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 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
When dealing with a living person settling a work-related sexual-harassment lawsuit out of court, if you have a reliable newspaper source which reports "according to an anonymous source, it is likely this living person settled for several million dollars", and many other reliable sources have either perhaps repeated this report without crediting the original newspaper or reported a similar accusation just crediting "anonymous source(s)", can the reported accusation be used in a Wikipedia living person article, or do these normally reliable sources become unusable sources for that particular piece of information in this instance on Wikipedia living person article? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws says: "Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked. Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are." WP:RS says: "While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." WP:BLP says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." -- RefCkr ( talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamDoing and ElKevbo. The primary job to determine whether an anonymous source is reliable is up to the reputable newspaper/book/journal (our source) and not us. Not allowing otherwise reputable sources, just because their research includes the use of anonymous sources (or sources they keep anonymous to the public). is a somewhat nonsensical approach. I mean, can you imagine writing an article on Watergate without using any source using Deepthroat (before he went public)? Having said that this of course no justification to use arbitrary anonymous sources published by some rag or yellow press, which we allow for sourcing in some contexts. So there is some common sense required and the consideration of context is required (this is where Siawase's point comes in and also WP:BLP).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Always remember, however, that if there is a fact being reported that you feel is significantly important to include in a BLP, but the actual source within the reliable source is ambiguous, instead of stating the information as fact, you can relate it to the reliable source in question, saying things like "The New York Times reported" and other stuff like that. That way, you're not stating it as fact, but something that the NYT reported as fact and, if the information turns out to be false, then it is known that the NYT is false and not us, because we never tried to represent it as fact. We conglomerate information from secondary sources. If there is ever a concern about something being a real fact or not, just relate it directly to the source in question so that it isn't being stated as a fact. Simple as that. (Just make sure that the info is actually important enough and passes WP:DUE.) Silver seren C 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It was most important to me to know about this question "in general" terms of Wikipedia policy - not specifically. Thanks everyone. Besides the living person article has a "lock symbol" and there is no Edit tab. For those of you interested in the specifics of this sexual harassment case and getting into the weeds, this is the newspaper article I was asking questions about: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.html
The use of the word "likely" in a Wikipedia living person article is what first caught my attention when reading the Wikipedia article Bill O'Reilly: "According to several published reports, as part of the settlement, O'Reilly likely paid Mackris millions of dollars, but the terms of the agreement are confidential.[71]" I believe she was "likely" (more than likely) paid something big to settle and leave Fox News, but I can't prove it either. Something like "unnamed sources close to O'Reilly say that..." would probably be best solution here.
Concerning WP:DUE, as I read the Wikipedia Bill O'rielly "Sexual harassment lawsuit" section (which I think should be moved to the "Controversy" section where it belongs) and compare it to the cited Washington Post article above, I find the Wikipedia section does not mention anything from this article that is weighted against Mackris. The Washington Post article lead says that Oreilly made "no apology" and later says that is unusual in settlements. "But for O'Reilly to strike a settlement without an expression of regret, which is often demanded in litigation against high-profile figures, is a partial victory." Also "Mackris has also drawn her share of negative coverage." "Questions swirled around Mackris's conduct as well, including why she didn't hang up on O'Reilly, why she never complained to Fox authorities and why she returned to work for him earlier this year after spending a few months at CNN." And the woman and her lawyer "did not dispute an accusation by O'Reilly that they had initially demanded $60 million to settle without going to court." "O'Reilly told viewers, in language cleared by the lawyers, that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" - and appeared to dispute, without specifically doing so, some of the lurid details of what Mackris alleged." "O'reilly's show ratings went up 30%." None of these weighted statements/claims against Mackris are in the Wikipedia section in question.
Also in the CBS article used to cite "vibrator and told her about sexual fantasies" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/entertainment/main650282.shtml no mention of the following weighted statements against Mackris were used in Wikipedia article. "O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green said he believed there were tapes of conversations between the two and asked the court to compel Mackris to produce them so they could be played publicly. 'I know that O'Reilly does not fear what is on the tapes,' Green said at the time." "...Mackris and her lawyer of trying to extort $60 million in "hush money" to make the case quietly go away." "O'Reilly has seen his ratings go up by 30 percent since the case was filed." Again, WP:DUE should apply to this source as well. But this is all moot because lock on Wikipedia BLP article doesn't allow any edits. -- RefCkr ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
How many people were martyred during the liberation war of Bangladesh?
User:Materialscientist has recently objected to articles like Fort Teremba going through DYK because (he claims) they are written largely from guides such as Lonely Planet etc. He has a point that articles shouldn't really be entirely written from travel guides but this article isn't, it uses the official website, a colonial history website, a PDF from The New Caledonia Weekly and other sources combined with Lonely Planet and South Pacific Guide which is satisfactory to me. He implies that sources like Lonely Planet, Bradt Travel Guides, Frommer's etc are not RS and less reliable than other sources which i must certainly disagree with. In fact I have several Bradt and Lonely Planet and DK Guides myself and they are generally written by writers who have expert knowledge about countries having lived there themselves for many years. This is why they often cover off-track places because they have an intimate knowledge of the places which should be considered very valuable.The issue as I say at least for me is to cut down the reliance on travel guides solely to write articles and to try to incorporate wider book sources and reading. But surely Lonely Planet and Frommer's etc are reputable sources? Can anybody present any evidence to prove they are not reliable?.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well travel guides can significantly vary in reliability and expertise of the author, so it is a difficult to pass a general judgment. However overall or in doubt I'd consider them as borderline reliable (similar to Adler above), meaning I'd accept them as a temporary source (rather than having completely unsourced claims), as long as the sourced material is not controversial, but if the article matures or goes through reviews the travel guides should be replaced by more authoritative sources. A good travel guide will probably also provide correct information on the history and politics of some place (on rather general level), but there are always better sources available that should be used in a long run.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field). I have been topic banned from the main article though allow to edit on the talk pages. [1] For Martin Hogbin this wasn't good enough so 9 days later he asked about full topic banning of me on the article talk page [2] then filed COI [3] and then filed for Arbitration [4], which has been going on for 52 days today. It seems the Admins want the editors to edit normally. I'm just giving you the heads up at the start this as some of the other editors may try to change this discussion from content to behavior.
Editor Duff who is a bias editor (believes the title should be Arborsculpture not Tree shaping) is calling multiple sources into question. I've commented that Duff should ask here about the references. They don't seem willing to do. P.S. Slowart is self outed as Richard Reames creator of the word Arborsculpture. This is why I'm asking for outside editors comments on three different points. Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
At tree shaping Duff added this ref as one of group for the generic use of arborsculpture with summary of
"added 9 new solid and authoritative references to the use of this term to refer to and describe this craft; all will prove rich resources to improve this article"
Duff's diff. When I pointed out the reference also uses pooktre generically and Duff hadn't added this ref to pooktre entry my diff. Duff then removed the ref with edit summary of
"deleting PopSci/Jiwatram citation per conversation on Talkpage: it's weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref to AFTAU/Plantware/Treenovation material."
Duff's diff Then on the talk page Duff made out I suggested to remove the reference Duff's diff, which I did not.
"The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre,"
Would this reference be considered reliable and could it used as one of the references for pooktre used generically? Or would one of the others from the list be a better reference? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Duff has edited Tree shaping so that it no longer reflects there are different process/methods of tree shaping. before and now
"Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping. Instant Tree Shaping where small trees of 6 to 8ft. (2 to 2.5m) length can be bent into the desired shape. The time taken for shaping may only take from an hour to half a day. Gradual Tree Shaping is where seedlings or saplings of 7.6 to 30.5 cm length are shaped while the tree is growing to get the desired shape. The design and setup are fundamental to success of the piece."
As this is a direct quote from me. I'll supplied some evidence of my expertise on the talk page. diff. There are only 4 books in English published about this art form. We have been written about in 2 of them and appeared in local and national TV in Australia (our home) and on local and national TV across Japan."There are two methods. One is instant and one is gradual."
Would these references be considered reliable sources for adding text to the effect that there are different processes of tree shaping? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
, In the same newsletter Richard states"I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible. And yet right in front of my eyes grew perfectly formed living shapes of a wild imagination."
, we have exhibited internationally, have been covered in multiple independent international media and yet Duff still considers us not likely to be experts."Now judging from the photos I had seen I suspected that these two were shaping trees using techniques that allowed much more detail than anyone on earth had tried before. I can honestly say that it’s true."
Duff has called next couple of sentences on Tree shaping and two their references into question.
Throughout the history of this art-form there have been various names used to describe it. There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their techniques. The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge.[44] Though Richard Reames calls the whole art form arborsculpture.[17]:14 [51] :120 The following names are the most commonly encountered:
"There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide."
"It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."
Are these reliable sources for the sentences above? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want uninvolved comment, you will have to refrain from long posts, or from introducing any of the editor conduct matter that the ArbCom is dealing with. Just ask about one source at a time and keep it simple. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be considered an independant third party reliable source to establish notability on Natami? Imprint information can be found here.--v/r - T P 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hope I'm posting on the right messageboard. I'm in a conflict about the genre of a (in fact several) Glen Campbell albums. The discussion can be read on talk:Old Home Town. Be aware that the other editor (BuddyOfHolly) is also editing and deleting my own comments on that talk page... so you might need to look at the history of the talk page first. My point of view is that the album is country/pop, the other editor says it's r&b. It's difficult to find sources for such a discussion, but I did manage to find some album reviews (one from a dutch Country Magazine called Country Gazette which I own myself but which is not available online, one from Billboard magazine and and one recent review from allmusic.com) mentioning country and/or pop in conjunction to this particular album. My opponent claims that reviews in general and allmusic.com specifically are unreliabable, but he doesn't offer any sources of his own, except for a blog that either he or a friend of his wrote. He does however, continuously delete my sourced content and replace it with his own unsourced content (he once used his blog as a source). I'm hoping someone can advice me on this. Thanks in advance! Lumdeloo ( talk) 19:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to ask if "Brisard, Jean-Charles; Dasquie, Guillaume (2002). Forbidden Truth – U.S. Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden. Nation Books. ISBN 9781560254140", is a reliable source for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline article. Although based on facts, this book promotes a theory which is not supported by the mainstream media. Beagel ( talk) 16:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Walia, Puneetinder "Concept of Social Stratification and Inclusion" In Swain, Smarak. Social Issues of India. New Dehli, India: New Vishal Publications. p. 199. is used to support the existence of "Common people" as a sociological term at Common people.
New Vishal Publications explicitly denies responsibility for the factual accuracy of the work (p4), and there is no scholarly introduction. I believe this work to be unreliable for the existence of sociological terms. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This website is cited in a couple hundred wp articles, but their fair use notice [11] seems to indicate they routinely reprint material without respect for copyright. fair use doesnt usually apply to the reprinting of complete works, even if they are short journalism pieces. I dont think we can use them for this reason. I tend to agree with the politics expressed there, so im not politically biased against them, but i take seriously our copyvio concerns. Am i off base on this?(mercurywoodrose) 66.80.6.163 ( talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There is this book Guide to Zakah, which is possibly a self published source (i cant confirm this). But the book was published by a publishing house owned by Muhammad Taqi Usmani. My question is, can we still cite self published sources on wiki, but if it was authored by very notable people? -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add the statement "According to [Name of author, in this case his son] , by consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient of Zakat must be a Muslim" , i think his son is also a notable person, seeing as he has his own wiki page-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Misconceptions2: As I've pointed out on the talk page, there is no reason to be using self-published sources in the article Zakat, because there are plenty of detailed, academic sources available that talk about the subject. Please see the types of sources that I have been adding to the article: i.e. those published by university presses, etc. These are the types of sources you should use. We don't need sites like "onlineshariah.com" when we have much more reliable, scholarly sources available. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My question still stands. Can we used self published soruces, if the author of the source is notable. Can somone clarify the definition of "notable" , in this context if indeed we can use self published sources authored by notable people.
I have been thinking that notable = has there own wikipedia page (but this is more like a litmus test, even if they dont have there article, i know that doesnt mean that they are not notable. but i think if they do have there own article, then they are notable)????
Are the undergraduate text books:
reliable to establish that " common people" is a sociological term? Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
An article in The Telegraph recently reported: "William Shakespeare was probably a Catholic, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury in an exploration of spirituality and secularism in the Bard's plays" and "Dr Williams said he believed him to be a Catholic". An editor at William Shakespeare's religion has been repeatedly reverting an edit to this effect. He keeps changing it to say that Shakespeare probably had a Catholic background, which Williams also said. His position seems to be that since the assertion that Williams said he believed Shakespeare to be Catholic was not it the form of a quote it is not reliable. It is a paraphrase which is asserted twice as demonstrated in the exerpts from the article above. It also appears in the article title. The editor has reverted base on his speculation that the reporter misinterpreted Williams' quoted words that Shakespeare had a Catholic background to mean something more. I think this is pure editor's gloss and speculation. The article says twice that Williams believed Shakespeare to be Catholic. The fact that they didn't quote him verbatim on that point could have happened for many reasons which should not be subject to speculation by editors here (the way it was phrased simply may not have been quotable, i.e. he may have simply answered "yes" or he may have gone on at length in a way that made his meaning clear but was not condusive to a quote). I think the paper is a reliable source - it is one of Britain's top dailies and of high repute - and that it is not the editor's place to second guess that the reporter made a mistake. (I suspect if that in fact were true the Archbishops office would have notified the paper and there would have been a correction). Is The Telegraph article a reliable source for the assertion that Williams said he believed Shakespeare to be Catholic? Mamalujo ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't really an RS/non-RS issue. The issue is why, in an article that otherwise relies for its information on scholars of Shakespeare's life, we are including the opinion of (pardon the expression) a layman. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Anent all of this is the period in which Shakespeare lived. He was born in 1564, scarcely six years into the reign of QEI. It would be highly improbable that he would not have been exposed to Catholics, as a matter of fact, as QEI did not act as her half-sister had about dissenters. It is also highly likely (on pain of death) that his parents were officially "Catholic" under Mary's reign. This all has very little to do with establishing that WS had any Catholic beliefs, and makes all of this akin to counting angels on the head of a pin <g>. Collect ( talk) 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Williams is not a reliable source on the subject, and there is no indication his opinion on this topic is notable either. Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a cite video template, that being said, can I use a youtube posted video of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations to quote Bourdain's statement statement about Lechon.
