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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
A very long page using repeatedly a book by Ralph Anspach which is self-published [1] (last paragraph) including as the first reference. Anspach is described as a fanatic ("We were fanatics," says Mr. Walker [2]) and has had major legal actions against the makers of Monopoly and website is still mainly an attack against monopoly and its makers [3]]
While the facts could be true, it clearly is not a RS and in my opinion should not be used as a source to verify facts but there is opposition to this.
The page has many other problems such as duplication and lines about Anti-Monopoly current trading status that is not well sourced and other sources regard as a self-published game. Tetron76 ( talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is one that is being used as a source for 2011 Libyan uprising. I see that these are being used often in this article; I think they are useless for an Encyclopedia but maybe I am wrong? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a partison source also being used. What I am getting thusfar is that these are ok to use as Reliable Sources as long as there is consensus for doing so at the individual articles? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Article:
List of vegetarians
Source:
http://brooklynology.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/post/2010/07/22/Little-Known-Brooklyn-Residents-eden-ahbez.aspx
Edit:
[4]
I'm interested in your thoughts as to the reliability status of the source of the above for the claim that eden ahbez was vegetarian. The source itself is the official blog for the library so probably a primary source rather an an SPS. The author of the piece is a research assistant who works for the Brooklyn Collection. It looks well researched, but I'm unsure of the level editorial oversight and whether it qualifies as an RS. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Normally I would unhesitantly accept anything coming from the NYT as an RS. However, this page says that info is taken from "All Movie Guide" and that source I do not know. It is being used to source some fairly grandiose claims, which may well be true (although if they are, I don't really see why the guy himself is putting in all this effort to get a WP bio...), but we need good sourcing for that. I'm not very well at home on the topic of movies (just stumbled upon this one when patrolling new pages), so more opinions will be appreciated. -- Crusio ( talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On Rima Fakih, Facebook is used as the source for her birthday. I've noticed more and more users citing Facebook as a source for birth dates on BLPs. My question is: Is it ok to use Facebook as a self-published, primary source? My second question: If Facebook can be used as self-published, primary source for birth dates, do they have to be visible to everyone? The reason why I ask is becuse, in some cases, birth dates are only visible to the person's friends. Is there a guideline that deals with birth dates and facebook? Thanks in advance for any guidance on this issue. -- John KB ( talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's say I have a fictional character who has officially licensed toys, for instance the Transformers character Rodimus. He's a character from comic books, tv shows and movies, but also a toy. The toy box gives fictional facts about the character not in any particular media (how fast he can drive, his function among the Autobots). Is the official toy box blurb a reliable source for fictional facts about the fictional character? ...and if so what is a proper way to cite them? Mathewignash ( talk) 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.tvguide.co.uk/?p=4192 is used as a source for the title ("Demon's Run") of forthcoming episode seven of the sixth series of Doctor Who ( see here for the diffs). It's understandable to assume that this is the UK site of the US TV Guide magazine, but it isn't. http://www.tvguide.co.uk/aboutus.asp reads "Over a decade ago we had a dream that everyone would search and watch TV online, so we registered the domain name TVGuide.co.uk. Ten years later this vision has become a reality and TVGuide.co.uk has flourished as the UK's favourite Interactive Programming Guide. TVguide.co.uk site is run and managed by Imano the ecommerce and online marketing agency." There's nothing there to suggest a journalistic pedigree and their content consists of a blog, some episode guides, a twitter feed and UK TV listings. In the absence of an official announcement from the BBC about the episode titles, I think for a source to be reliable on this we have to be confident that they have access to the production team, I don't think that's the case here - it can only be a site repeating a rumour. What makes things worse is that that blog entry was published on March 10th, the same day as the issue of Doctor Who Magazine (#422) came out with a column from the show runner, Steven Moffat, in which he said that "Demons Run" was a working title and it would be changed before broadcast. That's maybe more of a content dispute issue - but it suggests to me that we have to be certain about the reliability of a source that contradicts this. Talk page discussion: Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Edit request from Adfilmstudios, 17 March 2011. Maccy69 ( talk) 08:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is forthesound.com a reliable source? Specifically this review for inclusion in article about Broadway (Band). While the site looks professional, the journalists are unpaid freelancers (see here). This is relating to an AfD discussion here. Where would the website stand? Cheers. Postrock1 ( talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently involved with the Cow urine article, which concerns the uses in alternative medicine of said urine. Since medical claims are being made at least some (if not all) of the page is covered by WP:MEDRS (I think). One of the contributors is citing a number of different studies from journals with which I am not familiar in support of these medicinal claims. I'd like some advice on the status of the journals (particularly with respect to peer review). I'm happy to go and bug the guys at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if that's a more appropriate place. Journals concerned are:
The final three journals have been referenced in a couple of US issued patents for cow urine related products. Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
See [12] - it includes links to copies of posts to Usenet, eg the copyvio here [13] and a lot of other stuff that is copyvio. I haven't found anything not copyvio that looks like a reliable source and if there is anything it should be directly linked. Dougweller ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Would the additional text preserved in the late Slavonic text of Josephus' book The Jewish War be considered a reliable source for the subjects related to early Christianity which it discusses or not? John Carter ( talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of Intelius before an editor used it to replace my citation for Rosalind Chao's birthdate here. I'm previously using Yahoo! Movies and The New York Times as reliable sources to cite a YOB of 1959, while it appears that the Intelius website only claims to have an age of 53 without any further corroboration. Thoughts or suggestions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Libyan state media is confirmed to be part of the government's propaganda machine. Should their claims of civilian casualties from the ongoing no-fly zone still be included in articles, or omitted as probable propaganda? Swarm X 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't we use Clapperboards as a source of information. I used information in a clapperboard to edit Season 3 of White Collar. The picture of the clapperboard was provided by the official Twitter account of Jeff Eastin ( http://www.twitter.com/JeffEastin), the creator of White Collar.
An image of the clipperboard can be found here: ( http://twitpic.com/49g78n/full).
As I have ample experience in the film industry, I inferred that the first episode of Season 3 of White Collar is being directed by Russell Lee Fine and written by Jeff Eastin, while the particular shot is being shot on March 14, 2011.
Users Xeworlebi and Dr. Margi brushed off my information saying they were an unreliable source.
Before asking them to nullify their mistakes, I just want to confirm whether Clapperboards are a reliable and verifiable source of information.
DailyEditor
DailyEditor ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor recently enquired as to why I pulled a name from the List of vegetarians which was sourced through this: http://www.search.com/reference/Krist_Novoselic#_note-2. The article itself seems to be transcluded from Wikipedia itself from about three years ago: [14]. I pulled it on the basis of it being a circular reference. The editor contested my view since the vegetarian fact was clearly attributable to another source within the article. However, my rationale is that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be sourced anyway, so whether the fact is attributable to a reliable source shouldn't have any bearing on the matter because the policy/guideline should have been created with this in mind; so I would like to clarify my action in regards to this matter.
However it set me thinking about the possibilities of simply copying over the reference. Obviously this shouldn't be done in the case of older versions of an article because the fact may have been pulled on the basis that it wasn't corroborated by the source. But in the cases of current sourced claims, would it be legitimate to copy over a source? This is normally frowned upon as a reference practice i.e. if you reference something, you are expected to corroborate the source. However, it is a Wikipedia policy to WP:Assume good faith; essentially that means if an editor hasn't behaved in an underhand way we should should trust his interpretation of a source unless we have seen it and can directly challenge it. That is, if an editor sources a claim that someone is vegetarian through a reliable source, then AGF compels us to accept the claim until we have reason not to. In such cases, it seems to me AGF implicitly suggests that it is acceptable to duplicate claims along with the references, because by not doing we would be doubting the authenticity of the claim and the corroborating source. In view of that, I was wondering what the general view on intra-Wikipedia source copying is. Do we permit, ban it, frown upon it and look the other way...? Betty Logan ( talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Two editors with short edit histories are tag-teaming inserting a reference to a blog ( see here) into PLoS ONE. I have removed this several times as blogs generally are not considered reliable sources, but despite all appearances, I don't want to call this vandalism (yet..), so I am hesitating to cross 3RR here. Perhaps some other editors can have a look whether this is an RS and whether its insertion into this article is justified. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the info I removed here, which has been reinstated, and is now up for discussion on the talk page here.
I don't want to edit-war over it, so we really do need more, independent input into the discussion, if at all possible.
Thanks, Chzz ► 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
(also asking on WikiProject Business Chzz ► 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
Please could any further discussion be on Talk:New Media Strategies. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This one I know nothing about. But using it to cite claims or using their interview in fictional character articles. Is this a reliable source? I want everyone to look into this one, lots of opinions please. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The World's Oldest People WikiProject has been advised to seek the guidance of RS-savvy editors on this noticeboard. I've put a "more citations needed" template on the List of the verified oldest people article. I've put my rationale on the article talk page, here. Would some editors who've wrestled with this sort of thing please look at the page and the talk page thread and then venture some guidance, please? Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
All text originating from sources in the Polish language has been removed from Rape during the liberation of Poland as unreliable in a string of edits by User:Fifelfoo. My question is, whether the blanking of content in this manner, is acceptable under the claim of WP:RS policy. Here are the examples:
All text, referenced to Polityka weekly, a renowned Polish magazine with a circulation of 170,000 (intellectual, social liberal profile) has been removed entirely by User:Fifelfoo with the edit summary: unreliable source: two page opinion piece by: non-experts in a non-peer reviewed newspaper. [20] The article was written by Joanna Ostrowska from Krytyka Polityczna and Marcin Zaremba, a historian at Warsaw University. Please note that many articles are at stake if articles published in Polityka by professional historians are declared unreliable.
