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 305 | ← | Archive 308 | Archive 309 | Archive 310 | Archive 311 | Archive 312 | → | Archive 315 |
I notice that the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport not listed as deprecated and not trapped by Filter 869 ( log). Do we really need an RfC for this? The Sport is the benchmark for unreliability in UK print publishing, and the low link count suggests that most Wikipedians are well aware of this. It's some time since I had to nuke any links to either site. Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero talk 13:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Are the following Arabic newspapers reliable sources?
Tunis Freedoms 12:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand that generally, blogs are not considered acceptable references, but what about one from CNN? See [1]]? This seems potentially acceptable based on section of WP:Verifiability: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, see [2]
Dr. Don Colbert, a "divine health" expert who has appeared with Copeland in several broadcasts, then said the autism rate among children has increased with the number of childhood vaccinations. "I have had so many patients bring their children in and they say, you know what, the week after I had that immunization, for MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – my child stopped talking, my child stopped giving me eye contact. He was not alert, he was not coherent. he quit speaking, he quit being the child I had," Colbert said on the webcast. Colbert and the Copeland family are wrong about immunizations, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. “It's painful because these pastors are trusted spiritual leaders who are speaking to people not only in their congregations but also on television," he said. "They are putting people at risk.” There is no link between vaccinations and autism, and hepatitis can be passed from mother to child, making the shot necessary and effective, Schaffner said.
Thanks for comments. Ali Beatriz ( talk) 18:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
At User talk:Normal Op#PETA (permalink here), I stated the following to Normal Op: "Regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under 'questionable sources', WP:About self applies."
And, well, you can see Normal Op's reply. In response, I stated, "This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to."
Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy says, "PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements." And yet I see that Normal Op removed PETA as a source for its own statements and positions at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in July and is now back at it. Purging going on. I'm not stating that one should not ideally rely on secondary sources, though. No article about an organization should be mostly built on sources by that organization.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also applies in this case. Using PETA for things that are vegetarian/vegan in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, for example, is fine.
As for supposed blowback, I was very clear about why I brought this matter here. And others have agreed with me about reliability and a source being used for its own activities...but not using the source for things that would require a secondary citation for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The example Flyer22 Frozen gives is a very narrow example, and I feel the above answers have already covered it well. However, a lot of these peta.org blurbs that I'm finding inserted into BLP articles say extra stuff like "So-and-so is an animal rights advocate" or "So-and-so supports PETA" when there are no other mentions about animal rights or PETA in the biography and the only citation is directly off PETA's website. In this case, I feel strongly that these three Wiki policies/guidelines apply.
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
Opinions? — Normal Op ( talk) 04:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
PETA is a source for information about itself that is in controversial. Anything that might be seen as self serving (such as membership) is should not be used for. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
If the public figure has given an exclusive interview to PETA or otherwise told PETA that they are an animal rights advocate, etc., as has happened in the past, using PETA as a source for that is fine. But using an additional source or a different source to report on that matter, similar to a different source being used in the Mariah Carey article to report on a PETA award she received, is also an option. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
1. PETA isn't a questionable source. The organization promotes the idea of ethical treatment of animals. Hardly an extremist position in the Western world. 2. If we take this to the extreme, the official site for Premier League could not be used as a source for who won the league because it's a self-published source and involves a claim about a third party - the team that won. 3. I think one should look at what the claim is. A celebrity winning a PETA prize is mundane and uncontroversial. The likelihood that it is true is overwhelming. It is not the same as a claim that someone was awarded a prestigious prize from the International Holocaust Denial Society. ImTheIP ( talk) 02:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but looking at Normal Op's latest contributions, all I see is an editor yanking PETA from any and everywhere based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. All I see is an editor with a serious anti-vegetarian and anti-veganism angle to his edits. This editor is not taking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS into consideration whatsoever when it comes to this topic. As seen at Talk:Sia (musician)#Undue advocacy content in this article, where he was challenged by Ssilvers, Jack1956, Somambulant1 and SchroCat (permalink here), Normal Op has argued against use of PETA, pointing to this thread as justification, as if this thread has ruled that PETA is unreliable. As seen here, he removed the following from a section titled "Activism": "Albarrán became a vegetarian after seeing a documentary about slaughterhouses and remained as such for around 25 years, until making the transition to veganism. He has participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights." Oh, so we can't use PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan, and/or that they participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights? What? Just like we may use sports sources to report on someone being an athlete, or LGBT sources to report on someone being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we can use PETA to report on someone being vegetarian or vegan, especially when it's a significant part of that person's life and they specifically told PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: you keep trying to narrow it down to things like "PETA's Person of the Year Awards", because you know peta.org wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a full and general reliable source discussion when the scenario is expanded to how these peta.org citations are really being used. And I'm not focusing on PETA's Person of the Year Awards; I could care less about them. For your information, FF, I am anti- ADVOCACY and against using Wikipedia for ADVOCATE work. I do not discriminate between one advocacy or another. I didn't have an opinion about PETA or peta.org before I started researching it for Wikipedia, and don't even recall how I wound up in the animal rights topic, but I have since then discovered that ADVOCACY is rampant in the PETA, animal rights, and vegan topics. You need to quit WP:HOUNDING me, FF, just because you don't like the subject area I'm editing in this month. (In June it was Confederate statues, before that it was places on the National Register of Historic Places, and before that it was Tiger articles.) I'm trying to fix the advocacy stuff, per Wikipedia policies, and to better the encyclopedia, while you're trying to stop me with this... what is it... oh yeah, the THIRD calling me out on a board over the SAME issue in like two days because it's not going the way you want it to. Stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, already. And no more PAs!
