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 235 | ← | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | → | Archive 245 |
LaMar C. Berrett was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a professor at Brigham Young University. He published a book, Discovering the World of the Bible with basically treats everything in the Bible as a historical fact. Editors are now inserting the "history" of people like Rehoboam, Solomon, David and Noah into the article of Dura, Hebron, based solely on the Biblical mention (AFAIK, there is considerable discussion among archeologist if anyone of the 4 mentioned people actually ever existed....).
I consider this profoundly unhistorical. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for people to use for spreading their religious beliefs as facts. What does other people think about this? Huldra ( talk) 20:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually there is a lot more manuscript evidence for biblical history than other widely accepted historical documents. We also have jewish and arab tradition as to where certian events were supposed to happen. A religion professor is perfectly qualified to assemble evidence and tradition to connect Place A to Person B. Just cite the source correctly and carry on. Legacypac ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor removed basic bio info [3] sourced to a Radio Free Europe interview with the article subject. I'm pretty sure we can take the subject's word for his age and schooling in an interview on RFE. This info is not easily sourced elsewhere as no one in the English speaking world cared much about Konstantin Kilimnik until he became a key person in the Mullier investigation in the last few days. Is there any problem with RFE as a source in this context? Legacypac ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Dr Fleischman's assessment is incorrect. The source is clearly labeled an interview in the title. The interview is being used to support what the article subject (KK) told the reporter about his own age, university attended, and one job in the 2000s predating meeting Manafort. What kind of propaganda purpose would reporting KK's self disclosed background have exactly? Does anyone think RFE falsely reported these basic bio details and if so, why? Also reporting on what KK said about about his own activities should be fine - KK might even be lying about his actions but we report what KK said and to who he said it. Legacypac ( talk) 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4)#Johnny Blaze centers on whether two tweets, each of which has since been deleted, can be used to support a contentious claim.
The particulars, which may or may not be pertinent, involve an unnamed guest character in a TV episode. Neither the producers nor the writer, the sole authoritative sources, named the character, nor have they discussed fan theories. In tweets that have since been deleted (and to my mind recanted), a recurring-guest actor and the visual-effects supervisor each claimed, without stating their source, that they they believed the unnamed character was Johnny Blaze, a character from the comic books. This seems like rumor or here-say, and while I suppose we can say "So-and-so and So-and-so believe the character was Johnny Blaze," the article states it as definitive fact. Thoughts about citing a contentious claim to withdrawn tweets? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is this source "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims" [6] reliable for pre-Islamic Arab history? The source assert on extremely controversial topic concerning historical figure, Umayya ibn Abd Shams. Ahmad Kazemi for instance is specialist on the field of Islamic law, and other authors are concentrated in the study of the religious scripture, not history. I asked the editor to provide reliable materials for the claim, he simply ignored and asserted on the reliability of his source. Best regards. Nabataeus ( talk) 21:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, it have everything. It's unreliable, thus should be removed as far as WP:RS is concerned.-- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What the source is claiming is that Ibn al-Kalbi made a claim about him. I replied ibn al-Kalbi is considered to be unreliable (Sources provided). Nabataeus ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Multiple editors have said that the source is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I made this edit based on my reading of Carter (which I "read online free" on JSTOR), but when I looked a little bit deeper it seems like Carter confused Yoshitada (Basho's master) with Yoshikiyo (Yoshitada's father), as he calls the man Yoshikiyo but gives him Yoshitada's pen name and death date. Given how our article only currently cites Carter for info on Basho's early life, I'm not sure if we should just throw him out since, even if it's just a misprint (not unlikely), he's got a significant detail about the topic for which we cite him -- Basho's early career -- wrong. Should we just use him for the rest and ignore when details like this are wrong?
Honestly, the reason it concerns me is that I only added a reference to Yoshikiyo because of the error that I took at face value at first, and now I'm wondering if Yoshikiyo should even be named in the article.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to ask the community what they think of this as a source? I was specifically thinking of using it to cite Europe '72#Track listing, which currently has no other source (the tracks and times are present on the LP, but not the recording dates and venues). I appreciate it meets the letter of WP:SPS; however, Grateful Dead fans are an organised bunch, and pride themselves on factual accuracy for live dates in particular. The site clearly identifies its source material, updates are restricted to the site's owners, but notification of mistakes and corrections are welcome. So it does have peer review and does cite information published in other trustworthy sources. The simple reason I'd prefer to use deaddisc.com is it's easier to access; I appreciate we have WP:SOURCEACCESS, but that doesn't help us when we have an article that can't be fact checked easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Jamsphere
is mentioned in many articles [11] but we have no article on the website (or independent music magazine and radio network as they describe themselves [12]).
I'm particularly interested in whether articles at Jamsphere might be useful in establishing notability for the artist Sophia Radisch [13] and/or for the Indie record label of which she is a partner. Andrewa ( talk) 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This site cannot be reliable because it has wrong information about people. For example there are two people called Sana Javed. There's a cricketer, Sana Javed (cricketer) and an actor, Sana Javed. Style.pk put on their website that the actor, Sana Javed, was once a cricketer and then moved onto becoming an actor. Style.pk apparently has joined these two people with the same name together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plum3600 ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Is wikiquote a RS? Currently used in Hanlon's razor. NE Ent 18:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This article Bell & Ross (a "luxury" watchmaker) currently has just two references. One is a page of the website "The Watch Quote".
This page at The Watch Quote -- a page that's unsigned, doesn't cite its sources (even in the most informal, journalistic way), and doesn't claim even to have started to test any claim -- looks to me like a mere PR puff piece. The website's "about" page suggests nothing critical or thoughtful. Rather, the mission of the website seems solely to fluff up enthusiasm for buying expensive wristwatches. Of course many websites do this kind of thing; but (for example) camera websites make a big thing of testing the resolving power of lenses, describing color casts and ergonomics, etc.
Or do I misunderstand? (I should add that the sources provided for articles on other watchmakers tend to look just as bad.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Small Ukrainian news website. I see it's included in Olena Sibiriakova but I'm unsure about its reliability as a whole.
Is it reliable to cite with? 2A00:C98:2060:A008:4:0:0:1 ( talk) 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This edit. I wouldn't even know how to verify it. Of course there's the possibility this is WP:UNDUE, but I guess that's for another board. Always a bit frustrating when an edit raises several policy issues. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Are any of the sources cited by this article, WP:RS? Guy ( Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As it leans heavily on the issue of reliable sources, some of you have been following Wikipedia's cryptozoology saga for some time now (if not, here's a summary of what's going on). Anyway, one particularly problematic article has been list of cryptids, which appears to be nothing more than a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. If you've got the time and patience, please weigh in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
A while ago, LewisJAbbey ( talk · contribs) added Vaunter to multiple articles such as Zion I, Jacob Banks (singer), North Mississippi Allstars, Grouplove, Miike Snow, Don Diablo, Charli XCX, Mood Rings (band), Tinashe, Eddie Brock, and A Head Full of Dreams Tour. It looks like a self-published source to me. I would like to know if Vaunter can be used as a reliable source in the Wikipedia. 153.205.162.241 ( talk) 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the website "Oh,The Horror!" be treated as a reliable source for critical reviews of this particular genre of films. My concern has to to do with this addition made to Candyman (film). I believe the actual review intended to be cited can be found here, but I have concerns as to whether the site itself and the reviewer are considered to be WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. I'm not sure if the site is generating it's own reviews by established professional movie reviewers or even whether the content is WP:UGC. The only information I can find about the reviewer "Wes R." on the website is this which does give the impression that this person is a widely recognized movie reviewer/critic per by WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:SPS. My concerns are also because the editor adding this content might have done so to try and prove a point based upon this user talk page post. Anyway, I've removed the content for now so that the source can be assessed; if the consensus is that it's OK, it can be re-added. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Fifteen references were removed with this edit. Can someone sort the satisfactory sources from the unsatisfactory sources for me? I'm kinda new here. 79.67.81.118 ( talk) 04:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: See Talk:Aromanticism#RfC: Should this article be merged? for where the discussion is taking place. The IP, who actually is not that new, keeps adding random online sources to the article. I've already pointed the IP to the WP:Reliable sources guideline. I'm not objecting to sources like The Washington Post or HuffPost unless they're being used to generalize aspects of the topic in ways that do not adhere to the WP:Neutral policy. I'm objecting to sources like this highlandecho.com source, the "Parade, Beach Pride, and Beach Pride Parade" source (well, so-called source), and this scaddistrict.com source. Sources like that. The IP is adding any and everything to the article in the hopes of saving it, when the quality sources on this topic mainly discuss it within the context of asexuality and, more broadly, romantic orientation (although not that broadly since romantic orientation mainly concerns asexuality as well)...hence the merge proposal. If we were to have an article on this topic, the way the IP is building it is not the way to go. There have also been WP:Synthesis issues. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've been improving Glen Nelson. The only source I can find for his birth year is his worldcat record. Can I cite the worldcat record for his birth year? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 17:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue straddles OR, NPOV, BLP, and RS (however, this is filed solely on RSN). The article in question is Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (some prior discussion - Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Use of wPolityce.pl coverage of a facebook post as source for history. The text in question was at some point diff):
According to Jan Grabowski some 200,000 Jews were killed directly or indirectly by Polish collaborators. [1]
References
Some editors have supported [15] [16] (vs. some opposition) changes along these lines to a form such as this ( version as of 4 April):
According to Jan Grabowski's erroneous arithmetic [1] [2] [3] 200,000 Jews were killed directly or indirectly by Poles. [4] Grabowski (2013) arrived at this number through a circular reference from Friedländer who in turn, [5] misquoted Antony Polonsky's 2004 paper. [6] Polonsky limited his estimate to registered Jewish survivors as of June 1945 while a lot more survivors were still arriving and registering with CKŻP; or, not registering at all. Grabowski, in his circular reference, also failed to acknowledge the timeframe, and erred by implying that the low estimate included all survivors. [1] [2] [3] [7] Meanwhile, by mid 1946 the recorded number had risen to about 205,000–210,000 survivors (with 240,000 registrations and over 30,000 duplicates). [8] [9]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Some background - Jan Grabowski is a Canadian Holocaust historian who is generally well respected world-wide who has estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust (in an academic book, I think a few papers, in a couple of media interviews) which was further repeated by multiple media outlets (see google news search for Grabowski 200,000 Jews). The Polish government has objected to this, [17] as have other elements in Polish society. [18] [19]. The second version (calling the Grabowski's estimate an error in Wikipedia's voice, and containing a rather long analysis on why this is allegedly so) is sourced to the following sources:
Finally - I shall note that there have been widely covered legislative changes in Poland in regards to free speech on the Polish role in the Holocaust. [26] Which already possibly have some effects on the ground. [27] [28]. However - to be fair - this probably has little impact on wPolityce whose editorial line was compliant with the new legislation well prior to it being passed.
Question: Is this use of the comments of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland on facebook, coverage thereof in wPolityce.pl and and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba, and use of citations to reference some of the ambassador's claims an appropriate source (attributed or unattributed) for Holocaust history? Icewhiz ( talk) 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Per NPOV it's not Wikipedia's place to take a position on whether a historian was erroneous. We may quote who alleges he was erroneous, but we may not use that allegation as a supporting reference for us to assert it as fact. The problem here is less about whether sources are reliable, it's more about how they are being used to push a point.
I was advised by an IP editor to post here regarding ongoing discussion at [31] between myself and another editor since the end of last year over which label best suits the opening paragraph regarding the ideology of National Party (Ireland). Originally the argument centred on whether to use Irish nationalist or nationalist. However, the other editor pushed through the description neo-nationalist to describe said party and cited an article by thejournal.ie (an Irish news-blog) and an article in the Irish Times in favour of this description. However, neither of these sources use the label neo-nationalist. The argument in support of that label is that the proclaimed policies as detailed in the previously listed secondary sources are indicative of neo-nationalism, claiming that it's a WP:SKYISBLUE issue. Yet no source, either by the party or by reliable secondary sources, uses the label neo-nationalist and to date the only person who has used the label neo-nationalist to describe the party is this particular editor.