Likewise, all text originating from an interview with Andrzej Chwalba, Professor of history at the Jagiellonian University (and its prorector), conducted in Kraków by journalist Rita Pagacz-Moczarska has been removed by Fifelfoo with the summary: Unreliable source: interview in non-peer reviewed magazine. [21] Again, if Chwalba is declared unreliable, many Wikipedia articles on Polish history are at stake.
I do not with to engage in a POV edit war. Please clarify if so much text can be blanked with the claim of unreliable sources in this instance. [22] Thanks. — Stawiski ( talk) 01:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Content includes exclusive interviews, tv spoilers, TV reviews, DVD reviews. Own domain name, linked with Amazon shop. It's useage on WP seems to be as as a reference for fictional characters. Includes anything an actor says about a character etc. Reception/critical analysis from reviews they do. Sources such as reliable digitalspy use their content.. Does it meet the standard. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This material seems acceptable by analogy to WP:SELFPUB, which says that a claim an individual makes in self published material is appropriately cited so long as "1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources." The assertion in the Levi article seems to be the actor's theory about the motivation of the character, therefore inoffensive. Other claims we can use interviews for are "my birthday is November 1" and "my favorite color is blue". Banned content would be contentious material like "Actress X is a drunk". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe, a project about an action figure line, and I noted that a lot of our articles on G.I. Joe characters rely heavily on three particular websites. Could you guys look at the websites and see if they are okay to use?
A sample article where these websites are used is Red Star (G.I. Joe). In this article, the following pages are referenced: [25], [26], [27], and [28].
In your opinion, are these websites acceptable sources for the statements which they are used to support? Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
over at Wikisource, I've been discussing with a few other people the proper page to link to as a reference for verification and there does not seem to be a consensus at this time. The two methods are to link to the page in which the text is transcluded from the set of pages (and referenced in the left column numerically): see here for an example; or to link to actual page with the scanned copy of the work (original copy appears on the right, arrows to return to the transluded work in the mainspace): see here for an example. Which is preferred to link to in a reference? I would like to get as much feedback as possible, thank you. - Theornamentalist ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a very specific question related to Wikipedia:Image use policy Legal issues: Personality rights. When a photo is under copyright, and the copyright holder has personality rights, according to Florida statute [29] #3, the photo can be used under Fair Use if: (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;
My question is, where does the photo need to be published to meet the legal requirement of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Personality rights? What is considered a reliable source in this case? Does it need to be WP:SOURCES or can it be a web site that has no editorial oversight?
This topic is part of a heated discussion, anyone with expertise in the statute, please advise. Thank you. USchick ( talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly not a question about reliable sources and so this is not the place to continue this discussion. Please take it elsewhere. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source - www.twinstuff.com? Every entry in List of oldest twins is sourced to that website (some also have an additional source but some don't). Any thoughts would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The PDF of publication says
"Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice."
I see no sign of peer review. Reliable source?
Zimbazumba ( talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, there are similar Government publications from the UK and Canada that on occasion most would consider unreliable. I was not sure what the case in US is. 'Think Tank' bothers me, I'll check her out further.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment What exactly is this source being used to support, knowing that would help alot in deciding whether its "reliable enough." I think that this is probably reliable for almost anything. DOJ drug policy article would be dubious but Rape statistics are probably reliable in my book. Google Scholar shows based on its limited search is been pretty well cite thus indicating it is considered reliable by alot people. The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, a prize-winning investigative journalist, published an long article on the Koch brothers: "Covert Operations. The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". Mayer was also interviewed about the story by Terry Gross on Fresh Air on August 26: "The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win". The Koch brothers responded to the story by issuing a detailed rebuttal: "Jane Mayer’s Sources with Undisclosed Biases and Potential Conflicts of Interest". Is there any reason why this article should not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, including BLPs? Will Beback talk 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with this source. If a reliable source comments on the Koch brothers' rebuttal or on Mayer's alleged conflicts of interest, that can also be included, but I'm not sure their self-published thing stands up to a news article in a publication like the New Yorker. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this comment by User:Arthur Rubin on Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) related to this discussion? 99.19.46.122 ( talk) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There are tens of thousand of stories in the US media repeating verbatim every last detail of Mayer's story. We do not use those as sources, as they did not do their own fact checking. However, the fact that they are repeating the statements makes Mayer's article ever more important. If this was science, Mayer would get an citation index of 10,000!
As for the OpEd claim. The following source is an OpEd and opinion, as stated in one of the very first discussion on this issue. Mayer is not.
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The website http://www.pissedconsumer.com/ allows viewers to submit complaints regarding products and services. It allows people to register as users, but also allows unregistered users to post complaints. Per its' editorial policy ( http://www.pissedconsumer.com/publications/faq-2.html) it does not "investigate" complaints. This seems to mean that they do not seek to verify or refute postings made by its viewers. With these factors in mind, pissedconsumer.com should be considered WP:NOTRS.-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Heath guru Max Gerson died in 1959 at the age of 77. No death certificate seems to be on-line. His family thinks that if he hadn't been poisoned he'd have lived to 110 or something. Naturally, the issue of his cause of death comes up on TALK:Max Gerson. His family believes that he was poisoned by arsenic by a secretary and contracted pneumonia as a result of this. There are rumors that he had lung cancer on X-ray, but no autopsy was done (apparently). His obituary in the New York Times (which I have not seen) apparently states "pneumonia." Gerson's daughter and her son (who have both run Gerson health Clinics) have both written books on the man, and the daughter says "viral pneumonia caused by arsenic" and the grandson says "fungal pneumonia caused by weakened immunity caused by arsenic".
Problem: none of these sources are very reliable. When I attempted to post something about this controversy in the Max Gerson article, I was reverted by an editor who didn't like my reference to a film made by Gerson's daughter (in which she states arsenic and viral pneumonia) and an online review of yet another family member who has written a Gerson bio, which follows the arsenic theeory (this biographer claimed radio communcation with the spirit of Gerson, for the ultimate difficult to fact-check reference).
I think I'm the victim of double standards. All of this information comes from the Gerson family anyway. Obituaries do not fact-check, but simply print what the family tells them. It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, if it's obituary repeating family reports. The biography written by the grandson is no better: not only is it vanity-published (thus, self-published) but the grandson has no way of having any special insight into this grandfather's death, either (he was 15 years old at the time). Ultimately, these two sources were used by yet another editor, who has been at odds with me on this article from the moment I started editing it.
So-- do you think that family tradition becomes reliable, just because a newspaper prints it in the obits, and one of the grandkids pays to have it published as a vanity book? I know that's a terribly loaded way to phrase a question, but so what? It's my question. For the full argument, see [41]
For extra credit: what is the purpose of this place, anyway? Do you-all think you can determine for WP-purposes, which sources are "reliable" to get knowledge from, and which are not? You-all must be really, really universally smart about epistemology, then! Why are you not out teaching philosphy classes? S B H arris 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I do not know if the article in question was a paid death notice or obituary. It's hard even to get a paid notice into the NYT these days (people are dying to get in, har) but this was doubtless easier, in 1959. However, if it were actually an obituary for a person famous enough to rate one, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would be fact-checking items like cause-of-death--I know of no newspaper that does that (there is not even a mechanism for it, at the time the obit is written-- the hospital doctor is not going to tell a journalist anything even if a journalist manages to contact him).
There is an idea proposed that that "reliability" of a source like the NYT should apply to all sections of it. This is not true even for obits (for example, the NYT managed to make seven separate errors in the Walter Cronkite obit [42] (and that's counting really general ones like the date of the moon-landing). But now I get the opposite argument which is supposedly made in Wikipedia's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (essay) which doesn't really have a coherent message, as you see in its nutshell where the first bullet completely contradicts the second two bullets. The essay points out that OTHERSTUFF is how WP has decided that high schools are notable and junior highs are not, and is the mechanism by which much policy is codified, and can rationally be used in arguments--except when somebody doesn't want to (!) As a whole, it has no message. However, if you believe in using (just the the first part) of a self-contradictory "guidance essay" as a weapon in service of inhomogeneity and nonpolicy, then why bother with what goes on at WP:IRS, a "content guideline"? Or on this page? Is there a point to that, except perhaps as encapsulated in ILIKETHISOTHERESSAY? It seems to me from your comments that there are enough contradictory guidelines and essays and policies (yes, there is an RS section in the WP:V policy, which speaks of source "reputation") that it seems one may argue for, or against, inclusion of any non-BLP material one likes in WP, and fight anybody who wants to apply the same in another WP article, just as easily, using some other essay. "Thanks for playing," indeed (you seem to be touchy about insults-- it's good that I AGF).
As for the questions from JohnathanWallace (assuming he's not just playing), the the family poisoning-suspect from 50+ years ago is not identified by name any where, so that isn't an issue. As for sources being "self serving" they can't help but be self-serving one direction or the other. "Natural causes" serves the interests of the quackbusters and AMA (who was interested enough to do their own death-notice in JAMA), while murder serves the causes of the family and guru-followers. Right now, I have one editor who is using the same source (a grandson bio) IN PART to advance the argument of natural causes, but has suppressed the rest of the same source, apparently with the judgement that that OTHER part is self-serving. I believe this is constitutes SYNTH on the part of the editor, as it selectively sythesizes data in an argument toward a conclusion. I you use a source you need to fairly summarize what it says on the subject. I would simply like to put everybody's claims in, and say where they came from and what their sources are.
No, I myself doubt Gerson was poisoned-- evidence is lacking. However, that is a very widely held view among his followers who are numerous (Google it). It is notable. In case you want to know my own view of the medical facts, I think Gerson's followers of today could be fairly labeled as quacks, since they are still practicing and making ever-more exaggerated claims, but I think Gerson himself practiced in a time (the 1930's to 1950's) when really too little was known about biology to say he was badly wrong, and before which medicine was really a "science" as we know the term (the medical doctor of 1940 did not rely on statistical p-values, in case you didn't know). Indeed, our modern cancer prevention diets, high in fruits and vegetables, are suspiciously Gersonish, but they didn't even start to appear as official recommendations until the 1980's (before the 1970's the official American Cancer Society position was that cancer and diet were not related). So the official view now is that Gerson was partly right only by chance, and deserves no credit at all for his unscientific observations and treatments. Not something we'd say about Galen or Hipocrates, of course! S B H arris 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An obituary in The New York Times would generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. A paid death notice in the same publication may be used for non-controversial material. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To SummerPhD: I merely gave an example of the NYT "fessing up" to their own errors (which they didn't catch;somebody else did) as a shortcut to get around argument that maybe they actually didn't make that many errors. Perhaps you think that an error by the NYT counts only if they admit it, or that if I can't find them admitting it, it doesn't count? If so, that is wrong. There are plenty of errors the NYT makes they never "fess up" to. For example, Judith Miller's NYT "exclusive" stories on Iraq's WMDs (which helped the drumbeat toward that war) were based in no small part, but without attribution, on Ahmed Chalabi's claims, a fact that the NYT (as noted) didn't include at the time, and has never appologized for, as an "error" (any more than the US government has). In this gaff, Chalabi's claims took on the NYT's reputation, and in doing so, made the government sound like their own WMD claims had been independently verified, by being taken up as a story (without attribution to Chalabi) by a liberal newspaper. BUT, you must read about this gaff in OTHER media, who (of course) lose nothing in making the NYT look like the rumor-spreading fools that they were in this case [43]. Like the game of "telephone," but one where each player gets more and more reputation as the chain elongates, it's a mess. Example: Curveball (informant)'s claims eventually taking on the reputation for accuracy of Colin Powell, who hadn't fact-checked them, any more than anybody ELSE had.
Consider Dan Rather and CBS's defense of the authenticity of the Killian documents, which they say their experts checked. It's a separate question from the problems of churnalism per se, of whether any given news medium (or government agency, for that matter) has a "reputation for acuracy" better than it deserves. If so, who is to say, and how would one know? From some other source? And what about THEIR reputation? Without application of science, this is ALL just a game of "he-said, she-said" more or less as happens in any nasty-divorce-trial, but without any primary evidence admitted anywhere. user:Itsmejudith, can you tell us about the epistemology of he-said/she-said? It's the method WP uses for much of its material. Do you see a problem with that? In examples above (Curveball) jounalists and government have ignored even legal rules of evidence, and admitted not only hearsay, but hearsay about hearsay! And when this goes to press, it all is transformed to WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. Come on.
Oh, yes, and in answer to SummerPhD asking which WP policies I do agree with, see the end of section at [44]. I think WP:MEDRS is the best standard that exists at WP:IRS, which otherwise flails around a lot. Even as journalism is decaying, and journalism even admits that it is decaying, WP at the same time has enthroned journalism as a major source of reliable truth. That is bad. S B H arris 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The article does have a mention of cause of death. It says: "Gerson died March 8, 1959 of pneumonia, contracted while exploring bat caves in Escondido.[7][8]". The two cites are from the 1959 NYT notice (which is not on-line so I cannot check it), and the second to Gerson's grandson's book. This is the guy (Howard Strass) who was 15 years-old when his grandfather died, and on his way to studying physics, not health (later in life he would attempt to make money by running a Gerson clinic in Sedona, and write Gerson's bio). Strass also has much to say about the poisoning conspiracy, but this part has been ignored by the same WP editor who uses this part of his book as a cite to back up the NYT. That's SYNTH, as it uses souces selectively to argue toward a conclusion.
Example: "...after exploring bat caves..."? This is relevant, how? This is used by the grandson to argue for cause of death of histoplasmosis, but this is the same guy (and the same source) that/who argues for arsenic poisoning to start immunosuppression. However, since no specific diagnosis of the lung problem was made, we don't know. The suggestion that Gerson had fungal pneumonia, thus probably lung nodules on X-ray, doesn't help, and so far as I can tell, comes from the grandson. Lung nodules can result from any number of causes, including (of course) TB and cancer. Both of which make Gerson's diet (which was actually developed to fight TB, and only later applied to cancer) tend to look less than perfectly perventive. The remainder of the present Max Gerson Wikipedia article also caontains material which is sourced, but the source has no source (though it sounds official), so that leads to a blind end.
Andrew Lancaster, your questions are interesting, but where is the place to discuss them? If I complain about epistemology on the TALK page of an article, I get sent to RS/N (as happened here). If the problem is removed, we still end up with policy issues, which perhaps should be discussed at TALK page for WP:IRS. Which I can do, although those people get tired of arguing policy without specific examples in front of them. [I have just added a section there that does this anyway, abstracting the general part of this discussion].
The short answer to your question is that things are all mucked up, on WP:IRS. They can't even decide if a newspaper report (front page NYT) ala Judith Miller's "reports" about Saddam Hussein's WMD's in 2002, are primary or secondary sources. One problem is that people like Miller don't give their OWN sources (in this case, it was an unreliable one), so why should be trust them? It's not as though Miller is likely to have checked out her sources with other journalists, let alone other newspapers-- that's not the way that world works. In science, however, it actually DOES work that way.
We can also see on WP:IRS that WP has no understanding of your average primary science experimental paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, for it labels such things "primary sources." Anyone who actually has written one of these things knows that it contains many levels of information, starting with a "why we did this" section, continuing with two sections that on WP would be labeled WP:OR, and then WP:SYNTH part where the authors interpret their findings, do a mini-review of the literature (ordinarily a secondary-source activity) and attempt to put their findings into perspective by contasting them with others, and often ending with a paragraph or who of what in journlism would be called "Op-Ed". However, all this is seen by multiple other (anonymous) reviewers before it gets to print, and the primary authors have a chance to correct it, also. It is nothing like a published diary (a classic primary historical source). There is no way to compare with anything a newspaper does. Do you see my problem? WP:RSMED (which again I didn't write, but like) does an admirable job of starting to get the epistemology of reading a scientific paper down to some kind of algorithm (it still takes quite a lot of sophisitication). However, nothing is available on WP for other fields, and certainly nothing that attempts to compare reliability in one field with another, something that happens ALL THE TIME in writing encyclopedia articles.
The answer to what to do about this for me as an editor, has been (in the past) to use my own judgement. What else can one do? However, there's no good way to settle arguments. I don't really think the problem has a good answer. But it would be good if we got the difficulties out into the open, and ADMITTED that it doesn't have a good answer. And that right now, all such problems are being handled by violating WP:SYNTH, and by argumentum ad baculum at the point of administrative-block tools, again without admitting this. There's a reason why the first steps of Alcoholics Anonymous involve admiting you have a problem, and you can't fix it. WP hasn't even gotten to Step 1 of the 12 Steps, after working a decade on it. The reason being that WP departed from the expert-review vision it initially started with when it was invented by Sanger, and then attempted to bureaucratize the dysfunctional result after that, in order to try to make the reliability problems disappear under a load of increasingly difficult to understand and jargonish policy guidelines. See my comments on the TALK page of WP:V. [45] [46] And of course, dissenters are suppressed or (eventually) leave, or are banned. I'm just waiting my own turn, though I've edited here since late 2005. S B H arris 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[ Fashion Bangalore is used as a reference for several statements in Govind Kumar Singh. Is it reliable? I ask because on the About page for that website it says that it is an aggregator - who knows where the content has come from, and whether it is reliable or not? There appear to be no by-lines and the thing is being operated using blog software ( WordPress). The operating company is zero484, who have a mere 2,100 Google hits themselves.
I do realise that the statements it supports might be regarded as trivial but the article does rely heavily on it and I'm considering requesting better sources. The article has been subject to some possible COI editing/promotion by a newbie, as has a related article, Let's Dance (both may still be, although I have edited them heavily). Both were CSD'd at one point but I do not have access to the logs to see if they were subsequently recreated or what. Thoughts? - Sitush ( talk) 22:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A book makes an allegation against a living person of something that that person has denied and which a judicial inquiry has found he did not do. A book review of the book, from a reviewer who has made it clear he despises the subject of the allegation, apparently remarks that the book has definitely established that the allegation is proved. Can an article therefore report that the allegation has been proved, and cite the book review as a source? Or is the book review clearly a tertiary source which should not be used when the book itself is available?
Confused? You won't be, when these and other questions are answered in this week's episode of Talk:Death of David Kelly#Geoffrey Wheatcroft. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Are newspapers published by political parties reliable source? Can I use Workers World published by the Workers World Party as a RS (for a fact about a demonstration, not opinion)? -- Reference Desker ( talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no reliable source question here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue. The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death. The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Is http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source? I couldn't determine how many people the site has to check the facts or scrutinize the writing. Its email address is hotmail.co.uk, so it probably is based in the UK. The main guestbook doesn't seem to have any responses from those running the site. http://ctva.biz/_CTVA_Guestbook.htm I'm looking for a definitive answer on whether http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For me, reliable sources are important in deciding what gets into or is excluded from a Wikipedia article. When a newspaper or book excludes information from its writing, it does so based on decisions that take into account things like the lower importance of the excluded information relative to that which is being published and the lower interest the reader will have in the excluded information relative to what is being published. Wikipedia's reliance on that third party decision making is one things that distinguished Wikipedia from the rest of the internet. When it comes to websites such as IMDb, there is little control over what individuals post. The information might be correct, but then Wikipedia isn't able to capitalize on any editorial exclusion decisions made by the publication at least not to the degree that a newspaper or book publisher. It also is just as probable that the information is not correct. You guys are doing a great job in holding the line. Without sources being excluded, Wikipedia will become just another website on the Internet - a conveyor of information - correct or incorrect - without concern to whether it is posting verifiable prose that stands a reasonable chance of being interesting to readers. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
China: The Roots of Madness [48] is a film produced by National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency(unverifiable) in 1967. Can it be used as a source on Chinese history related articles? Arilang talk 07:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look:
User:Arilang1234/Draft/China: The Roots of Madness (1967) Documentary Film#Episode one synopsis.
The CIA connection cannot be verified, according to :
here, so it is just a rumor. Moreover, CIA source should be reliable majority of the time, if CIA is not reliable, there just wouldn't be CIA anymore. The
Pearl Buck interview is very informative, I would like to use it on
Boxer Rebellion, if possible.
Though the film's POV is blatantly cold war style anti-communist, nowaday, anti-communism is still mainstream, isn't it so? Arilang talk 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find any reference to this website on a search of the archives. Its reliability has been questioned at FLC here. On its home page the website describes itself as a travel guide relating to British Heritage. It is the work of one person (and his family) and makes no claim as to its accuracy. [49] The editor is a trained historian. [50] He does not give any references but I must have looked at around 300 pages in the process of writing lists and articles relating to churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust and I have not found any errors when the information contained in this website appears elsewhere in acknowledged reliable sources. The information contained that I have not found elsewhere has the ring of authenticity (whatever that means — ie not "tabloid" or sensational). It's no big deal if this information cannot be used, but it does in some cases give added interest and colour to an article. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source and if so, would it stand up to an FAC? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, won't let me do the free trial. Great, all for naught. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Having used Ancestry.co.uk quite a bit to research my family, I can confirm that census returns have a few problems. UK censuses record a person's age, not their date of birth, and people seem to get amazingly younger as they get older, if you see what I mean. People forget where they came from. The census enumerator spells their names at random (up to the 1911 census, we only have the enumerator's return, not the householder) Massive boundary changes mean you have to look every address up on a map. Also, there is the issue that while one census return or birth certificate is primary evidence, stringing a number of them together to say get all the family (eldest having left home by the time youngest is born), is original research. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
http://napoleon.org.pl - I think it does not meet RS criteria, since it seems to be self-published by non-experts . But I may be wrong? Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Haemetite ( talk · contribs) has been inserting pages from www.theworldreporter.com/ as references in various current event articles. All the articles on the main page of the site are written by a Sanskar Shrivastava, and apparently they take submissions. WP:SPS applies here, but I'd like to gain a rough consensus before mass-removing the links. Goodvac ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with this website. Are the articles written by the staff or by random contributers, and if the former, than why is this website on the spamlist? Is it an RS, and I just have to ask for a Spam-whitelist for the particular article? Thanks, Passionless -Talk 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There's currently an AFD debate in progress regarding a musical theatre production that took place a couple of years ago in Lagoa, a village/small town in the Algarve region of Portugal.
What sets this apart from most amateur drama society productions is that it appears to have had a comparitively large amount of money thrown at it. The production raised a certain amount of publicity, and I'd like some consensus on whether they are considered reliable sources.
The Portugal News is a weekly English-language newspaper catering mainly for British ex-pats in Portugal, with a circulation of around 20,000 and also appears to be based in Lagoa.
A much smaller local publication, again English language, covering only the Algarve region.
Press clippings quoted on the show's website seem to be limited to these publications, and I have been unable to find reviews elsewhere.
A mention of KISS FM having interviewed those involved in the production was made in the AFD debate... this appears to be a local English language station, Kiss FM Algarve, rather than the large UK-based independent radio station.
Are any of these sources considered reliable in determining notability? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm wondering where we sit in regard to Broken Rites Australia [55]. It is commonly used as a source for allegations of sexual abuse by priests, as the group was formed to provide support to alleged victims and collect information about sexually abusive members of the Roman Catholic church. My concern is that the organisation has a very clear bias, although I assume that they are thorough in their investigations. So I have two general questions that could do with clarification - can they be used as a source for information about priests accused as sexual abuse, and should the site be used as the only source for such allegations? Thanks! - Bilby ( talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Could you take a look at Lutescan_language? In short, it was tagged as a hoax years ago, until an offline source was added by a new contributor. I think the "very rare" source may also be a hoax. More detail on the article talk page.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 08:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this source considered reliable? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042891,00.html
The source is being used on the Victoria Affair page to support the controversial claim that there were weapons manuals in the language of Farsi directing users how to use weapons. The claim seems to be somewhat propagandistic, in my opinion. GoetheFromm ( talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is about the Franklin coverup hoax. Three people alleged that several prominent persons in the Omaha, Nebraska community were guilty of running a large scale child prostitution ring: bringing orphans from Boys Town, a large Catholic orphanage for boys, across state lines for purposes of child prostitution. The wild accusations claimed that the child prostitutes were flown all over the country, including to Washington DC for a midnight tour of the White House, to service prominent politicians.
None of the accused was ever indicted or convicted as a result of these ridiculous fantasies. The investigating grand jury explicitly described this as a "carefully crafted hoax" and instead indicted the three accusers for perjury. One of them, Troy Boner, wisely recanted his testimony and was spared a prison term. Another, Alisha Owen, was convicted of perjury after her attorney withdrew from the case and then served 4-1/2 years of a 10-year prison term for perjury. Owen's attorney later testified that she knew Owen was going to commit perjury, which is why she withdrew. Owen was released early due to good behavior in prison, not to any reversal on appeal. The third accuser, Paul Bonacci, was determined by the trial court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. So what we have here are an admitted liar, a proven liar, and a proven nutball.
Since then, a broad assortment of conspiracy theorists and political extremists led by Lyndon LaRouche and other political partisans, determined to sling whatever mud they can find, have persisted in alleging that these results were produced by a coverup, not the usual grand jury process. Those are the facts that can be proven through truly reliable sources such as the New York Times. Two WP editors have persistently attempted to back up a truckload of conspiracy theory and dump it into the article from two extremely dubious sources. Relevant discussion can be found here.
The first of the two dubious sources is a self-published book by John DeCamp: The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder. DeCamp was Bonacci's attorney and paid advocate; and that fact, together with the fact that it was self-published, should demolish DeCamp's book as a reliable source.
The second is a book by so-called "investigative journalist" Nick Bryant entitled, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. Rather than being self-published, this little tome was published by a small, fringe extremist publishing company called Trine Day. The website of Trine Day has described the company as "a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [56] One of these two WP editors described Bryant as "widely published," but his work has appeared on single occasions on a freelance basis in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not as a regular feature in the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. There is no indication that he has ever made journalism, let alone investigative journalism, his principal source of livelihood.
I respectfully ask the community's comments and consensus decision on whether these two books are sufficiently reliable sources to overcome the ironclad prohibitions of WP:BLP. Lawrence E. King and all the other persons accused by Owen, Bonacci and Boner are living persons. They can sue Wikipedia for libel. We must be absolutely certain of the reliability of these sources before two WP editors are allowed to back up a truck full of this garbage and dump it into the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. .... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.
I was asked to comment here a few days ago. The issue of "slandering" other editors needs to take a backseat, and is for WQA if warranted. I don't see it. Let's stick with the content...
Sourcing is one of the very most important and often overlooked things in WP, IMHO: it's one reason why there's a relative thimbleful of FA's and GA's compared to the oceans of articles. While Ripley's Believe It or Not is an extreme example, look at my userpage for some interesting claims from that source. Much older sources are even more dicey: I have an encyclopedia set from 1904 {"The Historian's History of the World") that is downright racist in some parts, let alone inaccurate. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" is exactly right: but so is what you say about some sources being acceptable only for "factual, non-exceptional matters". I could justifiably use my 1930 copy of Ripley's to back up that the Kiwi bird is a "native of New Zealand, where it was once very common, but is slowly becoming extinct"pg.105; but many things in that book would be laughed right out of here. It's what a consensus of reliable sources say, especially with exceptional claims and exceptionally for BLP's. WP:NPOV must be adhered to, and even sources that are otherwise reliable must be referenced with this carefully in mind.
If there's any possibility that something's going to be challenged as a "conspiracy theory": certainly don't use a source like this one to back up things in the article. The only other thing I see any of this publisher's works on in WP is conspiracy-related subjects: Frank Olson, Skull & Bones, etc. I would not use this source for this article. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only is the above long standing text which was not added by either Apostle12 or myself, it is sourced entirely to the New York Times and Washington Times and NOT Bryant, it also makes no mention of any political party at all. In fact Bryant is clear that both Republicans and Democrats were accused however, there is not a single mention of any political party in the article. P&W also wrote:Large scale child prostitution is what was alleged here. Not just child molesting, but child prostitution: flying these children all over the country to service prominent politicians, all of whom conveniently happening to be Republicans. The entire thing stinks like three-day-old roadkill. Vicious political smear campaigns have no place in Wikipedia no matter who is targeted
In fact neither Apostle12 or myself have backtracked on anything with one exception, most sources state that King was a "rising star in the Republican party" and a prominent fundraiser for them. Three editors supported using only the descriptive "Republican fundraiser" but eventually accepted "political fundraiser" because P&W didn't want Kings link to Republicans mentioned. Wayne ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)These two editors, after application and continuous citation of WP policy, have finally backtracked from their original position (one baby step at a time) that all of this conspiracy theory should be dumped into the article without regard for WP policy.
It's pretty obvious from the discussion here that the consensus is that neither DeCamp nor Bryant meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements; the first is self-published, and the second is not published by a reputable publisher. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the following a reliable source?
http://www.colorq.org/PetSins/page.php?y=2005&m=5&x=5_7
Presently I am leaning towards it not being reliable, but I would like to see what the consensus of other editors opinions are.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:29, 28 March 2011 (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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
A very long page using repeatedly a book by Ralph Anspach which is self-published [1] (last paragraph) including as the first reference. Anspach is described as a fanatic ("We were fanatics," says Mr. Walker [2]) and has had major legal actions against the makers of Monopoly and website is still mainly an attack against monopoly and its makers [3]]
While the facts could be true, it clearly is not a RS and in my opinion should not be used as a source to verify facts but there is opposition to this.
The page has many other problems such as duplication and lines about Anti-Monopoly current trading status that is not well sourced and other sources regard as a self-published game. Tetron76 ( talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is one that is being used as a source for 2011 Libyan uprising. I see that these are being used often in this article; I think they are useless for an Encyclopedia but maybe I am wrong? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a partison source also being used. What I am getting thusfar is that these are ok to use as Reliable Sources as long as there is consensus for doing so at the individual articles? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Article:
List of vegetarians
Source:
http://brooklynology.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/post/2010/07/22/Little-Known-Brooklyn-Residents-eden-ahbez.aspx
Edit:
[4]
I'm interested in your thoughts as to the reliability status of the source of the above for the claim that eden ahbez was vegetarian. The source itself is the official blog for the library so probably a primary source rather an an SPS. The author of the piece is a research assistant who works for the Brooklyn Collection. It looks well researched, but I'm unsure of the level editorial oversight and whether it qualifies as an RS. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Normally I would unhesitantly accept anything coming from the NYT as an RS. However, this page says that info is taken from "All Movie Guide" and that source I do not know. It is being used to source some fairly grandiose claims, which may well be true (although if they are, I don't really see why the guy himself is putting in all this effort to get a WP bio...), but we need good sourcing for that. I'm not very well at home on the topic of movies (just stumbled upon this one when patrolling new pages), so more opinions will be appreciated. -- Crusio ( talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On Rima Fakih, Facebook is used as the source for her birthday. I've noticed more and more users citing Facebook as a source for birth dates on BLPs. My question is: Is it ok to use Facebook as a self-published, primary source? My second question: If Facebook can be used as self-published, primary source for birth dates, do they have to be visible to everyone? The reason why I ask is becuse, in some cases, birth dates are only visible to the person's friends. Is there a guideline that deals with birth dates and facebook? Thanks in advance for any guidance on this issue. -- John KB ( talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's say I have a fictional character who has officially licensed toys, for instance the Transformers character Rodimus. He's a character from comic books, tv shows and movies, but also a toy. The toy box gives fictional facts about the character not in any particular media (how fast he can drive, his function among the Autobots). Is the official toy box blurb a reliable source for fictional facts about the fictional character? ...and if so what is a proper way to cite them? Mathewignash ( talk) 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.tvguide.co.uk/?p=4192 is used as a source for the title ("Demon's Run") of forthcoming episode seven of the sixth series of Doctor Who ( see here for the diffs). It's understandable to assume that this is the UK site of the US TV Guide magazine, but it isn't. http://www.tvguide.co.uk/aboutus.asp reads "Over a decade ago we had a dream that everyone would search and watch TV online, so we registered the domain name TVGuide.co.uk. Ten years later this vision has become a reality and TVGuide.co.uk has flourished as the UK's favourite Interactive Programming Guide. TVguide.co.uk site is run and managed by Imano the ecommerce and online marketing agency." There's nothing there to suggest a journalistic pedigree and their content consists of a blog, some episode guides, a twitter feed and UK TV listings. In the absence of an official announcement from the BBC about the episode titles, I think for a source to be reliable on this we have to be confident that they have access to the production team, I don't think that's the case here - it can only be a site repeating a rumour. What makes things worse is that that blog entry was published on March 10th, the same day as the issue of Doctor Who Magazine (#422) came out with a column from the show runner, Steven Moffat, in which he said that "Demons Run" was a working title and it would be changed before broadcast. That's maybe more of a content dispute issue - but it suggests to me that we have to be certain about the reliability of a source that contradicts this. Talk page discussion: Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Edit request from Adfilmstudios, 17 March 2011. Maccy69 ( talk) 08:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is forthesound.com a reliable source? Specifically this review for inclusion in article about Broadway (Band). While the site looks professional, the journalists are unpaid freelancers (see here). This is relating to an AfD discussion here. Where would the website stand? Cheers. Postrock1 ( talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently involved with the Cow urine article, which concerns the uses in alternative medicine of said urine. Since medical claims are being made at least some (if not all) of the page is covered by WP:MEDRS (I think). One of the contributors is citing a number of different studies from journals with which I am not familiar in support of these medicinal claims. I'd like some advice on the status of the journals (particularly with respect to peer review). I'm happy to go and bug the guys at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if that's a more appropriate place. Journals concerned are:
The final three journals have been referenced in a couple of US issued patents for cow urine related products. Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
See [12] - it includes links to copies of posts to Usenet, eg the copyvio here [13] and a lot of other stuff that is copyvio. I haven't found anything not copyvio that looks like a reliable source and if there is anything it should be directly linked. Dougweller ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Would the additional text preserved in the late Slavonic text of Josephus' book The Jewish War be considered a reliable source for the subjects related to early Christianity which it discusses or not? John Carter ( talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of Intelius before an editor used it to replace my citation for Rosalind Chao's birthdate here. I'm previously using Yahoo! Movies and The New York Times as reliable sources to cite a YOB of 1959, while it appears that the Intelius website only claims to have an age of 53 without any further corroboration. Thoughts or suggestions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Libyan state media is confirmed to be part of the government's propaganda machine. Should their claims of civilian casualties from the ongoing no-fly zone still be included in articles, or omitted as probable propaganda? Swarm X 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't we use Clapperboards as a source of information. I used information in a clapperboard to edit Season 3 of White Collar. The picture of the clapperboard was provided by the official Twitter account of Jeff Eastin ( http://www.twitter.com/JeffEastin), the creator of White Collar.
An image of the clipperboard can be found here: ( http://twitpic.com/49g78n/full).
As I have ample experience in the film industry, I inferred that the first episode of Season 3 of White Collar is being directed by Russell Lee Fine and written by Jeff Eastin, while the particular shot is being shot on March 14, 2011.
Users Xeworlebi and Dr. Margi brushed off my information saying they were an unreliable source.
Before asking them to nullify their mistakes, I just want to confirm whether Clapperboards are a reliable and verifiable source of information.
DailyEditor
DailyEditor ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor recently enquired as to why I pulled a name from the List of vegetarians which was sourced through this: http://www.search.com/reference/Krist_Novoselic#_note-2. The article itself seems to be transcluded from Wikipedia itself from about three years ago: [14]. I pulled it on the basis of it being a circular reference. The editor contested my view since the vegetarian fact was clearly attributable to another source within the article. However, my rationale is that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be sourced anyway, so whether the fact is attributable to a reliable source shouldn't have any bearing on the matter because the policy/guideline should have been created with this in mind; so I would like to clarify my action in regards to this matter.
However it set me thinking about the possibilities of simply copying over the reference. Obviously this shouldn't be done in the case of older versions of an article because the fact may have been pulled on the basis that it wasn't corroborated by the source. But in the cases of current sourced claims, would it be legitimate to copy over a source? This is normally frowned upon as a reference practice i.e. if you reference something, you are expected to corroborate the source. However, it is a Wikipedia policy to WP:Assume good faith; essentially that means if an editor hasn't behaved in an underhand way we should should trust his interpretation of a source unless we have seen it and can directly challenge it. That is, if an editor sources a claim that someone is vegetarian through a reliable source, then AGF compels us to accept the claim until we have reason not to. In such cases, it seems to me AGF implicitly suggests that it is acceptable to duplicate claims along with the references, because by not doing we would be doubting the authenticity of the claim and the corroborating source. In view of that, I was wondering what the general view on intra-Wikipedia source copying is. Do we permit, ban it, frown upon it and look the other way...? Betty Logan ( talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Two editors with short edit histories are tag-teaming inserting a reference to a blog ( see here) into PLoS ONE. I have removed this several times as blogs generally are not considered reliable sources, but despite all appearances, I don't want to call this vandalism (yet..), so I am hesitating to cross 3RR here. Perhaps some other editors can have a look whether this is an RS and whether its insertion into this article is justified. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the info I removed here, which has been reinstated, and is now up for discussion on the talk page here.
I don't want to edit-war over it, so we really do need more, independent input into the discussion, if at all possible.
Thanks, Chzz ► 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
(also asking on WikiProject Business Chzz ► 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
Please could any further discussion be on Talk:New Media Strategies. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This one I know nothing about. But using it to cite claims or using their interview in fictional character articles. Is this a reliable source? I want everyone to look into this one, lots of opinions please. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The World's Oldest People WikiProject has been advised to seek the guidance of RS-savvy editors on this noticeboard. I've put a "more citations needed" template on the List of the verified oldest people article. I've put my rationale on the article talk page, here. Would some editors who've wrestled with this sort of thing please look at the page and the talk page thread and then venture some guidance, please? Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
All text originating from sources in the Polish language has been removed from Rape during the liberation of Poland as unreliable in a string of edits by User:Fifelfoo. My question is, whether the blanking of content in this manner, is acceptable under the claim of WP:RS policy. Here are the examples:
All text, referenced to Polityka weekly, a renowned Polish magazine with a circulation of 170,000 (intellectual, social liberal profile) has been removed entirely by User:Fifelfoo with the edit summary: unreliable source: two page opinion piece by: non-experts in a non-peer reviewed newspaper. [20] The article was written by Joanna Ostrowska from Krytyka Polityczna and Marcin Zaremba, a historian at Warsaw University. Please note that many articles are at stake if articles published in Polityka by professional historians are declared unreliable.
Likewise, all text originating from an interview with Andrzej Chwalba, Professor of history at the Jagiellonian University (and its prorector), conducted in Kraków by journalist Rita Pagacz-Moczarska has been removed by Fifelfoo with the summary: Unreliable source: interview in non-peer reviewed magazine. [21] Again, if Chwalba is declared unreliable, many Wikipedia articles on Polish history are at stake.
I do not with to engage in a POV edit war. Please clarify if so much text can be blanked with the claim of unreliable sources in this instance. [22] Thanks. — Stawiski ( talk) 01:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Content includes exclusive interviews, tv spoilers, TV reviews, DVD reviews. Own domain name, linked with Amazon shop. It's useage on WP seems to be as as a reference for fictional characters. Includes anything an actor says about a character etc. Reception/critical analysis from reviews they do. Sources such as reliable digitalspy use their content.. Does it meet the standard. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This material seems acceptable by analogy to WP:SELFPUB, which says that a claim an individual makes in self published material is appropriately cited so long as "1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources." The assertion in the Levi article seems to be the actor's theory about the motivation of the character, therefore inoffensive. Other claims we can use interviews for are "my birthday is November 1" and "my favorite color is blue". Banned content would be contentious material like "Actress X is a drunk". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe, a project about an action figure line, and I noted that a lot of our articles on G.I. Joe characters rely heavily on three particular websites. Could you guys look at the websites and see if they are okay to use?
A sample article where these websites are used is Red Star (G.I. Joe). In this article, the following pages are referenced: [25], [26], [27], and [28].
In your opinion, are these websites acceptable sources for the statements which they are used to support? Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
over at Wikisource, I've been discussing with a few other people the proper page to link to as a reference for verification and there does not seem to be a consensus at this time. The two methods are to link to the page in which the text is transcluded from the set of pages (and referenced in the left column numerically): see here for an example; or to link to actual page with the scanned copy of the work (original copy appears on the right, arrows to return to the transluded work in the mainspace): see here for an example. Which is preferred to link to in a reference? I would like to get as much feedback as possible, thank you. - Theornamentalist ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a very specific question related to Wikipedia:Image use policy Legal issues: Personality rights. When a photo is under copyright, and the copyright holder has personality rights, according to Florida statute [29] #3, the photo can be used under Fair Use if: (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;
My question is, where does the photo need to be published to meet the legal requirement of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Personality rights? What is considered a reliable source in this case? Does it need to be WP:SOURCES or can it be a web site that has no editorial oversight?
This topic is part of a heated discussion, anyone with expertise in the statute, please advise. Thank you. USchick ( talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly not a question about reliable sources and so this is not the place to continue this discussion. Please take it elsewhere. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source - www.twinstuff.com? Every entry in List of oldest twins is sourced to that website (some also have an additional source but some don't). Any thoughts would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The PDF of publication says
"Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice."
I see no sign of peer review. Reliable source?
Zimbazumba ( talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, there are similar Government publications from the UK and Canada that on occasion most would consider unreliable. I was not sure what the case in US is. 'Think Tank' bothers me, I'll check her out further.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment What exactly is this source being used to support, knowing that would help alot in deciding whether its "reliable enough." I think that this is probably reliable for almost anything. DOJ drug policy article would be dubious but Rape statistics are probably reliable in my book. Google Scholar shows based on its limited search is been pretty well cite thus indicating it is considered reliable by alot people. The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, a prize-winning investigative journalist, published an long article on the Koch brothers: "Covert Operations. The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". Mayer was also interviewed about the story by Terry Gross on Fresh Air on August 26: "The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win". The Koch brothers responded to the story by issuing a detailed rebuttal: "Jane Mayer’s Sources with Undisclosed Biases and Potential Conflicts of Interest". Is there any reason why this article should not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, including BLPs? Will Beback talk 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with this source. If a reliable source comments on the Koch brothers' rebuttal or on Mayer's alleged conflicts of interest, that can also be included, but I'm not sure their self-published thing stands up to a news article in a publication like the New Yorker. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this comment by User:Arthur Rubin on Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) related to this discussion? 99.19.46.122 ( talk) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There are tens of thousand of stories in the US media repeating verbatim every last detail of Mayer's story. We do not use those as sources, as they did not do their own fact checking. However, the fact that they are repeating the statements makes Mayer's article ever more important. If this was science, Mayer would get an citation index of 10,000!
As for the OpEd claim. The following source is an OpEd and opinion, as stated in one of the very first discussion on this issue. Mayer is not.
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The website http://www.pissedconsumer.com/ allows viewers to submit complaints regarding products and services. It allows people to register as users, but also allows unregistered users to post complaints. Per its' editorial policy ( http://www.pissedconsumer.com/publications/faq-2.html) it does not "investigate" complaints. This seems to mean that they do not seek to verify or refute postings made by its viewers. With these factors in mind, pissedconsumer.com should be considered WP:NOTRS.-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Heath guru Max Gerson died in 1959 at the age of 77. No death certificate seems to be on-line. His family thinks that if he hadn't been poisoned he'd have lived to 110 or something. Naturally, the issue of his cause of death comes up on TALK:Max Gerson. His family believes that he was poisoned by arsenic by a secretary and contracted pneumonia as a result of this. There are rumors that he had lung cancer on X-ray, but no autopsy was done (apparently). His obituary in the New York Times (which I have not seen) apparently states "pneumonia." Gerson's daughter and her son (who have both run Gerson health Clinics) have both written books on the man, and the daughter says "viral pneumonia caused by arsenic" and the grandson says "fungal pneumonia caused by weakened immunity caused by arsenic".
Problem: none of these sources are very reliable. When I attempted to post something about this controversy in the Max Gerson article, I was reverted by an editor who didn't like my reference to a film made by Gerson's daughter (in which she states arsenic and viral pneumonia) and an online review of yet another family member who has written a Gerson bio, which follows the arsenic theeory (this biographer claimed radio communcation with the spirit of Gerson, for the ultimate difficult to fact-check reference).
I think I'm the victim of double standards. All of this information comes from the Gerson family anyway. Obituaries do not fact-check, but simply print what the family tells them. It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, if it's obituary repeating family reports. The biography written by the grandson is no better: not only is it vanity-published (thus, self-published) but the grandson has no way of having any special insight into this grandfather's death, either (he was 15 years old at the time). Ultimately, these two sources were used by yet another editor, who has been at odds with me on this article from the moment I started editing it.
So-- do you think that family tradition becomes reliable, just because a newspaper prints it in the obits, and one of the grandkids pays to have it published as a vanity book? I know that's a terribly loaded way to phrase a question, but so what? It's my question. For the full argument, see [41]
For extra credit: what is the purpose of this place, anyway? Do you-all think you can determine for WP-purposes, which sources are "reliable" to get knowledge from, and which are not? You-all must be really, really universally smart about epistemology, then! Why are you not out teaching philosphy classes? S B H arris 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I do not know if the article in question was a paid death notice or obituary. It's hard even to get a paid notice into the NYT these days (people are dying to get in, har) but this was doubtless easier, in 1959. However, if it were actually an obituary for a person famous enough to rate one, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would be fact-checking items like cause-of-death--I know of no newspaper that does that (there is not even a mechanism for it, at the time the obit is written-- the hospital doctor is not going to tell a journalist anything even if a journalist manages to contact him).
There is an idea proposed that that "reliability" of a source like the NYT should apply to all sections of it. This is not true even for obits (for example, the NYT managed to make seven separate errors in the Walter Cronkite obit [42] (and that's counting really general ones like the date of the moon-landing). But now I get the opposite argument which is supposedly made in Wikipedia's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (essay) which doesn't really have a coherent message, as you see in its nutshell where the first bullet completely contradicts the second two bullets. The essay points out that OTHERSTUFF is how WP has decided that high schools are notable and junior highs are not, and is the mechanism by which much policy is codified, and can rationally be used in arguments--except when somebody doesn't want to (!) As a whole, it has no message. However, if you believe in using (just the the first part) of a self-contradictory "guidance essay" as a weapon in service of inhomogeneity and nonpolicy, then why bother with what goes on at WP:IRS, a "content guideline"? Or on this page? Is there a point to that, except perhaps as encapsulated in ILIKETHISOTHERESSAY? It seems to me from your comments that there are enough contradictory guidelines and essays and policies (yes, there is an RS section in the WP:V policy, which speaks of source "reputation") that it seems one may argue for, or against, inclusion of any non-BLP material one likes in WP, and fight anybody who wants to apply the same in another WP article, just as easily, using some other essay. "Thanks for playing," indeed (you seem to be touchy about insults-- it's good that I AGF).
As for the questions from JohnathanWallace (assuming he's not just playing), the the family poisoning-suspect from 50+ years ago is not identified by name any where, so that isn't an issue. As for sources being "self serving" they can't help but be self-serving one direction or the other. "Natural causes" serves the interests of the quackbusters and AMA (who was interested enough to do their own death-notice in JAMA), while murder serves the causes of the family and guru-followers. Right now, I have one editor who is using the same source (a grandson bio) IN PART to advance the argument of natural causes, but has suppressed the rest of the same source, apparently with the judgement that that OTHER part is self-serving. I believe this is constitutes SYNTH on the part of the editor, as it selectively sythesizes data in an argument toward a conclusion. I you use a source you need to fairly summarize what it says on the subject. I would simply like to put everybody's claims in, and say where they came from and what their sources are.
No, I myself doubt Gerson was poisoned-- evidence is lacking. However, that is a very widely held view among his followers who are numerous (Google it). It is notable. In case you want to know my own view of the medical facts, I think Gerson's followers of today could be fairly labeled as quacks, since they are still practicing and making ever-more exaggerated claims, but I think Gerson himself practiced in a time (the 1930's to 1950's) when really too little was known about biology to say he was badly wrong, and before which medicine was really a "science" as we know the term (the medical doctor of 1940 did not rely on statistical p-values, in case you didn't know). Indeed, our modern cancer prevention diets, high in fruits and vegetables, are suspiciously Gersonish, but they didn't even start to appear as official recommendations until the 1980's (before the 1970's the official American Cancer Society position was that cancer and diet were not related). So the official view now is that Gerson was partly right only by chance, and deserves no credit at all for his unscientific observations and treatments. Not something we'd say about Galen or Hipocrates, of course! S B H arris 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An obituary in The New York Times would generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. A paid death notice in the same publication may be used for non-controversial material. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To SummerPhD: I merely gave an example of the NYT "fessing up" to their own errors (which they didn't catch;somebody else did) as a shortcut to get around argument that maybe they actually didn't make that many errors. Perhaps you think that an error by the NYT counts only if they admit it, or that if I can't find them admitting it, it doesn't count? If so, that is wrong. There are plenty of errors the NYT makes they never "fess up" to. For example, Judith Miller's NYT "exclusive" stories on Iraq's WMDs (which helped the drumbeat toward that war) were based in no small part, but without attribution, on Ahmed Chalabi's claims, a fact that the NYT (as noted) didn't include at the time, and has never appologized for, as an "error" (any more than the US government has). In this gaff, Chalabi's claims took on the NYT's reputation, and in doing so, made the government sound like their own WMD claims had been independently verified, by being taken up as a story (without attribution to Chalabi) by a liberal newspaper. BUT, you must read about this gaff in OTHER media, who (of course) lose nothing in making the NYT look like the rumor-spreading fools that they were in this case [43]. Like the game of "telephone," but one where each player gets more and more reputation as the chain elongates, it's a mess. Example: Curveball (informant)'s claims eventually taking on the reputation for accuracy of Colin Powell, who hadn't fact-checked them, any more than anybody ELSE had.
Consider Dan Rather and CBS's defense of the authenticity of the Killian documents, which they say their experts checked. It's a separate question from the problems of churnalism per se, of whether any given news medium (or government agency, for that matter) has a "reputation for acuracy" better than it deserves. If so, who is to say, and how would one know? From some other source? And what about THEIR reputation? Without application of science, this is ALL just a game of "he-said, she-said" more or less as happens in any nasty-divorce-trial, but without any primary evidence admitted anywhere. user:Itsmejudith, can you tell us about the epistemology of he-said/she-said? It's the method WP uses for much of its material. Do you see a problem with that? In examples above (Curveball) jounalists and government have ignored even legal rules of evidence, and admitted not only hearsay, but hearsay about hearsay! And when this goes to press, it all is transformed to WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. Come on.
Oh, yes, and in answer to SummerPhD asking which WP policies I do agree with, see the end of section at [44]. I think WP:MEDRS is the best standard that exists at WP:IRS, which otherwise flails around a lot. Even as journalism is decaying, and journalism even admits that it is decaying, WP at the same time has enthroned journalism as a major source of reliable truth. That is bad. S B H arris 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The article does have a mention of cause of death. It says: "Gerson died March 8, 1959 of pneumonia, contracted while exploring bat caves in Escondido.[7][8]". The two cites are from the 1959 NYT notice (which is not on-line so I cannot check it), and the second to Gerson's grandson's book. This is the guy (Howard Strass) who was 15 years-old when his grandfather died, and on his way to studying physics, not health (later in life he would attempt to make money by running a Gerson clinic in Sedona, and write Gerson's bio). Strass also has much to say about the poisoning conspiracy, but this part has been ignored by the same WP editor who uses this part of his book as a cite to back up the NYT. That's SYNTH, as it uses souces selectively to argue toward a conclusion.
Example: "...after exploring bat caves..."? This is relevant, how? This is used by the grandson to argue for cause of death of histoplasmosis, but this is the same guy (and the same source) that/who argues for arsenic poisoning to start immunosuppression. However, since no specific diagnosis of the lung problem was made, we don't know. The suggestion that Gerson had fungal pneumonia, thus probably lung nodules on X-ray, doesn't help, and so far as I can tell, comes from the grandson. Lung nodules can result from any number of causes, including (of course) TB and cancer. Both of which make Gerson's diet (which was actually developed to fight TB, and only later applied to cancer) tend to look less than perfectly perventive. The remainder of the present Max Gerson Wikipedia article also caontains material which is sourced, but the source has no source (though it sounds official), so that leads to a blind end.
Andrew Lancaster, your questions are interesting, but where is the place to discuss them? If I complain about epistemology on the TALK page of an article, I get sent to RS/N (as happened here). If the problem is removed, we still end up with policy issues, which perhaps should be discussed at TALK page for WP:IRS. Which I can do, although those people get tired of arguing policy without specific examples in front of them. [I have just added a section there that does this anyway, abstracting the general part of this discussion].
The short answer to your question is that things are all mucked up, on WP:IRS. They can't even decide if a newspaper report (front page NYT) ala Judith Miller's "reports" about Saddam Hussein's WMD's in 2002, are primary or secondary sources. One problem is that people like Miller don't give their OWN sources (in this case, it was an unreliable one), so why should be trust them? It's not as though Miller is likely to have checked out her sources with other journalists, let alone other newspapers-- that's not the way that world works. In science, however, it actually DOES work that way.
We can also see on WP:IRS that WP has no understanding of your average primary science experimental paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, for it labels such things "primary sources." Anyone who actually has written one of these things knows that it contains many levels of information, starting with a "why we did this" section, continuing with two sections that on WP would be labeled WP:OR, and then WP:SYNTH part where the authors interpret their findings, do a mini-review of the literature (ordinarily a secondary-source activity) and attempt to put their findings into perspective by contasting them with others, and often ending with a paragraph or who of what in journlism would be called "Op-Ed". However, all this is seen by multiple other (anonymous) reviewers before it gets to print, and the primary authors have a chance to correct it, also. It is nothing like a published diary (a classic primary historical source). There is no way to compare with anything a newspaper does. Do you see my problem? WP:RSMED (which again I didn't write, but like) does an admirable job of starting to get the epistemology of reading a scientific paper down to some kind of algorithm (it still takes quite a lot of sophisitication). However, nothing is available on WP for other fields, and certainly nothing that attempts to compare reliability in one field with another, something that happens ALL THE TIME in writing encyclopedia articles.
The answer to what to do about this for me as an editor, has been (in the past) to use my own judgement. What else can one do? However, there's no good way to settle arguments. I don't really think the problem has a good answer. But it would be good if we got the difficulties out into the open, and ADMITTED that it doesn't have a good answer. And that right now, all such problems are being handled by violating WP:SYNTH, and by argumentum ad baculum at the point of administrative-block tools, again without admitting this. There's a reason why the first steps of Alcoholics Anonymous involve admiting you have a problem, and you can't fix it. WP hasn't even gotten to Step 1 of the 12 Steps, after working a decade on it. The reason being that WP departed from the expert-review vision it initially started with when it was invented by Sanger, and then attempted to bureaucratize the dysfunctional result after that, in order to try to make the reliability problems disappear under a load of increasingly difficult to understand and jargonish policy guidelines. See my comments on the TALK page of WP:V. [45] [46] And of course, dissenters are suppressed or (eventually) leave, or are banned. I'm just waiting my own turn, though I've edited here since late 2005. S B H arris 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[ Fashion Bangalore is used as a reference for several statements in Govind Kumar Singh. Is it reliable? I ask because on the About page for that website it says that it is an aggregator - who knows where the content has come from, and whether it is reliable or not? There appear to be no by-lines and the thing is being operated using blog software ( WordPress). The operating company is zero484, who have a mere 2,100 Google hits themselves.
I do realise that the statements it supports might be regarded as trivial but the article does rely heavily on it and I'm considering requesting better sources. The article has been subject to some possible COI editing/promotion by a newbie, as has a related article, Let's Dance (both may still be, although I have edited them heavily). Both were CSD'd at one point but I do not have access to the logs to see if they were subsequently recreated or what. Thoughts? - Sitush ( talk) 22:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A book makes an allegation against a living person of something that that person has denied and which a judicial inquiry has found he did not do. A book review of the book, from a reviewer who has made it clear he despises the subject of the allegation, apparently remarks that the book has definitely established that the allegation is proved. Can an article therefore report that the allegation has been proved, and cite the book review as a source? Or is the book review clearly a tertiary source which should not be used when the book itself is available?
Confused? You won't be, when these and other questions are answered in this week's episode of Talk:Death of David Kelly#Geoffrey Wheatcroft. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Are newspapers published by political parties reliable source? Can I use Workers World published by the Workers World Party as a RS (for a fact about a demonstration, not opinion)? -- Reference Desker ( talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no reliable source question here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue. The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death. The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Is http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source? I couldn't determine how many people the site has to check the facts or scrutinize the writing. Its email address is hotmail.co.uk, so it probably is based in the UK. The main guestbook doesn't seem to have any responses from those running the site. http://ctva.biz/_CTVA_Guestbook.htm I'm looking for a definitive answer on whether http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For me, reliable sources are important in deciding what gets into or is excluded from a Wikipedia article. When a newspaper or book excludes information from its writing, it does so based on decisions that take into account things like the lower importance of the excluded information relative to that which is being published and the lower interest the reader will have in the excluded information relative to what is being published. Wikipedia's reliance on that third party decision making is one things that distinguished Wikipedia from the rest of the internet. When it comes to websites such as IMDb, there is little control over what individuals post. The information might be correct, but then Wikipedia isn't able to capitalize on any editorial exclusion decisions made by the publication at least not to the degree that a newspaper or book publisher. It also is just as probable that the information is not correct. You guys are doing a great job in holding the line. Without sources being excluded, Wikipedia will become just another website on the Internet - a conveyor of information - correct or incorrect - without concern to whether it is posting verifiable prose that stands a reasonable chance of being interesting to readers. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
China: The Roots of Madness [48] is a film produced by National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency(unverifiable) in 1967. Can it be used as a source on Chinese history related articles? Arilang talk 07:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look:
User:Arilang1234/Draft/China: The Roots of Madness (1967) Documentary Film#Episode one synopsis.
