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 280 | Archive 281 | Archive 282 | Archive 283 | Archive 284 | Archive 285 | → | Archive 290 |
Hi,
My article on Tadeusz Sielanka has been rejected due to lack of reliable sources. At least on of the listed sources is scientific "objective" publication:
Antagonizmy kontrolowane. Rozmowy i eseje o muzyce współczesnej. Sacrum Profanum 2018, edited by Jan Topolski and Krzysztof Pietraszewski, Krytyka Polityczna Publishing / The Krakow Festival Office, Warsaw 2018. ISBN 978-83-65853-92-9, p. 80-81
What could have been a reason for considering this source unreliable? Can I do something about it?
Regards,
MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm810629 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Some editors experienced in the proper usage of self-published sources are asked to weigh in at this RfC. Thank you, -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly sorry I am new.... I have been told that the Daily mail newspaper (UK) is not considered a reliable source where a living person is concerned - would appreciate it if some of the experienced editors can tell me which newspapers are seen as reliable and which not etc . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Finderman999, that is correct. Please refer to these extensive requests for comment in 2017 and 2019, as well as the 38 other past discussions on the Daily Mail, for details. — Newslinger talk 00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As a user-edited site, fandom.com would appear to me to be generally unreliable. There are over 400 references in articles, often for trivia. Should these be removed? And if so, should an exception be carved out for Memory Alpha? (incidentally, that article is terrible). Guy ( help!) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this (PDF) source and/or its journal Medieval Feminist Forum reliable? This journal does not appear to be indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. It is currently being used (alongside another source) at TERF to support that TERF describes a minority of feminists. The claim "minority" and the quality of this source are being discussed on the talk page here (this particular source was brought up toward the end of the discussion). -Crossroads- ( talk) 19:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm wading through LiveLeak links again. Last time we discussed it people were of the view that it's generally unreliable, but I am seeing issues that suggest to me that we should be blacklisting or deprecating LiveLeak. Of most pressing concern is the number of times a CNN, Al Jazeera or other press or agency report was referenced to LiveLeak, where it was uploaded by J. Random User in some random country, often with a transcript provided by no identified authority. Some are Russian propaganda uploads (e.g. "Russian separatists" campaigning for an ethnostate in Donbass), some are just broken (e.g. [1] where the link is clearly not the same as the original link from Ogrish days), some are Taliban / ISIS snuff videos that have since apparently been taken down (e.g. [2]). Attribution is often questionable. Example: is [3] actually LiveLeak or does that revolving logo in the top left identify a news organisation that owns the copyright?
It's bad enough sourcing to YouTube, but the main reason people use LiveLeak is that the content violates YouTube's policies: either it's stolen or it contains graphic violence. The approach to date - case-by-case - isn't working, as most of the cases turn out to be inappropriate. Guy ( help!) 18:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Consider sources such as albawaba, netblocks and twitter, Can they support the following material?
Thanks! Saff V. ( talk) 10:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason to treat it differently from YT/other UGC, though? Certainly stolen videos shouldn't be linked, but isn't there a lot of original content there, too? Sometimes it's because it violates YT policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP policies (we do cover violent incidents, after all). I confess I'm not exactly a regular user of the site, though, sufficient to know what proportion of its content is original. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
LiveLeak ( RSP entry) has been blacklisted at Special:Diff/932907600. See WP:SBL § liveleak.com for the request. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across a citation to https://www.genesys.com/customer-stories/lianjia in the article Lianjia and when I took a look at the Genesys page I thought "this looks like a paid endorsement of the company". Genesys states (bottom of page) "Our success comes from connecting employee and customer conversations on any channel, every day. Over 11,000 companies in 100+ countries trust our #1 customer experience platform...." Looking through the site suggests that it could be a closed-garden platform favorable to paying clients, a way to promulgate positive social media rather than relying on the vageries of open format things like Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for taking a look and providing commentary on whether you would view this as either an unreliable or potentially unreliable source. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
We use it a lot. [4] Here's an example of a use I just found and reverted. [5] Scroll down to see more exampled of its videos. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Prager U, a far-right media outlet that was invited to President Trump's recent White House media summit, released a video on Monday morning with the hashtag #TheCharlottesvilleLie, propagating the (verifiably untrue) conspiracy theory that Trump never uttered the words 'there are fine people on both sides' when addressing the violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017." Not sure how that could be missed. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
When I looked, there were only 9 instances where it was used. I removed four [12] [13] [14] [15] as promotion, noticing that 2606:A000:4854:7B00:40A3:2348:282F:A68E ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (similar ip: 2606:A000:4854:7B00:5CE3:357E:DAE:20B ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was spamming it.
I left it in Haroon Ullah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which needs a careful review and cleanup. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Question: As a claim/fact attributed to PragerU we shouldn't treat any of the videos as RS's. What about as the opinion of the presenter? I can't think of an example where this might be the case but assume PragerU had a video by a noted economist, could the PragerU video be cited as the opinion of the economist? For argument sake assume people agree the person in question is a noted expert in the field (ie absent a discussion of where published, the views would be consider DUE opinions of an expert). My opinion is this would be acceptable so long as we have in text attribution to the speaker (not PU) and treat this as the opinion of an expert. This would be treated similar if the expert published the same information in a self published source/blog. Springee ( talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Context matters" is the "you can't PROVE it isn't true!!" of sourcing discussions. It's not philosophically disprovable that there might conceivably be, in some universe, a use for PragerU link - but it's really not the usual case at all, and trying to make out that it's a reasonable consideration is simply not the case. If someone says something on PragerU, then if it's in an RS use the RS, and if it's not in an RS then the real world didn't care - David Gerard ( talk) 09:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I put citation from published scientific paper to the article which talks about Rascians. [1] [2] Paper is published in Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal [3] [4] and it is written by László Heka. [5]This citation which I enter in article László Heka in reference based on his earlier book and another Hungarian source is there as reference. I am interested in your opinion if this is RS? Mikola22 ( talk) 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Hopefully this is the correct place to ask this question. I have been going through and adding DOIs to already existing journal citations, and somehow triggered some sort of blacklist. The edit is here. Can someone point me to the policy or blacklist that triggered this? I tried WP:Predatory, but it doesn't seem to explain the tag there. My assumption is there is a source somewhere on the page Electrophoretic light scattering that is unreliable, but I'd like to find the blacklist so I can find the right one to remove. Forbes72 ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Lee, Ji Yeong; Kim, Jin Soo; Hyeok An, Kay; Lee, Kyu; Kim, Dong Young; Bae, Dong Jae; Lee, Young Hee (2005-07-01). "Electrophoretic and Dynamic Light Scattering in Evaluating Dispersion and Size Distribution of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes". Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 5 (7). American Scientific Publishers: 1045–1049. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2005.160. ISSN 1533-4880.
It looks like Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is on Beall's List. Unfortunately, filter 891 doesn't identify which citation is the predatory one, so it takes a little bit of research. In the future, if you expand the citations one at a time in separate edits, filter 891 will only trigger on the predatory one. — Newslinger talk 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
dois :=
).
—
Newslinger
talk 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I saw usage of this source in
Muhammad in the Quran. On that website, I saw some claims that seem to be written by either an uninformed person or someone who spreads propaganda or biased claims. I investigated the website and I found this in Southern Poverty Law Center, "David Wood, who runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth* which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com, a Christian-based, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam website."
[19]--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
above quote, taken from the SPLC website: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/05/anti-muslim-roundup-6518 is based on this interview of Daniel Scot, by David Wood: http://imi.org.au/ps-daniel-scot-interview/ Koreangauteng ( talk) 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This RAND report says:
"The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch."
This source/statement is being used in the lede section of the article
People's Mujahedin of Iran to make the claim that Human Rights Watch says it "describes"
this group as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."
Is this an accurate representation of what RAND is stating? Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Wikipedia, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 19 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.
(Some examples -
1.
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
2.
https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/
3.
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)
Kmoksha ( talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys,
While working on a media bio article, I wanted to verify and cite information that a previous editor added. This is the only web-site that confirms the info that I need but before using it I thought I'd pass by you guys.