In response to this lack of a source I have stated it ought to be removed and replaced with the more appropriate nationalist descriptor, as the nationalist label is explicitly used by a reliable secondary source to describe the programme of the National Party: "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." The continued insistence on the use of the neo-nationalist label is surely a violation of WP:NOR as a sourced label (nationalist) is being discarded in favour of an unsourced label (neo-nationalist). Also it is important to note that I have on many occasions attempted to compromise (in fact this current nationalist description I am advocating for is a compromise from my earlier attempt to use Irish nationalist), all of these attempts at compromise have been arbitrarily rebuffed. It should be noted also that the party's official website's About Us section is evidently advocating a more nationalist or Irish nationalist position than a neo-nationalist one, however this is discarded out of hand by the other editor alleging it violates WP:PRIMARY.
The argument is now being framed on the issue of consensus. But consensus cannot be achieved due to the fact that really only two editors are presently engaged. It is important to note that in the beginning no consensus was sought for nor was any achieved by the editor in pushing through his favoured neo-nationalist description. Therefore, it makes the most sense to use the description which has been backed up by a reliable secondary source over that which has not (nationalist, as opposed to neo-nationalist). One doesn't need to understand the complexities of Irish politics to see that the sourced description should trump the unsourced description. I have attempted to explain to the other editor the reasons I believe their favoured description is less appropriate than (Irish) nationalist, to no avail. Therefore we are rather stuck over this particular issue. Third party help at resolving this would be most appreciated. Irishpolitical ( talk) 13:41, 13 April 2018 (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.
(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
added_lines
) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext
) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. —
PinkAmpers
&
(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Without getting into the other issues involved, I simply want to know whether jewsrock.org should be accepted as a reliable source? An old article, now archived, is being used as a source in the Neil Peart article, and an editor argues that this means it is acceptable to be used as a source in another article. I find that logic dubious, so I'd like some other opinions. Looking at their front page, I'm wary about using it. Does anyone have any knowledge of this page? Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The 1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq sections were removed from the "United States involvement in regime change" article: [33] As can be seen on the respective Talk page sections: [34] and [35] we have tried to resolve this. The editor alleged that these sources are "fringe" and "garbage" or based on unreliable sources, and posted these sections on the WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard. There, the editor was told by the administrator that no fringe issue has been raised and the discussion on that Noticeboard was closed by that administrator.
I then re-added these sections to the article. They were removed again. Watered down sections have recently been added to the article. The watered down versions omit all but one or two of the many original sources I had posted for each section, and also omit a lot of the substance of each section. Also, the watered down versions have a wishy washy he said/she said style for some key points. I first went to WP:DRN but was told that this Noticeboard is where this should be resolved.
Essentially, the editor claims that s/he has gone through the scholarly literature on the subject and that the scholarly consensus refutes the statements of all the sources I posted. As I see it, the editor has done some major OR which, in the editor's mind, renders as "garbage" or "fringe" such sources as PBS Frontline, UPI, Boston Globe and several scholarly works cited and others. The editor cites sources that state that based on their review of US govt documents and other sources, they have no evidence that the US was involved. But given the nature of US covert operations, including the important doctrine of plausible deniability to protect senior US officials, one would not expect to find readily available documentary sources or other "smoking guns." Given the covert history, the fact that I could find a single RS should be sufficient.
The editor claims that extraordinary claims require extraordinary RSs. I don't see any claim in these sections that is extraordinary. The US has supported many, many coups and, more generally, has toppled many governments around the world, especially in the Middle East (and in some other areas of special US concern), as this article and many other sources demonstrate. So we should use the standard WP rules.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
—Mike Wells, Nick Fellows, History for the IB Diploma, Paper 2: Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 222.
But if you really need more, there's this:
-Jacqueline S. Ismael, Tareq Y. Ismael, Glenn Perry, Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East: Continuity and Change (Routledge, 2015), p. 239 - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I for one would be willing have TTAAC's view represented with the understanding that it is the minority report. I don't think we would be here if he'd have constructively added his research to NYCJosh's edit in the first place, rather than slashing it out wholesale. [36]- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"operations center in Kuwait"and its alleged role in personally recruiting Saddam to facilitate the Ba'th Party's famous October 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim—going far beyond what RS (including those cited by GPRamirez5) state on this topic, and presenting these allegations as fact in wikivoice. WP:TNT comes to mind. Now that NYCJosh has been told that journalistic sources like
"PBS, UPI, and the Boston Globe [let alone ProCon.org!] ... definitely shouldn't be used to contradict academic sources from the relevant field"—something that competent editors should have already known—it's mind-boggling that GPRamirez5 won't just drop the stick and concede the obvious point that none of NYCJosh's "sources" constituted RS for the content in question. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon, I don't want to belabor the point, but we can all agree that AlterNet's "35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists" is not a suitable RS for historical facts stated in wikivoice, correct? I ask because NYCJosh has decided to ignore this discussion and edit war that source back into the article without consensus ( [37], [38]). He misattributes the article to Salon, which reposted it, and asserts that "Salon is RS and is notable." TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Content added to Sharon Statement:
"Evans said he was influenced by the works of reknown conservative thinkers such as F. A. Hayek, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., and Whittaker Chambers."
— Edwards, Lee. "This Document Established the Five Central Themes of Modern Conservatism." The Daily Signal. 11-Sep-2015
Lee Edwards is a highly respected historian and his credentials are impeccable. Based on our policies this content should be restored.
1. Lee Edwards is a reliable
Lee Edwards is an eminent historian and expert on the US conservative movement. He has published 25 books and his work has been on the NY Times bestseller list. His work is a valuable addition to any article.
2. The Daily Signal is reliable
Therefore, because of the high quality of the source, and since policy supports this source, the content should be restored.– Lionel( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I need feedbacks here on the relibilty of the two following sources:
The article in subject is People's Mujahedin of Iran, please see the content on this version. Pahlevun ( talk) 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
:::I already know your personal speculations. Providing a source that says
Ploughshares Fund funded
National Public Radio in 2016 has nothing to do with the source in question.
Pahlevun (
talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The Brookings Institutions has received funding from various Iran Regime representatives (this is not a personal speculation): “Independent Iran analyst and writer Hassan Daioleslam has noted that during these years the Brookings Institution, which previously had been dormant on Iran issues, suddenly woke up and started to produce an unprecedented number of round tables and publications that preached friendship and ‘dialogue’ with the mullahs.” The Iranian Regime funding Western think tanks and Universities is not something new, and has massively increased in recent years, the Alavi Foundation been one of the most notorious recent cases. [1] [2] London Hall ( talk) 18:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
:Your "Independent Iran analyst and writer" is
linked to the MEK.
Pahlevun (
talk) 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
References
militaryfactory.com is paraphrasing a lot of Wikipedia articles and other sources like army-guide.com and maybe more and sometimes it combines them. I noticed that due some editors adding militaryfactory.com article as sources to Nora B-52. It was used as source for operators of Nora B-52 but all text including operators is mostly paraphrased from older Wikipedia articles about Nora B-52.
For example:
- "The B-52 first emerged in an original "K0" form which featured a manual power drive, open-topped turret, and line-of-sight-engagement-only. The "K1" mark introduced a partially-covered turret design with onboard navigation system, digital Fire Control System (FCS), and improved automation. The "M03" then followed from the K0 and K1 mark and it was this finalized form adopted for service by the Serbian Army (the export variant then became the "KE" mark). The "K-I" brought along a fully-enclosed turret with complete NBC crew protection, improved armor protection, improved FCS, and upgraded communications suite. The "K2" is the latest in-development Nora mark intended to improve on the former design's ammunition support, gun accuracy, rate-of-fire, FCS, and overall automation."
K0 (first serial variant, open turret, manual power drive and light of sight) K1(S) (differences from K0:semi-open turret, full automatic, independent automatic navigation, automatic fire and control system, smaller crew number) M03 (semi-open turret, automatic based on K0,K1 designs with S designation for Serbia Army) KE (semi-open turret, full automatic export variant) K-I (K1 with additional armored full automatic with closed turret, new stronger chassis, radar on barrel for measuring projectile trajectory and speed, NBC protected cabin and turret, automated fire-suspension system, smoke grenade launcher, intercom for crew and new software) designated S for Serbia
Newest in development K2 (25 liter chamber, higher rate of fire, laser guided long range ammunition, smaller crew, new automated functions, smaller weight~25 tonnes, automatic leveling of gun in north direction,new smoke and light grenade).
Cites operators from ATMOS 2000 article including Cameroon as biggest from earlier version of wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ATMOS_2000&type=revision&diff=603510182&oldid=602556655
Nexter Systems have also developed an ammunition resupply vehicle which carries containers of ammunition (projectiles and charges) which can be rapidly unloaded using an onboard hydraulic crane. A total of six containers are carried which hold a total of 72 rounds (projectiles and charges) of 155 mm ammunition. Conventional bagged charges can be used as well as the more recent modular charge type.
Versatility, mobility, easy to operate, combat readiness and survivability are the key features of this new 155 mm/52-caliber weapon system which is fully interoperable with the NATO 39 cal. equipment and 52 cal. JB MoU."
There is many more examples that could be found while reading militaryfactory.com which acts as some sort of Content farm and or Web scraping and because of that it should not be considered as reliable source on Wikipedia. Loesorion ( talk) 01:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I am cleaning up Good Articles with cleanup tags and came across this article. It has been tagged with unreliable source, with a comment on the talk page saying it is an extremest publisher. I don't speak German or know much about military historians, but would like to know whether this article should be delisted due to this source (which is used to cover a large percentage of this article) or if the tag can be removed.
@ K.e.coffman, Auntieruth55, and MisterBee1966: as the tagger, commentator and major editor respectively. I will also leave a message at the MilHist wikiproject. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have come across another Good Article with the Unreliable source tags. This book is Schumann, Ralf (2014). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Eichenlaubträger der Nachtjagd (Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Oak Leaves Bearer of the Night Fighter Force) (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 883388135. ASIN B00JQ4TPDO (16 June 2014). and the article is Rudolf Frank. It alos is used to reference most of the article. The issue again seems to be the reliability of the publisher. @ K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, and Ian Rose: AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This profile series is dedicated to known and lesser-known Knight Cross bearers of the Wehrmacht. In the form of a timeless biography, we remember those who have fulfilled their military duty and remained rather unknown after the war. It is a lasting legacy of National Socialism and the World War II that it unleashed that it was difficult to gain access to personalities of that time, even if they were not in the foreground as National Socialists but for other reasons. Such life-paths provide insights into the laborious self-realization attempt between a sense of duty and the urge to develop (?). One of the most successful night fighters of the Luftwaffe, Private Rudolf Frank started training with the Night Hunting Squadron 3. He quickly achieved success and became one of the best night fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe. Ultimately, he was awarded the Knight's Cross and honored after his death posthumously with the Oak Leaves and promoted to officer.
References
Is this article (ZOROASTRIAN ESCHATOLOGY INFLUENCE ON JUDAISM) a reliable source and academic for wikipedia in religion studies? -- Dandamayev ( talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this article reporting on a survey of the members of the North American Vexillological Association a reliable source for the following statements:
32.218.39.142 ( talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm come to dislike this source for two reason: 1) I suspect it is low quality on the basis that I'm not convinced the author knows how to conduct a scientific poll; and 2) I don't understand why anyone would care what NAVA thinks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of IDONTLIKIT, multiple publications: [ Washington Post] [ Wall Street Journal], [ Public Television], [ The Hill], [ Idaho State Journal], and the list goes on, still use the NAVA poll to report on and discuss flags. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
vhscollector.com is a database website used to collect and present information on VHS and other former home media format releases from around the world by different distributors. The content on the site, whilst contributed with evidence and research by members, is organized, verified and published by the website's owners and staff, with a credit to the user out of respect. Unlike IMDb or any wiki, the content is not freely edited and can only be changed by site staff. I wish to use the site as a source for when citing home media releases for various feature films and television series and would like to know the consensus on its use as a reliable source, not including page comments and forum posts published by users. Currently, there aren't many reliable sources in regards to providing information for these home media releases, especially for VHS from the 1970s to 90s, and this is the closest I could find that provides the information I need. -- AnonUser1 ( talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A more specific question regarding cryptozoology that I would like to get some uninvolved opinions on (I would urge those already involved in the discussion at talk:list of cryptids to hold off, lest we just reproduce that thread here).
