" page makes it clear it's an advocacy blog with a number of contributors. In Radical feminism it is used:
It seems this is one of those Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_and_self-published_sources from advocacy sites that are ok for something about the site, personal statements from notable authors, etc. but not for defining or using a term that some consider a slur against individuals, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 03:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It meets WP:RS per the guidelines at WP:NEWSBLOG. The comparison to Huffpo is apt. At worst, it fits WP:BIASED, which is still acceptable in some contexts: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject...While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I'd say if it is used in an actual articles somewhere, it is simply subject to the same guidelines as any other source. Montanabw (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source is one which has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I looked but I don't see any evidence of this source having earned such a reputation. It should be noted that anyone can create a blog and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as a group blog (which this appears to be) are largely not acceptable as sources. See WP:SPS for more. (Note that I did not examine the BLP issues raised by the OP since it appears to fail as a reliable source for non-BLP content.) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc: So, correct me if I'm wrong. The only sentence in the article you list which is sourced to the TransAdovocate (current revision, perhaps this was different earlier), is "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) is a neologism describing a subset of radical feminism which espouses the exclusion of transwomen from feminism and women-only spaces.[38][39][unreliable source?][40] TERFs are often accused of transphobia.[41][42][unreliable source?]" Correct me if I'm wrong. Refs 39 and 42 are the involved references. I'm not seeing a specific living person mentioned, I'm seeing an opinionated source being used as a reference largely for what has actually been said by (some) people of that opinion. Could someone point me at the actual issue here? Seriously, even if it's "I don't like it", could you be more specific about what it is you don't like? -- j⚛e decker talk 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the issue here now? My original complaint was the use of Transadvocate for referencing material related to living persons. It seems editors have come to realize that is a problem through comments here. Otherwise, Transadvocate would follow the usual policy on Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources and thus can be used as a source about itself and its own opinions as long as it is made clear it is the source and not presented as objective fact from a higher quality source and as long as it is not used in WP:Undue fashion. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Carole, let's take that a step further. TA should not be used as a SPS unless A) when the subject at hand is the TA, as AQFK proposes and B) attributed opinion, but only when a RS makes note of this opinion. The TA is a blog and their opinions have no more weight than yours or mine. Their opinion becomes usable on Wikipedia when a RS decides to publish that opinion. I think pork chops are best with cinnamon applesauce. I can't go add that to the pork chop article until the NYT says something like "Wikipedia genius TKOP says when dousing your chops with applesauce, go with the cinnamon". I'll post the link here when that gets published. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 22:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use a jpeg file to cite information in an article?
In both Mia Farrow and Japanese School in Bucharest, jpeg files are being used as sources for inline citations.
In "Mia Farrow", the jpeg cited is titled " Mia Farrow and the United Buddy Bears" and was added with this edit .
In "Japanese School in Bucharest", the jpeg cited is titled " HPtitle.jp and was added with this edit
I tried looking at both WP:RS and WP:Inline citation for information regarding this kind of thing, but couldn't find any mention at all. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.Any interpretation of what's in an image is at best indirect support. A raw image of Mia Farrow and a bear has to be interpreted to be described (is it Germany or is it Austria, a fake bear or a real one), and any textual description of a photo is novel work. This means it violates WP:SYN by mixing an editpr's interpretation with a primary source document (the picture). Citations must be to reliable sources, and reliable sources must have material that directly and verifiably supports a claim. A photo does not directly verify any truth about what it contains (it's a picture of a woman that looks like Mia Farrow, but she's not wearing a name tag and there's no way for a reader to use it to verify the statement in the article.) A picture, by definition, only "looks like" its contents. A picture from a television show could "look like" aliens attacking, but it wouldn't verify that the picture was "serious" or not. No matter how mundane the photo, it could be a lookalike, a re-enactment, a hoax, (the unreliability of "the truth" of all pictures is why we need to rely on an RS to tell us what are in pictures, even when it might seem obvious to most people) A citation that does not directly support the claim can be removed and photos do not directly support claims without interpretation.
WP:OI is for uploaded pictures, it does not apply to links to offsite pictures. Using a picture in the article requires certain citations on the image's file page which is how we can use it in an article. Basically, our in-article pictures have an explicit citation to an author and origin in order to be available in an article. An offsite picture does not communicate that info (that's just another reason not to use it. If an offsite photo had an author listed, it would still be unusable for the earlier stated reasons.).
I think you can safely remove any citation that is a simple link to an image file. If anyone protests, I'm sure you can bring it to this noticeboard. If the textual content in the WP article seems plausible and generally BLP-compliant, you could consider just leaving the article text in and asking editors to find a new and actual RS to support the claim. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I would put an image like this one under WP:PRIMARY. It could be used to say that Mia Farrow was standing next to a Buddy Bear at a given date and time, but text in question contains details that the image does not. We should be as careful of pictures being faked as of text sources being faked (it's easier to fake a text source, after all). I would be confident saying that that is a picture of Mia Farrow rather than a Farrow lookalike even though she's not wearing a nametag. I'd concur with Elaqueate that you should remove the link to the photo but not the text itself for now. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC) The second image is an image of text. Treat it like a text source. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictures don't verify who's in them, that's why any reliable source needs captions. Pictures don't prove what's in them. Looking at a picture of Mia Farrow and observing that it is Mia Farrow requires no specialist knowledge of any kind; anyone who can see can verify that it is her.
This is just not true. There is only one actor named Mia Farrow with her career, but there are many people who could look like her. Beyond the fact that images are easily manipulated (I think it is easier to have a modified picture that people don't question than it is to convince someone that a piece of written text comes from a reliable source), pictures need to be interpreted. (How did you know it was Mia Farrow? You bring that knowledge from some other text or verbal source told you "a person who looks like this is named Mia Farrow". That information is not in the image, and that's why it's OR. If I showed you a picture of a man, and said "This proves that Bud Tarkowsky was in Paris last summer", it would not be verifiably true from an image alone. If the New Yorker says "This is a picture of Bud Tarkowsky" then we have a reliable source vouching for the contents of the picture. Without that sourced text, there's no way pictures can be used as verifying devices.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all thanks to both Elaqueate and Darkfrog24 for the replies. Your responses were most helpful. The reason why I made my original post was that I wanted to know if there was something somewhere that specifically says "never use a jpeg to cite material in an article because a jpeg is simply an image, an images are always considered to be unreliable, no exceptions". Personally, I agree totally about the Mia Farrow picture. Although I think that person is really her, I have no idea what that picture means other than that she is standing next to some "bear". So, in my opinion, the picture seems to have no real value as a source because it kind of forces an editor's interpretation upon readers: an interpretation which is neither very verifiable nor reliable. Anyway, my intent was never to remove any of the text; I was just going to replace the citation with a {{ citation needed}}.
