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 220 | ← | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | Archive 224 | Archive 225 | Archive 226 | → | Archive 230 |
In the article on Mitragyna speciosa (aka Kratom), the following occurs in a subsection of the "Adverse effects" section:
15 deaths in the United States between 2014 and 2016 were kratom-related. [1]
References
At the talk page, the claim has been made that the DEA ref is not reliable for this statement. Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate the DEA statement is not referenced like a scientific publication, but the number is broadly of the same order you find searching pubmed for case reports. I found reports of 2 deaths in the US, 2 in Germany, 9 in Sweden, and one in Norway, all since 2011. We can assume that not all deaths result in a published case report, and the number claimed by the DEA thus appears unremarkable. I see no reason to doubt it. I was going to say something about the fact that in most case reports I saw, kratom was not the only possible cause of death, but this appears to already be mentioned in the article. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if this thesis could be considered a reliable source for an article. From what I can tell it isn't widely cited and neither is its author, but apparently the supervisors are. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It has the name "Cascante Matamoros, Monserrat. "Evolución geológica y magmática del volcán Isluga, 19° S, región de Tarapacá, Chile." (2015).", the link does not work at the moment appparently. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a few general questions about good sourcing for politicians, especially when running for office. I have been comparing WP:RS for several similar politicians.
Here are my questions:
(1) External links:
Are external "official campaign" links acceptable, as those found here Cincinnati_mayoral_election,_2017#External_links:
either on that page or on the page of the candidate who is running?
(2) For links above, is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?
(3) For links like these that are published by in .gov about the elected official:
which are provided by the government administration, which I believe are written and/or controlled by the office holder. My guess is that they are still somewhat promotional but a little less POV than the similar .coms.
I have the same question as (2): is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?
(4) regarding questions (2) and (3), I asked a related question here:
Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#website_parameter
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
This site is very web 1.0 and looks like a personal project to me, but my German is not great (I only know about trout, the Lutheran Bible and linden trees). Is it an appropriately neutral resource or should we be pushing to get these replaced by links to PD texts on Gutenberg and the like? Guy ( Help!) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I know the Daily Express is to be "treated with caution", but if The Daily Mail is to be banned as "unreliable", I feel that a newspaper that publishes articles like this should follow suit: https://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122435/Jon-Austin (Example headline: "Aliens CREATED GOD… and now they want him back - shock claim of how religion began") Thoughts? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The Mail is probably the bottom of the barrel, but the Express, Mirror, and Sun aren't far off. If we see a cite to any of them, it is generally a good idea to replace it to a cite to more reliable source. If no such source exists, and if a given statement is only seen there, then editors should carefully consider whether to remove the text at issue entirely, because coverage only by low-quality tabloids that's a pretty strong signal that something is not encyclopedic, would be given undue weight, etc. But of course a lot of this is based on context / case-by-case. Neutrality talk 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This is just a sample - whether a RfC happens or not, I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source.Well, I suppose if they made up a bizarre enough concoction that it captured the public interest, they'd be useful for sourcing the things they wrote about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Maximilien de LaFayette claims to have written over 2500 books . [1] His own website [2] shows that he specialialises in UFOs, Sitchin type fringe, etc. His 'dictionaries' and many of his other books are self-published by Lulu or CreativeSpace. He doesn't seem to claim any credentials (saying this on the basis of his Amazon site where he dismisses them) but does say "In 2004, as an expert linguist and a lawyer (Int'l law, French Law, Comparative Arabic Laws, and Islamic Law), de Lafayette was commissioned by Yale University, School of Law to translate from English to Arabic, The White House Draft of the New Constitution of Iraq. He is internationally known for his expertise in the history and languages of ancient civilizations & social-legal studies of the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on tribal dialects, comparative social systems, laws & Islam. In addition, he wrote & produced numerous musicals, screenplays, documentaries & world premieres around the world. He wrote about so many subjects, encompassing Opera, Divas, Hollywood, Cinema, Jazz, Afro-American influence on American music, pioneering work of legends in showbiz, cabaret, fashion, history of art and civilization from 7,000 BC to the present day, extraterrestrials, aliens spaceships, UFOS, mysticism, spiritism, channeling, earth energy, healing, metaphysics, quantum physics, parallel universes, languages, Mesopotamia, international law, Islam, religions, cubism and abstract art, theology, anthropology, world literature, French history, American history, food and beverage, leadership, you name it." I think he may have some books that aren't self-published, but I can't see him as a source for anything. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of these sources (which can be translated easily by those using Chrome) seem dubious. The one about her nickname is a blog. But I'd like a 2nd opinion. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this a neutral, reliable source without serving a political agenda? The organization behind claims to be "informing the population about racism and xenophobia". The magazine publishes content criticizing right-wing political parties and politics, e.g. [3]. Its founders and editors, i.e. Tobias Hübinette, Stieg Larsson et al., are public far-leftist figures in Sweden, Hübinette being notorious, for instance, for stating that "to feel or even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering." -- 176.23.1.95 ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Washington Exec is used as a bio/corp source in articles about some topics I'd consider marginal. Inspecting the source, despite sounding like a print magazine title, it appears to be in fact a two-person blog: https://www.washingtonexec.com/about/. Examples:
All in all this looks indistinguishable from paid placement I've seen in promotional articles before. What does the community think? - Bri ( talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes scholarly content is published on web sources that we would normally consider unreliable (for instance, questions or answers on MathOverflow by people who would not necessarily pass the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS). And if it stopped there, those sources would clearly not be reliable. But in some cases, later reliably-published scholarly literature (e.g. journal papers) cites that web content as the definitive reference for a certain fact or claim. When this happens, can we then consider the original web source as becoming reliable? And if so can we include language in WP:RS to allow for this case? (Of course, there's still the issue that the original source is primary and not secondary, but that's a separate issue. My general feeling on the primary/secondary distinction in mathematical subjects is that we need to include both types of sources: secondary sources to provide appropriate reliability and verifiability for our subjects, and primary sources because failing to cite the originators of ideas is just bad scholarship.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone could advise whether this website (the publishers also produced a bi-monthly magazine, would be considered and independent, verifiable source for notability of a specialist publishing company?