What kind of sourcing is required to call a subject a "cryptid", a term in cryptozoology? Are cryptozoology sources themselves sufficient to include the term in relation to subjects about which other sources do not use that term?
To elaborate, obviously cryptozoologists and cryptozoology works are reliable sources for what cryptozoologists believe (of course, per WP:FRINGE, some qualification via other sources is required), but I'm mainly asking about when sources justify inclusion. Cryptomundo.com and newanimal.org are two sites that pop up in many of our folklore/mythology/legend/popular culture articles, but there are also a number of encyclopedias/books like this one published by mainstream publishers.
A hypothetical: Let's say we have an article like bigfoot (let's not get hung up on the specifics of this example, though, since it's among the most likely to have other sources about it), which is very notable well outside of cryptozoology. If no sources other than cryptozoology websites/books/magazines claimed bigfoot as a "cryptid", would it be appropriate to include that in the article? What about in a list of cryptids? Is it a list of creatures that cryptozoologist publications have claimed as cryptids, or is it a list of subjects that more mainstream and/or academic sources have called a "cryptid"?
Note that this discussion takes something for granted: that cryptozoology sources should not be disqualified outright based on WP:FRINGE -- since it's rare we disqualify sources as such, it seemed most productive to ask the former question here first.
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that, in a given case, sources that use the term "cryptid" are considered to be suitable and reliable sources for a cryptozoology article-- this is a big part of the question in this thread. A similar question to when an "in-universe" source is reliable for articles about that universe. If there were a concept related to The Simpsons that did not receive coverage except in the various Encyclopedia of the Simpsons or simpsonsguide.com (I'm making these up btw -- no idea if they're real), should we be covering that. Then, beyond that, to what extent is the reliability of those sources affected by WP:FRINGE. If it were, say, a pseudoscientific medical treatment called goofiology that claimed to cure cancer without scientific evidence, we simply would not be covering it if the only sources about it were the goofiology.com and Encyclopedia of Goofiology (again, making these up). We would only cover its claims to the extent they have received coverage by mainstream, reliable publications. Should treat cryptozoology the same way? Should we only cover it according to sources that are not themselves associated with cryptozoology/cryptozoologists? What weight should cryptozoology books have? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
New editors can now cite certain publishers' websites without completing a Captcha. I have proposed that we also exempt major newspapers, etc. Please comment there, and suggest more URLs. Certes ( talk) 12:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
1. [44] 2. White Privilege
"The most fundamental problem for this or any proposal to offset white privilege is this: American whites’ advantages do not constitute white privilege. Therefore, there’s nothing that needs to be offset in the first place."
Source: [45] Article: White Privilege
Content:
Friedersdorf argues that White privilege may be counter productive since its focus on race replaces the theory of color-blindness with a hyper-emphasis on group identity which in turn leads to doomed ‘Balkanisation’. [Reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
IOTA (cryptocurrency) has a new version which appears to me to be entirely primary sourced. I'm in dispute with another editor over this - more eyes would be welcomed. See also Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)#Huge_primary-sourced_addition_-_what's_useful_here? - David Gerard ( talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this subsection, do the sources claiming the occurrence of the book-burning incident in old Persia bear enough weight compared to the ones refuting it? What I see hear is big names saying it did not happen versus non-history scholars saying it did. Please, advise.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 18:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! is it ok to use newspaper Página 12 as a source? I know it is on spanish section of Wikipedia and it's commonly used there, but I thought I should I ask on the english section about it. Thanks!
Agustin6 ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Currently English Wikipedia's Krampus lead makes the current claim:
- The origin of the figure is unclear; some folklorists and anthropologists have postulated it as having pre-Christian origins, and that in Norse or Germanic mythology, he was the son of the goddess Hel.
While this will alarm individuals with a background in ancient Germanic studies (or folklore studies more generally), more surprising still is that Wikipedia sources this claim to the National Geographic website, which you can find here.
Now, the 2013 (updated 2017) National Geographic site article doesn't offer any source for associating Hel with Krampus. There's no mention of any folklorists or anthropologists, just this:
- Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.
The words "Hel in Norse mythology" contain a link to Encyclopedia Mythica, which has been blacklisted on Wikipedia since 2010 for being a highly inaccurate, highly monetized site that we used to have all over our myth articles (ancient Wikipedia editors may recall MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2010#Pantheon.org and "Encyclopedia_Mythica"_(pantheon.org)).) While it wouldn't be surprising to find something like that on the site, a look at the Encyclopedia Mythica entry's Archive.org reveals that Encyclopedia Mythica never made such a claim, so maybe the author just used EM as an outlink for Hel as an entity (interestingly, EM seems to have been influenced by Wikipedia's far more accurate article on the topic over the years, but that's beside the point).
I've been unable to find a single reliable source that associates the Old Norse figure Hel with the contemporary Alpine (generally Austrian) Krampus. Contemporery academics in the field don't breach this. There's nothing in Simek, Lindow, or Orchard, or any of the typical specialist handbooks and encyclopedia on the topic, nor dedicated works from, say, Hilda Ellis Davidson or any of the usual ancient Germanic studies author-academics one would turn to for these topics. As there's a huge gap between space and time between Krampus and Hel, that's not really surprising.
Given the quality of the rest of the article, it appears the National Geographic site author might have just found this somewhere on the internet and went with it, and so it ended up on our Krampus article. I'm finding it hard to say where the claim originates exactly, but the internet is rife with intensely spammy sites like ancient-origins.net making the claim after the National Geographic site piece. (Outside of that, note that this just cites the National Geographic piece and recites it nearly word for word — ouch!. This late 2015 Vox article also makes the claim and cites the National Geographic article).
I think this claim and source need to be removed from the article. Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) feels differently. He says that "The only question ... is whether National Geographic News is a reliable source, and I would say that it is".
I've seen similar discussions come up here in the past. What to do in this situation? :bloodofox: ( talk) 08:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
[ [49]] (in fact the NG piece seems to be lifted wholesale from this), how about the smithsonian? [ [50]], yes I know they are citing the NG, but is not the whole point of RS is that if an RS quotes it so can we?. So where does this put us? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my position that this should not be included at all, even as an attributed statement. The national geographic source is not a work of serious scholarship. It was not written by a historian or anthropologist whose opinion might be significant. This was written by a journalist. And that means we should consider her source of information, not what she wrote herself. Since no such source is known, we should just ignore it. This is much the same as when a dubious scientific/medical fact appears in a newspaper, or even a news section of a medical journal. It shouldn't be attributed, or even used at all. If the source of the information cannot be found, just ignore it. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
America’s recent love affair with the Krampus, like any infatuation perhaps, tends to distort the object of its interest. Brom’s Krampus the Yule Lord provided a specious backstory for the figure spun from Nordic mythology and presented him as an enemy of Santa Claus. Unfortunately the Nordic connection concocted by Brom has sometimes been accepted as fact and even repeated in a 2013 National Geographic article “Who Is Krampus? Explaining the Horrific Christmas Devil.” As will later be discussed, the folklore may occasionally hint at a connection to Scandinavian tradition, but Brom’s presentation of the Krampus as the son of the divine Loki is pure fantasy.
--- Al Ridenour, The Krampus and the Old, Dark Christmas: Roots and Rebirth of the Folkloric Devil, Feral House, 2016 [52]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 ( talk • contribs)
Following this discussion [53] on talk page Does this is [54] reliable source for this edit [55]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Can this thesis: Foster, Zachary (November 2017). "Southern Syria". The Invention of Palestine (thesis). Princeton University. pp. 19–23. ISBN 9780355480238. Docket 10634618. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
...be used to cite the following at Southern Syria: "The term was used in Arabic primarily from 1918-20, during the Arab Kingdom of Syria period."
The thesis states on pages 20-21:
The Arabs described “the area that became Israel,” as Meir put it, in at least ten different ways in the decades prior to World War I, roughly in this order of frequency: Palestine; Syria; Sham; the Holy Land; the Land of Jerusalem; the District of Jerusalem + the District of Balqa + the District of Acre; southern Sham; the southern part of Sham; the Land of Jerusalem + the land of Gaza + the land of Ramla + the land of Nablus + the land of Haifa + the land of Hebron (i.e. cities were used, not regions); “the southern part of Syria, Palestine”; and southern Syria. The Arabic term “southern Syria” so rarely appeared in Arabic sources before 1918 that I’ve included every reference to the phrase I’ve ever come across in the footnote at the end of this paragraph (it did appear more often in Western languages). Golda Meir, Mikhaʼel Asaf and my Shabbat hosts were right about Southern Syria, but by focusing only on the facts that supported their arguments and ignoring all the others, they got the story completely wrong. They used facts to obscure the history. If the term rarely appeared in Arabic before World War I, how do propagandists even know it existed? Before World War I, they don’t. It took me nearly a decade to find a handful of references, and I can assure you few if any propagandists are familiar with its Arabic usage before 1918. But that changed dramatically in 1918, when the term gained traction for a couple of years until 1920. That’s because the Hijazi nobleman Faysal revolted against the Ottoman Empire in 1916 during the First World War (alongside “Lawrence of Arabia”), and established an Arab Kingdom in Damascus in 1918 which he ruled until the French violently overthrew him in 1920. During his period of rule, many Arabs in Palestine thought naively that if they could convince Palestine’s British conquerors the land had always been part of Syria—indeed, that it was even called “southern Syria”—then Britain might withdraw its troops from the region and hand Palestine over to Faysal. This led some folks to start calling the place southern Syria. The decision was born out of the preference of some of Palestine’s Arabs to live under Arab rule from Damascus rather than under British rule from Jerusalem—the same British who, only a few months earlier, in 1917, had declared in the Balfour Declaration their intention to make a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
The thesis was supervised by Princeton’s Cyrus Schayegh, Director, Program in Near Eastern Studies; Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies, and has been published on Princeton’s website.
Pinging those editors in the ongoing article talk page discussion @ Jonney2000 and Shrike:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It is interesting that even as late as 1918 Palestine was regarded as an independent entity. Syria was not seen as a mother-country. The idea of amalgamation was to emerge about a month later, following a strenuous campaign by its supporters. But the documents relating to the initiation of the proposed fusion show what was newly constructed and what was the original (and traditional) mode of self-perception. Thus, the document that speaks about the election of candidates to the first Palestinian congress starts by saying inter alia: muqat`at suriyya al-janubiyya al-ma`rufa bi-filastin, that is, the land of Southern Syria, known as Palestine. In other words, what everybody always knew as Palestine is henceforth to be named Southern Syria. Put differently, the writers were fully aware that had they called the country simply Southern Syria, nobody in the Middle East would have known what they were talking about. But no one needed a map or a dictionary to know what the term Palestine meant. This document also offers a simple explanation for the then popularity of the Syrian option: It was simply the case that for a brief moment Syria was an independent, not to say Arab, country. In Palestine everything was different, and the future looked very bleak indeed. The way in which the term Southern Syria was explained by the term Palestine is not confined to a single document. In fact, a more or less similar variant appears in all the documents from this period that mention the term “Southern Syria”: Southern Syria is given as the name of the country, despite the fact that the known term is Palestine. Obviously, Southern Syria was not a traditional name, or even a formal geographical definition. On the contrary, the way in which the term Palestine is always used to explain Southern Syria supports the conclusion that it was quite well known to everybody in the area in 1914 and could not have been invented because of Zionism or for any other reason.
Taking into account Icewhiz’s attribution proposal and Pluto’s finds, we could use Gerber primarily, with a following reference to Foster as follows:
Princeton PhD Zachary Foster has stated that, in the decades prior to World War I, the term “Southern Syria” was the least frequently used out of ten different ways to describe the region of Palestine in Arabic, noting that “it took me nearly a decade to find a handful of references”.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Drew Cloud is everywhere. The self-described journalist who specializes in student-loan debt has been quoted in major news outlets, including The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and CNBC [...] But he’s a fiction, the invention of a student-loan refinancing company." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Folks, There is an Afd going over at Chris S. Sims (game designer). There was a reference to this site, here: [56]. Regarding these two refs.
