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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hey. So there has been a long battle on Talk:Kitchen Nightmares about whether or not this article, published by the New York Post, can be used to say something like:
In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open.
One user is against using the article because he feels the NYPost is a tabloid. Another questions the logic of the source, since it mentions thirteen restaurants, but there were twenty-one covered in two seasons. This has been countered by saying that the article covered restaurants only in the New York metropolitan area.
Either way, the question remains as to whether or not the source can be used to make such a claim. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Relating this back to the article in question... all of the NY, NJ and CT restaraunts mentioned by the Post are within the commuter belt for NYC (ie the metro NY area)... or to put it another way, they are all in the area the Post normally covers. Blueboar ( talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In a discussion on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page, Dynablaster and Jim Fitzgerald have said that Ahmadinejad's official site is "not reliable" though they have not provided an answer as to under what context the site is "not reliable". Given the multiple sources used when translating Ahmadinejad's statements, my opinion is that his official site should certainly be included. The section in question is
In a speech on June 3rd 2008, the Iranian presidential website quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."<ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114</ref> In an interview posted on Ahmadinejad's official website on September 23, 2008, in response to the question "whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map" he answers "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped." <ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=12377</ref> Drsmoo ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Is www.studentdrinkinggames.com a reliable source for information about drinking games? Hobit ( talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm copying here a discussion we had on the gajim deletion discussion, so other may comment, and for easier future reference. Pcap ping 08:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs Dictionary of Genocide Volume 1, Greenwood: 2007. Contains an entry Kim Il-Sung entry link. The Entry Kim Il-Sung is proposed to be used at Mass killings under Communist regimes to substantiate a claim regarding the number of deaths caused by the North Korean state during a time period.
Thanks, Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Greenwood Press and Praeger Publishing are both imprints of the Greenwood Publishing Group. Greenwood is one of the most reputable academic publishers on the market. When combined with the fact that the authors are all reputable, and even prominent, scholars, it seems unquestionable that this source is not only reliable but also at the top tier of the reliability scale. Vassyana ( talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I was reading over Rape in the United States. It says, "From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement." I thought that was kind of a strange statistic, how do you know what rapes aren't reported? So I looked at the sources. One was a broken link which I have since deleted, the other is this website: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/ . I took a look at the section that says "60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police." This is the rant on that page that makes me question the reliability of this source:
If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spent time in jail.
So even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is only 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
15 of 16 walk free.
This site is objecting to people accused of rape but not convicted walking free. Can we really trust them about "unreported rapes"? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A doudt has been expressed on the EDL page about sources not backing up as true claims they report[ [16]]. This is in regards to this removal of material [ [17]]. Now the questions are. 1.is it true that a source has to claim that a statment is true for it to be used as a source for that statement having been made? 2.Can said source also be used for what was said (if it makes no judgement on the truth of the statement)? 3.Can Mr Darbeys blog be used for this statment on a page about the organisation Mr Griffin tallks about but which they have no offical links to (but which they have been accused of having links to [ [18]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
← I'm sure that this is sufficiently obvious that it barely needs pointing out, but Nick Griffin is a reliable source for the following: trivial personal information about Nick Griffin; information pertaining to the British National Party. For anything else we would have to review it on a case by case basis, with any generic rant about purported conspiracies being extremely unlikely to be viewed as anything other than utterly unreliable. We can, of course, cite him as saying that he believes this, just as we can cite him as saying that he believes the BNP is not a party of far-right thugs, but we absolutely don't report it as fact and we don't report it at all unless multiple independent reliable sources have already discussed it, since we would not want to give undue weight to what is verifiably a fringe view from an individual who has shown in the past that he can have trouble separating fantasy and reality. Redux: no chance. Guy ( Help!) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this, but it does mention the quoted material [ [21]]. Also how is www.pickledpolitics.com rated as an RS, it looks like a blog to me, but I though i should check? Also how RS is www.workersliberty.org/? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
There is many house fans that keep posting this site for proof of airdate but there unwilling to accept that it is unrealible. However i am also getting told that to leave the article the way ti is with teh source for the epsiode broken as two parts i either accept twitter as realible or not
Moved from realibel source talk
here is the page http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes
can someone please tell me how to go about this?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I am saying in a nutshell... I never said my opinion was popular. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.
This is a spin-off from this this AFD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway). One of the questions in the debate is whether the Galway Advertiser, a free newspaper with a circulation of 70,000, is a reliable source in respect of a politician.
The question here is not whether the politician is notable (I don't want to re-hash the AfD), but whether this local newspaper is a reliable source. I don't know enough about the paper to make a strong argument either way, but I am concerned about outright dismissal of its reliability merely because of its free distribution and localised content.
The context in which the source is used is in respect of a politician on the Galway City Council. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is another article where the Galway Advertiser clearly just reprinted a press release, giving one politician's views without seeking other input or fact-checking: [22]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On Afik, a page about an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights, a piece by Aaron Klein in WorldNetDaily is used to source the following:
the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.
The source for this is [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484 this] "source". Seeing as how the Bible is one of the most researched books on the planet I would expect that hundreds of actual scholarly works would support this line if true. Other users have insisted that this source is fine. Looking back at previous RS/N threads (see here, here) there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this "source"" is generally unreliable. The other users have insisted that we raise the issue again. Is WorldNetDaily a reliable source for either exegesis of the Bible or about Israeli settlements? nableezy - 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think that these sources would be fine, though perhaps better if bothe were attributed. (If we are to be even-handed--Nableezy just commented at an AfD in support of an article supported by Electronic Intifida, which has much lesser indicia of fact-checking and reliability than WND). At the moment, the entire sentence reads as follows:
The Book of Kings tells how King Ahab of Israel defeated Ben-Hadad I of Damascus near the present-day site of Afik, [23] and the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, i was wondering if this is a reliable source for the article Sungazing?
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html
i'm not sure if the information is from the book or just his updates or blogs concerning his views/musings?
--wondering about this source also...
http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html
seems more like a commentary and Q and A.
Thanks for your time!
J929 ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
in context,
"Proponents of sungazing claim increased energy levels and decreased appetite; as with other forms of inedia, this claim is not considered credible due to the lack of scientific studies confirming it."
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html
J929 ( talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
there is more to the practise of sungazing than the hopeful outcome of not having to eat.
ideally gathering sources that are reputable is most beneficial.
these sources should be held up to the same standards that the sources describing the processes are.
J929 (
talk) 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Can this link be used to verify the fact that the Charlie Bit My Finger video has been viewed more than 140 million times? Thanks, The leftorium 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
One really shouldn't use the Youtube site itself as a primary source either; it's original research, at a minimum. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Since The Times source [25] already used in the article mentions 130 million hits, I would include it in the article something like "as of November 2009, the video had 130 million hits" and source it to the The Times, instead of going directly to Youtube. In addition, if citing Youtube, to satisfy WP:V it would probably be appropriate to archive the video page somewhere, as the viewer statistics are not static. I don't know how WebCite handles Youtube but maybe it could archive the page itself if not the flash video contents. Siawase ( talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a number of sources are pdf files held on a web site with the same name of that of one of the editors of this contentious article (see the AfD to see what I mean by contentious). As I recall, we wouldn't normally say this was safe, and given the BLP issues, what do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:cocaine#health effects about whether a report on the health effects of cocaine that was funded by the WHO, suppressed by them prior to publication, and then leaked, constitutes a usable source. Additional opinions would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: Eckhart Tolle article: "The Power of Now" was actually first published in 1998 by Namaste Publishing according to Eckhart in the foreword in more recent editions of the book. According to Tolle in his book, it was later published under copyright in 1999 by by New World Library. However the New York Times gives the 1999 publishing as the first date of publication. What to do? Include info from both sources?. -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The last time I searched for "twitter discussions" here it was one of those grey areas. Some people thought it was fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject. The only thing that people seem to have a problem with is of course a lot of accounts can be fake. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts and it will display "verified" on their page.
For example, Law & Order: SVU showrunner Neal Baer has posted via his twitter account upcoming episodes and airdates, only to be changed by NBC the order which they air. So it is posted on the Law & Order: SVU season 11 page as "The air date for what was initially intended to be the season's seventh episode, "Anchor" on November 4, 2009, was going to be moved to December 2, 2009, but was ultimately moved to December 9th. This episode will now be the tenth episode in the season's lineup." and cites his twitter feed as a reference. Apparently just to have a twitter cite raises red flags. Even though Neal doesn't have his account "verified", his twitter feed has been posted on the NBC website. I figured, I guess as in my opinion, that Neal is the showrunner who decides what order episodes are 'planed' to run, but NBC ultimately decides 'when' they air, he is at LEAST notable enough to be referenced.
Another scenario: I cleaned up the Resident Evil: Afterlife page and someone had posted that filming began on 9-29-09 (which was unsourced, and I tried to add the only source available for that, aceshowbiz.com, but it's blacklisted), and then someone put that Milla Jovovich finished her scenes on 12-11-09, which was taken from her twitter feed. I removed it. I don't know, it seems since Twitter has become such a big thing now, one would think it may be considered a RS on these certain occasions, especially when reliable websites re-post the twitter feed. What does everyone think about this? Thanks. -- Mike Allen 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that twitter is not to be used at all, as for celebs posting things only on twitter..if they are worth reporting they will be reported by better sources soon enough.. have a look at this the reason they are all doing it . Personally, I would remove any links to twitter if I found them. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's Christmas Eve, but my daughter has taken over the HD tv with the hard disc, and I just found this. I don't expect a quick response. This article is relying heavily on email for its sources, I'm not sure what to do about it. See the talk page also for what someone did last year. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Is Medscape considered a WP:RS and, specifically, is this educational review (which gives Continuing Medical Education credits to physicians) considered a RS? Basket of Puppies 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I am currently in a dispute with User:Cyrussullivan about the reliability of a source. He insists that linking to a website that publishes names of purported sufferers of herpes, HIV and Hepatitis C is perfectly acceptable and a reliable source. The website is http://stdcarriers.com/famouspeople/celebrities-genitalherpes-1.aspx (that's the herpes site.)
