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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Help is urgently needed at History of Sumer. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of Samuel Kramer, and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that I am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on wikipedia as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the following reliable references to Talk:Aratta establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on wikipedia because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article Aratta at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In article Singh one user name User:Gurkhaboy is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see [1] Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. -- 99.237.254.25 ( talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In an attempt to resolve a dispute for classifying fan translations we were trying find 3rd-party sites. Would a site like this one meet the criteria? Jinnai ( talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
One article where this has been coming up is at Tsukihime. I'll note that nobody here is disputing the existence of the translation. One can easily verify it by going to the translator's web site [2], the list of visual novel translations [3], and news sites devoted to the topic [4]. So I think the question is, what should we include in the article to source the statement "An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006."? I'll note that this has nothing to do with the notability of Tsukihime, which has been established by it spawning both Manga and Anime. — PyTom ( talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Would The Philadelphia Trumpet be considered a reliable source for a statement on Middle Eastern politics? It is a monthly news magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God. I have to admit I'm no expert on the PCoG, but my understanding of it is that it is a fairly fringe-y religious organisation (according to a Watchman Expositor profile, it is an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members -- [5]). I feel that this would have to be considered a non-mainstream source - what WP:V would call a " questionable source" - and that Middle Eastern affairs would be outside its area of competence. It strikes me as being rather similar to contemplating the use of a Church of Scientology magazine as a reliable source for a statement on Scientology's pet hate, psychiatry. I would be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel ( talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? ( link) R. Baley ( talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? Arzel ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate going on over on WP:ORN (see section " Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research" and start reading where it says "I've seen some situations recently") about the manner in which statements about decisions of the United States Supreme Court can or should be sourced. The other editor and I had hoped to attract some outside perspectives on this issue (as an alternative to going back and forth on the article talk pages or simply descending into an edit war), but so far no one other than the two of us has chimed in.
Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.
If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. Richwales ( talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna ( talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.
I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Isha (spiritual teacher) is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within wikipedia policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid was, "Some critics who use the [apartheid] analogy extend it to include Arab citizens of Israel," citing Dixon as one such critic. The current wording is, "Several critics, including [...] Bruce Dixon." Thus, it is not a question of whether Dixon is a reliable source for facts on Israel, but of whether he's a critic who uses the apartheid analogy wrt Arab-Israelis, which of course he is. And the source in question was a reprint of the Dixon article on the much better known and respected Electronic Intifada, the largest Palestinian news site which the Jerusalem Post calls the "Palestinian CNN," rather than the obscure www.blackcommentator.com - you kept editing EI out and blackcommentator in. This posting is typical WP:GAME-ing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current insurgency article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?
Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering, is it a reliable source? It has lots of users. http://www.accesshollywood.com/ Thank you. -- Kanonkas, Take Contact ( talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. -- Mohun ( talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor is particularly keen to use this document . [11] in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".
The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:
I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.
However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B ( talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.
Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.
Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. ( Masculinity ( talk) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.( Masculinity ( talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. ( Masculinity ( talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html
Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)
Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:
“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004 By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko. Excerpt: "Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."
Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.
In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM: www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf
( Masculinity ( talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.( Masculinity ( talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (
Masculinity (
talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny. DEZnCHRIS ( talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.
Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.
It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.( Masculinity ( talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.
( 124.30.94.10 ( talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.
Masculinity for Boys | Literacy for life, 2006 | |
---|---|---|
Disclaimer | "The opinion expressed in this documents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi" | "The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director." (emphasis added) |
Authorship | ??? | 20+ named authors with acknowledged qualifications and expertise in the field. |
Peer review, or editorial oversight | ??? | Representatives from UN multilateral agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and networks, individuals from developing countries with an expertise in basic education issues, and directors of UNESCO institutes. (emphasis added) |
Bibliography | None | 600+ citations |
Hope this establishes what a reliable publication from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable source" [sic]. Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines and is not an acceptable source for wikipedia (and that judgement is independent of the WP:REDFLAG issues raised by its content). Abecedare ( talk) 06:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty 2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email 3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs 4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad American Clio ( talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum
Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More
_________________________________________
New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.
The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.
"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."
In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."
"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum." http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htm American Clio ( talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.
GETTY IMAGES Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.
After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.
In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."
Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.
However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377
the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War. But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence. American Clio ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This source for the material below appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website appears to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.
From ME/CFS nomenclatures:
Also Infectious venulitis (IVN), this term was used to describe an outbreak at the
Mercy San Juan Hospital in
Sacramento,
California by
Erich Ryll.
Source
RS or not? Thanks.
Ward20 (
talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a problem on this article: Laqtel which is a corporate stub. The article was started as essentially a copy and paste of press releases. I went through and remove most of the corporate PR from the article and trimmed it down to the basics. However two users are constantly reverting the edits. Am I off track here? I can't see any justification (in my mind) as to why the content deserves to be on Wikipedia. All it talks about is business transactions and visions, throwing figures in there, with no references what-so-ever. The only reference in the entire article is something I added based on a recent development (where the company got into serious legal trouble). I am questioning as well the motives of those editing the articles repeatedly. Rasadam ( talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, does this book 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' become an Reliable Source ? and if so would there be any rejections for it ? is there an certain company that i could only provide as Ref.
because i noticed in many wiki articles they just have books (not encyclopedias) from authors point of view and doesnt seem to be fair to other books and information that could be provided in articles.
and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. -- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Book Name - Encyclopedia International
Copyright- 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963 by Grolier Incorporated
Copyright - Grolier Incorporated 1974
Copyright in Canada - Grolier Limited
Encyclopedia International
Includes bibliographies
1. Encyclodeias and Dictionaries
AE5.E447 1974 031 73-11206 ISBN 0-7172-0705-6
Note - Its just One of my Sources for information, and it also covers some areas i will be investigating in and has over 30 books. is it considerd reliable ?
-- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Whats the difference if its based on 1970 or whenever, its still actual Encyclopedia that holds enough information to calim what i need on articles. -- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article Nazi propaganda a paragraph was very recently introduced that uses the following as source (text from the reference given):
My question is, is this a reliable source? Can I too use this and similar material to source articles?-- Stor stark7 Talk 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is The HistoryMakers a reliable source for information about its subjects? TheslB ( talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As silly as it sounds, I need input from the wider community as to whether Forbes and the International Herald Tribune are reliable sources? There is a long-running dispute on Singapore Airlines where User:Huaiwei claims that The IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is and in relation to Forbes, The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship. If others can look here for more information and provide their input that would be great. -- Россавиа Диалог 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the official website of a sports tournament or a film festival considered to be a primary source as mentioned in WP:PSTS? Can the award database of such a website be used as reference for a featured list about awards?