<ref>[http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/congratulations-to-our-2016-award-winners/ 2016 ENnie Awards]</ref> <ref>[http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/about-us/2015-ennie-award-winners/ 2015 ENnie Awards]</ref>
Is that a valid sources. Thanks. scope_creep ( talk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am interested in writing a separate biography article on Mitsuye Endo, the plaintiff in Ex Parte Endo. The most accessible biography I have found is https://densho.org/mitsuye-endo/ . Would you-all consider that WP:RS? Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
I am an Electrical Engineer and pursuing Ph.D. at FIU, USA. I am running my own portal and would like you to look at it and see if you consider it as a reliable resource in case i add my website link as a reference to any topic.
PS: (It was suggested by one of the editors at Wikipedia)
Here is the link to my website:
I'm waiting for your cordial response. Thank you
Ahmed
Anyone know anything about this site – http://www.americanforeignrelations.com? It's used pretty heavily at Rogue state and a handful of other articles. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
wealthx.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
There was a notorious sockmaster in Greek finance and football called Antony1821 (probably the same guy as Mikenew1953) Mikenew1953 was famous for make a fake 2015 list of List of Greeks by net worth (see talk). Now Equity2019, a checkuser confirmed sock of Antony1821 , keep spamming wealthx.com as the citation of net worth of Greek people, which those people are not covered by forbes.com. So, any one think that site wealthx.com is reliable? Matthew_hk t c 20:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I searched the archives and I couldn't find a concrete answer if Inquisitr is unreliable within Wikipedia as whole. I've always considered it unreliable as their stories are suspect and at one time, maybe still the case, anybody can write for them. Doing some further researching, the Media Bias/Fact Checking website has said they quoted the conspiracy/pseudoscience website Natural News. Slate, The Desk, K5 News, Psychology Today, and Buzzfeed have apparently criticized them for their inaccuracy of reporting. The Professional Wrestling project has put Inquisitr in the list of sources to avoid. I was checking Inquisitr's wrestling section and the one article used Sportskeeda. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source at all. Again, just wanting a concrete answer. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Recently an editor (@ Guy Macon:) invited other editors at the fringe theories noticeboard to checkout the state of Shroud of Turin. After looking it over, I also have a lot of concerns about what's happening at the article, and I think editors here should take a look at it. First, consider these sources:
These sites are currently being used to host a variety of files there, and the general tone of the article (for example, "A 2013 study published in a theological journal followed a 'Minimal Facts approach' ... concluded 'that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high'.") leads me to believe we have a problem here. As Wikipedia is not a digital reliquary for promoting fringe theories regarding objects traditionally associated with or belonging to this deity or that demigod ( relic), I'm thinking the article could use more source-critical eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
May
Haaretz be used unattributed in
Jan Grabowski (historian) to state His father was a Jewish Holocaust survivor from Kraków and who took part in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising; his mother, a Christian and came from a family of Polish nobility.
? The relevant source is
'Orgy of Murder': The Poles Who 'Hunted' Jews and Turned Them Over to the Nazis, Haaretz, Ofer Aderet Feb 11, 2017 and the relevant paragraph is Grabowski was born in Warsaw into a mixed family. His father was Jewish, from a Krakow family that assimilated well into Polish society, survived the Holocaust by hiding in Warsaw and took part in the 1944 uprising by the Polish underground there, which cost the lives of some 200,000 Poles and resulted in the city’s near-total destruction. His mother is Christian from a veteran, noble Polish family. He has relatives in Israel.
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I think that this song is an Eurodance song according to this source:
"[FRESH] Calvin Harris & Dua Lipa - One Kiss". Rebrn.com. Retrieved 4 May 2018.
Is this a reliable source? Can I call this song an Eurodance song? Karamellpudding1999 ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have been engaged on a debate on the talk page for the article on Involuntary celibacy. I anticipate that some of this might get moved to the noticeboard for neutral point of view instead but, as I've had the policy on reliable sources quoted at me several times, I thought that I would ask here. In the discussion, I have been asked to give reliable sources to argue against the claims made in the article. As I understand it, that is not how the reliable-sources policy works. The burden is on the person adding content to provide a reliable source, especially if they are making a bold claim. If someone else doubts the claim, then they can scrutinise the source and, if successful, remove the content. I don't see any need to provide a counter reliable source. For example, if someone adds content that all who oppose British independence from the EU are enemies of the people and references a Daily Mail article, then I don't need to provide a reliable source to say that they are not enemies of the people: I just say that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
I believe that the guidance on recentism and on media reporting after terrorist attacks is also relevant. Reports in the mass media after the Toronto attack have not been balanced on the subject of the incel communities, just as media reporting after 11th September 2001 was not balanced on the subject of Islam and media reporting after the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings was not balanced on the Northern Ireland conflict. There are been involuntary celibates since the beginning of time and the word "incel" began with a mutual-support group set up by a woman, but the Wikipedia article currently defines involuntary celibacy as a misogynist movement based on sources that I do not think are sufficiently robust to support such a bold claim.
To go through the sources that I question:
In the opening passage, it states
This seems to be a bold claim for an encyclopedia and in need of robust evidence. There is one pinned specifically to misanthropy from Vox, which I would argue is not a robust source. There are also five other sources given from the mass media. I don't think that this is sufficient, as allowing this as reliable could allow several other ideologies to be described as characterised by such bad traits in the opening statement. I could probably find five articles published in the British press that say that the Brexit campaign is racist or that the Remain campaign is anti-democratic, but they would presumably not be accepted as justification of such a claim. I argue that the same principle should apply with the sources for this passage, which were all published in April 2018 after the attack in Toronto. They are from The Guardian, The Atlantic, Global News, National Public Radio and the Globe and Mail.
Later on in the article, it states:
I don't think that the four references provided here are sufficient for the same grounds as above, although admittedly only two of these were published after the Toronto attack. There is a first from The Guardian, a second from The Guardian, one from NBC and one from Vice. The claim about racism in incel forums seems particularly tentative, as this is only stated in the NBC article and not in the other three.
A claim is made here:
The source is this article, which is a good academic source in itself. However, the part about hypergamy seems to come from page 12, and the text does not mention male incels. I don't think that this backs up the claim.
At the end it says:
The sources are mostly from websites that I do not think are robust: WBUR, Quartz, the Daily Dot and Your Tango. Furthermore, none of these sources mentions /r/braincels specifically. The Irish Journal source is actually one of the better sources currently in the article and it does mention /r/braincels specifically, but the quote is taken out of context in describing blackpills as ways that users communicate their state of mind.
If I am judged to be wrong and these are considered reliable sources, then I might suggest some other sources to act as reliable sources for another point of view. For now, I can suggest this article as useful to add balance, as it acknowledges that some incels are just keen to support one another. My preference for now is for the claims above to be removed or at least reworded significantly, rather than add sources with similar shortcomings to illustrate other points of view on the subject. Epa101 ( talk) 10:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Popcrush. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
In the context of a BLP, is the blog "Artvoice" (as it currently exists, regardless of prior iterations) a reliable source? For the last fortnight, several accounts have been trying to insert the claim that Nicki Clyne is married to Allison Mack. Mack has been indicted in connection to the NXIVM cult/MLM/organization, and since her arrest, there has been an echo-chamber of gossip sites repeating the unsourced claim that the arraignment "revealed" that Mack married Clyne. Since no reliable source has repeated that allegation, I have been removing it from the article. Now the blog "Artvoice" (which has been highly critical of Nxivm and regularly features columns by Frank Parlato, a professional Nxivm critic/whistleblower) has excerpted what it claims to be a transcript of the arraignment. [63] Anticipating that someone will reinstate the Mack/Clyne claim citing this source, I want to get some guidance ahead of time: Does this article constitute a reliable source for a contentious claim about a living person being married to an indicted criminal suspect?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland mentions Stanisław Estreicher, a Polish academic and politician, who is said to have refused Nazi cooperation in 1940. All of the sources cited are from 1940-1945:
Later sources that were cited either do not mention the claim, or use the phrase "was reported" (Jan T. Gross, Polish Society under German Occupation (1979), 126-130).
My observations are as follows:
Your opinions?
François Robere ( talk) 06:02, 7 May 2018 (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.
This free website includes factual, accurate information obtained from original, documentary evidence. The Home Page also says: "If you have additional research that is accurate, referenced & relevant it may be considered for inclusion under your name." If any fact is not clearly proved the website says so. The website is meant to include a number of clearly defined sections that also includes: "A GUIDE FOR PRACTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. If you are interested in Archaeology and would like to undertake some practical work this is a suggestion on how to produce a meaningful report."
The policy of the website is to be of interest and to provide fully accurate information that is freely available to academics and to interested readers. Great care is taken that everything included meets these stringent criteria. One of these articles is: "King John & Dore Abbey" found at http://blancheparry.co.uk/articles/churches/dore_abbey/people_places/king_john_dore_abbey/king_john_dore_abbey-1.php This has referenced material on King John, Dore Abbey (especially Abbot Adam I) and Kilpeck.
The Home Page gives direct access to Places to Visit which includes Walterstone Church. Here there is provenanced material on Lord Burghley's cousin's funeral, which Lord Burghley paid for:
"An account of William Cecil's funeral on 6th March 1598 is given in a letter, No.49, among the Salisbury Manuscripts, vol.VIII, page 83:
Paul Delayhay to Lord Burghley....
'According to your will and command, I have perused my father–in–law Cecil's Will [William Cecil of Allt–yr–Ynys], and the 6th inst celebrated the funeral as followeth. First 6 poor men of that parish in gowns went before the coffin, next to them the preacher James Ballard, a prebend [prebendary] of the Church of Hereford [Hereford Cathedral], and a Cecil by descent, in his mourning gown, accompanied by my Uncle Parry of Morehampton [Olive's father], followed. Next to then the coffin covered with black cloth, whereupon 12 scutcheons of Cecils, Abbot AdamI)Parrys and Harbatts' [Herberts] arms were fastened, three of which I commend to you, and carried by 6 of my father–in–law's men in black unto the churchyard and then by 6 of his sons–in‐law into the Church. After the coffin followed his 8 sons–in–law in mourning cloaks and answerable apparel, and three of his nephews. After followed Matthew's wife, the 8 daughters, and my father–in–law's sister Alice in mourning attire.'"
I should be grateful if this website could be now, correctly, classed as 'reliable' please. Regards, BethANZ ( talk) 09:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ
Is this website a reliable source? it has a lot of aircraft specifications on it but I am not sure where the info comes from. [ Username Needed 12:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the book Antidepressants a reliable source for the article Lithium (medication)? selfworm Talk) 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk#Family is using sources such as consequenceofsound.net, youtube.com, mashable.com, and People. May I request a review of the sources used in that section? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The material verges on the "breathless red top" level- Having a child die of SIDS would only be relevant if SIDS were otherwise relevant (charity work or the like). Otherwise it is puerile gossip stuff. As is the extended commentary on on-again-off-again divorces and the like. It is not relevant to the notability of the person. If People says your favorite cereal is "Trix" - does it really belong in an encyclopedia? 140K characters? Too long by half if one really thinks it has any density of useful information about the person. Collect ( talk) 20:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am aware that I am still learning my way around WP, but I think I understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, as well as what is not a medically reliable source.
I have tried to include research authored by academics/experts citing both their university link and the official research link. Here is one example.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/smoking-rise-among-pregnant-women-depression https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871617303459
HERE IS WHY I THINK IT IS SECONDARY- there is no original research. All data is from NSDUH and described elsewhere, SAMSHA. (Redacted)
Got it. Nothing was done with the original data, it was just collected by a different party and no one has reviewed this analysis of this one study of that data. Appreciate the clarification Littleolive oil . Mrphilip ( talk) 04:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is actually in reference to an AfD discussion on Brown University Traditions, with the original page here.
I'm currently undecided on the AfD but while searching I did find one significant potential source Brown University 2012 - Traditions. Its publisher is College Prowler (now seemingly called Niche) However despite some research, and a quick flick through the three mentions I found when typing it into the archive search, I wasn't sure whether it is a reasonable source to use.