The references I wish to use to support a profile of my company Green Star Media Ltd are as follows:
http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/media_innovation_awards_2014_green_star_media_1366.aspx
All assistance gratefully received Rugbyboy2 ( talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Over at the article Kotoko (musician), no surname is given as she has not publicly disclosed her surname. However, this Chinese government source, which apparently is some form of permit to perform in China, gives a surname for her. Assuming good faith, is it advisable to include the surname in the article with the link I have given as a source, or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I started expanding the Etymology section of the " Pasha" page. Here I stumbled across the phrase; "According to Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan, the word is derived from Turkish beşe ('boy, prince'), which is cognate with Persian baççe (بچّه).[5]".
According to the Wiki page of the gentleman in question, he is a "intellectual, travel writer, researcher and polymath". Apart from some information on his website, ( "A graduate of Yale (BA 1979) and Columbia (MA 1983), he taught linguistic history at Istanbul’s prestigious Bilgi University. His Etymological Dictionary of Modern Turkish (first ed. 2002, currently in 3rd ed.) is the main work of reference in its field.") I couldn't really find more precise info about his relations to this field of scholarship.
I'm therefore wondering, is he a reliable source on matters pertaining to linguistics and/or etymology? Thanks - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines, there's an issue whether news articles that comments on press releases be considered as reliable sources. These sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. These news articles use box office grosses that came from the film distributors. Here is my revision including these sources: Special:Diff/775469427/775468578. Another user disagrees with my sources and sees Box Office Mojo as the only source for box office grosses. My argument is that BOM doesn't track all-year round in the Philippines. To include highest grossing films that which were not tracked by BOM, I've used news articles that comments on box office grosses released by the film distributors as the primary references. Janbryan ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Last week "credible," fact-checking outlets including the The New York Times claimed that the Mother of All Bombs dropped in Afghanistan costs $16 million. Still others claimed it was $314 million. Actually, as Business Insider first reported, the bomb costs a mere $170,000. The $16 million and $314 million figures cited by mainstream media evidently came from an older report by The Los Angeles Times which was reporting the program cost of a different bomb. The NY Times and most other outlets did not cite their source - and, as of today, two days after the news broke, The NY Times has not issued a correction.
It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. When outlets with a mixed record for fact-checking like Business Insider do original reporting and correct the record, we should consider those reports to be generally reliable. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We have over 5,000 links to marxists.org, many of them as sources in articles, most of them on the face of it being hosted copies of PD books. I believe there is consensus that linking PD books on websites promoting an ideology is poor practice, and we should cite the book not the website, and if people want an online copy they should copy to Wikisource.
There is some content such as works by Lutsky, e.g. from 1969, which are probably still in copyright. I can't find evidence of release. That's a bit of a problem. Guy ( Help!) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Are rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org reliable sources? I know this may have been discussed before but I cannot find a consensus or anything. They are currently used for a number of articles ( Derog Gioura, Kennan Adeang, Government of the Ryukyu Islands, List of rulers of Kwêna among others), and I've been trying to use the latter as evidence William Worth is deceased. Although they may be self-published at least WorldStatesmen give the authors' names and the sources they got the info from in the Contributors page (and none of the sources are Wikipedia itself), so I'm not sure why it would be unreliable. In fact, if I remember correctly, WorldStatesmen requires more confirmation to add in info than rulers. EternalNomad ( talk) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.
It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.-- Assayer ( talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings.Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.-- Assayer ( talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").
"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."
And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick ( talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
"at least one other editor can see that"-- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
"nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"agenda-driven"contributor to
"scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:
this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figurevia Itsmejudith
It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliablevia Richard Keatinge
He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2via Only in death
I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or notvia Sturmvogel 66
I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's qualityvia Dimadick
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figurebut omit her next sentence:
I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." -- Nug ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Is BBC One – Antiques Roadshow a reliable source? It's cited on the Spandau Prison article as proof that there's a surviving brick from the prison that was demolished in 1987.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A link on 1UP.com feature about an original Street Fighter dev team is no more available with a "Service Unavailable - DNS failure" response. Gleb95 ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello RSN,
We have an RFC discussion concerning al-Masdar at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), feel free to chime in. EtienneDolet ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Today I noticed while editing a page that a user @ Huldra: was citing an odd website for many Palestinian villages. In fact, all Palestinian village articles Huldra writes cite this website. Now granted, this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere but, do you notice something off about this website?. Here's a picture of the front page of the website, I highlighted everything showing clear bias. And for the sake of being thorough, I went and checked some of these links.
