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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Would these websites be considered reliable sources? Specifically in regards to Linux-related topics? Can they be used to establish notability and critical commentary?
Thanks for your input. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Got a question - is this source ( http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=86442) reliable? Some folks are alleging it's "Azeri propaganda" and I truly have no idea. Kingnavland ( talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Let's start over. I would like to hear from someone who is neither Armenian nor Azeri about whether or not this is a reliable source. Kingnavland ( talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of the source is irrelevant. Look at the source's source: "Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia." It's not a defense source. It's a website, whose reliability we don't know. I say that until this can be corroborated by independent reporting, it should not be included. -- Golbez ( talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Hydrogen fuel enhancement]], Water-fuelled car, [[Oxyhydrogen]] , Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell , François_Isaac_de_Rivaz.
I'm a bit concerned with the reliability of the sources in climate change denial. First, a number of op-eds are used as a basis for the presentation of factual evidence. For example:
8. ^ a b Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
9. ^ Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect Peter Christoff. The Age AU.com, July 9, 2007
10. ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.
The claim is that since these are not the sole citation for the phrases which refer to these, that it's not a problem. My understanding of
WP:RS is that these references should nonetheless be deleted.
There are a couple other references which I would maintain are examples of opinion journalism; another editor maintains that they're "investigative journalism" and as such are kosher. They are
28. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (May 2006). "While Washington Slept". Vanity Fair. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
40. ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Rolling Stone. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.
They are not marked in the magazine specifically as op-eds, but the titles and the actual content of the pieces make it clear, in my opinion, that the articles are advocacy rather than neutral commentary, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions as clearly-marked op-eds.
Also, I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone as sources for this particular issue -- both magazines have pretty clear political leanings, and as such shouldn't be considered more reliable than, for example, National Review or similar political newsmagazines. (Along those lines, if VF and RS are considered reliable, would NR also be fair game?)
In any case, I think that the extensive use of op-eds and other slanted sources in this article contributes to a subtle but definite POV problem. I'm posting here because another editor disagrees with my assessment and suggested that I request additional input here. So any comments would be much appreciated! J. Langton ( talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:V says "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."
We have a question at several places on this article's talk page about whether an anonymous or pseudonymous "letter to the editor" or "comment" in a highly respected scientific journal on sexology can be considered a reliable source. The comment criticizes specific aspects of the research behind a psychological conception of transwomen, such as whether the correct kinds of control groups were used. It's (apparently) the only published critique on certain aspects of this idea, as (apparently) no professional has been willing to publicly own these specific critical comments (although various professionals have criticized other aspects of this conception). Some editors feel strongly that the comment should be accepted as a reliable source in the related Wikipedia articles. Others find it weak, even too weak to be accepted. Here's what we know about the three aspects of verifiability:
Is the fact that the journal itself is a reliable source "good enough" to meet WP:V standards? Do you generally accept anonymous or pseudonymous comments as reliable sources? For example, would you cite a letter to the editor in The New York Times if it was known that the author was not writing under his or her correct name? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It presumably matters to neutral editors how the source is being used. "Somebody wrote a pseudonymous letter" can be trivially supported by a ref to the letter itself: if a letter exists, then it was very clearly written. However, this pseudonymous source is being used to support "The following serious scientific charges have been made:", which requires a more robust source. I'm open to any outcome. I am, however, specifically seeking the opinion of experienced Wikipedia editors that are not involved in this issue in their real lives. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Letters to the editor, and similar non-vetted commentary, should be treated like self-published sources and op-ed pieces. In this instance, that would lean towards the exclusion of the source. Additionally, there are due weight concerns present here, as we should not be presenting extreme minority views of a topic. If a pseudonymous letter to the editor is the only source of the criticisms, it's unquestionably a violation of our policies and principles to present such a view in the mainspace. Vassyana ( talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with this discussion is that it was framed in such a way as to hide the bias and agenda of those who seek to suppress the source. While User:WhatamIdoing is typically less extreme that User:James Cantor, he follows pretty much the same agenda and POV. Cantor is on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the long commentary by Dreger that the editor Zucker characterized as "controversial" and "peer reviewed", along with 23 commenataries to it, and Dreger's response to those commentaries. Fourteen of the 23 commentaries have been counted as strongly critical of Dreger's article, conclusions, or methodology. Wyndzen's pseudonymous comment is one of these; she has also published other articles and a web site under this assumed name, to protect her identity as a transwoman and academic from those academic sexologists who in this dispute seem to be teamed up against poeple of her POV. The wiki tactic of the sexologists such as Cantor is to push the Dreger piece as reliable and authoritative, while arguing that the other side of the argument published in the same journal is unreliable, just "letters to the editor." There needs to be a way to balance Dreger whenever she is cited by talking about the other side as published there and commented on by her. I think that this can be easily achieved by being clear in the article about what opinion is being cited, and then referencing the journal for the letter that is the source of that opinion. Treating these letters as reliable sources for opinions is not the same as treating them as reliable sources for facts. So, with appropriate edits to the article, it should be possible to represent the opinions of Wyndzen and other commentators. Wyndzen's commentary is actually one of the most thoughtful and insightful and non-polarized of the lot, as it concerns the underlying scientific controversies, but is extremely critical of Dreger's approach and pro-Bailey conclusions; email me if you'd like a copy of the whole lot. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed recently that an editor O8TY ( talk · contribs) has been adding text and an external link since May to Doric order. [1] It has problems to my eye with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:QS, and WP:SPS. They are editing against consensus using multiple ips (see Doric history), and now spreading it to other articles. [2] I've already reverted so I can't block or protect, but I think they are being disruptive and spamming this link, and unreliably sourced theory. Not sure where else to post this. dvdrw 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Labouring under such trivial arguments, it is no wonder Wikipedia is such an incredibly long way behind FungiTecture.com. O8TY ( talk) 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is in response to the above complainants of fungitecture.com and is provided for the benefit of those readers who have stumbled across this page and are wondering what it is about.
This response should be read in conjunction with the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the following Wikipedia articles, which provide a record of this dispute:
Doric Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_order Ionic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_order Corinthian Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_order Form follows function - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function Mycenae - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae Aeolic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_order
The dispute begins with the insertion of select material from fungitecture.com into the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, and the subsequent removal of same by the above complainants, amongst others. Although fungitecture.com has since expunged most of its material from these Wikipedia articles, traces of the inserted material still exist in the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the Wikipedia articles dating from May 1 2008 through to the end of July 2008. The inserted material can also be viewed in its original context in corresponding articles at fungitecture.com.
It needs to be recognised that fungitecture.com only ever added material to the Wikipedia articles, and that no pre-existing material in the Wikipedia articles, except for spaces and punctuation marks, was ever overwritten or deleted by fungitecture.com. As the inserted material was also referenced back to fungitecture.com, Wikipedia readers were never denied access to the arguments supporting the inserted material at fungitecture.com, unlike the vast majority of other material pre-existing on Wikipedia. However, as none of the above complainants has published any objective criticism of the inserted material in the relevent sections of Wikipedia, but rather have schemed variously to denigrate fungitecture.com, such as posting to this Reliable Sources noticeboard, the complainants give the impression of themselves being insufficiently versed in the subject matters concerned and incapable of rational or reasoned argument.
Further support for this view may be gathered from the personal Wikipedia pages of the following complainants:
Wetman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wetman DVDRW - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DVD_R_W and archives Someguy1221 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someguy1221 Cluebot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot Mdebets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdebets The_Cat_and_the_Owl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_The_Cat_and_the_Owl El_Greco - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_Greco Michael Slone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Slone
While most of the above complainants have chosen to conceal their true identities through the use of faceless nicknames, their personal Wikipedia pages generally do not yield sufficient information to determine their level of education, experience or other competence in the relevent subjects, that includes but is not limited to ancient Greek culture, including its architecture, and mycology. Although one complainant claims to have attended a school of architecture, this is not the same as having graduated as an architect, and it is left to our imagination to determine the capacity and duration of the attendance, and indeed the reason for premature departure. But as none of the above complainants is prepared to let themselves be scrutinised as a reliable source, none of the above complainants can themselves be regarded as a reliable source, let alone a reliable or qualified critic of fungitecture.com.
The first objection to the material, as evidenced in the "History" section of the Doric Order article, was raised by Wetman, who ventured to remove the initial entry made by o8TY of fungitecture.com on May 1, 2008. As Wetman provided no objective reason for this removal, the material was promptly reinstated by o8TY. What followed was a series of alternating removals by Wetman and the other complainants, many of whom have been active in editing various Wikipedia pages for many years, and then reinstatements mostly made by o8TY. However, even at this early stage of proceedings, many of the removals were accompanied by a variety of subjective comments, some of which could be classed as uncivil according to the Wikipedia's policy on Civility. After a few rounds of removal/reinstatement, Wetman then extracted the disputed text to the Doric Order "Discussion" page and appended a comment to this action. In this comment, Wetman admits "Dorus is an invented eponym" (ie an invented name), which contradicts the widely espoused view that the Doric style of architecture was attributed to the Dorian peoples, but which in no way refutes the interpretation of the name "Doric" offered by fungitecture.com. Having thus placed the entire Wikipedian, and possibly Western, understanding of the Doric style in jeopardy, Wetman then attempts to undermine the rationalisation of the Doric temple provided by fungitecture.com as "...a private dream". Upon exposing Wetman for his contradiction and ad hominem, Wetman then childishly blurts: "Adult supervision of this article is urgently requested. The account O8TY was opened for the purpose of inserting this intentionally disruptive nonsense". As if Wetman could presume as much.
Wetman then proceeded to post excerpts from fungitecture.com together with disparaging remarks upon various Wikipedia pages, including upon pages that fungitecture.com had not previously inserted any of its material or had otherwise shown any involvement (eg Aeolic). By this action, Wetman has not only violated the fungitecture.com Terms of Use, but shown disrespect for the intellectual property of others. Furthermore, by posting false and misleading information concerning fungitecture.com, Wetman has demonstrated incompetence or a deliberate intention to mislead. However, as none of the above or other complainants of fungitecture.com, some of whom may also be administrators of Wikipedia, has notified fungitecture.com or o8TY, whether privately or through Wikipedia, of any attempt to censure Wetman for these actions, fungitecture.com can only regard these other complainants as acting in league with Wetman and not without prejudice.
Further indications of collusion and bias may be gathered from the above sequence of posts by the complainants. The first post by Dvdrw occured at 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC), which was followed five minutes later by that of Someguy1221 at 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) and then fourteen minutes later again by Dvdrw at 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Thus, within five minutes of Dvdrw having posted the initial complaint, Someguy1221 purports to have independently discovered and read the initial post by Dvdrw, to have opened and thoroughly "checked" the thirty-odd pages then comprising fungitecture.com, and to have composed and posted a reply in support of Dvdrw. Strangely, however, site activity logs at fungitecture.com do not show any extensive visitation to its website in the hours immediately preceeding these times. Notwithstanding superfast internet connections and superhuman reading and typing abilities, the rapid sequence of posts suggests a collusion between Dvdrw and Someguy1221 in their attempt to denigrate fungitecture.com. However, as the complainants have only ever posted subjective opinions of fungitecture.com and have altogether failed to objectively address any of the scholarly material at fungitecture.com, the complainants can only be viewed as acting from personal bias rather than in the academic interests of an encyclopedia ("all-round-education"). Indeed, the lack of objective criticism from any of the complainants, together with their collective failure to identify and address any of the ancient sources from which fungitecture.com compiled its material, suggests the complainants are not well versed in the subject matters concerned.
An inspection of the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, as it existed before the insertion of any fungitecture.com material on May 1, 2008, is also instructive for what it reveals about the calibre of the complainants of fungitecture.com, many of whom had been editing or contributing to this and associated Wikipedia articles for many years. Besides being poorly written and containing numerous syntactical, terminological and other delinquencies of fact, the article fails to adequately address the origins, essence and intent of the style. Instead, the article devotes considerable space to a supposed design flaw, yet fails to convey the triviality of this issue, nor the context that fostered this issue. To make matters worse, the article draws heavily upon the writings of the Roman architectural historian Marcus Vitruvius Pollio who, besides admitting to having never practised as an architect himself, has long been regarded as an unreliable source due to the overwhelming number of errors, ommissions, inconsistencies, biases and other failings in his treatise. With the "Doric Order" article thus already grossly polluted with erroneous, misinformed and unreliable source material, the complainants of fungitecture.com do not present as capable correspondents, let alone strict adherents of Wikipedia policy.