Any help much appreciated,
Nosebagbear ( talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (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 235 | ← | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | → | Archive 245 |
LaMar C. Berrett was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a professor at Brigham Young University. He published a book, Discovering the World of the Bible with basically treats everything in the Bible as a historical fact. Editors are now inserting the "history" of people like Rehoboam, Solomon, David and Noah into the article of Dura, Hebron, based solely on the Biblical mention (AFAIK, there is considerable discussion among archeologist if anyone of the 4 mentioned people actually ever existed....).
I consider this profoundly unhistorical. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for people to use for spreading their religious beliefs as facts. What does other people think about this? Huldra ( talk) 20:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually there is a lot more manuscript evidence for biblical history than other widely accepted historical documents. We also have jewish and arab tradition as to where certian events were supposed to happen. A religion professor is perfectly qualified to assemble evidence and tradition to connect Place A to Person B. Just cite the source correctly and carry on. Legacypac ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor removed basic bio info [3] sourced to a Radio Free Europe interview with the article subject. I'm pretty sure we can take the subject's word for his age and schooling in an interview on RFE. This info is not easily sourced elsewhere as no one in the English speaking world cared much about Konstantin Kilimnik until he became a key person in the Mullier investigation in the last few days. Is there any problem with RFE as a source in this context? Legacypac ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Dr Fleischman's assessment is incorrect. The source is clearly labeled an interview in the title. The interview is being used to support what the article subject (KK) told the reporter about his own age, university attended, and one job in the 2000s predating meeting Manafort. What kind of propaganda purpose would reporting KK's self disclosed background have exactly? Does anyone think RFE falsely reported these basic bio details and if so, why? Also reporting on what KK said about about his own activities should be fine - KK might even be lying about his actions but we report what KK said and to who he said it. Legacypac ( talk) 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4)#Johnny Blaze centers on whether two tweets, each of which has since been deleted, can be used to support a contentious claim.
The particulars, which may or may not be pertinent, involve an unnamed guest character in a TV episode. Neither the producers nor the writer, the sole authoritative sources, named the character, nor have they discussed fan theories. In tweets that have since been deleted (and to my mind recanted), a recurring-guest actor and the visual-effects supervisor each claimed, without stating their source, that they they believed the unnamed character was Johnny Blaze, a character from the comic books. This seems like rumor or here-say, and while I suppose we can say "So-and-so and So-and-so believe the character was Johnny Blaze," the article states it as definitive fact. Thoughts about citing a contentious claim to withdrawn tweets? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is this source "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims" [6] reliable for pre-Islamic Arab history? The source assert on extremely controversial topic concerning historical figure, Umayya ibn Abd Shams. Ahmad Kazemi for instance is specialist on the field of Islamic law, and other authors are concentrated in the study of the religious scripture, not history. I asked the editor to provide reliable materials for the claim, he simply ignored and asserted on the reliability of his source. Best regards. Nabataeus ( talk) 21:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, it have everything. It's unreliable, thus should be removed as far as WP:RS is concerned.-- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What the source is claiming is that Ibn al-Kalbi made a claim about him. I replied ibn al-Kalbi is considered to be unreliable (Sources provided). Nabataeus ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Multiple editors have said that the source is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I made this edit based on my reading of Carter (which I "read online free" on JSTOR), but when I looked a little bit deeper it seems like Carter confused Yoshitada (Basho's master) with Yoshikiyo (Yoshitada's father), as he calls the man Yoshikiyo but gives him Yoshitada's pen name and death date. Given how our article only currently cites Carter for info on Basho's early life, I'm not sure if we should just throw him out since, even if it's just a misprint (not unlikely), he's got a significant detail about the topic for which we cite him -- Basho's early career -- wrong. Should we just use him for the rest and ignore when details like this are wrong?
Honestly, the reason it concerns me is that I only added a reference to Yoshikiyo because of the error that I took at face value at first, and now I'm wondering if Yoshikiyo should even be named in the article.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to ask the community what they think of this as a source? I was specifically thinking of using it to cite Europe '72#Track listing, which currently has no other source (the tracks and times are present on the LP, but not the recording dates and venues). I appreciate it meets the letter of WP:SPS; however, Grateful Dead fans are an organised bunch, and pride themselves on factual accuracy for live dates in particular. The site clearly identifies its source material, updates are restricted to the site's owners, but notification of mistakes and corrections are welcome. So it does have peer review and does cite information published in other trustworthy sources. The simple reason I'd prefer to use deaddisc.com is it's easier to access; I appreciate we have WP:SOURCEACCESS, but that doesn't help us when we have an article that can't be fact checked easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Jamsphere
is mentioned in many articles [11] but we have no article on the website (or independent music magazine and radio network as they describe themselves [12]).
I'm particularly interested in whether articles at Jamsphere might be useful in establishing notability for the artist Sophia Radisch [13] and/or for the Indie record label of which she is a partner. Andrewa ( talk) 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This site cannot be reliable because it has wrong information about people. For example there are two people called Sana Javed. There's a cricketer, Sana Javed (cricketer) and an actor, Sana Javed. Style.pk put on their website that the actor, Sana Javed, was once a cricketer and then moved onto becoming an actor. Style.pk apparently has joined these two people with the same name together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plum3600 ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Is wikiquote a RS? Currently used in Hanlon's razor. NE Ent 18:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This article Bell & Ross (a "luxury" watchmaker) currently has just two references. One is a page of the website "The Watch Quote".
This page at The Watch Quote -- a page that's unsigned, doesn't cite its sources (even in the most informal, journalistic way), and doesn't claim even to have started to test any claim -- looks to me like a mere PR puff piece. The website's "about" page suggests nothing critical or thoughtful. Rather, the mission of the website seems solely to fluff up enthusiasm for buying expensive wristwatches. Of course many websites do this kind of thing; but (for example) camera websites make a big thing of testing the resolving power of lenses, describing color casts and ergonomics, etc.
Or do I misunderstand? (I should add that the sources provided for articles on other watchmakers tend to look just as bad.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Small Ukrainian news website. I see it's included in Olena Sibiriakova but I'm unsure about its reliability as a whole.
Is it reliable to cite with? 2A00:C98:2060:A008:4:0:0:1 ( talk) 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This edit. I wouldn't even know how to verify it. Of course there's the possibility this is WP:UNDUE, but I guess that's for another board. Always a bit frustrating when an edit raises several policy issues. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Are any of the sources cited by this article, WP:RS? Guy ( Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As it leans heavily on the issue of reliable sources, some of you have been following Wikipedia's cryptozoology saga for some time now (if not, here's a summary of what's going on). Anyway, one particularly problematic article has been list of cryptids, which appears to be nothing more than a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. If you've got the time and patience, please weigh in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
A while ago, LewisJAbbey ( talk · contribs) added Vaunter to multiple articles such as Zion I, Jacob Banks (singer), North Mississippi Allstars, Grouplove, Miike Snow, Don Diablo, Charli XCX, Mood Rings (band), Tinashe, Eddie Brock, and A Head Full of Dreams Tour. It looks like a self-published source to me. I would like to know if Vaunter can be used as a reliable source in the Wikipedia. 153.205.162.241 ( talk) 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the website "Oh,The Horror!" be treated as a reliable source for critical reviews of this particular genre of films. My concern has to to do with this addition made to Candyman (film). I believe the actual review intended to be cited can be found here, but I have concerns as to whether the site itself and the reviewer are considered to be WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. I'm not sure if the site is generating it's own reviews by established professional movie reviewers or even whether the content is WP:UGC. The only information I can find about the reviewer "Wes R." on the website is this which does give the impression that this person is a widely recognized movie reviewer/critic per by WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:SPS. My concerns are also because the editor adding this content might have done so to try and prove a point based upon this user talk page post. Anyway, I've removed the content for now so that the source can be assessed; if the consensus is that it's OK, it can be re-added. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Fifteen references were removed with this edit. Can someone sort the satisfactory sources from the unsatisfactory sources for me? I'm kinda new here. 79.67.81.118 ( talk) 04:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: See Talk:Aromanticism#RfC: Should this article be merged? for where the discussion is taking place. The IP, who actually is not that new, keeps adding random online sources to the article. I've already pointed the IP to the WP:Reliable sources guideline. I'm not objecting to sources like The Washington Post or HuffPost unless they're being used to generalize aspects of the topic in ways that do not adhere to the WP:Neutral policy. I'm objecting to sources like this highlandecho.com source, the "Parade, Beach Pride, and Beach Pride Parade" source (well, so-called source), and this scaddistrict.com source. Sources like that. The IP is adding any and everything to the article in the hopes of saving it, when the quality sources on this topic mainly discuss it within the context of asexuality and, more broadly, romantic orientation (although not that broadly since romantic orientation mainly concerns asexuality as well)...hence the merge proposal. If we were to have an article on this topic, the way the IP is building it is not the way to go. There have also been WP:Synthesis issues. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've been improving Glen Nelson. The only source I can find for his birth year is his worldcat record. Can I cite the worldcat record for his birth year? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 17:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue straddles OR, NPOV, BLP, and RS (however, this is filed solely on RSN). The article in question is Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (some prior discussion - Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Use of wPolityce.pl coverage of a facebook post as source for history. The text in question was at some point diff):
According to Jan Grabowski some 200,000 Jews were killed directly or indirectly by Polish collaborators. [1]
References
Some editors have supported [15] [16] (vs. some opposition) changes along these lines to a form such as this ( version as of 4 April):
According to Jan Grabowski's erroneous arithmetic [1] [2] [3] 200,000 Jews were killed directly or indirectly by Poles. [4] Grabowski (2013) arrived at this number through a circular reference from Friedländer who in turn, [5] misquoted Antony Polonsky's 2004 paper. [6] Polonsky limited his estimate to registered Jewish survivors as of June 1945 while a lot more survivors were still arriving and registering with CKŻP; or, not registering at all. Grabowski, in his circular reference, also failed to acknowledge the timeframe, and erred by implying that the low estimate included all survivors. [1] [2] [3] [7] Meanwhile, by mid 1946 the recorded number had risen to about 205,000–210,000 survivors (with 240,000 registrations and over 30,000 duplicates). [8] [9]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Some background - Jan Grabowski is a Canadian Holocaust historian who is generally well respected world-wide who has estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust (in an academic book, I think a few papers, in a couple of media interviews) which was further repeated by multiple media outlets (see google news search for Grabowski 200,000 Jews). The Polish government has objected to this, [17] as have other elements in Polish society. [18] [19]. The second version (calling the Grabowski's estimate an error in Wikipedia's voice, and containing a rather long analysis on why this is allegedly so) is sourced to the following sources:
Finally - I shall note that there have been widely covered legislative changes in Poland in regards to free speech on the Polish role in the Holocaust. [26] Which already possibly have some effects on the ground. [27] [28]. However - to be fair - this probably has little impact on wPolityce whose editorial line was compliant with the new legislation well prior to it being passed.
Question: Is this use of the comments of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland on facebook, coverage thereof in wPolityce.pl and and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba, and use of citations to reference some of the ambassador's claims an appropriate source (attributed or unattributed) for Holocaust history? Icewhiz ( talk) 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Per NPOV it's not Wikipedia's place to take a position on whether a historian was erroneous. We may quote who alleges he was erroneous, but we may not use that allegation as a supporting reference for us to assert it as fact. The problem here is less about whether sources are reliable, it's more about how they are being used to push a point.
I was advised by an IP editor to post here regarding ongoing discussion at [31] between myself and another editor since the end of last year over which label best suits the opening paragraph regarding the ideology of National Party (Ireland). Originally the argument centred on whether to use Irish nationalist or nationalist. However, the other editor pushed through the description neo-nationalist to describe said party and cited an article by thejournal.ie (an Irish news-blog) and an article in the Irish Times in favour of this description. However, neither of these sources use the label neo-nationalist. The argument in support of that label is that the proclaimed policies as detailed in the previously listed secondary sources are indicative of neo-nationalism, claiming that it's a WP:SKYISBLUE issue. Yet no source, either by the party or by reliable secondary sources, uses the label neo-nationalist and to date the only person who has used the label neo-nationalist to describe the party is this particular editor.