This issue was raised on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count by User:Matthewedwards. It does not only involve this list, but also lists that are already featured, such as:
My reasoning was the following:
For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources.
in which "these sources" refers to www.olympics.org and the official report of the 1928 Summer Olympics, written by the Dutch National Olympic Committee.
I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. Best regards, Ilse @ 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am Ga reviewing Artaxerxes III of Persia. Need help to decide are these RS:
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to directly cite Answers.com except obviously for its Wikipedia mirror? I'm having a debate with another editor over it. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia must contain references from original sources, not from numerous content aggregators all over internet. This is the basic rule of respect to authorship. Just as wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia's own rules, answers.com is no way better. `' Míkka >t 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been engaged in 'debate' (with someone very heated) about a particular source used for the Baghdad Battery article. The other party involved seems to have written most of the article (he did its 3rd edit) and says he used this source to write it -- see [17]. It's not just that the source is a Swedish UFO web page, it is that the article itself [18] is also very bad. The stuff about its discovery and Gray is well sourced elsewhere, the stuff at the bottom about someone called Thatte is apparently fictitious, or at least I cannot find any references to anything there except the word Maitravaruna which seems to mean priest. I removed it twice and he put it back giving me some abuse. He's now created a new section on "World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." which he seems to think gives him carte blanche to add any links he wants so long as he has used them in the past for information. While I'm at it -- some of the other links I'm not sure about. Youtube? http://www.answersingenesis.org? The Unmuseum? And the images - a bit OT here - how do I check whether they are licenced? I'm pretty new here and still coming to grips with what meets policy/guidelines and what doesn't, so any help is appreciated especially as I hope to spend more time improving articles (such as the Terracotta Army one) then sorting this sort of thing out and want to practice what I preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 April 2008
Many anonymous IP editors add information to articles relating to the TV shows The Real World and Road Rules, using the MySpace pages of the stars of those shows as citations. While MySpace in general my not be a reliable source because of the problem of people creating such pages to pose as those celebrities, my observation is that the presence of rare, personal photos on a given MS page may lend credibility to the notion that a given page is indeed the official one belonging to that person. User: Black Falcon agreed that this was one positive criterion. My question is, is this site reliable to establish if a given MS page is an official one? It lists the personal websites and MS pages of many past cast members, but I don't know how to gauge its reliability. Any thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism is a horribly biased anticommunist reference. But it is used in multiple articles. It received reception from people of the American and British media (and off-course from pro-Capitalist people). Organizations like The New York Times, National Review (a conservative reference) which generally praised the book.
But the book received severe criticism as being a one-sided, biased. In my opinion if The Black Book of Communism is used as source (no matter who praised the book, if they are biased or not, since it received scholarly review it is RS), the opposing views should also be given to maintain WP:NPOV. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Invasion of Dagestan article there's a section called "theory of Russian government involvement", and said section is mostly based on allegations made by a man named Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky has basically admitted publicly that he's a liar and has ulterior motives. A direct quote from a The Guardian article: He also admitted that during the last six years he struggled much to "destroy the positive image of Putin" Also see here for many more discrediting claims, on top of the fact that he's a wanted criminal in two countries, and under investigation by a third.
His allegations are quite serious, and in my opinion his word is as good as worthless regarding anything about the Russian government.
(Also, my attempt to point out the types of things he has said in the article has been reverted, so the article just says "According to Boris Berezovsky..blah blah", meaning anyone who doesn't click on his name and read up about him might actually take his claims seriously.) Krawndawg ( talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the indiscriminate use of patent applications as sources. IMHO they are a typical primary source and should only be cited as far as they are cited in secondary sources. And especially in the area of strange and wonderfull invention, they just don't prove anything, besides the fact that a patent is granted.
Nevertheless my attempts to remove them and the article parts only referenced by them, often meets fierce resistance.
So I would like to hear more opinionions on this issue.
A typical example article would be Oxyhydrogen, the non-mainstream second half.
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What are the proper rules for citing film credits for a released film? I would think that it would be self-evident that the listing of the credit on the screen itself would be the first and overriding source. There is significant disagreement on this subject in and of itself. Not discussed but I believe understood would be those instances in which SAG dictates additions or deletions to a films credits, this would obviously override the wiki infobox and merit a specific mention in the entry. There is also some discussion of background on this subject at [19].
Should a films displayed screen credits be used as the dominant source? A standard should also require that changes to this come from a reliable source. SAG would be reliable, a NYT interview with the writer giving writing credits to another might also be, but IMDB which relies on submissions should not trump the displayed screen credits automatically.
I also second a suggestion,if the WIKI editors agree and will create it: Wikipedia:Film citation guidelines15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
* Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one) * Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions * The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear
IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR
Would it be fair to state then that a released films published credits are a reliable and accepted source? That IMDB, in and of itself, does not take precedence and is a debatable tertiary source?16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.
Resolved: A released films displayed credits are a reliable source for Infobox credits.16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following users:
Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Wikipedia. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? -- Niels Gade ( talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil ( talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:
It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? [33] I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. -- Slp1 ( talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read WP:BLP about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Google has a section called "Google Scholar" [36]. While it seldom provides much detail text it does provide (IMHO) good references. Is there any official WP:RS position on this search engine? -- Low Sea ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on yaoi and have come across two sites that I'm not quite sure are RS. The article has had a list of futher reading for quite some time, and I've been incorporating that into specific references. The first, Akiba Angels, I don't know anything about, and the articles were put in there by the author. They are quite unique in terms of the articles we've got on yaoi, as they purely analyse the content, without trying to make the fandom out like crazy people, so it's probably not just a case of self-promotion. The second, Aestheticism.com, has a decent glossary, and has had a shout-out by an academic in a journal article which I'm assuming is peer reviewed. Also, I'm citing two honours theses - how well-regarded in general are these? Most of the rest are news sites or anime news sites and so should be fine. - Malkinann ( talk) 04:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can somone comment on the sources being posted in Talk:Routemaster#Restoration_Of_Section. Sources are being put up for the re-inclusion of data, namely the identity of the Routemaster buses that are currently in service in London, that was essentially first added by someone who 'wrote them down by seeing them out their window'. (aside from whether the 'current' nature of this info makes it relevant to wp at all) MickMacNee ( talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been addressed here before, but given the issues of Soviet historiography, can sources such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia and other such Soviet encyclopedias published during the Stalinist period be considered reliable? Martintg ( talk) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Before I even embark on trying to get some rune stone articles up for FA or GA, I should perhaps verify whether the Rundata database qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Having observed the GA discussion on Talk:Sif, I noticed that page numbers appear to be required by at least one evaluator. Rundata is a freely downloadable database in both English and Swedish where some of the world's leading runologists at Uppsala University have added information souch as provenance, runestone style, dating, etc. It is not possible to refer to Rundata by adding page numbers, but I think that the runic inscription IDs (e.g. U 123, DK 123 or N 123) provide sufficient verifiability in themselves. Any opinions?-- Berig ( talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at Darwin's Black Box I got into a bit of a disagreement over the use of a review cited to the above website. As the name implies, the website hosts the archives of talk.origins, the usenet newsgroup that discussed issues related to evolution and abiogenesis.