I assert PETA is NOT a reliable source. We're here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Maybe we SHOULD be debating whether to add PETA to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
When I see these tiny insertions in dozens of articles saying so-and-so is a vegan or so-and-so is pro-animal rights, and there's nothing else in the article about it, and the citation source is peta.org, I can assume that it's not a big part of the person's life or someone else would have published it. Contrast those with the article for Joaquin Phoenix which mentions "animal" 15 times and doesn't need a peta.org sourced citation to show he's an animal rights activist. Check Bob Barker's article and you'll find "animal" 11 times and zero peta.org citations. That's because those two men ARE animal rights advocates and the newspapers know about it; it's a big part of their lives. (See WP:DUE.) But when you instead see that these tiny PETA blurbs have been inserted into hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you check a few dozen of them and find the only mention of "animal" or "PETA" or "vegan" is with a peta.org source, one can logically conclude the content was inserted as part of an advocacy campaign that is an extension of PETA's advertising machine. If you look at one or two or three articles, you don't get the big picture. When you do a search for "peta.org" and find hundreds of these little insertions, and check a bunch of the BLP articles, you quickly find out it has been part of an WP:ADVOCACY campaign. I use the word "insert" because I've checked several of these with the "Who wrote that" tool, and I've found that the editor that inserted the PETA content, only inserted that content; they weren't already editing a biography and decided to add animal rights stuff as well. And I found that this pattern of editing behavior happened over and over and over again. See WP:DUCKTEST.
Then there's PETA's "Sexiest Vegan" awards and "PETA's Person of the Year Award". These are free awards that PETA can "give away" (simply labels, actually) that operate as free advertising with all the benefits of celebrity branding and none of the costs/expenditures. By simply naming someone, without even getting their permission, PETA can all of a sudden gain some sort of news coverage (or generate its own) that aligns PETA with a celebrity. Celebrities are usually happy to take any attention they can get; it increases their value as a commodity. So the celebrity isn't going to say "No". The award itself has no actual value beyond the publicity and public goodwill it generates. The awards themselves are worthless and, as such, mentioning them in Wikipedia in someone's biography is WP:UNDUE. You argue that mentioning it in a wiki article is harmless, but you're wrong.
As for using PETA's publication to support what they say about someone else, even if you were in the room and you could verify it happened, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you know a fact to be true; it only matters if some other reliable source said so. That's why we use secondary sources for our citations in this encyclopedia.
PETA has a long record of controversial publications, outrageous stunts, stretching the truth and outright lying about events and facts, as well as what people say or think about issues. Here's just one such news report (published in The New Yorker and reposted by its author) [8] where it says "peta's publicity formula–eighty per cent outrage, ten per cent each of celebrity and truth", and Newkirk's quotes "We are complete press sluts" and many more... er... "questionable judgment" quotes.
In a second example (which I had researched and wrote for the
PETA article) PETA continues to this day to promote the information that milk causes autism even after being proven wrong AND admitting it! "When pressed, PETA cited two scientific papers, one from 1995 and one from 2002 using a very small sampling of children (36 and 20), and neither showed a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. Newer studies from 2010 and 2014 have shown no association between dairy and behavior in autism. Despite having been corrected, PETA says they still keep the information on their website "because we have heard from people who have said it contains helpful information."
[1]
[2]
[3] Excuses by PETA to keep their false scientific claims on their website for the last six years! Do you get that? This is not what reliable sources do!
So why would anybody ever use them as a source! Peta.org would fail to be called a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia
reliable sources policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
See
WP:REPUTABLE. And from
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: " In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
PETA is not a newsroom with an editorial staff doing fact checking, they are an advocacy organization, and with their history of falsifying matters and publishing it, they would NEVER pass a reliable sources test. Editors above have been very generously "
PC" about the touchy subject of calling out such an outspoken organization (whose annual budget for advertising is over $10M
[9]). After all, one's fellow Wiki editors many well be PETA followers. No, you cannot use peta.org's statement that so-and-so is a vegan or vegetarian. It violates
WP:ABOUTSELF, and it's self-serving for PETA to publish that. It's completely different than a sports publication mentioning someone is an athlete. Using an LGBTQ source to say that someone is gay or bi might well be advocacy and nonRS. First of all, being called an athlete is unlikely to be controversial; being called gay/bi/etc. is more likely to be controversial. But that's all hypothetical and not really related to the PETA discussion. Per Wikipedia rules, if you want to discuss or argue about a policy, such as
WP:ABOUTSELF, then you're supposed to discuss it on the Talk page of the policy.
You need to find some other reliable source that says someone is vegan — and if you find one, and they say that, then go ahead and use THAT in someone's biography article. Earlier today I did just that; I swapped out a peta.org citation with a reliable source saying that someone was a vegan; then posted that. But I don't suppose you noticed that when you checked my contributions and then called me anti-vegan.
I have presented a case that PETA/peta.org is NOT a reliable source. I have read (above) that others also think peta.org is not a reliable source for anything other than information about PETA itself (per ABOUTSELF). So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source, nor even one opinion that PETA is a reliable source.
Remember, we're on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
— Normal Op ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information.This isn't quite correct, although I can understand why you would think that given the sort of sources we usually discuss on WP:RS and how the discussions tend to go. Overall WP:RS requires that a source have a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this is something that, in theory, needs to be positively affirmed and proven by the people who want to use the source - it isn't something we assume. So when talking about a think-tank, advocacy organization, or private website the burden is on people who want to use the source to make the argument that it passes that threshold. The reason discussions here normally seem like the inverse of that is because most of the time the sources that require in-depth WP:RSN discussion and a full RFC are ones that, at first glance, seem like they might pass that bar (eg. sources that present themselves as reputable news organizations or high-quality publications, and whose presentation in that regard at least some editors accept.) We don't generally waste time discussing organizations that trivially fail that threshold and which nobody (or almost nobody) thinks is an WP:RS. PETA is different in that it's not really claiming to do serious fact-checking or anything like that - while some of the people above saying it's not an WP:RS might be basing that on its bad reputation, for the most part that's not the issue. It's not an WP:RS because, by the nature of what it is, it's not really attempting to be one and that's not really its purpose. For an activist organization, you would have to actually show they perform fact-checking and have a reputation based on it in order to convince people it's generally usable as an WP:RS. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."I care not one wit about PETA one way or the other, but you seem to care... a lot. Normal Op ( talk) 04:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
___
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PETA?