In response to this lack of a source I have stated it ought to be removed and replaced with the more appropriate nationalist descriptor, as the nationalist label is explicitly used by a reliable secondary source to describe the programme of the National Party: "whose nine principles espouse a nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-EU, anti-immigration platform." The continued insistence on the use of the neo-nationalist label is surely a violation of WP:NOR as a sourced label (nationalist) is being discarded in favour of an unsourced label (neo-nationalist). Also it is important to note that I have on many occasions attempted to compromise (in fact this current nationalist description I am advocating for is a compromise from my earlier attempt to use Irish nationalist), all of these attempts at compromise have been arbitrarily rebuffed. It should be noted also that the party's official website's About Us section is evidently advocating a more nationalist or Irish nationalist position than a neo-nationalist one, however this is discarded out of hand by the other editor alleging it violates WP:PRIMARY.
The argument is now being framed on the issue of consensus. But consensus cannot be achieved due to the fact that really only two editors are presently engaged. It is important to note that in the beginning no consensus was sought for nor was any achieved by the editor in pushing through his favoured neo-nationalist description. Therefore, it makes the most sense to use the description which has been backed up by a reliable secondary source over that which has not (nationalist, as opposed to neo-nationalist). One doesn't need to understand the complexities of Irish politics to see that the sourced description should trump the unsourced description. I have attempted to explain to the other editor the reasons I believe their favoured description is less appropriate than (Irish) nationalist, to no avail. Therefore we are rather stuck over this particular issue. Third party help at resolving this would be most appreciated. Irishpolitical ( talk) 13:41, 13 April 2018 (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.
(Formerly: Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion) A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
added_lines
) has a Mail link, not whether the article itself (new_wikitext
) does. You can see for yourself: Go make a copy-edit to an article with a Mail link, and then check your own filter log. You shouldn't see an entry for the edit. —
PinkAmpers
&
(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Without getting into the other issues involved, I simply want to know whether jewsrock.org should be accepted as a reliable source? An old article, now archived, is being used as a source in the Neil Peart article, and an editor argues that this means it is acceptable to be used as a source in another article. I find that logic dubious, so I'd like some other opinions. Looking at their front page, I'm wary about using it. Does anyone have any knowledge of this page? Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The 1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq sections were removed from the "United States involvement in regime change" article: [33] As can be seen on the respective Talk page sections: [34] and [35] we have tried to resolve this. The editor alleged that these sources are "fringe" and "garbage" or based on unreliable sources, and posted these sections on the WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard. There, the editor was told by the administrator that no fringe issue has been raised and the discussion on that Noticeboard was closed by that administrator.
I then re-added these sections to the article. They were removed again. Watered down sections have recently been added to the article. The watered down versions omit all but one or two of the many original sources I had posted for each section, and also omit a lot of the substance of each section. Also, the watered down versions have a wishy washy he said/she said style for some key points. I first went to WP:DRN but was told that this Noticeboard is where this should be resolved.
Essentially, the editor claims that s/he has gone through the scholarly literature on the subject and that the scholarly consensus refutes the statements of all the sources I posted. As I see it, the editor has done some major OR which, in the editor's mind, renders as "garbage" or "fringe" such sources as PBS Frontline, UPI, Boston Globe and several scholarly works cited and others. The editor cites sources that state that based on their review of US govt documents and other sources, they have no evidence that the US was involved. But given the nature of US covert operations, including the important doctrine of plausible deniability to protect senior US officials, one would not expect to find readily available documentary sources or other "smoking guns." Given the covert history, the fact that I could find a single RS should be sufficient.
The editor claims that extraordinary claims require extraordinary RSs. I don't see any claim in these sections that is extraordinary. The US has supported many, many coups and, more generally, has toppled many governments around the world, especially in the Middle East (and in some other areas of special US concern), as this article and many other sources demonstrate. So we should use the standard WP rules.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
—Mike Wells, Nick Fellows, History for the IB Diploma, Paper 2: Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 222.
But if you really need more, there's this:
-Jacqueline S. Ismael, Tareq Y. Ismael, Glenn Perry, Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East: Continuity and Change (Routledge, 2015), p. 239 - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I for one would be willing have TTAAC's view represented with the understanding that it is the minority report. I don't think we would be here if he'd have constructively added his research to NYCJosh's edit in the first place, rather than slashing it out wholesale. [36]- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"operations center in Kuwait"and its alleged role in personally recruiting Saddam to facilitate the Ba'th Party's famous October 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim—going far beyond what RS (including those cited by GPRamirez5) state on this topic, and presenting these allegations as fact in wikivoice. WP:TNT comes to mind. Now that NYCJosh has been told that journalistic sources like
"PBS, UPI, and the Boston Globe [let alone ProCon.org!] ... definitely shouldn't be used to contradict academic sources from the relevant field"—something that competent editors should have already known—it's mind-boggling that GPRamirez5 won't just drop the stick and concede the obvious point that none of NYCJosh's "sources" constituted RS for the content in question. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon, I don't want to belabor the point, but we can all agree that AlterNet's "35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists" is not a suitable RS for historical facts stated in wikivoice, correct? I ask because NYCJosh has decided to ignore this discussion and edit war that source back into the article without consensus ( [37], [38]). He misattributes the article to Salon, which reposted it, and asserts that "Salon is RS and is notable." TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Content added to Sharon Statement:
"Evans said he was influenced by the works of reknown conservative thinkers such as F. A. Hayek, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., and Whittaker Chambers."
— Edwards, Lee. "This Document Established the Five Central Themes of Modern Conservatism." The Daily Signal. 11-Sep-2015
Lee Edwards is a highly respected historian and his credentials are impeccable. Based on our policies this content should be restored.
1. Lee Edwards is a reliable
Lee Edwards is an eminent historian and expert on the US conservative movement. He has published 25 books and his work has been on the NY Times bestseller list. His work is a valuable addition to any article.
2. The Daily Signal is reliable
Therefore, because of the high quality of the source, and since policy supports this source, the content should be restored.– Lionel( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I need feedbacks here on the relibilty of the two following sources:
The article in subject is People's Mujahedin of Iran, please see the content on this version. Pahlevun ( talk) 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
:::I already know your personal speculations. Providing a source that says
Ploughshares Fund funded
National Public Radio in 2016 has nothing to do with the source in question.
Pahlevun (
talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The Brookings Institutions has received funding from various Iran Regime representatives (this is not a personal speculation): “Independent Iran analyst and writer Hassan Daioleslam has noted that during these years the Brookings Institution, which previously had been dormant on Iran issues, suddenly woke up and started to produce an unprecedented number of round tables and publications that preached friendship and ‘dialogue’ with the mullahs.” The Iranian Regime funding Western think tanks and Universities is not something new, and has massively increased in recent years, the Alavi Foundation been one of the most notorious recent cases. [1] [2] London Hall ( talk) 18:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
:Your "Independent Iran analyst and writer" is
linked to the MEK.
Pahlevun (
talk) 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
References
militaryfactory.com is paraphrasing a lot of Wikipedia articles and other sources like army-guide.com and maybe more and sometimes it combines them. I noticed that due some editors adding militaryfactory.com article as sources to Nora B-52. It was used as source for operators of Nora B-52 but all text including operators is mostly paraphrased from older Wikipedia articles about Nora B-52.
For example:
- "The B-52 first emerged in an original "K0" form which featured a manual power drive, open-topped turret, and line-of-sight-engagement-only. The "K1" mark introduced a partially-covered turret design with onboard navigation system, digital Fire Control System (FCS), and improved automation. The "M03" then followed from the K0 and K1 mark and it was this finalized form adopted for service by the Serbian Army (the export variant then became the "KE" mark). The "K-I" brought along a fully-enclosed turret with complete NBC crew protection, improved armor protection, improved FCS, and upgraded communications suite. The "K2" is the latest in-development Nora mark intended to improve on the former design's ammunition support, gun accuracy, rate-of-fire, FCS, and overall automation."
K0 (first serial variant, open turret, manual power drive and light of sight) K1(S) (differences from K0:semi-open turret, full automatic, independent automatic navigation, automatic fire and control system, smaller crew number) M03 (semi-open turret, automatic based on K0,K1 designs with S designation for Serbia Army) KE (semi-open turret, full automatic export variant) K-I (K1 with additional armored full automatic with closed turret, new stronger chassis, radar on barrel for measuring projectile trajectory and speed, NBC protected cabin and turret, automated fire-suspension system, smoke grenade launcher, intercom for crew and new software) designated S for Serbia
Newest in development K2 (25 liter chamber, higher rate of fire, laser guided long range ammunition, smaller crew, new automated functions, smaller weight~25 tonnes, automatic leveling of gun in north direction,new smoke and light grenade).
Cites operators from ATMOS 2000 article including Cameroon as biggest from earlier version of wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ATMOS_2000&type=revision&diff=603510182&oldid=602556655
Nexter Systems have also developed an ammunition resupply vehicle which carries containers of ammunition (projectiles and charges) which can be rapidly unloaded using an onboard hydraulic crane. A total of six containers are carried which hold a total of 72 rounds (projectiles and charges) of 155 mm ammunition. Conventional bagged charges can be used as well as the more recent modular charge type.
Versatility, mobility, easy to operate, combat readiness and survivability are the key features of this new 155 mm/52-caliber weapon system which is fully interoperable with the NATO 39 cal. equipment and 52 cal. JB MoU."
There is many more examples that could be found while reading militaryfactory.com which acts as some sort of Content farm and or Web scraping and because of that it should not be considered as reliable source on Wikipedia. Loesorion ( talk) 01:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I am cleaning up Good Articles with cleanup tags and came across this article. It has been tagged with unreliable source, with a comment on the talk page saying it is an extremest publisher. I don't speak German or know much about military historians, but would like to know whether this article should be delisted due to this source (which is used to cover a large percentage of this article) or if the tag can be removed.
@ K.e.coffman, Auntieruth55, and MisterBee1966: as the tagger, commentator and major editor respectively. I will also leave a message at the MilHist wikiproject. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have come across another Good Article with the Unreliable source tags. This book is Schumann, Ralf (2014). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Eichenlaubträger der Nachtjagd (Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Oak Leaves Bearer of the Night Fighter Force) (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 883388135. ASIN B00JQ4TPDO (16 June 2014). and the article is Rudolf Frank. It alos is used to reference most of the article. The issue again seems to be the reliability of the publisher. @ K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, and Ian Rose: AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This profile series is dedicated to known and lesser-known Knight Cross bearers of the Wehrmacht. In the form of a timeless biography, we remember those who have fulfilled their military duty and remained rather unknown after the war. It is a lasting legacy of National Socialism and the World War II that it unleashed that it was difficult to gain access to personalities of that time, even if they were not in the foreground as National Socialists but for other reasons. Such life-paths provide insights into the laborious self-realization attempt between a sense of duty and the urge to develop (?). One of the most successful night fighters of the Luftwaffe, Private Rudolf Frank started training with the Night Hunting Squadron 3. He quickly achieved success and became one of the best night fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe. Ultimately, he was awarded the Knight's Cross and honored after his death posthumously with the Oak Leaves and promoted to officer.
References
Is this article (ZOROASTRIAN ESCHATOLOGY INFLUENCE ON JUDAISM) a reliable source and academic for wikipedia in religion studies? -- Dandamayev ( talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this article reporting on a survey of the members of the North American Vexillological Association a reliable source for the following statements:
32.218.39.142 ( talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm come to dislike this source for two reason: 1) I suspect it is low quality on the basis that I'm not convinced the author knows how to conduct a scientific poll; and 2) I don't understand why anyone would care what NAVA thinks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of IDONTLIKIT, multiple publications: [ Washington Post] [ Wall Street Journal], [ Public Television], [ The Hill], [ Idaho State Journal], and the list goes on, still use the NAVA poll to report on and discuss flags. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
vhscollector.com is a database website used to collect and present information on VHS and other former home media format releases from around the world by different distributors. The content on the site, whilst contributed with evidence and research by members, is organized, verified and published by the website's owners and staff, with a credit to the user out of respect. Unlike IMDb or any wiki, the content is not freely edited and can only be changed by site staff. I wish to use the site as a source for when citing home media releases for various feature films and television series and would like to know the consensus on its use as a reliable source, not including page comments and forum posts published by users. Currently, there aren't many reliable sources in regards to providing information for these home media releases, especially for VHS from the 1970s to 90s, and this is the closest I could find that provides the information I need. -- AnonUser1 ( talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A more specific question regarding cryptozoology that I would like to get some uninvolved opinions on (I would urge those already involved in the discussion at talk:list of cryptids to hold off, lest we just reproduce that thread here).
