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 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | → | Archive 195 |
I am a bit unclear how it words regarding tweets from Twitter. WP:SELFSOURCE mentions:
So presumably you can use a page for a specific tweet as a reference if it fulfills them?
I think it would be nice if we have a template where we could just plug in the serial number of a specific tweet (the numerical string at the end of the URL) and the Twitter username so it generates a pretty-looking reference.
Template:Twitter is used for listing Twitter names on articles while
Template:Tweet is in use on user-pages as some kind of 'you got mail' thing.
I guess I'd just like an easy way to generate this cite-web template using a Tweet-specific template. NM just found
Template:Cite tweet upon instinctively thinking to type it.
Seeing as how /status/ divides the Twitter name from the serial number, I propose we call something like this Template:TwitterStatus with 3 variables to input (name, number, date) unless anyone can think of more.
First, involving verification of ID: http://www.quinnspiracy.com/ is listed as the official web site of Zoe Quinn and if you hover over "About" it drops down 2 clickable options. The first says "Help Me Keep Making Stuff" and the second says "Twitter" which is a link to https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy
Regarding the validity of Tweets as references, I think it worth pointing out that at Zoe_Quinn#Early_life the very first reference we use (for her birth year) is a Tweet:
I will avoid posting the text from the Tweets in question but I will post their serial numbers so that Wikipedias here on the RSN can simply google them and read the tweets themselves: [redacted]
As best as I can tell, all 3 appear to be made from the Twitter account specified on the web site which has been listed as her official site on Wikipedia.
So assuming there is consensus about this verification, here is the issue, does it fit the criteria, I will first post a criterion bullet and then my response to it:
I have received a warning related to the content, I hope this was simply because of sourcing issues. I am hoping I will not be blocked for bringing this up here because I am not adding it in some easy-to-find place like an article or its talk page, I want to vet whether these Tweets are proper sources for adding data about ZQ's employment history and the statements she has made on her official Twitter regarding it. Ranze ( talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The warning you received was from someone already themselves banned from Gamergate-related topics (including related to Zoe Quinn) due to battleground mentality about BLP policy. It is entirely permissible and appropriate to put a link on a talk page for the purpose of discussing whether it's a reliable source. Reliability is in a context, so without something concrete we can only talk in circles around the question. A tweet can be a reliable source in narrow circumstances, which you seem to have a handle on. The question of "why this tweet and not others?" is a red herring, inasmuch as its the same as "why this sentence of a peer-reviewed journal and not others?". That is what editors are meant to decide. Anything reliably sourced is never original research. Rhoark ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The following is a proposed addition to the Framingham Public School District for a new section titled "Employment":
This district recognizes a teacher's union, a labor union [1] that generally advocates for fair employment conditions. It employs administrators, teachers, and other staff members. Typically, when Category:labor disputes arise, teachers may receive assistance from the teachers union to reach a resolution.
Occasionally, a labor dispute arises for an employee who is not a member of the teacher's union; a resolution must be reached through an alternative mean. [2] According to the Town Clerk, who maintains a record of Conflict of Interest trainings for the public schools, this class of dispute is referred to the Town Council, the Ethics Liaison for Labor Disputes, who may or may not advise the disputing party. [3] The Human Resources Department claims not to discriminate in their employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religious creed, religious accommodation, national origin, ancestry, sex, age (40 and over), criminal record, handicap, retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, genetics, active military personnel, and gender identity. [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherThomasLeonard ( talk • contribs)
References
107.77.76.123 ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) I have emails from officials that are legally considered Public Records that would easily verify my content, not to mention an employee handbook that also supports my content. I cited the Town website to request Public Records. The editor who is troubled by my contribution is mainly concerned with the adverse image it may portray; I am not fabricating knowledge, I am reporting it. 107.77.76.123 ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
My email communication with political officials are legal public records. I challenge editor Hirolovesswords to reveal all pertinent affiliations that may cause undue censorship of Wikipedia-worthy content. This editor has mocked me by calling my neutral-tone "weasel words".
Is this transcript of Herbert Rowse Armstrong reliable?
https://archive.org/details/TrialOfHerbertRowseArmstrong
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, April 5, 2015
The article states in the Lede:
Kheradpir was among those who noted the effects of the commoditization of information technology,[1][6] and the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development.[7][8][9]
The sources are press articles in which Kheradpir is quoted commenting about these topics. I believe that quotes from the article-subject should not be used and there is an OR/SYNTH problem. You can see @ Inthcar*:'s arguments in favor of the material/sources here. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Are Buzzfeed, and Mother Jones considered reliable sources for BLP's? And what qualifies as a "High Quality" source in terms of BLP? -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if this book review by VenEconomy, is reliable as a book review of The Chávez Code on the article for Eva Golinger. I noticed a dispute about reliability on the article's talk page and decided to look up VenEconomy and noticed that they are frequently mentioned by the Latin American Herald Tribune.
For those of you who cannot read Spanish, a quick Google Translated portion of the text states this:
"On page 111, Golinger attributes to Shapiro a written statement, quoted in the notes to the footer where refers to an embassy cable in the appendix of documents in the book. The document does not contain this statement. This is a recurring to the notes as footnotes throughout the book problem. 'The Chávez Code' does not dwell on the events of April 2002. Includes chapters on the oil strike of December 2002 and January 2003, and the recall referendum of August 2004. VenEconomía found many more inaccuracies in these chapters but do not want to deprive others of the pleasure of making their own discoveries as you read this Bolivarian bestseller."
Like with other sources, this will have to be presented neutrally, of course. Thanks already for any help with this!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 08:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I was doing NPP and ran across Turkish American Community Center. Looking at Google News the only significant coverage I can find is from [http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/100-million-mega-mosque-coming-to-this-state/ this WND.com article]. If it's not notable I'm going to just WP:SD nominate. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The book, "
The Marriages of the Bourbons", by Captain Hon. Denis Arthur Bingham, New York:Scribner and Welford, 1890.
Can this be considered a reliable source? I have found nothing about Denis Bingham that would indicate he was an academic. Does anyone have any information concerning the author or the book? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Input is requested into this request for comment on the use of three academic journal articles to support additions to the Somalis in the United Kingdom page, and whether the additions breach WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Bob Odenkirk#Personal life contains the following sentence:
"He has stated that his wife and children are Jewish, but he is not"
The information comes from an interview with Odenkirk in this source. Setting aside any possible WP:NOTEVERYTHING issues with the sentence, my question is whether the source satisfies WP:RS.
In the interview, Odenkirk says this about his role as " Saul Goodman" in Breaking Bad: "I called Vince and he goes he's a sleazy lawyer, and I go I can do that. And then he goes his name is Saul Goodman and I go whoa whoa whoa just so you know I'm not Jewish. My kids are Jewish, my wife is Jewish, but I'm not Jewish. He goes he's not Jewish; he just changed his name to appeal to the gangsters and homeboys. He’s Irish. I said oh good I’m half Irish I can do that." Since this comes from an interview it would be considered a primary source, right? It seems as if the above was said half-seriously and half-jokingly, so I'm not sure if it would be considered a straightforward statement of fact and, therefore, acceptable for use.
In addition, the source is a blog/personal website. The writer Matt Copa appears to be an established writer/commentator on media matters who has written for numerous reliable sources, so maybe he is considered to be an "established expert" per WP:UGC; The article, however, is a BLP so it seems that WP:BLPSPS should take precedence. The blog might be acceptable to add as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable for an inline citation.
What should be done if the source does not satisfy WP:RS? Remove only the source and add {{ citation needed}} to the sentence? Remove both the source and the information it cites and add the blog as an EL? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this not a joke? I don't see how you can transpose a joke into a factual claim in an article. Pincrete ( talk) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) … … ps, even if this is RS, what is the relevance of mentioning a religion that the subject is NOT an adherent of?
Thanks to everyone for their comments. As mentioned by Abecedare, I was bold and removed the sentence and source form the article for the reasons given above. I explained the edit at Talk: Bob Odenkirk#Not Jewish so hopefully it will not become an issue. Regarding the reliability of the source, I tend to fall on TransporterMan's side of the line, but the discussion was an interesting one and made me think, so I am glad I decided to ask about the source here. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to make sure this site link is a reliable source. The site is the work of David Doty who is also the author of a book by the same name link. I believe it falls under the expert published by a third party exemption to self published sources. Its to be used for non controversial information on antique glass like makers marks and patterns. AlbinoFerret 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive comments, I was just making sure since its a self published site. Its much easier to check than to replace citations at a later date. AlbinoFerret 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
These are previous discussions which I found with search of the archives where Ancestry.com appeared in the section head.