Thanks Filmman3000 ( talk) 05:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"CELEBRITY GOSSIPY BIO", and should be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently @ 1990'sguy: has added, and readded numerous unreliable sources to the Yule log, many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:
This page could use more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
A book which uses the same kind of declarative statement for historical and religious claims, conflating the two (e.g. "God came down to earth", reading from the introduction of the Ace Collins books published by Bible publisher Zondervan), is not a great source for historical facts on a subject which has already received coverage in academic history texts. That doesn't necessarily mean such sources are unreliable for any purpose, but they carry less weight and should generally be attributed if included at all. Also, just from a general editing perspective, it's not good form to add a single paragraph to the body and then transform the lead so that 2/3 of its paragraphs are about that bit you just added... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
While the user apppears to have given up on re-adding self-published sources, the user is still adding random sources found on the internet featuring non-specialists next to academics and other specialists in the article. This is evidently to either promote one of these books ( Perhaps the book by this guy), the ideas expressed therein, or both. Noted folklorists and philologists are currently emphasized next to these non- WP:RS-compliant sources, despite WP:UNDUE. This is stranger yet considering that academic sources detailed in the article already make the situation clear (innovation vs. tradition). The goal appears to ensure that a particular quote by a particular author occurs in the lead. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the first of two heavy metal music "zines": https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us From this about us page, it seems clear that it's a site for fans by fans, but it does not appear to meet some of the hallmarks required for being a reliable source: there is no editorial oversight policy, the founder has no journalistic background, and this site seems to sell what it reviews so is motivated to provide good reviews. This site is used on many articles. Can it be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the second of two heavy metal music "zines": http://mauce.nl/site/ There is no "about us" page, but individual reviewers do get entries and the founders are not journalists. Their mission statement, http://mauce.nl/site/mission-statement/, is interesting but makes it clear they just want to inform readers but do not claim to be journalists. The individual "editor" pages don't support journalistic experience of any of the writers and again, no editorial oversight policy. This site is used on many articles. Can this be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
In cleaning up some spam I found a number of aviation-related fansites that do not appear to me to be reliable sources.
Does anyone consider any of these to meet RS? Guy ( help!) 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.
Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual. In their rebuttal, they explain that the oil production trends between both countries were very different in the decade before sanctions and that two countries are also radically different in other dimensions. The rebuttal also states that just a month after the financial sanctions in late 2017, Nicolás Maduro fired both the relatively technocratic PDVSA president and oil minister and replaced them with a single military general with no experience in oil, who in turn fired and imprisoned over 60 senior managers of the oil company, including its previous president, on corruption charges, while nothing remotely similar happened in Colombia, thus confounding the effects of the sanctions with those of the firing.
various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ad hominem arguments, rather than more analytical ones.
Example text, and the CEPR "
will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives."
References
References
See [...] the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources.The CEPR report made use of the official, publicly available election results. It doesn't give "different statistics" from other sources, it just demonstrates that the "sudden" change in the results was likely due to geography (rural, Morales-supporting regions return results later). If there are actual errors in the report, they should be highlighted, but otherwise I'm not aware of any issues related to that report. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 04:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
statisticsto "interpretations". It's the only one I've seen that determines such a large change can be completely accounted for (as some of the other sources in the article would suggest, by not agreeing with it). Kingsif ( talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The percentage of deaths due to the sanctions is difficult to estimate because the counterfactual is unknowable, but it is worth noting that the counterfactual in the absence of sanctions could even be that mortality would have been reduced [...] in the event that an economic recovery would have taken place.. [22] It should also be noted that one of the authors of the "counter report" is Ricardo Hausmann, who is a member of the Venezuelan opposition and was an advisor to Guaidó at the time the report was written and published.
Does anyone have information pertaining to the author of this book, M. J. Depoin? I have been unable to find information on this person.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
On Nick Gehlfuss, the reference for his birthdate is http://birth-records.mooseroots.com/l/12392558/Nicholas-Alan-Gehlfuss which is both dead, and I suspect not a reliable source. What steps should I take, because this is the only reference for his birthdate?
Thanks Red Fiona ( talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Redfiona99: IMO this would be better dealt with at WP:BLP/N even if it concerns the reliability of sources. That said, I'll keep it here rather than moving it. That source is almost definitely not suitable for a birth date since it sounds like it's a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, some sort of birth record e.g. from a hospital or US state or something. It's therefore also a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY since we require that the birth date is either widely published, or appears in sources linked to the subject such that we can infer they don't mind it being public.
Given this, you can simply remove the birth date until an acceptable source comes along. To avoid complaints, it may be worth having a quick search to see if you can find acceptable sources. But as I was going to remove it, I did, and I only found [23] and other worse sources. There's also [24] which I'm fairly sure is not an RS as well and only gives the date not the year.
To be clear, if you can't be bothered looking for better sources, it's generally better to remove the date anyway, to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS etc. Ultimately for that kind of thing in a BLP, it's the responsibility of anyone who wants to add (back) the info to find a suitable source.
BTW, the dead link issue tends to be less important unless you have doubts about the source that you cannot assess. Per WP:DEADLINK, if the source is acceptable, then we generally leave it until it's repaired. Admittedly in this case, it doesn't look like it's actually archived so that may be quite difficult. Still even in a BLP, I wouldn't removed sourced content just because of a deadlink, unless there is some other reason to. (E.g. I suspect the dead link is not an RS, or think it may have been misinterpreted.)
As an aside, if the common solution which doesn't seem to apply here, is if we have some RS on the birthdate, but it doesn't seem widely published, is to only include the year.
We're seeing issues recurring at the talk pages of the articles regarding racial groups and intelligence. Some participants are repeating claims that there is reliable scientific evidence that certain racial groups may have inherently different levels of intelligence to each other. These are really just the same claims that were made by fringe Pioneer Fund researchers such as Philippe Rushton and have been used here at RSN as examples of unreliable sources, but it would be good to get a clear determination that these conclusions are explicitly unreliable. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites.and
Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine.This is not entirely true. Something published in a peer-reviewed journal form a reputable publication can still be fringe. From WP:FRINGELEVEL:
Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources.Peer-reviewed papers are useful, but the important question is overall acceptance by the scientific community. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (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.
Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the fringe theories noticeboard. The Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship is a sublisting of the Shakespeare authorship question, which is categorized as a fringe theory. WP:Fringe states that "for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.
In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be WP:OR, and the only source that appears to be a WP:RS for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.
These are the questioned sources:
On the article's talk page, three reliable sources are listed that were used to establish the notability of the article for an AFD in 2016, but only one is in fact used as a source. As far as I've been able to learn, the theory hasn't received very much significant coverage (as opposed to mere passing mentions) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject in academic publications and web sites, nor really all that much in popular publications. If my interpretation of the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability is correct, this article should not use these sources to discuss the topic any further than has been treated in reliable sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as Truth Will Out, it is cited here as a source 4-5 times by an extremely RS. So this is overwhelmingly strong evidence that it is a RS, despite all of the name-calling and bluster above: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615 Kfein ( talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this book reliable? An user reverts my edit on Ashina tribe saying it is disputed although he does not put any counterargument. Beshogur ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm curious to hear thoughts about using this article to source the claim that lively forum discussion pre-existed media interest in the Science of Identity foundation on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. The relevant discussion is at the talk page (diffs here and here). (NB: the question of Grube's article (also in Civil Beat) is not my primary question, though I would be interested in hearing whether that article is admissible). I gather Civil Beat is an Omidyar initiative. I don't know if there's a general en.wp rule/decree/etc. for Omidyar media initiatives at perennial sources? ^^
MrX, Xenagoras, pinging you both since you're in the starring diffs. (sorry) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been media interest in the Science of Identity Foundation and/or Chris Butler's nexus to politics since 1976 (see Independents for Godly Government). The media reported on it in relation to state senator Rick Reed as well as Gabbard's parents. It is well known in certain communities in Hawaii and has existed independently of online forum discussion. It received renewed interest with regard to Gabbard when she herself referenced her "guru dev" in an August 2015 YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU&t=150s). It would, however, be interesting to know whether Civil Beat articles are admissible, as they contain useful information. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".
— []
Science of Identity Foundation content
|
---|
References
|
Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. [1]
References
If there is a dispute between one 2015 article by an obscure local news site and multiple more recent articles by multiple high-quality RS, then we opt for the language and content from the latter. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
When The New Yorker asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
By and large, this question is met with a collective head-scratching. Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda
I have been looking at the salted bomb article and I'd like some advice / help. The current reference two is misformatted but says
and links to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6, a site that I was not sure qualifies as an WP:RS. It doesn't seem to me to establish who Carey Sublette is or why he's qualified to write on this topic. In looking around, however, I found that:
It was coming to the conclusion that Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is an RS, though possibly self-published and not suited for BLPs... but I then noticed that the content of section 1.6 of Sublette's FAQ is nearly identical to the content of the article's first reference,
The FAQ is dated 1998 and the book in 2002 (but as a reprint) so it could be that Sublette's work has just been plagiarised. We have no article on the book's publisher (and I know some publishers are blatantly violating copyright), nor do any of the authors have wikibios that I can find. So...