What kind of sourcing is required to call a subject a "cryptid", a term in cryptozoology? Are cryptozoology sources themselves sufficient to include the term in relation to subjects about which other sources do not use that term?
To elaborate, obviously cryptozoologists and cryptozoology works are reliable sources for what cryptozoologists believe (of course, per WP:FRINGE, some qualification via other sources is required), but I'm mainly asking about when sources justify inclusion. Cryptomundo.com and newanimal.org are two sites that pop up in many of our folklore/mythology/legend/popular culture articles, but there are also a number of encyclopedias/books like this one published by mainstream publishers.
A hypothetical: Let's say we have an article like bigfoot (let's not get hung up on the specifics of this example, though, since it's among the most likely to have other sources about it), which is very notable well outside of cryptozoology. If no sources other than cryptozoology websites/books/magazines claimed bigfoot as a "cryptid", would it be appropriate to include that in the article? What about in a list of cryptids? Is it a list of creatures that cryptozoologist publications have claimed as cryptids, or is it a list of subjects that more mainstream and/or academic sources have called a "cryptid"?
Note that this discussion takes something for granted: that cryptozoology sources should not be disqualified outright based on WP:FRINGE -- since it's rare we disqualify sources as such, it seemed most productive to ask the former question here first.
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that, in a given case, sources that use the term "cryptid" are considered to be suitable and reliable sources for a cryptozoology article-- this is a big part of the question in this thread. A similar question to when an "in-universe" source is reliable for articles about that universe. If there were a concept related to The Simpsons that did not receive coverage except in the various Encyclopedia of the Simpsons or simpsonsguide.com (I'm making these up btw -- no idea if they're real), should we be covering that. Then, beyond that, to what extent is the reliability of those sources affected by WP:FRINGE. If it were, say, a pseudoscientific medical treatment called goofiology that claimed to cure cancer without scientific evidence, we simply would not be covering it if the only sources about it were the goofiology.com and Encyclopedia of Goofiology (again, making these up). We would only cover its claims to the extent they have received coverage by mainstream, reliable publications. Should treat cryptozoology the same way? Should we only cover it according to sources that are not themselves associated with cryptozoology/cryptozoologists? What weight should cryptozoology books have? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
New editors can now cite certain publishers' websites without completing a Captcha. I have proposed that we also exempt major newspapers, etc. Please comment there, and suggest more URLs. Certes ( talk) 12:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
1. [44] 2. White Privilege
"The most fundamental problem for this or any proposal to offset white privilege is this: American whites’ advantages do not constitute white privilege. Therefore, there’s nothing that needs to be offset in the first place."
Source: [45] Article: White Privilege
Content:
Friedersdorf argues that White privilege may be counter productive since its focus on race replaces the theory of color-blindness with a hyper-emphasis on group identity which in turn leads to doomed ‘Balkanisation’. [Reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
IOTA (cryptocurrency) has a new version which appears to me to be entirely primary sourced. I'm in dispute with another editor over this - more eyes would be welcomed. See also Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)#Huge_primary-sourced_addition_-_what's_useful_here? - David Gerard ( talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this subsection, do the sources claiming the occurrence of the book-burning incident in old Persia bear enough weight compared to the ones refuting it? What I see hear is big names saying it did not happen versus non-history scholars saying it did. Please, advise.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 18:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! is it ok to use newspaper Página 12 as a source? I know it is on spanish section of Wikipedia and it's commonly used there, but I thought I should I ask on the english section about it. Thanks!
Agustin6 ( talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Currently English Wikipedia's Krampus lead makes the current claim:
- The origin of the figure is unclear; some folklorists and anthropologists have postulated it as having pre-Christian origins, and that in Norse or Germanic mythology, he was the son of the goddess Hel.
While this will alarm individuals with a background in ancient Germanic studies (or folklore studies more generally), more surprising still is that Wikipedia sources this claim to the National Geographic website, which you can find here.
Now, the 2013 (updated 2017) National Geographic site article doesn't offer any source for associating Hel with Krampus. There's no mention of any folklorists or anthropologists, just this:
- Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.
The words "Hel in Norse mythology" contain a link to Encyclopedia Mythica, which has been blacklisted on Wikipedia since 2010 for being a highly inaccurate, highly monetized site that we used to have all over our myth articles (ancient Wikipedia editors may recall MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2010#Pantheon.org and "Encyclopedia_Mythica"_(pantheon.org)).) While it wouldn't be surprising to find something like that on the site, a look at the Encyclopedia Mythica entry's Archive.org reveals that Encyclopedia Mythica never made such a claim, so maybe the author just used EM as an outlink for Hel as an entity (interestingly, EM seems to have been influenced by Wikipedia's far more accurate article on the topic over the years, but that's beside the point).
I've been unable to find a single reliable source that associates the Old Norse figure Hel with the contemporary Alpine (generally Austrian) Krampus. Contemporery academics in the field don't breach this. There's nothing in Simek, Lindow, or Orchard, or any of the typical specialist handbooks and encyclopedia on the topic, nor dedicated works from, say, Hilda Ellis Davidson or any of the usual ancient Germanic studies author-academics one would turn to for these topics. As there's a huge gap between space and time between Krampus and Hel, that's not really surprising.
Given the quality of the rest of the article, it appears the National Geographic site author might have just found this somewhere on the internet and went with it, and so it ended up on our Krampus article. I'm finding it hard to say where the claim originates exactly, but the internet is rife with intensely spammy sites like ancient-origins.net making the claim after the National Geographic site piece. (Outside of that, note that this just cites the National Geographic piece and recites it nearly word for word — ouch!. This late 2015 Vox article also makes the claim and cites the National Geographic article).
I think this claim and source need to be removed from the article. Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) feels differently. He says that "The only question ... is whether National Geographic News is a reliable source, and I would say that it is".
I've seen similar discussions come up here in the past. What to do in this situation? :bloodofox: ( talk) 08:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
[ [49]] (in fact the NG piece seems to be lifted wholesale from this), how about the smithsonian? [ [50]], yes I know they are citing the NG, but is not the whole point of RS is that if an RS quotes it so can we?. So where does this put us? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my position that this should not be included at all, even as an attributed statement. The national geographic source is not a work of serious scholarship. It was not written by a historian or anthropologist whose opinion might be significant. This was written by a journalist. And that means we should consider her source of information, not what she wrote herself. Since no such source is known, we should just ignore it. This is much the same as when a dubious scientific/medical fact appears in a newspaper, or even a news section of a medical journal. It shouldn't be attributed, or even used at all. If the source of the information cannot be found, just ignore it. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
America’s recent love affair with the Krampus, like any infatuation perhaps, tends to distort the object of its interest. Brom’s Krampus the Yule Lord provided a specious backstory for the figure spun from Nordic mythology and presented him as an enemy of Santa Claus. Unfortunately the Nordic connection concocted by Brom has sometimes been accepted as fact and even repeated in a 2013 National Geographic article “Who Is Krampus? Explaining the Horrific Christmas Devil.” As will later be discussed, the folklore may occasionally hint at a connection to Scandinavian tradition, but Brom’s presentation of the Krampus as the son of the divine Loki is pure fantasy.
--- Al Ridenour, The Krampus and the Old, Dark Christmas: Roots and Rebirth of the Folkloric Devil, Feral House, 2016 [52]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 ( talk • contribs)
Following this discussion [53] on talk page Does this is [54] reliable source for this edit [55]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Can this thesis: Foster, Zachary (November 2017). "Southern Syria". The Invention of Palestine (thesis). Princeton University. pp. 19–23. ISBN 9780355480238. Docket 10634618. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
...be used to cite the following at Southern Syria: "The term was used in Arabic primarily from 1918-20, during the Arab Kingdom of Syria period."
The thesis states on pages 20-21:
The Arabs described “the area that became Israel,” as Meir put it, in at least ten different ways in the decades prior to World War I, roughly in this order of frequency: Palestine; Syria; Sham; the Holy Land; the Land of Jerusalem; the District of Jerusalem + the District of Balqa + the District of Acre; southern Sham; the southern part of Sham; the Land of Jerusalem + the land of Gaza + the land of Ramla + the land of Nablus + the land of Haifa + the land of Hebron (i.e. cities were used, not regions); “the southern part of Syria, Palestine”; and southern Syria. The Arabic term “southern Syria” so rarely appeared in Arabic sources before 1918 that I’ve included every reference to the phrase I’ve ever come across in the footnote at the end of this paragraph (it did appear more often in Western languages). Golda Meir, Mikhaʼel Asaf and my Shabbat hosts were right about Southern Syria, but by focusing only on the facts that supported their arguments and ignoring all the others, they got the story completely wrong. They used facts to obscure the history. If the term rarely appeared in Arabic before World War I, how do propagandists even know it existed? Before World War I, they don’t. It took me nearly a decade to find a handful of references, and I can assure you few if any propagandists are familiar with its Arabic usage before 1918. But that changed dramatically in 1918, when the term gained traction for a couple of years until 1920. That’s because the Hijazi nobleman Faysal revolted against the Ottoman Empire in 1916 during the First World War (alongside “Lawrence of Arabia”), and established an Arab Kingdom in Damascus in 1918 which he ruled until the French violently overthrew him in 1920. During his period of rule, many Arabs in Palestine thought naively that if they could convince Palestine’s British conquerors the land had always been part of Syria—indeed, that it was even called “southern Syria”—then Britain might withdraw its troops from the region and hand Palestine over to Faysal. This led some folks to start calling the place southern Syria. The decision was born out of the preference of some of Palestine’s Arabs to live under Arab rule from Damascus rather than under British rule from Jerusalem—the same British who, only a few months earlier, in 1917, had declared in the Balfour Declaration their intention to make a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
The thesis was supervised by Princeton’s Cyrus Schayegh, Director, Program in Near Eastern Studies; Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies, and has been published on Princeton’s website.
Pinging those editors in the ongoing article talk page discussion @ Jonney2000 and Shrike:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It is interesting that even as late as 1918 Palestine was regarded as an independent entity. Syria was not seen as a mother-country. The idea of amalgamation was to emerge about a month later, following a strenuous campaign by its supporters. But the documents relating to the initiation of the proposed fusion show what was newly constructed and what was the original (and traditional) mode of self-perception. Thus, the document that speaks about the election of candidates to the first Palestinian congress starts by saying inter alia: muqat`at suriyya al-janubiyya al-ma`rufa bi-filastin, that is, the land of Southern Syria, known as Palestine. In other words, what everybody always knew as Palestine is henceforth to be named Southern Syria. Put differently, the writers were fully aware that had they called the country simply Southern Syria, nobody in the Middle East would have known what they were talking about. But no one needed a map or a dictionary to know what the term Palestine meant. This document also offers a simple explanation for the then popularity of the Syrian option: It was simply the case that for a brief moment Syria was an independent, not to say Arab, country. In Palestine everything was different, and the future looked very bleak indeed. The way in which the term Southern Syria was explained by the term Palestine is not confined to a single document. In fact, a more or less similar variant appears in all the documents from this period that mention the term “Southern Syria”: Southern Syria is given as the name of the country, despite the fact that the known term is Palestine. Obviously, Southern Syria was not a traditional name, or even a formal geographical definition. On the contrary, the way in which the term Palestine is always used to explain Southern Syria supports the conclusion that it was quite well known to everybody in the area in 1914 and could not have been invented because of Zionism or for any other reason.
Taking into account Icewhiz’s attribution proposal and Pluto’s finds, we could use Gerber primarily, with a following reference to Foster as follows:
Princeton PhD Zachary Foster has stated that, in the decades prior to World War I, the term “Southern Syria” was the least frequently used out of ten different ways to describe the region of Palestine in Arabic, noting that “it took me nearly a decade to find a handful of references”.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Drew Cloud is everywhere. The self-described journalist who specializes in student-loan debt has been quoted in major news outlets, including The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and CNBC [...] But he’s a fiction, the invention of a student-loan refinancing company." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Folks, There is an Afd going over at Chris S. Sims (game designer). There was a reference to this site, here: [56]. Regarding these two refs.