--September 2007
--June 2010
--July 2010
-- March 2011
--October 2012 -- about the sources at Ancestry.com
--May 2013
--29 June 2014
It seems to me from the content of this survey that Ancestry.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source for supporting content, but it may be a useful place to start an investigation. Presumably it is used to find reliable sources that a Wikipedia editor has not read themselves they should then cite Ancestroy.com and the primary sources as laid out in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
I have done this survey because of a discussion at Template talk:Inglis family tree, should such trees carry citations and if they were created using Ancestroy.com is that a Wikiepdia reliable sources. -- PBS ( talk) 13:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliable? Found this in the below article. Source appears to be the work of a single author who may be an expert in the field. However, it does not appear there is any review of author's work, per the "about" and "disclaimer" pages of the site.
Source: http://ejection-history.org.uk/ About source/Project Statement Disclaimer Specific page of source that is referenced
Article: USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)
Content:
On 20 September 1995, an F-14A Tomcat fighter jet crashed in the vicinity of John Paul Jones. A fly-by at supersonic speed was performed, during which the engine exploded (due to "compression failure") 55 miles away from the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln. Both pilot and Weapons Systems Operator ejected and survived with only minor 2nd degree burns.
David Tornheim ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Rhoark suggested I raise my query here. I wrote the below section which was deleted by another Editor on the grounds that it did not rely on secondary sources. It relies mostly on Cabinet papers published many years after the events in question.
(for the benefit of those who don't know what we are discussing, I re-produce the above here):
Serious consideration was twice given to renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster. Ahead of the renaming of the Irish Free State as Ireland in 1937, the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Lord Craigavon when he was in London in July 1937. [1] On 1 December 1937, Thomas Joseph Campbell, MP (Nationalist) asked the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland whether the Government was considering changing the name of Northern Ireland, and, if so what name was being considered. Responding, the Minister of Finance John Miller Andrews MP said "the matter has been under discussion amongst Members of the Government, but no Cabinet decision has been taken". The Attorney General of Northern Ireland remarked around the same time that the Ulster name was of "great importance" and that the "cumbersome name" of Northern Ireland that came into the Act of 1920 alongside Southern Ireland should be changed. [2] He continued further remarking that "The name of Southern Ireland has been changed and it was time that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster". [2] However, ultimtely no change was made to the name in 1937.
Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered even more serioiusly in 1949. A Working Party was established by the British Cabinet and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook. Its report dated 1 January 1949 was presented by Prime Minister Clement Attlee to the Cabinet on 7 January 1949. Among its recommendations were that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster. In this regard the Working Party's report noted: [3]
The Government of Northern Ireland have formally asked that the title of Northern Ireland should now be changed to "Ulster"...As a name "Ulster" is clearly to be preferred to "Northern Ireland." "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster" is a rounder and more resounding title than "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...The majority of the working party conclude that the balance of advantage lies on the side of adopting the title "Ulster" for the six counties.
However, the renaming proposal was ultimately rejected by the Prime Minister with Attlee reporting to the Cabinet: [4]
The consideration which weighed most with me and with the other Ministers whom I consulted was that the proposed use of the title "Ulster" was likely to provoke acute controversy among Irishmen in other Commonwealth countries. This in itself would be unfortunate: but, even worse, it would aggravate the difficulties of securing the agreement of other Commonwealth Governments to the necessary change in The King's title. In discussion with the Northern Ireland Ministers we found that they were not disposed to press very strongly for the adoption of the title "Ulster."
References
Is the above reliance on sources other than secondary sources acceptable? Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this Cinemablend story reliable for the claim that the films ending was controversial with fans? Also the responses from the writer and director?
Cinemablend was considered on RSN in 2010. At the time, it was running a disclaimer that said, "CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously," which reflected poorly on its reliability.
That disclaimer is no longer present, and a section of their FAQ page reads:
This is primarily an opinion site and because of that we don't rely on breaking news to bring value to our readers. We do however, from time to time, receive exclusive information from outside sources. Still, we do not publish every scoop we receive. If it's something from a source we believe to be reliable, we'll share it with you. In every case, even if the source is someone we know well, we'll always make it clear that the story being reported on is a rumor until confirmed by an official source. We do not knowingly publish unreliable information, nor are we some British tabloid inventing fake stories to suck in unearned internet traffic. The truth is that, even if we didn't have a moral problem with that kind of reporting, we simply don't need it. We're doing fine without it. If we bring you a story, it's because we believe there's something to it. As always, things in the entertainment industry change fast and not everything that comes across our desk pans out. But you'll never doubt where our stories come from or whether or not it's confirmed. Our policy is full disclosure, we reveal our sources whenever possible, and when it isn't possible we'll be honest with you about whether or not the story is something you can trust. Our integrity is everything and honesty is the only thing we know.
Rhoark ( talk) 00:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion was moved frm my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- Mr X 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Would this page from Jewogle.com be considered to be a reliable source for Lauren Cohen. It's being used to support the statement "Cohan was also raised in her stepfather's religion, Judaism, from age 5 and had a Bat Mitzvah". I can't find anything about editorial control at all in the sites FAQ so there's no way to tell where they are getting their information. Are they generating their own content or just mirroring stuff found on other pages? Does not seem to reliable per WP:BLPSOURCES, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Article/section The Presumption of Justice#Threats controversy
Two editors want to use a Twitter exchange to support this text:
Shortly afterwards, in a Twitter communication with Malagurski, the then VP of the Government of Vojvodina Goran Ješić lambasted the filmmaker for filing a criminal investigation request against Dinić, Poleksić, and Nikolić over online remarks, arguing that "as a public persona he should just take it". Furthermore, Ješić endorsed Dinić's, Poleksić's, and Nikolić's original online remarks against Malagurski as part of an invitation to the filmmaker to "sue him as well". [4] ( Goran Jesic's Twitter account, in Serbian, translation below)
The translation of the tweets is "Your filing of the investigation request is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. … … … Now file an investigation request against me since I second everything they wrote." (trans not disputed). In another tweet (not referred to), Ješić says (from memory) "You abuse politicians in Serbia all the time".
The context is that 3 young men (Dinić Poleksić and Nikolić) were found guilty of 'organised threats' against the filmmaker Boris Malagurski, allegedly made on a closed internet message board. The court's decision prompted several articles in Serbian papers criticising both the decision and Malagurski's involvement in the affair. The tweet exchange between this politician,(Ješić) and Malagurski, occurred shortly therafter. It is the content of the message board that the politician is presumably referring to in 'you're supposed to take it' and 'I second everything they wrote', though that is not explicitly stated, I believe.
The guideline here: [5] states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" . I interpret this as meaning that ANY 'interpretion' of primary sources is unacceptable, but that accurate verbatim quoting would not be.
There are other issues relating to this section, mainly neutrality, but I wanted to clarify the use of 'tweets' first. Please 'Ping' or 'name' if additional information is needed. Pincrete ( talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if these would count as RS for the point of WP:GNG for the conference to be in its own article. I think it would. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The article Walter O'Brien currently uses several news websites as the only sources for O'Brien's technical achievements. For example, the sentence "ScenGen is a scenario generator that can generate a number of possible results for any given situation according to user entered variables and relationships." is sourced to an article on IrishCentral [6]. I don't believe a news article should be considered a reliable source for describing technological or engineering achievements, since the author is not an expert in the field. In my opinion, a news article could reliably quote a scientist or engineer regarding a technological achievement, but it should not be a reliable source for original research in science or engineering. I believe that the information relating to O'Brien's engineering career should be removed until it can be sourced more reliably, but another editor believes that IrishCentral and The Irish Daily Mail are reliable sources in this case. Who is right? AliceIngvild94 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if these two websites are considered to be reliable sources. http://boxrec.com/ which is used on pretty much every boxing wiki page. Also is http://www.judoinside.com/ which is a similar database used on wikipedia . I would like to use them but there has been arguments about them not being a reliable source. I use them as a growing database of records such as here [8] and here [9] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
anyone? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be that I'm overthinking this, but there are different sources that have biographies of people by profession or group. In some cases, the books have a "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" in the name. Sometimes they don't. If the title has "encyclopedia in it's name, like 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia is it automatically a non-reliable / non-useable source?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The claim "She won the National Space Invaders Championship, sponsored by Atari, in November, 1980, making her the first person to ever win a national video game contest." is currently sourced to vidgame.info which appears to be the personal website of a Ken Polsson, whose hobby is making timelines of things. His timelines are cited in a few potentially reliable sources, but I didn't find any case where he was directly published to be considered an expert. I found what looks like a better source at a site called Gamemoir. It looks like it probably began in late 2013. Their ethics policy says, "While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of our articles, some issues may not be detected prior to publication. In cases where inaccuracy occurs, a correction and clarification will be issued." I was able to find one correction, which isn't much, but they publish mostly opinion (which would be hard to get wrong.) Thoughts on either source? Rhoark ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Motivated by some recurrent questions and misunderstandings at RSN, I've written an essay about reliable sourcing guidelines. The intent is to supplement policy pages (which are very bullet-point oriented) with guidance on identifying which policies are at the crux of an issue in a given case. I could particularly use feedback on two questions:
Here is the essay. Rhoark ( talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this source, which purports to be a log of Janis Joplin's recording sessions, a reliable source? It looks like a fan blog to me, and there's no indication of where the information came from so its accuracy can be checked. It's apparently used as a source in the Janis Joplin article, and an editor wishes to use it on the " Mercedes Benz (song)" article about one of Joplin's songs. BMK ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A search for " Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About" shows more than 7,000 results. These books with title "XYZ Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About XYZ" are merely copies of Wikipedia articles and they are being used as RSes. They are authored by Emily Smith and published by Emereo Pty Ltd. There are 1,000+ books having the same title style. They should be removed immediately from Wikipedia.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 07:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm wavering between asking this here or in WP:RSN. In the article Rape jihad, a paragraph references the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as a part of the topic. The Gatestone Institute [17] is the sole source of the term "rape jihad" among the sources (Gatestone does not appear among the sources in the Rotherham article), and even there it's limited to the headline. First, Gatestone Institute seems a spectacularly weak source to me. Every time it has appeared in WP:RSN or WP:AN, the response has been mostly negative [18], [19], [20]. Second, using a phrase in a headline from a dubious source to include a paragraph that doesn't even mention the words "rape jihad" in this rather controversial article ( [21] [22]) seems far from enough. I personally do think this is WP:OR, but I put the question to the community. Ratatosk Jones ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment' The source is bad, I think we all agree on that except one single user who appears to counter sources arguments with his own opinion so basically his input is ignorable. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the disclaimer at the bottom of each page on the site, http://FamousWiki.com is compiled by FamousWiki users, Wikipedia, and other sources. It is being used as the source for date-of-birth on these pages:
– Wbm1058 ( talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this website considered to be an RS? It seems that anyone can submit a source here. [23] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
John Hill has in the past added references and external links in ~90 articles to his book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. He is currently updating these links to a newer edition, volume 1 and volume 2. Examples are in the articles Book of the Later Han, Yarkant County, and Dunhuang.