Further questions:
"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.") as senior to the one which follows (which you basically have deprecated) (
"The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.") makes your assertions argumentative and disruptive, not constructive. You haven't presented that PETA does any fact-checking at all or even has a system in place. While you tell another editor to argue his presumed position about a policy elsewhere, you argue the same not-relevant-to-this-issue thing here. Normal Op ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
"in the performance of their duties at PETA"qualifier. Books go through an editorial process that op-eds do not. All 4 of Newkirk's articles in The Guardian are labelled as "Opinions" and are covered under primary source policies including WP:PRIMARY:
"Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; ... original philosophical works..."Normal Op ( talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"statements directly attributed as being from PETA"meant those cases where an otherwise reliable news source is quoting PETA to get filler for their article, or just plain churnalism. I have seen numerous instances recently of 'news articles' which are only repeats of what the 'reporter' read on peta.org or gleaned from the latest PETA advertising video. And I don't mean the reporter was covering the subject; they were merely repeating the PETA campaign message; a sort of well-disguised press release. That falls under "statements directly attributed as being from PETA". Normal Op ( talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi! I added The Sun to an article in my sandbox and got no warning; and when I pasted the article into Mainspace a vague warning that *some* link was deprecated (out of the 20+ I was using) but it didn’t tell me which one.
I’m hoping both these issues can be addressed with the filter. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I often see new articles about minor hamlets citing wikimapia as a source, for example Sary-Kamysh. This is a user-generated map without excellent oversight. It was last discussed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia in 2012. I think it should be clear that this is not a reliable source, so can we add it to the list? -- Slashme ( talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is http://favoritesroyales.canalblog.com/archives/2011/04/29/21008725.html a reliable source? It appears to be a blog. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It is being used at Charles V of France. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The Sunday Guardian is an Indian newspaper founded by a ruling party politician and has been cited in over 500 articles per sunday-guardian.com . The paper is rather tabloid-esque and has highly questionable practices; for instances they used the real names of people in a self designated "fake news" piece in relation to an ongoing criminal investigation (see 1 2, 3) Seeing as this has never been brought up on this noticeboard before, I was wondering what would be the community's take on how it should be used, if at all. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
To me it looks reliable. You have only provided one case of an alleged fake news and it seems like more than that is needed to establish that this newspaper is a serial purveyor of fake news. And the political connections of the founder shouldn't be enough to automatically disqualify the newspaper from being used. Many media outlets in the WEST are founded by people with political connections. From what I have seen of their reporting, especially reporting on world news, their articles are incredibly well researched. Full of details that surpasses even the ones from Europe and English speaking countries. They have notable personalities writing there and sometimes interview leading experts from around the world to discuss various issues too.
Fortliberty (
talk) 20:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC) see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton
https://illgetdrivethru.com/about-ill-get-drive-thru/
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a random blog to me, but I haven't heard of it before now. Dark knight 2149 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Tagging for comment: Shadowolfincubi Dark knight 2149 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead to contact the blogger himself who was kind to get back to me with a scan of the page from the book that he cited. I will cite it in the article. -- Shadowolfincubi ( talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed some content in Michael Dell sourced to an interview hosted on the website of the Academy of Achievement, a/k/a American Academy of Achievement. Given that the purpose of this organization is to praise people, seems to me that no content from that website can be relied on for WP:NPOV, and indeed a lot of it is really WP:SPS. I also wonder how many other BLPs rely on this as a source. Thoughts? -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Would like a take on whether the Ham and High (Hampstead and Highgate Express) can be considered reliable. It's part of the Archant group of local newspapers. I'd like to use it as a source for Marta Grigorieva. Would normally consider local papers reliable, but the two references I have found, From Kalashnikov to painter's palette: an artist at work and Artist Marta's work is the bee's knees for Robin Gibb read promotional to me. Both are essentially interviews. Thanks. Tacyarg ( talk) 07:14, 29 August 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.
And while we are here, they placed another "dubious" tag, in this edit: "Crèvecœur's responded to Dickinson's argument about the supposed oppression caused by British taxation and criticized the very trope, according to Zachary McLeod Hutchins: "An avaricious attorney and slave owner like Dickinson, Crèvecoeur suggests, supports oppressive systems far more unnatural and burdensome than imperial governance and the Stamp Act."" I maintain that the citation (Hutchins, Zachary McLeod (2015). "The Slave Narrative and the Stamp Act, or Letters from Two American Farmers in Pennsylvania". Early American Literature. 50 (3): 645–80.) is fine and the attribution proper. Thucydides claims this is a fringe view, but his evidence boils down to "others don't say this so it is fringe".