Sorry for the length but I thought explaining would be helpful. Any and all comments / suggestions / criticisms / etc welcome. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
talk:EdChem|talk]]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
We have been having a protracted debate over whether we can say that TERFS is used to describe a minority of feminists. My general feeling is that the statement is most likely the Truth, but the level of sourcing found so far has been sub par. It would be nice to get some outside opinion on this from some sourcing experts who do not have much of a dog in the fight. The article is
TERF and the sentence is It was used to describe a minority of feminists...
in the body and the similar It was originally applied to a minority of feminists
in the lead. I haven't included the last part as that particular wording was decided through an RFC (
Talk:TERF/Archive 1#RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?) and it didn't discuss the minority part. The main sources that I have seen used for this are:
I guess it would be good to know if the sourcing is strong enough to say this in wikivoice, with attribution, or not at all. There have also been discussions about whether qualifying TERF as a minority is useful or whether doing so is undue weight as many sources use other words to distinguish between the two groups, but that may be beyond the scope of this board. The two most recent discussion are at Talk:TERF#TERF is not a subset, nor a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs and Talk:TERF#A minority of feminists who ...... ??. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
As stated at https://eyeonislamism.com/about/ , this is a site that reprints portions of mainstream and non-mainstream sources with attribution to the original source. I'm thinking that this site itself should not be a 'reliable source', but the original purveyors of the content could be, or could not be, depending on the source. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153#specialforcesroh.com.
http://www.specialforcesroh.com/ is being used in a lot of articles, and in my opinion is quite obviously an unreliable self-published source. My removal of it was reverted from SOE F Section networks, so thought it best to get a definitive answer before proceeding. FDW777 ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I found IslamQA as a Muslim-based, pro-Wahabi, anti-Christian website. It has been strongly criticised by Muslims and others.
The website was banned in Saudi Arabia because it was issuing independent fatwas.
The founder of
IslamQA is possibly in jail.
In regards to IslamQA issues and criticisms, it might be worthwhile to read: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
IslamQA says its "answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid" - otherwise it does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Muslim apologetics. It is not usable as a source in Wikipedia. All these uses should be removed. Koreangauteng ( talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing debate as to the usability of certain sources for certain content at Talk:Mottainai since mid-November. Specifically:
Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage.";
Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.;
According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".; and
One of the earliest appearances of the word mottainai is in the book Genpei Jōsuiki (A Record of the Genpei War, ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about Yoshitsune. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a vassal used the word mottainai in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.
(Note that in some cases, the "facts" may be verified by the sources, but the neutrality/relevance is in dispute, as the authors of our cited sources appear to disagree with the matter asserted.) An RFC was opened, but very few outside editors have expressed interest. Some more third-party opinions would be appreciated.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Have reviewed the Shuto reference, a study on childhood pedagogy (outside the appropriate fields of study); the supporting text there is in the "Background" section (which I would not consider reliable) and references Hirose, Y. (2008). "Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior". (again outside the appropriate academic field).
The same issue with academic fields holds true for Sato Yuriko's article in the Journal of Analytical Psychology.Putting aside whether psychology is an appropriate field; Sato has an extensive introduction to this source, we choose to ignore this, cherrypicking one sentence. The source later develops into a series of anecdotes from Sato's clinical practice, which I do not consider appropriate for this article.
Inclusion of the content attributed to Yamaori Tetsuo (quoted by Siniawer 2014, which I have read in toto) is bewildering - the source covers 22 pages, largely about the "rebranding" of Mottainai in millennial Japan. It is astounding that we would cherrypick a seemingly contrary or minor view from this source and not include the main crux.Siniawer, read in context, is clearly disdainful of Yamaori's contentions; placing them in the context of a deliberate "branding" of Mottainai in the early 21st century. We ignore the primary thrust of Siniawer's work, to focus on a single quote from Yamaori.
I'm thinking that at least some of the content on this site is churnalism. For instance https://peprofessional.com/2019/12/frontenac-sells-liquid-technologies-pritzke/ . I've not done a review of content at large, but this is the first thing I've ever looked at on the site (came up in a duckduckgo search), and it says something in regard to 'random sample' with an n of 1. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It might be useful to start a listing of sources that are prone to churnalism but also publish reliable content. Or the reverse, outlets that are known to be completely free of churnalism - if there are any. I'm thinking of a list highlighting those outlets that are a major % churnalistic in nature, like 50%+. These outlets might not be blacklisted as unreliable in an rfc. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
ZoomInfo or its agents appear to be engaging in an SEO spamming campaign. I looked at the uses here; there are... issues. Examples:
Ultimately ZoomInfo is a marketing tool, not an encyclopaedic reference. I think we should remove these links. Guy ( help!) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts about reliability / suitability of the bollysuperstar.com site? According to https://bollysuperstar.com/about-us/ , "We are BollySuperStar ( https://bollysuperstar.com), working under Bollywood Entertainment Ltd., which is an Entertainment Based Blogging & Technology Organization." Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation A Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating fraudulent or plagiarized articles and recommending retractions. Most of these are Russian-language so I don't know how often they might have been used on en:wiki. The full report is also available and also in Russian. I've lost almost all of my proficiency in the language, so I can't read through it myself to find out which articles and journals were affected. Of most concern are probably the eight journals that "explicitly refused" to retract recommended articles or otherwise cooperate with the investigations. If we can find out what those were, we should then probably at least see if they are used here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Otokonoko is a topic about crossdressing in Japan. At [32], Trappy-chan ( talk · contribs) argues that the Japanese-language blog entry http://yomedan-chii.jp/archives/18333797.html is an appropriate source for this article, including for claims about gender identity issues, because, according to Trappy-chan, it was written by an expert in the field. I have serious doubts about that.
I cannot read Japanese, and I do not know anything about the blog's author, but: The blog has an informal, "cute" layout that is at odds with how a serious academic researcher would present their writings. And for gender identity issues in particular, I think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is preferred, or at any rate editorially reviewed sources, but certainly not self-published sources.
What do others think? And for those who read Japanese, does this blog post even support the added content? Sandstein 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The blog is self-published by Chii.
WP:SPS states that self-published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources"
, but "may be considered reliable when produced by an
established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by
reliable, independent publications"
. The Bride was a Boy is a
manga-styled autobiography published by
Seven Seas Entertainment, which is neither academic nor
independent, and does not qualify Chii as a subject-matter expert. —
Newslinger
talk 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's my impression -- MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION [Chii's emphasis] and I'm probably wrong lol -- that while josōshi refers to men who dress as women and mostly don't look like men, otokonoko refers to men who look like they've jumped out of a cartoon or comic strip in that they could pass 100% for women. Given the above post, it does seem like Trappy-chan understands that the source doesn't have any real relationship to the content it is being tagged onto, which makes me think this is some kind of Catflap08- or Bagworm-level disruption where the editor apparently believes that inline citations are not meant to provide sources so that readers can verify our articles' content, so much as a way to advertise "good sources in general". Not only do edits like this make it harder to verify the content (assuming there is some gender identity content in the numerous overlapping citations), but I have to imagine the authors of the sources being "advertised" don't particularly like being cited as saying something they don't say. Bart Ehrman often uses as an analogy to explain why "vertical reading" of the gospels is not a good way of reading them for historical purposes the idea of someone reading one of his books and then reading something by Rush Limbaugh before assuming the two authors were saying the same thing -- I'd find a video clip but it's quite late here so I'd probably fall asleep before the job was done.
-
There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references despite the fact that as I have already pointed out, they are not about the discussion on gender identity. I know you may not understand Japanese, but if you AT LEAST use google translator you can somewhat understand the context of the japanese sources. Newmo's glossary explains many LGBT terms and in 男の娘 it explicitly states that it is irrelevant to gender transition and sexual orientation. The LGBT-Life (Rainbow Life) article has a whole section for 男の娘 + 男の娘 couples and it explicitly includes transgender people. Kotaku's article interviews a non-binary 男の娘. Chii's reference was added, again, to indicate a few things:
- Not all 男の娘 are crossdressers, they can also be merely feminine people. 男の娘 does not directly equal crossdressing. 女装/女装子 are the words for crossdressing.
- However, as Chii explains, 男の娘 and 女装子 are largely used interchangibly, even though, again, as Chii explains, there is a difference between the two as 男の娘 does not necessarily equal crossdressing. That is why she mentions she personally does not use the slangs in the same way, despite the fact that they are largely used that way in general.