The second jpeg was the one I was more unsure about. I can read the Japanese. It is from a banner on the school's official website and is simply the school's name (in Japanese). It says exactly what it's claimed to say, which is probably why the editor who added it wanted to use it. However, as I stated in Talk:Japanese School in Bucharest#Do these sources really satisfy WP:RS?, I am not sure if even this is acceptable simply because it is a jpeg. There are other reasons as well, but the jpeg one was my primary concern. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"Images shouldn't be used as citations ever." ( User:Elaqueate). This reminds me of " The Treachery of Images" everything we see on the internet is an image. If we go down that path we end up with Alice in the looking glass. -- PBS ( talk) 11:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Any idea that a caption-less image verifies that it contains Mia Farrow is silly. In this case you're told ahead of time that it's Mia Farrow, and you're the one personally providing the verification that it's Mia Farrow. When you say "It's clearly her", that means it's clear to you. If you're the one verifying it, then the image is not a good source for verification. The letters "b-e-a-r" are recognizable because all people who are taught to read are taught to recognize their shapes. That's why Wikipedia uses text and it's written for people who recognize letters. All people who are taught to read are not taught what Mia Farrow looks like (or given a magical ability to recognize any person in any photo on sight). And we also don't trust text just because it's text. That's the whole point of "Reliable Sources". Words have to come from a source we believe to be reliable. We don't ask people to believe them because of their shape, which is what you're asking people to do if you insist a photo could be used to verify its own contents.
If you're saying an image file is verifiable because you can verify who the people are, then it's not the photo doing the work, it's Darkfrog24. If I see a photo with people I don't recognize, should I ask you to be the verifying source? This isn't about whether pictures are believable if you already have information to know they're probably true. A photo needs a reliable source to vouch for it, with either caption or description; Since an image needs a reliable source, it can't be a reliable source on its own as a contextless image. Images that have been put into context by reliable sources are useful for illustrating articles, not being used as a reliable source themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it's a picture of Mia Farrow? Because you personally recognize her, How do you know it's really Mia Farrow? Well the article says so. How do you know the article text is correct? Well we have a picture of Mia Farrow.This is a picture used as a citation for verification. It's useless for that purpose. Who's verifying what? Now I think it's probably a legitimate picture, but I don't think it should be used to verify anything on Wikipedia. All it supports {by itself without a caption from a reliable source) is that a woman who looks close enough to Mia Farrow to convince a random Wikipedia editor, once had her picture taken. That's not a reliable source for verifying article content.
Let's illustrate this a bit: Saying it's a famous face is useless, do you think everyone knows who this is? Celebrities don't even always look like their most iconic selves in photos. Here's a young Michael Douglas in Madrid. Speaking of Europe, did you hear about the water shortage in Paris? Here's a picture. But this makes it look like people are still going there. And I can tell this fellow is famous, because he looks famous. So does this guy. This guy doesn't look famous at all.
But the fact that you could look at the
"hallucinogens to alligators" sign, ignore my advice to read the text, and say I'd consider that photo a good source for content
proves my point beyond anything more we can say here. Pictures by themselves can not verify themselves. I don't want to be too harsh but "I know an authentic picture when I see it" is not a verifiability standard and "If I recognize somebody then I'm right" is not verification either. "I see a landmark I recognize, so this picture must have been taken in that city" doesn't work either. Pictures without textual guarantees of their content from a reliable source are not usable by themselves. Most simply, these are photos on the internet and they aren't reliable sources all by themselves, even when you recognize a celebrity.
[68]
__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This photo's contents are being described and vouched for by you and....who? blogger.com? the anonymous person who labelled it "mia farrow.jpg"? You're confusing your personal recognition of its "truth" for verification by an RS. That's not how citations work. If I saw a picture of Queen Elizabeth riding a bear (taken by an anonymous person and found on a public hosting site) I wouldn't source the sentence "Queen Elizabeth once rode a bear" to it, simply because the appearance of Queen Elizabeth is "public knowledge". It doesn't matter if you think a photo truly contains Mia Farrow, the picture alone does not verify itself, and Wikipedia editors are not sufficient by themselves to verify material they provide either. That's basic reliable sourcing.
1. Is there some threshold or rule of thumb that you would apply to both?
WP:RS,
WP:OR apply to both. 2. The photo's contents do not need to be described because they are visible.
We don't call something reliable because we can read it. "Visible"≠"Verifiable from a reliable source", "Editor saying they recognise something in the picture even though no reliable source also says it." = "OR".
This photo doesn't prove a fish got loose on the highway after Hurricane Irene all by itself, it needs text from a reliable source to come to any conclusions we could cite article material to. This photo is not a reliable claim for anything by itself, without a source or descriptive text. 3. no one said anything about "content a Wikipedia editor believes is true"
If the photo has no text description or caption, then we only have what the editor believes is true about the photo. 4. If you believe that Wikieditors should automatically assume that .jpegs have been faked...
Nonsense and unfair, nobody believes that. The RS policy is clear that since text can sometimes be questionable, editors should make sure it is reliably sourced and that it directly supports any article claims without OR. That's not the same as saying all text or photos should automatically be assumed fake. But RS means that text and photos aren't automatically assumed to be true either. Photos that have no apparent authorship, captions, descriptions, or explanations, can not be described only by a random Wikipedia editor without there being some unverifiable original research.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
For the page Third rail of politics, is the opinion of Helen Thomas a reliable source, when given in-text attribution, as an example of the use of this political metaphor? (Update: Better source found; issue restated below. Mhults7791 ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC))
The statement the source is supporting is here.
And the source is a transcript from a CNN interview.
Other sources is dispute, supporting similar statements, are a New York Times article and a New American editorial.