It's not a reliable source. Anyone who registers on the site can place the name of someone who they think has one of the STDs and it's published. It states on the page that: "The sources of the reports are responsible for the validity of the information contained in the reports and any conclusions that can be derived from that information." They are not taking responsibility for the reports on their site.
The other thing that bothers me is they have a "False STD Report Removal Page" in which they urge a person who is listed to get their name removed by doing the following:
"7. Go to a doctor’s office and get tested for the Sexually Transmitted Disease (or Diseases) in some cases that you were reported for having. For Genital Herpes (Herpes Simplex Virus 2 - HSV2), Hepatitis C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) this can be done with a simple blood test that will detect antibodies if you are infected, if your results are clean then the profile will be removed. For HPV and Genital Warts there is no blood test, but they can be frequently detected by other means, clean screening results for either will be satisfactory for the removal of a profile.
8. Have your doctor send your clean test results in an official sealed envelope to:
STDCarriers.com
P.O. Box 86448
Portland, OR 97286
9. Contact us to let us know that test results are on their way. This will cause the post office box to be checked more frequently.
10. When we receive and review the test results the report will be removed as soon as possible and you will receive the I.P. Address information necessary to help you track down the person responsible."
Guilty until proven innocent, anyone? Comments, please? -- Manway ( talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you may think about the user submission sections, STD Carrier Registry and Forum my contributions only involved lists that I compiled from personal research involving variations of Celebrities with STDs and People Arrested for Criminal HIV Transmission. I conceded that some of the celebrity profiles used tabloids as sources, but the list of criminals is legit. I know this because I own the website and personally researched those reports myself. The real issue here seems to be my insistence that the criminals list be included in Criminal transmission of HIV. Even thought I only have about 60 people listed in that section it is already the largest centralized list of people who have been charged with crimes involving criminal HIV transmission. I believe that due to it's uniqueness that it should be included in that section. It is a far more reliable source for information on people arrested for crimes involving HIV transmission than Wikipedia itself at this time since it only lists 6 people in List of HIV Positive People. -- Cyrussullivan ( talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As for the Biographies of Living Persons Policies I don't see how a link to STD Carriers is any different than links to Rip Off Report located in the RipOffReport.com article and Don't Date Him Girl located in the Don't Date Him Girl Article-- Cyrussullivan ( talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for a reliable source which mentions Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as the originator of the Negroni cocktail. I have been removing the statement because a few editors which claim to be descendants of Pascal insist on adding it with references I believe to be unreliable at best. Today an admin has protected the page because I have removed statements which do not meet WP:V. Am I wrong in thinking these are unreliable? Is there a reliable source for this? To me, these are just forums and blogs, not verifiable sources.
These are the references that the admin who protected the page has given:
http://chanticleersociety.org/forums/t/820.aspx
http://ohgo.sh/archive/campari-take-four/
http://everydaydrinking.wordpress.com/tag/negroni/
-
Chromatikoma (
talk) 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:::There are a number of newspaper articles making the claim listed here.
[36] Most of them require paying for, though I might be able to some for free if you send me an email that I can respond to.--
Slp1 (
talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Forget it. Did not realize that Pascal was the issue! I'm not that impressed by the Hampton.com ref; hopefully there is something better out. --
Slp1 (
talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I was looking at Wikipedia to inform myself about climate change. I was surprised to see the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change page note that there is no notable dissenting scientific organization. Since then I surveyed the field and found that this is at least one notable contrarian organization, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). A few days ago, I attempted to balance the above said topic, with note of this significant-minority opinion, but the edits were soon undone. It became clear from the now-frozen discussion that we could not reach a consensus on whether this organization deserved to be mentioned. A number of other wikipedia users tried, like me, to get specific criticism regarding this organization with regards to the wikipedia guidelines (reliability of work, authors and publisher) from the users blocking this addition, to little success as you can see in the discussion. Those opposing users tried to articulate a rationale, but only provided vague or unsubstantiated explanations (biased, "unscientific", not "official" enough, etc.). In my opinion (as 1996 alumni of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France), the NIPCC synthesis report published in 2009 is scientific in nature, backed by several renowned scientists with expertise in the required fields, and includes falsifiable claims and properly documented sources and published references. Again, it is clear that it represents a minority opinion in the scientific community, but claiming that "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion" (in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) does not provide a neutral and accurate representation. Please advise on the inclusion of this source. Julien Couvreur ( talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be flippant, but I was a bit shocked. Time was when you had to be very good indeed at Latin to get into the Ecole Polytechnique. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What are the criteria for the NIPCC to become a reliable source? From what I have read it appears that it has been decided already that you will never under any circumstances allow a scientific group to be recognized if it opposes the IPCC. You never base the rejection of the group on merit, but on your own personal opinions. If I am wrong then please explain what needs to happen for the NIPCC to included instead of excluded.
I found an [ interview done at a forum, and wanted to be sure it would be considered a RS or not before adding it to an article. The only forum-related rules I could find seemed to apply to posts by users rather than conducted interviews. Registration is required to view the interview. Ω pho is 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I entered a request for resolution about the RPOV status of a respected Chiropractic publication, which is the largest circulation in our field. I now have an edit war going on where someone has removed the word "Founder" of an International Federation I clearly and can prove I founded, and will not see a Front page article showing me as founder, receiving the Gold Medal from the Board exactly for all the work I did in founding that federation. Why? We one editor who has challenged virtually EVERY article I can find on my field (I really don't think its a matter of principle), now claims that this CINAHL listed journal is not reliable enough for this. If this journal is not a RPOV for this, then its not an RPOV for anything and virtually ALL articles on any Chiropractic subject will have to be re-written. I need a resolution, and no one really responded to my previous request. If nothing happens here, what is the next step in resolution of this? Please help! Д-р СДжП,ДС 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There's been a prolonged discussion between myself and crossmr in Talk:Asian fetish#Asian fetish regarding http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/jan/07/gran-torino-is-vintage-viewing/ Crossmr takes the position that richmond.com in general is a reliable source equivalent to Time and the New York Times "The sites usage is in line with other sources like Time, or the New York Times," and that this quote "(By the way, what's up with Eastwood's late-blooming Asian fetish?)" is a reliable source regarding the meaning and usage of "Asian fetish."
Defining how Ward is using the word in the absence of any dictionary definition based on how some other authors appear to use the word strikes me as a form of “novel syntheses of disparate material” per RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. I think we can personally draw some inferences regarding how he’s using it for our own selves (like, he is not using it in the sexual sense), but our inference is not anything we can actually write into a Wikipedia article.
The word is a neologism, not in any dictionary that I could find other than Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary where there is no attestation, and the word has a limited (albeit not completely rare) degree of usage going back perhaps twenty years or so, perhaps more. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms states “The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people” and “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.” Crossmr’s trying to determine Wood’s own definition for the word “constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research.” Wood’s use is not a reliable source for a neologism per that guideline because “To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.” Wood could at best be considered a secondary source about the movie ‘‘Gran Torino’’ that he was reviewing. However, Wood was merely using the term “Asian fetish,” and barely at that.
I also noted how Wood’s use of the term doesn’t meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline#General notability guideline regarding “Significant coverage,” “that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” I also noted WP:JARGON which states in relevant part “Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning"; that crossmr appeared to be combining a technical usage (the various academic sources I cited on the talk page such as Hamamoto) with a layperson's usage (Wood’s). With regard to crossmr’s claim regarding "the word fetish [having] also lost meaning in modern terms," that sounded like original research too; I don't see a source for it.
I also don’t understand why it has become necessary to post to this noticeboard about it, but crossmr was incredulous that I was raising these issues and said I should "If you can't accept that a site [richmond.com] owned by a news organization which has a full staff of editors and managers isn't a reliable source, then you should take it to RSN, because that more than meets our definition of a reliable source." (Richmond.com is "more than" reliable than the reliable sources included in the definition of reliable source like The New York Times or Cambridge University Press?) Also, that was hardly the sole RS issue I was raising with respect to using Wood's mentioning "Asian fetish" in a movie review on Richmond.com. And as I noted at Talk:Asian fetish, there are more reliable sources than Richmond.com/Mark Wood for the non-sexual use of “Asian fetish” meaning simply “liking Asians or Asian things” that would probably be agreeable to everyone. However, such a reliable source would just something that can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If that is all the article is to be about, then this would be just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If one is not going to assume good faith, then I suppose it could appear that I dislike defining “Asian fetish/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia” as mere liking and that I want only the sexist definition included (or even that I am personally racist and/or sexist?). I disagree and hope that this is not the case. As a definition of "Asiaphile/Asiaphilia" "liking" makes sense by analogy to Anglophile and others. I do happen to think that it is misleading and at best silly to define "Asian fetish" as mere liking or preference, but clearly those uses exist and as I’d repeatedly said, could be mentioned, it’s simply that there’s not much to be said about them AFAICS and nobody has shown how it could be expanded beyond a mere dicdef if the sexual meaning were excluded, or if only the dicdefs of both meanings were included. The coverage of the sexual use is more extensive and potentially (but not necessarily) substantive enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't see what other options the article has (hence my starting an RfC for the article and the other help inquiries noted in that section).