This book is self-published via Amazon's CreateSpace.
Discussion has been on my talk page and his talk page.
My reasoning for not allowing the book is WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM.
Mr. Hill's reasoning from my talk page is:
Note: Mr. Hills's "shown above" is the Amazon reviews of his book. He has not given proof that he is an "established expert on the subject matter".
A Google search of "John Hill" and "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. A Google Scholar search for "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. "John Hill" is to common of a name to do a Google Scholar search.
I'd like to note that by bringing this here, I'm not disputing any of Mr. Hill's edits he has made to the main body of articles. He does appear to be knowledgeable in this area and he is an asset to Wikipedia.
Bgwhite (
talk) 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
PS I will paste in a list of some academic books I have discovered this afternoon on the internet that have quotes from and/or references to my 2009 book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome - obviously, their authors felt my books were worthy of consideration. I have included the page numbers which refer to my book:
The History of Central Asia: The Age of Steppe Warriors. Volume One. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 330, 332, 333, 342
The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Silk Roads. Volume Two. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 326, 329, 330, 331, 341, 343, 356, 366.
Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Li Feng – 2013, pp. 279, 280, 281.
Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Martin Pitts, Miguel John Versluys – 2014, pp. 95, 97, 239, 289.
Food and Environment in Early and Medieval China. E. N. Anderson. 2014, pp. 135, 310
The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: Rome's Dealings with the Ancient Kingdoms of India, Africa and Arabia. Raoul McLaughlin – 2014, (two references)
Silk Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Subhas Kundu – 2014, pp. 4, 33.
Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the Ancient Trade Routes to the ancient lands of Arabia, India and China. Raoul McLaughlin - 2010 pp. 204, 207, 209, 219, 224.
Geography in Classical Antiquity. Daniela Dueck, Kai Brodersen – 2012, pp. 62, 128
The Silk Road: Interwoven History, Volume 1. Mariko Namba Walter. 2014
Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Asia. Christopher I. Beckwith, pp. 378, 405.
Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires. Walter Scheidel, 2010, pp. 215, 240.
A Resurgent China: South Asian Perspectives. S. D. Muni, Tan Tai Yong – 2013, pp. 206, 309.
Macedonia 311 Success Secrets - 311 Most Asked Questions. Russell Olsen – 2015
Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Jan Nederveen Pieterse – 2015, pp. 193-194.
Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. Michael C. Howard – 2012, pp. 257, 258, 279.
Is this book:
a reliable source? The title of this German book is "Prayer for the world". It is published by a Christian media house, and as the title indicates, part of Christian religious literature.
The source is used to support claims Christianity in several countries around the world. Such claims should at least be sourced by academics or independent journalists, of which many exist, not by Christian preachers or sectarian media houses.
The book is published by Hänssler which became part of SCM (de:Stiftung Christliche Medien) - an Evangelical Christian media foundation.
The book is used as a source in Shanghai, Guangxi, Christianity in Shanghai, History of Shanghai and other articles. -- 92.20.11.203 ( talk) 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This has come up at Guangxi. The book Gebet für die Welt, has been used as a reference for information about Christianity there. But from my search for it online it seems to be a evangelical Christian work, the German version of this: Pray for the World. It describes it thus: "When you hear a country mentioned in the news, you can use Pray for the World to pray for it in light of what God is doing there", i.e. not a reliable academic source. It published by the same people as Operation World, a companion work to it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
On the article, Conversion therapy, I added this source. User:Jeraphine Gryphon removed that source, and she wrote, "wow, biased much. 'InterVarsity Press (IVP) ... as a publisher of evangelical Christian books.'" It is true that the source I added was published by IVP, and that IVP is a publisher of evangelical Christian books. Then, on the article's talk page, Jeraphine wrote, "given who the publisher is... this is a really dubious piece of work." If I understand Jeraphine correctly, she is claiming that, if a source was published by evangelical Christians, it is not reliable. This, is most certainly NOT a policy under WP:RS. It is nothing but plain old religious bigotry to claim that I can't cite sources if the sources were published by evangelical Christians. This issue needs to be resolved. Since I already have three reverts on that page, I won't revert jeraphine again, I'll take the issue here. 70.128.120.202 ( talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Several editors want to add the word "spy" to the article Gertrude Bell because a NYT newspaper article [27] uses the word "spy" in the headline of a rather simplistic article about that person written by a non-specialist. Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used, nor is there any explanation or justification inside the article for the headline's use of the word "spy". I have argued that a simple headline alone is not a valid source for a claim, especially since newspaper headlines are often not written by the authors of the articles they headline. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Newspaper headlines are usually given less weight than the article they are attached to, because they often simplify the subject in order to be concise and/or pull in readers. Therefore they should be treated with care. However in this case the claim that Gertrude bell acted as an (unofficial) spy, is not a controversial claim and several sources (including the body of the NYT article itself, unlike what the OP claimed) as Gruban has pointed out. Many other sources are available, and provide more detailed and nuanced picture, but that is topic best discussed on the article talkpage. Abecedare ( talk) 22:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used..., which is provably untrue. If you had simply admitted that as an oversight, that would be perfectly understandable and fine. The approach you chose above, does not help your credibility on wikipedia.
Headlines of news articles should absolutely not be used for RS even if from an RS. They are normally crafted by people downstream of the editing process from the original writer, and meant to summarize and draw eyes, and thus make take liberties with phrasing to do just that. So if a headline makes a claim that the actual article it is tied to says nothing about, it should be flat out ignored. -- MASEM ( t) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
For the past week I've been in a discussion on WT:ALBUM ( see here) on the subject of whether or not The Needle Drop ( Website & Youtube) can be considered a reliable source. The discussion began due to this discussion in which I felt there were unresolved points on the issue. Many editors on the original discussion felt that The Needle Drop failed WP:RS due to its policy on WP:SPS. There seemed to be a disagreement over whether or not The Needle Drop could be considered a reliable source due to Fantano's previous published work for reliable sources such as MTV, Triple J and Consequence of Sound ( see here for sources for this). The Needle Drop doesn't raise any "red flags" in WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the only thing stopping him from being considered a reliable source seems to be his lack of an editorial team etc. in accordance with WP:SPS which also states there can be exemptions for this for those who have previously published. I'm not trying to make the point that The Needle Drop should be added to all reviews from now on, just that it doesn't belong on the list of unreliable sources on WP:MUSIC/SOURCES for the reasons mentioned. Surely it is only a matter of opinion from this point on as to whether it should be considered a reliable source given Fantano's history of publishing for other reliable sources? RatRat ( talk) 02:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of information being used in references, but the sources being used appear to be written by unknown writers (who presumably start an account and begin writing articles). Has this source ever been examined more than cursorily before? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is legitscript.com not a reliable source? Overall, I fail to understand why the sources in the last section of the edit "Poor business ethics" is deleted as not reliable. Endurance International Group - diff
Some background: Legitscript assists Google, Bing, Visa, and other partners to let them know which Internet pharmacy merchants are legitimate and which are not in 19 countrie...and Yahoo. (Paragraph two). This blog background is written by the owner of Legitscript.-- Nodove ( talk) 13:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it recommended that I take this matter to mediation? I haven't gotten an answer about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=657679815&oldid=657669710 My idea is that the source may be used, regardless of the NorthBySouthBaranof opinion. Nodove ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the Wikipedia report is very good some clarification is in order. The DC Park Police arrived at the West Potomac area around 6 am. They waited a long time before disbursing the campers. They used megaphones repeatedly to warn everyone to leave the park by 7 am. Many of the campers were asleep or simply ignored the warnings. At that point they were interfering with police commands. Obstructing. They paid the price. During the civil disobedience that occurred on Monday I observed many incidents of protesters who opened hoods of cars and removed and stole coil wires which completely disabled these vehicles. This was not civil disobedience. It was criminal. There was a significant amount of property damage done to public and private property. A lot of people got away with it. Many who were arrested for the right reasons never paid for their crimes. As a matter of fact, some were rewarded as part of the class action suit. It believe it was $10,00.