So yeah, I don't think this is a very neutral source. Yet, it's largely the sole ref for most of Huldra's pages. BedrockPerson ( talk) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The reference
is cited three times within the article Pie and mash. Both the cited article itself and the WP article h2g2 suggest to me that h2g2.com -- "h2g2: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition" -- would fail (by WP:USERGENERATED) to qualify as a citeable source. Do I misunderstand the nature of h2g2? -- Hoary ( talk) 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Roadside Thoughts a reliable source? It was used as a source at Claytonia, Idaho, a new article. Roadside Thoughts appears to be bot-generated information, with "no editorial oversight", per WP:QUESTIONABLE. The opinion of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The website vladtv.com is used as a reference on over 100 Wikipedia articles. It seems to be used to support claims that are mainly celebrity gossip. This website is described at DJ Vlad as "the TMZ of hip-hop". The website appears to have been added to many articles by users who include it as a reference for every one of their contributions, suggesting WP:REFSPAM. What do others think of this website? Deli nk ( talk) 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In a new article about Kinda Hanna, there is an editor who would like to source content about her place of birth and date of birth (the latter a sensitive BLP issue, at times), to the following 3 sources:
Are those sources reliable for that content? (we have looked and don't have any English; these are what are being proposed) Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
An interesting question has (I think) been raised over at BI.
Let us say that an RS cites a source we have decided is not RS, is that cite not unreliable? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
For whatever reason there are some editors that don't think this is a reliable source. However the reasons given don't make any sense. First it's not a website that anyone can edit. They have a physical address and contact information if you want to contact them. They have a whole list of their staff of editors, writers, managers and many more. It's not a fan website, which is what some editors have claimed. Here are some links to check it out. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/team/. As you can see all employees mentioned have bios and they all appear to have college degrees, which is more than can be said about wikipedia editors. I don't see any reason as to why they are not a reliable source. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct, there's no indication that they use user-submitted data. Inviting readers to help by "submitting missing info" or "suggest an update" simply leads to an email form. That could be marketing (and the email goes in the bit bucket), but more likely it is a rational and functional avenue to receive suggestions (which they can then vet) in case they have something wrong or missing. Would you prefer if they say "We don't publish our email address, since we don't care if you think anything on this site is wrong."
Second of all, what's their business model? Based on their name, it is "providing correct birthdays", at least as a start. And indeed in this interview with the founder (which may be equivalent to a press release, I am not familiar with that site -- but no matter, it is a statement from the founder either way) he says just that. And they have a staff (unless they're lying and all those portraits are stock photos -- which is not impossible), so they seem to have sufficient bodies on hand for somebody to do fact-checking, if they want to.
So if "providing correct birthdays" is their business model, not caring if they get their birthday data correct or not would be a quick way to go out of business, n'est-ce pas? So they probably want to get the data correct, although it's possible they're too stupid to do so.
But if they're not lying or stupid (which they could be, but of course that's true of anyone), then I would think that at least for birthday data they would be somebody to consider.
Sure, they look like the kind of site that you would tease your sister for reading. But so? What does that have to do with how rigorous their fact-checking operation is or is not? Herostratus ( talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been closely looking at famousbirthdays.com since January. If you want to see the quality of their work, I suggest editors compare http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/alicia-grimes.html with the press releases and other poor sources offered for Alicia Grimes by Iamterrell5 ( talk · contribs) who is the contact person for some of the press releases. Whatever editing and fact-checking famousbirthdays.com is doing, it's obviously poor. I am also under the distinct impression that marketers like http://www.evancarmichael.com (which clearly Grimes and Iamterrell5 are working with, if Iamterrell5 isn't an evancarmichael.com employee) are recommending that people use Famousbirthdays.com as a marketing vehicle because of the ease of getting them to publish profiles.
Famousbirthdays.com appears to be a go-to-website for attempts to promote people. Famousbirthdays.com does not divulge their sources nor their criteria for inclusion, but they apparently have very low standards for both. We're getting at least a few additions each week, all in poorly-sourced BLPs.
http://www.famousbirthdays.com/terms/ : We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law. We do encourage our users to contact us regarding any potential inaccuracy found on our platform.
--
Ronz (
talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
If someone would like me to stop my regular cleanup of this source, please note it. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like regular legal terminology...Seems like you are just ignoring all evidence in preference for your personal opinion. That's not how we build consensus. You already settled on removing famousbirthdays.com from the article you were working on. You don't appear interested at all in looking at the larger issues.
I haven't seen one instance where they have incorrectly published a birth date.Again, it doesn't appear you've looked. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Fischer, Louis (1964). The Life of Lenin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
References
As the editor responsible for getting the Lenin article to FA status several months ago (following both a GAN and a PR), I would like to explain a little further. Fischer's 1964 biography of Lenin is just one of many biographical and historical sources used in this article. It is, without doubt, a WP:Reliable Source. Louis Fischer was indeed a journalist by trade, but published a number of well received and densely researched biographies on prominent political figures like Gandhi and Lenin. Indeed, his Lenin biography was awarded the 1965 National Book Award in History and Biography. Of course, he was restricted to the sources that were available in 1964, but even by that time a great deal of material was available for him to use. Just because his work does not cite the material that became available in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR does not make his work non-Reliable; moreover, a number of biographies (such as those of Robert Service and Dmitri Volkogonov) which were published after the collapse are also extensively cited in this article, so it is not as if older sources are being used in place of more recent ones.