He also mentioned it in blog. Would that be a primary source, or a non-RS self published source?
Furthermore, can some statements made by the cultural expert in the clip be used in the Philippine cuisine article, specifically about the cuisine in the United States?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk)
In a discussion about ethnicity of SFC Smith, another editor has posted three sources that may confirm that the subject of the article is an Asian American. They are as follows:
The explanation of usage of these references are as follows:
Really no idea at this point. *sigh* I'm beginning to think the US records once considered all Hawaiians to be Asian-American. But again, unless they remove him from that article he was in with Mendonca, we can't really remove it. I found a genealogical site that might explain it though, partially cross-confirmed in here.
His father seems to be Elmelindo T. Smith, Sr., who was born in the Philippines in 1907 and died in in California in 1992. Given the time and place of birth and the peculiar combination of his name ('Elmelindo' and 'Smith'), Elmelindo Sr. is very likely to have been Filipino-American. Elmelindo, Jr. had two other brothers and two sisters and a wife and children that might still be living. And given that they haven't complained yet... :P I think it's safe to say it's correct.
So yeah, unless someone lodges another complaint against DoD, we have no reason to change it. :P
Are these references, for use of verifying ethnicity of the subject, reliable sources, and thus usable within the article space? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Lauren Faust's DeviantArt. The use of DA is a source has traditionally been questionable, but in this case, it's the primary means by which the show's executive producer communicates with the fanbase and provides answers to a lot of questions about the show's universe and development.
- Equestria Daily. Again, fansites have been questionable, if not outright rejected as sources in the past. However, EqD has been cited by Wired and NPR, has had exclusive interviews with members of the production crew, and has even been sent exclusive content in the past by Hasbro/The Hub.
Given this, would or wouldn't they count as legitimate sources for MLP content? -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD... are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." Could you please clarify whether master theses are considered RS in this regard? Thanks. -- Ashot ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS and the Wikipedia:Verifiability pillar it is built on is concerned with the work itself, its creator, and publisher. WP:SOURCEACCESS addresses some of the issue of accessibility but in IMHO that is more of a WP:WEIGHT issue than a WP:RS one. Also note that in the Secular Organizations for Sobriety example above is actually in a "Further reading" section. Logically something in a "Further reading" section should be reasonably accessible and if is not then why is it there.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Are The Daily Mail and The Sun reliable sources? Can i use them? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any harm to use an ebook from UPUBLISH.com, stating that the Quran is "the Final Testament, following the Old and New Testaments" as a believe? Two editors challenged the publisher, where one said it "is clearly not A respected academic publisher." Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing dispute over the reliability of the credits of a television episode to establish its relationship to another television episode. Each episode of the British TV show
Law & Order: UK has as its basis an episode of the American TV show
Law & Order. Each L&O:UK episode has in its opening credits a credit that states which episode of the American show served as the basis for the British episode. The credits for the L&O:UK episode "Samaritan" include this information, noting the US episode "
Manhood".
User:MelbourneStar has repeatedly removed information noting the relationship between the two episodes, claiming that it is
original research. I have repeatedly restored it based on
WP:PSTS, which, as I read it, allows for non-interpretive factual information about a work of fiction to be sourced to the work of fiction itself. Citing the credits for "Samaritan" to establish its relationship to "Manhood" is no different than citing its credits to verify a copyright date or the name of an actor who appears in the episode or the name of the episode itself.
In response to his edits to another L&O:UK article in which he added multiple citation needed templates, the editor was
advised by a third party on April 19 that the credits served as sufficient citation, to which he responded "Wait this changes everything...So what you are saying is that L&O: UK's credits specifically say "this episode is based on..."...because if so, this does not have to be cited." (italics in the original, bolding added). When I asked why he was willing to accept this answer for other articles but not for "Manhood" he replied that he planned to "work [his] way up" from this article to other articles, using his removal of the information from this article in an attempt to influence the content of other articles.
The question here is whether an on-screen credit stating the relationship between two television episodes serves as a reliable source for that relationship.
76.204.97.251 (
talk) 21:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The credits and so forth on a film or TV episode are statements by the person or company distributing it, and so the film is a self-published primary source for those assertions. While the credits are likely to be reliable, that is not necessarily so. For example, Alan Smithee did not actually direct all those films. So an independent secondary source is to be preferred for the assertion that an epsiode of UK L&O is based on a particular episode of the US version. In the absence of an independent source, and while the statement is not seriously subject to challenge, then a citation of the episode is acceptable. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899 VMI Keydets football team, people claim that the school newspaper is a reliable and independent source for information on the school football team and that school papers in general "are normally held to the same reliability standards as any other newspaper." Others claim that a school newspaper is in general less reliable than a regular newspaper, and that a school newspaper is a primary source for information on a school sports team, and not an independent source at all. Any opinions on this? Fram ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Are letters from the school to the parents of the children attending that school OK to use as a primary source? If so, what type of statements can they be used to reference? The article in question here is King's College School, Cambridge. The school was the subject of a ruling concerning the Freedom of Information Act in which it was required to release the finding of an emergency inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate to parents (the first time this has ever happened to a public school). It transpired that the inspectors had found failings in regard to the school's handling of child protection issues. User:Kitty101423 wants to include several statements concerning events that can not be sourced to the newspaper articles which covered these events. I've asked about sources and she says that she has various letters from the Provost and from the DCFS. I have no particular reason to believe these not to be genuine (note that I have not seen any of these source myself, this is just a gut feeling) but I'm wondering if they're OK here and which of the statements they can be used to reference. Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I have commented on the Wikipedia: I am questioning the the naming of a page entitled "Data Dredging." The page equates "data dredging" with "data snooping" and "fishing." The latter two terms are well established, and I consider them to be appropriate in this context. In my opinion, "Data Dredging" is not consistent with snooping or fished, which describe the process of "sifting" through the data to find patterns that support one's hypothesis, and not "dredging" which implies scooping up stuff from the bottom.
I searched the literature (at SMU's online databases) and found no instances of the term "Dredging" in titles, keywords, or abstracts. (I may have missed some.)
I have a personal interest in the name "Dredging." I refer you to the SMU Tecnical Report SMU-TR-373 at: http://smu.edu/statistics/TechReports/tech-rpts.asp. This paper has been submitted to The American Statistician, where it is currently being reviewed.
Coincidently, the first keyword in the paper is "Dredging," which refers to the Staffing Strategy of "Dredging the Silt," or getting rid of the "deadwood," the poor performers, while retaining good performers. The use of the term "dredging" in this context is consistent with the dictionary definition. Our hope was to put "Dredging" into the lexicon of Staffing Strategies (personnel selection processes) in the workplace. The two other Staffing strategies we describe in our paper are Skimming ("Skim the cream", or promote the best performers and keep all but the very worst), and "Trimming" (a combination of Skimming and Dregdging.)
My request is that the page entitled "Data Dredging" be deleted, and the concepts therein be incorporated into, say, "Data Snooping."
Thank you for you consideration.
John R. Michael [email redacted]
Investopedia.com is used in a lot of economy articles. For example Economic globalization, Capital intensity, and Necessity good. Is this website a reliable source for this subject? P. S. Burton ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of scholarly sources that cover economics. There is no reason to ever use Investopedia as a source. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I need some input from RS specialists on the content of this edit. The content relating to a website, Failed Angle, is sourced purely to that website. So far no independant reliably published sources have been produced to identify this site as relevant ( here and here have been produced as sources, but I am not sure if they are reliable either). My feeling is that this is a SPS and using it to support its own inclusion is problematic. This view has been disputed by a couple of other editors. The material is a bit contentious so some input on how best to proceed would be useful. -- Errant ( chat!) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey with a potential COI as I'm co-founder of Pooktre and an artist in the field of Tree shaping.
Comments? Blackash have a chat 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of questions, which might seem tangential here at the RS noticeboard, but they do relate directly to what is being discussed:
1. There is an arbcom vote/ruling in progress here, which might have the effect of banning Blackash for one year from possibly even discussing this issue. There are various proposals being voted on right now. Should this discussion be put on hold until there is a result from arbcom? Should they be notified?
2. The term "generic", when applied to the name of a product or process, has a very specific legal meaning. Blackash, do you have a trademark on the name "Pooktre"? If you do, then by legal definition it isn't generic, because then you would lose the trademark. If it is trademarked, then the Wikipedia article probably needs to point that out, or have the TM symbol by the word, so that it's clear that it is a created word that is trademarked and not generic. Here is an article that discusses the issue of generic vs. brand names. [26] Even though it's not a reliable source, and I don't remotely resemble a lawyer, I think we need to respect the fact that "generic" has a widely used meaning that would conflict with the existence of a trademark on the term "Pooktre". Also, the photo caption at the top of the article refers to the "Pooktre method"—if it is a specific method for shaping trees, then it is not a generic term for the general concept of shaping trees into furniture, art, etc. First Light ( talk) 15:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1. As arbcom is about behavior and this is a content question I didn't think it is a problem to ask this here. Hopefully the admins at arbcom are already aware of this, as I would expect them to be checking editors' history to see what we all are doing.
2. Trade marking doesn't stop a word being used generically, it just gives the holder of the trademark the right to try and stop people using it. Think about the The_Hoover_Company or the fact a lot of people here use the term google instead of search. Check this link it talks about the hoover issue and how Google is trying to stop it's trade mark being used generically. [27] Words can and do have more then one meaning and is why wiki has disambiguation pages. Blackash have a chat 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the RsN editors have judged PopSci a reliable source, with what it supports narrowly construed, I added the PopSci source back, at both Pooktre and arborsculpture in the Other names section, as it supports both words.
While we are on this titled heading, could the good RsN folks also consider and evaluate the other :citation being used to support precisely the same point, please? Citation| unused_data | newspaper = Culture| title = The art of Tree shaping| author = Hao Jinyao | date = 11 May 2009| publisher = We haven't seen a copy for study yet. Thanks, duff 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that Hajong, which was tagged for inter alia, not having enough references, now has many. Unfortunately, several are references to two different unpublished manuscripts.
WP:RS appears to be clear: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." A brief look at an item coming up in a search for "unpublished manuscript" in this noticeboard is this, stating that "It appears to be an unpublished manuscript, and as such wouldn't typically be considered a reliable source".
However, typically suggests there could be exceptions. Are there any, or should I:
V7-sport ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) has re-included this article from Examiner.com as well as this entry from an essay contest into the article United States and state terrorism. Myself and several other users have tried to explain our policies on reliable sources to him many times, and it's been made very clear that in this case there are plenty of scholarly sources on the subject, but he insists on keeping these in the article. Before I waste more of my time trying to explain this to him again, I'd like to make sure that there is a consensus that these types of sources are not WP:RS. When writing about a subject for which plenty of academic sources exist, is it acceptable to use Examiner.com and essay contests as sources? Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets provide the diff of what you just did.
[29] Notice the edit summary which is, par for the course, untrue: "Removing sources misrepresented by V7-sport". There was nothing misrepresented there.
The sources that you removed are
this which was supposed to go to
back to this (yes, the link was broken) which states: Defining terrorism is the most ambiguous component in terrorism studies, with no universally accepted definition that differentiates attacks against civilian noncombatants or armed military or takes into account the latest trends in terrorist objectives and warfare. In 1983, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) formulated one of the most widely used definitions of terrorism. According to this definition, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." [1] As part of this definition, the term "noncombatant" includes civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or not on duty. [2] The term 'international terrorism' refers to terrorism "involving citizens or the territory of more than one country," [3] while the term 'terrorist group' refers to "any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism." [4]
That's a reliable, secondary source for what is being presented.
You removed this Which is a state department document stating the Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents. It references US law and defines it.
You removed this. It's a "These definitions are set forth in US law, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)." It existed to further confirm the secondary documents.
You removed this. A cornell university reprint of US legal code on the subject. It existed there to back what was presented by the secondary sources.
You removed this.Which was a secondary source that "concluded with the fact that terrorism " is perpetrated by a subnational group or non state entity. (This should be attributed to author however)
You removed this Which was there to establish that there is no international consensus on the definition of "terrorism".
You removed this. The UN hasn't agreed on a legal definition of terrorism.
You removed this. "an analyses the anti-terrorism measures undertaken by the United Nations".
All of that in addition to the disputed whitelisted Examiner article and the essay from University of North Carolina/American deplomicy.org.
So the misrepresentation here has been on your part. Anyone can see that the text was sourced and verified in triplicate. You have simply used the whitelisted article, which was backed by both primary and secondary sources as a pretext for gutting the definition section, as you have wanted from the onset. In bringing it here you have used the good will of other editors to push for something you wanted all along, something beyond just the reliability of a whitelisted article..
V7-sport (
talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
And I see that the Joshua Sinai reference, which alone went a long way to confirm what I had posted, made it back up. Guess it was reliable after all.