I agree that the discussion on 男の娘 and 女装子 is a large one and Chii's reference might not fully grasp the distinctions and similarities between the two slangs. In this case, as I have proposed, there is a need to expand on this subject (rather than pretending it doesn't exist and removing it from the article).
I also agree that we can expand on the section regarding the origin of the slang.
However, as I have pointed out, the discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation relating to 男の娘 is clear cut and backed up by many sources. There is no doubt in this subject as all sources comply with the same point, without presenting a single controversial argument: 男の娘 can be AMAB people of any gender identity and sexual orientation. We have, at the moment, AT LEAST 3 references in the article pointing this out. If there is further confusion on this subject, I recommend the work 不可解なぼくのすべてを (usually translated as "Love Me For What I Am"), a story specifically about 男の娘 people who work in an 男の娘 café and belong to many different gender identities and sexualities.
I hope now that we've cleared up the confusion on references, we can move on to improving the article which sorely needs it instead of accusing others of disruption while failing to read anything posted or referenced and undoing revisions that are backed up by sources because you haven't read them. Thank you. Trappy-chan ( talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's referencesNo, you claimed your edit was based on the Chii blog, when it clearly bore no relation whatsoever to the content of said blog. You then persisted to add that citation to the content (most recently here). You don't get to claim that some other sources you didn't previously cite and have never actually claimed support the content without being synthesized with the blog you originally cited until now are the "actual" sources -- this is almost as bad as what has been going on at the Mottainai article, with the only reason I don't say it's as bad being that this topic is "sexy" enough to attract more immediate outside attention and not waste as much editor time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors evaluate the suitability of a source as a reference in an article. This discussion focuses on Chii's blog, and at this point, there is consensus that Yomedan-chii.jp is not an appropriate source for the Otokonoko article because it is a self-published source. If you are making content-based arguments unrelated to a source's reliability, please use the talk page of the article. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
There's been some inconclusive discussion here about the use of The Nation in this article. I believe it is a perfectly reliable source and at the very least it is as strong as other citations used in the article. The Author Donna Minkowitz is a respected journalist and writer. So, is The Nation and this article in particular a reliable source for this claim:
Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.
Given The Nation and the author both have a good reputation, I can't see the issue with this source personally. Thanks Bacondrum ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for backing up in the
People's Mujahedin of Iran that "According to the Nejat Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police."
?
Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the public information component, hosting entries like https://pitchbook.com/profiles/investor/10153-72 , should not be a reliable source as the page https://pitchbook.com/research-process implores companies with "Ensure your PitchBook profile is up to date". I'm thinking it would be on par with Crunchbase ( on the perennial list). Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Teahouse#Fiction_as_references
Interesting question, if you have a good answer. Basically, where in our policies does it say most clearly that we don't use a work of fiction for something "realworld" in this case floor-coverings? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Referring to
www
In short, the original book and Austrian historian mentions the census of Lika and Krbava 1712. In that book is talked about "Greek-Orthodox" and Croatian historian write about that census and mentions "Serbian Orthodox". What should I do? Should I delete claims of the Croatian historian or to add claims from the original census and the Austrian book itself next to claims of the Croatian historian. Everything is explained here [33] but there is no answer so please help. Article is "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" Thanks. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
In the original posting I was referred to here. This site has been blacklisted for being fake news. What to do with the over 500 uses as a source on en.wikipedia? (just wondering, as I am not a regular user here) Hardscarf ( talk) 13:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A user on CNN is arguing that Newsbusters (an arm of the Media Research Center) and The Washington Examiner can be used for statements of fact in the lead of CNN, in this diff; Adfontesmedia and AllSides (familiar to anyone who frequents this board, I think) are also being cited. Note the removal in that diff - they're using them in a way that directly contradicts Slate, the Columbia Journalism Review, Southern California International Review, and Vox, and are directly removing a statement sourced to those four sources to replace it with something cited to the ones I mentioned. See further discussion here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to get the other side of the argument in here thank you. If one looks at Fox News, for instance, you will see outwardly biased sourcing such as Media Matters, as one example. Now, tell me how MM, which I'm sure we can all agree on is a hyper-partisan left organization for claims there, but we can't use a conservative leaning news organization, The Examiner, for claims on CNN. Yes, I know this is WP:Other, but if somebody seriously wants to argue this point, they should argue the same on the other side of the fence.
Also, nobody has yet explained actually how The Examiner does not follow reliable sourcing standards. All I've heard as of yet, is that it's simply not, its biased (which does not matter, NPOV was followed), or now that I'm not competent. Good arguments here guys. Curivity ( talk) 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No idea why the last thread, before it got archived, only attracted a few comments from those who had already commented on the talk page, but I would like to ask again if anyone would be willing to look at the sources and analyze whether they properly verify the content attributed to them. I would also like to ask that anyone who has already commented at least once on the article talk page refrain from posting here, in case the problem last time was TLDR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Filter 869 traps addition of deprecated sources to mainspace. I think we need to tweak this to also catch draft space - I just picked up a citation to a deprecated source that had been introduced in Draft and moved to mainspace. Guy ( help!) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need to concern for a perennial source for the Boston Globe (www.bostonglobe.com), it would be a reliable source? But unlike other major newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. -- 119.94.160.112 ( talk) 09:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There are >500 uses of gameo.org as a source in Wikipedia. It's a wiki. It has restricted editorial access. Its mission is to promote the Mennonite Anabaptist cause, obviously, so there seems to be some risk of publishing Truth™ rather than fact. Is it reliable? Guy ( help!) 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This site (>600 references on enWP) has an editorial board but is volunteer edited. Example from Apostles' Creed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
That looks to me like reliable-but-undue. I would tend to classify this as OK for sourcing facts about hymns but not OK to support notability of any specific work for inclusion either as an article or as a paragraph in a separate article. What does the panel think? Guy ( help!) 11:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This site has 61 uses on enWP, so not especially high priority, but still. There's plenty of information on the website about its theological objectives, but nothing obvious about its editorial and fact-checking policy, or the expertise of its writers. It argues a particular POV on Christian theology, so it seems to me that in the absence of any compelling evidence of authority it should be restricted to WP:ABOUTSELF. Guy ( help!) 12:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am using this article ( https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/hypr-comcast-mastercard-samsung-funding-password/) to source an statement in HYPR Corp but I don't know if it is considered reliable. What about eweek? for example this article ( https://www.eweek.com/security/hypr-debuts-biometrics-sdk-to-improve-authentication). Thanks! Kriptocurrency ( talk) 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In multiple AfDs—including Heinz Bonatz, Adolf Paschke, and Rudolf Hentze— scope_creep is arguing that postwar reports by US intelligence agencies on German intelligence figures from World War II constitute reliable secondary sources and help for establishing notability of these figures. Yay or nay? b uidh e 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This is identified as a personal project of Jeffrey L. Thomas. I cannot find any information showing him to be a recognised authority, the website doesn't seem to have anything about him (the links to his name are mailto: not links to a biography). I think this needs to be removed. Guy ( help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A book by Philip J. Cohen [1] is often used on the project. The question can pretty much relate to other books authored by the same person. Cohen is a MD (without a degree in history) who was connected to Clinton administration (plus the political party led by Franjo Tuđman) which had their own interests during the Yugoslav Wars, which took place at the time of the publishing. More importantly, the book/s is/are met with heavy criticism (bad use of sources, use of fringe sources, cherrypicking, not going per NPOV and what not). Several notable persons like Jovan Byford even called it "quasi-historical writing". The more information is given in the article on Cohen. Should this book be used as a RS? ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm opposed to deeming this source unreliable in all situations. This book was published by a solid academic press, and if you check Philip J. Cohen's Wikipedia page, you can see that a half dozen reputable scholars have a high opinion of the book. In cases where other reliable sources don't clearly refute what Cohen is saying, we should just cite Cohen without attribution. If a specific claim that Cohen is making is found to be disputed by other historians, then Cohen should be cited with attribution. Almost every history book will have some positive and some negative reviews, and this is no exception. However, a few negative reviews is not good cause to purge the book entirely. ErinRC ( talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like ordinary wartime propaganda: "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased" [...] "Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely." [1] The war is over, or someone still fighting?-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Heather O'Rourke was a child actress who died 30 some years ago. The reference for her date of birth is a PDF of her birth and death certificates from a site called Autopsyfiles.org. I would not call it a reliable site (although there are about 60 uses of it on Wikipedia as a source). I have read WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY and I am sure we would not use this reference for a living person. Given that Heather O'Rourke is long dead, is this an acceptable source? Bitter Oil ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2020 (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 280 | Archive 281 | Archive 282 | Archive 283 | Archive 284 | Archive 285 | → | Archive 290 |
Hi,
My article on Tadeusz Sielanka has been rejected due to lack of reliable sources. At least on of the listed sources is scientific "objective" publication:
Antagonizmy kontrolowane. Rozmowy i eseje o muzyce współczesnej. Sacrum Profanum 2018, edited by Jan Topolski and Krzysztof Pietraszewski, Krytyka Polityczna Publishing / The Krakow Festival Office, Warsaw 2018. ISBN 978-83-65853-92-9, p. 80-81
What could have been a reason for considering this source unreliable? Can I do something about it?