I am a supporter of the use of newsgroups by and large, especially for those areas, such as speculative fiction and anti-Scientology protest, where they were significant sources of information and major props of the community at through the 1990s. Consensus is consistently against me on this at WT:RS, and particularly when it comes to negative or contentious materials about living persons.
The item I removed was a 1996 posting at talk.origins and preserved at the archive, written by a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard who now works at a start-up. I was reverted with the argument that the archive is itself not usenet, and that it has received multiple website awards and some nice writeups elsewhere. I'm bringing it here for overview. Note the entire talkorigins.com website does not consist of an archive of usenet postings; I am not claiming that all that it holds would fail RS.
As I see it, the question is simple: are usenet postings by non-authorities, even if archived elsewhere, considered reliable? -- Relata refero ( disp.) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has taken place repeatedly here. The result has always been that this is a reliable source.-- Filll ( talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are we required to accept your personal assertions of anything ? Do you have a reliable source showing Keith walking in the April 1997 commencement ceremony?-- Filll ( talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is such an unreliable source, why do academics typically use TalkOrigins as a source? Why is this very review quoted by academics? For example, look at this article in RNCSE [37].-- Filll ( talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also cited in this article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: [38]. Hmm...-- Filll ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero repeatedly, and to my mind fallaciously, refers to the Robison review as "a usenet post". As to the specifics of this accusation, can Relata refero demonstrate that the review in its entirety was posted on usenet? If not, then it is not "a usenet post", but merely material that is in part based upon material previously submitted to usenet by the author (of both the original posts and the review). I see no reason under WP:RS why this (purely historical footnote) should be problematical. Per Relata refero's other caveats, it would seem to be highly unlikely that this material has been "spoofed" and it is in fact part of the FAQ (which Relata refero has explicitly assented to), specifically the FAQ on Behe.
As far as Robison being a grad student at the time, I present his publication record at that time as evidence that he is qualified to review Behe:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I find this entire episode bewildering. We can of course mount a very large defense of this review. The review is cited repeatedly in assorted academic sources, and by notable experts in the field. We can extinguish these incredibly silly attempts at disruption quite handily; that is very clear. For example:
I invite you to continue down this path if you want to find out what biting is.-- Filll ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's examine the use of Talk Origins Archive (TOA), to better understand this matter.
It is used as an EL and a ref (3x) on the ID article, which by the way, is a featured article.
It is used as an EL and otherwise talked about on the Creationism Article. It is even featured as an important organization in that same article.
It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution article, which is a featured article.
It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution as theory and fact article.
It is used as an EL and a ref (2x) on the Introduction to Evolution article, which is also an FA.
It is used as an EL on the Theistic evolution article.
It is used as an EL and ref (4x) on the Flood Geology article.
It is a ref or cited work (10x) for the Creation-evolution controversy article.
It is a used as an EL and a ref (7x) on the Creation Science article.
Now onto BLP's. It is used as a ref (4x) on the Kent Hovind article. Kent Hovind is a noted YEC.
It is used as a ref (4x) on the Walt Brown article. He is also a noted YEC.
It is used as a ref (5x) on the Duane Gish article. Also a noted YEC. The use of TOA is discussed here with the conclusion being that, on the whole, it is a vital resource.
It is used as a ref (2x) and an EL for the Ken Ham article. Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologist group.
It is used as a ref (3x) on the Henry M. Morris article. While no longer living, Morris was the founder of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) and generally acknowledged as the father of creation science.
So, as you can plainly see, TOA has been used many, many times over as both a reference and an external link on a wide variety of articles relating to evolution, creationism, and ID. It has been used for both Featured Articles and BLP's, with no problems. This is an open and shut case here, folks. Baegis ( talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well let's see. Either a PhD candidate from Harvard, or a PhD at Harvard, either way someone who is a Harvard employee. Someone who has published extensively in the best journals. Someone who writes a review that is cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals. And the question is, even if this review is viewed as a WP:SPS, can we use it as a WP:RS? I think the answer is pretty obvious, except for someone who is engaged in WP:DE and WP:TE.-- Filll ( talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement that "materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review" in no way detracts from the usage in the article. Reviews of popular books are not normally subjected to formal peer-review. Darwin's Black Box#Reception in the scientific community explicitly states that this is "A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins", and as such gives fair representation of the views of that section of the scientific community at the time of publication of the book. Accepting points made above, the author was then a graduate, eminently well qualified to discuss the subject. The review has subsequently been published in TalkOrigins Archive, which has widespread recognition as a reliable source. The review is not represented as the ultimate truth on the matter or as the work of a famous scientist, but as a noteworthy review which has since been published by a respected source at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reliable source for the usage in question. Note also that it's a book review, not "negative or contentious materials about living persons". The statements from the review included in the article have been well supported at every level up to the relevant federal court case, and it appears tendentious in the extreme to claim that WP:BLP prohibits reference to this book review. . . 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In this diff [39] I have been question whether the book Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. [40]Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, pgs 197-207. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. Per the edit summary: "source unreliable. please stop.. ". Does this book meet reliable sourcing policy standards for a cite as to the tense "has" versus "had" in the Gun politics in the United States? Third opinions welcome on this difference of opinion. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it can be considered RS or not per WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Post-secondary textbooks are not only acceptable, they are often useful for providing a broad overview of a subject. This is quite nice when making short summary overviews (like wiki articles) and helps in determining the balance of NPOV (by providing a "lay of the land"). Vassyana ( talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We have an interesting situation on the David Rohl article, where David has added an edit using a mailing list in which he particpates are a reference. It seems to be the only source for what is a crucial statement by the archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen. I've no axe to grind - they're both wrong :-) - I'm just interested in the issue itself. Is there any leeway here? Doug Weller ( talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So then how on earth do you report on a public event witnessed by many and filmed? Are you saying that crap written on a web site is more valid than a notice published in a discussion group? Why? What makes a web site more authoritative? Your rules are extraordinary. You allow hearsay and opinion without evidencial support but a clear public statement is not permitted. Something is very wrong here with Wikipedia and its policies. David Rohl. 22:05, 20 April 2008.