Given that it appears there are more reliable sources for the “liking” definition, continuing to argue in favor of the use of Wood in the article seems pointless, tendentious and disruptive. I would not continue to argue against it except that the capacity to believe that Wood’s quote is a reliable source would seem to indicate an underlying problem not limited to this individual issue. I suppose it may be overkill to go into this much detail here describing the dispute, but the fact the discussion has been so protracted there would appear to indicate there’s a fundamental, broad problem of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources on somebody’s part, if not crossmr’s then mine. One or the other or both of us, as well as perhaps other Wikipedia editors might benefit if some informed editors weighed in on this. Sincere thanks! Шизомби ( talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me broaden the request far beyond the query on Wood's use of "Asian fetish" in a movie review on Richmond.com to all the sources which have been identified in the article or given on the talk page or any not named there anyone here can find; to the topic as a whole. There does not appear to be any dictionaries or encyclopedias with entries for "Asian fetish/asiaphile/asiaphilia." There do not appear to be any books on the subject. There do not appear to be any articles directly about the subject. There are articles and other sources that use the word in passing without discussing the word or underlying topic, and there appear to be some that offer some degree of discussion of the topic, but not very extensive.
Thank you for any help you can provide. Шизомби ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Richmond.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and the author does not appear to be an expert on the topic. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the Sahara Reporters about us page.
Using an anonymous byline, "Sahara Reporters, New York", they are reporting information on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from anonymous sources which is being added to his Wikipedia article.
It appears to be self-published material. It also appears to have been picked up without independent verification by Modern Ghana which in turn is indexed by Google News
I know there's been discussion on social networking sites here, but can someone point me to where on WP:RS, or its related policy pages, where it says that relying on social networking sites is not permitted unless a given page can be verified as the official one actually belonging to the subject in question? Someone is trying to add material to an article by relying on a Facebook page, and when I cited WP:RS, he pointed out that it makes no mention of this. Nightscream ( talk) 06:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on Dār al-Shurūq publishing and whether it is a reputable peer-reviewed source or by well-regarded academic presses. Respectfully.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen books removed as references before from articles with the edit summary, "Self-published book," but couldn't figure out how the removing editor knew that. I'm thinking of purchasing this book ( author's website) to use for the Bering Strait crossing article with the goal of preparing it for FA nomination, but don't want to acquire it if it turns out to be self-published and not a reliable source. How can I tell? Cla68 ( talk) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I only found one reference to it in InfoTrac, a small blurb about the release of the book in Alaska Business Monthly. It appears to be very close to being self-published. I think I will acquire a copy, but try to only use it as a source where it cites another, more reliable work, and note in the footnotes that the publisher appears to be linked to the author. Great advice, everyone, thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Recently some information was made available. The owner of the information said that the material "appears" to have been stolen. The owner refers to "theft" and "illegally taken" in relation to the unauthorised publication of the material. The police are involved and they have confirmed they are investigated crimes. The newspapers have reported that a theft has occurred, that information was stolen.
The WP article on the subject refers repeatedly to the "theft" as if it were a matter of fact.
Whereas the information released/taken/leaked/hacked/stolen has appeared this does not mean a theft has occurred. Birth of the baby does not prove rape.
A number of editors do not accept that the police investigation is a good enough WP:RS that the crime occurred. Neither is the victim. And the newspapers do not claim to know anything other than what the owner and the police have told them. Partly as a consequence of this the name of the article is being changed by consensus to remove "hacking" from the title - how the info was released is just unknown.
The article is a controversial one: Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. I refer you in particular to Q5 of the FAQ for the article at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/FAQ.
I ask for advice on the narrow point - is it correct to refer to "theft" as if it were one before this is established? Especially when there are very real alternatives. The info could have been deliberately leaked by an insider, this is highly unlikely to result in a charge of theft. I am in favour of the terms "alleged theft" or "unauthorised release".
Thanks for your time and opinion.
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 05:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Short version: Those who want to keep at "theft" say it should be that, rather than "alleged theft" because the victim says so, the police are "investigating theft" and the newspapers, quoting no further sources, say "theft" and "stolen". I am saying none of these are WP:RS, in this instance. It should be "alleged theft" and that WP:RS agrees with me. Comment? Paul Beardsell ( talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
In Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ, User:Psb777 disagrees with the inclusion of a short, neutrally worded summary of what has been said by the University of East Anglia, RealClimate and Norfolk Constabulary concerning two incidents of hacking and a subsequent police investigation. Psb777 argues that the university, RealClimate and the police are not reliable sources for their statements concerning the affair. He has posted his personal opinion of the affair here. He speculates about a "leak by an insider" but has cited no reliable source whatsoever for this - it is speculation that has been put about by bloggers. The material with which Psb777 wishes replaced these statements is an unsourced, speculative personal commentary with an overt slant towards one POV, which obviously breaches original research, verifiability and NPOV.
Of these three sources, the police statement is a verbatim quote via a third party source. The university is a major British public institution and RealClimate is a collective work of established experts (climate scientists) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
There is no conceivable reliable sourcing issue with the police statement, since it comes via a third party (as far as I know the police have not actually published their own statement). Technically the university's statement is a self-published source, but I think we would have to consider a major public institution to be a reliable source for its own affairs. RealClimate's statement on the hacking of its own server is quoted under WP:SELFPUB's rubric of being a reliable source of information about itself. The university and RealClimate statements have been widely reported by third parties.
I would be grateful for feedback from uninvolved editors about whether these sources are reliable sources for information on their own affairs. -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had started to worry about that too, the top of the article says This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. Should we remove this discussion to this page's Talk page? Perhaps Chris and I could each agree to prepare a 250 word statement stating what the disagrement is, and then leave it that. The water is being muddied now with different issues, a separate incidents at other computers are now being introduced have no direct bearing on the matter I raise. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest this AP/Independent article is a reliable source for "stolen". Quote: "The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month." -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As an involved editor, I choose not comment on the "theft" vs "alleged theft" issue, but I would like to point out the "insider" versus "outsider" issue. We have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld [50], Reuters [51] and PC World [52] which which quote an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News [53], CNET [54], MSNBC [55], eWeek [56], InfoWorld [57], USA Today [58] and many, many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [59] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A book by Ion Mihai Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption, published by Regnery Publishing is being used to source speculation that Yasser Arafat was a homosexual. The book (page 36 paperback, viewable on amazon (search hyena)) contains a passage about a conversation with Constantin Munteanu, a Romanian intelligence officer, in which Munteanu says that Arafat was having sex with his bodyguard. Is this a reliable source to say that either Arafat was homosexual or that there are rumors that he was homosexual? nableezy - 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, this seems to be an offhand remark, phrased as hearsay, about Arafat in a book on a totally different topic. Do any serious or respectable biographes of Arafat himself raise the issue of homosexuality? If not, it seems (at the very least) extreme undue weight to include the claim on the basis of a few sentences from a non-mainstream publisher's book on Nicolae Ceaucescu. MastCell Talk 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
On Regnery, not "Red Horizons": Regnery Publishing is a major mainstream American publisher which is up front with its ideological orientation: conservative. There is no basis for subjecting its books to different scrutiny from what is given to books from Random House or Harper and Row which also publish books of political advocacy. patsw ( talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do we have any views about the suitability of http://www.worldstatesmen.org as a source?
Is UK TV Guide a reliable source for Aaron Johnson's date of birth? Nightscream ( talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I indeed looked for other sources, and that was the best that I could find. Thanks.
I'm not sure but I'm wondering that would the Royal forums be good enough to be classed as a reliable source for sourcing royal wealth and things like that? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 12:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a general question from a reliable source dispute that arose at Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page. User:Wifione has been arguing that this article should not be considered WP:RS because it is "self-published". And it is supposedly "self-published" because the writer is also the publisher of the magazine Outlook, otherwise a reputed and well-known magazine in India, an undeniably RS. So my question is, in general, does the owner or publisher or editor of an RS media entity writing in it constitute a "self-published source"? I personally don't think so. But wanted to know the opinions of others. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 14:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A lengthy dispute has been raging on the talk page of the Yom Kippur War article. An editor ( User:Jiujitsuguy or JG) sees the current article (FA-class since 2005) as riddled with false information and completely biased, a fantasy tale of the war.
Among his objections is that an Arabic-language source being used in the article be removed altogether. His argument is that information cited to Arabic-language sources are not verifiable by the English reader and by editors as well.
However, the source cannot simply be disregarded on basis of language. Naturally, use of such source can be sanctioned under WP:V, which states that English language sources are preferred, but non-English sources are allowed when an English equivalent is not available. JG counters that there are a wealth of English-language sources that cover the battle. However it's not as simple as that, and here's why.
The vast majority of English-language sources on the war are Israeli-authored or Western-authored but Israeli based. The consequence is that these books rely very little or not at all on Arabic sources, and are generally pro-Israeli. This is so because, firstly, many sources on the Arab POV are only in the Arabic-language and secondly, because some English-translated Arabic sources were so unreliable and dishonest that they tarnished all Arabic sources and caused them to be grouped together as fantasy accounts.