If Fischer's work is so clearly an RS and has been accepted as a legitimate source through GAN, PR, and FAC, why is Xx236 so keen to be rid of it? The answer can be seen in Xx236's repeated WP:Advocacy over at the Lenin article and its talk page. Xx236 is passionately and openly anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet and has repeatedly attempted to reshape the article to reflect their own, deeply anti-Lenin stance. They have repeatedly expressed their views on the Talk Page and attempted to add additional (poorly referenced) information into the article; the latter has been removed. Their attempt to undermine Fischer as a source is because Fischer is not as passionately anti-Lenin as Xx236 is and does not reflect the image of Lenin that Xx236 wants to see projected. Their actions here are just further evidence of this WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I was reviewing the Little Mix article and I noticed a citation was needed regarding ancestry of one of the group members.
The article states that
Pinnock is of Barbadian and Jamaican ancestry.
. I found an online article [6] that was used to cite another member's [Thirlwall] ethnic background. The source was reliable for the cited quote because that particular member [Thirlwall] claimed her ethnic background but I am unsure if it will be reliable for my citation needed since Pinnock did not claim her ethnic background herself, but rather Thirlwall claimed that Pinnock had Jamaican and Bajan ancestry [1]. Alanna.davis ( talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
References
The reverser insists on taking the source without much argument. Is she reliable? 201.17.176.127 ( talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for clarification of the appropriacy of using IMDb as a sole source for the filmography section of an actor's article, in this case Erin Moran. I have read the advice at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb and at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources and I removed the filmography section as it was unsourced. Other editors have replaced it, claiming that IMBd is an acceptable source in this situation (discussion on talk page). Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks! MurielMary ( talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It surprised me there was no article for this person, so I started a translation of the German article on de:Fritz Brase and to that end searched for sources which seem quite scarce considering his life's work, especially in Ireland. However I found a radio documentary on RTÉ Radio which seems reliable and is rather extensive in its coverage of the subject. You can find it linked from this webpage. Can we consider this an WP:RS for this purpose? ww2censor ( talk) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
INFLUX Magazine is a website that, based on a search engine test, does not appear to have received any independent coverage. The website contains film reviews, and yesterday I noticed that their reviews existed on many mainstream film articles along with reputable publications like the film industry trade papers and widely-circulated newspapers. I found that an IP editor added only this review to multiple film articles. This led me to treat this proliferation as refspam, and I used Special:Linksearch to seek out where else it was used and removed them, such as from Moana, Ben-Hur, CHiPS, Fences, and Nocturnal Animals, to name a few. A couple of editors, NinjaRobotPirate and Walter Görlitz, messaged me about my removals. NinjaRobotPirate thought that this website was fine for indie movies. Walter opposed the removal with God's Not Dead, Hillsong: Let Hope Rise, and After. The first two are fairly mainstream films which have much more authoritative reviews from general and religious sources. The latter is an indie movie for which this website is presumably suitable. So a couple of questions to answer:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Mauce.nl a RS for news and information about metal bands. It was used as a reference here and I have seen it used a few other places. The footer says a bit: "the posts are property of the poster. Dates of new releases, agenda and in articles are not guaranteed. © 2006-2012 mauce.nl". First, that the website is user-generated and second, that the site isn't maintained (footer last updated in 2012). This particular piece of news was supplied by thrashboy who is listed as "Co-founder / Head-editor". No indication of editorial oversight, how retractions are made, or how the site is supported or influenced. My gut feeling is that it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I was adding this source from the UN website itself and the publisher is systematically reversing me. Would she be reliable enough to reverse it?. 201.17.139.175 ( talk) 09:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, "22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group."
However, as is apparent from the ad itself, a copy of which is on the website of the Family Research Council, the petition said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [îs] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." The reference to "character assassination" is part of a commentary added by the FRC.
Unfortunately, the ad received no coverage little coverage in any media. Should we rely on the description in a secondary source even if it is clearly inaccurate?
TFD ( talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I personally find it a disgrace to discredit RecordSetter as far as not being a credible source of information. Just because a few people at Guinness basically dont like a world record, Absolutely does not mean that its not a verifiable world record. I would be interested to know who is making these false claims against RecordSetter and what information they have to back up these claims? So basically wikipedia, an online information center doesnt want to display content that is 100% verified and true? I suppose thats why they get such a bad reputation for false "facts".
I'm not asking in general, so direct me elsewhere if appropriate.
Why is a live stream unreliable?
Is it really reasonable to think it would be digitally manipulated, or otherwise fake?
I was also surprised to only find one mention of live streams in the archives. Has this question not been raised before? Benjamin ( talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the website ww2today.com run by Martin Cherrett reliable for anything about WWII? Here is an article about him.
I was considering adding this as another reference for Ascq massacre and Walter Hauck, but since he appears to be a blogger, I am not sure he is sufficiently expert.