Byzantine Empire has as an external link Byzantine Glory — the mosaic of Byzantine History and Culture which seems to be a movement to more or less restore an expanded Byzantine empire (peacefully it says) "from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. " Before I remoeve it and maybe get involved in an edit war, is there any way in which this meets Wikipedia criteria? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This newspaper is owned by the Zimbabwe government, how much should it be used in the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 article? (Hypnosadist) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This edit summary was used in the Doctor Who article Press-Only showing fails WP:V, still needs WP:RS [41].
Since when has that been the situation in Film,TV,Books articles because wouldn't that exclude the use of pre-release reviews of such material which I have seen used in various articles . Garda40 ( talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In April 2006, Ernst and Canter authored a review of systematic reviews and published in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. This would usually be considered a reliable source that meets MEDRS. However, in August of 2006, an article was published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-14), that refutes the conclusions by Ernst and Canter.
The conclusions of the second article were "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers."
Would the original article still be considered a reliable source? DigitalC ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have used Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk as a reference for an article currently at GAC, but its reliability has been questioned. Can anyone help me with some guidance? Is there a list of reliable sources - and is this one of them?
The Wikipedia page on Genuki says: GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland". It hosts a large collection of pages with genealogical information covering England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Also, I have used http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html as a source of village information. One editor has said they feel it is a comercial site, but you can see from the page that the web editor gives away his pics for charitable donations. The guy who runs the site is a local historian, so I valued his input - but I need to know if that makes it reliable.
Lastly, the reliabity of this site http://www.templarmechanics.com/main.asp has been called into question too. How can I tell if a site is reliable or not?
Thanks-- seahamlass 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Dank55 suggested I post this here, after having done so at WT:CITE. So, here it is
In my sandbox, I'm working on
Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on
the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.
Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just covering my ass here. This doesn't look like it stands a chance of meeting WP:RS, so I've been reverting editors that have been using it as a source for the album title of Vanessa Hudgens's latest album. Opinions welcome. Kww ( talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I keep removing a sequel section on Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) because the only reference we have is is a blog. Is this blog an acceptable source? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts this link] is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. -- Bobblehead (rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under #Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on fair use has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. Jayen 466 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. Blacklisting this, while it may be justified, would take a lot of upfront work, which I have described in my response. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Are conference proceedings RS? Are they peer-reviewed? I'm wondering because I have seen some people use powerpoint slides from a conference/workshop talk as a ref in FAs. My university has hosted a few conferences etc where some PhD students have given some talks on things that did not get published in journals until a while later and were pretty informal in nature and and not really much more polished than the weekly departmental seminar. For instance this paper was the transcript of a talk and was used as a ref. There are a pile of spelling errors and some very bad grammar mistakes, including a grammar error in the title. I can't see this ever passing a journal review or a book publisher, so I wonder whether something like this can be a RS (or even notable anaylsis/POV). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
To add to the previous comments: The reliability depends upon (1) the field of study and (2) the particular conference. For instance, (painting with a broad brush) conferences in pure sciences are seldom regarded very highly and the paper/abstract is often reviewed only for topicality and to keep out blatant nonsense (comparable to wikipedia's speedy delete criterion :) ). On the other hand, many conferences in engineering are more selective and the submissions receive a more thorough peer review; in fact in computer science a few conferences are considered as or even more prestigious than journals (see [42] or [43] or this site for a good rule of thumb). Another good way to judge the notability of conferences is to check if the proceedings are archived by many libraries and/or academic databases. Abecedare ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Already extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 17#Should academic conference papers be considered reliable sources?. The discussion there brings up other variables that must be considered, including whether the conference is sponsored (by a tobacco company? a political pressure group?); also that online conference papers are usually not the peer-reviewed versions; also that they usually explicitly fail REDFLAG. There are some broad guidelines: Computer science, the hard physical sciences usually more reliable than economics working papers/conference summaries, which are usually much more reliable than humanities conference papers. Math papers are apparently only copy-edited. (!) -- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Free Life Commentary [44] is an internet-only self-published "journal" which appears to only carry the "papers" of one man, Sean Gabb, the leader of a fringe UK-based thinktank called the Libertarian Alliance. Gabb describes himself as an academic, although he doesn't obviously have a position at any UK or overseas university. Gibb has appeared infrequently in the media as a spokesperson for Libertarianism, although I can't find any work by him in the serious mainstream media (all of this is from brief research done today, I had never even heard of him until a couple of hours ago). FLC is in effect little more than a blog; there is also a newsletter-style publication produced by the Libertarian Alliance called Free Life Magazine with which is not to be confused, although I stuggle to see how even that comes anywhere near being an RS except in the most unusual of contexts. His own autobiographical contributions toward his wiki entry ( Sean Gabb, see e.g. here) include such illuminatory and modest gems as:
[Gabb is] "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."
"Many conservatives believe that his [Gabb's, speaking in the third-person] cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."
and:
"What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer..."
Material by Gibb from FLC (two separate blogs) is currently being used in Elgin Marbles to support the position that 1) there is no continuity between ancient and modern Greece; 2) as a general racist diatribe against Greeks ("I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...") (and it goes on...). There has been some civil and sensible discussion on talk between User:Xenovatis, who contends that these are reliable sources per WP:RS, that they are both relevant to the topic, and that there is no evidence that these are not mainstream viewpoints (see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.) and thus they should be included (of course the inverse of that applies- there's no positive evidence that there are mainstream viewpoints (of course they are not, that barely needs to be said)). We agreed that it would be sensible to come here for an opinion on the relibility and use of the sources in question, and all comments are appreciated. Links to the material in context on Elgin Marbles available here. Badgerpatrol ( talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NOTE:Both D666D and Badgerpatrol were involved in this dispute long before it was placed in this page. The point of placing it here was to get some 3rd party perspective not rehash the same arguments. I don't see the point of the above and I would hope some uninvoles users would care to offer their opinion instead. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A user named "toddyvol" is continuously making edits to Benton, Tennessee, claiming it's a "speed trap" without providing a reliable source. Several users have reverted his edits, but we're all maxing out our 3-reverts.
This user cited the "Speed Trap Exchange," which is not a reliable source, and pretty names every city in the southeast a "speed trap." Bms4880 ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've only just discovered this noticboard exists, and I already have a question for it.