The book in question is Military Battles on the Egyptian Front, authored by Egyptian Gamal Hammad, first published in 1989. The book relies on a large number of Arabic, Israeli and Western sources, which is unprecedented as Western and Israeli books had relied almost entirely on Israeli sources while Arab sources usually disregarded the Israeli POV as well. It also relies on a large number of Arab primary documents and sources made available to Hammad thanks to his position, as well as a considerable amount of interviews conducted with Egyptians involved with the war. The book was completed following five years of research on a war which did not exceed a month in duration. It is by far the largest work on the war from any author at 900 pages (in fact, this book represents volume two of an encyclopedia he authored on the war, with volume one, some 600 pages long, discussing the war on both fronts). He is currently used extensively in Operation Badr (1973), and to some degree in Battle of Suez and very little in the Yom Kippur War article.
Hammad's book represents a crucial element towards balancing the article and helping it achieve NPOV-ness, since most of the other sources are Israeli-based. Also, the book has many characteristics and features that have no English-language equivalent, such as drawing greatly from Arabic sources while also relying on sources detailing opposite POV. The fact that thus far no English-language equivalent exists, and that no translation has thus far been made, it is necessary to use this book. Disregarding it would mean reliance on pro-Israeli or Israeli-based sources and would be in contradiction of NPOV and the sanctions applied in general to articles of relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies.
I need Hammad's book to be either passed as a reliable or non-reliable source for the Yom Kippur War article in order to reach a definitive conclusion to the tiresome and unending dispute over his use. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
@Squidfryer: The author once served in the army, but by the time of the war he was not. He was not involved in the war in any way at the time, so this rules out that he is a primary source. I can't find any translations, but if you can, by all means. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
PS., Sorry for the long read people. :-) -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Are sources RS unless proven otherwise? Or the other way around? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the reasoning behind knowing for what kind of information is the Arabic source used to cite. Could someone enlighten me?
@JG: Which English sources are you referring to exactly? Schiff? Herzog? The London Sunday Times? Rabinovich? I don't think so. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I doubt you've even made an attemopt to read those books but I was actually referring to two different publications
I tried Google translate and it was worthless.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true to some extent but why place additional barriers? It's one thing to ask someone to go to his nearest library and an entirely different matter to get a personal translator-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Well not everyone has a nearby library with English sources. Hence I do not have access to many of the sources you use, but that does not give me right to object their use on the basis that I can't verify them. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In case where the Arabic source disagrees, it should be used. In other cases, we can just use the existing English source, and if a claim can be further backed up with the Arabic source... why not? Obviously however, it would be preferable to suffice with the English source. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And I mean it should be used in addition to the English source. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that better decided by collaboration on the article talk page? Where information that is cited to an Arabic source and can be cited to an English source, sees the non-Arabic source citation being replaced by the English one? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think non-English sources should be used regardless of the situation. Perhaps an exception would be a basic undeniable fact that is undisputed, in which case an English source will suffice. However I don't see the why a non-English source cannot be used to supplement an English source, all the more so when there is dispute over an issue, and certain English as well as the non-English source agree on a particular position. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Then, to reach a definite end to this matter. A non-English source may be used regardless of the situation, except, as I stated, when it is related to a basic, undeniable fact, in which case a single English source may be used per normal practice. The non-English source may be used to support an English source and vice versa, particularly if there is dispute over the matter among various sources. The non-English source may also be used on its own. Per consensus reached here, the non-English source in question, Military Battles on the Egyptian Front by Gamal Hammad, is usable in the article per WP:NONENG and WP:NPOV and is WP:RS. Any objections or comments? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
the book in qustion is: The Muslim Empire and the Land of Gold
the book is a controversial politcal book about the "life and battles of the prophet muhammad" created by an Author rodney phillips, who is a critic of islam.who's work has been referenced in many websites which are critical of Islam, such as islamwatch,Jihadwatch,WikiIslam,Answering Islam e.t.c
I have been in an edit dispute with a user who says his book is not reliable and can not be used. i have only used his book to give opinions.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not used his book as a source which is reliable, but only as an "Authors opinion"
I have been in a dispute with a user Cathar11.he does not understand the concept of authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . he keeps remving references saying that they are not reliable. I discuss with him and told him that even if it is not reliable, it can be used as an "authors opinion".-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been giving the statement of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)
the stament i used is below
I have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"
but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.
he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.
in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.
But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !
he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons he claims it is not reliable is because it is published by a company called AEG. he says that this company scams it authors and is involved in many court cases.
i have told him it does not matter wether the Publisher ripps of its Authors. It is only the Author that matters, and the reliability should not be judged based on the publisher.
I have told him that even i dont consider the book that reliable. It has a loot of opinions, but i have said that i only used it as a reference to give the "opinion of the ciritcs of islam"
Question: am i correct in using this for authors opinion?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
and here is the edit history: the user reverts everything and avoids discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad_and_assassinations&action=history
It is published by AEG Publishing Group which is a self pulishing scam [64]. Anything sourced to books published by them is unreliable. They operate a scam on authors. it is operated by Robert M. Fletcher of Boca Raton, Florida. As a result of a public consumer-related investigation, the Florida Attorney General has filed suit for fraud against Robert Fletcher, Writers’ Literary Agency, and the associated businesses.details here [65] and [66]. In a court case Fletcher brought for defamation about internet articles on his frauds it emmerged that "over time, Fletcher used over ten names for publishing operations under the umbrella of the AEG Publishing Group. Basically, Fletcher and LAG were running a fraud by charging fees for all services while falsely giving hope to the authors that Fletcher and LAG would find a publisher for their book." They have now changed their name (again!) to Strategic Book Group.
The author of the book is a fringe conspiracist. See his blog [67] as an explanation. He is not an expert on history, not notable and definitely not a reliable source. Cathar11 ( talk) 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a thorny question... for a statement as to the author's opinions, this source is reliable... however, we are then faced with another question: is the author's opinion noteworthy (not the same as "notable") enough to be mentioned? That depends on who the author is..., his credentials and his expertise. Some opinions should be mentioned... others should not... see WP:Undue weight. Blueboar ( talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To answer that question I think it's necessary for folks to quote other people, those who support Phillips' opinions, and those that refute them, and let everyone judge the quality of the people who have weighed in on Phillips -- are they fringe, mainstream, well-established, off-the-wall, etc. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its notable as many websites such as islamwatch,Answering islam, Wiki islam,Jihadwatch. and all sorts of websites which are critical of islam refer to his book.many critics of islam endorse his views. his view represents the view of many critics as they have referenced him on their website. so by refering to him and refering to the views of critics from all sorts of websites.
here is a website that copied entire sections of his book(since it has limited view status on google books) and put it on their sites Islam monitor. here is another website Islamwatch, and faithfreedom , a famous anti islam website use it to. i could use those other websites as references wich use rodney phillips, and not Rodney Phillips book itself. if i used those other 50+ websites as references. does that mean they are no reliable. as it is an opinion shared by many critics-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
How about posting some links to rock-solid reliable sources, something like tenured and published professors at well-known universities, or historians considered to be authorities in this area, supporting Phillips' views, either wholly or in part (or, on the other side, the same kind of authoritative sources debunking his opinions)? That would go a long way to being able to determine if Phillips is a source Wikipedia should rely on. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) There are two seperate issues here. For a source to be used for facts, it needs to be a reliable source. To include an author's opinions in an article, it needs to be determined if the inclusion of those opinions gives too much weight to a fringe viewpoint, which would then skew the balance of the article. Both of those factors require that the editors of Wikipedia get some sense of the quality of the opinions, and the best way to do that is to provide the kind of references I requested above: the opinions and viewpoints of rock-solid reliable source: historians, professors, nationally recognized newspapers and magazines, and so on. It's not enough to say that so and so is a critic of Islam and his opinions are echoed and repeated by other critics of Islam, we have to know if that school of criticism is well-founded or fringy.
So far, we're pretty much going around in circles -- if you want these views to be included in articles, you're going to need to do a little more work at supporting them with recognized sources, otherwise they're probably going to be excluded as being WP:FRINGE. (You should probably read and understand both WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE before you post again - speed of response isn't important here, the quality of information is.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where to comment in the midst of all this mess, and I am also unsure how much weight Misconceptions2 will give to my comment. My greatest concern is that the user claims that he is using only author's opinion whereas he is just giving a lot of undue weight to fringe theories. For example, in the Battle of Hamra al-Asad article he included Some critics of Islam refer to this incident as terrorism in the lead section with 4 inline citations. Of those 4, one was the book in question and the other 3 did not have any mention of the incident in question. Also he seems to have this strange fascination with looking at every incident in Islamic history and tagging it with the terrorism claim with little support from reliable sources -- Raziman T V ( talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record the book is used as a source 12 times in Muhammad and assassinations, predominantly as a source of fact. They are all tagged now with unreliable source? - Cathar11 ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a content dispute taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning.
The big problem centers on different understandings of WP:V. One side says that since Wikipedia is about verifiability (information supported by reliable sources) rather than a pursuit of truth, information about both numbers should be included. The other side states that one number having more sources to support it makes it the only verifiable figure.
I am hoping that we can get some outside input from people familiar with policies on reliable sources: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This site's reliability was discussed here previously, but I don't think any clear consensus was reached on its value as a secondary source. I think there was strong consensus in its value for collecting primary source materials, but I'm hoping to get a better sense of its use secondarily.-- otherl left 16:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) x2
The New York Daily News makes routine use of material from TSG. See http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/TheSmokingGun.com patsw ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
TSG is both a secondary source and a host of primary-sourced materials. If it makes statements in it's own voice, those statements are secondary sources. I do not comment on their reliability or notability. They also host documents. Those documents are primary sources. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable sources, but they are not acceptable for information about people who are relatively unknown, and should be used with greater care with respect to people who are well-known. Specific examples would lead to specific answers. Hipocrite ( talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hey. So there has been a long battle on Talk:Kitchen Nightmares about whether or not this article, published by the New York Post, can be used to say something like:
In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open.