V7-sport (
talk) 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The directory page for their listings contains the following disclaimer: "Faqs.org does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk." I would think that this would render it an unreliable source, but an editor on Generation of Youth for Christ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is insistent that a whole section be dedicated to its 'coverage'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I would welcome comments or criticism about this edit, but first a bit of background:
Over at Secular Organizations for Sobriety, (which has been discussed her before; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Master_Thesis_as_a_scholar_source ), There is a section titles "Processes", which includes info such as "SOS recognizes genetic and environmental factors contributing to addiction, but allows each member to decide whether or not alcoholism is a disease" and "In order to change, members must make abstinence their top priority; not drinking despite changing conditions in their lives" -- pretty standard stuff that one would expect from an organization that helps alcoholics to stay sober. The question is, what is considered to be a reliable source for the above information? It is my understanding that the official literature published by an organization (including the organization's website, but not including user-generated comments on said website) is a reliable source on that organization's position. This is true even if the organization's website/literature is considered unreliable otherwise. It is also my understanding that any citation allegedly establishing what the organization's position is must either be from the organization itself or by a recognized expert on the organization.
For example, take Scientology. That article has the following statement: "Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature." This is supported by a reference to World Religions in America by Jacob Neusner - a reliable source of what Scientology teaches. In contrast, the article on Heaven's Gate (religious group) says "Heaven's Gate members believed that the planet Earth was about to be recycled...", with a citation to the Heaven's Gate Web Site. We wouldn't accept the Heaven's Gate Web Site as a reliable source for most things, but as I understand it it is a reliable source on what Heaven's Gate members believed.
Getting back to Secular Organizations for Sobriety, I removed a citation to Sober for Good: New Solutions for Drinking Problems--Advice from Those Who Have Succeeded by Anne M. Fletcher and Frederick B. Glaser and replaced it with a citation to the SOS website on the grounds that there is no indication that Fletcher and Glaser are reliable sources on what SOS teaches. (This was brought to my attention by the founder of SOS - who also thinks it to be unreliable, but I am making my own evaluation or reliability, and I have fully disclosed the conversion as a potential COI issue.) Was I correct in removing this citation as being not a reliable source on what SOS teaches? Guy Macon ( talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
A question has arisen as to whether or not sources are required to establish ancestry for persons included in Irish immigration to Puerto Rico (or, are Irish-sounding surnames enough). Please provide any input at Talk:Irish_immigration_to_Puerto_Rico#RfC_on_photos_in_infobox. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have two questionable source in this article:
@AdamRce, you failed to mention that Yusuf al Qaradawi is a scholar (a notable one who has a religious show watched by 40 million viewers), and those are his views as presented on Islam Online-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that I take a closer look at the IslamOnline source, I see it's being quoted not for the view of the piece's author (a non-expert), but for the view of someone whom the piece's author quotes. The person quoted may be a reliable source (you might want to open a RSN thread on the publisher, Maktabat Wahba, since you generally need to have a reliable publisher as well as a reliable author), but a. you need to cite his book directly, not cite a piece on an unreliable website that quotes him and b. it's disingenuous and a WP:NPOV violation to cite him for a statement like that without providing the context of the statement, ie. to cite al-Q's statement that the jurists said these things without providing his explanation of why they said these things. The Rubin source is unreliable, period. Let me repeat, since it doesn't seem to have been obvious in my comment earlier: The Rubin source is unreliable. He's not an expert in the field, and his opinion was not published in a scholarly source. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has come up before, but I'm not sure of the rules here. A number of editors are claiming that Sebastian Vettel specifically holds a record for finishing in the top two in more successive Formula One races than anyone else. The sole source for this at the moment seems to be that an editor heard this claim made on TV Formula One coverage. Is this a good enough source? Surely "I saw it on TV" doesn't satisfy WP:RS? Please advise, thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Joatsimeon removed content from Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari and Minal Hajratwala
He accused the edits to Minal Hajratwala of "RS violations, possible OR"
The source is: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/while-posing-as-a-syrian-lesbian-male-blogger-tried-to-get-a-book-deal/ - A New York times article reporting on the content on Minal Hajratwala's blog.
Because the source is a New York Times article reporting on a blog, I consider it to be a reliable source. The source talks about Minal Hajratwala's interactions with Tom Macmaster through her blog.
Please also see User_talk:WhisperToMe#Minal.2FAmina and User_talk:Joatsimeon#Minal_Hajratwala WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
NY Times is WP:RS without a doubt. I think it's prudent, as has already been done, to give in-text attribution to Hajratwala. Regarding gawker, previous discussions on this board (ie this [44]) seem to indicate that gawker can be reliable. In this case [45] I would say that it is likely that the e-mail that they published from MacMaster is rendered faithfully. But gawker don't appear to have done any fact checking of their own regarding the contents of the e-mail. I would treat the content of the e-mail under WP:SPS precautions, as originating from MacMaster. So anything regarding other living people should not be used. Siawase ( talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently David Templeton at the "Sonoma County Independent" wrote an article that included quotes from Rick Ross (consultant). The original cannot be found but the article is re-published on Ross' web site at http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and is being used at Calvary Chapel#Authoritarian practices. The section used to have a different title. Some members of the church are taking exception to its inclusion. It was originally added by User:Sliceofmiami who repeatedly added material that was not verifiable and quite negative about the church. This is one of the final criticisms added by that user that is left. Some of the other editors on the page believe that it meets at leas WP:V standards, but over the past few days two editors would like to see the material removed on the grounds that it's unbalanced and slanderous, or probably more correctly, not characteristic of the church in general but possibly in a few rare cases. Could we at least have a few people weigh-in on whether this a RS or not? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed an editor, Agentakki ( talk · contribs), placing references in various media-related articles, all going to a relevant article on the same website, akshul.com. Feels kind of spammy to me, but I'd like some feedback before I go stripping them all out. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 03:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America#GNAA as a citation for information about itself. Prodego talk 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is some sort of a self-indictment: I have argued on Talk:Leuren_Moret and on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Leuren_Moret that newspapers of a certain impact and circulation should be reliable sources even if their political agenda is known, and even if their views are not shared by many in the developed world. I got quite some opposition in this regard, so I would like to solicit feedback here on two points:
Thanks for your consideration, Pgallert ( talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, we are trying to improve the article and get it ready for GA status. Ten Pound Hammer had concerns about the Equestria Daily and DeviantART references, but Faust maintains the highest level of interaction with the fanbase through her DA account, so could this be considered a reliable source? Equestria Daily also occasionally recieves information from The Hub and Hasbro personally, and I think this might qualify Equestria Daily as a reliable source. I want the opinion of the community on this matter so that we can easily get this article to GA status. Rain bow Dash 15:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for some time at the Beatles' Help! Talk Page as to whether the intro to the album is properly credited as the "James Bond Theme". The single supporting link provided is to a music review by William Ruhlmann at AllMusic.com. There is some question as to whether Ruhlmann's claim is appropriately authoritative, or whether it's closer to hearsay. Opinions? CNJECulver ( talk) 07:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor ( User:Berlant) is adding references to an article published in an online journal called "Anistoriton". According to its website [48] "Anistoriton welcome research papers from faculty and encourage the submission of well written and researched studies from graduate and advanced undergraduate students". While soliciting papers from undergraduates is not automaticially a sign of poor peer reviewing standards, it may raise red flags. The editor in question has added an article from this journal to articles on paleolithic "Venus" sculptures, which the article claims to be representations of mushrooms [49] [50]. Having been reverted by some editors, he has now taken to leaving messages on user talk pages asking them not to revert. On his user page Berlant self-identifies as Stephen R. Berlant, the author of the article he is citing. Obviously there are concerns regarding WP:COI and WP:FRINGE, however, I would be grateful if editors would comment on the acceptability of Anistoriton itself as a source, even if we put these other issues to one side. Paul B ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this document Non combatants in Muslim Legal thought, a reliable source to use as a source for the views of Muslim scholars on "non combatants". The document was authored by Professor Ella Landau-Tasseron, he is a proffesor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, see here. I used the document as a source, in the the Abu Bakr article, i used it for this . Its seems to be associated with the Hudson Institute.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
In a protracted discussion at Talk:World_War_I#Addition_to_.22Backgraund.22:_July_29.2C_.281914.29_Nicholas_II_sent_a_telegram_to_Wilhelm_II.2C_with_the_suggestion_.22to_transmit_the_Austro-Serbian_question_to_the_Hague_Conference.22 an editor has flatly discounted every reason I have presented. Other eyes would be appreciated. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a reference for the statement over at Superluminal communication:
Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate one of these experiments and demonstrate whether it can produce superluminal communication or not.
The anonymous editor (who I presume is also the recently registered editor at the article with a confusing username) insists on removing it for some strange reasons, IMO ( [52], [53]). The latest reference that I've been using is: Paulson, Tom (14 November 2006), "Going for a blast into the real past", Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The contested sentence is not asserting an extraordinary claim, ie that Cramer has demonstrated non-local communication into the past, but merely that Cramer is doing research into the question on whether this is possible, so I don't agree with the anon-user's objections and I think that the newspaper article is a sufficient reference for that claim. Am I missing something, or am I misreading the contested sentence? Or the anon-user misunderstanding the claim and WP:RS?
I'd also like to find out if the following references would also be valid for the same claim:
Both are technically self-published sources, but neither source is fringe or obscure (as the anon asserts [54]). As Cramer is a well-known and notable physicist, his self-published webpage and the UW nuclear physics lab where he works should also be, in my opinion, good enough references for one of Cramer's current research endeavors. Am I wrong? Thoughts and help would be appreciated. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
"FamousDockets.com" is being used in this BLP as follows:
Is the source given RS for purposes of the claim made? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell User:Diligent007 about this then? He has littered my UT page with all sorts of accusations about me being on Mason's staff or the like [55] <g>. The less interaction I need with him, the better, I suspect. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information. It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged. It is of public interests, and that is incontrovertible. Moreover, to put an end to your debate, let's remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation, and, as a result, it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article.
Also, your argument that it is in violation of WP:UNDUE because it is allegedly "designed to impugn the character of the person" is ludicrous, and for good reason: It is an infamous public act on the subject's part, as documented by numerous news outlets, and it is being duly noted, irrespective of what you think of it. Since when is Wikipedia subject to third-world censorship? Should your logic of censuring factual information because it can have the effect of impugning someone be applied universally, then Charles Manson's murder convictions need to be removed, stat! So, yes, let reason guide your decisions that you attempt to apply upon all Wikipedia viewers, and not unfounded impulses, with all due respect. Diligent007 ( talk) 04:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, as to the picture being included: The notable point about this is the fact that the act was so audacious that it was made for being captured by a reporter's camera! A picture is worth a thousand words, and no one need deprive that of a Wikipedia viewer. We should all be adamant about having a rich, diverse set of sources, and one source includes more information (be it the subject picture), then it should be included. Why not include the subject picture? Will removing a link to the subject picture save a few kilobytes, and, in turn, reduce the energy costs of Wikipedia's servers (because not that many service requests on the server would be made to make every facet of the subject article appear, including the link to the subject picture)?
Also, Collect, just so that I can put your disparaging mark about me (i.e., my littering your talk page, so you say) into perspective, know this: You did not FIRST engage this discussion before you removed content from the site. You did so AFTERWARDS, attempting to seek cover for your previous action that should have been prefaced with discussion. Consequently, you received a prerequisite warning. Do not get offended by the warning--it's standard procedure. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Diligent007 ( talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Diligent007 ( talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How do we feel about that? It seems common sense to me that an editor should not use a source they haven't actually read. User:Miradre contends here (at bottom of section) that this is fine since he can read the abstract of the source.
In any kind of academic setting if a student tried to pass off a source without having read it that'd definitely result in points off, if not outright failure. Additionally in context of Wikipedia specifically this kind of practice seems to be somewhat dishonest - a reader will reasonably presume, when they see a sentence and a citation at the end, that whoever put that text and citation in the article actually DID bother to read the source. I guess someone could write something like "According to the abstract of such and such a study..." but that would be embarrassingly unencyclopedic. Finally, since abstracts are by necessity limited in length they can be misleading as to the actual contents of the source.
(If WP:RSN isn't the proper venue for this question, please point me to the appropriate place, thanks). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I just want to respond to what I think is the main point for the strongest "anti" arguments, "Quotes taken out of context can also technically "be legitimately attributed to the author(s)", but they shouldn't be." The critical difference is that abstracts are self-contained publications, written to be read on their own. That makes them different, at least in theory, from pulling quotes out of context. (They can be badly written, but we can do nothing about that.) Mind you, every time someone pulls a quote of any kind, they are always looking at only part of a publication, and they risk being accused of pulling something out of context. I think the most important thing about such questions is to avoid taking positions which are extreme? Just to remind, I do agree that using an abstract is not ideal, but I would suggest resisting the urge to delete citations of abstract just on pure principle.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would say that unless you have access to the paper in question in full, you have no reason or legitimacy for saying that the abstract is wrong. You can't say that the abstract is wrong just because it's an abstract. Unless you can get a full copy of the paper and show that it actually ends up with different conclusions or information, you have no right to reject a source that just has its abstract available. Silver seren C 19:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
an abstract is not a "secondary source", not in any useful definition of the term - this is a very good point, though somewhat different than the one I raised above. It might be worth including on the relevant policy page. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who actually writes papers and abstracts, reviews articles, and edits journals, the conversation above blows my mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
<-- In reference to WhatamIdoing's second comment above, actually this particular study/abstract illustrates the problem with relying on just the abstract quite well. The abstract states Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods. Now, I'm willing to bet good money is that what he controlled for was not GDP but rather GDP per capita (if not, then the study is strange indeed). But I can't verify that without reading the actual study. To put "GDP" in the Wikipedia article would then be misleading exactly because the author is being imprecise in the abstract. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Failed verification}}
. I don't see what the problem with it is. It's not as if the user is quoting an unverifiable fact (e.g. a source no one can access).<-- @Obsidian Soul
I have no idea why you'd think citing a paper for its abstract would be comparable to being 'dishonest'. - Because the average reader will believe that the person who's inserted the text and the cite DID in fact read the actual study. As I said, the only way around this is to be specific that only the abstract is being cited but this causes problems of its own.