I have made my case, and Plot Spoiler has replied, on the talk page. Mhults7791 ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This Huffington Post editorial, from a pro-Israel source, may be the best of them all. Mhults7791 ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Issue restated: Is the opinion of M.J. Rosenberg, in the editorial above, a reliable source as an example of the use of the political metaphor " third rail of politics" by a political expert? Mhults7791 ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this column [72] in the Southern Illinoisan a reliable source to prove the claim that "Ballotpedia covers school board elections"? The article where this source has come into question is the Lucy Burns Institute. Obviously it's an op-ed, but the claim that it verifies seems unexceptional and uncontroversial. Schematica ( talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Judgepedia is currently under discussion at:
Is Judgepedia a reliable source? From what I have seen of the site I would judge [ sic] that it is not. However I think that information from the site can be used in the form of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT if that information is supported direly by a reliable sources (one that meets WP:SOURCE) which for one reason or another has content that is not accessible to a Wikipedia editor (which means the Wikipedia editor can not cite the reliable source directly). -- PBS ( talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.If an editor hasn't directly seen a source that is cited in Judgepedia, then they shouldn't pretend they've read it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two workable scenarios: 1. The middle source is considered to be a reliable source for the "quoting" of the original. or 2. the editor has seen the original material. If you haven't seen the original source, or you only saw it in an unreliable source, then that material shouldn't go into Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE means existing material with poor sourcing should be tagged, re-sourced, or omitted. It should not besourced to an unreliable or unusable source as a stop-gap, because an untagged citation implies to readers and other editors that citation is problem free. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And if people are inserting material from unreliable sources, then it's simple. Those pages have unreliable material poorly sourced. There's no point calling it reliable when it's not, just to have content. If there's a large subject (like amateur genealogy) where editors are flatly ignoring WP:V, then that is probably not a generally reliable neighborhood of Wikipedia. This article seems like a indiscriminate collection of information; I understand why people would want obsessively detailed lists sourced from unreliable sources, but that doesn't mean the source for it is magically reliable. There are hordes of people that would like Wikipedia to be an alphabetical list of every high school band ever, but we work to avoid that too. This is actually giving readers pseudo-history whether it's cited to the unreliable source or not cited at all. WP:RS and WP:V are about working to bring the material to a better standard than if people ignored the quality of sourcing. Ancestral bloodlines are a bit of a fiction even in the best sources, as they don't usually have much success tracking the results of undocumented adulteries, secret adoptions, and people just claiming famous relatives with no evidence. If we have them, they should at least be sourced to reliable historians and reliable genealogists and limited to reliable sources. Otherwise we have articles that are essentially fan fiction.
Take your first example, the peerage.com: well, it's nice to say he uses Burke's Peerage, but a lot of the entries are sourced to blogs, emails, [75] and if you look here you'll see that the peerage.com even uses Wikipedia as a source for factual information. A lot of it seems like people tracing their bloodline to royalty, as sourced by the people themselves. The compiler admits to throwing the raw contents of books not considered generally reliable into the mix. He makes no claims of strong verifiability or reliability. You seem to be saying we should call this source reliable enough to cite, just out of the convenience of leaving the material in Wikipedia, instead of tagging, re-sourcing, or omitting, all three of which avoid Wikipedia presenting dubious material as historically sound. Leaving in poorly sourced material without tags is quicker and less work, but that's not building a better project. I don't see how having piles of badly-sourced Count Gustavs helps a reader who's interested in royalty when the information is ultimately unverifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Lundy's source page tell you nothing about the frequency of the type of citations he uses. BTW I picked the article Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton not because it is a typical example of people citing Lundy but because it was the first one returned by the search. @ Elaqueate you wrote "You keep using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as shorthand for citing to 'less than reliable' sources". No I do not (see Dr. Fleischman paraphrasing above). Elaqueate you wrote "You seem to be saying we should call this source reliable enough to cite, just out of the convenience of leaving the material in Wikipedia, instead of tagging, re-sourcing, or omitting, all three of which avoid Wikipedia presenting dubious material as historically sound". Yet that is not what I am saying, and and the proof in Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton where the unreliable tags were added by me as a first step to cleaning up the page! To continue with that example, I do not see why anyone would be justified in adding WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to a Lundy citation that itself cites an unreliable source such as an email. But take the example of the footnote that is currently no 20 that supports "Sir Henry Belasyse, 1st Baronet (1555–1624)", that his mother was Margaret Fairfax, that he married Ursula Fairfax that their son was Thomas Belasyse, 1st Viscount Fauconberg. At the moment the citation carries the unreliable tag to Lundy's entry on Sir Henry Belasyse. However if you look at that entry Lundy cites "George Edward Cokayne, editor, The Complete Baronetage ... 1983 ... page 43." for all that information. So I think as an interim step before a reliable sources is read by a Wikipedia editor to confirm the entry, changing the citation to "Cokayne 1983, p. 43 cited by Lundy 2012, p. 1958 §19571" -- with long citations to the sources in the references section, (and where Lundy site can be tagged as unreliable) -- is an improvement over the current citation no 20. The point of using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is precisely because it helps in the process of determining "when the information is ultimately [verifiable or] unverifiable". -- PBS ( talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This link says the ISIS leader is a mossad agent. can this source be used in ISIS article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 August 2014
This link says the ISIS leader is a mossad agent. can this source be used in ISIS article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi ( talk • contribs) 8:39, 15 August 2014
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 170 | ← | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | → | Archive 180 |
Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The text of the document related to the claim is:
There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou ( talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this document (section 9) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The advocating that, at the time of the AIDS epidemic, the document disapproved of was the advocating of "the practice of homosexuality", not the advocating for "gay rights" (whatever the document might conceivably have meant by this). It also did not say that "homosexuality", without distinction between homosexual orientation and homogenital activity, threatened the lives of many people. The relevant sentence is: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." One may indeed ask what is "its" other than a reference to "the practice of homosexuality".
The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This interview has extensive information about the career of Alfonso Gomez-Rejon who is an Emmy-nominated director for this year's 66th Primetime Emmy Awards. I can't seem to find that type of detail anywhere else. Is this a RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it fine to use Press TV to report Hamas claims of Israeli soldiers killed? Article is 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict.
This has been repeatedly added and removed. Examples are here and here. -- Kingsindian ( talk) 11:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this website
[1] can be considered a reliable source? It's author, Simon Ager, lists no academic training or specialization.
[2]
The Punic article, for example, has no sources or referencing,
[3] yet gives a link to wikipedia! --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Disclosure: This issue was raised at BLPN because of a potential BLP issue.
I am requesting opinions on whether or not this self-published paper is a reliable source for the following passages at EmDrive:
Egan has also recommended that New Scientist publish Dr. Costella's refutation of Shawyer's theory paper.
Shawyer's article in the New Scientist was indeed almost immediately challenged[10] by Dr. John P. Costella, a theoretical physicist and electrical engineer who works for the Australian Department of Defence, whose Ph.D. is in relativistic electrodynamics, the field of physics that Shawyer relies on to support his theory. According to Costella, the angles of the force vectors are calculated incorrectly. You can use high school physics to find the correct angles and reach the conclusion that momentum is conserved and the drive can't work as postulated. He says that the rest of of the paper has theory that is correct, but which doesn't demonstrate anything about how the drive works.