Thucydides thinks they know better than this scholar, who is a professor at Colorado State and has published an edited collection about the Stamp Act and an article in one of the foremost journals in the field. If this were fringe, reliable secondary sources should denounce it as such; Thucydides is not a reliable secondary source, and the tag is spurious. Their continued edit warring and talk page obstructionism is part of their regular MO, but that's for another day. If you've looked at that talk page, you know we can expect a wall of text; I am hoping that all you scholars and historians and academics can see through that. Drmies ( talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thucydides thinks that Hutchins is wrong. I maintain that this is not Thucydides's job to argue, at least not on Wikipedia: This is the crux of it. If Hutchins is wrong, all Thucydides needs to do is comprehensively demolish Hutchins in academic sources and persuade relevant scholars to do so also. The Wikipedia will follow. But until that happens, we follow the extant literature, and by the way of these things, scholarship does not exist to parrot itself, and to expect every point to be made and interpreted the same way by every scholar is narrow and restrictive. However, that one scholar makes a point that is not subsequently rejected cannot be WP:FRINGE otherwise most of our humanities/arts-FAs would have to be delisted. —— Serial 15:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.(emphasis added). Not all views that have ever been published in a reputable literary journal merit inclusion, especially in a relatively short article such as Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
One of several immediate sources for models for Crèvecoeur's series of ostensibly epistolary essays would certainly have been the series of twelve "letters" that John Dickinson published in colonial newspapers in 1767 and 1768 and then collected...Not only is there the obvious model of epistolarity, which Crèvecoeur and his readers would have been aware of by way of Samuel Richardson's Pamela and its many imitators; Dickinson's text also provides the example of the ingenuous rural observer.
If Moore thought that Crèvecoeur was replying to Dickinson that was the time and place to say so. He doesn't. Moore also brought out a new edition of Crèvecoeur's writings in 2013, which received good reviews (see e.g.
[21]). Now, Hutchins says this: ...the relationship between these two texts has remained concealed over the centuries for two reasons...
. This is academic-speak for "I am advancing a new and novel interpretation." There's also this: Scholars produce new work on Crèvecoeurs Letters constantly, but little of this scholarship addresses the epistolary character of that text, and our failure to investigate the generic codes of these and other American letters has prevented us from seeing connections between Crèvecoeur and Dickinson that would have been obvious otherwise.
In footnote 6, too long to quote in full here, explains that he's working from the Oxford edition of Crèvecoeur's letters and not Moore's 2013 edition (which he calls "excellent") because This essay emphasizes the epistolarity, unity, and structural integrity of Crèvecoeur's 1782 Letters, an emphasis best served by citing the Oxford edition.
Note also Tara Penry's chapter Contrast and Contradiction: The Emergent West in Crèvecoeur's Regional Theory in
Before the West Was West: Critical Essays on Pre-1800 Literature of the American Frontiers, published in 2014. She has this to say: The “middle” provinces bound Crèvecoeur’s New York with the Quaker Pennsylvania that he so admired and also to the scene of the 1768 Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, which Dennis Moore believes was “certainly” an influence on Crèvecoeur’s own epistolary form and “ingenuous rural” voice.
I don't know that you can dismiss a scholarly viewpoint as "fringe" unless it's been explicitly attacked as such. Five years is long enough for such an article to make it into print. That said, Hutchins himself appears to take the position that this is a new interpretation not advanced by other scholars, including at least one scholar who has worked on Crèvecoeur for decades. Nothing wrong with that and that's how scholarship happens. However, if no one else working in early American history picks up the thread, then it's something of a dead end and a summary-style article might want to exclude such dead ends. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Mackensen, who makes very good points. It would have been better if this issue had been framed as a question of WP:UNDUE, that might have stopped the discussion going down some blind alleys.
In the abstract, if we have one scholar writing on a topic who argues position 'X' and nine scholars writing on a topic who never even mention 'X', then I don't think its reasonable to argue that 'X' is a significant viewpoint merely because it was published in a reputable journal. Being ignored by the rest of the scholarship is often a more damning rebuttal than spawning half a dozen articles explaining why 'X' is wrong.
Now, is any of that the case here? I'm not sure. Hutchins' article was published in 2015 and all the other sources referenced pre-date that. Is it the most recent scholarly publication about Dickinson or Crèvecoeur? If not, is his position discussed by subsequent scholarship? -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 04:48, 29 August 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.
First: That is not a photograph of Jimmy Cleveland. I know this because I have seen several pictures of him and I have his lp's. In addition, he was not a left-handed trombonist. Your picture could be one of Slide Hampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.18.34.253 ( talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to cite this book under the History section of Uvari but User:MrShortCircuit keeps removing it under the pretense that it is a "promotional book". User:MrShortCircuit has not acknowledged my requests for him to discuss the validity of the citation on the Talk:Uvari page or User_talk:MrShortCircuit. In fact, he has removed my direct notification to him on his user page to discuss the matter too.
The citation is a book.
Vernacular Catholicism, vernacular saints : Selva J. Raj on "Being Catholic the Tamil way". Raj, Selva J.,, Locklin, Reid B.,. Albany.
ISBN
978-1-4384-6505-0.
OCLC
956984843.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
The paragraph being supported in the article is as such:
Legend has it that the crew of a Portuguese ship that sailed near Uvari in the seventeenth century contracted cholera. In an attempt to avert death, a carpenter aboard the ship carved an image of Saint Anthony. Soon after, the entire crew were restored to health. When the ship docked at Uvari, the sailors placed the statue inside a hut in the village. In the 1940s, the villagers built a church with the original statue of St. Anthony holding the infant Jesus in his hand. St Anthony is said to perform many miracles daily for the people who flock there with faith in his intercession, therefore the church was upgraded to a shrine. Uvari is visited by Hindus and Christians from all over South India.
I need clarification on how the book is considered promotional. The book is written and edited by academics specialized in theology and religious studies. Soggmeister ( talk) 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Business Insider a reliable source for the following claim at China–United States trade war?
- According to Capital Economics, China's economic growth has slowed as a result of the trade war, though overall the Chinese economy "has held up well", and China's share of global exports has increased. [1]
References
- ^ Khan, Yusuf (August 29, 2019). "China is blunting the blows of Trump's trade war and just grabbed an even bigger share of global exports".