Tell me honestly (and apologies if I misinterpret the situation), if Volunteer Marek did get a copy of the said study and finds out (as he or she certainly will) that the conclusion is actually the same as stated in the abstract, will he or she accept that the abstract was actually not misleading after all? - and if I get a copy of the said study and find out that the abstract is indeed imprecise/misleading, will you accept that citing abstracts without reading the studies is not a good idea? Anyway, this thread asked a general question - the specific situation is meant to illustrate a point.
The thing I'm not getting is this: which are you accusing of being misrepresentative? The paper's abstract or the user quoting it? - the two are obviously related. Because an abstract can be imprecise, the user quoting it can misrepresent the study. This can occur either because of a deliberate desire to present the results in a particular way (because imprecision allows for wiggle room), or it can happen because the user is unfamiliar with the field.
Maybe it's different with the (economic? social?) fields you usually deal with, but when it comes to hard sciences, what I describe above certainly hold true. - I'm perfectly willing to accept that this may differ by field, and that, generally speaking, in the physical sciences one is less likely to go wrong by citing an abstract than in the social sciences. It's still bad practice IMO.
The proper way to proceed, I think would be that yes, you can cite stuff to abstracts (and even snippets etc), particularly where non-contentious stuff is concerned. But as soon as someone challenges it, you need to go out and get the whole study. And yes the challenge can simply be "the abstract is imprecise".
@WhatamIdoing
What I saw in the abstract was a claim about "GDP" (not "GDP per capita"), and what I saw on the talk page was you asserting that, without reading the paper, you (magically?) knew that the body of the paper would contradict the claim of "GDP" in the abstract by saying "GDP per capita". Your actual evidence that the body would say "GDP per capita" rather than (total) "GDP" is easily contained in the null set. - magic has nothing to do with it. You can also drop the pointless showing off of invoking the "null set" and simply say "none". But yes, I do more or less know, without reading the paper that the study uses "GDP per capita" because simply, it would make no sense for it - a published, peer reviewed paper - to use total GDP. Like I said, we aren't required to check in our brains at the Wikipedia log-in prompt.
BTW, from the point of view of this specific dispute here, it would be better for me if the study DID use total GDP, rather than per capita, since then it wouldn't show what the Mirarde is claiming it shows. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So as the source has now beenb read does it say "GDP" or "GDP per capita"? By the way saying that I should have to buy the source does not answer the question, you have been asked does the source back what you say you should answer.
Slatersteven (
talk) 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
@ObsidianSoul
Nineteen times out of twenty, the circle of people who are engaged on an article over a space of á week (that's all it takes to reshape a large part of an article with the excuse of having found new and better sources) don't have anywhere near the reach needed to even get an overview of the actual scientific literature related to that article. Not in terms of the average time they're able to spend on reading books and articles and discussing with other wikipedians before they make edits, nor in the daily access they have to scholarly libraries (no, online resources most often isn't enough, friends), nor in how familiar they are with current research methods - not the basic stuff they read about at school. Note that I'm deliberately leaving out the factor "in-depth knowledge beforehand of the relevant scientific disciplines" because that is not a prerequisite for anyone to start chopping in on an article here. And it doesn't ,matter if there's two or three people with access to university libraries and training on the subject working on the article - once things get heated people tend to split into camps and confidence goes out the window, so a check with the hard-to-find sources made by one person at the big research library likely won't make a real difference.
So, why are abstracts not useful as the prime sources for something having been "proved" or established? Well, abstracts tend to state that "we prove that (p)" or "our findings indicate clearly that (p)" but within the scientific community, this is very often accepted shorthand for that the round of experiments and/or review of facts, in the eyes of the scientist writing, makes a strong case for the fact or thesis that (p). If (p) is founded just on experiments, the next step will be to see if those experiments can be repeated and other explanations for the relation ruled out. If (p) or the entire investigation includes in some way a theoretical new look at the issue, then in most cases it can't simply be said to have been nailed and written into the scientific canon by a single experiment or a single investigation. Even if that's how it gets described by the writer himself or by reporters who love spectacular news. Scientists and scholars are aware of this, and the full text of a study often makes it clear anyway, even if sometimes a bit implicitly. For this reason, scientists don't feel compelled to directly _state_ at every turn that "the idea that X put forth is not actually proven fact" or "your lab session doesn't conclusively prove this beyond all doubt" as discrete facts that some wikipedian can cite. Actually scientists are much less obsessed with blipping out discrete soundbite facts, between each other, than many wikipedians like to think. They are concerned with chains of facts, circumstances and interpretation, not with stating every single thing they think they have found as a discrete fact.
If abstracts are given the same credence as the full texts of articles and books, any article or book pertaining to an issue that would rank as RS - not just the article or book that the abstract makes a quick summary of, but the abstract would get on the same level as any full text - then many people here will prefer to cite abstracts as their sources because they're not just easier to find, they also make more cut-and-dried statements, and sometimes slightly more far-reaching statements: they remove qualifications, exceptions and underlying steps of interpretation and methodic filtering (not really scientific law) that had to be made to reach any results and which, in themselves, are likely neither inviolable nor directly grounded on fact observation or on some rock hard scientific consensus. By citing simply the abstract, but feigning to have read the full thing and liberally using injunctions against "synthesis" and "original research", the fearless wikipedian effectively removes those qualifications, theoretic deliberations and possible sources of error from sight. The pro scientists in the field will know that the matter is likely not decided once and for all, and that a few more reports or investigations may well turn the matter around, but neither most wikipedians working on the page nor most of its readers will know. The statement "(p) is true based on RS so-and-so" is all they get to see, and essentially the only thing the editor (or editors) wants in the article.
That's why abstracts are often more useful than the full text for POV pushing, or for blocking some competing perspective from an article. If the abstract says "By means of analysis of data so-and-so, we prove that gender and intelligence are linked according to the Bell curve" or "Our analysis of documents from the German and British state archives and diplomatic correspondence, some of it only recently released, proves that Germany, in the years 1910-1914, had the key intention of starting a war to achieve mastery of the world, while Britain did not aim for a conflict" those statements can be used to elbow out the other side, again and again, provided there's a strong enough editing gang for it, although those views are highly controversial and by no means mainstream or consensus in anything like such a strong form. To combat these with some sort of "statement by statement review" with every single statement you want to make sourced from historians, including counter.statements to whatever the other editors are quoting, but without any kind of pulling together of the threads with your own intellect, that would effectively be a full-time job and in most cases such a person isn't available or will not take it up. Imagine the thankless task of just mimicking in every detail what other people have said on a subject, sourcing back to their every page note by note and transposing it to respond not just to trained scientists but to the way their arguments are now rehashed by faceless wikipedia editors, more aggressive than scholars but often much less educated or expert, while being forbidden to draw a single line of connection on your own to make the arguments clear in their content and thrust here! For whatever you might say, that person would not be debating with Fritz Fischer or Martin Gilbert, but with other WP editors who don't have to own up to what they have read or what arguments really will work.
Even if the editor admits that he only ever read the abstract, the chances are often quite slim that someone will call him out on whether statement (p) was actually proved by the full text. Remember, there is no requirement here that you have to tell what your sources are on the talk page before making edits that vitally change the content. It doesn't even need to be hinted in the byline left in the editing log of the article (not that I think we should have the latter requirement, it would be unwieldy, but it shows just how easy it is to sneak in large changes on an article without telling anyone what you're doing). If you're dealing with an assertion that's already been in the article unchallenged for a long time (far too common) then it can take some time to even find out who first added it - perhaps when you find it in the editing log, it's just Mr.Anonymous.
Also, and importantly, in most disciplines of science, and near always in any kind of social sciences, history or humanities, it's not the case that every statement or every description will get proven in the hard-set way that the atomic number of an element or the reproductive habits of rabbits are proven. Trying to write articles on those subjects on the assumption that every statement must be sourced as a discrete fact, on its own (it has to be sourced but no one has to ask why it was considered a truth), is often impossible, but people using "inviolable sources" for the strategic 'facts' and descriptions they want in, often manage to block any kind of sensible articles on those matters.
That's a major problem in articles on those fields here - there is no corresponding problem in those actual sciences: every historian, linguist or business economist knows they are not dealing in stacks of discrete facts that can be experimentally proved, as if from a natural law, and built into a brick wall the way they can in chemistry or classical physics - and because many people here don't bother to think about what verifiability really means or how it works in different kinds of science, many important fields would become impossible to write about here if the "verifiability from some single RS, but without any regard for which it is or how X was stated as long as that source has been set up as RS" dogma would be stringently enforced. And Obsidian, Slatersteven and the rest don't seem to bother as long as they are free to source whatever has gotten said in an abstract. Or, face it, in an interview with somebody in any newspaper that happens to be accepted as RS, or even a quickie notice or feuilleton on that paper's website - those kinds of sources are regularly treated as verifying something beyond discussion, perhaps not in clinical medicine but in loads of other fields on WP.
But then as Marek has also pointed out, you are not really concerned with keeping any standard of scientific grounding, evenhandedness, accuracy or reliability within WP articles in general, or even within the upkeep of accuracy and truth in what is already here. Maybe on the articles you are personally committed to and have worked a good deal on, but not to protecting those standards for Wikipedia in general. Strausszek ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that his fears in this instance were misplaced, and that "GDP" itself is correlated, exactly like the abstract said. - ok, I'm going to say this one more time. There's no way that the source uses total GDP, because it would make no SENSE for a study of this type to use total GDP rather than per capita GDP. Anyone who's familiar with the subject matter would instantly know this. People who are ignorant of the subject matter - such as yourself, or your average Wikipedia reader - would not know this and possibly believe that somehow it could be total GDP that is being talked about here.
I'm pointing this out - again - because that's actually the major underlying reason why the abstract is sloppy. The author of the abstract is writing for a specific audience - academics working in the field. He reasonably expects that members of this specific target audience will, when they see the word "GDP" in the abstract, translate that to "oh he means per capita GDP" in their heads. The problem arises because somebody who's not part of that specific audience - a Wikipedia editor - comes along, looks at only the abstract, and does not have the background knowledge to make sense of the abstract alone. And then these "OR fundamentalists" come along to insists that incorrect information MUST be included in Wikipedia. Worse, they insist that it's not THEIR job to actually bother checking the information.
Additionally in reference to your repeated statements that If you want to keep chatting about the general case, then you really do need to pick another page to do it on., well, that horse is out the barn. This is where people are talking about it and have been happy to talk about it. Your repeated calls to "move it somewhere else" (where it can be ignored) at this point just seem to be attempts to shout down those who disagree with you.
Anyway. As it turns out the paper itself is as sloppy as the abstract (there's probably a correlation between quality of the study and quality of the abstract). Within the study the author says "GDP", then switches to "income per capita", then even confuses GDP with "wealth" (a basic principles course in economics would be sufficient to explain the difference in these two concepts). But yes, the actual data he uses is on log transformed per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity. Like I "speculated". Even a sloppily written study has to make sense to get published (I hope). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(Disclosure: Volunteer Marek notified me of this discussion.) I have seen a lot of idiocy in Wikipedia, but the claim that in this abstract, the sentence "Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods, whereas the effects of liberal democracy are weak and inconsistent." really refers to log-transformed GDP as opposed to log-transformed GDP per capita is sheer lunacy. There seems to be a common misconception that disputes between editors who know what a word means and others who haven't got a clue are decided by following the sources as literally as possible. That's completely and utterly wrong, and this incident shows why. The following table shows countries with mostly 'German' culture. They have more or less the same fertility rates [56], as one would expect given that there aren't any big differences in wealth or fertility.
Country | Population | GDP | GDP per capita |
---|---|---|---|
Germany | 82 million | $3,000 billion | $40,000 |
Austria | 8.4 million | $380 billion | $45,000 |
Switzerland | 7.9 million | $510 billion | $70,000 |
Liechtenstein | 36,000 | $5 billion | $140,000 |
Now given that the European fertility statistics I linked above does not include Liechtenstein, would we expect fertility in Liechtenstein to be lower than average because it's the wealthiest country (i.e. highest GDP per capita by far), or higher than average because it's by far the smallest country (=> lowest GDP by a huge margin)? Obviously fertility has (almost) nothing to do with the size of a country, but a lot with wealth, so we would expect the former. And that's correct. [57]
This is not illegal original research, it's the kind of back-of-an-envelope calculation that is perfectly proper and should be done routinely to assess the reliability of specific statements made by sources. Among the subculture of Wikipedia editors who know what Wikipedia is about, e.g. experienced featured article contributors, this is in fact perfectly standard.