One user is against using the article because he feels the NYPost is a tabloid. Another questions the logic of the source, since it mentions thirteen restaurants, but there were twenty-one covered in two seasons. This has been countered by saying that the article covered restaurants only in the New York metropolitan area.
Either way, the question remains as to whether or not the source can be used to make such a claim. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Relating this back to the article in question... all of the NY, NJ and CT restaraunts mentioned by the Post are within the commuter belt for NYC (ie the metro NY area)... or to put it another way, they are all in the area the Post normally covers. Blueboar ( talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In a discussion on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page, Dynablaster and Jim Fitzgerald have said that Ahmadinejad's official site is "not reliable" though they have not provided an answer as to under what context the site is "not reliable". Given the multiple sources used when translating Ahmadinejad's statements, my opinion is that his official site should certainly be included. The section in question is
In a speech on June 3rd 2008, the Iranian presidential website quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."<ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114</ref> In an interview posted on Ahmadinejad's official website on September 23, 2008, in response to the question "whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map" he answers "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped." <ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=12377</ref> Drsmoo ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Is www.studentdrinkinggames.com a reliable source for information about drinking games? Hobit ( talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm copying here a discussion we had on the gajim deletion discussion, so other may comment, and for easier future reference. Pcap ping 08:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs Dictionary of Genocide Volume 1, Greenwood: 2007. Contains an entry Kim Il-Sung entry link. The Entry Kim Il-Sung is proposed to be used at Mass killings under Communist regimes to substantiate a claim regarding the number of deaths caused by the North Korean state during a time period.
Thanks, Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Greenwood Press and Praeger Publishing are both imprints of the Greenwood Publishing Group. Greenwood is one of the most reputable academic publishers on the market. When combined with the fact that the authors are all reputable, and even prominent, scholars, it seems unquestionable that this source is not only reliable but also at the top tier of the reliability scale. Vassyana ( talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I was reading over Rape in the United States. It says, "From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement." I thought that was kind of a strange statistic, how do you know what rapes aren't reported? So I looked at the sources. One was a broken link which I have since deleted, the other is this website: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/ . I took a look at the section that says "60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police." This is the rant on that page that makes me question the reliability of this source:
If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spent time in jail.
So even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is only 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
15 of 16 walk free.
This site is objecting to people accused of rape but not convicted walking free. Can we really trust them about "unreported rapes"? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A doudt has been expressed on the EDL page about sources not backing up as true claims they report[ [16]]. This is in regards to this removal of material [ [17]]. Now the questions are. 1.is it true that a source has to claim that a statment is true for it to be used as a source for that statement having been made? 2.Can said source also be used for what was said (if it makes no judgement on the truth of the statement)? 3.Can Mr Darbeys blog be used for this statment on a page about the organisation Mr Griffin tallks about but which they have no offical links to (but which they have been accused of having links to [ [18]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
← I'm sure that this is sufficiently obvious that it barely needs pointing out, but Nick Griffin is a reliable source for the following: trivial personal information about Nick Griffin; information pertaining to the British National Party. For anything else we would have to review it on a case by case basis, with any generic rant about purported conspiracies being extremely unlikely to be viewed as anything other than utterly unreliable. We can, of course, cite him as saying that he believes this, just as we can cite him as saying that he believes the BNP is not a party of far-right thugs, but we absolutely don't report it as fact and we don't report it at all unless multiple independent reliable sources have already discussed it, since we would not want to give undue weight to what is verifiably a fringe view from an individual who has shown in the past that he can have trouble separating fantasy and reality. Redux: no chance. Guy ( Help!) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this, but it does mention the quoted material [ [21]]. Also how is www.pickledpolitics.com rated as an RS, it looks like a blog to me, but I though i should check? Also how RS is www.workersliberty.org/? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
There is many house fans that keep posting this site for proof of airdate but there unwilling to accept that it is unrealible. However i am also getting told that to leave the article the way ti is with teh source for the epsiode broken as two parts i either accept twitter as realible or not
Moved from realibel source talk
here is the page http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes
can someone please tell me how to go about this?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I am saying in a nutshell... I never said my opinion was popular. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.
This is a spin-off from this this AFD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway). One of the questions in the debate is whether the Galway Advertiser, a free newspaper with a circulation of 70,000, is a reliable source in respect of a politician.
The question here is not whether the politician is notable (I don't want to re-hash the AfD), but whether this local newspaper is a reliable source. I don't know enough about the paper to make a strong argument either way, but I am concerned about outright dismissal of its reliability merely because of its free distribution and localised content.
The context in which the source is used is in respect of a politician on the Galway City Council. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is another article where the Galway Advertiser clearly just reprinted a press release, giving one politician's views without seeking other input or fact-checking: [22]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On Afik, a page about an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights, a piece by Aaron Klein in WorldNetDaily is used to source the following:
the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.
The source for this is [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484 this] "source". Seeing as how the Bible is one of the most researched books on the planet I would expect that hundreds of actual scholarly works would support this line if true. Other users have insisted that this source is fine. Looking back at previous RS/N threads (see here, here) there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this "source"" is generally unreliable. The other users have insisted that we raise the issue again. Is WorldNetDaily a reliable source for either exegesis of the Bible or about Israeli settlements? nableezy - 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think that these sources would be fine, though perhaps better if bothe were attributed. (If we are to be even-handed--Nableezy just commented at an AfD in support of an article supported by Electronic Intifida, which has much lesser indicia of fact-checking and reliability than WND). At the moment, the entire sentence reads as follows:
The Book of Kings tells how King Ahab of Israel defeated Ben-Hadad I of Damascus near the present-day site of Afik, [23] and the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, i was wondering if this is a reliable source for the article Sungazing?
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html
i'm not sure if the information is from the book or just his updates or blogs concerning his views/musings?
--wondering about this source also...
http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html
seems more like a commentary and Q and A.
Thanks for your time!
J929 ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
in context,
"Proponents of sungazing claim increased energy levels and decreased appetite; as with other forms of inedia, this claim is not considered credible due to the lack of scientific studies confirming it."
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html
J929 ( talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
there is more to the practise of sungazing than the hopeful outcome of not having to eat.
ideally gathering sources that are reputable is most beneficial.
these sources should be held up to the same standards that the sources describing the processes are.
J929 (
talk) 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Can this link be used to verify the fact that the Charlie Bit My Finger video has been viewed more than 140 million times? Thanks, The leftorium 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
One really shouldn't use the Youtube site itself as a primary source either; it's original research, at a minimum. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Since The Times source [25] already used in the article mentions 130 million hits, I would include it in the article something like "as of November 2009, the video had 130 million hits" and source it to the The Times, instead of going directly to Youtube. In addition, if citing Youtube, to satisfy WP:V it would probably be appropriate to archive the video page somewhere, as the viewer statistics are not static. I don't know how WebCite handles Youtube but maybe it could archive the page itself if not the flash video contents. Siawase ( talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a number of sources are pdf files held on a web site with the same name of that of one of the editors of this contentious article (see the AfD to see what I mean by contentious). As I recall, we wouldn't normally say this was safe, and given the BLP issues, what do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:cocaine#health effects about whether a report on the health effects of cocaine that was funded by the WHO, suppressed by them prior to publication, and then leaked, constitutes a usable source. Additional opinions would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: Eckhart Tolle article: "The Power of Now" was actually first published in 1998 by Namaste Publishing according to Eckhart in the foreword in more recent editions of the book. According to Tolle in his book, it was later published under copyright in 1999 by by New World Library. However the New York Times gives the 1999 publishing as the first date of publication. What to do? Include info from both sources?. -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The last time I searched for "twitter discussions" here it was one of those grey areas. Some people thought it was fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject. The only thing that people seem to have a problem with is of course a lot of accounts can be fake. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts and it will display "verified" on their page.
For example, Law & Order: SVU showrunner Neal Baer has posted via his twitter account upcoming episodes and airdates, only to be changed by NBC the order which they air. So it is posted on the Law & Order: SVU season 11 page as "The air date for what was initially intended to be the season's seventh episode, "Anchor" on November 4, 2009, was going to be moved to December 2, 2009, but was ultimately moved to December 9th. This episode will now be the tenth episode in the season's lineup." and cites his twitter feed as a reference. Apparently just to have a twitter cite raises red flags. Even though Neal doesn't have his account "verified", his twitter feed has been posted on the NBC website. I figured, I guess as in my opinion, that Neal is the showrunner who decides what order episodes are 'planed' to run, but NBC ultimately decides 'when' they air, he is at LEAST notable enough to be referenced.
Another scenario: I cleaned up the Resident Evil: Afterlife page and someone had posted that filming began on 9-29-09 (which was unsourced, and I tried to add the only source available for that, aceshowbiz.com, but it's blacklisted), and then someone put that Milla Jovovich finished her scenes on 12-11-09, which was taken from her twitter feed. I removed it. I don't know, it seems since Twitter has become such a big thing now, one would think it may be considered a RS on these certain occasions, especially when reliable websites re-post the twitter feed. What does everyone think about this? Thanks. -- Mike Allen 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that twitter is not to be used at all, as for celebs posting things only on twitter..if they are worth reporting they will be reported by better sources soon enough.. have a look at this the reason they are all doing it . Personally, I would remove any links to twitter if I found them. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's Christmas Eve, but my daughter has taken over the HD tv with the hard disc, and I just found this. I don't expect a quick response. This article is relying heavily on email for its sources, I'm not sure what to do about it. See the talk page also for what someone did last year. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Is Medscape considered a WP:RS and, specifically, is this educational review (which gives Continuing Medical Education credits to physicians) considered a RS? Basket of Puppies 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I am currently in a dispute with User:Cyrussullivan about the reliability of a source. He insists that linking to a website that publishes names of purported sufferers of herpes, HIV and Hepatitis C is perfectly acceptable and a reliable source. The website is http://stdcarriers.com/famouspeople/celebrities-genitalherpes-1.aspx (that's the herpes site.)