The CIA connection cannot be verified, according to :
here, so it is just a rumor. Moreover, CIA source should be reliable majority of the time, if CIA is not reliable, there just wouldn't be CIA anymore. The
Pearl Buck interview is very informative, I would like to use it on
Boxer Rebellion, if possible.
Though the film's POV is blatantly cold war style anti-communist, nowaday, anti-communism is still mainstream, isn't it so? Arilang talk 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find any reference to this website on a search of the archives. Its reliability has been questioned at FLC here. On its home page the website describes itself as a travel guide relating to British Heritage. It is the work of one person (and his family) and makes no claim as to its accuracy. [49] The editor is a trained historian. [50] He does not give any references but I must have looked at around 300 pages in the process of writing lists and articles relating to churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust and I have not found any errors when the information contained in this website appears elsewhere in acknowledged reliable sources. The information contained that I have not found elsewhere has the ring of authenticity (whatever that means — ie not "tabloid" or sensational). It's no big deal if this information cannot be used, but it does in some cases give added interest and colour to an article. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source and if so, would it stand up to an FAC? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, won't let me do the free trial. Great, all for naught. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Having used Ancestry.co.uk quite a bit to research my family, I can confirm that census returns have a few problems. UK censuses record a person's age, not their date of birth, and people seem to get amazingly younger as they get older, if you see what I mean. People forget where they came from. The census enumerator spells their names at random (up to the 1911 census, we only have the enumerator's return, not the householder) Massive boundary changes mean you have to look every address up on a map. Also, there is the issue that while one census return or birth certificate is primary evidence, stringing a number of them together to say get all the family (eldest having left home by the time youngest is born), is original research. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
http://napoleon.org.pl - I think it does not meet RS criteria, since it seems to be self-published by non-experts . But I may be wrong? Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Haemetite ( talk · contribs) has been inserting pages from www.theworldreporter.com/ as references in various current event articles. All the articles on the main page of the site are written by a Sanskar Shrivastava, and apparently they take submissions. WP:SPS applies here, but I'd like to gain a rough consensus before mass-removing the links. Goodvac ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with this website. Are the articles written by the staff or by random contributers, and if the former, than why is this website on the spamlist? Is it an RS, and I just have to ask for a Spam-whitelist for the particular article? Thanks, Passionless -Talk 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There's currently an AFD debate in progress regarding a musical theatre production that took place a couple of years ago in Lagoa, a village/small town in the Algarve region of Portugal.
What sets this apart from most amateur drama society productions is that it appears to have had a comparitively large amount of money thrown at it. The production raised a certain amount of publicity, and I'd like some consensus on whether they are considered reliable sources.
The Portugal News is a weekly English-language newspaper catering mainly for British ex-pats in Portugal, with a circulation of around 20,000 and also appears to be based in Lagoa.
A much smaller local publication, again English language, covering only the Algarve region.
Press clippings quoted on the show's website seem to be limited to these publications, and I have been unable to find reviews elsewhere.
A mention of KISS FM having interviewed those involved in the production was made in the AFD debate... this appears to be a local English language station, Kiss FM Algarve, rather than the large UK-based independent radio station.
Are any of these sources considered reliable in determining notability? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm wondering where we sit in regard to Broken Rites Australia [55]. It is commonly used as a source for allegations of sexual abuse by priests, as the group was formed to provide support to alleged victims and collect information about sexually abusive members of the Roman Catholic church. My concern is that the organisation has a very clear bias, although I assume that they are thorough in their investigations. So I have two general questions that could do with clarification - can they be used as a source for information about priests accused as sexual abuse, and should the site be used as the only source for such allegations? Thanks! - Bilby ( talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Could you take a look at Lutescan_language? In short, it was tagged as a hoax years ago, until an offline source was added by a new contributor. I think the "very rare" source may also be a hoax. More detail on the article talk page.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 08:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this source considered reliable? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042891,00.html
The source is being used on the Victoria Affair page to support the controversial claim that there were weapons manuals in the language of Farsi directing users how to use weapons. The claim seems to be somewhat propagandistic, in my opinion. GoetheFromm ( talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is about the Franklin coverup hoax. Three people alleged that several prominent persons in the Omaha, Nebraska community were guilty of running a large scale child prostitution ring: bringing orphans from Boys Town, a large Catholic orphanage for boys, across state lines for purposes of child prostitution. The wild accusations claimed that the child prostitutes were flown all over the country, including to Washington DC for a midnight tour of the White House, to service prominent politicians.
None of the accused was ever indicted or convicted as a result of these ridiculous fantasies. The investigating grand jury explicitly described this as a "carefully crafted hoax" and instead indicted the three accusers for perjury. One of them, Troy Boner, wisely recanted his testimony and was spared a prison term. Another, Alisha Owen, was convicted of perjury after her attorney withdrew from the case and then served 4-1/2 years of a 10-year prison term for perjury. Owen's attorney later testified that she knew Owen was going to commit perjury, which is why she withdrew. Owen was released early due to good behavior in prison, not to any reversal on appeal. The third accuser, Paul Bonacci, was determined by the trial court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. So what we have here are an admitted liar, a proven liar, and a proven nutball.
Since then, a broad assortment of conspiracy theorists and political extremists led by Lyndon LaRouche and other political partisans, determined to sling whatever mud they can find, have persisted in alleging that these results were produced by a coverup, not the usual grand jury process. Those are the facts that can be proven through truly reliable sources such as the New York Times. Two WP editors have persistently attempted to back up a truckload of conspiracy theory and dump it into the article from two extremely dubious sources. Relevant discussion can be found here.
The first of the two dubious sources is a self-published book by John DeCamp: The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder. DeCamp was Bonacci's attorney and paid advocate; and that fact, together with the fact that it was self-published, should demolish DeCamp's book as a reliable source.
The second is a book by so-called "investigative journalist" Nick Bryant entitled, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. Rather than being self-published, this little tome was published by a small, fringe extremist publishing company called Trine Day. The website of Trine Day has described the company as "a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [56] One of these two WP editors described Bryant as "widely published," but his work has appeared on single occasions on a freelance basis in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not as a regular feature in the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. There is no indication that he has ever made journalism, let alone investigative journalism, his principal source of livelihood.
I respectfully ask the community's comments and consensus decision on whether these two books are sufficiently reliable sources to overcome the ironclad prohibitions of WP:BLP. Lawrence E. King and all the other persons accused by Owen, Bonacci and Boner are living persons. They can sue Wikipedia for libel. We must be absolutely certain of the reliability of these sources before two WP editors are allowed to back up a truck full of this garbage and dump it into the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. .... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.
I was asked to comment here a few days ago. The issue of "slandering" other editors needs to take a backseat, and is for WQA if warranted. I don't see it. Let's stick with the content...
Sourcing is one of the very most important and often overlooked things in WP, IMHO: it's one reason why there's a relative thimbleful of FA's and GA's compared to the oceans of articles. While Ripley's Believe It or Not is an extreme example, look at my userpage for some interesting claims from that source. Much older sources are even more dicey: I have an encyclopedia set from 1904 {"The Historian's History of the World") that is downright racist in some parts, let alone inaccurate. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" is exactly right: but so is what you say about some sources being acceptable only for "factual, non-exceptional matters". I could justifiably use my 1930 copy of Ripley's to back up that the Kiwi bird is a "native of New Zealand, where it was once very common, but is slowly becoming extinct"pg.105; but many things in that book would be laughed right out of here. It's what a consensus of reliable sources say, especially with exceptional claims and exceptionally for BLP's. WP:NPOV must be adhered to, and even sources that are otherwise reliable must be referenced with this carefully in mind.
If there's any possibility that something's going to be challenged as a "conspiracy theory": certainly don't use a source like this one to back up things in the article. The only other thing I see any of this publisher's works on in WP is conspiracy-related subjects: Frank Olson, Skull & Bones, etc. I would not use this source for this article. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only is the above long standing text which was not added by either Apostle12 or myself, it is sourced entirely to the New York Times and Washington Times and NOT Bryant, it also makes no mention of any political party at all. In fact Bryant is clear that both Republicans and Democrats were accused however, there is not a single mention of any political party in the article. P&W also wrote:Large scale child prostitution is what was alleged here. Not just child molesting, but child prostitution: flying these children all over the country to service prominent politicians, all of whom conveniently happening to be Republicans. The entire thing stinks like three-day-old roadkill. Vicious political smear campaigns have no place in Wikipedia no matter who is targeted
In fact neither Apostle12 or myself have backtracked on anything with one exception, most sources state that King was a "rising star in the Republican party" and a prominent fundraiser for them. Three editors supported using only the descriptive "Republican fundraiser" but eventually accepted "political fundraiser" because P&W didn't want Kings link to Republicans mentioned. Wayne ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)These two editors, after application and continuous citation of WP policy, have finally backtracked from their original position (one baby step at a time) that all of this conspiracy theory should be dumped into the article without regard for WP policy.
It's pretty obvious from the discussion here that the consensus is that neither DeCamp nor Bryant meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements; the first is self-published, and the second is not published by a reputable publisher. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the following a reliable source?
http://www.colorq.org/PetSins/page.php?y=2005&m=5&x=5_7
Presently I am leaning towards it not being reliable, but I would like to see what the consensus of other editors opinions are.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)