Thanks for your input. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 17:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Related:
So my questions are:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:36, 31 August 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 305 | ← | Archive 308 | Archive 309 | Archive 310 | Archive 311 | Archive 312 | → | Archive 315 |
I notice that the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport not listed as deprecated and not trapped by Filter 869 ( log). Do we really need an RfC for this? The Sport is the benchmark for unreliability in UK print publishing, and the low link count suggests that most Wikipedians are well aware of this. It's some time since I had to nuke any links to either site. Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero talk 13:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Are the following Arabic newspapers reliable sources?
Tunis Freedoms 12:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand that generally, blogs are not considered acceptable references, but what about one from CNN? See [1]]? This seems potentially acceptable based on section of WP:Verifiability: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, see [2]
Dr. Don Colbert, a "divine health" expert who has appeared with Copeland in several broadcasts, then said the autism rate among children has increased with the number of childhood vaccinations. "I have had so many patients bring their children in and they say, you know what, the week after I had that immunization, for MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – my child stopped talking, my child stopped giving me eye contact. He was not alert, he was not coherent. he quit speaking, he quit being the child I had," Colbert said on the webcast. Colbert and the Copeland family are wrong about immunizations, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. “It's painful because these pastors are trusted spiritual leaders who are speaking to people not only in their congregations but also on television," he said. "They are putting people at risk.” There is no link between vaccinations and autism, and hepatitis can be passed from mother to child, making the shot necessary and effective, Schaffner said.
Thanks for comments. Ali Beatriz ( talk) 18:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
At User talk:Normal Op#PETA (permalink here), I stated the following to Normal Op: "Regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under 'questionable sources', WP:About self applies."
And, well, you can see Normal Op's reply. In response, I stated, "This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to."
Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy says, "PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements." And yet I see that Normal Op removed PETA as a source for its own statements and positions at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in July and is now back at it. Purging going on. I'm not stating that one should not ideally rely on secondary sources, though. No article about an organization should be mostly built on sources by that organization.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also applies in this case. Using PETA for things that are vegetarian/vegan in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, for example, is fine.
As for supposed blowback, I was very clear about why I brought this matter here. And others have agreed with me about reliability and a source being used for its own activities...but not using the source for things that would require a secondary citation for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The example Flyer22 Frozen gives is a very narrow example, and I feel the above answers have already covered it well. However, a lot of these peta.org blurbs that I'm finding inserted into BLP articles say extra stuff like "So-and-so is an animal rights advocate" or "So-and-so supports PETA" when there are no other mentions about animal rights or PETA in the biography and the only citation is directly off PETA's website. In this case, I feel strongly that these three Wiki policies/guidelines apply.
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
Opinions? — Normal Op ( talk) 04:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
PETA is a source for information about itself that is in controversial. Anything that might be seen as self serving (such as membership) is should not be used for. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
If the public figure has given an exclusive interview to PETA or otherwise told PETA that they are an animal rights advocate, etc., as has happened in the past, using PETA as a source for that is fine. But using an additional source or a different source to report on that matter, similar to a different source being used in the Mariah Carey article to report on a PETA award she received, is also an option. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
1. PETA isn't a questionable source. The organization promotes the idea of ethical treatment of animals. Hardly an extremist position in the Western world. 2. If we take this to the extreme, the official site for Premier League could not be used as a source for who won the league because it's a self-published source and involves a claim about a third party - the team that won. 3. I think one should look at what the claim is. A celebrity winning a PETA prize is mundane and uncontroversial. The likelihood that it is true is overwhelming. It is not the same as a claim that someone was awarded a prestigious prize from the International Holocaust Denial Society. ImTheIP ( talk) 02:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but looking at Normal Op's latest contributions, all I see is an editor yanking PETA from any and everywhere based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. All I see is an editor with a serious anti-vegetarian and anti-veganism angle to his edits. This editor is not taking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS into consideration whatsoever when it comes to this topic. As seen at Talk:Sia (musician)#Undue advocacy content in this article, where he was challenged by Ssilvers, Jack1956, Somambulant1 and SchroCat (permalink here), Normal Op has argued against use of PETA, pointing to this thread as justification, as if this thread has ruled that PETA is unreliable. As seen here, he removed the following from a section titled "Activism": "Albarrán became a vegetarian after seeing a documentary about slaughterhouses and remained as such for around 25 years, until making the transition to veganism. He has participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights." Oh, so we can't use PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan, and/or that they participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights? What? Just like we may use sports sources to report on someone being an athlete, or LGBT sources to report on someone being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we can use PETA to report on someone being vegetarian or vegan, especially when it's a significant part of that person's life and they specifically told PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: you keep trying to narrow it down to things like "PETA's Person of the Year Awards", because you know peta.org wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a full and general reliable source discussion when the scenario is expanded to how these peta.org citations are really being used. And I'm not focusing on PETA's Person of the Year Awards; I could care less about them. For your information, FF, I am anti- ADVOCACY and against using Wikipedia for ADVOCATE work. I do not discriminate between one advocacy or another. I didn't have an opinion about PETA or peta.org before I started researching it for Wikipedia, and don't even recall how I wound up in the animal rights topic, but I have since then discovered that ADVOCACY is rampant in the PETA, animal rights, and vegan topics. You need to quit WP:HOUNDING me, FF, just because you don't like the subject area I'm editing in this month. (In June it was Confederate statues, before that it was places on the National Register of Historic Places, and before that it was Tiger articles.) I'm trying to fix the advocacy stuff, per Wikipedia policies, and to better the encyclopedia, while you're trying to stop me with this... what is it... oh yeah, the THIRD calling me out on a board over the SAME issue in like two days because it's not going the way you want it to. Stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, already. And no more PAs!