In this case, the source clearly wrote "GDP" as shorthand for "GDP per capita", which is sloppy, but does make some sense in an abstract, where one tries to be brief. We should not be sloppy in the same way in an article, so it was perfectly proper to insist on consulting the actual article to see what was really meant. What would not have been OK would have been (1) taking the imprecise statement from the abstract and presenting it as if it was precise and correct, or (2) correcting the statement while still relying only on the abstract. The problem with (1) is that by implication it would have manufactured a totally bizarre fringe claim: That, other things being equal, smaller countries have higher fertility. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
When dealing with a living person settling a work-related sexual-harassment lawsuit out of court, if you have a reliable newspaper source which reports "according to an anonymous source, it is likely this living person settled for several million dollars", and many other reliable sources have either perhaps repeated this report without crediting the original newspaper or reported a similar accusation just crediting "anonymous source(s)", can the reported accusation be used in a Wikipedia living person article, or do these normally reliable sources become unusable sources for that particular piece of information in this instance on Wikipedia living person article? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws says: "Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked. Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are." WP:RS says: "While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." WP:BLP says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." -- RefCkr ( talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamDoing and ElKevbo. The primary job to determine whether an anonymous source is reliable is up to the reputable newspaper/book/journal (our source) and not us. Not allowing otherwise reputable sources, just because their research includes the use of anonymous sources (or sources they keep anonymous to the public). is a somewhat nonsensical approach. I mean, can you imagine writing an article on Watergate without using any source using Deepthroat (before he went public)? Having said that this of course no justification to use arbitrary anonymous sources published by some rag or yellow press, which we allow for sourcing in some contexts. So there is some common sense required and the consideration of context is required (this is where Siawase's point comes in and also WP:BLP).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Always remember, however, that if there is a fact being reported that you feel is significantly important to include in a BLP, but the actual source within the reliable source is ambiguous, instead of stating the information as fact, you can relate it to the reliable source in question, saying things like "The New York Times reported" and other stuff like that. That way, you're not stating it as fact, but something that the NYT reported as fact and, if the information turns out to be false, then it is known that the NYT is false and not us, because we never tried to represent it as fact. We conglomerate information from secondary sources. If there is ever a concern about something being a real fact or not, just relate it directly to the source in question so that it isn't being stated as a fact. Simple as that. (Just make sure that the info is actually important enough and passes WP:DUE.) Silver seren C 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It was most important to me to know about this question "in general" terms of Wikipedia policy - not specifically. Thanks everyone. Besides the living person article has a "lock symbol" and there is no Edit tab. For those of you interested in the specifics of this sexual harassment case and getting into the weeds, this is the newspaper article I was asking questions about: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.html
The use of the word "likely" in a Wikipedia living person article is what first caught my attention when reading the Wikipedia article Bill O'Reilly: "According to several published reports, as part of the settlement, O'Reilly likely paid Mackris millions of dollars, but the terms of the agreement are confidential.[71]" I believe she was "likely" (more than likely) paid something big to settle and leave Fox News, but I can't prove it either. Something like "unnamed sources close to O'Reilly say that..." would probably be best solution here.
Concerning WP:DUE, as I read the Wikipedia Bill O'rielly "Sexual harassment lawsuit" section (which I think should be moved to the "Controversy" section where it belongs) and compare it to the cited Washington Post article above, I find the Wikipedia section does not mention anything from this article that is weighted against Mackris. The Washington Post article lead says that Oreilly made "no apology" and later says that is unusual in settlements. "But for O'Reilly to strike a settlement without an expression of regret, which is often demanded in litigation against high-profile figures, is a partial victory." Also "Mackris has also drawn her share of negative coverage." "Questions swirled around Mackris's conduct as well, including why she didn't hang up on O'Reilly, why she never complained to Fox authorities and why she returned to work for him earlier this year after spending a few months at CNN." And the woman and her lawyer "did not dispute an accusation by O'Reilly that they had initially demanded $60 million to settle without going to court." "O'Reilly told viewers, in language cleared by the lawyers, that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" - and appeared to dispute, without specifically doing so, some of the lurid details of what Mackris alleged." "O'reilly's show ratings went up 30%." None of these weighted statements/claims against Mackris are in the Wikipedia section in question.
Also in the CBS article used to cite "vibrator and told her about sexual fantasies" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/entertainment/main650282.shtml no mention of the following weighted statements against Mackris were used in Wikipedia article. "O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green said he believed there were tapes of conversations between the two and asked the court to compel Mackris to produce them so they could be played publicly. 'I know that O'Reilly does not fear what is on the tapes,' Green said at the time." "...Mackris and her lawyer of trying to extort $60 million in "hush money" to make the case quietly go away." "O'Reilly has seen his ratings go up by 30 percent since the case was filed." Again, WP:DUE should apply to this source as well. But this is all moot because lock on Wikipedia BLP article doesn't allow any edits. -- RefCkr ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
How many people were martyred during the liberation war of Bangladesh?
User:Materialscientist has recently objected to articles like Fort Teremba going through DYK because (he claims) they are written largely from guides such as Lonely Planet etc. He has a point that articles shouldn't really be entirely written from travel guides but this article isn't, it uses the official website, a colonial history website, a PDF from The New Caledonia Weekly and other sources combined with Lonely Planet and South Pacific Guide which is satisfactory to me. He implies that sources like Lonely Planet, Bradt Travel Guides, Frommer's etc are not RS and less reliable than other sources which i must certainly disagree with. In fact I have several Bradt and Lonely Planet and DK Guides myself and they are generally written by writers who have expert knowledge about countries having lived there themselves for many years. This is why they often cover off-track places because they have an intimate knowledge of the places which should be considered very valuable.The issue as I say at least for me is to cut down the reliance on travel guides solely to write articles and to try to incorporate wider book sources and reading. But surely Lonely Planet and Frommer's etc are reputable sources? Can anybody present any evidence to prove they are not reliable?.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well travel guides can significantly vary in reliability and expertise of the author, so it is a difficult to pass a general judgment. However overall or in doubt I'd consider them as borderline reliable (similar to Adler above), meaning I'd accept them as a temporary source (rather than having completely unsourced claims), as long as the sourced material is not controversial, but if the article matures or goes through reviews the travel guides should be replaced by more authoritative sources. A good travel guide will probably also provide correct information on the history and politics of some place (on rather general level), but there are always better sources available that should be used in a long run.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field). I have been topic banned from the main article though allow to edit on the talk pages. [1] For Martin Hogbin this wasn't good enough so 9 days later he asked about full topic banning of me on the article talk page [2] then filed COI [3] and then filed for Arbitration [4], which has been going on for 52 days today. It seems the Admins want the editors to edit normally. I'm just giving you the heads up at the start this as some of the other editors may try to change this discussion from content to behavior.
Editor Duff who is a bias editor (believes the title should be Arborsculpture not Tree shaping) is calling multiple sources into question. I've commented that Duff should ask here about the references. They don't seem willing to do. P.S. Slowart is self outed as Richard Reames creator of the word Arborsculpture. This is why I'm asking for outside editors comments on three different points. Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
At tree shaping Duff added this ref as one of group for the generic use of arborsculpture with summary of
"added 9 new solid and authoritative references to the use of this term to refer to and describe this craft; all will prove rich resources to improve this article"
Duff's diff. When I pointed out the reference also uses pooktre generically and Duff hadn't added this ref to pooktre entry my diff. Duff then removed the ref with edit summary of
"deleting PopSci/Jiwatram citation per conversation on Talkpage: it's weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref to AFTAU/Plantware/Treenovation material."
Duff's diff Then on the talk page Duff made out I suggested to remove the reference Duff's diff, which I did not.
"The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre,"
Would this reference be considered reliable and could it used as one of the references for pooktre used generically? Or would one of the others from the list be a better reference? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Duff has edited Tree shaping so that it no longer reflects there are different process/methods of tree shaping. before and now
"Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping. Instant Tree Shaping where small trees of 6 to 8ft. (2 to 2.5m) length can be bent into the desired shape. The time taken for shaping may only take from an hour to half a day. Gradual Tree Shaping is where seedlings or saplings of 7.6 to 30.5 cm length are shaped while the tree is growing to get the desired shape. The design and setup are fundamental to success of the piece."
As this is a direct quote from me. I'll supplied some evidence of my expertise on the talk page. diff. There are only 4 books in English published about this art form. We have been written about in 2 of them and appeared in local and national TV in Australia (our home) and on local and national TV across Japan."There are two methods. One is instant and one is gradual."
Would these references be considered reliable sources for adding text to the effect that there are different processes of tree shaping? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
, In the same newsletter Richard states"I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible. And yet right in front of my eyes grew perfectly formed living shapes of a wild imagination."
, we have exhibited internationally, have been covered in multiple independent international media and yet Duff still considers us not likely to be experts."Now judging from the photos I had seen I suspected that these two were shaping trees using techniques that allowed much more detail than anyone on earth had tried before. I can honestly say that it’s true."
Duff has called next couple of sentences on Tree shaping and two their references into question.
Throughout the history of this art-form there have been various names used to describe it. There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their techniques. The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge.[44] Though Richard Reames calls the whole art form arborsculpture.[17]:14 [51] :120 The following names are the most commonly encountered:
"There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide."
"It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."
Are these reliable sources for the sentences above? Blackash have a chat 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want uninvolved comment, you will have to refrain from long posts, or from introducing any of the editor conduct matter that the ArbCom is dealing with. Just ask about one source at a time and keep it simple. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be considered an independant third party reliable source to establish notability on Natami? Imprint information can be found here.--v/r - T P 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hope I'm posting on the right messageboard. I'm in a conflict about the genre of a (in fact several) Glen Campbell albums. The discussion can be read on talk:Old Home Town. Be aware that the other editor (BuddyOfHolly) is also editing and deleting my own comments on that talk page... so you might need to look at the history of the talk page first. My point of view is that the album is country/pop, the other editor says it's r&b. It's difficult to find sources for such a discussion, but I did manage to find some album reviews (one from a dutch Country Magazine called Country Gazette which I own myself but which is not available online, one from Billboard magazine and and one recent review from allmusic.com) mentioning country and/or pop in conjunction to this particular album. My opponent claims that reviews in general and allmusic.com specifically are unreliabable, but he doesn't offer any sources of his own, except for a blog that either he or a friend of his wrote. He does however, continuously delete my sourced content and replace it with his own unsourced content (he once used his blog as a source). I'm hoping someone can advice me on this. Thanks in advance! Lumdeloo ( talk) 19:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to ask if "Brisard, Jean-Charles; Dasquie, Guillaume (2002). Forbidden Truth – U.S. Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden. Nation Books. ISBN 9781560254140", is a reliable source for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline article. Although based on facts, this book promotes a theory which is not supported by the mainstream media. Beagel ( talk) 16:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Walia, Puneetinder "Concept of Social Stratification and Inclusion" In Swain, Smarak. Social Issues of India. New Dehli, India: New Vishal Publications. p. 199. is used to support the existence of "Common people" as a sociological term at Common people.
New Vishal Publications explicitly denies responsibility for the factual accuracy of the work (p4), and there is no scholarly introduction. I believe this work to be unreliable for the existence of sociological terms. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This website is cited in a couple hundred wp articles, but their fair use notice [11] seems to indicate they routinely reprint material without respect for copyright. fair use doesnt usually apply to the reprinting of complete works, even if they are short journalism pieces. I dont think we can use them for this reason. I tend to agree with the politics expressed there, so im not politically biased against them, but i take seriously our copyvio concerns. Am i off base on this?(mercurywoodrose) 66.80.6.163 ( talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There is this book Guide to Zakah, which is possibly a self published source (i cant confirm this). But the book was published by a publishing house owned by Muhammad Taqi Usmani. My question is, can we still cite self published sources on wiki, but if it was authored by very notable people? -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add the statement "According to [Name of author, in this case his son] , by consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient of Zakat must be a Muslim" , i think his son is also a notable person, seeing as he has his own wiki page-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Misconceptions2: As I've pointed out on the talk page, there is no reason to be using self-published sources in the article Zakat, because there are plenty of detailed, academic sources available that talk about the subject. Please see the types of sources that I have been adding to the article: i.e. those published by university presses, etc. These are the types of sources you should use. We don't need sites like "onlineshariah.com" when we have much more reliable, scholarly sources available. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My question still stands. Can we used self published soruces, if the author of the source is notable. Can somone clarify the definition of "notable" , in this context if indeed we can use self published sources authored by notable people.
I have been thinking that notable = has there own wikipedia page (but this is more like a litmus test, even if they dont have there article, i know that doesnt mean that they are not notable. but i think if they do have there own article, then they are notable)????
Are the undergraduate text books:
reliable to establish that " common people" is a sociological term? Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
An article in The Telegraph recently reported: "William Shakespeare was probably a Catholic, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury in an exploration of spirituality and secularism in the Bard's plays" and "Dr Williams said he believed him to be a Catholic". An editor at William Shakespeare's religion has been repeatedly reverting an edit to this effect. He keeps changing it to say that Shakespeare probably had a Catholic background, which Williams also said. His position seems to be that since the assertion that Williams said he believed Shakespeare to be Catholic was not it the form of a quote it is not reliable. It is a paraphrase which is asserted twice as demonstrated in the exerpts from the article above. It also appears in the article title. The editor has reverted base on his speculation that the reporter misinterpreted Williams' quoted words that Shakespeare had a Catholic background to mean something more. I think this is pure editor's gloss and speculation. The article says twice that Williams believed Shakespeare to be Catholic. The fact that they didn't quote him verbatim on that point could have happened for many reasons which should not be subject to speculation by editors here (the way it was phrased simply may not have been quotable, i.e. he may have simply answered "yes" or he may have gone on at length in a way that made his meaning clear but was not condusive to a quote). I think the paper is a reliable source - it is one of Britain's top dailies and of high repute - and that it is not the editor's place to second guess that the reporter made a mistake. (I suspect if that in fact were true the Archbishops office would have notified the paper and there would have been a correction). Is The Telegraph article a reliable source for the assertion that Williams said he believed Shakespeare to be Catholic? Mamalujo ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't really an RS/non-RS issue. The issue is why, in an article that otherwise relies for its information on scholars of Shakespeare's life, we are including the opinion of (pardon the expression) a layman. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Anent all of this is the period in which Shakespeare lived. He was born in 1564, scarcely six years into the reign of QEI. It would be highly improbable that he would not have been exposed to Catholics, as a matter of fact, as QEI did not act as her half-sister had about dissenters. It is also highly likely (on pain of death) that his parents were officially "Catholic" under Mary's reign. This all has very little to do with establishing that WS had any Catholic beliefs, and makes all of this akin to counting angels on the head of a pin <g>. Collect ( talk) 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Williams is not a reliable source on the subject, and there is no indication his opinion on this topic is notable either. Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a cite video template, that being said, can I use a youtube posted video of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations to quote Bourdain's statement statement about Lechon.