I see that his work is also reference in these articles:
I will put notes on those pages informing editors there of this post, and also on the Military History Wikiproject.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 220 | ← | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | Archive 224 | Archive 225 | Archive 226 | → | Archive 230 |
In the article on Mitragyna speciosa (aka Kratom), the following occurs in a subsection of the "Adverse effects" section:
15 deaths in the United States between 2014 and 2016 were kratom-related. [1]
References
At the talk page, the claim has been made that the DEA ref is not reliable for this statement. Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate the DEA statement is not referenced like a scientific publication, but the number is broadly of the same order you find searching pubmed for case reports. I found reports of 2 deaths in the US, 2 in Germany, 9 in Sweden, and one in Norway, all since 2011. We can assume that not all deaths result in a published case report, and the number claimed by the DEA thus appears unremarkable. I see no reason to doubt it. I was going to say something about the fact that in most case reports I saw, kratom was not the only possible cause of death, but this appears to already be mentioned in the article. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if this thesis could be considered a reliable source for an article. From what I can tell it isn't widely cited and neither is its author, but apparently the supervisors are. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It has the name "Cascante Matamoros, Monserrat. "Evolución geológica y magmática del volcán Isluga, 19° S, región de Tarapacá, Chile." (2015).", the link does not work at the moment appparently. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a few general questions about good sourcing for politicians, especially when running for office. I have been comparing WP:RS for several similar politicians.
Here are my questions:
(1) External links:
Are external "official campaign" links acceptable, as those found here Cincinnati_mayoral_election,_2017#External_links:
either on that page or on the page of the candidate who is running?
(2) For links above, is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?
(3) For links like these that are published by in .gov about the elected official:
which are provided by the government administration, which I believe are written and/or controlled by the office holder. My guess is that they are still somewhat promotional but a little less POV than the similar .coms.
I have the same question as (2): is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?
(4) regarding questions (2) and (3), I asked a related question here:
Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#website_parameter
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
This site is very web 1.0 and looks like a personal project to me, but my German is not great (I only know about trout, the Lutheran Bible and linden trees). Is it an appropriately neutral resource or should we be pushing to get these replaced by links to PD texts on Gutenberg and the like? Guy ( Help!) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I know the Daily Express is to be "treated with caution", but if The Daily Mail is to be banned as "unreliable", I feel that a newspaper that publishes articles like this should follow suit: https://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122435/Jon-Austin (Example headline: "Aliens CREATED GOD… and now they want him back - shock claim of how religion began") Thoughts? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The Mail is probably the bottom of the barrel, but the Express, Mirror, and Sun aren't far off. If we see a cite to any of them, it is generally a good idea to replace it to a cite to more reliable source. If no such source exists, and if a given statement is only seen there, then editors should carefully consider whether to remove the text at issue entirely, because coverage only by low-quality tabloids that's a pretty strong signal that something is not encyclopedic, would be given undue weight, etc. But of course a lot of this is based on context / case-by-case. Neutrality talk 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This is just a sample - whether a RfC happens or not, I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source.Well, I suppose if they made up a bizarre enough concoction that it captured the public interest, they'd be useful for sourcing the things they wrote about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Maximilien de LaFayette claims to have written over 2500 books . [1] His own website [2] shows that he specialialises in UFOs, Sitchin type fringe, etc. His 'dictionaries' and many of his other books are self-published by Lulu or CreativeSpace. He doesn't seem to claim any credentials (saying this on the basis of his Amazon site where he dismisses them) but does say "In 2004, as an expert linguist and a lawyer (Int'l law, French Law, Comparative Arabic Laws, and Islamic Law), de Lafayette was commissioned by Yale University, School of Law to translate from English to Arabic, The White House Draft of the New Constitution of Iraq. He is internationally known for his expertise in the history and languages of ancient civilizations & social-legal studies of the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on tribal dialects, comparative social systems, laws & Islam. In addition, he wrote & produced numerous musicals, screenplays, documentaries & world premieres around the world. He wrote about so many subjects, encompassing Opera, Divas, Hollywood, Cinema, Jazz, Afro-American influence on American music, pioneering work of legends in showbiz, cabaret, fashion, history of art and civilization from 7,000 BC to the present day, extraterrestrials, aliens spaceships, UFOS, mysticism, spiritism, channeling, earth energy, healing, metaphysics, quantum physics, parallel universes, languages, Mesopotamia, international law, Islam, religions, cubism and abstract art, theology, anthropology, world literature, French history, American history, food and beverage, leadership, you name it." I think he may have some books that aren't self-published, but I can't see him as a source for anything. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of these sources (which can be translated easily by those using Chrome) seem dubious. The one about her nickname is a blog. But I'd like a 2nd opinion. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this a neutral, reliable source without serving a political agenda? The organization behind claims to be "informing the population about racism and xenophobia". The magazine publishes content criticizing right-wing political parties and politics, e.g. [3]. Its founders and editors, i.e. Tobias Hübinette, Stieg Larsson et al., are public far-leftist figures in Sweden, Hübinette being notorious, for instance, for stating that "to feel or even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering." -- 176.23.1.95 ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Washington Exec is used as a bio/corp source in articles about some topics I'd consider marginal. Inspecting the source, despite sounding like a print magazine title, it appears to be in fact a two-person blog: https://www.washingtonexec.com/about/. Examples:
All in all this looks indistinguishable from paid placement I've seen in promotional articles before. What does the community think? - Bri ( talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes scholarly content is published on web sources that we would normally consider unreliable (for instance, questions or answers on MathOverflow by people who would not necessarily pass the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS). And if it stopped there, those sources would clearly not be reliable. But in some cases, later reliably-published scholarly literature (e.g. journal papers) cites that web content as the definitive reference for a certain fact or claim. When this happens, can we then consider the original web source as becoming reliable? And if so can we include language in WP:RS to allow for this case? (Of course, there's still the issue that the original source is primary and not secondary, but that's a separate issue. My general feeling on the primary/secondary distinction in mathematical subjects is that we need to include both types of sources: secondary sources to provide appropriate reliability and verifiability for our subjects, and primary sources because failing to cite the originators of ideas is just bad scholarship.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone could advise whether this website (the publishers also produced a bi-monthly magazine, would be considered and independent, verifiable source for notability of a specialist publishing company?