I need to source some unsourced assertions about the Academy Award nominations for a film. The assertions look correct, I just need to check and source them. Is there anywhere that is:
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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Help is urgently needed at History of Sumer. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of Samuel Kramer, and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that I am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on wikipedia as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the following reliable references to Talk:Aratta establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on wikipedia because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article Aratta at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In article Singh one user name User:Gurkhaboy is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see [1] Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. -- 99.237.254.25 ( talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In an attempt to resolve a dispute for classifying fan translations we were trying find 3rd-party sites. Would a site like this one meet the criteria? Jinnai ( talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
One article where this has been coming up is at Tsukihime. I'll note that nobody here is disputing the existence of the translation. One can easily verify it by going to the translator's web site [2], the list of visual novel translations [3], and news sites devoted to the topic [4]. So I think the question is, what should we include in the article to source the statement "An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006."? I'll note that this has nothing to do with the notability of Tsukihime, which has been established by it spawning both Manga and Anime. — PyTom ( talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Would The Philadelphia Trumpet be considered a reliable source for a statement on Middle Eastern politics? It is a monthly news magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God. I have to admit I'm no expert on the PCoG, but my understanding of it is that it is a fairly fringe-y religious organisation (according to a Watchman Expositor profile, it is an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members -- [5]). I feel that this would have to be considered a non-mainstream source - what WP:V would call a " questionable source" - and that Middle Eastern affairs would be outside its area of competence. It strikes me as being rather similar to contemplating the use of a Church of Scientology magazine as a reliable source for a statement on Scientology's pet hate, psychiatry. I would be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel ( talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? ( link) R. Baley ( talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? Arzel ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate going on over on WP:ORN (see section " Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research" and start reading where it says "I've seen some situations recently") about the manner in which statements about decisions of the United States Supreme Court can or should be sourced. The other editor and I had hoped to attract some outside perspectives on this issue (as an alternative to going back and forth on the article talk pages or simply descending into an edit war), but so far no one other than the two of us has chimed in.
Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.
If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. Richwales ( talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna ( talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.
I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Isha (spiritual teacher) is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within wikipedia policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid was, "Some critics who use the [apartheid] analogy extend it to include Arab citizens of Israel," citing Dixon as one such critic. The current wording is, "Several critics, including [...] Bruce Dixon." Thus, it is not a question of whether Dixon is a reliable source for facts on Israel, but of whether he's a critic who uses the apartheid analogy wrt Arab-Israelis, which of course he is. And the source in question was a reprint of the Dixon article on the much better known and respected Electronic Intifada, the largest Palestinian news site which the Jerusalem Post calls the "Palestinian CNN," rather than the obscure www.blackcommentator.com - you kept editing EI out and blackcommentator in. This posting is typical WP:GAME-ing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current insurgency article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?
Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering, is it a reliable source? It has lots of users. http://www.accesshollywood.com/ Thank you. -- Kanonkas, Take Contact ( talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. -- Mohun ( talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor is particularly keen to use this document . [11] in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".
The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:
I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.
However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B ( talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.
Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.
Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. ( Masculinity ( talk) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.( Masculinity ( talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. ( Masculinity ( talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html
Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)
Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:
“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004 By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko. Excerpt: "Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."
Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.
In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM: www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf
( Masculinity ( talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.( Masculinity ( talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (
Masculinity (
talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny. DEZnCHRIS ( talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.
Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.
It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.( Masculinity ( talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.
( 124.30.94.10 ( talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.
Masculinity for Boys | Literacy for life, 2006 | |
---|---|---|
Disclaimer | "The opinion expressed in this documents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi" | "The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director." (emphasis added) |
Authorship | ??? | 20+ named authors with acknowledged qualifications and expertise in the field. |
Peer review, or editorial oversight | ??? | Representatives from UN multilateral agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and networks, individuals from developing countries with an expertise in basic education issues, and directors of UNESCO institutes. (emphasis added) |
Bibliography | None | 600+ citations |
Hope this establishes what a reliable publication from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable source" [sic]. Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines and is not an acceptable source for wikipedia (and that judgement is independent of the WP:REDFLAG issues raised by its content). Abecedare ( talk) 06:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty 2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email 3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs 4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad American Clio ( talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum
Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More
_________________________________________
New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.
The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.
"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."
In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."
"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum." http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htm American Clio ( talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.
GETTY IMAGES Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.
After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.
In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."
Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.
However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377
the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War. But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence. American Clio ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This source for the material below appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website appears to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.
From ME/CFS nomenclatures:
Also Infectious venulitis (IVN), this term was used to describe an outbreak at the
Mercy San Juan Hospital in
Sacramento,
California by
Erich Ryll.
Source
RS or not? Thanks.
Ward20 (
talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a problem on this article: Laqtel which is a corporate stub. The article was started as essentially a copy and paste of press releases. I went through and remove most of the corporate PR from the article and trimmed it down to the basics. However two users are constantly reverting the edits. Am I off track here? I can't see any justification (in my mind) as to why the content deserves to be on Wikipedia. All it talks about is business transactions and visions, throwing figures in there, with no references what-so-ever. The only reference in the entire article is something I added based on a recent development (where the company got into serious legal trouble). I am questioning as well the motives of those editing the articles repeatedly. Rasadam ( talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, does this book 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' become an Reliable Source ? and if so would there be any rejections for it ? is there an certain company that i could only provide as Ref.
because i noticed in many wiki articles they just have books (not encyclopedias) from authors point of view and doesnt seem to be fair to other books and information that could be provided in articles.
and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. -- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Book Name - Encyclopedia International
Copyright- 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963 by Grolier Incorporated
Copyright - Grolier Incorporated 1974
Copyright in Canada - Grolier Limited
Encyclopedia International
Includes bibliographies
1. Encyclodeias and Dictionaries
AE5.E447 1974 031 73-11206 ISBN 0-7172-0705-6
Note - Its just One of my Sources for information, and it also covers some areas i will be investigating in and has over 30 books. is it considerd reliable ?
-- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Whats the difference if its based on 1970 or whenever, its still actual Encyclopedia that holds enough information to calim what i need on articles. -- 99.237.254.245 ( talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article Nazi propaganda a paragraph was very recently introduced that uses the following as source (text from the reference given):
My question is, is this a reliable source? Can I too use this and similar material to source articles?-- Stor stark7 Talk 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is The HistoryMakers a reliable source for information about its subjects? TheslB ( talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As silly as it sounds, I need input from the wider community as to whether Forbes and the International Herald Tribune are reliable sources? There is a long-running dispute on Singapore Airlines where User:Huaiwei claims that The IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is and in relation to Forbes, The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship. If others can look here for more information and provide their input that would be great. -- Россавиа Диалог 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the official website of a sports tournament or a film festival considered to be a primary source as mentioned in WP:PSTS? Can the award database of such a website be used as reference for a featured list about awards?