He also mentioned it in blog. Would that be a primary source, or a non-RS self published source?
Furthermore, can some statements made by the cultural expert in the clip be used in the Philippine cuisine article, specifically about the cuisine in the United States?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk)
In a discussion about ethnicity of SFC Smith, another editor has posted three sources that may confirm that the subject of the article is an Asian American. They are as follows:
The explanation of usage of these references are as follows:
Really no idea at this point. *sigh* I'm beginning to think the US records once considered all Hawaiians to be Asian-American. But again, unless they remove him from that article he was in with Mendonca, we can't really remove it. I found a genealogical site that might explain it though, partially cross-confirmed in here.
His father seems to be Elmelindo T. Smith, Sr., who was born in the Philippines in 1907 and died in in California in 1992. Given the time and place of birth and the peculiar combination of his name ('Elmelindo' and 'Smith'), Elmelindo Sr. is very likely to have been Filipino-American. Elmelindo, Jr. had two other brothers and two sisters and a wife and children that might still be living. And given that they haven't complained yet... :P I think it's safe to say it's correct.
So yeah, unless someone lodges another complaint against DoD, we have no reason to change it. :P
Are these references, for use of verifying ethnicity of the subject, reliable sources, and thus usable within the article space? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Lauren Faust's DeviantArt. The use of DA is a source has traditionally been questionable, but in this case, it's the primary means by which the show's executive producer communicates with the fanbase and provides answers to a lot of questions about the show's universe and development.
- Equestria Daily. Again, fansites have been questionable, if not outright rejected as sources in the past. However, EqD has been cited by Wired and NPR, has had exclusive interviews with members of the production crew, and has even been sent exclusive content in the past by Hasbro/The Hub.
Given this, would or wouldn't they count as legitimate sources for MLP content? -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD... are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." Could you please clarify whether master theses are considered RS in this regard? Thanks. -- Ashot ( talk) 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS and the Wikipedia:Verifiability pillar it is built on is concerned with the work itself, its creator, and publisher. WP:SOURCEACCESS addresses some of the issue of accessibility but in IMHO that is more of a WP:WEIGHT issue than a WP:RS one. Also note that in the Secular Organizations for Sobriety example above is actually in a "Further reading" section. Logically something in a "Further reading" section should be reasonably accessible and if is not then why is it there.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Are The Daily Mail and The Sun reliable sources? Can i use them? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any harm to use an ebook from UPUBLISH.com, stating that the Quran is "the Final Testament, following the Old and New Testaments" as a believe? Two editors challenged the publisher, where one said it "is clearly not A respected academic publisher." Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing dispute over the reliability of the credits of a television episode to establish its relationship to another television episode. Each episode of the British TV show
Law & Order: UK has as its basis an episode of the American TV show
Law & Order. Each L&O:UK episode has in its opening credits a credit that states which episode of the American show served as the basis for the British episode. The credits for the L&O:UK episode "Samaritan" include this information, noting the US episode "
Manhood".
User:MelbourneStar has repeatedly removed information noting the relationship between the two episodes, claiming that it is
original research. I have repeatedly restored it based on
WP:PSTS, which, as I read it, allows for non-interpretive factual information about a work of fiction to be sourced to the work of fiction itself. Citing the credits for "Samaritan" to establish its relationship to "Manhood" is no different than citing its credits to verify a copyright date or the name of an actor who appears in the episode or the name of the episode itself.
In response to his edits to another L&O:UK article in which he added multiple citation needed templates, the editor was
advised by a third party on April 19 that the credits served as sufficient citation, to which he responded "Wait this changes everything...So what you are saying is that L&O: UK's credits specifically say "this episode is based on..."...because if so, this does not have to be cited." (italics in the original, bolding added). When I asked why he was willing to accept this answer for other articles but not for "Manhood" he replied that he planned to "work [his] way up" from this article to other articles, using his removal of the information from this article in an attempt to influence the content of other articles.
The question here is whether an on-screen credit stating the relationship between two television episodes serves as a reliable source for that relationship.
76.204.97.251 (
talk) 21:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The credits and so forth on a film or TV episode are statements by the person or company distributing it, and so the film is a self-published primary source for those assertions. While the credits are likely to be reliable, that is not necessarily so. For example, Alan Smithee did not actually direct all those films. So an independent secondary source is to be preferred for the assertion that an epsiode of UK L&O is based on a particular episode of the US version. In the absence of an independent source, and while the statement is not seriously subject to challenge, then a citation of the episode is acceptable. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899 VMI Keydets football team, people claim that the school newspaper is a reliable and independent source for information on the school football team and that school papers in general "are normally held to the same reliability standards as any other newspaper." Others claim that a school newspaper is in general less reliable than a regular newspaper, and that a school newspaper is a primary source for information on a school sports team, and not an independent source at all. Any opinions on this? Fram ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Are letters from the school to the parents of the children attending that school OK to use as a primary source? If so, what type of statements can they be used to reference? The article in question here is King's College School, Cambridge. The school was the subject of a ruling concerning the Freedom of Information Act in which it was required to release the finding of an emergency inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate to parents (the first time this has ever happened to a public school). It transpired that the inspectors had found failings in regard to the school's handling of child protection issues. User:Kitty101423 wants to include several statements concerning events that can not be sourced to the newspaper articles which covered these events. I've asked about sources and she says that she has various letters from the Provost and from the DCFS. I have no particular reason to believe these not to be genuine (note that I have not seen any of these source myself, this is just a gut feeling) but I'm wondering if they're OK here and which of the statements they can be used to reference. Ka Faraq Gatri ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I have commented on the Wikipedia: I am questioning the the naming of a page entitled "Data Dredging." The page equates "data dredging" with "data snooping" and "fishing." The latter two terms are well established, and I consider them to be appropriate in this context. In my opinion, "Data Dredging" is not consistent with snooping or fished, which describe the process of "sifting" through the data to find patterns that support one's hypothesis, and not "dredging" which implies scooping up stuff from the bottom.
I searched the literature (at SMU's online databases) and found no instances of the term "Dredging" in titles, keywords, or abstracts. (I may have missed some.)
I have a personal interest in the name "Dredging." I refer you to the SMU Tecnical Report SMU-TR-373 at: http://smu.edu/statistics/TechReports/tech-rpts.asp. This paper has been submitted to The American Statistician, where it is currently being reviewed.
Coincidently, the first keyword in the paper is "Dredging," which refers to the Staffing Strategy of "Dredging the Silt," or getting rid of the "deadwood," the poor performers, while retaining good performers. The use of the term "dredging" in this context is consistent with the dictionary definition. Our hope was to put "Dredging" into the lexicon of Staffing Strategies (personnel selection processes) in the workplace. The two other Staffing strategies we describe in our paper are Skimming ("Skim the cream", or promote the best performers and keep all but the very worst), and "Trimming" (a combination of Skimming and Dregdging.)
My request is that the page entitled "Data Dredging" be deleted, and the concepts therein be incorporated into, say, "Data Snooping."
Thank you for you consideration.
John R. Michael [email redacted]
Investopedia.com is used in a lot of economy articles. For example Economic globalization, Capital intensity, and Necessity good. Is this website a reliable source for this subject? P. S. Burton ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of scholarly sources that cover economics. There is no reason to ever use Investopedia as a source. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I need some input from RS specialists on the content of this edit. The content relating to a website, Failed Angle, is sourced purely to that website. So far no independant reliably published sources have been produced to identify this site as relevant ( here and here have been produced as sources, but I am not sure if they are reliable either). My feeling is that this is a SPS and using it to support its own inclusion is problematic. This view has been disputed by a couple of other editors. The material is a bit contentious so some input on how best to proceed would be useful. -- Errant ( chat!) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey with a potential COI as I'm co-founder of Pooktre and an artist in the field of Tree shaping.
Comments? Blackash have a chat 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of questions, which might seem tangential here at the RS noticeboard, but they do relate directly to what is being discussed:
1. There is an arbcom vote/ruling in progress here, which might have the effect of banning Blackash for one year from possibly even discussing this issue. There are various proposals being voted on right now. Should this discussion be put on hold until there is a result from arbcom? Should they be notified?
2. The term "generic", when applied to the name of a product or process, has a very specific legal meaning. Blackash, do you have a trademark on the name "Pooktre"? If you do, then by legal definition it isn't generic, because then you would lose the trademark. If it is trademarked, then the Wikipedia article probably needs to point that out, or have the TM symbol by the word, so that it's clear that it is a created word that is trademarked and not generic. Here is an article that discusses the issue of generic vs. brand names. [26] Even though it's not a reliable source, and I don't remotely resemble a lawyer, I think we need to respect the fact that "generic" has a widely used meaning that would conflict with the existence of a trademark on the term "Pooktre". Also, the photo caption at the top of the article refers to the "Pooktre method"—if it is a specific method for shaping trees, then it is not a generic term for the general concept of shaping trees into furniture, art, etc. First Light ( talk) 15:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1. As arbcom is about behavior and this is a content question I didn't think it is a problem to ask this here. Hopefully the admins at arbcom are already aware of this, as I would expect them to be checking editors' history to see what we all are doing.
2. Trade marking doesn't stop a word being used generically, it just gives the holder of the trademark the right to try and stop people using it. Think about the The_Hoover_Company or the fact a lot of people here use the term google instead of search. Check this link it talks about the hoover issue and how Google is trying to stop it's trade mark being used generically. [27] Words can and do have more then one meaning and is why wiki has disambiguation pages. Blackash have a chat 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the RsN editors have judged PopSci a reliable source, with what it supports narrowly construed, I added the PopSci source back, at both Pooktre and arborsculpture in the Other names section, as it supports both words.
While we are on this titled heading, could the good RsN folks also consider and evaluate the other :citation being used to support precisely the same point, please? Citation| unused_data | newspaper = Culture| title = The art of Tree shaping| author = Hao Jinyao | date = 11 May 2009| publisher = We haven't seen a copy for study yet. Thanks, duff 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that Hajong, which was tagged for inter alia, not having enough references, now has many. Unfortunately, several are references to two different unpublished manuscripts.
WP:RS appears to be clear: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." A brief look at an item coming up in a search for "unpublished manuscript" in this noticeboard is this, stating that "It appears to be an unpublished manuscript, and as such wouldn't typically be considered a reliable source".
However, typically suggests there could be exceptions. Are there any, or should I:
V7-sport ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) has re-included this article from Examiner.com as well as this entry from an essay contest into the article United States and state terrorism. Myself and several other users have tried to explain our policies on reliable sources to him many times, and it's been made very clear that in this case there are plenty of scholarly sources on the subject, but he insists on keeping these in the article. Before I waste more of my time trying to explain this to him again, I'd like to make sure that there is a consensus that these types of sources are not WP:RS. When writing about a subject for which plenty of academic sources exist, is it acceptable to use Examiner.com and essay contests as sources? Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets provide the diff of what you just did.
[29] Notice the edit summary which is, par for the course, untrue: "Removing sources misrepresented by V7-sport". There was nothing misrepresented there.
The sources that you removed are
this which was supposed to go to
back to this (yes, the link was broken) which states: Defining terrorism is the most ambiguous component in terrorism studies, with no universally accepted definition that differentiates attacks against civilian noncombatants or armed military or takes into account the latest trends in terrorist objectives and warfare. In 1983, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) formulated one of the most widely used definitions of terrorism. According to this definition, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." [1] As part of this definition, the term "noncombatant" includes civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or not on duty. [2] The term 'international terrorism' refers to terrorism "involving citizens or the territory of more than one country," [3] while the term 'terrorist group' refers to "any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism." [4]
That's a reliable, secondary source for what is being presented.
You removed this Which is a state department document stating the Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents. It references US law and defines it.
You removed this. It's a "These definitions are set forth in US law, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)." It existed to further confirm the secondary documents.
You removed this. A cornell university reprint of US legal code on the subject. It existed there to back what was presented by the secondary sources.
You removed this.Which was a secondary source that "concluded with the fact that terrorism " is perpetrated by a subnational group or non state entity. (This should be attributed to author however)
You removed this Which was there to establish that there is no international consensus on the definition of "terrorism".
You removed this. The UN hasn't agreed on a legal definition of terrorism.
You removed this. "an analyses the anti-terrorism measures undertaken by the United Nations".
All of that in addition to the disputed whitelisted Examiner article and the essay from University of North Carolina/American deplomicy.org.
So the misrepresentation here has been on your part. Anyone can see that the text was sourced and verified in triplicate. You have simply used the whitelisted article, which was backed by both primary and secondary sources as a pretext for gutting the definition section, as you have wanted from the onset. In bringing it here you have used the good will of other editors to push for something you wanted all along, something beyond just the reliability of a whitelisted article..
V7-sport (
talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
And I see that the Joshua Sinai reference, which alone went a long way to confirm what I had posted, made it back up. Guess it was reliable after all.