The references I wish to use to support a profile of my company Green Star Media Ltd are as follows:
http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/media_innovation_awards_2014_green_star_media_1366.aspx
All assistance gratefully received Rugbyboy2 ( talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Over at the article Kotoko (musician), no surname is given as she has not publicly disclosed her surname. However, this Chinese government source, which apparently is some form of permit to perform in China, gives a surname for her. Assuming good faith, is it advisable to include the surname in the article with the link I have given as a source, or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I started expanding the Etymology section of the " Pasha" page. Here I stumbled across the phrase; "According to Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan, the word is derived from Turkish beşe ('boy, prince'), which is cognate with Persian baççe (بچّه).[5]".
According to the Wiki page of the gentleman in question, he is a "intellectual, travel writer, researcher and polymath". Apart from some information on his website, ( "A graduate of Yale (BA 1979) and Columbia (MA 1983), he taught linguistic history at Istanbul’s prestigious Bilgi University. His Etymological Dictionary of Modern Turkish (first ed. 2002, currently in 3rd ed.) is the main work of reference in its field.") I couldn't really find more precise info about his relations to this field of scholarship.
I'm therefore wondering, is he a reliable source on matters pertaining to linguistics and/or etymology? Thanks - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines, there's an issue whether news articles that comments on press releases be considered as reliable sources. These sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. These news articles use box office grosses that came from the film distributors. Here is my revision including these sources: Special:Diff/775469427/775468578. Another user disagrees with my sources and sees Box Office Mojo as the only source for box office grosses. My argument is that BOM doesn't track all-year round in the Philippines. To include highest grossing films that which were not tracked by BOM, I've used news articles that comments on box office grosses released by the film distributors as the primary references. Janbryan ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Last week "credible," fact-checking outlets including the The New York Times claimed that the Mother of All Bombs dropped in Afghanistan costs $16 million. Still others claimed it was $314 million. Actually, as Business Insider first reported, the bomb costs a mere $170,000. The $16 million and $314 million figures cited by mainstream media evidently came from an older report by The Los Angeles Times which was reporting the program cost of a different bomb. The NY Times and most other outlets did not cite their source - and, as of today, two days after the news broke, The NY Times has not issued a correction.
It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. When outlets with a mixed record for fact-checking like Business Insider do original reporting and correct the record, we should consider those reports to be generally reliable. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We have over 5,000 links to marxists.org, many of them as sources in articles, most of them on the face of it being hosted copies of PD books. I believe there is consensus that linking PD books on websites promoting an ideology is poor practice, and we should cite the book not the website, and if people want an online copy they should copy to Wikisource.
There is some content such as works by Lutsky, e.g. from 1969, which are probably still in copyright. I can't find evidence of release. That's a bit of a problem. Guy ( Help!) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Are rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org reliable sources? I know this may have been discussed before but I cannot find a consensus or anything. They are currently used for a number of articles ( Derog Gioura, Kennan Adeang, Government of the Ryukyu Islands, List of rulers of Kwêna among others), and I've been trying to use the latter as evidence William Worth is deceased. Although they may be self-published at least WorldStatesmen give the authors' names and the sources they got the info from in the Contributors page (and none of the sources are Wikipedia itself), so I'm not sure why it would be unreliable. In fact, if I remember correctly, WorldStatesmen requires more confirmation to add in info than rulers. EternalNomad ( talk) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.
It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.-- Assayer ( talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings.Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.-- Assayer ( talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").
"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."
And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick ( talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
"at least one other editor can see that"-- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
"nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"agenda-driven"contributor to
"scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:
this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figurevia Itsmejudith
It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliablevia Richard Keatinge
He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2via Only in death
I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or notvia Sturmvogel 66
I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's qualityvia Dimadick
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figurebut omit her next sentence:
I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." -- Nug ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Is BBC One – Antiques Roadshow a reliable source? It's cited on the Spandau Prison article as proof that there's a surviving brick from the prison that was demolished in 1987.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A link on 1UP.com feature about an original Street Fighter dev team is no more available with a "Service Unavailable - DNS failure" response. Gleb95 ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello RSN,
We have an RFC discussion concerning al-Masdar at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), feel free to chime in. EtienneDolet ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Today I noticed while editing a page that a user @ Huldra: was citing an odd website for many Palestinian villages. In fact, all Palestinian village articles Huldra writes cite this website. Now granted, this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere but, do you notice something off about this website?. Here's a picture of the front page of the website, I highlighted everything showing clear bias. And for the sake of being thorough, I went and checked some of these links.