“ Look at the arrows that Shawyer labels Fs1 and Fs2 on his Figure 2.4. These are supposed to be the forces that the particle imparts to the wall of the conical part of his contraption. But hang on a minute! When a particle bounces elastically off a wall, doesn't the wall feel a force that is perpendicular to the wall? Of course it does: if you remember your high school physics, you subtract the initial momentum vector from the final momentum vector, and the resultant force points into the wall. (OK, it's actually called the impulse, not the force, but it's effectively the same thing for what we're talking about here). Now look back at Shawyer's Figure 2.4. He has Fs1 and Fs2 pointing perpendicular to the axial direction, not perpendicular to the cone's walls. His arrows are wrong. This is the fundamental blunder that renders Shawyer's paper meaningless. There is no 'drive'. [...] Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud.
” — Dr. John Costella, Why Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud (in reference to version 9.3 of Shawyer's theory paper.
A significant portion of this article is based on this one self-published paper. As far as I can tell, no other reliable sources have cited it. I would like others opinions and help bringing the article in line with our policies.- Mr X 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered that this self-published blog article, also byCostella, is being used to support this:
Contacted again in 2013 by Wired magazine about Shawyer's math being validated and his experiments successfully reproduced by the Chinese team at Northwestern Polytechnical University, Dr. Costella critiqued the claims and also suggested that the authors should send their paper to a peer reviewed journal like Physical Review, for a review of the computational methods and theory. Dr. Costella suggested to test a completely closed EmDrive in space.
Notably, Costella claims to have been asked by Wired magazine to provide a response to an article, but that it was "too long" for them to include. - Mr X 23:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
the fact that Costella has critiqued Shawyer's physics is cited in magazines? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
[8] states that "Native Advertising" is being used in some reliable sources.
Where a reliable source engages in such journalistic practices, should Wikipedia continue to regard them as "reliable sources"? If I recall correctly, the concept of companies writing their own Wikipedia articles is not favoured - but if the company writes its own "reliably sourced" article, how can we prevent that back door into Wikipedia? Note that the NYT currently does separate the Dell ads with the wording "This page was produced by the Advertising Department of The New York Times in collaboration with Dell. The news and editorial staffs of The New York Times had no role in its preparation." But what about future ads on various sites which are not so clearly demarcated? [9] indicates the pixels are blurred already: It's a little hard to tell unless you zoom in, but the small words above the headline do not say "advertisement," or "paid post," or anything like that. They say: "Cancer News." (illustration on web page).
Bob Garfield of
The Guardian
[10] states:
Does "native advertising" affect how we must treat reliable sources in the future? If a newspaper gets millions of dollars for a paid advertorial, are their articles on the advertiser going to be conceivably tainted? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this John Birch Society publication a reliable source for these statements at National Security Agency:"Numerous conflicting stories have been put forward by the Obama administration in response to new revelations in the media", " Alexander later admitted that "content" is collected, but stated that it is simply stored and never analyzed or searched unless there is "a nexus to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups".""Obama has also claimed that there are legal checks in place to prevent inappropriate access of data and that there have been no examples of abuse;" See [11] for a search on its use. Some of course will be appropriate. Others probably not, eg at Internment of Japanese Americans and Church attendance. 17:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A line from the first paragraph of this article [12] has been proposed as support for this statement [13] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode " Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in this series.)
Wikipedia article: "Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."
Source article: "Foram adaptados neste episódio os capítulos Dany VI (pág 583), Sansa V (pág. 624), Sansa VI (pág 694) e Jaime IX (pág 744) de ATdE."
("ATdE" stands for A Tormenta de Espadas/A Storm of Swords.)
All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per WP:USERG because the author is a named member of the site's staff rather than an anonymous contributor, and credentials are listed [14] (credentials in English: [15]). Other users state that her credentials are not sufficient per WP:BLOGS, stating that the author is not an established expert. The first user also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS conceding that the author would not be considered an expert for literary analysis but should be considered so for observable facts about the novel and episode. Please note that the author is a member of the staff of the website, not of the Game of Thrones TV show.
To other participants in this dispute: Suggest changes to this filing at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for this article? Specifically, I am interested in the content in this section.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugatti Veyron has had a section removed with the argument of "removing top gear "factual" references, since it is a scripted entertainment show and not a news source" Whereas I maintain that in this context anyway, Top Gear can be considered reliable, given the involvement of Bugatti/VW themselves and the nature of the test.
Diff of removal: [16]
Whilst I have myself removed some of the more ludicrous claims regarding Top Gear, (James May discovers source of the Nile, [17]) this is not one of them. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It has nothing to do with whether we think the claim may be true, but how extraordinary a claim it is. If it's ever taken seriously, it will be reported in other reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the following source RS for being used in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict as a source showing the quietness of the region?
[1] talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]] 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not original reseach, I do not see a reason to negate the information issued by the Israeli government in the Shabak site. [2]. Where else would you find how many rockets were shot into Israel? If you look at the numbers in the monthly reports, you will see that they match the graph.05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) gever_tov ( talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The Shabak data indeed seems to be highly suspect, in that it shows some very puzzling internal inconsistencies. For each month of the year 2014 the PDF file (note, NOT the web page text) is inconsistent. Using June 2014 as an example: The June 2014 web page [18]states "The Gaza Strip – 36 attacks: 31 rocket launchings; 3 mortar shell launching; 1 small arms shooting; 1 IED. The PDF file is where the problems lie [19]. On page 2 the same data as on the web page are repeated, both as text and in the red/blue bar chart. The problem appears on p.4 on the blue/yellow bar chart. There it reflects 65 launchings, 62 of which were rockets, which is a figure double (fortuitous for this particular month) that of all the other information.
I can only conclude that Shabat's PDF files are internally inconsistent and should be avoided. Unless new information becomes available,I will only use the data on the web page and avoid the "yellow" data on the PDF file. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 17:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Erictheenquirer: Perhaps the difference is due to "rocket launchings" and "rockets". There can be multiple rockets in a single launching. I remember seeing this somewhere in Shabak's figures. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Good thought. However I was aware of that issue and already checked it: The inconsistent data both clearly refer to the same thing - 'rocket launchings'. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
1.Source - PopDust 2.Aricle - 4x4 (song) 3.Content - I was thinking if the above source is enough for the song to be mentioned as a single here. There is also a source confirming a music video being directed. No matter how obvious it might be, there should be consensus. So please comment.-- 219.90.98.28 ( talk) 11:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that many blogs from Reliable sources are considered reliable, but can someone who can read Italian give me the analysis behind it.paperblog.com? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films appears to be almost entirely sourced to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).