It's not a reliable source. Anyone who registers on the site can place the name of someone who they think has one of the STDs and it's published. It states on the page that: "The sources of the reports are responsible for the validity of the information contained in the reports and any conclusions that can be derived from that information." They are not taking responsibility for the reports on their site.
The other thing that bothers me is they have a "False STD Report Removal Page" in which they urge a person who is listed to get their name removed by doing the following:
"7. Go to a doctor’s office and get tested for the Sexually Transmitted Disease (or Diseases) in some cases that you were reported for having. For Genital Herpes (Herpes Simplex Virus 2 - HSV2), Hepatitis C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) this can be done with a simple blood test that will detect antibodies if you are infected, if your results are clean then the profile will be removed. For HPV and Genital Warts there is no blood test, but they can be frequently detected by other means, clean screening results for either will be satisfactory for the removal of a profile.
8. Have your doctor send your clean test results in an official sealed envelope to:
STDCarriers.com
P.O. Box 86448
Portland, OR 97286
9. Contact us to let us know that test results are on their way. This will cause the post office box to be checked more frequently.
10. When we receive and review the test results the report will be removed as soon as possible and you will receive the I.P. Address information necessary to help you track down the person responsible."
Guilty until proven innocent, anyone? Comments, please? -- Manway ( talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you may think about the user submission sections, STD Carrier Registry and Forum my contributions only involved lists that I compiled from personal research involving variations of Celebrities with STDs and People Arrested for Criminal HIV Transmission. I conceded that some of the celebrity profiles used tabloids as sources, but the list of criminals is legit. I know this because I own the website and personally researched those reports myself. The real issue here seems to be my insistence that the criminals list be included in Criminal transmission of HIV. Even thought I only have about 60 people listed in that section it is already the largest centralized list of people who have been charged with crimes involving criminal HIV transmission. I believe that due to it's uniqueness that it should be included in that section. It is a far more reliable source for information on people arrested for crimes involving HIV transmission than Wikipedia itself at this time since it only lists 6 people in List of HIV Positive People. -- Cyrussullivan ( talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As for the Biographies of Living Persons Policies I don't see how a link to STD Carriers is any different than links to Rip Off Report located in the RipOffReport.com article and Don't Date Him Girl located in the Don't Date Him Girl Article-- Cyrussullivan ( talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for a reliable source which mentions Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as the originator of the Negroni cocktail. I have been removing the statement because a few editors which claim to be descendants of Pascal insist on adding it with references I believe to be unreliable at best. Today an admin has protected the page because I have removed statements which do not meet WP:V. Am I wrong in thinking these are unreliable? Is there a reliable source for this? To me, these are just forums and blogs, not verifiable sources.
These are the references that the admin who protected the page has given:
http://chanticleersociety.org/forums/t/820.aspx
http://ohgo.sh/archive/campari-take-four/
http://everydaydrinking.wordpress.com/tag/negroni/
-
Chromatikoma (
talk) 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:::There are a number of newspaper articles making the claim listed here.
[36] Most of them require paying for, though I might be able to some for free if you send me an email that I can respond to.--
Slp1 (
talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Forget it. Did not realize that Pascal was the issue! I'm not that impressed by the Hampton.com ref; hopefully there is something better out. --
Slp1 (
talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I was looking at Wikipedia to inform myself about climate change. I was surprised to see the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change page note that there is no notable dissenting scientific organization. Since then I surveyed the field and found that this is at least one notable contrarian organization, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). A few days ago, I attempted to balance the above said topic, with note of this significant-minority opinion, but the edits were soon undone. It became clear from the now-frozen discussion that we could not reach a consensus on whether this organization deserved to be mentioned. A number of other wikipedia users tried, like me, to get specific criticism regarding this organization with regards to the wikipedia guidelines (reliability of work, authors and publisher) from the users blocking this addition, to little success as you can see in the discussion. Those opposing users tried to articulate a rationale, but only provided vague or unsubstantiated explanations (biased, "unscientific", not "official" enough, etc.). In my opinion (as 1996 alumni of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France), the NIPCC synthesis report published in 2009 is scientific in nature, backed by several renowned scientists with expertise in the required fields, and includes falsifiable claims and properly documented sources and published references. Again, it is clear that it represents a minority opinion in the scientific community, but claiming that "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion" (in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) does not provide a neutral and accurate representation. Please advise on the inclusion of this source. Julien Couvreur ( talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be flippant, but I was a bit shocked. Time was when you had to be very good indeed at Latin to get into the Ecole Polytechnique. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What are the criteria for the NIPCC to become a reliable source? From what I have read it appears that it has been decided already that you will never under any circumstances allow a scientific group to be recognized if it opposes the IPCC. You never base the rejection of the group on merit, but on your own personal opinions. If I am wrong then please explain what needs to happen for the NIPCC to included instead of excluded.
I found an [ interview done at a forum, and wanted to be sure it would be considered a RS or not before adding it to an article. The only forum-related rules I could find seemed to apply to posts by users rather than conducted interviews. Registration is required to view the interview. Ω pho is 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I entered a request for resolution about the RPOV status of a respected Chiropractic publication, which is the largest circulation in our field. I now have an edit war going on where someone has removed the word "Founder" of an International Federation I clearly and can prove I founded, and will not see a Front page article showing me as founder, receiving the Gold Medal from the Board exactly for all the work I did in founding that federation. Why? We one editor who has challenged virtually EVERY article I can find on my field (I really don't think its a matter of principle), now claims that this CINAHL listed journal is not reliable enough for this. If this journal is not a RPOV for this, then its not an RPOV for anything and virtually ALL articles on any Chiropractic subject will have to be re-written. I need a resolution, and no one really responded to my previous request. If nothing happens here, what is the next step in resolution of this? Please help! Д-р СДжП,ДС 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There's been a prolonged discussion between myself and crossmr in Talk:Asian fetish#Asian fetish regarding http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/jan/07/gran-torino-is-vintage-viewing/ Crossmr takes the position that richmond.com in general is a reliable source equivalent to Time and the New York Times "The sites usage is in line with other sources like Time, or the New York Times," and that this quote "(By the way, what's up with Eastwood's late-blooming Asian fetish?)" is a reliable source regarding the meaning and usage of "Asian fetish."
Defining how Ward is using the word in the absence of any dictionary definition based on how some other authors appear to use the word strikes me as a form of “novel syntheses of disparate material” per RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. I think we can personally draw some inferences regarding how he’s using it for our own selves (like, he is not using it in the sexual sense), but our inference is not anything we can actually write into a Wikipedia article.
The word is a neologism, not in any dictionary that I could find other than Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary where there is no attestation, and the word has a limited (albeit not completely rare) degree of usage going back perhaps twenty years or so, perhaps more. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms states “The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people” and “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.” Crossmr’s trying to determine Wood’s own definition for the word “constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research.” Wood’s use is not a reliable source for a neologism per that guideline because “To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.” Wood could at best be considered a secondary source about the movie ‘‘Gran Torino’’ that he was reviewing. However, Wood was merely using the term “Asian fetish,” and barely at that.
I also noted how Wood’s use of the term doesn’t meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline#General notability guideline regarding “Significant coverage,” “that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” I also noted WP:JARGON which states in relevant part “Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning"; that crossmr appeared to be combining a technical usage (the various academic sources I cited on the talk page such as Hamamoto) with a layperson's usage (Wood’s). With regard to crossmr’s claim regarding "the word fetish [having] also lost meaning in modern terms," that sounded like original research too; I don't see a source for it.
I also don’t understand why it has become necessary to post to this noticeboard about it, but crossmr was incredulous that I was raising these issues and said I should "If you can't accept that a site [richmond.com] owned by a news organization which has a full staff of editors and managers isn't a reliable source, then you should take it to RSN, because that more than meets our definition of a reliable source." (Richmond.com is "more than" reliable than the reliable sources included in the definition of reliable source like The New York Times or Cambridge University Press?) Also, that was hardly the sole RS issue I was raising with respect to using Wood's mentioning "Asian fetish" in a movie review on Richmond.com. And as I noted at Talk:Asian fetish, there are more reliable sources than Richmond.com/Mark Wood for the non-sexual use of “Asian fetish” meaning simply “liking Asians or Asian things” that would probably be agreeable to everyone. However, such a reliable source would just something that can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If that is all the article is to be about, then this would be just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If one is not going to assume good faith, then I suppose it could appear that I dislike defining “Asian fetish/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia” as mere liking and that I want only the sexist definition included (or even that I am personally racist and/or sexist?). I disagree and hope that this is not the case. As a definition of "Asiaphile/Asiaphilia" "liking" makes sense by analogy to Anglophile and others. I do happen to think that it is misleading and at best silly to define "Asian fetish" as mere liking or preference, but clearly those uses exist and as I’d repeatedly said, could be mentioned, it’s simply that there’s not much to be said about them AFAICS and nobody has shown how it could be expanded beyond a mere dicdef if the sexual meaning were excluded, or if only the dicdefs of both meanings were included. The coverage of the sexual use is more extensive and potentially (but not necessarily) substantive enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't see what other options the article has (hence my starting an RfC for the article and the other help inquiries noted in that section).