So yeah, I don't think this is a very neutral source. Yet, it's largely the sole ref for most of Huldra's pages. BedrockPerson ( talk) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The reference
is cited three times within the article Pie and mash. Both the cited article itself and the WP article h2g2 suggest to me that h2g2.com -- "h2g2: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition" -- would fail (by WP:USERGENERATED) to qualify as a citeable source. Do I misunderstand the nature of h2g2? -- Hoary ( talk) 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Roadside Thoughts a reliable source? It was used as a source at Claytonia, Idaho, a new article. Roadside Thoughts appears to be bot-generated information, with "no editorial oversight", per WP:QUESTIONABLE. The opinion of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The website vladtv.com is used as a reference on over 100 Wikipedia articles. It seems to be used to support claims that are mainly celebrity gossip. This website is described at DJ Vlad as "the TMZ of hip-hop". The website appears to have been added to many articles by users who include it as a reference for every one of their contributions, suggesting WP:REFSPAM. What do others think of this website? Deli nk ( talk) 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In a new article about Kinda Hanna, there is an editor who would like to source content about her place of birth and date of birth (the latter a sensitive BLP issue, at times), to the following 3 sources:
Are those sources reliable for that content? (we have looked and don't have any English; these are what are being proposed) Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
An interesting question has (I think) been raised over at BI.
Let us say that an RS cites a source we have decided is not RS, is that cite not unreliable? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
For whatever reason there are some editors that don't think this is a reliable source. However the reasons given don't make any sense. First it's not a website that anyone can edit. They have a physical address and contact information if you want to contact them. They have a whole list of their staff of editors, writers, managers and many more. It's not a fan website, which is what some editors have claimed. Here are some links to check it out. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/team/. As you can see all employees mentioned have bios and they all appear to have college degrees, which is more than can be said about wikipedia editors. I don't see any reason as to why they are not a reliable source. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct, there's no indication that they use user-submitted data. Inviting readers to help by "submitting missing info" or "suggest an update" simply leads to an email form. That could be marketing (and the email goes in the bit bucket), but more likely it is a rational and functional avenue to receive suggestions (which they can then vet) in case they have something wrong or missing. Would you prefer if they say "We don't publish our email address, since we don't care if you think anything on this site is wrong."
Second of all, what's their business model? Based on their name, it is "providing correct birthdays", at least as a start. And indeed in this interview with the founder (which may be equivalent to a press release, I am not familiar with that site -- but no matter, it is a statement from the founder either way) he says just that. And they have a staff (unless they're lying and all those portraits are stock photos -- which is not impossible), so they seem to have sufficient bodies on hand for somebody to do fact-checking, if they want to.
So if "providing correct birthdays" is their business model, not caring if they get their birthday data correct or not would be a quick way to go out of business, n'est-ce pas? So they probably want to get the data correct, although it's possible they're too stupid to do so.
But if they're not lying or stupid (which they could be, but of course that's true of anyone), then I would think that at least for birthday data they would be somebody to consider.
Sure, they look like the kind of site that you would tease your sister for reading. But so? What does that have to do with how rigorous their fact-checking operation is or is not? Herostratus ( talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been closely looking at famousbirthdays.com since January. If you want to see the quality of their work, I suggest editors compare http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/alicia-grimes.html with the press releases and other poor sources offered for Alicia Grimes by Iamterrell5 ( talk · contribs) who is the contact person for some of the press releases. Whatever editing and fact-checking famousbirthdays.com is doing, it's obviously poor. I am also under the distinct impression that marketers like http://www.evancarmichael.com (which clearly Grimes and Iamterrell5 are working with, if Iamterrell5 isn't an evancarmichael.com employee) are recommending that people use Famousbirthdays.com as a marketing vehicle because of the ease of getting them to publish profiles.
Famousbirthdays.com appears to be a go-to-website for attempts to promote people. Famousbirthdays.com does not divulge their sources nor their criteria for inclusion, but they apparently have very low standards for both. We're getting at least a few additions each week, all in poorly-sourced BLPs.
http://www.famousbirthdays.com/terms/ : We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law. We do encourage our users to contact us regarding any potential inaccuracy found on our platform.
--
Ronz (
talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
If someone would like me to stop my regular cleanup of this source, please note it. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like regular legal terminology...Seems like you are just ignoring all evidence in preference for your personal opinion. That's not how we build consensus. You already settled on removing famousbirthdays.com from the article you were working on. You don't appear interested at all in looking at the larger issues.
I haven't seen one instance where they have incorrectly published a birth date.Again, it doesn't appear you've looked. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Fischer, Louis (1964). The Life of Lenin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
References
As the editor responsible for getting the Lenin article to FA status several months ago (following both a GAN and a PR), I would like to explain a little further. Fischer's 1964 biography of Lenin is just one of many biographical and historical sources used in this article. It is, without doubt, a WP:Reliable Source. Louis Fischer was indeed a journalist by trade, but published a number of well received and densely researched biographies on prominent political figures like Gandhi and Lenin. Indeed, his Lenin biography was awarded the 1965 National Book Award in History and Biography. Of course, he was restricted to the sources that were available in 1964, but even by that time a great deal of material was available for him to use. Just because his work does not cite the material that became available in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR does not make his work non-Reliable; moreover, a number of biographies (such as those of Robert Service and Dmitri Volkogonov) which were published after the collapse are also extensively cited in this article, so it is not as if older sources are being used in place of more recent ones.