Is IMDb a WP:RS for a claim that a person is a "pornographic actor" in itself? Is it then also a reliable source for the same person appearing in "mainstream films"? Collect ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
IMDb was used as the source to connect the listed actors to their respective mainstream productions not to declare, affirm, assert, etc. that they porn actors. Before this whole mess started, their respective articles were used to state with sources that they are in fact porn actors.
With regard to IMDb, its owned by a for profit company (Amazon) that has no more desire to be sued than any other company for any reason. They have paid staff that add each individual production (movie, tv show, etc.) and that review cast & crew submissions. This is especially true since the 2011 lawsuit where an actress sued because the site accurately listed her age. She sued on the basis that she would not get work because casting directors would know her real age. If the site is being depended on in this way by the Entertainment industry, it would seem that there is a basic level of confidence we can have in its contents as others have already mentioned.
In response to Ninja's comment about errors, I challenge Ninja or anyone else to find a database as large and complex as IMDb that does not contain errors. I'm sure the U.S. Trademark and Patent databases have errors, but no one is contesting their accuracy. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I see it continually be used, badly, as a source. My own opinion is that it should be used for nothing but sports (but hey, I know nothing about sports so maybe they get that wrong also). It would be useful to be able to point to a discussion about it when trying to tell editors they shouldn't use it. Dougweller ( talk) 09:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Something to remember... the fact that a source is deemed reliable does not mean that we are in any way required to mention what it says. When constructing an article, it is best to read lots and lots of sources that cover the topic... This will give you an idea of which sources represent the accepted norm, and which sources stand out as being outliers. You can then apply DUEWEIGHT. If the DM (or NYT, or any other normally reliable media source) is the only source to mention that X occured, then X is probably not (yet) worth noting in an article ... and if other sources do report on X, and the DM deviates from the norm in its reporting ... you can often just ignore it as being an outlier (or alternativly, if you do think the DM's reporting on X is worth mentioning, don't present what it says as accepted fact. Attribute it.) Blueboar ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That said, there's no point in singling out the Mail or categorically forbidding it, since it's no worse than many other tabloids (except insofar as it has some particularly tenacious and misguided defenders). Besides, the Mail is useful as a litmus test of editors' understanding of proper sourcing; see rule #21. MastCell Talk 05:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Any editor with concerns about a specific use of the Daily Mail is encouraged to post that concern here, where there will inevitably be considerable support (and only a small minority of bizarre contrarian nonsense) for deleting any material that relies solely on such a dodgy source. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As you may or may not know, this article - List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films - has recently generated some discussions across various boards on Wikipedia. The article was recently nominated at a AfD with the result being Keep. At the closure of that discussion, a few volunteers started working on the article to provide references to help bring the article into compliance with WP policies and guidelines. An editor has now questioned the reliability of one particular source which is being relied upon in the article content. The source being questioned is Adult Video News, hereafter referred to as AVN. The specific objection to it being used is in relation to the porn actors "Profile Pages" being used as a reliable source. Please Note: Some of the links being provided as evidence may not be suitable for work. Here are some relevant links about this source.
So the question is, can Profile Pages from AVN be used as a reliable source in porn related articles and/or lists.
If anyone else knows of any relevant discussions that took place in relation to profile pages from AVN being used as a reliable source for porn related article and/or lists - please provide a link. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you cannot ask for blanket, absolute declarations of a source's reliability. Reliability always depends on context. This question can only be answered in a case by case basis. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Given that AVN is one of the more long standing (30+ years) and well known sources of information on the Adult industry, its by no means alone. There is also XBIZ.com which mirrors quite a bit of AVN's content plus porn is becoming so "mainstream" it pops up in press like Forbes, NY magazine, LA Times, and others regularly. Their advertising (and possible COI issues) notwithstanding, I can't imagine what they have to gain in having inaccurate or non-widespread information on their website or publication. I receive the print version and I'm hardpressed to see any clear favoritism towards advertisers. As its been said, its a problem in the mainstream world as well. Furthermore, any lack of coverage seems to have been addressed. For example by other award programs such as the Urban X Awards which is minority focused or the Fanny Awards which are fan voted. These potential "competitors" seem to receive ample coverage by AVN dispelling the impression that its purpose is exclusively self serving. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time I have been questioned on my use of game shows as reliable sources; first The Chase, now The 21st Question. I say they are reliable as they are published by major networks, are usually set by professional question-setters (e.g. Olav Bjortomt, David J. Bodycombe) and, if wrong, are corrected by newspapers.-- Laun chba ller 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am rechecking for a bit more clarification: While io9 is indeed a
reliable source of information, does its subset forum area, called
Observation Deck also qualify as a reliable source? I note that this has come up before in (
Archive 172 and commented upon by admin
Shii, and
Archive 174, entitled "Self-published blogs run by Gawker Media".