V7-sport (
talk) 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The directory page for their listings contains the following disclaimer: "Faqs.org does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk." I would think that this would render it an unreliable source, but an editor on Generation of Youth for Christ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is insistent that a whole section be dedicated to its 'coverage'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I would welcome comments or criticism about this edit, but first a bit of background:
Over at Secular Organizations for Sobriety, (which has been discussed her before; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Master_Thesis_as_a_scholar_source ), There is a section titles "Processes", which includes info such as "SOS recognizes genetic and environmental factors contributing to addiction, but allows each member to decide whether or not alcoholism is a disease" and "In order to change, members must make abstinence their top priority; not drinking despite changing conditions in their lives" -- pretty standard stuff that one would expect from an organization that helps alcoholics to stay sober. The question is, what is considered to be a reliable source for the above information? It is my understanding that the official literature published by an organization (including the organization's website, but not including user-generated comments on said website) is a reliable source on that organization's position. This is true even if the organization's website/literature is considered unreliable otherwise. It is also my understanding that any citation allegedly establishing what the organization's position is must either be from the organization itself or by a recognized expert on the organization.
For example, take Scientology. That article has the following statement: "Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature." This is supported by a reference to World Religions in America by Jacob Neusner - a reliable source of what Scientology teaches. In contrast, the article on Heaven's Gate (religious group) says "Heaven's Gate members believed that the planet Earth was about to be recycled...", with a citation to the Heaven's Gate Web Site. We wouldn't accept the Heaven's Gate Web Site as a reliable source for most things, but as I understand it it is a reliable source on what Heaven's Gate members believed.
Getting back to Secular Organizations for Sobriety, I removed a citation to Sober for Good: New Solutions for Drinking Problems--Advice from Those Who Have Succeeded by Anne M. Fletcher and Frederick B. Glaser and replaced it with a citation to the SOS website on the grounds that there is no indication that Fletcher and Glaser are reliable sources on what SOS teaches. (This was brought to my attention by the founder of SOS - who also thinks it to be unreliable, but I am making my own evaluation or reliability, and I have fully disclosed the conversion as a potential COI issue.) Was I correct in removing this citation as being not a reliable source on what SOS teaches? Guy Macon ( talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
A question has arisen as to whether or not sources are required to establish ancestry for persons included in Irish immigration to Puerto Rico (or, are Irish-sounding surnames enough). Please provide any input at Talk:Irish_immigration_to_Puerto_Rico#RfC_on_photos_in_infobox. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have two questionable source in this article:
@AdamRce, you failed to mention that Yusuf al Qaradawi is a scholar (a notable one who has a religious show watched by 40 million viewers), and those are his views as presented on Islam Online-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that I take a closer look at the IslamOnline source, I see it's being quoted not for the view of the piece's author (a non-expert), but for the view of someone whom the piece's author quotes. The person quoted may be a reliable source (you might want to open a RSN thread on the publisher, Maktabat Wahba, since you generally need to have a reliable publisher as well as a reliable author), but a. you need to cite his book directly, not cite a piece on an unreliable website that quotes him and b. it's disingenuous and a WP:NPOV violation to cite him for a statement like that without providing the context of the statement, ie. to cite al-Q's statement that the jurists said these things without providing his explanation of why they said these things. The Rubin source is unreliable, period. Let me repeat, since it doesn't seem to have been obvious in my comment earlier: The Rubin source is unreliable. He's not an expert in the field, and his opinion was not published in a scholarly source. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has come up before, but I'm not sure of the rules here. A number of editors are claiming that Sebastian Vettel specifically holds a record for finishing in the top two in more successive Formula One races than anyone else. The sole source for this at the moment seems to be that an editor heard this claim made on TV Formula One coverage. Is this a good enough source? Surely "I saw it on TV" doesn't satisfy WP:RS? Please advise, thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Joatsimeon removed content from Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari and Minal Hajratwala
He accused the edits to Minal Hajratwala of "RS violations, possible OR"
The source is: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/while-posing-as-a-syrian-lesbian-male-blogger-tried-to-get-a-book-deal/ - A New York times article reporting on the content on Minal Hajratwala's blog.
Because the source is a New York Times article reporting on a blog, I consider it to be a reliable source. The source talks about Minal Hajratwala's interactions with Tom Macmaster through her blog.
Please also see User_talk:WhisperToMe#Minal.2FAmina and User_talk:Joatsimeon#Minal_Hajratwala WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
NY Times is WP:RS without a doubt. I think it's prudent, as has already been done, to give in-text attribution to Hajratwala. Regarding gawker, previous discussions on this board (ie this [44]) seem to indicate that gawker can be reliable. In this case [45] I would say that it is likely that the e-mail that they published from MacMaster is rendered faithfully. But gawker don't appear to have done any fact checking of their own regarding the contents of the e-mail. I would treat the content of the e-mail under WP:SPS precautions, as originating from MacMaster. So anything regarding other living people should not be used. Siawase ( talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently David Templeton at the "Sonoma County Independent" wrote an article that included quotes from Rick Ross (consultant). The original cannot be found but the article is re-published on Ross' web site at http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and is being used at Calvary Chapel#Authoritarian practices. The section used to have a different title. Some members of the church are taking exception to its inclusion. It was originally added by User:Sliceofmiami who repeatedly added material that was not verifiable and quite negative about the church. This is one of the final criticisms added by that user that is left. Some of the other editors on the page believe that it meets at leas WP:V standards, but over the past few days two editors would like to see the material removed on the grounds that it's unbalanced and slanderous, or probably more correctly, not characteristic of the church in general but possibly in a few rare cases. Could we at least have a few people weigh-in on whether this a RS or not? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed an editor, Agentakki ( talk · contribs), placing references in various media-related articles, all going to a relevant article on the same website, akshul.com. Feels kind of spammy to me, but I'd like some feedback before I go stripping them all out. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 03:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America#GNAA as a citation for information about itself. Prodego talk 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is some sort of a self-indictment: I have argued on Talk:Leuren_Moret and on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Leuren_Moret that newspapers of a certain impact and circulation should be reliable sources even if their political agenda is known, and even if their views are not shared by many in the developed world. I got quite some opposition in this regard, so I would like to solicit feedback here on two points:
Thanks for your consideration, Pgallert ( talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, we are trying to improve the article and get it ready for GA status. Ten Pound Hammer had concerns about the Equestria Daily and DeviantART references, but Faust maintains the highest level of interaction with the fanbase through her DA account, so could this be considered a reliable source? Equestria Daily also occasionally recieves information from The Hub and Hasbro personally, and I think this might qualify Equestria Daily as a reliable source. I want the opinion of the community on this matter so that we can easily get this article to GA status. Rain bow Dash 15:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for some time at the Beatles' Help! Talk Page as to whether the intro to the album is properly credited as the "James Bond Theme". The single supporting link provided is to a music review by William Ruhlmann at AllMusic.com. There is some question as to whether Ruhlmann's claim is appropriately authoritative, or whether it's closer to hearsay. Opinions? CNJECulver ( talk) 07:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor ( User:Berlant) is adding references to an article published in an online journal called "Anistoriton". According to its website [48] "Anistoriton welcome research papers from faculty and encourage the submission of well written and researched studies from graduate and advanced undergraduate students". While soliciting papers from undergraduates is not automaticially a sign of poor peer reviewing standards, it may raise red flags. The editor in question has added an article from this journal to articles on paleolithic "Venus" sculptures, which the article claims to be representations of mushrooms [49] [50]. Having been reverted by some editors, he has now taken to leaving messages on user talk pages asking them not to revert. On his user page Berlant self-identifies as Stephen R. Berlant, the author of the article he is citing. Obviously there are concerns regarding WP:COI and WP:FRINGE, however, I would be grateful if editors would comment on the acceptability of Anistoriton itself as a source, even if we put these other issues to one side. Paul B ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this document Non combatants in Muslim Legal thought, a reliable source to use as a source for the views of Muslim scholars on "non combatants". The document was authored by Professor Ella Landau-Tasseron, he is a proffesor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, see here. I used the document as a source, in the the Abu Bakr article, i used it for this . Its seems to be associated with the Hudson Institute.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
In a protracted discussion at Talk:World_War_I#Addition_to_.22Backgraund.22:_July_29.2C_.281914.29_Nicholas_II_sent_a_telegram_to_Wilhelm_II.2C_with_the_suggestion_.22to_transmit_the_Austro-Serbian_question_to_the_Hague_Conference.22 an editor has flatly discounted every reason I have presented. Other eyes would be appreciated. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a reference for the statement over at Superluminal communication:
Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate one of these experiments and demonstrate whether it can produce superluminal communication or not.
The anonymous editor (who I presume is also the recently registered editor at the article with a confusing username) insists on removing it for some strange reasons, IMO ( [52], [53]). The latest reference that I've been using is: Paulson, Tom (14 November 2006), "Going for a blast into the real past", Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The contested sentence is not asserting an extraordinary claim, ie that Cramer has demonstrated non-local communication into the past, but merely that Cramer is doing research into the question on whether this is possible, so I don't agree with the anon-user's objections and I think that the newspaper article is a sufficient reference for that claim. Am I missing something, or am I misreading the contested sentence? Or the anon-user misunderstanding the claim and WP:RS?
I'd also like to find out if the following references would also be valid for the same claim:
Both are technically self-published sources, but neither source is fringe or obscure (as the anon asserts [54]). As Cramer is a well-known and notable physicist, his self-published webpage and the UW nuclear physics lab where he works should also be, in my opinion, good enough references for one of Cramer's current research endeavors. Am I wrong? Thoughts and help would be appreciated. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
"FamousDockets.com" is being used in this BLP as follows:
Is the source given RS for purposes of the claim made? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell User:Diligent007 about this then? He has littered my UT page with all sorts of accusations about me being on Mason's staff or the like [55] <g>. The less interaction I need with him, the better, I suspect. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information. It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged. It is of public interests, and that is incontrovertible. Moreover, to put an end to your debate, let's remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation, and, as a result, it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article.
Also, your argument that it is in violation of WP:UNDUE because it is allegedly "designed to impugn the character of the person" is ludicrous, and for good reason: It is an infamous public act on the subject's part, as documented by numerous news outlets, and it is being duly noted, irrespective of what you think of it. Since when is Wikipedia subject to third-world censorship? Should your logic of censuring factual information because it can have the effect of impugning someone be applied universally, then Charles Manson's murder convictions need to be removed, stat! So, yes, let reason guide your decisions that you attempt to apply upon all Wikipedia viewers, and not unfounded impulses, with all due respect. Diligent007 ( talk) 04:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, as to the picture being included: The notable point about this is the fact that the act was so audacious that it was made for being captured by a reporter's camera! A picture is worth a thousand words, and no one need deprive that of a Wikipedia viewer. We should all be adamant about having a rich, diverse set of sources, and one source includes more information (be it the subject picture), then it should be included. Why not include the subject picture? Will removing a link to the subject picture save a few kilobytes, and, in turn, reduce the energy costs of Wikipedia's servers (because not that many service requests on the server would be made to make every facet of the subject article appear, including the link to the subject picture)?
Also, Collect, just so that I can put your disparaging mark about me (i.e., my littering your talk page, so you say) into perspective, know this: You did not FIRST engage this discussion before you removed content from the site. You did so AFTERWARDS, attempting to seek cover for your previous action that should have been prefaced with discussion. Consequently, you received a prerequisite warning. Do not get offended by the warning--it's standard procedure. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Diligent007 ( talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Diligent007 ( talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How do we feel about that? It seems common sense to me that an editor should not use a source they haven't actually read. User:Miradre contends here (at bottom of section) that this is fine since he can read the abstract of the source.
In any kind of academic setting if a student tried to pass off a source without having read it that'd definitely result in points off, if not outright failure. Additionally in context of Wikipedia specifically this kind of practice seems to be somewhat dishonest - a reader will reasonably presume, when they see a sentence and a citation at the end, that whoever put that text and citation in the article actually DID bother to read the source. I guess someone could write something like "According to the abstract of such and such a study..." but that would be embarrassingly unencyclopedic. Finally, since abstracts are by necessity limited in length they can be misleading as to the actual contents of the source.
(If WP:RSN isn't the proper venue for this question, please point me to the appropriate place, thanks). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I just want to respond to what I think is the main point for the strongest "anti" arguments, "Quotes taken out of context can also technically "be legitimately attributed to the author(s)", but they shouldn't be." The critical difference is that abstracts are self-contained publications, written to be read on their own. That makes them different, at least in theory, from pulling quotes out of context. (They can be badly written, but we can do nothing about that.) Mind you, every time someone pulls a quote of any kind, they are always looking at only part of a publication, and they risk being accused of pulling something out of context. I think the most important thing about such questions is to avoid taking positions which are extreme? Just to remind, I do agree that using an abstract is not ideal, but I would suggest resisting the urge to delete citations of abstract just on pure principle.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would say that unless you have access to the paper in question in full, you have no reason or legitimacy for saying that the abstract is wrong. You can't say that the abstract is wrong just because it's an abstract. Unless you can get a full copy of the paper and show that it actually ends up with different conclusions or information, you have no right to reject a source that just has its abstract available. Silver seren C 19:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
an abstract is not a "secondary source", not in any useful definition of the term - this is a very good point, though somewhat different than the one I raised above. It might be worth including on the relevant policy page. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who actually writes papers and abstracts, reviews articles, and edits journals, the conversation above blows my mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
<-- In reference to WhatamIdoing's second comment above, actually this particular study/abstract illustrates the problem with relying on just the abstract quite well. The abstract states Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods. Now, I'm willing to bet good money is that what he controlled for was not GDP but rather GDP per capita (if not, then the study is strange indeed). But I can't verify that without reading the actual study. To put "GDP" in the Wikipedia article would then be misleading exactly because the author is being imprecise in the abstract. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Failed verification}}
. I don't see what the problem with it is. It's not as if the user is quoting an unverifiable fact (e.g. a source no one can access).<-- @Obsidian Soul
I have no idea why you'd think citing a paper for its abstract would be comparable to being 'dishonest'. - Because the average reader will believe that the person who's inserted the text and the cite DID in fact read the actual study. As I said, the only way around this is to be specific that only the abstract is being cited but this causes problems of its own.