Regards,
MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm810629 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Some editors experienced in the proper usage of self-published sources are asked to weigh in at this RfC. Thank you, -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly sorry I am new.... I have been told that the Daily mail newspaper (UK) is not considered a reliable source where a living person is concerned - would appreciate it if some of the experienced editors can tell me which newspapers are seen as reliable and which not etc . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Finderman999, that is correct. Please refer to these extensive requests for comment in 2017 and 2019, as well as the 38 other past discussions on the Daily Mail, for details. — Newslinger talk 00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As a user-edited site, fandom.com would appear to me to be generally unreliable. There are over 400 references in articles, often for trivia. Should these be removed? And if so, should an exception be carved out for Memory Alpha? (incidentally, that article is terrible). Guy ( help!) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this (PDF) source and/or its journal Medieval Feminist Forum reliable? This journal does not appear to be indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. It is currently being used (alongside another source) at TERF to support that TERF describes a minority of feminists. The claim "minority" and the quality of this source are being discussed on the talk page here (this particular source was brought up toward the end of the discussion). -Crossroads- ( talk) 19:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm wading through LiveLeak links again. Last time we discussed it people were of the view that it's generally unreliable, but I am seeing issues that suggest to me that we should be blacklisting or deprecating LiveLeak. Of most pressing concern is the number of times a CNN, Al Jazeera or other press or agency report was referenced to LiveLeak, where it was uploaded by J. Random User in some random country, often with a transcript provided by no identified authority. Some are Russian propaganda uploads (e.g. "Russian separatists" campaigning for an ethnostate in Donbass), some are just broken (e.g. [1] where the link is clearly not the same as the original link from Ogrish days), some are Taliban / ISIS snuff videos that have since apparently been taken down (e.g. [2]). Attribution is often questionable. Example: is [3] actually LiveLeak or does that revolving logo in the top left identify a news organisation that owns the copyright?
It's bad enough sourcing to YouTube, but the main reason people use LiveLeak is that the content violates YouTube's policies: either it's stolen or it contains graphic violence. The approach to date - case-by-case - isn't working, as most of the cases turn out to be inappropriate. Guy ( help!) 18:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Consider sources such as albawaba, netblocks and twitter, Can they support the following material?
Thanks! Saff V. ( talk) 10:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason to treat it differently from YT/other UGC, though? Certainly stolen videos shouldn't be linked, but isn't there a lot of original content there, too? Sometimes it's because it violates YT policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP policies (we do cover violent incidents, after all). I confess I'm not exactly a regular user of the site, though, sufficient to know what proportion of its content is original. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
LiveLeak ( RSP entry) has been blacklisted at Special:Diff/932907600. See WP:SBL § liveleak.com for the request. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across a citation to https://www.genesys.com/customer-stories/lianjia in the article Lianjia and when I took a look at the Genesys page I thought "this looks like a paid endorsement of the company". Genesys states (bottom of page) "Our success comes from connecting employee and customer conversations on any channel, every day. Over 11,000 companies in 100+ countries trust our #1 customer experience platform...." Looking through the site suggests that it could be a closed-garden platform favorable to paying clients, a way to promulgate positive social media rather than relying on the vageries of open format things like Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for taking a look and providing commentary on whether you would view this as either an unreliable or potentially unreliable source. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
We use it a lot. [4] Here's an example of a use I just found and reverted. [5] Scroll down to see more exampled of its videos. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Prager U, a far-right media outlet that was invited to President Trump's recent White House media summit, released a video on Monday morning with the hashtag #TheCharlottesvilleLie, propagating the (verifiably untrue) conspiracy theory that Trump never uttered the words 'there are fine people on both sides' when addressing the violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017." Not sure how that could be missed. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
When I looked, there were only 9 instances where it was used. I removed four [12] [13] [14] [15] as promotion, noticing that 2606:A000:4854:7B00:40A3:2348:282F:A68E ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (similar ip: 2606:A000:4854:7B00:5CE3:357E:DAE:20B ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was spamming it.
I left it in Haroon Ullah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which needs a careful review and cleanup. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Question: As a claim/fact attributed to PragerU we shouldn't treat any of the videos as RS's. What about as the opinion of the presenter? I can't think of an example where this might be the case but assume PragerU had a video by a noted economist, could the PragerU video be cited as the opinion of the economist? For argument sake assume people agree the person in question is a noted expert in the field (ie absent a discussion of where published, the views would be consider DUE opinions of an expert). My opinion is this would be acceptable so long as we have in text attribution to the speaker (not PU) and treat this as the opinion of an expert. This would be treated similar if the expert published the same information in a self published source/blog. Springee ( talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Context matters" is the "you can't PROVE it isn't true!!" of sourcing discussions. It's not philosophically disprovable that there might conceivably be, in some universe, a use for PragerU link - but it's really not the usual case at all, and trying to make out that it's a reasonable consideration is simply not the case. If someone says something on PragerU, then if it's in an RS use the RS, and if it's not in an RS then the real world didn't care - David Gerard ( talk) 09:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I put citation from published scientific paper to the article which talks about Rascians. [1] [2] Paper is published in Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal [3] [4] and it is written by László Heka. [5]This citation which I enter in article László Heka in reference based on his earlier book and another Hungarian source is there as reference. I am interested in your opinion if this is RS? Mikola22 ( talk) 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Hopefully this is the correct place to ask this question. I have been going through and adding DOIs to already existing journal citations, and somehow triggered some sort of blacklist. The edit is here. Can someone point me to the policy or blacklist that triggered this? I tried WP:Predatory, but it doesn't seem to explain the tag there. My assumption is there is a source somewhere on the page Electrophoretic light scattering that is unreliable, but I'd like to find the blacklist so I can find the right one to remove. Forbes72 ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Lee, Ji Yeong; Kim, Jin Soo; Hyeok An, Kay; Lee, Kyu; Kim, Dong Young; Bae, Dong Jae; Lee, Young Hee (2005-07-01). "Electrophoretic and Dynamic Light Scattering in Evaluating Dispersion and Size Distribution of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes". Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 5 (7). American Scientific Publishers: 1045–1049. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2005.160. ISSN 1533-4880.
It looks like Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is on Beall's List. Unfortunately, filter 891 doesn't identify which citation is the predatory one, so it takes a little bit of research. In the future, if you expand the citations one at a time in separate edits, filter 891 will only trigger on the predatory one. — Newslinger talk 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
dois :=
).
—
Newslinger
talk 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I saw usage of this source in
Muhammad in the Quran. On that website, I saw some claims that seem to be written by either an uninformed person or someone who spreads propaganda or biased claims. I investigated the website and I found this in Southern Poverty Law Center, "David Wood, who runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth* which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com, a Christian-based, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam website."
[19]--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
above quote, taken from the SPLC website: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/05/anti-muslim-roundup-6518 is based on this interview of Daniel Scot, by David Wood: http://imi.org.au/ps-daniel-scot-interview/ Koreangauteng ( talk) 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This RAND report says:
"The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch."
This source/statement is being used in the lede section of the article
People's Mujahedin of Iran to make the claim that Human Rights Watch says it "describes"
this group as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."
Is this an accurate representation of what RAND is stating? Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Wikipedia, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 19 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.
(Some examples -
1.
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
2.
https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/
3.
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)
Kmoksha ( talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys,
While working on a media bio article, I wanted to verify and cite information that a previous editor added. This is the only web-site that confirms the info that I need but before using it I thought I'd pass by you guys.