I think that there remains some confusion about io9 (which seems fairly legit-y) and Observation Deck, which seems to be a user-created forum. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/ WP:RS? (RE: List of police dog breeds https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_police_dog_breeds&oldid=620765298&diff=prev) I've reason to be skeptical about the claim and have an eye toward future claims cited to this source. Chrisrus ( talk) 14:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ynetnews have reported a claim that Sami Abu Zuhri was attacked by Palestinians, a news which is backed only by Israel-sided sources. I could not find this news in other sources. Can it be counted as reliable here? Mhhossein ( talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ynet is reliable, but as mentioned above, the source they are quoting is somewhat dubious, with strong hostility to Hamas. That should be considered whether to include in the article or not. Those issues should probably be raised on the article talk page, and not here. Kingsindian ( talk) 15:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Should The Guardian be considered a reliable source? They generally regarded as a poor quality source, but they are cited frequently throughout Wikipedia. This recent article [47] about Wikipedia being edited from the United States Congress is a perfect example of their misrepresentation of the facts. In it they claim that there was an edit that accused the Cuban Government of faking the Moon landings, where in actuality the edit [48] stated that the conspiracy theories about the Moon landing were promoted by the Cuban Government (almost the exact opposite of what The Guardian claimed). The Guardian also claimed that there was an edit that accused Donald Rumsfeld of being an alien wizard, where in actuality the edit [49] stated that he was an alien lizard. 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 18:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was this discussion closed without even responding to the legitimate points raised? Responding to these blatant errors in reporting with the statement "it is a highly-respected newspaper" is just dodging the issue at hand. 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, apparently a lot of editors think the Guardian is a great source if they're themselves leftists, and an unreliable one if they are right-wing. [/exaggeration] But to be honest I don't see a problem. Since we avoid weasel words, the article should read that the Guardian writes that or ...in the Guardian so every reader can use his own judgment if the issue in question is of a nature that could be affected by the newspaper's left-wing views. I firmly believe in trusting readers to use their own source criticism. -- Pudeo ' 19:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please allow me to clear up a potential misconception. While Wikipedia articles are required to be NPOV, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. As a classic example, the Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias whereas the Washington Times tends to have a conservative bias. They are both considered, generally speaking, to be reliable sources. See WP:BIASED for more. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable. The Guardian is left wing, and we should be always careful of introducing their bias into our articles. We should attribute them when necessary, and/or look for additional sources making the same claim. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a homegrown website to me, but another editor wants to use it as a source for substantial text at Necedah Shrine, claiming that it's "affiliated with" the Necedah Shrine because it has a link to the shrine. 32.218.34.133 ( talk) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a daily newspaper [59] in Los Angeles, a sufficiently reliable source to verify the claim that " Judgepedia is an online wiki-style encyclopedia covering the American legal system" ? Here's a diff [60] and the newspaper source [61]. Schematica ( talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Age has nothing to do with reliability; sometimes old mastheads get bought or repurposed by companies with different abilities (I hear Newsweek went through something like that). 113 years is also a long time to have developed more of a reputation too. But I think this source is generally legitimate and the LA Times helps show that more that they do themselves on first glance. That's why I asked. It is generally similar to Courthouse News Service, another quiet workhorse that looks underdeveloped at first glance. It's a specialty news service, so I'd expect them to be good for news within their field. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Schematica presented this as a question of whether the source is reliable to support a specific statement, but the broader question being raised is whether it's sufficiently notable to establish notability. S. Rich rightly pointed out that reliability depends on context. So you're invited to opine on this broader context (and participate in the AFD). -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Transadvocate's site "about" page makes it clear it's an advocacy blog with a number of contributors. In Radical feminism it is used:
It seems this is one of those Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_and_self-published_sources from advocacy sites that are ok for something about the site, personal statements from notable authors, etc. but not for defining or using a term that some consider a slur against individuals, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 03:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It meets WP:RS per the guidelines at WP:NEWSBLOG. The comparison to Huffpo is apt. At worst, it fits WP:BIASED, which is still acceptable in some contexts: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject...While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I'd say if it is used in an actual articles somewhere, it is simply subject to the same guidelines as any other source. Montanabw (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source is one which has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I looked but I don't see any evidence of this source having earned such a reputation. It should be noted that anyone can create a blog and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as a group blog (which this appears to be) are largely not acceptable as sources. See WP:SPS for more. (Note that I did not examine the BLP issues raised by the OP since it appears to fail as a reliable source for non-BLP content.) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc: So, correct me if I'm wrong. The only sentence in the article you list which is sourced to the TransAdovocate (current revision, perhaps this was different earlier), is "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) is a neologism describing a subset of radical feminism which espouses the exclusion of transwomen from feminism and women-only spaces.[38][39][unreliable source?][40] TERFs are often accused of transphobia.[41][42][unreliable source?]" Correct me if I'm wrong. Refs 39 and 42 are the involved references. I'm not seeing a specific living person mentioned, I'm seeing an opinionated source being used as a reference largely for what has actually been said by (some) people of that opinion. Could someone point me at the actual issue here? Seriously, even if it's "I don't like it", could you be more specific about what it is you don't like? -- j⚛e decker talk 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the issue here now? My original complaint was the use of Transadvocate for referencing material related to living persons. It seems editors have come to realize that is a problem through comments here. Otherwise, Transadvocate would follow the usual policy on Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources and thus can be used as a source about itself and its own opinions as long as it is made clear it is the source and not presented as objective fact from a higher quality source and as long as it is not used in WP:Undue fashion. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Carole, let's take that a step further. TA should not be used as a SPS unless A) when the subject at hand is the TA, as AQFK proposes and B) attributed opinion, but only when a RS makes note of this opinion. The TA is a blog and their opinions have no more weight than yours or mine. Their opinion becomes usable on Wikipedia when a RS decides to publish that opinion. I think pork chops are best with cinnamon applesauce. I can't go add that to the pork chop article until the NYT says something like "Wikipedia genius TKOP says when dousing your chops with applesauce, go with the cinnamon". I'll post the link here when that gets published. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 22:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use a jpeg file to cite information in an article?
In both Mia Farrow and Japanese School in Bucharest, jpeg files are being used as sources for inline citations.
In "Mia Farrow", the jpeg cited is titled " Mia Farrow and the United Buddy Bears" and was added with this edit .
In "Japanese School in Bucharest", the jpeg cited is titled " HPtitle.jp and was added with this edit
I tried looking at both WP:RS and WP:Inline citation for information regarding this kind of thing, but couldn't find any mention at all. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.Any interpretation of what's in an image is at best indirect support. A raw image of Mia Farrow and a bear has to be interpreted to be described (is it Germany or is it Austria, a fake bear or a real one), and any textual description of a photo is novel work. This means it violates WP:SYN by mixing an editpr's interpretation with a primary source document (the picture). Citations must be to reliable sources, and reliable sources must have material that directly and verifiably supports a claim. A photo does not directly verify any truth about what it contains (it's a picture of a woman that looks like Mia Farrow, but she's not wearing a name tag and there's no way for a reader to use it to verify the statement in the article.) A picture, by definition, only "looks like" its contents. A picture from a television show could "look like" aliens attacking, but it wouldn't verify that the picture was "serious" or not. No matter how mundane the photo, it could be a lookalike, a re-enactment, a hoax, (the unreliability of "the truth" of all pictures is why we need to rely on an RS to tell us what are in pictures, even when it might seem obvious to most people) A citation that does not directly support the claim can be removed and photos do not directly support claims without interpretation.
WP:OI is for uploaded pictures, it does not apply to links to offsite pictures. Using a picture in the article requires certain citations on the image's file page which is how we can use it in an article. Basically, our in-article pictures have an explicit citation to an author and origin in order to be available in an article. An offsite picture does not communicate that info (that's just another reason not to use it. If an offsite photo had an author listed, it would still be unusable for the earlier stated reasons.).