This appears to be an ad supported blog with various stories presented as "news", but I can't find any writer/journalist credits, staff listed, or a backer/publisher of any kind. Anyone care to comment or render an opinion? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking to find a reliable source for net worth of individuals for the List of heads of state and government by net worth article. I have tagged some of the sources in the article since I am unsure of their reliability.
Here are some that I need advice for reliability:
Also, I would like to see if the following sources are reliable for adding the net worth of Hugo Chavez:
What the sources say is that Chávez was worth about $1-2 billion and left that money for his family after he died.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 07:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The list is a BLP nightmare. Three points:
Even the estimates cited to Forbes are by a Forbes Contributors, which as has been discussed on this board before, is not a reliable source. As the column by a Forbes staff member (which are considered reliable) I linked above said, "We don’t include heads of state in our annual Billionaires List valuations, and their fortunes are often impossible to pin down...". The article needs major clean-up, or should be deleted outright if it cannot be brought in compliance with WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Abecedare ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In October 2012, The New York Times reported that Wen's relatives have controlled financial assets worth at least US$2.7 billion during his time as Premier., as the Wen Jiabao article already says with proper sourcing.
Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered. [1] The article noted a significant inconstancy in how the organisation applies its criteria in classifying an organisation as a hate group and postulated funding might influence selection. While it appears an excellent article, if oddly placed, the majority of those commenting about its addition object to its inclusion on the grounds Academic Questions is unreliable and possible even unscholarly. I disagree, and my reading of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is that the article should be acceptable for inclusion in the article, and definitely appropriate in the Controversy section where I believe it most appropriate. Concur/Disagree? 118.208.177.225 ( talk)
References
As best I can tell, it has not been cited at all by other scholars in the academic literature, which suggests that we're potentially giving it undue weight. Separately, the journal in question clearly exists to promote a particular ideological point of view. In light of its ideological agenda and the lack of citations, the claim of peer review alone isn't particularly weighty.
Finally, the piece is not scholarly nor a "study" in any sense of the word. (I've read it, although it wasn't easy; Academic Questions is obscure enough that it was a challenge to find the piece even with access to a major university library). It has no methodology, makes no empirical claims, and supplies no hard data. It's about as scholarly as the average newspaper op-ed. Altogether, while it is perhaps reasonable to cite this piece with proper in-text attribution, I think the original poster's formulation gives excess weight to what is essentially an opinion piece in an obscure partisan publication with no apparent impact on actual academic discourse. MastCell Talk 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered...this doesn't mean this article is the only analysis of SPLC or that it is valid as an analysis at all. It's the only one that 118.208.177.225 has seen. If it is used, it definitely shouldn't be considered
the sole studyof the SPLC. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the Huffington Post an RS for the purpose of the statement that "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014."?
Discussion is here. An editor has deleted the text and ref repeatedly at dog bite (including after talk page discussion started), claiming that the Huffington Post is a "poor source", "low-quality source", and not a "high quality source", and that therefore deletion was called for. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As to your animus against the organization that the RS reflects the views of, that is your personal view. RSs in abundance, in contrast to your view, also reflect what this organization has to say. For example, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today (also here), Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, ABC, CBS, NBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Vancouver Sun, etc. If you have a contradictory RS-supported view that you wish to add to the article, feel free to do it. But please stop deleting this sentence (and similar sentences, as you [33] -- including in this massive deletion -- and Lovepitbullsforever [34] have been doing recently), claiming " not RS." Epeefleche ( talk) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
PearlSt82, I'm not sure where you're getting that this is an academic topic. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This source is not needed as we have much better sources on the topic. We have a good 2015 literature review on the topic here [35]. There is no reason to use the popular press and WP:MEDRS recommends against it for medical content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of Bollywood movie pages quote www.boxofficecapsule.com as a source for the box office results and final gross of the movie. When we have Koimoi , Bollywood Hungama , Box Office India , IMDB International Business Times and The Financial Express (India) , why this boxofficecapsule is given so much prominence. I am not able to find out who is adding it as reference. -- C E ( talk) 10:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There's an RfC open about the proposed use of quotes from a number of different academic sources in the Somalis in the United Kingdom. No previously uninvolved editors have commented in several weeks, so input would be welcome! Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion was moved from my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- MrX 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thank you for the reply and the information. I see there is quite a debate going on re IMDb's validity as a reference with many pro and con views. All I can offer to the discussion is my personal experience. From that, I would say the reason why IMDb falls into the middle category of "Disputed" (between "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate") is that many of the IMDb categories clearly don't get fact-vetted - they are only vetted for obscenity, reasonableness, etc. But, this is not true with the Filmography Credits category. Upon submitting credits to IMDb, I have often received inquiries from them for "more reference needed", so there is editorial diligence being done on their end for this category. As a film editor, my response to such requests can only be to reference directly the actual show or episode on Amazon Instant Video, where my credit clearly appears in the end credit roll. My credits are factual, though - aside from IMDb Filmography - can only be proven through this non-standard means. Considering this, would you be amenable to the following: I do not use my IMDb Bio as a reference - I use only the Filmography Credits page as a reference? Further, a reference could be added to an actual episode on Amazon Instant Video (for instance) showing my credit in the credit roll?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Haven't we historically allowed IMDB for filmography and casting info? Unlike the trivia sections etc, the filmography isn't user contributed. It's actually placed by IMDB staff. While I've seen plenty of incorrect trivia or location information on IMDB, I can't recall ever seeing a cast list or filmography wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the IMDB is not reliable for filmographies. I created an article recently where the IMDB had the wrong person listed as a producer. It's a good starting point for further research, but it's not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. For personal use, yes, it's good enough and often correct. For an encyclopedia that depends on verifiability and editorial control, no. Until WP:USERG changes, I think Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on the IMDB. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, they're fairly good for film credits, but it's a slippery slope to use IMDb as a reference for anything given what it is. They've a very long way to go before they can be considered reliable, and don't have the manpower or need to do so. Personally, I'll overlook its use on a poor article when it doesn't look like there could be a BLP problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As stated, upon submitting my film editing credits to IMDb, I have received, in the past, requests from IMDb for further sourcing. When this happens, I can only point them to the actual series/episode on iTunes/Amazon or other streaming source where my credit clearly appears in the episode credit roll. In situations like mine where filmography credits are true/valid, yet IMDb is deemed - as a whole - an unreliable source by Wiki, might the actual streaming source of the series/episode be considered an acceptable citation? What other recourse do genuine folks like myself have to support what is true in a way that jives with wiki standards? 172.250.48.230 ( talk) 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
hi. I want to use an site as a source for the page of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. any one can help me about the reliability and notability of the site: http://www.albawabaeg.com/52258.-- m,sharaf ( talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the website of a band a reliable source? One user is saying yes [38] . Another user is saying it is not. [39]. What does the group propose? I am pretty sure that the author of the article will be following me around ranting about a conspiracy theory. [40] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I see [ [41]] somewhat recent discussion of this site, but it didn't come to anything and I'd like to know, since to me it's unclear if the content is solely user-generated and lacking an editorial filter-- I'm also not especially experienced with determining the reliability of a given source, since I'm still on the new side. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@
Ronz: To avoid an edit war, I was double checking before removal in the article
The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading .
CrazyAces489 (
talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Try refraining from removing the book reference "accidentally". It will be nice to see the article kept again as usual. Also, the reference in question is an interview so what is wrong with that? TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
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 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | → | Archive 195 |
I am a bit unclear how it words regarding tweets from Twitter. WP:SELFSOURCE mentions:
So presumably you can use a page for a specific tweet as a reference if it fulfills them?