Thanks Filmman3000 ( talk) 05:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"CELEBRITY GOSSIPY BIO", and should be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently @ 1990'sguy: has added, and readded numerous unreliable sources to the Yule log, many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:
This page could use more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
A book which uses the same kind of declarative statement for historical and religious claims, conflating the two (e.g. "God came down to earth", reading from the introduction of the Ace Collins books published by Bible publisher Zondervan), is not a great source for historical facts on a subject which has already received coverage in academic history texts. That doesn't necessarily mean such sources are unreliable for any purpose, but they carry less weight and should generally be attributed if included at all. Also, just from a general editing perspective, it's not good form to add a single paragraph to the body and then transform the lead so that 2/3 of its paragraphs are about that bit you just added... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
While the user apppears to have given up on re-adding self-published sources, the user is still adding random sources found on the internet featuring non-specialists next to academics and other specialists in the article. This is evidently to either promote one of these books ( Perhaps the book by this guy), the ideas expressed therein, or both. Noted folklorists and philologists are currently emphasized next to these non- WP:RS-compliant sources, despite WP:UNDUE. This is stranger yet considering that academic sources detailed in the article already make the situation clear (innovation vs. tradition). The goal appears to ensure that a particular quote by a particular author occurs in the lead. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the first of two heavy metal music "zines": https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us From this about us page, it seems clear that it's a site for fans by fans, but it does not appear to meet some of the hallmarks required for being a reliable source: there is no editorial oversight policy, the founder has no journalistic background, and this site seems to sell what it reviews so is motivated to provide good reviews. This site is used on many articles. Can it be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the second of two heavy metal music "zines": http://mauce.nl/site/ There is no "about us" page, but individual reviewers do get entries and the founders are not journalists. Their mission statement, http://mauce.nl/site/mission-statement/, is interesting but makes it clear they just want to inform readers but do not claim to be journalists. The individual "editor" pages don't support journalistic experience of any of the writers and again, no editorial oversight policy. This site is used on many articles. Can this be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
In cleaning up some spam I found a number of aviation-related fansites that do not appear to me to be reliable sources.
Does anyone consider any of these to meet RS? Guy ( help!) 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.
Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual. In their rebuttal, they explain that the oil production trends between both countries were very different in the decade before sanctions and that two countries are also radically different in other dimensions. The rebuttal also states that just a month after the financial sanctions in late 2017, Nicolás Maduro fired both the relatively technocratic PDVSA president and oil minister and replaced them with a single military general with no experience in oil, who in turn fired and imprisoned over 60 senior managers of the oil company, including its previous president, on corruption charges, while nothing remotely similar happened in Colombia, thus confounding the effects of the sanctions with those of the firing.
various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ad hominem arguments, rather than more analytical ones.
Example text, and the CEPR "
will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives."
References
References
See [...] the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources.The CEPR report made use of the official, publicly available election results. It doesn't give "different statistics" from other sources, it just demonstrates that the "sudden" change in the results was likely due to geography (rural, Morales-supporting regions return results later). If there are actual errors in the report, they should be highlighted, but otherwise I'm not aware of any issues related to that report. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 04:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
statisticsto "interpretations". It's the only one I've seen that determines such a large change can be completely accounted for (as some of the other sources in the article would suggest, by not agreeing with it). Kingsif ( talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The percentage of deaths due to the sanctions is difficult to estimate because the counterfactual is unknowable, but it is worth noting that the counterfactual in the absence of sanctions could even be that mortality would have been reduced [...] in the event that an economic recovery would have taken place.. [22] It should also be noted that one of the authors of the "counter report" is Ricardo Hausmann, who is a member of the Venezuelan opposition and was an advisor to Guaidó at the time the report was written and published.
Does anyone have information pertaining to the author of this book, M. J. Depoin? I have been unable to find information on this person.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
On Nick Gehlfuss, the reference for his birthdate is http://birth-records.mooseroots.com/l/12392558/Nicholas-Alan-Gehlfuss which is both dead, and I suspect not a reliable source. What steps should I take, because this is the only reference for his birthdate?
Thanks Red Fiona ( talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Redfiona99: IMO this would be better dealt with at WP:BLP/N even if it concerns the reliability of sources. That said, I'll keep it here rather than moving it. That source is almost definitely not suitable for a birth date since it sounds like it's a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, some sort of birth record e.g. from a hospital or US state or something. It's therefore also a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY since we require that the birth date is either widely published, or appears in sources linked to the subject such that we can infer they don't mind it being public.
Given this, you can simply remove the birth date until an acceptable source comes along. To avoid complaints, it may be worth having a quick search to see if you can find acceptable sources. But as I was going to remove it, I did, and I only found [23] and other worse sources. There's also [24] which I'm fairly sure is not an RS as well and only gives the date not the year.
To be clear, if you can't be bothered looking for better sources, it's generally better to remove the date anyway, to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS etc. Ultimately for that kind of thing in a BLP, it's the responsibility of anyone who wants to add (back) the info to find a suitable source.
BTW, the dead link issue tends to be less important unless you have doubts about the source that you cannot assess. Per WP:DEADLINK, if the source is acceptable, then we generally leave it until it's repaired. Admittedly in this case, it doesn't look like it's actually archived so that may be quite difficult. Still even in a BLP, I wouldn't removed sourced content just because of a deadlink, unless there is some other reason to. (E.g. I suspect the dead link is not an RS, or think it may have been misinterpreted.)
As an aside, if the common solution which doesn't seem to apply here, is if we have some RS on the birthdate, but it doesn't seem widely published, is to only include the year.
We're seeing issues recurring at the talk pages of the articles regarding racial groups and intelligence. Some participants are repeating claims that there is reliable scientific evidence that certain racial groups may have inherently different levels of intelligence to each other. These are really just the same claims that were made by fringe Pioneer Fund researchers such as Philippe Rushton and have been used here at RSN as examples of unreliable sources, but it would be good to get a clear determination that these conclusions are explicitly unreliable. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites.and
Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine.This is not entirely true. Something published in a peer-reviewed journal form a reputable publication can still be fringe. From WP:FRINGELEVEL:
Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources.Peer-reviewed papers are useful, but the important question is overall acceptance by the scientific community. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (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.
Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the fringe theories noticeboard. The Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship is a sublisting of the Shakespeare authorship question, which is categorized as a fringe theory. WP:Fringe states that "for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.
In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be WP:OR, and the only source that appears to be a WP:RS for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.
These are the questioned sources:
On the article's talk page, three reliable sources are listed that were used to establish the notability of the article for an AFD in 2016, but only one is in fact used as a source. As far as I've been able to learn, the theory hasn't received very much significant coverage (as opposed to mere passing mentions) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject in academic publications and web sites, nor really all that much in popular publications. If my interpretation of the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability is correct, this article should not use these sources to discuss the topic any further than has been treated in reliable sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as Truth Will Out, it is cited here as a source 4-5 times by an extremely RS. So this is overwhelmingly strong evidence that it is a RS, despite all of the name-calling and bluster above: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615 Kfein ( talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this book reliable? An user reverts my edit on Ashina tribe saying it is disputed although he does not put any counterargument. Beshogur ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm curious to hear thoughts about using this article to source the claim that lively forum discussion pre-existed media interest in the Science of Identity foundation on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. The relevant discussion is at the talk page (diffs here and here). (NB: the question of Grube's article (also in Civil Beat) is not my primary question, though I would be interested in hearing whether that article is admissible). I gather Civil Beat is an Omidyar initiative. I don't know if there's a general en.wp rule/decree/etc. for Omidyar media initiatives at perennial sources? ^^
MrX, Xenagoras, pinging you both since you're in the starring diffs. (sorry) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been media interest in the Science of Identity Foundation and/or Chris Butler's nexus to politics since 1976 (see Independents for Godly Government). The media reported on it in relation to state senator Rick Reed as well as Gabbard's parents. It is well known in certain communities in Hawaii and has existed independently of online forum discussion. It received renewed interest with regard to Gabbard when she herself referenced her "guru dev" in an August 2015 YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU&t=150s). It would, however, be interesting to know whether Civil Beat articles are admissible, as they contain useful information. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".
— []
Science of Identity Foundation content
|
---|
References
|
Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. [1]
References
If there is a dispute between one 2015 article by an obscure local news site and multiple more recent articles by multiple high-quality RS, then we opt for the language and content from the latter. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
When The New Yorker asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
By and large, this question is met with a collective head-scratching. Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda
I have been looking at the salted bomb article and I'd like some advice / help. The current reference two is misformatted but says
and links to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6, a site that I was not sure qualifies as an WP:RS. It doesn't seem to me to establish who Carey Sublette is or why he's qualified to write on this topic. In looking around, however, I found that:
It was coming to the conclusion that Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is an RS, though possibly self-published and not suited for BLPs... but I then noticed that the content of section 1.6 of Sublette's FAQ is nearly identical to the content of the article's first reference,
The FAQ is dated 1998 and the book in 2002 (but as a reprint) so it could be that Sublette's work has just been plagiarised. We have no article on the book's publisher (and I know some publishers are blatantly violating copyright), nor do any of the authors have wikibios that I can find. So...
Sorry for the length but I thought explaining would be helpful. Any and all comments / suggestions / criticisms / etc welcome. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
talk:EdChem|talk]]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
We have been having a protracted debate over whether we can say that TERFS is used to describe a minority of feminists. My general feeling is that the statement is most likely the Truth, but the level of sourcing found so far has been sub par. It would be nice to get some outside opinion on this from some sourcing experts who do not have much of a dog in the fight. The article is
TERF and the sentence is It was used to describe a minority of feminists...
in the body and the similar It was originally applied to a minority of feminists
in the lead. I haven't included the last part as that particular wording was decided through an RFC (
Talk:TERF/Archive 1#RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?) and it didn't discuss the minority part. The main sources that I have seen used for this are:
I guess it would be good to know if the sourcing is strong enough to say this in wikivoice, with attribution, or not at all. There have also been discussions about whether qualifying TERF as a minority is useful or whether doing so is undue weight as many sources use other words to distinguish between the two groups, but that may be beyond the scope of this board. The two most recent discussion are at Talk:TERF#TERF is not a subset, nor a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs and Talk:TERF#A minority of feminists who ...... ??. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
As stated at https://eyeonislamism.com/about/ , this is a site that reprints portions of mainstream and non-mainstream sources with attribution to the original source. I'm thinking that this site itself should not be a 'reliable source', but the original purveyors of the content could be, or could not be, depending on the source. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153#specialforcesroh.com.
http://www.specialforcesroh.com/ is being used in a lot of articles, and in my opinion is quite obviously an unreliable self-published source. My removal of it was reverted from SOE F Section networks, so thought it best to get a definitive answer before proceeding. FDW777 ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I found IslamQA as a Muslim-based, pro-Wahabi, anti-Christian website. It has been strongly criticised by Muslims and others.
The website was banned in Saudi Arabia because it was issuing independent fatwas.
The founder of
IslamQA is possibly in jail.
In regards to IslamQA issues and criticisms, it might be worthwhile to read: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
IslamQA says its "answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid" - otherwise it does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Muslim apologetics. It is not usable as a source in Wikipedia. All these uses should be removed. Koreangauteng ( talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing debate as to the usability of certain sources for certain content at Talk:Mottainai since mid-November. Specifically:
Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage.";
Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.;
According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".; and
One of the earliest appearances of the word mottainai is in the book Genpei Jōsuiki (A Record of the Genpei War, ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about Yoshitsune. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a vassal used the word mottainai in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.
(Note that in some cases, the "facts" may be verified by the sources, but the neutrality/relevance is in dispute, as the authors of our cited sources appear to disagree with the matter asserted.) An RFC was opened, but very few outside editors have expressed interest. Some more third-party opinions would be appreciated.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Have reviewed the Shuto reference, a study on childhood pedagogy (outside the appropriate fields of study); the supporting text there is in the "Background" section (which I would not consider reliable) and references Hirose, Y. (2008). "Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior". (again outside the appropriate academic field).
The same issue with academic fields holds true for Sato Yuriko's article in the Journal of Analytical Psychology.Putting aside whether psychology is an appropriate field; Sato has an extensive introduction to this source, we choose to ignore this, cherrypicking one sentence. The source later develops into a series of anecdotes from Sato's clinical practice, which I do not consider appropriate for this article.
Inclusion of the content attributed to Yamaori Tetsuo (quoted by Siniawer 2014, which I have read in toto) is bewildering - the source covers 22 pages, largely about the "rebranding" of Mottainai in millennial Japan. It is astounding that we would cherrypick a seemingly contrary or minor view from this source and not include the main crux.Siniawer, read in context, is clearly disdainful of Yamaori's contentions; placing them in the context of a deliberate "branding" of Mottainai in the early 21st century. We ignore the primary thrust of Siniawer's work, to focus on a single quote from Yamaori.
I'm thinking that at least some of the content on this site is churnalism. For instance https://peprofessional.com/2019/12/frontenac-sells-liquid-technologies-pritzke/ . I've not done a review of content at large, but this is the first thing I've ever looked at on the site (came up in a duckduckgo search), and it says something in regard to 'random sample' with an n of 1. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It might be useful to start a listing of sources that are prone to churnalism but also publish reliable content. Or the reverse, outlets that are known to be completely free of churnalism - if there are any. I'm thinking of a list highlighting those outlets that are a major % churnalistic in nature, like 50%+. These outlets might not be blacklisted as unreliable in an rfc. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
ZoomInfo or its agents appear to be engaging in an SEO spamming campaign. I looked at the uses here; there are... issues. Examples:
Ultimately ZoomInfo is a marketing tool, not an encyclopaedic reference. I think we should remove these links. Guy ( help!) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts about reliability / suitability of the bollysuperstar.com site? According to https://bollysuperstar.com/about-us/ , "We are BollySuperStar ( https://bollysuperstar.com), working under Bollywood Entertainment Ltd., which is an Entertainment Based Blogging & Technology Organization." Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation A Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating fraudulent or plagiarized articles and recommending retractions. Most of these are Russian-language so I don't know how often they might have been used on en:wiki. The full report is also available and also in Russian. I've lost almost all of my proficiency in the language, so I can't read through it myself to find out which articles and journals were affected. Of most concern are probably the eight journals that "explicitly refused" to retract recommended articles or otherwise cooperate with the investigations. If we can find out what those were, we should then probably at least see if they are used here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Otokonoko is a topic about crossdressing in Japan. At [32], Trappy-chan ( talk · contribs) argues that the Japanese-language blog entry http://yomedan-chii.jp/archives/18333797.html is an appropriate source for this article, including for claims about gender identity issues, because, according to Trappy-chan, it was written by an expert in the field. I have serious doubts about that.
I cannot read Japanese, and I do not know anything about the blog's author, but: The blog has an informal, "cute" layout that is at odds with how a serious academic researcher would present their writings. And for gender identity issues in particular, I think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is preferred, or at any rate editorially reviewed sources, but certainly not self-published sources.
What do others think? And for those who read Japanese, does this blog post even support the added content? Sandstein 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The blog is self-published by Chii.
WP:SPS states that self-published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources"
, but "may be considered reliable when produced by an
established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by
reliable, independent publications"
. The Bride was a Boy is a
manga-styled autobiography published by
Seven Seas Entertainment, which is neither academic nor
independent, and does not qualify Chii as a subject-matter expert. —
Newslinger
talk 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's my impression -- MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION [Chii's emphasis] and I'm probably wrong lol -- that while josōshi refers to men who dress as women and mostly don't look like men, otokonoko refers to men who look like they've jumped out of a cartoon or comic strip in that they could pass 100% for women. Given the above post, it does seem like Trappy-chan understands that the source doesn't have any real relationship to the content it is being tagged onto, which makes me think this is some kind of Catflap08- or Bagworm-level disruption where the editor apparently believes that inline citations are not meant to provide sources so that readers can verify our articles' content, so much as a way to advertise "good sources in general". Not only do edits like this make it harder to verify the content (assuming there is some gender identity content in the numerous overlapping citations), but I have to imagine the authors of the sources being "advertised" don't particularly like being cited as saying something they don't say. Bart Ehrman often uses as an analogy to explain why "vertical reading" of the gospels is not a good way of reading them for historical purposes the idea of someone reading one of his books and then reading something by Rush Limbaugh before assuming the two authors were saying the same thing -- I'd find a video clip but it's quite late here so I'd probably fall asleep before the job was done.
-
There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references despite the fact that as I have already pointed out, they are not about the discussion on gender identity. I know you may not understand Japanese, but if you AT LEAST use google translator you can somewhat understand the context of the japanese sources. Newmo's glossary explains many LGBT terms and in 男の娘 it explicitly states that it is irrelevant to gender transition and sexual orientation. The LGBT-Life (Rainbow Life) article has a whole section for 男の娘 + 男の娘 couples and it explicitly includes transgender people. Kotaku's article interviews a non-binary 男の娘. Chii's reference was added, again, to indicate a few things:
- Not all 男の娘 are crossdressers, they can also be merely feminine people. 男の娘 does not directly equal crossdressing. 女装/女装子 are the words for crossdressing.
- However, as Chii explains, 男の娘 and 女装子 are largely used interchangibly, even though, again, as Chii explains, there is a difference between the two as 男の娘 does not necessarily equal crossdressing. That is why she mentions she personally does not use the slangs in the same way, despite the fact that they are largely used that way in general.