Having thus exposed the complainants of fungitecture.com for numerous and diverse deficiencies, a picture emerges of a perverse class of self-appointed Wikipedia editors unable to comprehend nor objectively deal with scholarly material beyond their own misguided beliefs and limited understandings, yet willing to gang together in some vain attempt to denigrate the learned. For this and other reasons, fungitecture.com has sought to remove its material from the Wikipedia website and has withdrawn its consent to Wikipedia and its successors from further using any fungitecture.com material.
But with Wikipedia itself widely regarded as an unreliable source, not least because of its ever changing content, this Reliable Sources noticeboard can only be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. O8TY ( talk) 12:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"? Tripping Nambiar ( talk · contribs) is blanking cited material in the article Sangh Parivar [3] [4]. The book is written by Sheldon Pollock, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Homi K. Bhabha. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify an important point people seem to miss all the time: Nothing is a reliable source for "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" *If* the book is reliable (which I haven't looked into), it could be a reliable source for the statement "The authors of the book Cosmopolitan have described Sangh Parivar as a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations." Do you see the important distinction there? The existence of a reliable source saying something (again, not saying this one is reliable) does not mean that that something is true, just that they SAID that. Wikipedia does not take sides in such issues, we just report what reliable sources say and let the readers decide for themselves. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:
Jayen 466 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed above and determined to be self-published, which I agree with. However, might it still be a reliable source? It has apparently been published by Peter Samuel (we have an article about him, but I'm not sure if he's actually notable) for 13 years. He does seem to be recognized as an expert - and of course as a pro-toll road advocate. Would it be acceptable to use facts about specific roads, such as from [6] in Adams Avenue Parkway? -- NE2 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
CombinedFleet.com [7] is an oft-used reference for Wikipedia articles related to the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Pacific War of World War II. During the FAC for the Battle of Tassafaronga, someone questioned the reliability of the site as a source. Since the same concern may come up again, as I'm using the site as a source in another article that I plan on nominating for FAC once it's ready, I thought that I should get some other opinions on it in advance.
I believe the site is reliable because the site owners are Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, authors of the book Shattered Sword, a source used in a variety of Wikipedia articles, especially the Battle of Midway which is a featured article. Perhaps more important, though, is that the site lists its sources of information here and here. Those two lists represent a definitive work of English Pacific War literature. If the site's operators are reputable, published authors and they clearly list the sources of their information, and those sources are valid primary and secondary sources, does that make the site a reliable, secondary source? Cla68 ( talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This small section of a
much larger dispute contains the assertion that Wikipedia rules are flexible enough to allow using Polish Wikipedia as a source if your goal is to create articles about every Polish village. Anybody care to comment on that assertion?
Kww (
talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Following some feedback I offered at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Screaming Trees discography, I would like some assistance here in figuring out if the following sites are considered reliable or not:
I have opposed the FLC based on these sources, because they appear to be fansites and stat sites built by someone in their bedroom with too much time on their hands. The FLC nominator insists they are Reliable though. My issue with clipland.com is the fact that Firefox blocked two pop-ups for me, and because uses pop up ads, it shouldn't be used. Additionally, it is being used to reference the director of a music video, and it does this by linking to a YouTube-hosted video. It was my thought that YouTube does not meet WP:RS.
Any help that can be given on this is appreciated. Thank you. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A British scientist, Michael Atiyah, was accused of academic misconduct by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju. There are several sources involved and a heated discussion on this talk page. The specific question I have regards a petition signed by several eminent academics in support of Raju.
In this petition, several eminent academics, like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon, and others ( see complete list of signatories)supported Raju's position. They stated that there is a "prima facie case that [Raju's] work was initially suppressed" and expressed their "suspicion that there are no answers to Raju’s charges".
Given that the academics involved are very eminent, should this petition be considered a RS?
thanks, Perusnarpk ( talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could we please stick to the topic. This section is about whether a petition signed by eminent academics can be used as an RS. Yes, Stephan, I would like to use it as a source to show that the controversy exists. Perusnarpk ( talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hell, before a petition like this can even be discussed as possibly being a RS itself we'd need a RS or three that the petition itself was truly signed by those people, that those people have any real notability ( User:Perusnarpk just asserted they were eminent and expected us to accept him at his word) and that they endorse what the petition says and that it's notable. Lots of activist groups out to mislead others (fringe science groups, political groups, etc.) claim that groups of important people signed things and say whatever and then turn out to be false or misleading. Some conservative groups are running around now claiming that an entire scientific body now refutes global warning based basically upon a the content of a letter to the editor in a regional newsletter (so the whole group does not dispute global warning in the slightest), and Bigfoot supporters and Creationism true believers and paranormalists routinely talk about eminent scientists supporting their causes who only end up being engineers or high school teachers or those holding degrees in theology. A petition by its very nature cannot be a RS, in my opinion, as a true RS has to say if it means anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Newbie User:Perusnarpk has elsewhere shown that he is fully aware of the editing restrictions imposed by ArbCom on User:Bharatveer. This would suggest that he has had previous editing experience and is possibly a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer. Please could some administrator investigate this so that good faith editors do not have to waste more of their time on him? Please also look at User:Abhimars. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The source is a self-published website so comes under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. The information is also available on the internet, but mainly in forums and blogs - which are discouraged. There is a letter published by the American Mathematical Society which would be a reliable souce, but the letter doesn't reveal much. This is just under borderline stuff - it does suggest that while there is a petition, that the petition has not yet achieved the status of being notable. It appears that there is not enough reliable sources yet for an article, and not enough perhaps to support even a mention in a parent article, given the controversial nature of the topic. SilkTork * YES! 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have a slightly unusual situation, and I hope someone can shed some light. Generally, blogs and forums should never be used as refs because they are unreliable. However, I wonder if they can be considered a reliable ref in a couple of types of statements in a Wikipedia article:
To me, naively perhaps, it seems that claims about the existence of something on the web are best referenced simply by a link to that thing, which must by definition be reliable, rather than to a secondary source, which itself might be questioned. Furthermore, if there is no such secondary source, what else could one do?
Specifically, I am trying to work out what is a reliable ref for a statement in the Robot article . The statement is: "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots,". The three original refs were: [12] [13] [14]. These refs link directly to the discussions themselves. Not that the article is not claiming that these discussions are reliable, it's just claiming that they exist. However two of them were removed per WP:EL.
If anyone could comment, I'd be very grateful. Rocketmagnet ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
←Exactly. Rocket and I have had a few discussions about this, and I support his goal, I just don't think we can get those particular two links to fly because of what happens in other articles when similar links are inserted, and the distaste the community has for discussion boards (as reflected in policy and guidelines, as well as practice on this page). But we can and should illustrate the point, by pointing to vigorous discussion, that one thing that's different about the Robot article is that no one knows what the heck one is; all anyone can agree on is "I know one when I see one". - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this sort of thing is primarily a question of notability. The blogs or forums should not be linked, nor mentioned, unless there is a reliable source specifically referring to these blogs or forums. If there are such mentions in RS, then text references to the websites concerned are enough, cited to the RS. Links to the blogs or forums themselves are not necessary. Jayen 466 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Any opinion on the legitimacy of this source would be appreciated. http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/02-Sumerian-Mythology-History.html Please note at the top of the text: "This article is from the Sumerian Mythology FAQ, by Christopher Siren cbsiren@cisunix.unh.edu with numerous contributions by others" and links to sources; http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/19-Sources-Sumerian-Mythology.html I have tried to expalin the principle of "Cite the place where you found the material" on the Uruk talk page, but the reverter is insisting that "*Your* source must be the reliable one, not the source's sources." This is basically saying you can only go on secondary sources, and that all tertiary sources are questionable enough to have information removed from the article. Mdw0 ( talk) 05:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this be regarded as a RS for articles on UK roads? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
SABRE is used widely by Wiki editors with an interest in and knowledge of roads. It is an organisation, rather than an individual. The information is peer reviewed and constantly updated. It is considered by those with an interest in UK roads to be the most up-to-date and informative source on road information in the UK. SABRE would be consulted for each UK road article on Wikipedia and given as an external link. But should SABRE then be cited as a reliable source for points that may be challenged? Well, WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that to a certain extent applies to SABRE. At the same time we have Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources, into which SABRE sort of falls, which says "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics." So its reliability would depend on the reputation of those in charge of SABRE these people. Though many of them have their own websites, they are not published authors in the conventional sense - they are in the same sense of an editor on Wikipedia. So, SABRE is widely consulted and trusted in constructing a road article on Wikpedia, and - like IMDB - can be and is used as an external link in a road article. But in terms of using it as a definative source to support a challengable item in a road article it should not be regarded as reliable. In short - SABRE can be used as a source of information for writing an article, but not as an authoritative expert source in a dispute. SilkTork * YES! 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There's a bit of an edit war going on with the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final article. Both myself and another user have been constantly reverting an IP address who continuously adds two references to the article, claiming both to be valid. However, PeeJay (the other user) has stated that the two references—which happen to be a blog and a Q&A-esque article—are not valid, though the IP continues to disagree. Both PeeJay and I are convinced that the two references are not a valid reference point and I was hoping to get feedback.
2008 UEFA Champions League Final ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help if possible. :) – LATICS talk 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask, whethere columns like this or this are reliable source. Thanx for help.-- Kozuch ( talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article for Natalie Coughlin currently references Sports Illustrated for her results from the 2004 Olympic Games. Is Sports Illustrated a reliable source under WP:Sources or should the article instead reference the official Olympic results database maintained by the IOC?
The problem with the official database is that you cannot jump straight to a page for a competitior/event but rather have to fill in a search/query form to access specific information. However, it is certainly "the horse's mouth".
Thanks. Sitush ( talk) 07:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Swimming World magazine has the most comprehensive stats IMHO. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
User conduct complaint, reposted on
WP:AN/I.
|
---|
User:Trip Johnson, who also uses User talk:82.28.237.200, is continuing to make edits that favor the British in military history. He has been blocked for this before, and I have asked him many times(he blanks his talk page)to stop doing this, or at least add a source. He never does. Here are some of his more recent changes. At least there was an edit summary for this one These are just a few of many, many, many thigns he has done. I hope you understand, I am quite tired of asking him to source things, and reverting his edits. He does not listen to anyone, admins or non-admins, has called everyone on this site a "dickhead" and told me I'm an "asshole". I am not the only editor who has experienced problems with him, you may ask these two, who I know have had some experiences with him.