I assert PETA is NOT a reliable source. We're here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Maybe we SHOULD be debating whether to add PETA to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
When I see these tiny insertions in dozens of articles saying so-and-so is a vegan or so-and-so is pro-animal rights, and there's nothing else in the article about it, and the citation source is peta.org, I can assume that it's not a big part of the person's life or someone else would have published it. Contrast those with the article for Joaquin Phoenix which mentions "animal" 15 times and doesn't need a peta.org sourced citation to show he's an animal rights activist. Check Bob Barker's article and you'll find "animal" 11 times and zero peta.org citations. That's because those two men ARE animal rights advocates and the newspapers know about it; it's a big part of their lives. (See WP:DUE.) But when you instead see that these tiny PETA blurbs have been inserted into hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you check a few dozen of them and find the only mention of "animal" or "PETA" or "vegan" is with a peta.org source, one can logically conclude the content was inserted as part of an advocacy campaign that is an extension of PETA's advertising machine. If you look at one or two or three articles, you don't get the big picture. When you do a search for "peta.org" and find hundreds of these little insertions, and check a bunch of the BLP articles, you quickly find out it has been part of an WP:ADVOCACY campaign. I use the word "insert" because I've checked several of these with the "Who wrote that" tool, and I've found that the editor that inserted the PETA content, only inserted that content; they weren't already editing a biography and decided to add animal rights stuff as well. And I found that this pattern of editing behavior happened over and over and over again. See WP:DUCKTEST.
Then there's PETA's "Sexiest Vegan" awards and "PETA's Person of the Year Award". These are free awards that PETA can "give away" (simply labels, actually) that operate as free advertising with all the benefits of celebrity branding and none of the costs/expenditures. By simply naming someone, without even getting their permission, PETA can all of a sudden gain some sort of news coverage (or generate its own) that aligns PETA with a celebrity. Celebrities are usually happy to take any attention they can get; it increases their value as a commodity. So the celebrity isn't going to say "No". The award itself has no actual value beyond the publicity and public goodwill it generates. The awards themselves are worthless and, as such, mentioning them in Wikipedia in someone's biography is WP:UNDUE. You argue that mentioning it in a wiki article is harmless, but you're wrong.
As for using PETA's publication to support what they say about someone else, even if you were in the room and you could verify it happened, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you know a fact to be true; it only matters if some other reliable source said so. That's why we use secondary sources for our citations in this encyclopedia.
PETA has a long record of controversial publications, outrageous stunts, stretching the truth and outright lying about events and facts, as well as what people say or think about issues. Here's just one such news report (published in The New Yorker and reposted by its author) [8] where it says "peta's publicity formula–eighty per cent outrage, ten per cent each of celebrity and truth", and Newkirk's quotes "We are complete press sluts" and many more... er... "questionable judgment" quotes.
In a second example (which I had researched and wrote for the
PETA article) PETA continues to this day to promote the information that milk causes autism even after being proven wrong AND admitting it! "When pressed, PETA cited two scientific papers, one from 1995 and one from 2002 using a very small sampling of children (36 and 20), and neither showed a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. Newer studies from 2010 and 2014 have shown no association between dairy and behavior in autism. Despite having been corrected, PETA says they still keep the information on their website "because we have heard from people who have said it contains helpful information."
[1]
[2]
[3] Excuses by PETA to keep their false scientific claims on their website for the last six years! Do you get that? This is not what reliable sources do!
So why would anybody ever use them as a source! Peta.org would fail to be called a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia
reliable sources policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
See
WP:REPUTABLE. And from
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: " In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
PETA is not a newsroom with an editorial staff doing fact checking, they are an advocacy organization, and with their history of falsifying matters and publishing it, they would NEVER pass a reliable sources test. Editors above have been very generously "
PC" about the touchy subject of calling out such an outspoken organization (whose annual budget for advertising is over $10M
[9]). After all, one's fellow Wiki editors many well be PETA followers. No, you cannot use peta.org's statement that so-and-so is a vegan or vegetarian. It violates
WP:ABOUTSELF, and it's self-serving for PETA to publish that. It's completely different than a sports publication mentioning someone is an athlete. Using an LGBTQ source to say that someone is gay or bi might well be advocacy and nonRS. First of all, being called an athlete is unlikely to be controversial; being called gay/bi/etc. is more likely to be controversial. But that's all hypothetical and not really related to the PETA discussion. Per Wikipedia rules, if you want to discuss or argue about a policy, such as
WP:ABOUTSELF, then you're supposed to discuss it on the Talk page of the policy.
You need to find some other reliable source that says someone is vegan — and if you find one, and they say that, then go ahead and use THAT in someone's biography article. Earlier today I did just that; I swapped out a peta.org citation with a reliable source saying that someone was a vegan; then posted that. But I don't suppose you noticed that when you checked my contributions and then called me anti-vegan.
I have presented a case that PETA/peta.org is NOT a reliable source. I have read (above) that others also think peta.org is not a reliable source for anything other than information about PETA itself (per ABOUTSELF). So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source, nor even one opinion that PETA is a reliable source.
Remember, we're on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
— Normal Op ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information.This isn't quite correct, although I can understand why you would think that given the sort of sources we usually discuss on WP:RS and how the discussions tend to go. Overall WP:RS requires that a source have a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this is something that, in theory, needs to be positively affirmed and proven by the people who want to use the source - it isn't something we assume. So when talking about a think-tank, advocacy organization, or private website the burden is on people who want to use the source to make the argument that it passes that threshold. The reason discussions here normally seem like the inverse of that is because most of the time the sources that require in-depth WP:RSN discussion and a full RFC are ones that, at first glance, seem like they might pass that bar (eg. sources that present themselves as reputable news organizations or high-quality publications, and whose presentation in that regard at least some editors accept.) We don't generally waste time discussing organizations that trivially fail that threshold and which nobody (or almost nobody) thinks is an WP:RS. PETA is different in that it's not really claiming to do serious fact-checking or anything like that - while some of the people above saying it's not an WP:RS might be basing that on its bad reputation, for the most part that's not the issue. It's not an WP:RS because, by the nature of what it is, it's not really attempting to be one and that's not really its purpose. For an activist organization, you would have to actually show they perform fact-checking and have a reputation based on it in order to convince people it's generally usable as an WP:RS. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."I care not one wit about PETA one way or the other, but you seem to care... a lot. Normal Op ( talk) 04:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
___
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PETA?