I agree that the discussion on 男の娘 and 女装子 is a large one and Chii's reference might not fully grasp the distinctions and similarities between the two slangs. In this case, as I have proposed, there is a need to expand on this subject (rather than pretending it doesn't exist and removing it from the article).
I also agree that we can expand on the section regarding the origin of the slang.
However, as I have pointed out, the discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation relating to 男の娘 is clear cut and backed up by many sources. There is no doubt in this subject as all sources comply with the same point, without presenting a single controversial argument: 男の娘 can be AMAB people of any gender identity and sexual orientation. We have, at the moment, AT LEAST 3 references in the article pointing this out. If there is further confusion on this subject, I recommend the work 不可解なぼくのすべてを (usually translated as "Love Me For What I Am"), a story specifically about 男の娘 people who work in an 男の娘 café and belong to many different gender identities and sexualities.
I hope now that we've cleared up the confusion on references, we can move on to improving the article which sorely needs it instead of accusing others of disruption while failing to read anything posted or referenced and undoing revisions that are backed up by sources because you haven't read them. Thank you. Trappy-chan ( talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's referencesNo, you claimed your edit was based on the Chii blog, when it clearly bore no relation whatsoever to the content of said blog. You then persisted to add that citation to the content (most recently here). You don't get to claim that some other sources you didn't previously cite and have never actually claimed support the content without being synthesized with the blog you originally cited until now are the "actual" sources -- this is almost as bad as what has been going on at the Mottainai article, with the only reason I don't say it's as bad being that this topic is "sexy" enough to attract more immediate outside attention and not waste as much editor time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors evaluate the suitability of a source as a reference in an article. This discussion focuses on Chii's blog, and at this point, there is consensus that Yomedan-chii.jp is not an appropriate source for the Otokonoko article because it is a self-published source. If you are making content-based arguments unrelated to a source's reliability, please use the talk page of the article. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
There's been some inconclusive discussion here about the use of The Nation in this article. I believe it is a perfectly reliable source and at the very least it is as strong as other citations used in the article. The Author Donna Minkowitz is a respected journalist and writer. So, is The Nation and this article in particular a reliable source for this claim:
Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.
Given The Nation and the author both have a good reputation, I can't see the issue with this source personally. Thanks Bacondrum ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for backing up in the
People's Mujahedin of Iran that "According to the Nejat Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police."
?
Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the public information component, hosting entries like https://pitchbook.com/profiles/investor/10153-72 , should not be a reliable source as the page https://pitchbook.com/research-process implores companies with "Ensure your PitchBook profile is up to date". I'm thinking it would be on par with Crunchbase ( on the perennial list). Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Teahouse#Fiction_as_references
Interesting question, if you have a good answer. Basically, where in our policies does it say most clearly that we don't use a work of fiction for something "realworld" in this case floor-coverings? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Referring to
www
In short, the original book and Austrian historian mentions the census of Lika and Krbava 1712. In that book is talked about "Greek-Orthodox" and Croatian historian write about that census and mentions "Serbian Orthodox". What should I do? Should I delete claims of the Croatian historian or to add claims from the original census and the Austrian book itself next to claims of the Croatian historian. Everything is explained here [33] but there is no answer so please help. Article is "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" Thanks. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
In the original posting I was referred to here. This site has been blacklisted for being fake news. What to do with the over 500 uses as a source on en.wikipedia? (just wondering, as I am not a regular user here) Hardscarf ( talk) 13:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A user on CNN is arguing that Newsbusters (an arm of the Media Research Center) and The Washington Examiner can be used for statements of fact in the lead of CNN, in this diff; Adfontesmedia and AllSides (familiar to anyone who frequents this board, I think) are also being cited. Note the removal in that diff - they're using them in a way that directly contradicts Slate, the Columbia Journalism Review, Southern California International Review, and Vox, and are directly removing a statement sourced to those four sources to replace it with something cited to the ones I mentioned. See further discussion here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to get the other side of the argument in here thank you. If one looks at Fox News, for instance, you will see outwardly biased sourcing such as Media Matters, as one example. Now, tell me how MM, which I'm sure we can all agree on is a hyper-partisan left organization for claims there, but we can't use a conservative leaning news organization, The Examiner, for claims on CNN. Yes, I know this is WP:Other, but if somebody seriously wants to argue this point, they should argue the same on the other side of the fence.
Also, nobody has yet explained actually how The Examiner does not follow reliable sourcing standards. All I've heard as of yet, is that it's simply not, its biased (which does not matter, NPOV was followed), or now that I'm not competent. Good arguments here guys. Curivity ( talk) 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No idea why the last thread, before it got archived, only attracted a few comments from those who had already commented on the talk page, but I would like to ask again if anyone would be willing to look at the sources and analyze whether they properly verify the content attributed to them. I would also like to ask that anyone who has already commented at least once on the article talk page refrain from posting here, in case the problem last time was TLDR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Filter 869 traps addition of deprecated sources to mainspace. I think we need to tweak this to also catch draft space - I just picked up a citation to a deprecated source that had been introduced in Draft and moved to mainspace. Guy ( help!) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need to concern for a perennial source for the Boston Globe (www.bostonglobe.com), it would be a reliable source? But unlike other major newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. -- 119.94.160.112 ( talk) 09:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There are >500 uses of gameo.org as a source in Wikipedia. It's a wiki. It has restricted editorial access. Its mission is to promote the Mennonite Anabaptist cause, obviously, so there seems to be some risk of publishing Truth™ rather than fact. Is it reliable? Guy ( help!) 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This site (>600 references on enWP) has an editorial board but is volunteer edited. Example from Apostles' Creed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
That looks to me like reliable-but-undue. I would tend to classify this as OK for sourcing facts about hymns but not OK to support notability of any specific work for inclusion either as an article or as a paragraph in a separate article. What does the panel think? Guy ( help!) 11:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This site has 61 uses on enWP, so not especially high priority, but still. There's plenty of information on the website about its theological objectives, but nothing obvious about its editorial and fact-checking policy, or the expertise of its writers. It argues a particular POV on Christian theology, so it seems to me that in the absence of any compelling evidence of authority it should be restricted to WP:ABOUTSELF. Guy ( help!) 12:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am using this article ( https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/hypr-comcast-mastercard-samsung-funding-password/) to source an statement in HYPR Corp but I don't know if it is considered reliable. What about eweek? for example this article ( https://www.eweek.com/security/hypr-debuts-biometrics-sdk-to-improve-authentication). Thanks! Kriptocurrency ( talk) 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In multiple AfDs—including Heinz Bonatz, Adolf Paschke, and Rudolf Hentze— scope_creep is arguing that postwar reports by US intelligence agencies on German intelligence figures from World War II constitute reliable secondary sources and help for establishing notability of these figures. Yay or nay? b uidh e 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This is identified as a personal project of Jeffrey L. Thomas. I cannot find any information showing him to be a recognised authority, the website doesn't seem to have anything about him (the links to his name are mailto: not links to a biography). I think this needs to be removed. Guy ( help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A book by Philip J. Cohen [1] is often used on the project. The question can pretty much relate to other books authored by the same person. Cohen is a MD (without a degree in history) who was connected to Clinton administration (plus the political party led by Franjo Tuđman) which had their own interests during the Yugoslav Wars, which took place at the time of the publishing. More importantly, the book/s is/are met with heavy criticism (bad use of sources, use of fringe sources, cherrypicking, not going per NPOV and what not). Several notable persons like Jovan Byford even called it "quasi-historical writing". The more information is given in the article on Cohen. Should this book be used as a RS? ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm opposed to deeming this source unreliable in all situations. This book was published by a solid academic press, and if you check Philip J. Cohen's Wikipedia page, you can see that a half dozen reputable scholars have a high opinion of the book. In cases where other reliable sources don't clearly refute what Cohen is saying, we should just cite Cohen without attribution. If a specific claim that Cohen is making is found to be disputed by other historians, then Cohen should be cited with attribution. Almost every history book will have some positive and some negative reviews, and this is no exception. However, a few negative reviews is not good cause to purge the book entirely. ErinRC ( talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like ordinary wartime propaganda: "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased" [...] "Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely." [1] The war is over, or someone still fighting?-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Heather O'Rourke was a child actress who died 30 some years ago. The reference for her date of birth is a PDF of her birth and death certificates from a site called Autopsyfiles.org. I would not call it a reliable site (although there are about 60 uses of it on Wikipedia as a source). I have read WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY and I am sure we would not use this reference for a living person. Given that Heather O'Rourke is long dead, is this an acceptable source? Bitter Oil ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)