Tell me honestly (and apologies if I misinterpret the situation), if Volunteer Marek did get a copy of the said study and finds out (as he or she certainly will) that the conclusion is actually the same as stated in the abstract, will he or she accept that the abstract was actually not misleading after all? - and if I get a copy of the said study and find out that the abstract is indeed imprecise/misleading, will you accept that citing abstracts without reading the studies is not a good idea? Anyway, this thread asked a general question - the specific situation is meant to illustrate a point.
The thing I'm not getting is this: which are you accusing of being misrepresentative? The paper's abstract or the user quoting it? - the two are obviously related. Because an abstract can be imprecise, the user quoting it can misrepresent the study. This can occur either because of a deliberate desire to present the results in a particular way (because imprecision allows for wiggle room), or it can happen because the user is unfamiliar with the field.
Maybe it's different with the (economic? social?) fields you usually deal with, but when it comes to hard sciences, what I describe above certainly hold true. - I'm perfectly willing to accept that this may differ by field, and that, generally speaking, in the physical sciences one is less likely to go wrong by citing an abstract than in the social sciences. It's still bad practice IMO.
The proper way to proceed, I think would be that yes, you can cite stuff to abstracts (and even snippets etc), particularly where non-contentious stuff is concerned. But as soon as someone challenges it, you need to go out and get the whole study. And yes the challenge can simply be "the abstract is imprecise".
@WhatamIdoing
What I saw in the abstract was a claim about "GDP" (not "GDP per capita"), and what I saw on the talk page was you asserting that, without reading the paper, you (magically?) knew that the body of the paper would contradict the claim of "GDP" in the abstract by saying "GDP per capita". Your actual evidence that the body would say "GDP per capita" rather than (total) "GDP" is easily contained in the null set. - magic has nothing to do with it. You can also drop the pointless showing off of invoking the "null set" and simply say "none". But yes, I do more or less know, without reading the paper that the study uses "GDP per capita" because simply, it would make no sense for it - a published, peer reviewed paper - to use total GDP. Like I said, we aren't required to check in our brains at the Wikipedia log-in prompt.
BTW, from the point of view of this specific dispute here, it would be better for me if the study DID use total GDP, rather than per capita, since then it wouldn't show what the Mirarde is claiming it shows. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So as the source has now beenb read does it say "GDP" or "GDP per capita"? By the way saying that I should have to buy the source does not answer the question, you have been asked does the source back what you say you should answer.
Slatersteven (
talk) 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
@ObsidianSoul
Nineteen times out of twenty, the circle of people who are engaged on an article over a space of á week (that's all it takes to reshape a large part of an article with the excuse of having found new and better sources) don't have anywhere near the reach needed to even get an overview of the actual scientific literature related to that article. Not in terms of the average time they're able to spend on reading books and articles and discussing with other wikipedians before they make edits, nor in the daily access they have to scholarly libraries (no, online resources most often isn't enough, friends), nor in how familiar they are with current research methods - not the basic stuff they read about at school. Note that I'm deliberately leaving out the factor "in-depth knowledge beforehand of the relevant scientific disciplines" because that is not a prerequisite for anyone to start chopping in on an article here. And it doesn't ,matter if there's two or three people with access to university libraries and training on the subject working on the article - once things get heated people tend to split into camps and confidence goes out the window, so a check with the hard-to-find sources made by one person at the big research library likely won't make a real difference.
So, why are abstracts not useful as the prime sources for something having been "proved" or established? Well, abstracts tend to state that "we prove that (p)" or "our findings indicate clearly that (p)" but within the scientific community, this is very often accepted shorthand for that the round of experiments and/or review of facts, in the eyes of the scientist writing, makes a strong case for the fact or thesis that (p). If (p) is founded just on experiments, the next step will be to see if those experiments can be repeated and other explanations for the relation ruled out. If (p) or the entire investigation includes in some way a theoretical new look at the issue, then in most cases it can't simply be said to have been nailed and written into the scientific canon by a single experiment or a single investigation. Even if that's how it gets described by the writer himself or by reporters who love spectacular news. Scientists and scholars are aware of this, and the full text of a study often makes it clear anyway, even if sometimes a bit implicitly. For this reason, scientists don't feel compelled to directly _state_ at every turn that "the idea that X put forth is not actually proven fact" or "your lab session doesn't conclusively prove this beyond all doubt" as discrete facts that some wikipedian can cite. Actually scientists are much less obsessed with blipping out discrete soundbite facts, between each other, than many wikipedians like to think. They are concerned with chains of facts, circumstances and interpretation, not with stating every single thing they think they have found as a discrete fact.
If abstracts are given the same credence as the full texts of articles and books, any article or book pertaining to an issue that would rank as RS - not just the article or book that the abstract makes a quick summary of, but the abstract would get on the same level as any full text - then many people here will prefer to cite abstracts as their sources because they're not just easier to find, they also make more cut-and-dried statements, and sometimes slightly more far-reaching statements: they remove qualifications, exceptions and underlying steps of interpretation and methodic filtering (not really scientific law) that had to be made to reach any results and which, in themselves, are likely neither inviolable nor directly grounded on fact observation or on some rock hard scientific consensus. By citing simply the abstract, but feigning to have read the full thing and liberally using injunctions against "synthesis" and "original research", the fearless wikipedian effectively removes those qualifications, theoretic deliberations and possible sources of error from sight. The pro scientists in the field will know that the matter is likely not decided once and for all, and that a few more reports or investigations may well turn the matter around, but neither most wikipedians working on the page nor most of its readers will know. The statement "(p) is true based on RS so-and-so" is all they get to see, and essentially the only thing the editor (or editors) wants in the article.
That's why abstracts are often more useful than the full text for POV pushing, or for blocking some competing perspective from an article. If the abstract says "By means of analysis of data so-and-so, we prove that gender and intelligence are linked according to the Bell curve" or "Our analysis of documents from the German and British state archives and diplomatic correspondence, some of it only recently released, proves that Germany, in the years 1910-1914, had the key intention of starting a war to achieve mastery of the world, while Britain did not aim for a conflict" those statements can be used to elbow out the other side, again and again, provided there's a strong enough editing gang for it, although those views are highly controversial and by no means mainstream or consensus in anything like such a strong form. To combat these with some sort of "statement by statement review" with every single statement you want to make sourced from historians, including counter.statements to whatever the other editors are quoting, but without any kind of pulling together of the threads with your own intellect, that would effectively be a full-time job and in most cases such a person isn't available or will not take it up. Imagine the thankless task of just mimicking in every detail what other people have said on a subject, sourcing back to their every page note by note and transposing it to respond not just to trained scientists but to the way their arguments are now rehashed by faceless wikipedia editors, more aggressive than scholars but often much less educated or expert, while being forbidden to draw a single line of connection on your own to make the arguments clear in their content and thrust here! For whatever you might say, that person would not be debating with Fritz Fischer or Martin Gilbert, but with other WP editors who don't have to own up to what they have read or what arguments really will work.
Even if the editor admits that he only ever read the abstract, the chances are often quite slim that someone will call him out on whether statement (p) was actually proved by the full text. Remember, there is no requirement here that you have to tell what your sources are on the talk page before making edits that vitally change the content. It doesn't even need to be hinted in the byline left in the editing log of the article (not that I think we should have the latter requirement, it would be unwieldy, but it shows just how easy it is to sneak in large changes on an article without telling anyone what you're doing). If you're dealing with an assertion that's already been in the article unchallenged for a long time (far too common) then it can take some time to even find out who first added it - perhaps when you find it in the editing log, it's just Mr.Anonymous.
Also, and importantly, in most disciplines of science, and near always in any kind of social sciences, history or humanities, it's not the case that every statement or every description will get proven in the hard-set way that the atomic number of an element or the reproductive habits of rabbits are proven. Trying to write articles on those subjects on the assumption that every statement must be sourced as a discrete fact, on its own (it has to be sourced but no one has to ask why it was considered a truth), is often impossible, but people using "inviolable sources" for the strategic 'facts' and descriptions they want in, often manage to block any kind of sensible articles on those matters.
That's a major problem in articles on those fields here - there is no corresponding problem in those actual sciences: every historian, linguist or business economist knows they are not dealing in stacks of discrete facts that can be experimentally proved, as if from a natural law, and built into a brick wall the way they can in chemistry or classical physics - and because many people here don't bother to think about what verifiability really means or how it works in different kinds of science, many important fields would become impossible to write about here if the "verifiability from some single RS, but without any regard for which it is or how X was stated as long as that source has been set up as RS" dogma would be stringently enforced. And Obsidian, Slatersteven and the rest don't seem to bother as long as they are free to source whatever has gotten said in an abstract. Or, face it, in an interview with somebody in any newspaper that happens to be accepted as RS, or even a quickie notice or feuilleton on that paper's website - those kinds of sources are regularly treated as verifying something beyond discussion, perhaps not in clinical medicine but in loads of other fields on WP.
But then as Marek has also pointed out, you are not really concerned with keeping any standard of scientific grounding, evenhandedness, accuracy or reliability within WP articles in general, or even within the upkeep of accuracy and truth in what is already here. Maybe on the articles you are personally committed to and have worked a good deal on, but not to protecting those standards for Wikipedia in general. Strausszek ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that his fears in this instance were misplaced, and that "GDP" itself is correlated, exactly like the abstract said. - ok, I'm going to say this one more time. There's no way that the source uses total GDP, because it would make no SENSE for a study of this type to use total GDP rather than per capita GDP. Anyone who's familiar with the subject matter would instantly know this. People who are ignorant of the subject matter - such as yourself, or your average Wikipedia reader - would not know this and possibly believe that somehow it could be total GDP that is being talked about here.
I'm pointing this out - again - because that's actually the major underlying reason why the abstract is sloppy. The author of the abstract is writing for a specific audience - academics working in the field. He reasonably expects that members of this specific target audience will, when they see the word "GDP" in the abstract, translate that to "oh he means per capita GDP" in their heads. The problem arises because somebody who's not part of that specific audience - a Wikipedia editor - comes along, looks at only the abstract, and does not have the background knowledge to make sense of the abstract alone. And then these "OR fundamentalists" come along to insists that incorrect information MUST be included in Wikipedia. Worse, they insist that it's not THEIR job to actually bother checking the information.
Additionally in reference to your repeated statements that If you want to keep chatting about the general case, then you really do need to pick another page to do it on., well, that horse is out the barn. This is where people are talking about it and have been happy to talk about it. Your repeated calls to "move it somewhere else" (where it can be ignored) at this point just seem to be attempts to shout down those who disagree with you.
Anyway. As it turns out the paper itself is as sloppy as the abstract (there's probably a correlation between quality of the study and quality of the abstract). Within the study the author says "GDP", then switches to "income per capita", then even confuses GDP with "wealth" (a basic principles course in economics would be sufficient to explain the difference in these two concepts). But yes, the actual data he uses is on log transformed per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity. Like I "speculated". Even a sloppily written study has to make sense to get published (I hope). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(Disclosure: Volunteer Marek notified me of this discussion.) I have seen a lot of idiocy in Wikipedia, but the claim that in this abstract, the sentence "Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods, whereas the effects of liberal democracy are weak and inconsistent." really refers to log-transformed GDP as opposed to log-transformed GDP per capita is sheer lunacy. There seems to be a common misconception that disputes between editors who know what a word means and others who haven't got a clue are decided by following the sources as literally as possible. That's completely and utterly wrong, and this incident shows why. The following table shows countries with mostly 'German' culture. They have more or less the same fertility rates [56], as one would expect given that there aren't any big differences in wealth or fertility.
Country | Population | GDP | GDP per capita |
---|---|---|---|
Germany | 82 million | $3,000 billion | $40,000 |
Austria | 8.4 million | $380 billion | $45,000 |
Switzerland | 7.9 million | $510 billion | $70,000 |
Liechtenstein | 36,000 | $5 billion | $140,000 |
Now given that the European fertility statistics I linked above does not include Liechtenstein, would we expect fertility in Liechtenstein to be lower than average because it's the wealthiest country (i.e. highest GDP per capita by far), or higher than average because it's by far the smallest country (=> lowest GDP by a huge margin)? Obviously fertility has (almost) nothing to do with the size of a country, but a lot with wealth, so we would expect the former. And that's correct. [57]
This is not illegal original research, it's the kind of back-of-an-envelope calculation that is perfectly proper and should be done routinely to assess the reliability of specific statements made by sources. Among the subculture of Wikipedia editors who know what Wikipedia is about, e.g. experienced featured article contributors, this is in fact perfectly standard.
In this case, the source clearly wrote "GDP" as shorthand for "GDP per capita", which is sloppy, but does make some sense in an abstract, where one tries to be brief. We should not be sloppy in the same way in an article, so it was perfectly proper to insist on consulting the actual article to see what was really meant. What would not have been OK would have been (1) taking the imprecise statement from the abstract and presenting it as if it was precise and correct, or (2) correcting the statement while still relying only on the abstract. The problem with (1) is that by implication it would have manufactured a totally bizarre fringe claim: That, other things being equal, smaller countries have higher fertility. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)