I think you can safely remove any citation that is a simple link to an image file. If anyone protests, I'm sure you can bring it to this noticeboard. If the textual content in the WP article seems plausible and generally BLP-compliant, you could consider just leaving the article text in and asking editors to find a new and actual RS to support the claim. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I would put an image like this one under WP:PRIMARY. It could be used to say that Mia Farrow was standing next to a Buddy Bear at a given date and time, but text in question contains details that the image does not. We should be as careful of pictures being faked as of text sources being faked (it's easier to fake a text source, after all). I would be confident saying that that is a picture of Mia Farrow rather than a Farrow lookalike even though she's not wearing a nametag. I'd concur with Elaqueate that you should remove the link to the photo but not the text itself for now. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC) The second image is an image of text. Treat it like a text source. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictures don't verify who's in them, that's why any reliable source needs captions. Pictures don't prove what's in them. Looking at a picture of Mia Farrow and observing that it is Mia Farrow requires no specialist knowledge of any kind; anyone who can see can verify that it is her.
This is just not true. There is only one actor named Mia Farrow with her career, but there are many people who could look like her. Beyond the fact that images are easily manipulated (I think it is easier to have a modified picture that people don't question than it is to convince someone that a piece of written text comes from a reliable source), pictures need to be interpreted. (How did you know it was Mia Farrow? You bring that knowledge from some other text or verbal source told you "a person who looks like this is named Mia Farrow". That information is not in the image, and that's why it's OR. If I showed you a picture of a man, and said "This proves that Bud Tarkowsky was in Paris last summer", it would not be verifiably true from an image alone. If the New Yorker says "This is a picture of Bud Tarkowsky" then we have a reliable source vouching for the contents of the picture. Without that sourced text, there's no way pictures can be used as verifying devices.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all thanks to both Elaqueate and Darkfrog24 for the replies. Your responses were most helpful. The reason why I made my original post was that I wanted to know if there was something somewhere that specifically says "never use a jpeg to cite material in an article because a jpeg is simply an image, an images are always considered to be unreliable, no exceptions". Personally, I agree totally about the Mia Farrow picture. Although I think that person is really her, I have no idea what that picture means other than that she is standing next to some "bear". So, in my opinion, the picture seems to have no real value as a source because it kind of forces an editor's interpretation upon readers: an interpretation which is neither very verifiable nor reliable. Anyway, my intent was never to remove any of the text; I was just going to replace the citation with a {{ citation needed}}.
The second jpeg was the one I was more unsure about. I can read the Japanese. It is from a banner on the school's official website and is simply the school's name (in Japanese). It says exactly what it's claimed to say, which is probably why the editor who added it wanted to use it. However, as I stated in Talk:Japanese School in Bucharest#Do these sources really satisfy WP:RS?, I am not sure if even this is acceptable simply because it is a jpeg. There are other reasons as well, but the jpeg one was my primary concern. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"Images shouldn't be used as citations ever." ( User:Elaqueate). This reminds me of " The Treachery of Images" everything we see on the internet is an image. If we go down that path we end up with Alice in the looking glass. -- PBS ( talk) 11:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Any idea that a caption-less image verifies that it contains Mia Farrow is silly. In this case you're told ahead of time that it's Mia Farrow, and you're the one personally providing the verification that it's Mia Farrow. When you say "It's clearly her", that means it's clear to you. If you're the one verifying it, then the image is not a good source for verification. The letters "b-e-a-r" are recognizable because all people who are taught to read are taught to recognize their shapes. That's why Wikipedia uses text and it's written for people who recognize letters. All people who are taught to read are not taught what Mia Farrow looks like (or given a magical ability to recognize any person in any photo on sight). And we also don't trust text just because it's text. That's the whole point of "Reliable Sources". Words have to come from a source we believe to be reliable. We don't ask people to believe them because of their shape, which is what you're asking people to do if you insist a photo could be used to verify its own contents.
If you're saying an image file is verifiable because you can verify who the people are, then it's not the photo doing the work, it's Darkfrog24. If I see a photo with people I don't recognize, should I ask you to be the verifying source? This isn't about whether pictures are believable if you already have information to know they're probably true. A photo needs a reliable source to vouch for it, with either caption or description; Since an image needs a reliable source, it can't be a reliable source on its own as a contextless image. Images that have been put into context by reliable sources are useful for illustrating articles, not being used as a reliable source themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it's a picture of Mia Farrow? Because you personally recognize her, How do you know it's really Mia Farrow? Well the article says so. How do you know the article text is correct? Well we have a picture of Mia Farrow.This is a picture used as a citation for verification. It's useless for that purpose. Who's verifying what? Now I think it's probably a legitimate picture, but I don't think it should be used to verify anything on Wikipedia. All it supports {by itself without a caption from a reliable source) is that a woman who looks close enough to Mia Farrow to convince a random Wikipedia editor, once had her picture taken. That's not a reliable source for verifying article content.
Let's illustrate this a bit: Saying it's a famous face is useless, do you think everyone knows who this is? Celebrities don't even always look like their most iconic selves in photos. Here's a young Michael Douglas in Madrid. Speaking of Europe, did you hear about the water shortage in Paris? Here's a picture. But this makes it look like people are still going there. And I can tell this fellow is famous, because he looks famous. So does this guy. This guy doesn't look famous at all.
But the fact that you could look at the
"hallucinogens to alligators" sign, ignore my advice to read the text, and say I'd consider that photo a good source for content
proves my point beyond anything more we can say here. Pictures by themselves can not verify themselves. I don't want to be too harsh but "I know an authentic picture when I see it" is not a verifiability standard and "If I recognize somebody then I'm right" is not verification either. "I see a landmark I recognize, so this picture must have been taken in that city" doesn't work either. Pictures without textual guarantees of their content from a reliable source are not usable by themselves. Most simply, these are photos on the internet and they aren't reliable sources all by themselves, even when you recognize a celebrity.
[68]
__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This photo's contents are being described and vouched for by you and....who? blogger.com? the anonymous person who labelled it "mia farrow.jpg"? You're confusing your personal recognition of its "truth" for verification by an RS. That's not how citations work. If I saw a picture of Queen Elizabeth riding a bear (taken by an anonymous person and found on a public hosting site) I wouldn't source the sentence "Queen Elizabeth once rode a bear" to it, simply because the appearance of Queen Elizabeth is "public knowledge". It doesn't matter if you think a photo truly contains Mia Farrow, the picture alone does not verify itself, and Wikipedia editors are not sufficient by themselves to verify material they provide either. That's basic reliable sourcing.
1. Is there some threshold or rule of thumb that you would apply to both?
WP:RS,
WP:OR apply to both. 2. The photo's contents do not need to be described because they are visible.
We don't call something reliable because we can read it. "Visible"≠"Verifiable from a reliable source", "Editor saying they recognise something in the picture even though no reliable source also says it." = "OR".