User:Tanthalas39 I simply do not know what to do anymore. I really don't know what can be done, as he is not really doing anything that can get him blocked, but anyways, I figured I'd see what can be done. Red4tribe ( talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe ( talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
|
There's a discussion regarding if sohu.com is a reliable source. A comment from [26] has been used in Cradle of civilization, and the source has been challenged. SilkTork * YES! 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Bo Derek article, the text - She supported Rudolph W. Giuliani's abortive bid for the Republican nomination in 2008. - comes with this source; [27]. I cann't find anything relating to the text, should I remove both text and reference? Talsurrak ( talk) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done and done. Thanks for the help. Talsurrak ( talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember that it is either unacceptable, or considered poor form, to simply drop a reference in the "External links" section of an article and then invite other editors to use that as a source for substantive edits. I remember this allegedly bad conduct being referred to as "source solicitation". Any suggestions on where I might have seen this or whether it is in fact a policy? Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the websites MuslimHeritage.com and History of Science and Technology in Islam reliable sources for claims pertaining to the history of science? JFD ( talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
With regards to The History of Science and Technology in Islam, I was specifically concerned with instances where A.Y. Hassan's views either conflict with or are not reflected in the mainstream literature (i.e. third-party, published sources), especially with regard to "firsts" or claims of invention. JFD ( talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One editor has attempted to use as a reference on lexicography a person (Grant Barrett) who has no apparent academic credentials (after an extensive web search, I've been unable to discover where he got his education or what his degree is in - even on web pages affiliated with him it's absent) and has no record of having peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals (a Google search turned up nothing). Lexicography is the study of the meaning of words and to his credit this source did co-write a book with James Carville, a highly paid spin doctor, on the subject. But his book doesn't appear to be referenced by any scholar working in the field. His writings appear to be completely of the popular (Dr. Phil/Sean Hannity) sort, writing in newspapers and the like. My instincts are to just dismis this source out of hand, but the consensus appears to be to support the source. Third party opinions are desired. - 66.213.90.2 ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- 198.97.67.59 ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
To summarize, your points are
That's a fine precedent set for reliable sources on scholarly subjects, Blueboar. I'm certain that editors who support intelligent design, anti-global warming, etc. will be very happy to see that sources don't have to be written by people with actual academic credentials to be considered reliable academic sources.- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As this edit makes clear, Barrett is being cited via a reader comment he made; this is a completely different story, I think. It's not subject to any editorial review; we don't normally cite forums and blogs for this reason. His status as an author/commentator is not enough to make him a recognized expert of that sort whose blog would be cited, never mind a random comment on a web page. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we call this done? Blueboar ( talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that while Barrett is, in principle, RS, I have some reservations about the use to which this source is being used in the context of the article. First, "Double-tongued Dictionary" strikes me as pretty close to SPS. I don't think it's excluded, but I don't think it should have the same weight as books or newspaper articles, which presumably have been through some sort of formal review/editing process. More importantly, the unqualified classification of "anchor baby" as derogatory is sourced to a comment on DTD, and as such, that really isn't RS, in my opinion. J. Langton ( talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Due to its constantly changing nature, Wikipedia itself cannot be considered a reliable source.
For further discussion of Wikipedia as a reliable source, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Hence this Reliable Sources page must be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Removal of this notice from this section will confirm that Wikipedia is not a reliable sources. O8TY ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
O8TY ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on the WikiProject Law talk page has preliminary concluded that newspaper articles generally are not WP:Reliable sources on the law:
The issue of whether a journalist's characterization of the law is a reliable source is, I think, still murky. My experience in areas where I am an expert (IP law, not immigration law) is that journalists get it wrong all the time. I gave a specific example germane to this specific discussion, above, but that's just one of many. Reporters confuse copyrights with trademarks, and patent applications with patents. A couple days ago I wrote to a journalist who erroneously reported that Gregory Reyes was in prison; the reporter assumed that because he was sentenced, he must be in prison by now, having no idea that he could be out on bond pending appeal. Based on countless examples like this, I do not think a news article that states what the law is is a reliable source for what the law is.
Terjen ( talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in a debate about this with anyone, but I want to know if http://www.mcmaster.com is a reliable source, because it does have a lot of useful information on it that might be useful in various metalworking articles. I use it almost everyday at my job (as an engineer), but I don't know if it would pass here on wikipedia. Thanks! -- Wizard191 ( talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is an unpublished Master's thesis that is approved by an expert committee and filed in the university library considered a reliable source? -- Cfthorman ( talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What do people think about using information from the following website
in the AA article? Peele is a noted critic of AA as well as an award winning and widely published expert on addiction treatment. People on the AA page are stating that Peele does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. I don't think this is correct. Can I get an independant opinion or 2? Many thanks. Step13thirteen ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd broadly agree with that. Won't get into the debate about whether there is concensus on addiction or not for Peele to contradict, but certainly I would be unlikely to use him in the AA article for anything other than criticism.
I would say that his views are only controversial if we take a US-centric look at addiction. In the UK, Canada and many other countries, his views on treatment (if not on AA) would be considered pretty close to the mainstream.
Anyone else? Many thanks, again. Step13thirteen ( talk) 19:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had some problems with an SPA/sockpuppet ( Special:Contributions/Proxy_User) over at Camp 1391 who insists on tagging the article as POV, but stubbornly refuses to say what may be POV about it. I think I have managed to figure out that the user don't like newspapers that don't present " The Truth" being used as a source. So now I bring this matter here to get a second opinion on the sources used in the article. // Liftarn ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this youtube link on the Kate Walsh biographical article; YouTube. Do this link constitute as a reliable source link or as a copyright violation? Talsurrak ( talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Cinemetrics is being used at Long take as a source for data on the average shot lengths for different films. The data at the site is posted by the site's owner (or administrator), who is a film scholar, and also posted by visitors to the site who are not anybody in particular. The submissions are presumably filtered for nonsense, but don't seem to be verified in any substantial way. All of the data is in the films themselves, though, so they could conceivably be verified by anybody willing to put in the effort. Is this a reliable source?
I have a (friendly) disagreement with another editor about this-- I hope I'm accurately representing the situation. See a short exchange we had at Talk:Long_take#Cinemetrics_is_RS?. Staecker ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Accordin to it's article, Phoenix TV is a TV station operated in Hong Kong and owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. The dispute is at [33], where a couple of FLG editors insists on the removal of a Phoenix TV report critical of FLG's views, insisting that it's propaganda based on the simple fact that the TV station allowed to be boardcasted in mainland China, and according to them, The Chinese Communist Party controls all the media in China and they decide what is reported and what isn't. No media can report what it wants, it must report within the framework set by the Party. No media which broadcasts in China can report anything other than what the Party says on Falun Gong. So how does one decide what and what isn't propaganda?-- PCPP ( talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is CIA factbook taken so easily as a source in (English) Wikipedia? Nearly every article on a country uses it. This is an organization that has been Multiple Times exposed to be involved in corrupt operations of disinformation and para-military acts. Apotetios ( talk) 11:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook is a subset of the basic intelligence compiled by the CIA to inform their analysis in support of intelligence requirement tasking. The information contained therein is an unclassified consolidation of information, all of which could be sourced elsewhere, however the world factbook is easily available. If there is an issue with material contained within it, and there are alternate sources which contradict it, then that contradiction can be drawn out in the text of the article. That said, the current guidance around reliability doesn't actually allow source assessment, which is a frustration for any professional.
Questions about the conduct of the CIA are largely irrelevant to the use of the factbook, as the intelligence contained is so basic there is little room for interpretation; borders, economy, demographics etc. It doesn't come to any conclusions, which is the key issue. The criticisms of the CIA in general tend to revolve around actions or interpretations which may use basic intelligence as a contributor. In assessing the use of the source it's worth making that distinction. The CIA world factbook is a source of information, not analysis.
ALR ( talk) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this example acceptable? { http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Madoc&curid=796416&diff=232759600&oldid=232751911] It's a personal web page/forum, and we wouldn't allow it as an external link. I removed it on that basis but as you can see the editor has replaced it. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
John Todd (occultist) seems to have massive WP:RS problems, and, given the provenance of some of the information in the article, quite possibly also WP:BLP problems as well (since we have no information from conventional sources that he is, in fact, dead). -- The Anome ( talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
is http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php a reliable source? the blog has reposted an article from a college newspaper. assuming the school paper in question is a reliable source, would reposting a reliable source's article onto a blog make the blog a reliable source? the original source is unavailable, as there is no website for the school paper, so there is no way to verify that this is an accurate reposting of the original article. Theserialcomma ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo I have had a disareement with Phil Sandifer over the use of secondary sources such as Luke Ski to prove notability of Spoo. Sandifer claims that the fact that Ski recorded a song which contained a reference to a food from Babylon 5, Spoo. Trivial mentions aside, I haven't been able to find much to confirm Ski's notability or use as a reliable source (the latter half being more important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question here. I was reading through WP:RS and saw the phrase Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Does the term opinion piece refer to things like movie, concert, or play reviews? Or for that matter, music album reviews, such as the reviews at NME? (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context." A source can be reliable for a fact, but if it also has opinions those can not be reported as fact based on that source. The opinions can perhaps be reported as opinions in that case. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to add here, largely for anyone looking at the archives in the future, that this discussion has nothing to do with scientific reviews, systematic reviews, or law reviews. This discussion only applies to literary and entertainment-related reviews. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A question has been raised about whether this citation properly supports the content. The objection is that the NC Bar Association does not have authority to discuss academic issues. However, it is contended that the source is reliable, and authority is not a wiki requirement for a citation.
"On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context."
citation footnote: Use of the Title "Doctor" in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007. Unable to directly link, but can be found through this site Use of the title in academic circles is rare, but does occur, as related in this forum.
Please see the [ discussion page] for the debate. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I do not understand the term "reliable source". If the New York Times, New York Post, & for art, Art in America or Art News, as well as books written by Lucy Lippard, Public Art Fund, NYU Press or New York State Council on the Arts do not count as "reliable sources", then what do I have to do to satisfy that requirement? - unsigned comment by 76.248.147.100 ( talk · contribs)
I'd appreciate some input on the "list of famous Anglophiles" at Anglophilia, I've given my own run-down on which are reliable here, but I'd like to get a second, third, or fourth opinion. Responses to the talk page if possible, if not here. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this be considered a reliable source? It seems to be used quite a bit. Here is their list of authors [37]. (I ran into this on the John Michell (writer) page where someone seems to think this is actually the online Britannica - ironically Michell's article on the Druids claims, incorrectly, that modern scholarship tends to think Stonehenge to be a Celtic (ie Druid) temple). Doug Weller ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As per this (part way down, the third bolded "comment" section), could someone tell me if this is a reliable source?
Please see: "The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)"
Could we determine if this is actually a reliable source or not? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
At the V8 Supercars article a user revert an edit and challenging me [38]. Since it's sourced from V8 Supercars I think it's a rather big claim to make (being the third biggest sport) since Australia has a number of large sports and I feel that a third part source is needed. Bidgee ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'review' is the 2 line anonymous comment on John Michell (writer) at this link [39] So far as I can tell from here [40] it isn't much harder to submit a book review to Bookwatch then it is to Amazon (slightly, but not much). My opinion is that this isn't a RS (although some reviews might be ok if they were authored by people who might be considered RS?). Doug Weller ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of the sourcing in this article is to primary-source self-published websites. Can someone go through and check which ones are reliable and which ones aren't? I'm sort of inclined to say none are reliable. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this site reliable? The reasons for its reliability are:
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=48478&n_tit=Meet+Bollywood%92s+New+Bee+Genelia+D%92souza (a news article) is basically used to cite this statement: (Genelia D'Souza was born on August 5, 1987 in Mumbai..) Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is howardbloom.net RS? I found it in the article War against Islam. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an on-going discussion about the reliablily of iTunes as a source, specifically the release of "iTunes only tracks", at Talk:All Hope Is Gone (album)#iTunes Bonus Track inclusion: original research. If there is a previous discussion about iTunes please direct us to it and feel free to let your thoughts on the matter known. Thank you. Black ngold29 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is
http://www.stratfor.com/ (
stratfor) considered a reliable source? It seems to me that sources used in Wikipedia should be available to all users without requiring payment of a subscription fee with auto renewal by charging your credit card and further requires you to provide all your personal information in order to verify the source used. Wouldn't finding other more easily obtainable and verifiable sources more prudent?
I refuse to pay a monthly, auto-renewal, subscription fee in order to verify a source.(
talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you --
Jmedinacorona Struck my refuse to pay a subscription remark, oops. :) --
Jmedinacorona (
talk) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
A heated debated ensues about the use of posts in the Chronicle of Higher Education Forums in an article about Eastern Mediterranean University [41], first in mediation [42] and then in the talk page for the article [43]
The crux of the argument is that "Forums usually don't count, unless frequented by academics, and this is the case here." [44] It is also suggested in the same post that it might be good to cite the source but explain the nature of the forum (so readers would be able to evaluate it's reliability.
Thanks.-- 2knowledgeable ( talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[45] - Is this reliable? A lot of PA highway articles are using it and so was I. Deigo ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
http://history-world.org/: reliable source or not? See especially http://history-world.org/who.htm. I looked up our own (near-orphan, somewhat poorly cited) article on Robert Guisepi. I can't tell whether to presume this is a solid source; I detect a (slight) whiff of crackpottery in the article but can't tell whether that reflects the late Dr. Guisepi or our contributors. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to varying sources with differing birth years for the French actress Audrey Tautou. There has been some discussion at Talk:Audrey Tautou and WP:RFPP#Audrey Tautou. I would appreciate having a few other experienced editors to take a look at the references linked in the article, the talk page and the RFPP discussion to see if there is a clear cut answer or if the current compromise of listing both years in the article is best. Cheers, caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to The Village Pump. Contents of the discussion are preserved there as an archive. Protonk ( talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I swear I asked here about this exact source before but I can't find anything in the archives so here I am. Rosencomet has been using http://www.murugabooker.com/ace.html as a source for a number of articles. I had a long discussion with him about its WP:RS status on Talk:Merl Saunders back in Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 here. The source in question, titled EXPANDING THE FRONTIERS OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, has a number of problems as a reliable source. I think the shortcomings will be obvious to many WP editors.
Now I know this source isn't remotely a RS and I've explained as much to Rosencomet, including pointing him to both WP:V and WP:RS many times over many months in different situations, but he seems confused as to the distinctions between independent and reliable. Unfortunately, because of past conflicts between Rosencomet and myself, he tends to discount my editorial judgments when such opinions conflict with his. So I wanted to get a little feedback about the source, hoping that he might be convinced by other opinions. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a wiki, but it is owned by a (presumably for-profit) company. They display advertisements from type foundries and the like on their site. Can this be considered a reliable source for typography related material? What about NPOV and COI? VasileGaburici ( talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I need some help. On the page for
David Michael Jacobs a site was referenced that I am questioning as a reliable source. It's the personal website of one of his former clients. Could someone please take a look at this site:
http://www.ufoalienabductee.com] and render an opinion on its reliability for a wiki page on a living person? Thank you very much.
Fiona2211814 (
talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a question about usage of the above audio interview source in the biographical article David Miscavige, because that audio interview is hosted on BlogTalkRadio. A Request for Comment has been opened to assess community viewpoints on this. Please weigh in at Talk:David Miscavige#Request for Comment. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Kopp, Carlo. "RAAF strike force merge". Retrieved June 15, 2008.
I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Rockdetector: On its own page about Rockdetector it has positive responses from Digby Pearson- Managing Director of Earache Records; and Blabbermouth, a reliable source, which is hosted by Roadrunner Records (further feedback from Blabbermouth can be seen here and here). And such sources give Rockdetector positive feedback as well: here and the introduction of this. Is this proof enough of reliability of that source? Thanks for answer(s).-- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone have a look on this, please?!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've pulled some links to a few unreliable sources like stormfront.org, rense.com, and some others - thought I'd mention it here for feedback, and in case others would like to pitch in, or add to my list. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Jeremy Treglown's Roald Dahl: A Biography a reliable source? marbeh raglaim ( talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Wikipedia Review we have a discussion about the use of a self-published blog that struck me as being entirely unsatisfactory under WP:SELFPUB. See this edit [50] and related talk page discussion. It strikes me as not being allowed by policy, and that if one allows opinions of bloggers on their favorite or unfavorite websites we will be overwhelmed with such stuff. However, there is disagreement from that perspective.-- Janeyryan ( talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent -- Only two editors have agreed that self-pub is relevant here. Using self-pub in this manner in fact undermines the very policy. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Is_this_an_example_of_a_.27self_published_and_questionable_source.27.3F for further information and further disagreement. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the following two sources reliable for the information they provide on Jasmin St. Claire?:
Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
A recent discussion and an edit war on a Featured article Józef Piłsudski concerns the reliability and due weight of the following source: David Cymet. "Polish State Anti-Semitism as a Major Factor Leading to the Holocaust." Journal of Genocide Research. (June 1999), Volume 1 Issue 2. This source is used to support the following statement: "Cymet cites the interview as evidence that "Pilsudski not only fully shared at this early date the eliminationist goal of Dmovski but that he was doing his best to achieve that goal." In other words, it is a veiled way of saying that Piłsudski is an anti-semite, a rather exceptional claim (for starters, a claim not present before in this Featured article, and contradicted by sources present in it that describe Piłsudski's opposition to anti-semitism). There is a plethora of reliable, academic sources that claim exactly the opposite: Here is an academic book that states simply: "Piłsudski was not an anti-semite". Here is another work stating exactly the same: "Pilsudski was no antisemite". Here is another one, stating that the "Purpose of Piłsudski... was to weaken the antisemitic endecja camp". Here: "When Pilsudski assumed power, anti-semitic violence ended". Here: "Under Pilsudski, the party opposed anti-semitism".
Journal of Genocide Research is a reliable publication, but per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now, I cannot find any indication that David Cymet published any other academic work but this single piece. I cannot find indication that his work is cited. I cannot find any information on David Cymet, an academic (or even as a widely known amateur historian). In other words, it appears that this controversial claim is supported by a work of dubious reliability (I have read his article, it contains few citations, some errors and a lot of emotional, biased language, for example from the very first para: "Poland... holds the loot plundered from millions of murdered and executed Jews"; later in the article Cymet writes about Piłsudski: "His sinister words and the bloody actions of the army under his command..." - and so on).
In conclusion, I find this source rather unreliable, and certainly not an exceptional source needed to support an exceptional claim that Piłsudski - an important figure in interwar politics - was an anti-semite.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely inappropriate. There is no doubt whatsoever that Piłsudski believed in a multi-ethnic state and it was only in the post-Piłsudski period that sanacja moved rightward, becoming what JP had fought against. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at the talkpage, however, shows that the OP has mis-stated the crux somewhat. The question is not what Piłsudski believed for the state, or what his policies were, but what his personal opinions were about the Jewish citizens of Poland. I personally believe that that, unless discussed extensively enough to be relevant, is not useful as a part of the article - besides being too bloody speculative for my taste. Nevertheless, the point being made by the article in JGR might be reasonably considered to be orthogonal to the rebuttals provided. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In an interview following a 1918 anti-Jewish pogrom, Pilsudki remarked "I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of." Sourced to Beryl Wein. Triumph of Survival: The Story of the Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990. Mesorah Publications, 1990.
I am using a US Dept. of Justice Publication that is not available online as a source for an article on the Crips. I used the same format for documenting it as an offline book was used in another article. Another editor is removing it solely because he can't find it online. I have been told by admins before that offline sources are reliable , so I am taking them at their word. Could someone please look at the article and see if the format is correct and, if not, tell me how to correctly document it? Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I posted a link on your talk page where you can go to obtain your own copy since you apparently have some issue with having one emailed to you. You can feel free to get one straight from the source and find that everything I have said was 100% accurate. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problem with adding the product number or instructions. I do have a problem with certain editors implying that the publication doesn't exist just because they don't have access to the DOJ database. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is published somewhere. The problem is that the DOJ database isn't publicly accessible. I already said I would be happy to add the product number and the URL that I provided Metropolitan. Oddly, nothing I am putting in is outrageous or stretches the imagination. It is a single editor that is disputing the fairly pedestrian material. I may just publish it on wikipedia, then every editor who felt the need to add "if it exists" to their response can see it in full and realize that they weren't assuming good faith when they said it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the Lindsay Lohan article and I'm looking for some input regarding the Vanity Fair article from 2006. It contained claims regarding drug use and/or bulimia that were disputed by Lohan, but Vanity Fair stood by the article and there was never a lawsuit. The conflict is outlined at Vanity Fair (magazine)#Lindsay Lohan interview. Obviously if the specific disputed contents were included in the wikipedia article it'd need to be mentioned that Lohan disputed it, but can the rest of the VF article be used as a reliable source without special considerations? Siawase ( talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section from the John Lott article saying that the source wasn't reliable - and that the references weren't available, ie they don't work. Now I know Cybercast News Service is a conservative news agency and I'm not sure it's a RS for the claims in the deleted section. And in any case, the references are no longer available and this is not a paper newspaper. (I've looked for another RS and failed). Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of the Same is being cited by Feminists for Life. I believe this is an unreliable source, for the following reasons:
Since the relevant section of the article is about Sarah Palin, WP:BLP applies, raising the bar even higher. Tualha ( Talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if I may summarize so far (and reset the indentation):
Tualha ( Talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{unindent} For the record, I don't consider the TAC a reliable source, anything that looks reliable almost certainly is from elsewhere and should be sourced from there. I think we need to do something about its use elsewhere in WP. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate over the extent to which Watchtower Society publications can be used as source material for the pages about Jehovah's Witnesses. The debate also extends to the reliability of books published by former Jehovah's Witnesses.
Up til now, I have been guided by the wording of this template, where it mentions "sources affiliated with the subject of the article": "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page."
However, all I can find on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page are references to "self-published sources," rather than "sources affiliated with the subject of the article."
For example, "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
I'm not too sure whether the Watchtower Society's publications would be considered "self-published." Of course, they write and publish their own material. The Watchtower Society is a legal entity used by the religion, as far as I'm aware. Only baptised Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to work at the publishing presses of the Watchtower Society. Wikipedia lists self-published sources: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources." Watchtower Society publications aren't really like newsletters, personal websites etc. though, because it's a fairly large concern.
I believe that Watchtower Society publications have been referenced by third-party publications, but not as "work in the relevant field."
Another quote from Wikipedia: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." I confess I have been mis-reading this. I thought it said that "sources about themselves" may only be used if the article is not based primarily on such sources. It actually says that self-published sources may only be used as sources about themselves. That's the same thing, isn't it? Don't mind me.
On other hand, I'm currently checking out the reliability of a book by M.J. Penton. He was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses and so his work has been challenged by an editor on the basis that "only academic and journalistic monographs, essays or articles by people who had never been JWs could be really considered as third party sources." (underline his)
In regards to the definition of a third party source, the link from "third party" where I clicked it goes straight to the bullet list of what constitutes a primary, secondary and tertiary source. Therefore, I'm not too sure how you would define "third party."
Wikipedia says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."
M.J. Penton's 1985 book, Apocalypse Delayed, was published by University of Toronto Press.
I found 14 citations in journal articles or books on Google Scholar including: -Dawson in Nova Religio (University of California Press)(1999) -Hitchcock - The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples." Published by Princeton University Press (2004) -Walls - The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Published by Oxford University Press US (2007) -Wilson - The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. Published by Oxford University Press (1992)
Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above? Is there anything else I should be thinking of?
Mandmelon ( talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a website that is being used as a reference for various UK sitcom article pages. The site is http://www.phill.co.uk and the site owner calls it a "British TV Comedy" site, but upon closer inspection, the site seems to be little more than the personal website of a fan who likes UK comedy (the address of the site suggests this further). Details about some shows have very little relevant detail, and it appears what information is there was possibly just copied from IMDB or TV.com. There is also a commercial element to it as the site seems to be little more than a way for the site owner to make commission off Amazon sales (via various Amazon DVD links for the various shows it lists). Of course, this by itself is not necessarily a problem, but considering that the site (and its anonymous owner) are not a recognised authority on the subject, should this site be permitted as a valid reference source? 79.66.22.104 ( talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, are http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html and http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif reliable sources? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Bork, What is the source for what you say? Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, even if this is absolutely dinkum, which it may well be, it's just a report of how many people reported to the FDA that they had symptoms of various kinds which they themselves attributed to aspartame. In other words, J. Random Consumer drinks a Culaid Soda Lite straight from the fridge and gets an icecream headache. He's just read in a magazine that aspartame is deadly poison, so he phones the FDA and says he got a headache from drinking a soda that contains aspartame. They log it. What does this really prove? the source is really not a secondary source at all, as it is just a list of numbers, and definitely not interpreted by the FDA as implying that Aspartame is dangerous. -- Slashme ( talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Published articles that mention it include Sweet Talking from The Ecologist. Not a great source, but I feel it could be included. Also, looking through Google Books I found a Senate Committee record which discusses it. [56] Clearly it existed. II | ( t - c) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Would these websites be considered reliable sources? Specifically in regards to Linux-related topics? Can they be used to establish notability and critical commentary?