Given that it appears there are more reliable sources for the “liking” definition, continuing to argue in favor of the use of Wood in the article seems pointless, tendentious and disruptive. I would not continue to argue against it except that the capacity to believe that Wood’s quote is a reliable source would seem to indicate an underlying problem not limited to this individual issue. I suppose it may be overkill to go into this much detail here describing the dispute, but the fact the discussion has been so protracted there would appear to indicate there’s a fundamental, broad problem of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources on somebody’s part, if not crossmr’s then mine. One or the other or both of us, as well as perhaps other Wikipedia editors might benefit if some informed editors weighed in on this. Sincere thanks! Шизомби ( talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me broaden the request far beyond the query on Wood's use of "Asian fetish" in a movie review on Richmond.com to all the sources which have been identified in the article or given on the talk page or any not named there anyone here can find; to the topic as a whole. There does not appear to be any dictionaries or encyclopedias with entries for "Asian fetish/asiaphile/asiaphilia." There do not appear to be any books on the subject. There do not appear to be any articles directly about the subject. There are articles and other sources that use the word in passing without discussing the word or underlying topic, and there appear to be some that offer some degree of discussion of the topic, but not very extensive.
Thank you for any help you can provide. Шизомби ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Richmond.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and the author does not appear to be an expert on the topic. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the Sahara Reporters about us page.
Using an anonymous byline, "Sahara Reporters, New York", they are reporting information on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from anonymous sources which is being added to his Wikipedia article.
It appears to be self-published material. It also appears to have been picked up without independent verification by Modern Ghana which in turn is indexed by Google News
I know there's been discussion on social networking sites here, but can someone point me to where on WP:RS, or its related policy pages, where it says that relying on social networking sites is not permitted unless a given page can be verified as the official one actually belonging to the subject in question? Someone is trying to add material to an article by relying on a Facebook page, and when I cited WP:RS, he pointed out that it makes no mention of this. Nightscream ( talk) 06:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on Dār al-Shurūq publishing and whether it is a reputable peer-reviewed source or by well-regarded academic presses. Respectfully.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen books removed as references before from articles with the edit summary, "Self-published book," but couldn't figure out how the removing editor knew that. I'm thinking of purchasing this book ( author's website) to use for the Bering Strait crossing article with the goal of preparing it for FA nomination, but don't want to acquire it if it turns out to be self-published and not a reliable source. How can I tell? Cla68 ( talk) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I only found one reference to it in InfoTrac, a small blurb about the release of the book in Alaska Business Monthly. It appears to be very close to being self-published. I think I will acquire a copy, but try to only use it as a source where it cites another, more reliable work, and note in the footnotes that the publisher appears to be linked to the author. Great advice, everyone, thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Recently some information was made available. The owner of the information said that the material "appears" to have been stolen. The owner refers to "theft" and "illegally taken" in relation to the unauthorised publication of the material. The police are involved and they have confirmed they are investigated crimes. The newspapers have reported that a theft has occurred, that information was stolen.
The WP article on the subject refers repeatedly to the "theft" as if it were a matter of fact.
Whereas the information released/taken/leaked/hacked/stolen has appeared this does not mean a theft has occurred. Birth of the baby does not prove rape.
A number of editors do not accept that the police investigation is a good enough WP:RS that the crime occurred. Neither is the victim. And the newspapers do not claim to know anything other than what the owner and the police have told them. Partly as a consequence of this the name of the article is being changed by consensus to remove "hacking" from the title - how the info was released is just unknown.
The article is a controversial one: Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. I refer you in particular to Q5 of the FAQ for the article at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/FAQ.
I ask for advice on the narrow point - is it correct to refer to "theft" as if it were one before this is established? Especially when there are very real alternatives. The info could have been deliberately leaked by an insider, this is highly unlikely to result in a charge of theft. I am in favour of the terms "alleged theft" or "unauthorised release".
Thanks for your time and opinion.
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 05:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Short version: Those who want to keep at "theft" say it should be that, rather than "alleged theft" because the victim says so, the police are "investigating theft" and the newspapers, quoting no further sources, say "theft" and "stolen". I am saying none of these are WP:RS, in this instance. It should be "alleged theft" and that WP:RS agrees with me. Comment? Paul Beardsell ( talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
In Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ, User:Psb777 disagrees with the inclusion of a short, neutrally worded summary of what has been said by the University of East Anglia, RealClimate and Norfolk Constabulary concerning two incidents of hacking and a subsequent police investigation. Psb777 argues that the university, RealClimate and the police are not reliable sources for their statements concerning the affair. He has posted his personal opinion of the affair here. He speculates about a "leak by an insider" but has cited no reliable source whatsoever for this - it is speculation that has been put about by bloggers. The material with which Psb777 wishes replaced these statements is an unsourced, speculative personal commentary with an overt slant towards one POV, which obviously breaches original research, verifiability and NPOV.
Of these three sources, the police statement is a verbatim quote via a third party source. The university is a major British public institution and RealClimate is a collective work of established experts (climate scientists) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
There is no conceivable reliable sourcing issue with the police statement, since it comes via a third party (as far as I know the police have not actually published their own statement). Technically the university's statement is a self-published source, but I think we would have to consider a major public institution to be a reliable source for its own affairs. RealClimate's statement on the hacking of its own server is quoted under WP:SELFPUB's rubric of being a reliable source of information about itself. The university and RealClimate statements have been widely reported by third parties.
I would be grateful for feedback from uninvolved editors about whether these sources are reliable sources for information on their own affairs. -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had started to worry about that too, the top of the article says This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. Should we remove this discussion to this page's Talk page? Perhaps Chris and I could each agree to prepare a 250 word statement stating what the disagrement is, and then leave it that. The water is being muddied now with different issues, a separate incidents at other computers are now being introduced have no direct bearing on the matter I raise. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest this AP/Independent article is a reliable source for "stolen". Quote: "The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month." -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As an involved editor, I choose not comment on the "theft" vs "alleged theft" issue, but I would like to point out the "insider" versus "outsider" issue. We have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld [50], Reuters [51] and PC World [52] which which quote an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News [53], CNET [54], MSNBC [55], eWeek [56], InfoWorld [57], USA Today [58] and many, many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [59] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A book by Ion Mihai Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption, published by Regnery Publishing is being used to source speculation that Yasser Arafat was a homosexual. The book (page 36 paperback, viewable on amazon (search hyena)) contains a passage about a conversation with Constantin Munteanu, a Romanian intelligence officer, in which Munteanu says that Arafat was having sex with his bodyguard. Is this a reliable source to say that either Arafat was homosexual or that there are rumors that he was homosexual? nableezy - 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, this seems to be an offhand remark, phrased as hearsay, about Arafat in a book on a totally different topic. Do any serious or respectable biographes of Arafat himself raise the issue of homosexuality? If not, it seems (at the very least) extreme undue weight to include the claim on the basis of a few sentences from a non-mainstream publisher's book on Nicolae Ceaucescu. MastCell Talk 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
On Regnery, not "Red Horizons": Regnery Publishing is a major mainstream American publisher which is up front with its ideological orientation: conservative. There is no basis for subjecting its books to different scrutiny from what is given to books from Random House or Harper and Row which also publish books of political advocacy. patsw ( talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do we have any views about the suitability of http://www.worldstatesmen.org as a source?
Is UK TV Guide a reliable source for Aaron Johnson's date of birth? Nightscream ( talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I indeed looked for other sources, and that was the best that I could find. Thanks.
I'm not sure but I'm wondering that would the Royal forums be good enough to be classed as a reliable source for sourcing royal wealth and things like that? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 12:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a general question from a reliable source dispute that arose at Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page. User:Wifione has been arguing that this article should not be considered WP:RS because it is "self-published". And it is supposedly "self-published" because the writer is also the publisher of the magazine Outlook, otherwise a reputed and well-known magazine in India, an undeniably RS. So my question is, in general, does the owner or publisher or editor of an RS media entity writing in it constitute a "self-published source"? I personally don't think so. But wanted to know the opinions of others. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 14:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A lengthy dispute has been raging on the talk page of the Yom Kippur War article. An editor ( User:Jiujitsuguy or JG) sees the current article (FA-class since 2005) as riddled with false information and completely biased, a fantasy tale of the war.
Among his objections is that an Arabic-language source being used in the article be removed altogether. His argument is that information cited to Arabic-language sources are not verifiable by the English reader and by editors as well.
However, the source cannot simply be disregarded on basis of language. Naturally, use of such source can be sanctioned under WP:V, which states that English language sources are preferred, but non-English sources are allowed when an English equivalent is not available. JG counters that there are a wealth of English-language sources that cover the battle. However it's not as simple as that, and here's why.
The vast majority of English-language sources on the war are Israeli-authored or Western-authored but Israeli based. The consequence is that these books rely very little or not at all on Arabic sources, and are generally pro-Israeli. This is so because, firstly, many sources on the Arab POV are only in the Arabic-language and secondly, because some English-translated Arabic sources were so unreliable and dishonest that they tarnished all Arabic sources and caused them to be grouped together as fantasy accounts.