I think it would be nice if we have a template where we could just plug in the serial number of a specific tweet (the numerical string at the end of the URL) and the Twitter username so it generates a pretty-looking reference.
Template:Twitter is used for listing Twitter names on articles while
Template:Tweet is in use on user-pages as some kind of 'you got mail' thing.
I guess I'd just like an easy way to generate this cite-web template using a Tweet-specific template. NM just found
Template:Cite tweet upon instinctively thinking to type it.
Seeing as how /status/ divides the Twitter name from the serial number, I propose we call something like this Template:TwitterStatus with 3 variables to input (name, number, date) unless anyone can think of more.
First, involving verification of ID: http://www.quinnspiracy.com/ is listed as the official web site of Zoe Quinn and if you hover over "About" it drops down 2 clickable options. The first says "Help Me Keep Making Stuff" and the second says "Twitter" which is a link to https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy
Regarding the validity of Tweets as references, I think it worth pointing out that at Zoe_Quinn#Early_life the very first reference we use (for her birth year) is a Tweet:
I will avoid posting the text from the Tweets in question but I will post their serial numbers so that Wikipedias here on the RSN can simply google them and read the tweets themselves: [redacted]
As best as I can tell, all 3 appear to be made from the Twitter account specified on the web site which has been listed as her official site on Wikipedia.
So assuming there is consensus about this verification, here is the issue, does it fit the criteria, I will first post a criterion bullet and then my response to it:
I have received a warning related to the content, I hope this was simply because of sourcing issues. I am hoping I will not be blocked for bringing this up here because I am not adding it in some easy-to-find place like an article or its talk page, I want to vet whether these Tweets are proper sources for adding data about ZQ's employment history and the statements she has made on her official Twitter regarding it. Ranze ( talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The warning you received was from someone already themselves banned from Gamergate-related topics (including related to Zoe Quinn) due to battleground mentality about BLP policy. It is entirely permissible and appropriate to put a link on a talk page for the purpose of discussing whether it's a reliable source. Reliability is in a context, so without something concrete we can only talk in circles around the question. A tweet can be a reliable source in narrow circumstances, which you seem to have a handle on. The question of "why this tweet and not others?" is a red herring, inasmuch as its the same as "why this sentence of a peer-reviewed journal and not others?". That is what editors are meant to decide. Anything reliably sourced is never original research. Rhoark ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The following is a proposed addition to the Framingham Public School District for a new section titled "Employment":
This district recognizes a teacher's union, a labor union [1] that generally advocates for fair employment conditions. It employs administrators, teachers, and other staff members. Typically, when Category:labor disputes arise, teachers may receive assistance from the teachers union to reach a resolution.
Occasionally, a labor dispute arises for an employee who is not a member of the teacher's union; a resolution must be reached through an alternative mean. [2] According to the Town Clerk, who maintains a record of Conflict of Interest trainings for the public schools, this class of dispute is referred to the Town Council, the Ethics Liaison for Labor Disputes, who may or may not advise the disputing party. [3] The Human Resources Department claims not to discriminate in their employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religious creed, religious accommodation, national origin, ancestry, sex, age (40 and over), criminal record, handicap, retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, genetics, active military personnel, and gender identity. [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherThomasLeonard ( talk • contribs)
References
107.77.76.123 ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) I have emails from officials that are legally considered Public Records that would easily verify my content, not to mention an employee handbook that also supports my content. I cited the Town website to request Public Records. The editor who is troubled by my contribution is mainly concerned with the adverse image it may portray; I am not fabricating knowledge, I am reporting it. 107.77.76.123 ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
My email communication with political officials are legal public records. I challenge editor Hirolovesswords to reveal all pertinent affiliations that may cause undue censorship of Wikipedia-worthy content. This editor has mocked me by calling my neutral-tone "weasel words".
Is this transcript of Herbert Rowse Armstrong reliable?
https://archive.org/details/TrialOfHerbertRowseArmstrong
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, April 5, 2015
The article states in the Lede:
Kheradpir was among those who noted the effects of the commoditization of information technology,[1][6] and the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development.[7][8][9]
The sources are press articles in which Kheradpir is quoted commenting about these topics. I believe that quotes from the article-subject should not be used and there is an OR/SYNTH problem. You can see @ Inthcar*:'s arguments in favor of the material/sources here. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Are Buzzfeed, and Mother Jones considered reliable sources for BLP's? And what qualifies as a "High Quality" source in terms of BLP? -- Kyohyi ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if this book review by VenEconomy, is reliable as a book review of The Chávez Code on the article for Eva Golinger. I noticed a dispute about reliability on the article's talk page and decided to look up VenEconomy and noticed that they are frequently mentioned by the Latin American Herald Tribune.
For those of you who cannot read Spanish, a quick Google Translated portion of the text states this:
"On page 111, Golinger attributes to Shapiro a written statement, quoted in the notes to the footer where refers to an embassy cable in the appendix of documents in the book. The document does not contain this statement. This is a recurring to the notes as footnotes throughout the book problem. 'The Chávez Code' does not dwell on the events of April 2002. Includes chapters on the oil strike of December 2002 and January 2003, and the recall referendum of August 2004. VenEconomía found many more inaccuracies in these chapters but do not want to deprive others of the pleasure of making their own discoveries as you read this Bolivarian bestseller."
Like with other sources, this will have to be presented neutrally, of course. Thanks already for any help with this!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 08:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I was doing NPP and ran across Turkish American Community Center. Looking at Google News the only significant coverage I can find is from [http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/100-million-mega-mosque-coming-to-this-state/ this WND.com article]. If it's not notable I'm going to just WP:SD nominate. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The book, "
The Marriages of the Bourbons", by Captain Hon. Denis Arthur Bingham, New York:Scribner and Welford, 1890.
Can this be considered a reliable source? I have found nothing about Denis Bingham that would indicate he was an academic. Does anyone have any information concerning the author or the book? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Input is requested into this request for comment on the use of three academic journal articles to support additions to the Somalis in the United Kingdom page, and whether the additions breach WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Bob Odenkirk#Personal life contains the following sentence:
"He has stated that his wife and children are Jewish, but he is not"
The information comes from an interview with Odenkirk in this source. Setting aside any possible WP:NOTEVERYTHING issues with the sentence, my question is whether the source satisfies WP:RS.
In the interview, Odenkirk says this about his role as " Saul Goodman" in Breaking Bad: "I called Vince and he goes he's a sleazy lawyer, and I go I can do that. And then he goes his name is Saul Goodman and I go whoa whoa whoa just so you know I'm not Jewish. My kids are Jewish, my wife is Jewish, but I'm not Jewish. He goes he's not Jewish; he just changed his name to appeal to the gangsters and homeboys. He’s Irish. I said oh good I’m half Irish I can do that." Since this comes from an interview it would be considered a primary source, right? It seems as if the above was said half-seriously and half-jokingly, so I'm not sure if it would be considered a straightforward statement of fact and, therefore, acceptable for use.
In addition, the source is a blog/personal website. The writer Matt Copa appears to be an established writer/commentator on media matters who has written for numerous reliable sources, so maybe he is considered to be an "established expert" per WP:UGC; The article, however, is a BLP so it seems that WP:BLPSPS should take precedence. The blog might be acceptable to add as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable for an inline citation.
What should be done if the source does not satisfy WP:RS? Remove only the source and add {{ citation needed}} to the sentence? Remove both the source and the information it cites and add the blog as an EL? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this not a joke? I don't see how you can transpose a joke into a factual claim in an article. Pincrete ( talk) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) … … ps, even if this is RS, what is the relevance of mentioning a religion that the subject is NOT an adherent of?
Thanks to everyone for their comments. As mentioned by Abecedare, I was bold and removed the sentence and source form the article for the reasons given above. I explained the edit at Talk: Bob Odenkirk#Not Jewish so hopefully it will not become an issue. Regarding the reliability of the source, I tend to fall on TransporterMan's side of the line, but the discussion was an interesting one and made me think, so I am glad I decided to ask about the source here. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to make sure this site link is a reliable source. The site is the work of David Doty who is also the author of a book by the same name link. I believe it falls under the expert published by a third party exemption to self published sources. Its to be used for non controversial information on antique glass like makers marks and patterns. AlbinoFerret 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive comments, I was just making sure since its a self published site. Its much easier to check than to replace citations at a later date. AlbinoFerret 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
These are previous discussions which I found with search of the archives where Ancestry.com appeared in the section head.
--September 2007
--June 2010
--July 2010
-- March 2011
--October 2012 -- about the sources at Ancestry.com
--May 2013
--29 June 2014
It seems to me from the content of this survey that Ancestry.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source for supporting content, but it may be a useful place to start an investigation. Presumably it is used to find reliable sources that a Wikipedia editor has not read themselves they should then cite Ancestroy.com and the primary sources as laid out in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
I have done this survey because of a discussion at Template talk:Inglis family tree, should such trees carry citations and if they were created using Ancestroy.com is that a Wikiepdia reliable sources. -- PBS ( talk) 13:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliable? Found this in the below article. Source appears to be the work of a single author who may be an expert in the field. However, it does not appear there is any review of author's work, per the "about" and "disclaimer" pages of the site.
Source: http://ejection-history.org.uk/ About source/Project Statement Disclaimer Specific page of source that is referenced
Article: USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)
Content:
On 20 September 1995, an F-14A Tomcat fighter jet crashed in the vicinity of John Paul Jones. A fly-by at supersonic speed was performed, during which the engine exploded (due to "compression failure") 55 miles away from the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln. Both pilot and Weapons Systems Operator ejected and survived with only minor 2nd degree burns.
David Tornheim ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Rhoark suggested I raise my query here. I wrote the below section which was deleted by another Editor on the grounds that it did not rely on secondary sources. It relies mostly on Cabinet papers published many years after the events in question.
(for the benefit of those who don't know what we are discussing, I re-produce the above here):
Serious consideration was twice given to renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster. Ahead of the renaming of the Irish Free State as Ireland in 1937, the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Lord Craigavon when he was in London in July 1937. [1] On 1 December 1937, Thomas Joseph Campbell, MP (Nationalist) asked the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland whether the Government was considering changing the name of Northern Ireland, and, if so what name was being considered. Responding, the Minister of Finance John Miller Andrews MP said "the matter has been under discussion amongst Members of the Government, but no Cabinet decision has been taken". The Attorney General of Northern Ireland remarked around the same time that the Ulster name was of "great importance" and that the "cumbersome name" of Northern Ireland that came into the Act of 1920 alongside Southern Ireland should be changed. [2] He continued further remarking that "The name of Southern Ireland has been changed and it was time that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster". [2] However, ultimtely no change was made to the name in 1937.
Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered even more serioiusly in 1949. A Working Party was established by the British Cabinet and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook. Its report dated 1 January 1949 was presented by Prime Minister Clement Attlee to the Cabinet on 7 January 1949. Among its recommendations were that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster. In this regard the Working Party's report noted: [3]
The Government of Northern Ireland have formally asked that the title of Northern Ireland should now be changed to "Ulster"...As a name "Ulster" is clearly to be preferred to "Northern Ireland." "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster" is a rounder and more resounding title than "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...The majority of the working party conclude that the balance of advantage lies on the side of adopting the title "Ulster" for the six counties.
However, the renaming proposal was ultimately rejected by the Prime Minister with Attlee reporting to the Cabinet: [4]
The consideration which weighed most with me and with the other Ministers whom I consulted was that the proposed use of the title "Ulster" was likely to provoke acute controversy among Irishmen in other Commonwealth countries. This in itself would be unfortunate: but, even worse, it would aggravate the difficulties of securing the agreement of other Commonwealth Governments to the necessary change in The King's title. In discussion with the Northern Ireland Ministers we found that they were not disposed to press very strongly for the adoption of the title "Ulster."
References
Is the above reliance on sources other than secondary sources acceptable? Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this Cinemablend story reliable for the claim that the films ending was controversial with fans? Also the responses from the writer and director?
Cinemablend was considered on RSN in 2010. At the time, it was running a disclaimer that said, "CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously," which reflected poorly on its reliability.
That disclaimer is no longer present, and a section of their FAQ page reads:
This is primarily an opinion site and because of that we don't rely on breaking news to bring value to our readers. We do however, from time to time, receive exclusive information from outside sources. Still, we do not publish every scoop we receive. If it's something from a source we believe to be reliable, we'll share it with you. In every case, even if the source is someone we know well, we'll always make it clear that the story being reported on is a rumor until confirmed by an official source. We do not knowingly publish unreliable information, nor are we some British tabloid inventing fake stories to suck in unearned internet traffic. The truth is that, even if we didn't have a moral problem with that kind of reporting, we simply don't need it. We're doing fine without it. If we bring you a story, it's because we believe there's something to it. As always, things in the entertainment industry change fast and not everything that comes across our desk pans out. But you'll never doubt where our stories come from or whether or not it's confirmed. Our policy is full disclosure, we reveal our sources whenever possible, and when it isn't possible we'll be honest with you about whether or not the story is something you can trust. Our integrity is everything and honesty is the only thing we know.
Rhoark ( talk) 00:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion was moved frm my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- Mr X 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Would this page from Jewogle.com be considered to be a reliable source for Lauren Cohen. It's being used to support the statement "Cohan was also raised in her stepfather's religion, Judaism, from age 5 and had a Bat Mitzvah". I can't find anything about editorial control at all in the sites FAQ so there's no way to tell where they are getting their information. Are they generating their own content or just mirroring stuff found on other pages? Does not seem to reliable per WP:BLPSOURCES, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Article/section The Presumption of Justice#Threats controversy
Two editors want to use a Twitter exchange to support this text:
Shortly afterwards, in a Twitter communication with Malagurski, the then VP of the Government of Vojvodina Goran Ješić lambasted the filmmaker for filing a criminal investigation request against Dinić, Poleksić, and Nikolić over online remarks, arguing that "as a public persona he should just take it". Furthermore, Ješić endorsed Dinić's, Poleksić's, and Nikolić's original online remarks against Malagurski as part of an invitation to the filmmaker to "sue him as well". [4] ( Goran Jesic's Twitter account, in Serbian, translation below)
The translation of the tweets is "Your filing of the investigation request is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. … … … Now file an investigation request against me since I second everything they wrote." (trans not disputed). In another tweet (not referred to), Ješić says (from memory) "You abuse politicians in Serbia all the time".
The context is that 3 young men (Dinić Poleksić and Nikolić) were found guilty of 'organised threats' against the filmmaker Boris Malagurski, allegedly made on a closed internet message board. The court's decision prompted several articles in Serbian papers criticising both the decision and Malagurski's involvement in the affair. The tweet exchange between this politician,(Ješić) and Malagurski, occurred shortly therafter. It is the content of the message board that the politician is presumably referring to in 'you're supposed to take it' and 'I second everything they wrote', though that is not explicitly stated, I believe.
The guideline here: [5] states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" . I interpret this as meaning that ANY 'interpretion' of primary sources is unacceptable, but that accurate verbatim quoting would not be.
There are other issues relating to this section, mainly neutrality, but I wanted to clarify the use of 'tweets' first. Please 'Ping' or 'name' if additional information is needed. Pincrete ( talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if these would count as RS for the point of WP:GNG for the conference to be in its own article. I think it would. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The article Walter O'Brien currently uses several news websites as the only sources for O'Brien's technical achievements. For example, the sentence "ScenGen is a scenario generator that can generate a number of possible results for any given situation according to user entered variables and relationships." is sourced to an article on IrishCentral [6]. I don't believe a news article should be considered a reliable source for describing technological or engineering achievements, since the author is not an expert in the field. In my opinion, a news article could reliably quote a scientist or engineer regarding a technological achievement, but it should not be a reliable source for original research in science or engineering. I believe that the information relating to O'Brien's engineering career should be removed until it can be sourced more reliably, but another editor believes that IrishCentral and The Irish Daily Mail are reliable sources in this case. Who is right? AliceIngvild94 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if these two websites are considered to be reliable sources. http://boxrec.com/ which is used on pretty much every boxing wiki page. Also is http://www.judoinside.com/ which is a similar database used on wikipedia . I would like to use them but there has been arguments about them not being a reliable source. I use them as a growing database of records such as here [8] and here [9] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
anyone? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be that I'm overthinking this, but there are different sources that have biographies of people by profession or group. In some cases, the books have a "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" in the name. Sometimes they don't. If the title has "encyclopedia in it's name, like 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia is it automatically a non-reliable / non-useable source?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The claim "She won the National Space Invaders Championship, sponsored by Atari, in November, 1980, making her the first person to ever win a national video game contest." is currently sourced to vidgame.info which appears to be the personal website of a Ken Polsson, whose hobby is making timelines of things. His timelines are cited in a few potentially reliable sources, but I didn't find any case where he was directly published to be considered an expert. I found what looks like a better source at a site called Gamemoir. It looks like it probably began in late 2013. Their ethics policy says, "While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of our articles, some issues may not be detected prior to publication. In cases where inaccuracy occurs, a correction and clarification will be issued." I was able to find one correction, which isn't much, but they publish mostly opinion (which would be hard to get wrong.) Thoughts on either source? Rhoark ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Motivated by some recurrent questions and misunderstandings at RSN, I've written an essay about reliable sourcing guidelines. The intent is to supplement policy pages (which are very bullet-point oriented) with guidance on identifying which policies are at the crux of an issue in a given case. I could particularly use feedback on two questions:
Here is the essay. Rhoark ( talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this source, which purports to be a log of Janis Joplin's recording sessions, a reliable source? It looks like a fan blog to me, and there's no indication of where the information came from so its accuracy can be checked. It's apparently used as a source in the Janis Joplin article, and an editor wishes to use it on the " Mercedes Benz (song)" article about one of Joplin's songs. BMK ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A search for " Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About" shows more than 7,000 results. These books with title "XYZ Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About XYZ" are merely copies of Wikipedia articles and they are being used as RSes. They are authored by Emily Smith and published by Emereo Pty Ltd. There are 1,000+ books having the same title style. They should be removed immediately from Wikipedia.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 07:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm wavering between asking this here or in WP:RSN. In the article Rape jihad, a paragraph references the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as a part of the topic. The Gatestone Institute [17] is the sole source of the term "rape jihad" among the sources (Gatestone does not appear among the sources in the Rotherham article), and even there it's limited to the headline. First, Gatestone Institute seems a spectacularly weak source to me. Every time it has appeared in WP:RSN or WP:AN, the response has been mostly negative [18], [19], [20]. Second, using a phrase in a headline from a dubious source to include a paragraph that doesn't even mention the words "rape jihad" in this rather controversial article ( [21] [22]) seems far from enough. I personally do think this is WP:OR, but I put the question to the community. Ratatosk Jones ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment' The source is bad, I think we all agree on that except one single user who appears to counter sources arguments with his own opinion so basically his input is ignorable. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the disclaimer at the bottom of each page on the site, http://FamousWiki.com is compiled by FamousWiki users, Wikipedia, and other sources. It is being used as the source for date-of-birth on these pages:
– Wbm1058 ( talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this website considered to be an RS? It seems that anyone can submit a source here. [23] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
John Hill has in the past added references and external links in ~90 articles to his book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. He is currently updating these links to a newer edition, volume 1 and volume 2. Examples are in the articles Book of the Later Han, Yarkant County, and Dunhuang.