If Fischer's work is so clearly an RS and has been accepted as a legitimate source through GAN, PR, and FAC, why is Xx236 so keen to be rid of it? The answer can be seen in Xx236's repeated WP:Advocacy over at the Lenin article and its talk page. Xx236 is passionately and openly anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet and has repeatedly attempted to reshape the article to reflect their own, deeply anti-Lenin stance. They have repeatedly expressed their views on the Talk Page and attempted to add additional (poorly referenced) information into the article; the latter has been removed. Their attempt to undermine Fischer as a source is because Fischer is not as passionately anti-Lenin as Xx236 is and does not reflect the image of Lenin that Xx236 wants to see projected. Their actions here are just further evidence of this WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I was reviewing the Little Mix article and I noticed a citation was needed regarding ancestry of one of the group members.
The article states that
Pinnock is of Barbadian and Jamaican ancestry.
. I found an online article [6] that was used to cite another member's [Thirlwall] ethnic background. The source was reliable for the cited quote because that particular member [Thirlwall] claimed her ethnic background but I am unsure if it will be reliable for my citation needed since Pinnock did not claim her ethnic background herself, but rather Thirlwall claimed that Pinnock had Jamaican and Bajan ancestry [1]. Alanna.davis ( talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
References
The reverser insists on taking the source without much argument. Is she reliable? 201.17.176.127 ( talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for clarification of the appropriacy of using IMDb as a sole source for the filmography section of an actor's article, in this case Erin Moran. I have read the advice at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb and at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources and I removed the filmography section as it was unsourced. Other editors have replaced it, claiming that IMBd is an acceptable source in this situation (discussion on talk page). Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks! MurielMary ( talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It surprised me there was no article for this person, so I started a translation of the German article on de:Fritz Brase and to that end searched for sources which seem quite scarce considering his life's work, especially in Ireland. However I found a radio documentary on RTÉ Radio which seems reliable and is rather extensive in its coverage of the subject. You can find it linked from this webpage. Can we consider this an WP:RS for this purpose? ww2censor ( talk) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
INFLUX Magazine is a website that, based on a search engine test, does not appear to have received any independent coverage. The website contains film reviews, and yesterday I noticed that their reviews existed on many mainstream film articles along with reputable publications like the film industry trade papers and widely-circulated newspapers. I found that an IP editor added only this review to multiple film articles. This led me to treat this proliferation as refspam, and I used Special:Linksearch to seek out where else it was used and removed them, such as from Moana, Ben-Hur, CHiPS, Fences, and Nocturnal Animals, to name a few. A couple of editors, NinjaRobotPirate and Walter Görlitz, messaged me about my removals. NinjaRobotPirate thought that this website was fine for indie movies. Walter opposed the removal with God's Not Dead, Hillsong: Let Hope Rise, and After. The first two are fairly mainstream films which have much more authoritative reviews from general and religious sources. The latter is an indie movie for which this website is presumably suitable. So a couple of questions to answer:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Mauce.nl a RS for news and information about metal bands. It was used as a reference here and I have seen it used a few other places. The footer says a bit: "the posts are property of the poster. Dates of new releases, agenda and in articles are not guaranteed. © 2006-2012 mauce.nl". First, that the website is user-generated and second, that the site isn't maintained (footer last updated in 2012). This particular piece of news was supplied by thrashboy who is listed as "Co-founder / Head-editor". No indication of editorial oversight, how retractions are made, or how the site is supported or influenced. My gut feeling is that it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I was adding this source from the UN website itself and the publisher is systematically reversing me. Would she be reliable enough to reverse it?. 201.17.139.175 ( talk) 09:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, "22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group."
However, as is apparent from the ad itself, a copy of which is on the website of the Family Research Council, the petition said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [îs] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." The reference to "character assassination" is part of a commentary added by the FRC.
Unfortunately, the ad received no coverage little coverage in any media. Should we rely on the description in a secondary source even if it is clearly inaccurate?
TFD ( talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I personally find it a disgrace to discredit RecordSetter as far as not being a credible source of information. Just because a few people at Guinness basically dont like a world record, Absolutely does not mean that its not a verifiable world record. I would be interested to know who is making these false claims against RecordSetter and what information they have to back up these claims? So basically wikipedia, an online information center doesnt want to display content that is 100% verified and true? I suppose thats why they get such a bad reputation for false "facts".
I'm not asking in general, so direct me elsewhere if appropriate.
Why is a live stream unreliable?
Is it really reasonable to think it would be digitally manipulated, or otherwise fake?
I was also surprised to only find one mention of live streams in the archives. Has this question not been raised before? Benjamin ( talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the website ww2today.com run by Martin Cherrett reliable for anything about WWII? Here is an article about him.
I was considering adding this as another reference for Ascq massacre and Walter Hauck, but since he appears to be a blogger, I am not sure he is sufficiently expert.
I see that his work is also reference in these articles:
I will put notes on those pages informing editors there of this post, and also on the Military History Wikiproject.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)