This issue was raised on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count by User:Matthewedwards. It does not only involve this list, but also lists that are already featured, such as:
My reasoning was the following:
For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources.
in which "these sources" refers to www.olympics.org and the official report of the 1928 Summer Olympics, written by the Dutch National Olympic Committee.
I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. Best regards, Ilse @ 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am Ga reviewing Artaxerxes III of Persia. Need help to decide are these RS:
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to directly cite Answers.com except obviously for its Wikipedia mirror? I'm having a debate with another editor over it. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia must contain references from original sources, not from numerous content aggregators all over internet. This is the basic rule of respect to authorship. Just as wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia's own rules, answers.com is no way better. `' Míkka >t 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been engaged in 'debate' (with someone very heated) about a particular source used for the Baghdad Battery article. The other party involved seems to have written most of the article (he did its 3rd edit) and says he used this source to write it -- see [17]. It's not just that the source is a Swedish UFO web page, it is that the article itself [18] is also very bad. The stuff about its discovery and Gray is well sourced elsewhere, the stuff at the bottom about someone called Thatte is apparently fictitious, or at least I cannot find any references to anything there except the word Maitravaruna which seems to mean priest. I removed it twice and he put it back giving me some abuse. He's now created a new section on "World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." which he seems to think gives him carte blanche to add any links he wants so long as he has used them in the past for information. While I'm at it -- some of the other links I'm not sure about. Youtube? http://www.answersingenesis.org? The Unmuseum? And the images - a bit OT here - how do I check whether they are licenced? I'm pretty new here and still coming to grips with what meets policy/guidelines and what doesn't, so any help is appreciated especially as I hope to spend more time improving articles (such as the Terracotta Army one) then sorting this sort of thing out and want to practice what I preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 April 2008
Many anonymous IP editors add information to articles relating to the TV shows The Real World and Road Rules, using the MySpace pages of the stars of those shows as citations. While MySpace in general my not be a reliable source because of the problem of people creating such pages to pose as those celebrities, my observation is that the presence of rare, personal photos on a given MS page may lend credibility to the notion that a given page is indeed the official one belonging to that person. User: Black Falcon agreed that this was one positive criterion. My question is, is this site reliable to establish if a given MS page is an official one? It lists the personal websites and MS pages of many past cast members, but I don't know how to gauge its reliability. Any thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism is a horribly biased anticommunist reference. But it is used in multiple articles. It received reception from people of the American and British media (and off-course from pro-Capitalist people). Organizations like The New York Times, National Review (a conservative reference) which generally praised the book.
But the book received severe criticism as being a one-sided, biased. In my opinion if The Black Book of Communism is used as source (no matter who praised the book, if they are biased or not, since it received scholarly review it is RS), the opposing views should also be given to maintain WP:NPOV. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Invasion of Dagestan article there's a section called "theory of Russian government involvement", and said section is mostly based on allegations made by a man named Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky has basically admitted publicly that he's a liar and has ulterior motives. A direct quote from a The Guardian article: He also admitted that during the last six years he struggled much to "destroy the positive image of Putin" Also see here for many more discrediting claims, on top of the fact that he's a wanted criminal in two countries, and under investigation by a third.
His allegations are quite serious, and in my opinion his word is as good as worthless regarding anything about the Russian government.
(Also, my attempt to point out the types of things he has said in the article has been reverted, so the article just says "According to Boris Berezovsky..blah blah", meaning anyone who doesn't click on his name and read up about him might actually take his claims seriously.) Krawndawg ( talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the indiscriminate use of patent applications as sources. IMHO they are a typical primary source and should only be cited as far as they are cited in secondary sources. And especially in the area of strange and wonderfull invention, they just don't prove anything, besides the fact that a patent is granted.
Nevertheless my attempts to remove them and the article parts only referenced by them, often meets fierce resistance.
So I would like to hear more opinionions on this issue.
A typical example article would be Oxyhydrogen, the non-mainstream second half.
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What are the proper rules for citing film credits for a released film? I would think that it would be self-evident that the listing of the credit on the screen itself would be the first and overriding source. There is significant disagreement on this subject in and of itself. Not discussed but I believe understood would be those instances in which SAG dictates additions or deletions to a films credits, this would obviously override the wiki infobox and merit a specific mention in the entry. There is also some discussion of background on this subject at [19].
Should a films displayed screen credits be used as the dominant source? A standard should also require that changes to this come from a reliable source. SAG would be reliable, a NYT interview with the writer giving writing credits to another might also be, but IMDB which relies on submissions should not trump the displayed screen credits automatically.
I also second a suggestion,if the WIKI editors agree and will create it: Wikipedia:Film citation guidelines15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
* Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one) * Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions * The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear
IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR
Would it be fair to state then that a released films published credits are a reliable and accepted source? That IMDB, in and of itself, does not take precedence and is a debatable tertiary source?16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.
Resolved: A released films displayed credits are a reliable source for Infobox credits.16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following users:
Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Wikipedia. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? -- Niels Gade ( talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil ( talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:
It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? [33] I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. -- Slp1 ( talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read WP:BLP about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Google has a section called "Google Scholar" [36]. While it seldom provides much detail text it does provide (IMHO) good references. Is there any official WP:RS position on this search engine? -- Low Sea ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on yaoi and have come across two sites that I'm not quite sure are RS. The article has had a list of futher reading for quite some time, and I've been incorporating that into specific references. The first, Akiba Angels, I don't know anything about, and the articles were put in there by the author. They are quite unique in terms of the articles we've got on yaoi, as they purely analyse the content, without trying to make the fandom out like crazy people, so it's probably not just a case of self-promotion. The second, Aestheticism.com, has a decent glossary, and has had a shout-out by an academic in a journal article which I'm assuming is peer reviewed. Also, I'm citing two honours theses - how well-regarded in general are these? Most of the rest are news sites or anime news sites and so should be fine. - Malkinann ( talk) 04:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can somone comment on the sources being posted in Talk:Routemaster#Restoration_Of_Section. Sources are being put up for the re-inclusion of data, namely the identity of the Routemaster buses that are currently in service in London, that was essentially first added by someone who 'wrote them down by seeing them out their window'. (aside from whether the 'current' nature of this info makes it relevant to wp at all) MickMacNee ( talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been addressed here before, but given the issues of Soviet historiography, can sources such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia and other such Soviet encyclopedias published during the Stalinist period be considered reliable? Martintg ( talk) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Before I even embark on trying to get some rune stone articles up for FA or GA, I should perhaps verify whether the Rundata database qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Having observed the GA discussion on Talk:Sif, I noticed that page numbers appear to be required by at least one evaluator. Rundata is a freely downloadable database in both English and Swedish where some of the world's leading runologists at Uppsala University have added information souch as provenance, runestone style, dating, etc. It is not possible to refer to Rundata by adding page numbers, but I think that the runic inscription IDs (e.g. U 123, DK 123 or N 123) provide sufficient verifiability in themselves. Any opinions?-- Berig ( talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at Darwin's Black Box I got into a bit of a disagreement over the use of a review cited to the above website. As the name implies, the website hosts the archives of talk.origins, the usenet newsgroup that discussed issues related to evolution and abiogenesis.