This photo doesn't prove a fish got loose on the highway after Hurricane Irene all by itself, it needs text from a reliable source to come to any conclusions we could cite article material to. This photo is not a reliable claim for anything by itself, without a source or descriptive text. 3. no one said anything about "content a Wikipedia editor believes is true"
If the photo has no text description or caption, then we only have what the editor believes is true about the photo. 4. If you believe that Wikieditors should automatically assume that .jpegs have been faked...
Nonsense and unfair, nobody believes that. The RS policy is clear that since text can sometimes be questionable, editors should make sure it is reliably sourced and that it directly supports any article claims without OR. That's not the same as saying all text or photos should automatically be assumed fake. But RS means that text and photos aren't automatically assumed to be true either. Photos that have no apparent authorship, captions, descriptions, or explanations, can not be described only by a random Wikipedia editor without there being some unverifiable original research.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
For the page Third rail of politics, is the opinion of Helen Thomas a reliable source, when given in-text attribution, as an example of the use of this political metaphor? (Update: Better source found; issue restated below. Mhults7791 ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC))
The statement the source is supporting is here.
And the source is a transcript from a CNN interview.
Other sources is dispute, supporting similar statements, are a New York Times article and a New American editorial.
I have made my case, and Plot Spoiler has replied, on the talk page. Mhults7791 ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This Huffington Post editorial, from a pro-Israel source, may be the best of them all. Mhults7791 ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Issue restated: Is the opinion of M.J. Rosenberg, in the editorial above, a reliable source as an example of the use of the political metaphor " third rail of politics" by a political expert? Mhults7791 ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this column [72] in the Southern Illinoisan a reliable source to prove the claim that "Ballotpedia covers school board elections"? The article where this source has come into question is the Lucy Burns Institute. Obviously it's an op-ed, but the claim that it verifies seems unexceptional and uncontroversial. Schematica ( talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Judgepedia is currently under discussion at:
Is Judgepedia a reliable source? From what I have seen of the site I would judge [ sic] that it is not. However I think that information from the site can be used in the form of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT if that information is supported direly by a reliable sources (one that meets WP:SOURCE) which for one reason or another has content that is not accessible to a Wikipedia editor (which means the Wikipedia editor can not cite the reliable source directly). -- PBS ( talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.If an editor hasn't directly seen a source that is cited in Judgepedia, then they shouldn't pretend they've read it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two workable scenarios: 1. The middle source is considered to be a reliable source for the "quoting" of the original. or 2. the editor has seen the original material. If you haven't seen the original source, or you only saw it in an unreliable source, then that material shouldn't go into Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE means existing material with poor sourcing should be tagged, re-sourced, or omitted. It should not besourced to an unreliable or unusable source as a stop-gap, because an untagged citation implies to readers and other editors that citation is problem free. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And if people are inserting material from unreliable sources, then it's simple. Those pages have unreliable material poorly sourced. There's no point calling it reliable when it's not, just to have content. If there's a large subject (like amateur genealogy) where editors are flatly ignoring WP:V, then that is probably not a generally reliable neighborhood of Wikipedia. This article seems like a indiscriminate collection of information; I understand why people would want obsessively detailed lists sourced from unreliable sources, but that doesn't mean the source for it is magically reliable. There are hordes of people that would like Wikipedia to be an alphabetical list of every high school band ever, but we work to avoid that too. This is actually giving readers pseudo-history whether it's cited to the unreliable source or not cited at all. WP:RS and WP:V are about working to bring the material to a better standard than if people ignored the quality of sourcing. Ancestral bloodlines are a bit of a fiction even in the best sources, as they don't usually have much success tracking the results of undocumented adulteries, secret adoptions, and people just claiming famous relatives with no evidence. If we have them, they should at least be sourced to reliable historians and reliable genealogists and limited to reliable sources. Otherwise we have articles that are essentially fan fiction.
Take your first example, the peerage.com: well, it's nice to say he uses Burke's Peerage, but a lot of the entries are sourced to blogs, emails, [75] and if you look here you'll see that the peerage.com even uses Wikipedia as a source for factual information. A lot of it seems like people tracing their bloodline to royalty, as sourced by the people themselves. The compiler admits to throwing the raw contents of books not considered generally reliable into the mix. He makes no claims of strong verifiability or reliability. You seem to be saying we should call this source reliable enough to cite, just out of the convenience of leaving the material in Wikipedia, instead of tagging, re-sourcing, or omitting, all three of which avoid Wikipedia presenting dubious material as historically sound. Leaving in poorly sourced material without tags is quicker and less work, but that's not building a better project. I don't see how having piles of badly-sourced Count Gustavs helps a reader who's interested in royalty when the information is ultimately unverifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Lundy's source page tell you nothing about the frequency of the type of citations he uses. BTW I picked the article Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton not because it is a typical example of people citing Lundy but because it was the first one returned by the search. @ Elaqueate you wrote "You keep using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as shorthand for citing to 'less than reliable' sources". No I do not (see Dr. Fleischman paraphrasing above). Elaqueate you wrote "You seem to be saying we should call this source reliable enough to cite, just out of the convenience of leaving the material in Wikipedia, instead of tagging, re-sourcing, or omitting, all three of which avoid Wikipedia presenting dubious material as historically sound". Yet that is not what I am saying, and and the proof in Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton where the unreliable tags were added by me as a first step to cleaning up the page! To continue with that example, I do not see why anyone would be justified in adding WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to a Lundy citation that itself cites an unreliable source such as an email. But take the example of the footnote that is currently no 20 that supports "Sir Henry Belasyse, 1st Baronet (1555–1624)", that his mother was Margaret Fairfax, that he married Ursula Fairfax that their son was Thomas Belasyse, 1st Viscount Fauconberg. At the moment the citation carries the unreliable tag to Lundy's entry on Sir Henry Belasyse. However if you look at that entry Lundy cites "George Edward Cokayne, editor, The Complete Baronetage ... 1983 ... page 43." for all that information. So I think as an interim step before a reliable sources is read by a Wikipedia editor to confirm the entry, changing the citation to "Cokayne 1983, p. 43 cited by Lundy 2012, p. 1958 §19571" -- with long citations to the sources in the references section, (and where Lundy site can be tagged as unreliable) -- is an improvement over the current citation no 20. The point of using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is precisely because it helps in the process of determining "when the information is ultimately [verifiable or] unverifiable". -- PBS ( talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This link says the ISIS leader is a mossad agent. can this source be used in ISIS article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 August 2014
This link says the ISIS leader is a mossad agent. can this source be used in ISIS article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi ( talk • contribs) 8:39, 15 August 2014