<ref>[http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/congratulations-to-our-2016-award-winners/ 2016 ENnie Awards]</ref> <ref>[http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/about-us/2015-ennie-award-winners/ 2015 ENnie Awards]</ref>
Is that a valid sources. Thanks. scope_creep ( talk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am interested in writing a separate biography article on Mitsuye Endo, the plaintiff in Ex Parte Endo. The most accessible biography I have found is https://densho.org/mitsuye-endo/ . Would you-all consider that WP:RS? Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
I am an Electrical Engineer and pursuing Ph.D. at FIU, USA. I am running my own portal and would like you to look at it and see if you consider it as a reliable resource in case i add my website link as a reference to any topic.
PS: (It was suggested by one of the editors at Wikipedia)
Here is the link to my website:
I'm waiting for your cordial response. Thank you
Ahmed
Anyone know anything about this site – http://www.americanforeignrelations.com? It's used pretty heavily at Rogue state and a handful of other articles. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
wealthx.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
There was a notorious sockmaster in Greek finance and football called Antony1821 (probably the same guy as Mikenew1953) Mikenew1953 was famous for make a fake 2015 list of List of Greeks by net worth (see talk). Now Equity2019, a checkuser confirmed sock of Antony1821 , keep spamming wealthx.com as the citation of net worth of Greek people, which those people are not covered by forbes.com. So, any one think that site wealthx.com is reliable? Matthew_hk t c 20:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I searched the archives and I couldn't find a concrete answer if Inquisitr is unreliable within Wikipedia as whole. I've always considered it unreliable as their stories are suspect and at one time, maybe still the case, anybody can write for them. Doing some further researching, the Media Bias/Fact Checking website has said they quoted the conspiracy/pseudoscience website Natural News. Slate, The Desk, K5 News, Psychology Today, and Buzzfeed have apparently criticized them for their inaccuracy of reporting. The Professional Wrestling project has put Inquisitr in the list of sources to avoid. I was checking Inquisitr's wrestling section and the one article used Sportskeeda. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source at all. Again, just wanting a concrete answer. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Recently an editor (@ Guy Macon:) invited other editors at the fringe theories noticeboard to checkout the state of Shroud of Turin. After looking it over, I also have a lot of concerns about what's happening at the article, and I think editors here should take a look at it. First, consider these sources:
These sites are currently being used to host a variety of files there, and the general tone of the article (for example, "A 2013 study published in a theological journal followed a 'Minimal Facts approach' ... concluded 'that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high'.") leads me to believe we have a problem here. As Wikipedia is not a digital reliquary for promoting fringe theories regarding objects traditionally associated with or belonging to this deity or that demigod ( relic), I'm thinking the article could use more source-critical eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
May
Haaretz be used unattributed in
Jan Grabowski (historian) to state His father was a Jewish Holocaust survivor from Kraków and who took part in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising; his mother, a Christian and came from a family of Polish nobility.
? The relevant source is
'Orgy of Murder': The Poles Who 'Hunted' Jews and Turned Them Over to the Nazis, Haaretz, Ofer Aderet Feb 11, 2017 and the relevant paragraph is Grabowski was born in Warsaw into a mixed family. His father was Jewish, from a Krakow family that assimilated well into Polish society, survived the Holocaust by hiding in Warsaw and took part in the 1944 uprising by the Polish underground there, which cost the lives of some 200,000 Poles and resulted in the city’s near-total destruction. His mother is Christian from a veteran, noble Polish family. He has relatives in Israel.
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I think that this song is an Eurodance song according to this source:
"[FRESH] Calvin Harris & Dua Lipa - One Kiss". Rebrn.com. Retrieved 4 May 2018.
Is this a reliable source? Can I call this song an Eurodance song? Karamellpudding1999 ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have been engaged on a debate on the talk page for the article on Involuntary celibacy. I anticipate that some of this might get moved to the noticeboard for neutral point of view instead but, as I've had the policy on reliable sources quoted at me several times, I thought that I would ask here. In the discussion, I have been asked to give reliable sources to argue against the claims made in the article. As I understand it, that is not how the reliable-sources policy works. The burden is on the person adding content to provide a reliable source, especially if they are making a bold claim. If someone else doubts the claim, then they can scrutinise the source and, if successful, remove the content. I don't see any need to provide a counter reliable source. For example, if someone adds content that all who oppose British independence from the EU are enemies of the people and references a Daily Mail article, then I don't need to provide a reliable source to say that they are not enemies of the people: I just say that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
I believe that the guidance on recentism and on media reporting after terrorist attacks is also relevant. Reports in the mass media after the Toronto attack have not been balanced on the subject of the incel communities, just as media reporting after 11th September 2001 was not balanced on the subject of Islam and media reporting after the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings was not balanced on the Northern Ireland conflict. There are been involuntary celibates since the beginning of time and the word "incel" began with a mutual-support group set up by a woman, but the Wikipedia article currently defines involuntary celibacy as a misogynist movement based on sources that I do not think are sufficiently robust to support such a bold claim.
To go through the sources that I question:
In the opening passage, it states
This seems to be a bold claim for an encyclopedia and in need of robust evidence. There is one pinned specifically to misanthropy from Vox, which I would argue is not a robust source. There are also five other sources given from the mass media. I don't think that this is sufficient, as allowing this as reliable could allow several other ideologies to be described as characterised by such bad traits in the opening statement. I could probably find five articles published in the British press that say that the Brexit campaign is racist or that the Remain campaign is anti-democratic, but they would presumably not be accepted as justification of such a claim. I argue that the same principle should apply with the sources for this passage, which were all published in April 2018 after the attack in Toronto. They are from The Guardian, The Atlantic, Global News, National Public Radio and the Globe and Mail.
Later on in the article, it states:
I don't think that the four references provided here are sufficient for the same grounds as above, although admittedly only two of these were published after the Toronto attack. There is a first from The Guardian, a second from The Guardian, one from NBC and one from Vice. The claim about racism in incel forums seems particularly tentative, as this is only stated in the NBC article and not in the other three.
A claim is made here:
The source is this article, which is a good academic source in itself. However, the part about hypergamy seems to come from page 12, and the text does not mention male incels. I don't think that this backs up the claim.
At the end it says:
The sources are mostly from websites that I do not think are robust: WBUR, Quartz, the Daily Dot and Your Tango. Furthermore, none of these sources mentions /r/braincels specifically. The Irish Journal source is actually one of the better sources currently in the article and it does mention /r/braincels specifically, but the quote is taken out of context in describing blackpills as ways that users communicate their state of mind.
If I am judged to be wrong and these are considered reliable sources, then I might suggest some other sources to act as reliable sources for another point of view. For now, I can suggest this article as useful to add balance, as it acknowledges that some incels are just keen to support one another. My preference for now is for the claims above to be removed or at least reworded significantly, rather than add sources with similar shortcomings to illustrate other points of view on the subject. Epa101 ( talk) 10:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Popcrush. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
In the context of a BLP, is the blog "Artvoice" (as it currently exists, regardless of prior iterations) a reliable source? For the last fortnight, several accounts have been trying to insert the claim that Nicki Clyne is married to Allison Mack. Mack has been indicted in connection to the NXIVM cult/MLM/organization, and since her arrest, there has been an echo-chamber of gossip sites repeating the unsourced claim that the arraignment "revealed" that Mack married Clyne. Since no reliable source has repeated that allegation, I have been removing it from the article. Now the blog "Artvoice" (which has been highly critical of Nxivm and regularly features columns by Frank Parlato, a professional Nxivm critic/whistleblower) has excerpted what it claims to be a transcript of the arraignment. [63] Anticipating that someone will reinstate the Mack/Clyne claim citing this source, I want to get some guidance ahead of time: Does this article constitute a reliable source for a contentious claim about a living person being married to an indicted criminal suspect?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland mentions Stanisław Estreicher, a Polish academic and politician, who is said to have refused Nazi cooperation in 1940. All of the sources cited are from 1940-1945:
Later sources that were cited either do not mention the claim, or use the phrase "was reported" (Jan T. Gross, Polish Society under German Occupation (1979), 126-130).
My observations are as follows:
Your opinions?
François Robere ( talk) 06:02, 7 May 2018 (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.
This free website includes factual, accurate information obtained from original, documentary evidence. The Home Page also says: "If you have additional research that is accurate, referenced & relevant it may be considered for inclusion under your name." If any fact is not clearly proved the website says so. The website is meant to include a number of clearly defined sections that also includes: "A GUIDE FOR PRACTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. If you are interested in Archaeology and would like to undertake some practical work this is a suggestion on how to produce a meaningful report."
The policy of the website is to be of interest and to provide fully accurate information that is freely available to academics and to interested readers. Great care is taken that everything included meets these stringent criteria. One of these articles is: "King John & Dore Abbey" found at http://blancheparry.co.uk/articles/churches/dore_abbey/people_places/king_john_dore_abbey/king_john_dore_abbey-1.php This has referenced material on King John, Dore Abbey (especially Abbot Adam I) and Kilpeck.
The Home Page gives direct access to Places to Visit which includes Walterstone Church. Here there is provenanced material on Lord Burghley's cousin's funeral, which Lord Burghley paid for:
"An account of William Cecil's funeral on 6th March 1598 is given in a letter, No.49, among the Salisbury Manuscripts, vol.VIII, page 83:
Paul Delayhay to Lord Burghley....
'According to your will and command, I have perused my father–in–law Cecil's Will [William Cecil of Allt–yr–Ynys], and the 6th inst celebrated the funeral as followeth. First 6 poor men of that parish in gowns went before the coffin, next to them the preacher James Ballard, a prebend [prebendary] of the Church of Hereford [Hereford Cathedral], and a Cecil by descent, in his mourning gown, accompanied by my Uncle Parry of Morehampton [Olive's father], followed. Next to then the coffin covered with black cloth, whereupon 12 scutcheons of Cecils, Abbot AdamI)Parrys and Harbatts' [Herberts] arms were fastened, three of which I commend to you, and carried by 6 of my father–in–law's men in black unto the churchyard and then by 6 of his sons–in‐law into the Church. After the coffin followed his 8 sons–in–law in mourning cloaks and answerable apparel, and three of his nephews. After followed Matthew's wife, the 8 daughters, and my father–in–law's sister Alice in mourning attire.'"
I should be grateful if this website could be now, correctly, classed as 'reliable' please. Regards, BethANZ ( talk) 09:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ
Is this website a reliable source? it has a lot of aircraft specifications on it but I am not sure where the info comes from. [ Username Needed 12:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the book Antidepressants a reliable source for the article Lithium (medication)? selfworm Talk) 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk#Family is using sources such as consequenceofsound.net, youtube.com, mashable.com, and People. May I request a review of the sources used in that section? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The material verges on the "breathless red top" level- Having a child die of SIDS would only be relevant if SIDS were otherwise relevant (charity work or the like). Otherwise it is puerile gossip stuff. As is the extended commentary on on-again-off-again divorces and the like. It is not relevant to the notability of the person. If People says your favorite cereal is "Trix" - does it really belong in an encyclopedia? 140K characters? Too long by half if one really thinks it has any density of useful information about the person. Collect ( talk) 20:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am aware that I am still learning my way around WP, but I think I understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, as well as what is not a medically reliable source.
I have tried to include research authored by academics/experts citing both their university link and the official research link. Here is one example.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/smoking-rise-among-pregnant-women-depression https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871617303459
HERE IS WHY I THINK IT IS SECONDARY- there is no original research. All data is from NSDUH and described elsewhere, SAMSHA. (Redacted)
Got it. Nothing was done with the original data, it was just collected by a different party and no one has reviewed this analysis of this one study of that data. Appreciate the clarification Littleolive oil . Mrphilip ( talk) 04:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is actually in reference to an AfD discussion on Brown University Traditions, with the original page here.
I'm currently undecided on the AfD but while searching I did find one significant potential source Brown University 2012 - Traditions. Its publisher is College Prowler (now seemingly called Niche) However despite some research, and a quick flick through the three mentions I found when typing it into the archive search, I wasn't sure whether it is a reasonable source to use.
Any help much appreciated,
Nosebagbear ( talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)