This book is self-published via Amazon's CreateSpace.
Discussion has been on my talk page and his talk page.
My reasoning for not allowing the book is WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM.
Mr. Hill's reasoning from my talk page is:
Note: Mr. Hills's "shown above" is the Amazon reviews of his book. He has not given proof that he is an "established expert on the subject matter".
A Google search of "John Hill" and "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. A Google Scholar search for "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. "John Hill" is to common of a name to do a Google Scholar search.
I'd like to note that by bringing this here, I'm not disputing any of Mr. Hill's edits he has made to the main body of articles. He does appear to be knowledgeable in this area and he is an asset to Wikipedia.
Bgwhite (
talk) 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
PS I will paste in a list of some academic books I have discovered this afternoon on the internet that have quotes from and/or references to my 2009 book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome - obviously, their authors felt my books were worthy of consideration. I have included the page numbers which refer to my book:
The History of Central Asia: The Age of Steppe Warriors. Volume One. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 330, 332, 333, 342
The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Silk Roads. Volume Two. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 326, 329, 330, 331, 341, 343, 356, 366.
Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Li Feng – 2013, pp. 279, 280, 281.
Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Martin Pitts, Miguel John Versluys – 2014, pp. 95, 97, 239, 289.
Food and Environment in Early and Medieval China. E. N. Anderson. 2014, pp. 135, 310
The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: Rome's Dealings with the Ancient Kingdoms of India, Africa and Arabia. Raoul McLaughlin – 2014, (two references)
Silk Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Subhas Kundu – 2014, pp. 4, 33.
Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the Ancient Trade Routes to the ancient lands of Arabia, India and China. Raoul McLaughlin - 2010 pp. 204, 207, 209, 219, 224.
Geography in Classical Antiquity. Daniela Dueck, Kai Brodersen – 2012, pp. 62, 128
The Silk Road: Interwoven History, Volume 1. Mariko Namba Walter. 2014
Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Asia. Christopher I. Beckwith, pp. 378, 405.
Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires. Walter Scheidel, 2010, pp. 215, 240.
A Resurgent China: South Asian Perspectives. S. D. Muni, Tan Tai Yong – 2013, pp. 206, 309.
Macedonia 311 Success Secrets - 311 Most Asked Questions. Russell Olsen – 2015
Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Jan Nederveen Pieterse – 2015, pp. 193-194.
Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. Michael C. Howard – 2012, pp. 257, 258, 279.
Is this book:
a reliable source? The title of this German book is "Prayer for the world". It is published by a Christian media house, and as the title indicates, part of Christian religious literature.
The source is used to support claims Christianity in several countries around the world. Such claims should at least be sourced by academics or independent journalists, of which many exist, not by Christian preachers or sectarian media houses.
The book is published by Hänssler which became part of SCM (de:Stiftung Christliche Medien) - an Evangelical Christian media foundation.
The book is used as a source in Shanghai, Guangxi, Christianity in Shanghai, History of Shanghai and other articles. -- 92.20.11.203 ( talk) 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This has come up at Guangxi. The book Gebet für die Welt, has been used as a reference for information about Christianity there. But from my search for it online it seems to be a evangelical Christian work, the German version of this: Pray for the World. It describes it thus: "When you hear a country mentioned in the news, you can use Pray for the World to pray for it in light of what God is doing there", i.e. not a reliable academic source. It published by the same people as Operation World, a companion work to it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
On the article, Conversion therapy, I added this source. User:Jeraphine Gryphon removed that source, and she wrote, "wow, biased much. 'InterVarsity Press (IVP) ... as a publisher of evangelical Christian books.'" It is true that the source I added was published by IVP, and that IVP is a publisher of evangelical Christian books. Then, on the article's talk page, Jeraphine wrote, "given who the publisher is... this is a really dubious piece of work." If I understand Jeraphine correctly, she is claiming that, if a source was published by evangelical Christians, it is not reliable. This, is most certainly NOT a policy under WP:RS. It is nothing but plain old religious bigotry to claim that I can't cite sources if the sources were published by evangelical Christians. This issue needs to be resolved. Since I already have three reverts on that page, I won't revert jeraphine again, I'll take the issue here. 70.128.120.202 ( talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Several editors want to add the word "spy" to the article Gertrude Bell because a NYT newspaper article [27] uses the word "spy" in the headline of a rather simplistic article about that person written by a non-specialist. Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used, nor is there any explanation or justification inside the article for the headline's use of the word "spy". I have argued that a simple headline alone is not a valid source for a claim, especially since newspaper headlines are often not written by the authors of the articles they headline. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Newspaper headlines are usually given less weight than the article they are attached to, because they often simplify the subject in order to be concise and/or pull in readers. Therefore they should be treated with care. However in this case the claim that Gertrude bell acted as an (unofficial) spy, is not a controversial claim and several sources (including the body of the NYT article itself, unlike what the OP claimed) as Gruban has pointed out. Many other sources are available, and provide more detailed and nuanced picture, but that is topic best discussed on the article talkpage. Abecedare ( talk) 22:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used..., which is provably untrue. If you had simply admitted that as an oversight, that would be perfectly understandable and fine. The approach you chose above, does not help your credibility on wikipedia.
Headlines of news articles should absolutely not be used for RS even if from an RS. They are normally crafted by people downstream of the editing process from the original writer, and meant to summarize and draw eyes, and thus make take liberties with phrasing to do just that. So if a headline makes a claim that the actual article it is tied to says nothing about, it should be flat out ignored. -- MASEM ( t) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
For the past week I've been in a discussion on WT:ALBUM ( see here) on the subject of whether or not The Needle Drop ( Website & Youtube) can be considered a reliable source. The discussion began due to this discussion in which I felt there were unresolved points on the issue. Many editors on the original discussion felt that The Needle Drop failed WP:RS due to its policy on WP:SPS. There seemed to be a disagreement over whether or not The Needle Drop could be considered a reliable source due to Fantano's previous published work for reliable sources such as MTV, Triple J and Consequence of Sound ( see here for sources for this). The Needle Drop doesn't raise any "red flags" in WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the only thing stopping him from being considered a reliable source seems to be his lack of an editorial team etc. in accordance with WP:SPS which also states there can be exemptions for this for those who have previously published. I'm not trying to make the point that The Needle Drop should be added to all reviews from now on, just that it doesn't belong on the list of unreliable sources on WP:MUSIC/SOURCES for the reasons mentioned. Surely it is only a matter of opinion from this point on as to whether it should be considered a reliable source given Fantano's history of publishing for other reliable sources? RatRat ( talk) 02:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of information being used in references, but the sources being used appear to be written by unknown writers (who presumably start an account and begin writing articles). Has this source ever been examined more than cursorily before? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is legitscript.com not a reliable source? Overall, I fail to understand why the sources in the last section of the edit "Poor business ethics" is deleted as not reliable. Endurance International Group - diff
Some background: Legitscript assists Google, Bing, Visa, and other partners to let them know which Internet pharmacy merchants are legitimate and which are not in 19 countrie...and Yahoo. (Paragraph two). This blog background is written by the owner of Legitscript.-- Nodove ( talk) 13:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it recommended that I take this matter to mediation? I haven't gotten an answer about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=657679815&oldid=657669710 My idea is that the source may be used, regardless of the NorthBySouthBaranof opinion. Nodove ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the Wikipedia report is very good some clarification is in order. The DC Park Police arrived at the West Potomac area around 6 am. They waited a long time before disbursing the campers. They used megaphones repeatedly to warn everyone to leave the park by 7 am. Many of the campers were asleep or simply ignored the warnings. At that point they were interfering with police commands. Obstructing. They paid the price. During the civil disobedience that occurred on Monday I observed many incidents of protesters who opened hoods of cars and removed and stole coil wires which completely disabled these vehicles. This was not civil disobedience. It was criminal. There was a significant amount of property damage done to public and private property. A lot of people got away with it. Many who were arrested for the right reasons never paid for their crimes. As a matter of fact, some were rewarded as part of the class action suit. It believe it was $10,00.
This appears to be an ad supported blog with various stories presented as "news", but I can't find any writer/journalist credits, staff listed, or a backer/publisher of any kind. Anyone care to comment or render an opinion? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking to find a reliable source for net worth of individuals for the List of heads of state and government by net worth article. I have tagged some of the sources in the article since I am unsure of their reliability.
Here are some that I need advice for reliability:
Also, I would like to see if the following sources are reliable for adding the net worth of Hugo Chavez:
What the sources say is that Chávez was worth about $1-2 billion and left that money for his family after he died.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 07:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The list is a BLP nightmare. Three points:
Even the estimates cited to Forbes are by a Forbes Contributors, which as has been discussed on this board before, is not a reliable source. As the column by a Forbes staff member (which are considered reliable) I linked above said, "We don’t include heads of state in our annual Billionaires List valuations, and their fortunes are often impossible to pin down...". The article needs major clean-up, or should be deleted outright if it cannot be brought in compliance with WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Abecedare ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In October 2012, The New York Times reported that Wen's relatives have controlled financial assets worth at least US$2.7 billion during his time as Premier., as the Wen Jiabao article already says with proper sourcing.
Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered. [1] The article noted a significant inconstancy in how the organisation applies its criteria in classifying an organisation as a hate group and postulated funding might influence selection. While it appears an excellent article, if oddly placed, the majority of those commenting about its addition object to its inclusion on the grounds Academic Questions is unreliable and possible even unscholarly. I disagree, and my reading of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is that the article should be acceptable for inclusion in the article, and definitely appropriate in the Controversy section where I believe it most appropriate. Concur/Disagree? 118.208.177.225 ( talk)
References
As best I can tell, it has not been cited at all by other scholars in the academic literature, which suggests that we're potentially giving it undue weight. Separately, the journal in question clearly exists to promote a particular ideological point of view. In light of its ideological agenda and the lack of citations, the claim of peer review alone isn't particularly weighty.
Finally, the piece is not scholarly nor a "study" in any sense of the word. (I've read it, although it wasn't easy; Academic Questions is obscure enough that it was a challenge to find the piece even with access to a major university library). It has no methodology, makes no empirical claims, and supplies no hard data. It's about as scholarly as the average newspaper op-ed. Altogether, while it is perhaps reasonable to cite this piece with proper in-text attribution, I think the original poster's formulation gives excess weight to what is essentially an opinion piece in an obscure partisan publication with no apparent impact on actual academic discourse. MastCell Talk 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered...this doesn't mean this article is the only analysis of SPLC or that it is valid as an analysis at all. It's the only one that 118.208.177.225 has seen. If it is used, it definitely shouldn't be considered
the sole studyof the SPLC. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the Huffington Post an RS for the purpose of the statement that "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014."?
Discussion is here. An editor has deleted the text and ref repeatedly at dog bite (including after talk page discussion started), claiming that the Huffington Post is a "poor source", "low-quality source", and not a "high quality source", and that therefore deletion was called for. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As to your animus against the organization that the RS reflects the views of, that is your personal view. RSs in abundance, in contrast to your view, also reflect what this organization has to say. For example, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today (also here), Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, ABC, CBS, NBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Vancouver Sun, etc. If you have a contradictory RS-supported view that you wish to add to the article, feel free to do it. But please stop deleting this sentence (and similar sentences, as you [33] -- including in this massive deletion -- and Lovepitbullsforever [34] have been doing recently), claiming " not RS." Epeefleche ( talk) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
PearlSt82, I'm not sure where you're getting that this is an academic topic. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This source is not needed as we have much better sources on the topic. We have a good 2015 literature review on the topic here [35]. There is no reason to use the popular press and WP:MEDRS recommends against it for medical content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of Bollywood movie pages quote www.boxofficecapsule.com as a source for the box office results and final gross of the movie. When we have Koimoi , Bollywood Hungama , Box Office India , IMDB International Business Times and The Financial Express (India) , why this boxofficecapsule is given so much prominence. I am not able to find out who is adding it as reference. -- C E ( talk) 10:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There's an RfC open about the proposed use of quotes from a number of different academic sources in the Somalis in the United Kingdom. No previously uninvolved editors have commented in several weeks, so input would be welcome! Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion was moved from my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- MrX 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thank you for the reply and the information. I see there is quite a debate going on re IMDb's validity as a reference with many pro and con views. All I can offer to the discussion is my personal experience. From that, I would say the reason why IMDb falls into the middle category of "Disputed" (between "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate") is that many of the IMDb categories clearly don't get fact-vetted - they are only vetted for obscenity, reasonableness, etc. But, this is not true with the Filmography Credits category. Upon submitting credits to IMDb, I have often received inquiries from them for "more reference needed", so there is editorial diligence being done on their end for this category. As a film editor, my response to such requests can only be to reference directly the actual show or episode on Amazon Instant Video, where my credit clearly appears in the end credit roll. My credits are factual, though - aside from IMDb Filmography - can only be proven through this non-standard means. Considering this, would you be amenable to the following: I do not use my IMDb Bio as a reference - I use only the Filmography Credits page as a reference? Further, a reference could be added to an actual episode on Amazon Instant Video (for instance) showing my credit in the credit roll?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Haven't we historically allowed IMDB for filmography and casting info? Unlike the trivia sections etc, the filmography isn't user contributed. It's actually placed by IMDB staff. While I've seen plenty of incorrect trivia or location information on IMDB, I can't recall ever seeing a cast list or filmography wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the IMDB is not reliable for filmographies. I created an article recently where the IMDB had the wrong person listed as a producer. It's a good starting point for further research, but it's not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. For personal use, yes, it's good enough and often correct. For an encyclopedia that depends on verifiability and editorial control, no. Until WP:USERG changes, I think Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on the IMDB. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, they're fairly good for film credits, but it's a slippery slope to use IMDb as a reference for anything given what it is. They've a very long way to go before they can be considered reliable, and don't have the manpower or need to do so. Personally, I'll overlook its use on a poor article when it doesn't look like there could be a BLP problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As stated, upon submitting my film editing credits to IMDb, I have received, in the past, requests from IMDb for further sourcing. When this happens, I can only point them to the actual series/episode on iTunes/Amazon or other streaming source where my credit clearly appears in the episode credit roll. In situations like mine where filmography credits are true/valid, yet IMDb is deemed - as a whole - an unreliable source by Wiki, might the actual streaming source of the series/episode be considered an acceptable citation? What other recourse do genuine folks like myself have to support what is true in a way that jives with wiki standards? 172.250.48.230 ( talk) 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
hi. I want to use an site as a source for the page of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. any one can help me about the reliability and notability of the site: http://www.albawabaeg.com/52258.-- m,sharaf ( talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the website of a band a reliable source? One user is saying yes [38] . Another user is saying it is not. [39]. What does the group propose? I am pretty sure that the author of the article will be following me around ranting about a conspiracy theory. [40] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I see [ [41]] somewhat recent discussion of this site, but it didn't come to anything and I'd like to know, since to me it's unclear if the content is solely user-generated and lacking an editorial filter-- I'm also not especially experienced with determining the reliability of a given source, since I'm still on the new side. BlusterBlaster kablooie! 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@
Ronz: To avoid an edit war, I was double checking before removal in the article
The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading .
CrazyAces489 (
talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Try refraining from removing the book reference "accidentally". It will be nice to see the article kept again as usual. Also, the reference in question is an interview so what is wrong with that? TheGracefulSlick ( talk)