The book in question is Military Battles on the Egyptian Front, authored by Egyptian Gamal Hammad, first published in 1989. The book relies on a large number of Arabic, Israeli and Western sources, which is unprecedented as Western and Israeli books had relied almost entirely on Israeli sources while Arab sources usually disregarded the Israeli POV as well. It also relies on a large number of Arab primary documents and sources made available to Hammad thanks to his position, as well as a considerable amount of interviews conducted with Egyptians involved with the war. The book was completed following five years of research on a war which did not exceed a month in duration. It is by far the largest work on the war from any author at 900 pages (in fact, this book represents volume two of an encyclopedia he authored on the war, with volume one, some 600 pages long, discussing the war on both fronts). He is currently used extensively in Operation Badr (1973), and to some degree in Battle of Suez and very little in the Yom Kippur War article.
Hammad's book represents a crucial element towards balancing the article and helping it achieve NPOV-ness, since most of the other sources are Israeli-based. Also, the book has many characteristics and features that have no English-language equivalent, such as drawing greatly from Arabic sources while also relying on sources detailing opposite POV. The fact that thus far no English-language equivalent exists, and that no translation has thus far been made, it is necessary to use this book. Disregarding it would mean reliance on pro-Israeli or Israeli-based sources and would be in contradiction of NPOV and the sanctions applied in general to articles of relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies.
I need Hammad's book to be either passed as a reliable or non-reliable source for the Yom Kippur War article in order to reach a definitive conclusion to the tiresome and unending dispute over his use. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
@Squidfryer: The author once served in the army, but by the time of the war he was not. He was not involved in the war in any way at the time, so this rules out that he is a primary source. I can't find any translations, but if you can, by all means. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
PS., Sorry for the long read people. :-) -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Are sources RS unless proven otherwise? Or the other way around? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the reasoning behind knowing for what kind of information is the Arabic source used to cite. Could someone enlighten me?
@JG: Which English sources are you referring to exactly? Schiff? Herzog? The London Sunday Times? Rabinovich? I don't think so. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I doubt you've even made an attemopt to read those books but I was actually referring to two different publications
I tried Google translate and it was worthless.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true to some extent but why place additional barriers? It's one thing to ask someone to go to his nearest library and an entirely different matter to get a personal translator-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Well not everyone has a nearby library with English sources. Hence I do not have access to many of the sources you use, but that does not give me right to object their use on the basis that I can't verify them. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In case where the Arabic source disagrees, it should be used. In other cases, we can just use the existing English source, and if a claim can be further backed up with the Arabic source... why not? Obviously however, it would be preferable to suffice with the English source. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And I mean it should be used in addition to the English source. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that better decided by collaboration on the article talk page? Where information that is cited to an Arabic source and can be cited to an English source, sees the non-Arabic source citation being replaced by the English one? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think non-English sources should be used regardless of the situation. Perhaps an exception would be a basic undeniable fact that is undisputed, in which case an English source will suffice. However I don't see the why a non-English source cannot be used to supplement an English source, all the more so when there is dispute over an issue, and certain English as well as the non-English source agree on a particular position. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Then, to reach a definite end to this matter. A non-English source may be used regardless of the situation, except, as I stated, when it is related to a basic, undeniable fact, in which case a single English source may be used per normal practice. The non-English source may be used to support an English source and vice versa, particularly if there is dispute over the matter among various sources. The non-English source may also be used on its own. Per consensus reached here, the non-English source in question, Military Battles on the Egyptian Front by Gamal Hammad, is usable in the article per WP:NONENG and WP:NPOV and is WP:RS. Any objections or comments? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
the book in qustion is: The Muslim Empire and the Land of Gold
the book is a controversial politcal book about the "life and battles of the prophet muhammad" created by an Author rodney phillips, who is a critic of islam.who's work has been referenced in many websites which are critical of Islam, such as islamwatch,Jihadwatch,WikiIslam,Answering Islam e.t.c
I have been in an edit dispute with a user who says his book is not reliable and can not be used. i have only used his book to give opinions.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not used his book as a source which is reliable, but only as an "Authors opinion"
I have been in a dispute with a user Cathar11.he does not understand the concept of authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . he keeps remving references saying that they are not reliable. I discuss with him and told him that even if it is not reliable, it can be used as an "authors opinion".-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been giving the statement of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)
the stament i used is below
I have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"
but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.
he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.
in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.
But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !
he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons he claims it is not reliable is because it is published by a company called AEG. he says that this company scams it authors and is involved in many court cases.
i have told him it does not matter wether the Publisher ripps of its Authors. It is only the Author that matters, and the reliability should not be judged based on the publisher.
I have told him that even i dont consider the book that reliable. It has a loot of opinions, but i have said that i only used it as a reference to give the "opinion of the ciritcs of islam"
Question: am i correct in using this for authors opinion?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
and here is the edit history: the user reverts everything and avoids discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad_and_assassinations&action=history
It is published by AEG Publishing Group which is a self pulishing scam [64]. Anything sourced to books published by them is unreliable. They operate a scam on authors. it is operated by Robert M. Fletcher of Boca Raton, Florida. As a result of a public consumer-related investigation, the Florida Attorney General has filed suit for fraud against Robert Fletcher, Writers’ Literary Agency, and the associated businesses.details here [65] and [66]. In a court case Fletcher brought for defamation about internet articles on his frauds it emmerged that "over time, Fletcher used over ten names for publishing operations under the umbrella of the AEG Publishing Group. Basically, Fletcher and LAG were running a fraud by charging fees for all services while falsely giving hope to the authors that Fletcher and LAG would find a publisher for their book." They have now changed their name (again!) to Strategic Book Group.
The author of the book is a fringe conspiracist. See his blog [67] as an explanation. He is not an expert on history, not notable and definitely not a reliable source. Cathar11 ( talk) 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a thorny question... for a statement as to the author's opinions, this source is reliable... however, we are then faced with another question: is the author's opinion noteworthy (not the same as "notable") enough to be mentioned? That depends on who the author is..., his credentials and his expertise. Some opinions should be mentioned... others should not... see WP:Undue weight. Blueboar ( talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To answer that question I think it's necessary for folks to quote other people, those who support Phillips' opinions, and those that refute them, and let everyone judge the quality of the people who have weighed in on Phillips -- are they fringe, mainstream, well-established, off-the-wall, etc. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its notable as many websites such as islamwatch,Answering islam, Wiki islam,Jihadwatch. and all sorts of websites which are critical of islam refer to his book.many critics of islam endorse his views. his view represents the view of many critics as they have referenced him on their website. so by refering to him and refering to the views of critics from all sorts of websites.
here is a website that copied entire sections of his book(since it has limited view status on google books) and put it on their sites Islam monitor. here is another website Islamwatch, and faithfreedom , a famous anti islam website use it to. i could use those other websites as references wich use rodney phillips, and not Rodney Phillips book itself. if i used those other 50+ websites as references. does that mean they are no reliable. as it is an opinion shared by many critics-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
How about posting some links to rock-solid reliable sources, something like tenured and published professors at well-known universities, or historians considered to be authorities in this area, supporting Phillips' views, either wholly or in part (or, on the other side, the same kind of authoritative sources debunking his opinions)? That would go a long way to being able to determine if Phillips is a source Wikipedia should rely on. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) There are two seperate issues here. For a source to be used for facts, it needs to be a reliable source. To include an author's opinions in an article, it needs to be determined if the inclusion of those opinions gives too much weight to a fringe viewpoint, which would then skew the balance of the article. Both of those factors require that the editors of Wikipedia get some sense of the quality of the opinions, and the best way to do that is to provide the kind of references I requested above: the opinions and viewpoints of rock-solid reliable source: historians, professors, nationally recognized newspapers and magazines, and so on. It's not enough to say that so and so is a critic of Islam and his opinions are echoed and repeated by other critics of Islam, we have to know if that school of criticism is well-founded or fringy.
So far, we're pretty much going around in circles -- if you want these views to be included in articles, you're going to need to do a little more work at supporting them with recognized sources, otherwise they're probably going to be excluded as being WP:FRINGE. (You should probably read and understand both WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE before you post again - speed of response isn't important here, the quality of information is.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where to comment in the midst of all this mess, and I am also unsure how much weight Misconceptions2 will give to my comment. My greatest concern is that the user claims that he is using only author's opinion whereas he is just giving a lot of undue weight to fringe theories. For example, in the Battle of Hamra al-Asad article he included Some critics of Islam refer to this incident as terrorism in the lead section with 4 inline citations. Of those 4, one was the book in question and the other 3 did not have any mention of the incident in question. Also he seems to have this strange fascination with looking at every incident in Islamic history and tagging it with the terrorism claim with little support from reliable sources -- Raziman T V ( talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record the book is used as a source 12 times in Muhammad and assassinations, predominantly as a source of fact. They are all tagged now with unreliable source? - Cathar11 ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a content dispute taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning.
The big problem centers on different understandings of WP:V. One side says that since Wikipedia is about verifiability (information supported by reliable sources) rather than a pursuit of truth, information about both numbers should be included. The other side states that one number having more sources to support it makes it the only verifiable figure.
I am hoping that we can get some outside input from people familiar with policies on reliable sources: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This site's reliability was discussed here previously, but I don't think any clear consensus was reached on its value as a secondary source. I think there was strong consensus in its value for collecting primary source materials, but I'm hoping to get a better sense of its use secondarily.-- otherl left 16:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) x2
The New York Daily News makes routine use of material from TSG. See http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/TheSmokingGun.com patsw ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
TSG is both a secondary source and a host of primary-sourced materials. If it makes statements in it's own voice, those statements are secondary sources. I do not comment on their reliability or notability. They also host documents. Those documents are primary sources. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable sources, but they are not acceptable for information about people who are relatively unknown, and should be used with greater care with respect to people who are well-known. Specific examples would lead to specific answers. Hipocrite ( talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)