I am a supporter of the use of newsgroups by and large, especially for those areas, such as speculative fiction and anti-Scientology protest, where they were significant sources of information and major props of the community at through the 1990s. Consensus is consistently against me on this at WT:RS, and particularly when it comes to negative or contentious materials about living persons.
The item I removed was a 1996 posting at talk.origins and preserved at the archive, written by a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard who now works at a start-up. I was reverted with the argument that the archive is itself not usenet, and that it has received multiple website awards and some nice writeups elsewhere. I'm bringing it here for overview. Note the entire talkorigins.com website does not consist of an archive of usenet postings; I am not claiming that all that it holds would fail RS.
As I see it, the question is simple: are usenet postings by non-authorities, even if archived elsewhere, considered reliable? -- Relata refero ( disp.) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has taken place repeatedly here. The result has always been that this is a reliable source.-- Filll ( talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are we required to accept your personal assertions of anything ? Do you have a reliable source showing Keith walking in the April 1997 commencement ceremony?-- Filll ( talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is such an unreliable source, why do academics typically use TalkOrigins as a source? Why is this very review quoted by academics? For example, look at this article in RNCSE [37].-- Filll ( talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also cited in this article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: [38]. Hmm...-- Filll ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero repeatedly, and to my mind fallaciously, refers to the Robison review as "a usenet post". As to the specifics of this accusation, can Relata refero demonstrate that the review in its entirety was posted on usenet? If not, then it is not "a usenet post", but merely material that is in part based upon material previously submitted to usenet by the author (of both the original posts and the review). I see no reason under WP:RS why this (purely historical footnote) should be problematical. Per Relata refero's other caveats, it would seem to be highly unlikely that this material has been "spoofed" and it is in fact part of the FAQ (which Relata refero has explicitly assented to), specifically the FAQ on Behe.
As far as Robison being a grad student at the time, I present his publication record at that time as evidence that he is qualified to review Behe:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I find this entire episode bewildering. We can of course mount a very large defense of this review. The review is cited repeatedly in assorted academic sources, and by notable experts in the field. We can extinguish these incredibly silly attempts at disruption quite handily; that is very clear. For example:
I invite you to continue down this path if you want to find out what biting is.-- Filll ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's examine the use of Talk Origins Archive (TOA), to better understand this matter.
It is used as an EL and a ref (3x) on the ID article, which by the way, is a featured article.
It is used as an EL and otherwise talked about on the Creationism Article. It is even featured as an important organization in that same article.
It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution article, which is a featured article.
It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution as theory and fact article.
It is used as an EL and a ref (2x) on the Introduction to Evolution article, which is also an FA.
It is used as an EL on the Theistic evolution article.
It is used as an EL and ref (4x) on the Flood Geology article.
It is a ref or cited work (10x) for the Creation-evolution controversy article.
It is a used as an EL and a ref (7x) on the Creation Science article.
Now onto BLP's. It is used as a ref (4x) on the Kent Hovind article. Kent Hovind is a noted YEC.
It is used as a ref (4x) on the Walt Brown article. He is also a noted YEC.
It is used as a ref (5x) on the Duane Gish article. Also a noted YEC. The use of TOA is discussed here with the conclusion being that, on the whole, it is a vital resource.
It is used as a ref (2x) and an EL for the Ken Ham article. Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologist group.
It is used as a ref (3x) on the Henry M. Morris article. While no longer living, Morris was the founder of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) and generally acknowledged as the father of creation science.
So, as you can plainly see, TOA has been used many, many times over as both a reference and an external link on a wide variety of articles relating to evolution, creationism, and ID. It has been used for both Featured Articles and BLP's, with no problems. This is an open and shut case here, folks. Baegis ( talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well let's see. Either a PhD candidate from Harvard, or a PhD at Harvard, either way someone who is a Harvard employee. Someone who has published extensively in the best journals. Someone who writes a review that is cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals. And the question is, even if this review is viewed as a WP:SPS, can we use it as a WP:RS? I think the answer is pretty obvious, except for someone who is engaged in WP:DE and WP:TE.-- Filll ( talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement that "materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review" in no way detracts from the usage in the article. Reviews of popular books are not normally subjected to formal peer-review. Darwin's Black Box#Reception in the scientific community explicitly states that this is "A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins", and as such gives fair representation of the views of that section of the scientific community at the time of publication of the book. Accepting points made above, the author was then a graduate, eminently well qualified to discuss the subject. The review has subsequently been published in TalkOrigins Archive, which has widespread recognition as a reliable source. The review is not represented as the ultimate truth on the matter or as the work of a famous scientist, but as a noteworthy review which has since been published by a respected source at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reliable source for the usage in question. Note also that it's a book review, not "negative or contentious materials about living persons". The statements from the review included in the article have been well supported at every level up to the relevant federal court case, and it appears tendentious in the extreme to claim that WP:BLP prohibits reference to this book review. . . 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In this diff [39] I have been question whether the book Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. [40]Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, pgs 197-207. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. Per the edit summary: "source unreliable. please stop.. ". Does this book meet reliable sourcing policy standards for a cite as to the tense "has" versus "had" in the Gun politics in the United States? Third opinions welcome on this difference of opinion. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it can be considered RS or not per WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Post-secondary textbooks are not only acceptable, they are often useful for providing a broad overview of a subject. This is quite nice when making short summary overviews (like wiki articles) and helps in determining the balance of NPOV (by providing a "lay of the land"). Vassyana ( talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We have an interesting situation on the David Rohl article, where David has added an edit using a mailing list in which he particpates are a reference. It seems to be the only source for what is a crucial statement by the archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen. I've no axe to grind - they're both wrong :-) - I'm just interested in the issue itself. Is there any leeway here? Doug Weller ( talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So then how on earth do you report on a public event witnessed by many and filmed? Are you saying that crap written on a web site is more valid than a notice published in a discussion group? Why? What makes a web site more authoritative? Your rules are extraordinary. You allow hearsay and opinion without evidencial support but a clear public statement is not permitted. Something is very wrong here with Wikipedia and its policies. David Rohl. 22:05, 20 April 2008.