Thanks for your input. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Got a question - is this source ( http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=86442) reliable? Some folks are alleging it's "Azeri propaganda" and I truly have no idea. Kingnavland ( talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Let's start over. I would like to hear from someone who is neither Armenian nor Azeri about whether or not this is a reliable source. Kingnavland ( talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of the source is irrelevant. Look at the source's source: "Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia." It's not a defense source. It's a website, whose reliability we don't know. I say that until this can be corroborated by independent reporting, it should not be included. -- Golbez ( talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Hydrogen fuel enhancement]], Water-fuelled car, [[Oxyhydrogen]] , Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell , François_Isaac_de_Rivaz.
I'm a bit concerned with the reliability of the sources in climate change denial. First, a number of op-eds are used as a basis for the presentation of factual evidence. For example:
8. ^ a b Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
9. ^ Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect Peter Christoff. The Age AU.com, July 9, 2007
10. ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.
The claim is that since these are not the sole citation for the phrases which refer to these, that it's not a problem. My understanding of
WP:RS is that these references should nonetheless be deleted.
There are a couple other references which I would maintain are examples of opinion journalism; another editor maintains that they're "investigative journalism" and as such are kosher. They are
28. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (May 2006). "While Washington Slept". Vanity Fair. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
40. ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Rolling Stone. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.
They are not marked in the magazine specifically as op-eds, but the titles and the actual content of the pieces make it clear, in my opinion, that the articles are advocacy rather than neutral commentary, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions as clearly-marked op-eds.
Also, I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone as sources for this particular issue -- both magazines have pretty clear political leanings, and as such shouldn't be considered more reliable than, for example, National Review or similar political newsmagazines. (Along those lines, if VF and RS are considered reliable, would NR also be fair game?)
In any case, I think that the extensive use of op-eds and other slanted sources in this article contributes to a subtle but definite POV problem. I'm posting here because another editor disagrees with my assessment and suggested that I request additional input here. So any comments would be much appreciated! J. Langton ( talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:V says "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."
We have a question at several places on this article's talk page about whether an anonymous or pseudonymous "letter to the editor" or "comment" in a highly respected scientific journal on sexology can be considered a reliable source. The comment criticizes specific aspects of the research behind a psychological conception of transwomen, such as whether the correct kinds of control groups were used. It's (apparently) the only published critique on certain aspects of this idea, as (apparently) no professional has been willing to publicly own these specific critical comments (although various professionals have criticized other aspects of this conception). Some editors feel strongly that the comment should be accepted as a reliable source in the related Wikipedia articles. Others find it weak, even too weak to be accepted. Here's what we know about the three aspects of verifiability:
Is the fact that the journal itself is a reliable source "good enough" to meet WP:V standards? Do you generally accept anonymous or pseudonymous comments as reliable sources? For example, would you cite a letter to the editor in The New York Times if it was known that the author was not writing under his or her correct name? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It presumably matters to neutral editors how the source is being used. "Somebody wrote a pseudonymous letter" can be trivially supported by a ref to the letter itself: if a letter exists, then it was very clearly written. However, this pseudonymous source is being used to support "The following serious scientific charges have been made:", which requires a more robust source. I'm open to any outcome. I am, however, specifically seeking the opinion of experienced Wikipedia editors that are not involved in this issue in their real lives. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Letters to the editor, and similar non-vetted commentary, should be treated like self-published sources and op-ed pieces. In this instance, that would lean towards the exclusion of the source. Additionally, there are due weight concerns present here, as we should not be presenting extreme minority views of a topic. If a pseudonymous letter to the editor is the only source of the criticisms, it's unquestionably a violation of our policies and principles to present such a view in the mainspace. Vassyana ( talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with this discussion is that it was framed in such a way as to hide the bias and agenda of those who seek to suppress the source. While User:WhatamIdoing is typically less extreme that User:James Cantor, he follows pretty much the same agenda and POV. Cantor is on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the long commentary by Dreger that the editor Zucker characterized as "controversial" and "peer reviewed", along with 23 commenataries to it, and Dreger's response to those commentaries. Fourteen of the 23 commentaries have been counted as strongly critical of Dreger's article, conclusions, or methodology. Wyndzen's pseudonymous comment is one of these; she has also published other articles and a web site under this assumed name, to protect her identity as a transwoman and academic from those academic sexologists who in this dispute seem to be teamed up against poeple of her POV. The wiki tactic of the sexologists such as Cantor is to push the Dreger piece as reliable and authoritative, while arguing that the other side of the argument published in the same journal is unreliable, just "letters to the editor." There needs to be a way to balance Dreger whenever she is cited by talking about the other side as published there and commented on by her. I think that this can be easily achieved by being clear in the article about what opinion is being cited, and then referencing the journal for the letter that is the source of that opinion. Treating these letters as reliable sources for opinions is not the same as treating them as reliable sources for facts. So, with appropriate edits to the article, it should be possible to represent the opinions of Wyndzen and other commentators. Wyndzen's commentary is actually one of the most thoughtful and insightful and non-polarized of the lot, as it concerns the underlying scientific controversies, but is extremely critical of Dreger's approach and pro-Bailey conclusions; email me if you'd like a copy of the whole lot. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed recently that an editor O8TY ( talk · contribs) has been adding text and an external link since May to Doric order. [1] It has problems to my eye with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:QS, and WP:SPS. They are editing against consensus using multiple ips (see Doric history), and now spreading it to other articles. [2] I've already reverted so I can't block or protect, but I think they are being disruptive and spamming this link, and unreliably sourced theory. Not sure where else to post this. dvdrw 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Labouring under such trivial arguments, it is no wonder Wikipedia is such an incredibly long way behind FungiTecture.com. O8TY ( talk) 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is in response to the above complainants of fungitecture.com and is provided for the benefit of those readers who have stumbled across this page and are wondering what it is about.
This response should be read in conjunction with the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the following Wikipedia articles, which provide a record of this dispute:
Doric Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_order Ionic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_order Corinthian Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_order Form follows function - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function Mycenae - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae Aeolic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_order
The dispute begins with the insertion of select material from fungitecture.com into the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, and the subsequent removal of same by the above complainants, amongst others. Although fungitecture.com has since expunged most of its material from these Wikipedia articles, traces of the inserted material still exist in the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the Wikipedia articles dating from May 1 2008 through to the end of July 2008. The inserted material can also be viewed in its original context in corresponding articles at fungitecture.com.
It needs to be recognised that fungitecture.com only ever added material to the Wikipedia articles, and that no pre-existing material in the Wikipedia articles, except for spaces and punctuation marks, was ever overwritten or deleted by fungitecture.com. As the inserted material was also referenced back to fungitecture.com, Wikipedia readers were never denied access to the arguments supporting the inserted material at fungitecture.com, unlike the vast majority of other material pre-existing on Wikipedia. However, as none of the above complainants has published any objective criticism of the inserted material in the relevent sections of Wikipedia, but rather have schemed variously to denigrate fungitecture.com, such as posting to this Reliable Sources noticeboard, the complainants give the impression of themselves being insufficiently versed in the subject matters concerned and incapable of rational or reasoned argument.
Further support for this view may be gathered from the personal Wikipedia pages of the following complainants:
Wetman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wetman DVDRW - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DVD_R_W and archives Someguy1221 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someguy1221 Cluebot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot Mdebets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdebets The_Cat_and_the_Owl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_The_Cat_and_the_Owl El_Greco - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_Greco Michael Slone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Slone
While most of the above complainants have chosen to conceal their true identities through the use of faceless nicknames, their personal Wikipedia pages generally do not yield sufficient information to determine their level of education, experience or other competence in the relevent subjects, that includes but is not limited to ancient Greek culture, including its architecture, and mycology. Although one complainant claims to have attended a school of architecture, this is not the same as having graduated as an architect, and it is left to our imagination to determine the capacity and duration of the attendance, and indeed the reason for premature departure. But as none of the above complainants is prepared to let themselves be scrutinised as a reliable source, none of the above complainants can themselves be regarded as a reliable source, let alone a reliable or qualified critic of fungitecture.com.
The first objection to the material, as evidenced in the "History" section of the Doric Order article, was raised by Wetman, who ventured to remove the initial entry made by o8TY of fungitecture.com on May 1, 2008. As Wetman provided no objective reason for this removal, the material was promptly reinstated by o8TY. What followed was a series of alternating removals by Wetman and the other complainants, many of whom have been active in editing various Wikipedia pages for many years, and then reinstatements mostly made by o8TY. However, even at this early stage of proceedings, many of the removals were accompanied by a variety of subjective comments, some of which could be classed as uncivil according to the Wikipedia's policy on Civility. After a few rounds of removal/reinstatement, Wetman then extracted the disputed text to the Doric Order "Discussion" page and appended a comment to this action. In this comment, Wetman admits "Dorus is an invented eponym" (ie an invented name), which contradicts the widely espoused view that the Doric style of architecture was attributed to the Dorian peoples, but which in no way refutes the interpretation of the name "Doric" offered by fungitecture.com. Having thus placed the entire Wikipedian, and possibly Western, understanding of the Doric style in jeopardy, Wetman then attempts to undermine the rationalisation of the Doric temple provided by fungitecture.com as "...a private dream". Upon exposing Wetman for his contradiction and ad hominem, Wetman then childishly blurts: "Adult supervision of this article is urgently requested. The account O8TY was opened for the purpose of inserting this intentionally disruptive nonsense". As if Wetman could presume as much.
Wetman then proceeded to post excerpts from fungitecture.com together with disparaging remarks upon various Wikipedia pages, including upon pages that fungitecture.com had not previously inserted any of its material or had otherwise shown any involvement (eg Aeolic). By this action, Wetman has not only violated the fungitecture.com Terms of Use, but shown disrespect for the intellectual property of others. Furthermore, by posting false and misleading information concerning fungitecture.com, Wetman has demonstrated incompetence or a deliberate intention to mislead. However, as none of the above or other complainants of fungitecture.com, some of whom may also be administrators of Wikipedia, has notified fungitecture.com or o8TY, whether privately or through Wikipedia, of any attempt to censure Wetman for these actions, fungitecture.com can only regard these other complainants as acting in league with Wetman and not without prejudice.
Further indications of collusion and bias may be gathered from the above sequence of posts by the complainants. The first post by Dvdrw occured at 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC), which was followed five minutes later by that of Someguy1221 at 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) and then fourteen minutes later again by Dvdrw at 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Thus, within five minutes of Dvdrw having posted the initial complaint, Someguy1221 purports to have independently discovered and read the initial post by Dvdrw, to have opened and thoroughly "checked" the thirty-odd pages then comprising fungitecture.com, and to have composed and posted a reply in support of Dvdrw. Strangely, however, site activity logs at fungitecture.com do not show any extensive visitation to its website in the hours immediately preceeding these times. Notwithstanding superfast internet connections and superhuman reading and typing abilities, the rapid sequence of posts suggests a collusion between Dvdrw and Someguy1221 in their attempt to denigrate fungitecture.com. However, as the complainants have only ever posted subjective opinions of fungitecture.com and have altogether failed to objectively address any of the scholarly material at fungitecture.com, the complainants can only be viewed as acting from personal bias rather than in the academic interests of an encyclopedia ("all-round-education"). Indeed, the lack of objective criticism from any of the complainants, together with their collective failure to identify and address any of the ancient sources from which fungitecture.com compiled its material, suggests the complainants are not well versed in the subject matters concerned.
An inspection of the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, as it existed before the insertion of any fungitecture.com material on May 1, 2008, is also instructive for what it reveals about the calibre of the complainants of fungitecture.com, many of whom had been editing or contributing to this and associated Wikipedia articles for many years. Besides being poorly written and containing numerous syntactical, terminological and other delinquencies of fact, the article fails to adequately address the origins, essence and intent of the style. Instead, the article devotes considerable space to a supposed design flaw, yet fails to convey the triviality of this issue, nor the context that fostered this issue. To make matters worse, the article draws heavily upon the writings of the Roman architectural historian Marcus Vitruvius Pollio who, besides admitting to having never practised as an architect himself, has long been regarded as an unreliable source due to the overwhelming number of errors, ommissions, inconsistencies, biases and other failings in his treatise. With the "Doric Order" article thus already grossly polluted with erroneous, misinformed and unreliable source material, the complainants of fungitecture.com do not present as capable correspondents, let alone strict adherents of Wikipedia policy.
Having thus exposed the complainants of fungitecture.com for numerous and diverse deficiencies, a picture emerges of a perverse class of self-appointed Wikipedia editors unable to comprehend nor objectively deal with scholarly material beyond their own misguided beliefs and limited understandings, yet willing to gang together in some vain attempt to denigrate the learned. For this and other reasons, fungitecture.com has sought to remove its material from the Wikipedia website and has withdrawn its consent to Wikipedia and its successors from further using any fungitecture.com material.
But with Wikipedia itself widely regarded as an unreliable source, not least because of its ever changing content, this Reliable Sources noticeboard can only be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. O8TY ( talk) 12:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"? Tripping Nambiar ( talk · contribs) is blanking cited material in the article Sangh Parivar [3] [4]. The book is written by Sheldon Pollock, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Homi K. Bhabha. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify an important point people seem to miss all the time: Nothing is a reliable source for "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" *If* the book is reliable (which I haven't looked into), it could be a reliable source for the statement "The authors of the book Cosmopolitan have described Sangh Parivar as a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations." Do you see the important distinction there? The existence of a reliable source saying something (again, not saying this one is reliable) does not mean that that something is true, just that they SAID that. Wikipedia does not take sides in such issues, we just report what reliable sources say and let the readers decide for themselves. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:
Jayen 466 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed above and determined to be self-published, which I agree with. However, might it still be a reliable source? It has apparently been published by Peter Samuel (we have an article about him, but I'm not sure if he's actually notable) for 13 years. He does seem to be recognized as an expert - and of course as a pro-toll road advocate. Would it be acceptable to use facts about specific roads, such as from [6] in Adams Avenue Parkway? -- NE2 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
CombinedFleet.com [7] is an oft-used reference for Wikipedia articles related to the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Pacific War of World War II. During the FAC for the Battle of Tassafaronga, someone questioned the reliability of the site as a source. Since the same concern may come up again, as I'm using the site as a source in another article that I plan on nominating for FAC once it's ready, I thought that I should get some other opinions on it in advance.
I believe the site is reliable because the site owners are Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, authors of the book Shattered Sword, a source used in a variety of Wikipedia articles, especially the Battle of Midway which is a featured article. Perhaps more important, though, is that the site lists its sources of information here and here. Those two lists represent a definitive work of English Pacific War literature. If the site's operators are reputable, published authors and they clearly list the sources of their information, and those sources are valid primary and secondary sources, does that make the site a reliable, secondary source? Cla68 ( talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This small section of a
much larger dispute contains the assertion that Wikipedia rules are flexible enough to allow using Polish Wikipedia as a source if your goal is to create articles about every Polish village. Anybody care to comment on that assertion?
Kww (
talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Following some feedback I offered at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Screaming Trees discography, I would like some assistance here in figuring out if the following sites are considered reliable or not:
I have opposed the FLC based on these sources, because they appear to be fansites and stat sites built by someone in their bedroom with too much time on their hands. The FLC nominator insists they are Reliable though. My issue with clipland.com is the fact that Firefox blocked two pop-ups for me, and because uses pop up ads, it shouldn't be used. Additionally, it is being used to reference the director of a music video, and it does this by linking to a YouTube-hosted video. It was my thought that YouTube does not meet WP:RS.
Any help that can be given on this is appreciated. Thank you. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A British scientist, Michael Atiyah, was accused of academic misconduct by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju. There are several sources involved and a heated discussion on this talk page. The specific question I have regards a petition signed by several eminent academics in support of Raju.
In this petition, several eminent academics, like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon, and others ( see complete list of signatories)supported Raju's position. They stated that there is a "prima facie case that [Raju's] work was initially suppressed" and expressed their "suspicion that there are no answers to Raju’s charges".
Given that the academics involved are very eminent, should this petition be considered a RS?
thanks, Perusnarpk ( talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could we please stick to the topic. This section is about whether a petition signed by eminent academics can be used as an RS. Yes, Stephan, I would like to use it as a source to show that the controversy exists. Perusnarpk ( talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hell, before a petition like this can even be discussed as possibly being a RS itself we'd need a RS or three that the petition itself was truly signed by those people, that those people have any real notability ( User:Perusnarpk just asserted they were eminent and expected us to accept him at his word) and that they endorse what the petition says and that it's notable. Lots of activist groups out to mislead others (fringe science groups, political groups, etc.) claim that groups of important people signed things and say whatever and then turn out to be false or misleading. Some conservative groups are running around now claiming that an entire scientific body now refutes global warning based basically upon a the content of a letter to the editor in a regional newsletter (so the whole group does not dispute global warning in the slightest), and Bigfoot supporters and Creationism true believers and paranormalists routinely talk about eminent scientists supporting their causes who only end up being engineers or high school teachers or those holding degrees in theology. A petition by its very nature cannot be a RS, in my opinion, as a true RS has to say if it means anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Newbie User:Perusnarpk has elsewhere shown that he is fully aware of the editing restrictions imposed by ArbCom on User:Bharatveer. This would suggest that he has had previous editing experience and is possibly a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer. Please could some administrator investigate this so that good faith editors do not have to waste more of their time on him? Please also look at User:Abhimars. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The source is a self-published website so comes under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. The information is also available on the internet, but mainly in forums and blogs - which are discouraged. There is a letter published by the American Mathematical Society which would be a reliable souce, but the letter doesn't reveal much. This is just under borderline stuff - it does suggest that while there is a petition, that the petition has not yet achieved the status of being notable. It appears that there is not enough reliable sources yet for an article, and not enough perhaps to support even a mention in a parent article, given the controversial nature of the topic. SilkTork * YES! 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have a slightly unusual situation, and I hope someone can shed some light. Generally, blogs and forums should never be used as refs because they are unreliable. However, I wonder if they can be considered a reliable ref in a couple of types of statements in a Wikipedia article:
To me, naively perhaps, it seems that claims about the existence of something on the web are best referenced simply by a link to that thing, which must by definition be reliable, rather than to a secondary source, which itself might be questioned. Furthermore, if there is no such secondary source, what else could one do?
Specifically, I am trying to work out what is a reliable ref for a statement in the Robot article . The statement is: "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots,". The three original refs were: [12] [13] [14]. These refs link directly to the discussions themselves. Not that the article is not claiming that these discussions are reliable, it's just claiming that they exist. However two of them were removed per WP:EL.
If anyone could comment, I'd be very grateful. Rocketmagnet ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
←Exactly. Rocket and I have had a few discussions about this, and I support his goal, I just don't think we can get those particular two links to fly because of what happens in other articles when similar links are inserted, and the distaste the community has for discussion boards (as reflected in policy and guidelines, as well as practice on this page). But we can and should illustrate the point, by pointing to vigorous discussion, that one thing that's different about the Robot article is that no one knows what the heck one is; all anyone can agree on is "I know one when I see one". - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this sort of thing is primarily a question of notability. The blogs or forums should not be linked, nor mentioned, unless there is a reliable source specifically referring to these blogs or forums. If there are such mentions in RS, then text references to the websites concerned are enough, cited to the RS. Links to the blogs or forums themselves are not necessary. Jayen 466 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Any opinion on the legitimacy of this source would be appreciated. http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/02-Sumerian-Mythology-History.html Please note at the top of the text: "This article is from the Sumerian Mythology FAQ, by Christopher Siren cbsiren@cisunix.unh.edu with numerous contributions by others" and links to sources; http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/19-Sources-Sumerian-Mythology.html I have tried to expalin the principle of "Cite the place where you found the material" on the Uruk talk page, but the reverter is insisting that "*Your* source must be the reliable one, not the source's sources." This is basically saying you can only go on secondary sources, and that all tertiary sources are questionable enough to have information removed from the article. Mdw0 ( talk) 05:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this be regarded as a RS for articles on UK roads? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
SABRE is used widely by Wiki editors with an interest in and knowledge of roads. It is an organisation, rather than an individual. The information is peer reviewed and constantly updated. It is considered by those with an interest in UK roads to be the most up-to-date and informative source on road information in the UK. SABRE would be consulted for each UK road article on Wikipedia and given as an external link. But should SABRE then be cited as a reliable source for points that may be challenged? Well, WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that to a certain extent applies to SABRE. At the same time we have Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources, into which SABRE sort of falls, which says "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics." So its reliability would depend on the reputation of those in charge of SABRE these people. Though many of them have their own websites, they are not published authors in the conventional sense - they are in the same sense of an editor on Wikipedia. So, SABRE is widely consulted and trusted in constructing a road article on Wikpedia, and - like IMDB - can be and is used as an external link in a road article. But in terms of using it as a definative source to support a challengable item in a road article it should not be regarded as reliable. In short - SABRE can be used as a source of information for writing an article, but not as an authoritative expert source in a dispute. SilkTork * YES! 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There's a bit of an edit war going on with the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final article. Both myself and another user have been constantly reverting an IP address who continuously adds two references to the article, claiming both to be valid. However, PeeJay (the other user) has stated that the two references—which happen to be a blog and a Q&A-esque article—are not valid, though the IP continues to disagree. Both PeeJay and I are convinced that the two references are not a valid reference point and I was hoping to get feedback.
2008 UEFA Champions League Final ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help if possible. :) – LATICS talk 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask, whethere columns like this or this are reliable source. Thanx for help.-- Kozuch ( talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article for Natalie Coughlin currently references Sports Illustrated for her results from the 2004 Olympic Games. Is Sports Illustrated a reliable source under WP:Sources or should the article instead reference the official Olympic results database maintained by the IOC?
The problem with the official database is that you cannot jump straight to a page for a competitior/event but rather have to fill in a search/query form to access specific information. However, it is certainly "the horse's mouth".
Thanks. Sitush ( talk) 07:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Swimming World magazine has the most comprehensive stats IMHO. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
User conduct complaint, reposted on
WP:AN/I.
|
---|
User:Trip Johnson, who also uses User talk:82.28.237.200, is continuing to make edits that favor the British in military history. He has been blocked for this before, and I have asked him many times(he blanks his talk page)to stop doing this, or at least add a source. He never does. Here are some of his more recent changes. At least there was an edit summary for this one These are just a few of many, many, many thigns he has done. I hope you understand, I am quite tired of asking him to source things, and reverting his edits. He does not listen to anyone, admins or non-admins, has called everyone on this site a "dickhead" and told me I'm an "asshole". I am not the only editor who has experienced problems with him, you may ask these two, who I know have had some experiences with him.
User:Tanthalas39 I simply do not know what to do anymore. I really don't know what can be done, as he is not really doing anything that can get him blocked, but anyways, I figured I'd see what can be done. Red4tribe ( talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe ( talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
|
There's a discussion regarding if sohu.com is a reliable source. A comment from [26] has been used in Cradle of civilization, and the source has been challenged. SilkTork * YES! 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Bo Derek article, the text - She supported Rudolph W. Giuliani's abortive bid for the Republican nomination in 2008. - comes with this source; [27]. I cann't find anything relating to the text, should I remove both text and reference? Talsurrak ( talk) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done and done. Thanks for the help. Talsurrak ( talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember that it is either unacceptable, or considered poor form, to simply drop a reference in the "External links" section of an article and then invite other editors to use that as a source for substantive edits. I remember this allegedly bad conduct being referred to as "source solicitation". Any suggestions on where I might have seen this or whether it is in fact a policy? Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the websites MuslimHeritage.com and History of Science and Technology in Islam reliable sources for claims pertaining to the history of science? JFD ( talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
With regards to The History of Science and Technology in Islam, I was specifically concerned with instances where A.Y. Hassan's views either conflict with or are not reflected in the mainstream literature (i.e. third-party, published sources), especially with regard to "firsts" or claims of invention. JFD ( talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One editor has attempted to use as a reference on lexicography a person (Grant Barrett) who has no apparent academic credentials (after an extensive web search, I've been unable to discover where he got his education or what his degree is in - even on web pages affiliated with him it's absent) and has no record of having peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals (a Google search turned up nothing). Lexicography is the study of the meaning of words and to his credit this source did co-write a book with James Carville, a highly paid spin doctor, on the subject. But his book doesn't appear to be referenced by any scholar working in the field. His writings appear to be completely of the popular (Dr. Phil/Sean Hannity) sort, writing in newspapers and the like. My instincts are to just dismis this source out of hand, but the consensus appears to be to support the source. Third party opinions are desired. - 66.213.90.2 ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- 198.97.67.59 ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
To summarize, your points are
That's a fine precedent set for reliable sources on scholarly subjects, Blueboar. I'm certain that editors who support intelligent design, anti-global warming, etc. will be very happy to see that sources don't have to be written by people with actual academic credentials to be considered reliable academic sources.- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As this edit makes clear, Barrett is being cited via a reader comment he made; this is a completely different story, I think. It's not subject to any editorial review; we don't normally cite forums and blogs for this reason. His status as an author/commentator is not enough to make him a recognized expert of that sort whose blog would be cited, never mind a random comment on a web page. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we call this done? Blueboar ( talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that while Barrett is, in principle, RS, I have some reservations about the use to which this source is being used in the context of the article. First, "Double-tongued Dictionary" strikes me as pretty close to SPS. I don't think it's excluded, but I don't think it should have the same weight as books or newspaper articles, which presumably have been through some sort of formal review/editing process. More importantly, the unqualified classification of "anchor baby" as derogatory is sourced to a comment on DTD, and as such, that really isn't RS, in my opinion. J. Langton ( talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Due to its constantly changing nature, Wikipedia itself cannot be considered a reliable source.
For further discussion of Wikipedia as a reliable source, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Hence this Reliable Sources page must be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Removal of this notice from this section will confirm that Wikipedia is not a reliable sources. O8TY ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
O8TY ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on the WikiProject Law talk page has preliminary concluded that newspaper articles generally are not WP:Reliable sources on the law:
The issue of whether a journalist's characterization of the law is a reliable source is, I think, still murky. My experience in areas where I am an expert (IP law, not immigration law) is that journalists get it wrong all the time. I gave a specific example germane to this specific discussion, above, but that's just one of many. Reporters confuse copyrights with trademarks, and patent applications with patents. A couple days ago I wrote to a journalist who erroneously reported that Gregory Reyes was in prison; the reporter assumed that because he was sentenced, he must be in prison by now, having no idea that he could be out on bond pending appeal. Based on countless examples like this, I do not think a news article that states what the law is is a reliable source for what the law is.
Terjen ( talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in a debate about this with anyone, but I want to know if http://www.mcmaster.com is a reliable source, because it does have a lot of useful information on it that might be useful in various metalworking articles. I use it almost everyday at my job (as an engineer), but I don't know if it would pass here on wikipedia. Thanks! -- Wizard191 ( talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is an unpublished Master's thesis that is approved by an expert committee and filed in the university library considered a reliable source? -- Cfthorman ( talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What do people think about using information from the following website
in the AA article? Peele is a noted critic of AA as well as an award winning and widely published expert on addiction treatment. People on the AA page are stating that Peele does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. I don't think this is correct. Can I get an independant opinion or 2? Many thanks. Step13thirteen ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd broadly agree with that. Won't get into the debate about whether there is concensus on addiction or not for Peele to contradict, but certainly I would be unlikely to use him in the AA article for anything other than criticism.
I would say that his views are only controversial if we take a US-centric look at addiction. In the UK, Canada and many other countries, his views on treatment (if not on AA) would be considered pretty close to the mainstream.
Anyone else? Many thanks, again. Step13thirteen ( talk) 19:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had some problems with an SPA/sockpuppet ( Special:Contributions/Proxy_User) over at Camp 1391 who insists on tagging the article as POV, but stubbornly refuses to say what may be POV about it. I think I have managed to figure out that the user don't like newspapers that don't present " The Truth" being used as a source. So now I bring this matter here to get a second opinion on the sources used in the article. // Liftarn ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this youtube link on the Kate Walsh biographical article; YouTube. Do this link constitute as a reliable source link or as a copyright violation? Talsurrak ( talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Cinemetrics is being used at Long take as a source for data on the average shot lengths for different films. The data at the site is posted by the site's owner (or administrator), who is a film scholar, and also posted by visitors to the site who are not anybody in particular. The submissions are presumably filtered for nonsense, but don't seem to be verified in any substantial way. All of the data is in the films themselves, though, so they could conceivably be verified by anybody willing to put in the effort. Is this a reliable source?
I have a (friendly) disagreement with another editor about this-- I hope I'm accurately representing the situation. See a short exchange we had at Talk:Long_take#Cinemetrics_is_RS?. Staecker ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Accordin to it's article, Phoenix TV is a TV station operated in Hong Kong and owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. The dispute is at [33], where a couple of FLG editors insists on the removal of a Phoenix TV report critical of FLG's views, insisting that it's propaganda based on the simple fact that the TV station allowed to be boardcasted in mainland China, and according to them, The Chinese Communist Party controls all the media in China and they decide what is reported and what isn't. No media can report what it wants, it must report within the framework set by the Party. No media which broadcasts in China can report anything other than what the Party says on Falun Gong. So how does one decide what and what isn't propaganda?-- PCPP ( talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is CIA factbook taken so easily as a source in (English) Wikipedia? Nearly every article on a country uses it. This is an organization that has been Multiple Times exposed to be involved in corrupt operations of disinformation and para-military acts. Apotetios ( talk) 11:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook is a subset of the basic intelligence compiled by the CIA to inform their analysis in support of intelligence requirement tasking. The information contained therein is an unclassified consolidation of information, all of which could be sourced elsewhere, however the world factbook is easily available. If there is an issue with material contained within it, and there are alternate sources which contradict it, then that contradiction can be drawn out in the text of the article. That said, the current guidance around reliability doesn't actually allow source assessment, which is a frustration for any professional.
Questions about the conduct of the CIA are largely irrelevant to the use of the factbook, as the intelligence contained is so basic there is little room for interpretation; borders, economy, demographics etc. It doesn't come to any conclusions, which is the key issue. The criticisms of the CIA in general tend to revolve around actions or interpretations which may use basic intelligence as a contributor. In assessing the use of the source it's worth making that distinction. The CIA world factbook is a source of information, not analysis.
ALR ( talk) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this example acceptable? { http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Madoc&curid=796416&diff=232759600&oldid=232751911] It's a personal web page/forum, and we wouldn't allow it as an external link. I removed it on that basis but as you can see the editor has replaced it. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
John Todd (occultist) seems to have massive WP:RS problems, and, given the provenance of some of the information in the article, quite possibly also WP:BLP problems as well (since we have no information from conventional sources that he is, in fact, dead). -- The Anome ( talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
is http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php a reliable source? the blog has reposted an article from a college newspaper. assuming the school paper in question is a reliable source, would reposting a reliable source's article onto a blog make the blog a reliable source? the original source is unavailable, as there is no website for the school paper, so there is no way to verify that this is an accurate reposting of the original article. Theserialcomma ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo I have had a disareement with Phil Sandifer over the use of secondary sources such as Luke Ski to prove notability of Spoo. Sandifer claims that the fact that Ski recorded a song which contained a reference to a food from Babylon 5, Spoo. Trivial mentions aside, I haven't been able to find much to confirm Ski's notability or use as a reliable source (the latter half being more important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question here. I was reading through WP:RS and saw the phrase Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Does the term opinion piece refer to things like movie, concert, or play reviews? Or for that matter, music album reviews, such as the reviews at NME? (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context." A source can be reliable for a fact, but if it also has opinions those can not be reported as fact based on that source. The opinions can perhaps be reported as opinions in that case. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to add here, largely for anyone looking at the archives in the future, that this discussion has nothing to do with scientific reviews, systematic reviews, or law reviews. This discussion only applies to literary and entertainment-related reviews. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A question has been raised about whether this citation properly supports the content. The objection is that the NC Bar Association does not have authority to discuss academic issues. However, it is contended that the source is reliable, and authority is not a wiki requirement for a citation.
"On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context."
citation footnote: Use of the Title "Doctor" in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007. Unable to directly link, but can be found through this site Use of the title in academic circles is rare, but does occur, as related in this forum.
Please see the [ discussion page] for the debate. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I do not understand the term "reliable source". If the New York Times, New York Post, & for art, Art in America or Art News, as well as books written by Lucy Lippard, Public Art Fund, NYU Press or New York State Council on the Arts do not count as "reliable sources", then what do I have to do to satisfy that requirement? - unsigned comment by 76.248.147.100 ( talk · contribs)
I'd appreciate some input on the "list of famous Anglophiles" at Anglophilia, I've given my own run-down on which are reliable here, but I'd like to get a second, third, or fourth opinion. Responses to the talk page if possible, if not here. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this be considered a reliable source? It seems to be used quite a bit. Here is their list of authors [37]. (I ran into this on the John Michell (writer) page where someone seems to think this is actually the online Britannica - ironically Michell's article on the Druids claims, incorrectly, that modern scholarship tends to think Stonehenge to be a Celtic (ie Druid) temple). Doug Weller ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As per this (part way down, the third bolded "comment" section), could someone tell me if this is a reliable source?
Please see: "The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)"
Could we determine if this is actually a reliable source or not? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
At the V8 Supercars article a user revert an edit and challenging me [38]. Since it's sourced from V8 Supercars I think it's a rather big claim to make (being the third biggest sport) since Australia has a number of large sports and I feel that a third part source is needed. Bidgee ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'review' is the 2 line anonymous comment on John Michell (writer) at this link [39] So far as I can tell from here [40] it isn't much harder to submit a book review to Bookwatch then it is to Amazon (slightly, but not much). My opinion is that this isn't a RS (although some reviews might be ok if they were authored by people who might be considered RS?). Doug Weller ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of the sourcing in this article is to primary-source self-published websites. Can someone go through and check which ones are reliable and which ones aren't? I'm sort of inclined to say none are reliable. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this site reliable? The reasons for its reliability are:
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=48478&n_tit=Meet+Bollywood%92s+New+Bee+Genelia+D%92souza (a news article) is basically used to cite this statement: (Genelia D'Souza was born on August 5, 1987 in Mumbai..) Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is howardbloom.net RS? I found it in the article War against Islam. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an on-going discussion about the reliablily of iTunes as a source, specifically the release of "iTunes only tracks", at Talk:All Hope Is Gone (album)#iTunes Bonus Track inclusion: original research. If there is a previous discussion about iTunes please direct us to it and feel free to let your thoughts on the matter known. Thank you. Black ngold29 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is
http://www.stratfor.com/ (
stratfor) considered a reliable source? It seems to me that sources used in Wikipedia should be available to all users without requiring payment of a subscription fee with auto renewal by charging your credit card and further requires you to provide all your personal information in order to verify the source used. Wouldn't finding other more easily obtainable and verifiable sources more prudent?
I refuse to pay a monthly, auto-renewal, subscription fee in order to verify a source.(
talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you --
Jmedinacorona Struck my refuse to pay a subscription remark, oops. :) --
Jmedinacorona (
talk) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
A heated debated ensues about the use of posts in the Chronicle of Higher Education Forums in an article about Eastern Mediterranean University [41], first in mediation [42] and then in the talk page for the article [43]
The crux of the argument is that "Forums usually don't count, unless frequented by academics, and this is the case here." [44] It is also suggested in the same post that it might be good to cite the source but explain the nature of the forum (so readers would be able to evaluate it's reliability.
Thanks.-- 2knowledgeable ( talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[45] - Is this reliable? A lot of PA highway articles are using it and so was I. Deigo ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
http://history-world.org/: reliable source or not? See especially http://history-world.org/who.htm. I looked up our own (near-orphan, somewhat poorly cited) article on Robert Guisepi. I can't tell whether to presume this is a solid source; I detect a (slight) whiff of crackpottery in the article but can't tell whether that reflects the late Dr. Guisepi or our contributors. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some debate as to varying sources with differing birth years for the French actress Audrey Tautou. There has been some discussion at Talk:Audrey Tautou and WP:RFPP#Audrey Tautou. I would appreciate having a few other experienced editors to take a look at the references linked in the article, the talk page and the RFPP discussion to see if there is a clear cut answer or if the current compromise of listing both years in the article is best. Cheers, caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to The Village Pump. Contents of the discussion are preserved there as an archive. Protonk ( talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I swear I asked here about this exact source before but I can't find anything in the archives so here I am. Rosencomet has been using http://www.murugabooker.com/ace.html as a source for a number of articles. I had a long discussion with him about its WP:RS status on Talk:Merl Saunders back in Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 here. The source in question, titled EXPANDING THE FRONTIERS OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, has a number of problems as a reliable source. I think the shortcomings will be obvious to many WP editors.
Now I know this source isn't remotely a RS and I've explained as much to Rosencomet, including pointing him to both WP:V and WP:RS many times over many months in different situations, but he seems confused as to the distinctions between independent and reliable. Unfortunately, because of past conflicts between Rosencomet and myself, he tends to discount my editorial judgments when such opinions conflict with his. So I wanted to get a little feedback about the source, hoping that he might be convinced by other opinions. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a wiki, but it is owned by a (presumably for-profit) company. They display advertisements from type foundries and the like on their site. Can this be considered a reliable source for typography related material? What about NPOV and COI? VasileGaburici ( talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I need some help. On the page for
David Michael Jacobs a site was referenced that I am questioning as a reliable source. It's the personal website of one of his former clients. Could someone please take a look at this site:
http://www.ufoalienabductee.com] and render an opinion on its reliability for a wiki page on a living person? Thank you very much.
Fiona2211814 (
talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a question about usage of the above audio interview source in the biographical article David Miscavige, because that audio interview is hosted on BlogTalkRadio. A Request for Comment has been opened to assess community viewpoints on this. Please weigh in at Talk:David Miscavige#Request for Comment. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Kopp, Carlo. "RAAF strike force merge". Retrieved June 15, 2008.
I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Rockdetector: On its own page about Rockdetector it has positive responses from Digby Pearson- Managing Director of Earache Records; and Blabbermouth, a reliable source, which is hosted by Roadrunner Records (further feedback from Blabbermouth can be seen here and here). And such sources give Rockdetector positive feedback as well: here and the introduction of this. Is this proof enough of reliability of that source? Thanks for answer(s).-- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone have a look on this, please?!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've pulled some links to a few unreliable sources like stormfront.org, rense.com, and some others - thought I'd mention it here for feedback, and in case others would like to pitch in, or add to my list. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Jeremy Treglown's Roald Dahl: A Biography a reliable source? marbeh raglaim ( talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Wikipedia Review we have a discussion about the use of a self-published blog that struck me as being entirely unsatisfactory under WP:SELFPUB. See this edit [50] and related talk page discussion. It strikes me as not being allowed by policy, and that if one allows opinions of bloggers on their favorite or unfavorite websites we will be overwhelmed with such stuff. However, there is disagreement from that perspective.-- Janeyryan ( talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent -- Only two editors have agreed that self-pub is relevant here. Using self-pub in this manner in fact undermines the very policy. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Is_this_an_example_of_a_.27self_published_and_questionable_source.27.3F for further information and further disagreement. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the following two sources reliable for the information they provide on Jasmin St. Claire?:
Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
A recent discussion and an edit war on a Featured article Józef Piłsudski concerns the reliability and due weight of the following source: David Cymet. "Polish State Anti-Semitism as a Major Factor Leading to the Holocaust." Journal of Genocide Research. (June 1999), Volume 1 Issue 2. This source is used to support the following statement: "Cymet cites the interview as evidence that "Pilsudski not only fully shared at this early date the eliminationist goal of Dmovski but that he was doing his best to achieve that goal." In other words, it is a veiled way of saying that Piłsudski is an anti-semite, a rather exceptional claim (for starters, a claim not present before in this Featured article, and contradicted by sources present in it that describe Piłsudski's opposition to anti-semitism). There is a plethora of reliable, academic sources that claim exactly the opposite: Here is an academic book that states simply: "Piłsudski was not an anti-semite". Here is another work stating exactly the same: "Pilsudski was no antisemite". Here is another one, stating that the "Purpose of Piłsudski... was to weaken the antisemitic endecja camp". Here: "When Pilsudski assumed power, anti-semitic violence ended". Here: "Under Pilsudski, the party opposed anti-semitism".
Journal of Genocide Research is a reliable publication, but per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now, I cannot find any indication that David Cymet published any other academic work but this single piece. I cannot find indication that his work is cited. I cannot find any information on David Cymet, an academic (or even as a widely known amateur historian). In other words, it appears that this controversial claim is supported by a work of dubious reliability (I have read his article, it contains few citations, some errors and a lot of emotional, biased language, for example from the very first para: "Poland... holds the loot plundered from millions of murdered and executed Jews"; later in the article Cymet writes about Piłsudski: "His sinister words and the bloody actions of the army under his command..." - and so on).
In conclusion, I find this source rather unreliable, and certainly not an exceptional source needed to support an exceptional claim that Piłsudski - an important figure in interwar politics - was an anti-semite.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely inappropriate. There is no doubt whatsoever that Piłsudski believed in a multi-ethnic state and it was only in the post-Piłsudski period that sanacja moved rightward, becoming what JP had fought against. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at the talkpage, however, shows that the OP has mis-stated the crux somewhat. The question is not what Piłsudski believed for the state, or what his policies were, but what his personal opinions were about the Jewish citizens of Poland. I personally believe that that, unless discussed extensively enough to be relevant, is not useful as a part of the article - besides being too bloody speculative for my taste. Nevertheless, the point being made by the article in JGR might be reasonably considered to be orthogonal to the rebuttals provided. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In an interview following a 1918 anti-Jewish pogrom, Pilsudki remarked "I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of." Sourced to Beryl Wein. Triumph of Survival: The Story of the Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990. Mesorah Publications, 1990.
I am using a US Dept. of Justice Publication that is not available online as a source for an article on the Crips. I used the same format for documenting it as an offline book was used in another article. Another editor is removing it solely because he can't find it online. I have been told by admins before that offline sources are reliable , so I am taking them at their word. Could someone please look at the article and see if the format is correct and, if not, tell me how to correctly document it? Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I posted a link on your talk page where you can go to obtain your own copy since you apparently have some issue with having one emailed to you. You can feel free to get one straight from the source and find that everything I have said was 100% accurate. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problem with adding the product number or instructions. I do have a problem with certain editors implying that the publication doesn't exist just because they don't have access to the DOJ database. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is published somewhere. The problem is that the DOJ database isn't publicly accessible. I already said I would be happy to add the product number and the URL that I provided Metropolitan. Oddly, nothing I am putting in is outrageous or stretches the imagination. It is a single editor that is disputing the fairly pedestrian material. I may just publish it on wikipedia, then every editor who felt the need to add "if it exists" to their response can see it in full and realize that they weren't assuming good faith when they said it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the Lindsay Lohan article and I'm looking for some input regarding the Vanity Fair article from 2006. It contained claims regarding drug use and/or bulimia that were disputed by Lohan, but Vanity Fair stood by the article and there was never a lawsuit. The conflict is outlined at Vanity Fair (magazine)#Lindsay Lohan interview. Obviously if the specific disputed contents were included in the wikipedia article it'd need to be mentioned that Lohan disputed it, but can the rest of the VF article be used as a reliable source without special considerations? Siawase ( talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section from the John Lott article saying that the source wasn't reliable - and that the references weren't available, ie they don't work. Now I know Cybercast News Service is a conservative news agency and I'm not sure it's a RS for the claims in the deleted section. And in any case, the references are no longer available and this is not a paper newspaper. (I've looked for another RS and failed). Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of the Same is being cited by Feminists for Life. I believe this is an unreliable source, for the following reasons:
Since the relevant section of the article is about Sarah Palin, WP:BLP applies, raising the bar even higher. Tualha ( Talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if I may summarize so far (and reset the indentation):
Tualha ( Talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{unindent} For the record, I don't consider the TAC a reliable source, anything that looks reliable almost certainly is from elsewhere and should be sourced from there. I think we need to do something about its use elsewhere in WP. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate over the extent to which Watchtower Society publications can be used as source material for the pages about Jehovah's Witnesses. The debate also extends to the reliability of books published by former Jehovah's Witnesses.
Up til now, I have been guided by the wording of this template, where it mentions "sources affiliated with the subject of the article": "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page."
However, all I can find on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page are references to "self-published sources," rather than "sources affiliated with the subject of the article."
For example, "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
I'm not too sure whether the Watchtower Society's publications would be considered "self-published." Of course, they write and publish their own material. The Watchtower Society is a legal entity used by the religion, as far as I'm aware. Only baptised Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to work at the publishing presses of the Watchtower Society. Wikipedia lists self-published sources: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources." Watchtower Society publications aren't really like newsletters, personal websites etc. though, because it's a fairly large concern.
I believe that Watchtower Society publications have been referenced by third-party publications, but not as "work in the relevant field."
Another quote from Wikipedia: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." I confess I have been mis-reading this. I thought it said that "sources about themselves" may only be used if the article is not based primarily on such sources. It actually says that self-published sources may only be used as sources about themselves. That's the same thing, isn't it? Don't mind me.
On other hand, I'm currently checking out the reliability of a book by M.J. Penton. He was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses and so his work has been challenged by an editor on the basis that "only academic and journalistic monographs, essays or articles by people who had never been JWs could be really considered as third party sources." (underline his)
In regards to the definition of a third party source, the link from "third party" where I clicked it goes straight to the bullet list of what constitutes a primary, secondary and tertiary source. Therefore, I'm not too sure how you would define "third party."
Wikipedia says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."
M.J. Penton's 1985 book, Apocalypse Delayed, was published by University of Toronto Press.
I found 14 citations in journal articles or books on Google Scholar including: -Dawson in Nova Religio (University of California Press)(1999) -Hitchcock - The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples." Published by Princeton University Press (2004) -Walls - The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Published by Oxford University Press US (2007) -Wilson - The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. Published by Oxford University Press (1992)
Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above? Is there anything else I should be thinking of?
Mandmelon ( talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a website that is being used as a reference for various UK sitcom article pages. The site is http://www.phill.co.uk and the site owner calls it a "British TV Comedy" site, but upon closer inspection, the site seems to be little more than the personal website of a fan who likes UK comedy (the address of the site suggests this further). Details about some shows have very little relevant detail, and it appears what information is there was possibly just copied from IMDB or TV.com. There is also a commercial element to it as the site seems to be little more than a way for the site owner to make commission off Amazon sales (via various Amazon DVD links for the various shows it lists). Of course, this by itself is not necessarily a problem, but considering that the site (and its anonymous owner) are not a recognised authority on the subject, should this site be permitted as a valid reference source? 79.66.22.104 ( talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, are http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html and http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif reliable sources? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Bork, What is the source for what you say? Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, even if this is absolutely dinkum, which it may well be, it's just a report of how many people reported to the FDA that they had symptoms of various kinds which they themselves attributed to aspartame. In other words, J. Random Consumer drinks a Culaid Soda Lite straight from the fridge and gets an icecream headache. He's just read in a magazine that aspartame is deadly poison, so he phones the FDA and says he got a headache from drinking a soda that contains aspartame. They log it. What does this really prove? the source is really not a secondary source at all, as it is just a list of numbers, and definitely not interpreted by the FDA as implying that Aspartame is dangerous. -- Slashme ( talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Published articles that mention it include Sweet Talking from The Ecologist. Not a great source, but I feel it could be included. Also, looking through Google Books I found a Senate Committee record which discusses it. [56] Clearly it existed. II | ( t - c) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)