Further questions:
"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.") as senior to the one which follows (which you basically have deprecated) (
"The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.") makes your assertions argumentative and disruptive, not constructive. You haven't presented that PETA does any fact-checking at all or even has a system in place. While you tell another editor to argue his presumed position about a policy elsewhere, you argue the same not-relevant-to-this-issue thing here. Normal Op ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
"in the performance of their duties at PETA"qualifier. Books go through an editorial process that op-eds do not. All 4 of Newkirk's articles in The Guardian are labelled as "Opinions" and are covered under primary source policies including WP:PRIMARY:
"Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; ... original philosophical works..."Normal Op ( talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"statements directly attributed as being from PETA"meant those cases where an otherwise reliable news source is quoting PETA to get filler for their article, or just plain churnalism. I have seen numerous instances recently of 'news articles' which are only repeats of what the 'reporter' read on peta.org or gleaned from the latest PETA advertising video. And I don't mean the reporter was covering the subject; they were merely repeating the PETA campaign message; a sort of well-disguised press release. That falls under "statements directly attributed as being from PETA". Normal Op ( talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi! I added The Sun to an article in my sandbox and got no warning; and when I pasted the article into Mainspace a vague warning that *some* link was deprecated (out of the 20+ I was using) but it didn’t tell me which one.
I’m hoping both these issues can be addressed with the filter. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I often see new articles about minor hamlets citing wikimapia as a source, for example Sary-Kamysh. This is a user-generated map without excellent oversight. It was last discussed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia in 2012. I think it should be clear that this is not a reliable source, so can we add it to the list? -- Slashme ( talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is http://favoritesroyales.canalblog.com/archives/2011/04/29/21008725.html a reliable source? It appears to be a blog. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It is being used at Charles V of France. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The Sunday Guardian is an Indian newspaper founded by a ruling party politician and has been cited in over 500 articles per sunday-guardian.com . The paper is rather tabloid-esque and has highly questionable practices; for instances they used the real names of people in a self designated "fake news" piece in relation to an ongoing criminal investigation (see 1 2, 3) Seeing as this has never been brought up on this noticeboard before, I was wondering what would be the community's take on how it should be used, if at all. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
To me it looks reliable. You have only provided one case of an alleged fake news and it seems like more than that is needed to establish that this newspaper is a serial purveyor of fake news. And the political connections of the founder shouldn't be enough to automatically disqualify the newspaper from being used. Many media outlets in the WEST are founded by people with political connections. From what I have seen of their reporting, especially reporting on world news, their articles are incredibly well researched. Full of details that surpasses even the ones from Europe and English speaking countries. They have notable personalities writing there and sometimes interview leading experts from around the world to discuss various issues too.
Fortliberty (
talk) 20:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC) see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton
https://illgetdrivethru.com/about-ill-get-drive-thru/
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a random blog to me, but I haven't heard of it before now. Dark knight 2149 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Tagging for comment: Shadowolfincubi Dark knight 2149 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead to contact the blogger himself who was kind to get back to me with a scan of the page from the book that he cited. I will cite it in the article. -- Shadowolfincubi ( talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed some content in Michael Dell sourced to an interview hosted on the website of the Academy of Achievement, a/k/a American Academy of Achievement. Given that the purpose of this organization is to praise people, seems to me that no content from that website can be relied on for WP:NPOV, and indeed a lot of it is really WP:SPS. I also wonder how many other BLPs rely on this as a source. Thoughts? -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Would like a take on whether the Ham and High (Hampstead and Highgate Express) can be considered reliable. It's part of the Archant group of local newspapers. I'd like to use it as a source for Marta Grigorieva. Would normally consider local papers reliable, but the two references I have found, From Kalashnikov to painter's palette: an artist at work and Artist Marta's work is the bee's knees for Robin Gibb read promotional to me. Both are essentially interviews. Thanks. Tacyarg ( talk) 07:14, 29 August 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.
And while we are here, they placed another "dubious" tag, in this edit: "Crèvecœur's responded to Dickinson's argument about the supposed oppression caused by British taxation and criticized the very trope, according to Zachary McLeod Hutchins: "An avaricious attorney and slave owner like Dickinson, Crèvecoeur suggests, supports oppressive systems far more unnatural and burdensome than imperial governance and the Stamp Act."" I maintain that the citation (Hutchins, Zachary McLeod (2015). "The Slave Narrative and the Stamp Act, or Letters from Two American Farmers in Pennsylvania". Early American Literature. 50 (3): 645–80.) is fine and the attribution proper. Thucydides claims this is a fringe view, but his evidence boils down to "others don't say this so it is fringe".
Thucydides thinks they know better than this scholar, who is a professor at Colorado State and has published an edited collection about the Stamp Act and an article in one of the foremost journals in the field. If this were fringe, reliable secondary sources should denounce it as such; Thucydides is not a reliable secondary source, and the tag is spurious. Their continued edit warring and talk page obstructionism is part of their regular MO, but that's for another day. If you've looked at that talk page, you know we can expect a wall of text; I am hoping that all you scholars and historians and academics can see through that. Drmies ( talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thucydides thinks that Hutchins is wrong. I maintain that this is not Thucydides's job to argue, at least not on Wikipedia: This is the crux of it. If Hutchins is wrong, all Thucydides needs to do is comprehensively demolish Hutchins in academic sources and persuade relevant scholars to do so also. The Wikipedia will follow. But until that happens, we follow the extant literature, and by the way of these things, scholarship does not exist to parrot itself, and to expect every point to be made and interpreted the same way by every scholar is narrow and restrictive. However, that one scholar makes a point that is not subsequently rejected cannot be WP:FRINGE otherwise most of our humanities/arts-FAs would have to be delisted. —— Serial 15:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.(emphasis added). Not all views that have ever been published in a reputable literary journal merit inclusion, especially in a relatively short article such as Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
One of several immediate sources for models for Crèvecoeur's series of ostensibly epistolary essays would certainly have been the series of twelve "letters" that John Dickinson published in colonial newspapers in 1767 and 1768 and then collected...Not only is there the obvious model of epistolarity, which Crèvecoeur and his readers would have been aware of by way of Samuel Richardson's Pamela and its many imitators; Dickinson's text also provides the example of the ingenuous rural observer.
If Moore thought that Crèvecoeur was replying to Dickinson that was the time and place to say so. He doesn't. Moore also brought out a new edition of Crèvecoeur's writings in 2013, which received good reviews (see e.g.
[21]). Now, Hutchins says this: ...the relationship between these two texts has remained concealed over the centuries for two reasons...
. This is academic-speak for "I am advancing a new and novel interpretation." There's also this: Scholars produce new work on Crèvecoeurs Letters constantly, but little of this scholarship addresses the epistolary character of that text, and our failure to investigate the generic codes of these and other American letters has prevented us from seeing connections between Crèvecoeur and Dickinson that would have been obvious otherwise.
In footnote 6, too long to quote in full here, explains that he's working from the Oxford edition of Crèvecoeur's letters and not Moore's 2013 edition (which he calls "excellent") because This essay emphasizes the epistolarity, unity, and structural integrity of Crèvecoeur's 1782 Letters, an emphasis best served by citing the Oxford edition.
Note also Tara Penry's chapter Contrast and Contradiction: The Emergent West in Crèvecoeur's Regional Theory in
Before the West Was West: Critical Essays on Pre-1800 Literature of the American Frontiers, published in 2014. She has this to say: The “middle” provinces bound Crèvecoeur’s New York with the Quaker Pennsylvania that he so admired and also to the scene of the 1768 Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, which Dennis Moore believes was “certainly” an influence on Crèvecoeur’s own epistolary form and “ingenuous rural” voice.
I don't know that you can dismiss a scholarly viewpoint as "fringe" unless it's been explicitly attacked as such. Five years is long enough for such an article to make it into print. That said, Hutchins himself appears to take the position that this is a new interpretation not advanced by other scholars, including at least one scholar who has worked on Crèvecoeur for decades. Nothing wrong with that and that's how scholarship happens. However, if no one else working in early American history picks up the thread, then it's something of a dead end and a summary-style article might want to exclude such dead ends. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Mackensen, who makes very good points. It would have been better if this issue had been framed as a question of WP:UNDUE, that might have stopped the discussion going down some blind alleys.
In the abstract, if we have one scholar writing on a topic who argues position 'X' and nine scholars writing on a topic who never even mention 'X', then I don't think its reasonable to argue that 'X' is a significant viewpoint merely because it was published in a reputable journal. Being ignored by the rest of the scholarship is often a more damning rebuttal than spawning half a dozen articles explaining why 'X' is wrong.
Now, is any of that the case here? I'm not sure. Hutchins' article was published in 2015 and all the other sources referenced pre-date that. Is it the most recent scholarly publication about Dickinson or Crèvecoeur? If not, is his position discussed by subsequent scholarship? -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 04:48, 29 August 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.
First: That is not a photograph of Jimmy Cleveland. I know this because I have seen several pictures of him and I have his lp's. In addition, he was not a left-handed trombonist. Your picture could be one of Slide Hampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.18.34.253 ( talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to cite this book under the History section of Uvari but User:MrShortCircuit keeps removing it under the pretense that it is a "promotional book". User:MrShortCircuit has not acknowledged my requests for him to discuss the validity of the citation on the Talk:Uvari page or User_talk:MrShortCircuit. In fact, he has removed my direct notification to him on his user page to discuss the matter too.
The citation is a book.
Vernacular Catholicism, vernacular saints : Selva J. Raj on "Being Catholic the Tamil way". Raj, Selva J.,, Locklin, Reid B.,. Albany.
ISBN
978-1-4384-6505-0.
OCLC
956984843.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
The paragraph being supported in the article is as such:
Legend has it that the crew of a Portuguese ship that sailed near Uvari in the seventeenth century contracted cholera. In an attempt to avert death, a carpenter aboard the ship carved an image of Saint Anthony. Soon after, the entire crew were restored to health. When the ship docked at Uvari, the sailors placed the statue inside a hut in the village. In the 1940s, the villagers built a church with the original statue of St. Anthony holding the infant Jesus in his hand. St Anthony is said to perform many miracles daily for the people who flock there with faith in his intercession, therefore the church was upgraded to a shrine. Uvari is visited by Hindus and Christians from all over South India.
I need clarification on how the book is considered promotional. The book is written and edited by academics specialized in theology and religious studies. Soggmeister ( talk) 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Business Insider a reliable source for the following claim at China–United States trade war?
- According to Capital Economics, China's economic growth has slowed as a result of the trade war, though overall the Chinese economy "has held up well", and China's share of global exports has increased. [1]
References
- ^ Khan, Yusuf (August 29, 2019). "China is blunting the blows of Trump's trade war and just grabbed an even bigger share of global exports".
Thanks for your input. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 17:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Related:
So my questions are:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)