Byzantine Empire has as an external link Byzantine Glory — the mosaic of Byzantine History and Culture which seems to be a movement to more or less restore an expanded Byzantine empire (peacefully it says) "from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. " Before I remoeve it and maybe get involved in an edit war, is there any way in which this meets Wikipedia criteria? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This newspaper is owned by the Zimbabwe government, how much should it be used in the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 article? (Hypnosadist) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This edit summary was used in the Doctor Who article Press-Only showing fails WP:V, still needs WP:RS [41].
Since when has that been the situation in Film,TV,Books articles because wouldn't that exclude the use of pre-release reviews of such material which I have seen used in various articles . Garda40 ( talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In April 2006, Ernst and Canter authored a review of systematic reviews and published in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. This would usually be considered a reliable source that meets MEDRS. However, in August of 2006, an article was published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-14), that refutes the conclusions by Ernst and Canter.
The conclusions of the second article were "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers."
Would the original article still be considered a reliable source? DigitalC ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have used Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk as a reference for an article currently at GAC, but its reliability has been questioned. Can anyone help me with some guidance? Is there a list of reliable sources - and is this one of them?
The Wikipedia page on Genuki says: GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland". It hosts a large collection of pages with genealogical information covering England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Also, I have used http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html as a source of village information. One editor has said they feel it is a comercial site, but you can see from the page that the web editor gives away his pics for charitable donations. The guy who runs the site is a local historian, so I valued his input - but I need to know if that makes it reliable.
Lastly, the reliabity of this site http://www.templarmechanics.com/main.asp has been called into question too. How can I tell if a site is reliable or not?
Thanks-- seahamlass 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Dank55 suggested I post this here, after having done so at WT:CITE. So, here it is
In my sandbox, I'm working on
Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on
the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.
Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just covering my ass here. This doesn't look like it stands a chance of meeting WP:RS, so I've been reverting editors that have been using it as a source for the album title of Vanessa Hudgens's latest album. Opinions welcome. Kww ( talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I keep removing a sequel section on Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) because the only reference we have is is a blog. Is this blog an acceptable source? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts this link] is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. -- Bobblehead (rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under #Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on fair use has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. Jayen 466 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. Blacklisting this, while it may be justified, would take a lot of upfront work, which I have described in my response. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Are conference proceedings RS? Are they peer-reviewed? I'm wondering because I have seen some people use powerpoint slides from a conference/workshop talk as a ref in FAs. My university has hosted a few conferences etc where some PhD students have given some talks on things that did not get published in journals until a while later and were pretty informal in nature and and not really much more polished than the weekly departmental seminar. For instance this paper was the transcript of a talk and was used as a ref. There are a pile of spelling errors and some very bad grammar mistakes, including a grammar error in the title. I can't see this ever passing a journal review or a book publisher, so I wonder whether something like this can be a RS (or even notable anaylsis/POV). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
To add to the previous comments: The reliability depends upon (1) the field of study and (2) the particular conference. For instance, (painting with a broad brush) conferences in pure sciences are seldom regarded very highly and the paper/abstract is often reviewed only for topicality and to keep out blatant nonsense (comparable to wikipedia's speedy delete criterion :) ). On the other hand, many conferences in engineering are more selective and the submissions receive a more thorough peer review; in fact in computer science a few conferences are considered as or even more prestigious than journals (see [42] or [43] or this site for a good rule of thumb). Another good way to judge the notability of conferences is to check if the proceedings are archived by many libraries and/or academic databases. Abecedare ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Already extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 17#Should academic conference papers be considered reliable sources?. The discussion there brings up other variables that must be considered, including whether the conference is sponsored (by a tobacco company? a political pressure group?); also that online conference papers are usually not the peer-reviewed versions; also that they usually explicitly fail REDFLAG. There are some broad guidelines: Computer science, the hard physical sciences usually more reliable than economics working papers/conference summaries, which are usually much more reliable than humanities conference papers. Math papers are apparently only copy-edited. (!) -- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Free Life Commentary [44] is an internet-only self-published "journal" which appears to only carry the "papers" of one man, Sean Gabb, the leader of a fringe UK-based thinktank called the Libertarian Alliance. Gabb describes himself as an academic, although he doesn't obviously have a position at any UK or overseas university. Gibb has appeared infrequently in the media as a spokesperson for Libertarianism, although I can't find any work by him in the serious mainstream media (all of this is from brief research done today, I had never even heard of him until a couple of hours ago). FLC is in effect little more than a blog; there is also a newsletter-style publication produced by the Libertarian Alliance called Free Life Magazine with which is not to be confused, although I stuggle to see how even that comes anywhere near being an RS except in the most unusual of contexts. His own autobiographical contributions toward his wiki entry ( Sean Gabb, see e.g. here) include such illuminatory and modest gems as:
[Gabb is] "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."
"Many conservatives believe that his [Gabb's, speaking in the third-person] cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."
and:
"What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer..."
Material by Gibb from FLC (two separate blogs) is currently being used in Elgin Marbles to support the position that 1) there is no continuity between ancient and modern Greece; 2) as a general racist diatribe against Greeks ("I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...") (and it goes on...). There has been some civil and sensible discussion on talk between User:Xenovatis, who contends that these are reliable sources per WP:RS, that they are both relevant to the topic, and that there is no evidence that these are not mainstream viewpoints (see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.) and thus they should be included (of course the inverse of that applies- there's no positive evidence that there are mainstream viewpoints (of course they are not, that barely needs to be said)). We agreed that it would be sensible to come here for an opinion on the relibility and use of the sources in question, and all comments are appreciated. Links to the material in context on Elgin Marbles available here. Badgerpatrol ( talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NOTE:Both D666D and Badgerpatrol were involved in this dispute long before it was placed in this page. The point of placing it here was to get some 3rd party perspective not rehash the same arguments. I don't see the point of the above and I would hope some uninvoles users would care to offer their opinion instead. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A user named "toddyvol" is continuously making edits to Benton, Tennessee, claiming it's a "speed trap" without providing a reliable source. Several users have reverted his edits, but we're all maxing out our 3-reverts.
This user cited the "Speed Trap Exchange," which is not a reliable source, and pretty names every city in the southeast a "speed trap." Bms4880 ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've only just discovered this noticboard exists, and I already have a question for it.
I need to source some unsourced assertions about the Academy Award nominations for a film. The assertions look correct, I just need to check and source them. Is there anywhere that is: