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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
Citations to Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited are sometimes deleted in Wikipedia on the basis that it is self-published. That is not disputed but IMO the fact that it is self-published is irrelevant in this case as the book is commonly cited from other works on narcissism. I have seen quite a few books on narcissism published over the last few years and I would say that more than half either cite Vaknin or list his book as recommended reading. For example:
It seems bizarre that Vaknin's book is frequently cited in other literature but is not allowed to be cited in Wikipedia. Also Vaknin's views are widely sought in the quality media and he is an acknowledged authority and expert, for example:
Vaknin has a huge longstanding reputation as a journalist and editor for serious journals such as:
He co-authored a book (Macedonian Economy on a Crossroads) with the later president of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski). -- Penbat ( talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
WTH? Mr. Vaknin's BLP appears to be "not good." While he may be a nut, the fact is that he was used as a reporter by UPI ( [3]) His c.v. makes clear that the "Pacific Western University" which was unaccredited in Hawaii was not where he got a Ph. D. so that sort of BLP violating claim should be redacted from this discussion entirely. The link to PWU-CA given in the article states that it is not affiliated with any other institution. Also the degree is not a "Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy of Physics" (per [4]) but a Ph.D with a major in Physics. In point of fact, not all physicists with doctorates have a D.Sc., many Ph.D. are around. I do not care how much a nut a guy is, it is wrong and contrary to WP:BLP to make such a claim in any article or discussion on Wikipedia. Also any bit about socks is not relevant to his actual status in current discussions. Once the "diploma mill" claim is shown inapt, the rest of Will's arguments fail, alas. Will - you did a lot of research here. But Wikipedia does not use what we know as the basis for what we assert in articles. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Will Beback, Kim Dent-Brown and Itsmejudith and the others elsewhere over the years who have stated that Vaknin is not a reliable source for anything connected to personality disorders. Given that these are medical topics, the more stringent WP:MEDRS apply. I can add yet another time when this topic has been discussed with Penbat. As requested by him/her, I analyzed the sources for his expert status here here. I am disappointed that once again s/he continued to claim (amongst other things) that the self-published books of Thomas and Scott are a source that Vaknin is considered an expert. It's good that this has come to WP:RSN and hopefully this can be the end of it. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
On this page the author cites http://www.brucekirbymarine.com as the source. In fact the URL is http://www.brucekirbymarine.org. Long story as to why this happened, but it would be good to get it changed, and I could see how to do that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.14 ( talk)
Is or isn't POGO reliable? This was last questioned last year without result.
Hcobb ( talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A reference is being used in the controversies section of the Corona del Mar High School article from this website. As not a lot of eyes are on the high school article and this section is being disputed, I would like to get some feedback about this being a reliable source or not. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Jagged 85 has been attempting to add material sourced to Alex Jones, Mathaba News Agency, Pravda.ru, and PressTV to pages such as Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya. To me, these sources are blatantly not WP:RS, as they espouse viewpoints far from mainstream, in WP:FRINGE-land. However, he does not seem to see this. I am having difficulty explaining myself further, as I pretty much have taken the gross unreliability of these sources for granted, so I brought the matter here to gain input. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As for the official mouthpiece of a totalitarian state, such as Mathaba, it really takes an inordinate amount of naivety to think they don't cook things up ever. If you want a good Arab-based news source, Al Jazeera is excellent. Better than the BBC a lot of the time, especially in matters like this.
As for PressTV - it's the government-run broadcaster for, according to Reporters without borders, the country holding the record for the most journalists held in prison. As an example of the problem, PressTv has been censured by Index on Censorship for broadcasting an interview with an opposition journalist recanting under duress in an Iranian prison. We really shouldn't be touching it. I don't know much about other good Farsi news agencies, but then again, it's not clear at all why it's important to have Iranian sources as opposed to, say, Czech, Nigerian or Indonesian ones.
And as for Alex Jones - do you not know who he is? He is fringe. That's the point of what he does - tell people things The Man doesn't want you to know. If he were ever what the men in dark suits call a "reliable source", he would have sold out.
Can I get opinions on this site:
It has recently been added to a few articles; however, when looking at stories on the site, I'm seeing several non-professional elements (broken grammar, blatant spelling issues, capitalization, etc) which suggest this site has little to no editorial oversight. Also, the phrasing suggests a more casual writing style than is usually found in news sites. My gut reaction is that this is actually a scraper-type site that is being added to Wikipedia to attempt to gain page clicks (and thus far only added by a single user). But, I would like to see other opinions. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The article on Neck rings accurately states that the removal of rings does not pose a health threat. However, the article on Femininity claims that the removal of neck rings causes the neck muscles and head to collapse. Both statements are supported by sources. The argument on the Femininity article for keeping erroneous information is verifiability, not truth. Please comment on how to resolve this issue to reflect accurate information. Thanks. USchick ( talk) 14:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely the citing of any source (accurate or not) is good enough if the reliability of the source is such that an article written without bias can state that "According to X: a is 1 whilst according to Y: a is 2" where X and Y have both been published and have some measure of authority (even if accuracy can be challenged). Example: According to The Bible, Man was created by God whilst according to Geneticists, Man evolved from amoebas. That statement is unbiased and it's sources are not de facto correct but nevertheless the statement is sourced and provides insight into the subject ("How Man came about"). As an encyclopaedia we are not expected to state the truth but report on the facts. The facts are that two different sources tell two different tales. I suggest editing both articles to cite and report both sources and to not worry about which is right. fg t c 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the Femininity article goes, the question of reliability is moot because it's not a notable fact for that article. "Feminity" is a very broad topic and unless we want a near-book-length article we don't want to get into this level of detail. That section of the article properly points to Body modification as the main article, and it is there (or even just in Neck rings) that this level of detail should be covered. Herostratus ( talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Anthropological Survey of India has published a series of volumes on the communities of India. Here's the full citation:
This source is currently being used in the expansion of the Kunbi article but I'm sure it is used in several other articles all over Wikipedia about other communities of India. The work identifies about 4635 communities all over India. Details of the project that led to the publication of the volumes, the sources referred to, methodologies applied, number of person-days/hours spent on the project and per community, etc can be found in the foreword. Problems in language and presentation have been noted on the talk page of the Kunbi article. Is the source reliable for articles on the Indian caste system like the Kunbi? Relevant discussions are at Talk:Kunbi. Zuggernaut ( talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved back because parties involved in dispute commented on an archived thread.
The claim that the AnSI volume is a primary source is misleading since the general editor, K S Singh, clearly states in the foreword that pretty much all of the prominent and well-known works in this area have been used in the volume (Enthoven, Karve, Dandekar, the various constitutional lists of the OBC, SCs/STs of the government of India, etc).
Zuggernaut (
talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wise words, Andrew Dalby. An example of what can easily be taken out is: "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue" cited to these volumes? What does one make of this? Holding their noses, they down the cuppa and go plow up another acre? But, equally, it might be the answer a peasant farmer accepting benefits from a government is likely to give to that government's interviewer. Why would they admit that they like the taste and while away the (government funded) afternoon in idle chatter (like elsewhere in the civilized world). Do these volumes have details about alcoholic beverages (much in demand these days in all of rural India)? Good luck with the pruning. Both. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on alcohol consumption are replete in the volume. In fact they reflect the reality on the ground and the changing attitudes in India as you can see from these two random samples:
The are ample references to the gender bias problems in India in the form of higher drop-out rates for girls, about early, even teenage marriage for girls (in some cases as early as 12 years, page 1663). On page 748, it says In olden times girls were married before puberty, even now the common age of marriage for girls is 10-12 years.
There are equally critical comments about lack of economic progress, untcouchability (unconstitutional and illegal in India but recorded in this volume They accept water or cooked food from most of the neighbouring communities such as Kunbi, Patel, Mochi, Vasara, Padvi, Warli, Nai. They do not accept water and cooked food from Bhoi and Bhil but accept siddha from them..., page 162)
I do not see an iota of nationalism or platitudes about national progress in these volumes. The volume certainly has its share of slips and problems with presentation at times but I take back my words and I think using the source for the varna-jati classification should be non-controversial too. Zuggernaut ( talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, Racconish Tk 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This past weekend, I covered the New York Comic Con for Wikipedia, as I normally do, and two comics creators, Nick and Adam Hayes, gave me a copy of their graphic novel, Dark Age, and handed me a press release, asking if an article could be created on it. I explained to them the site's notability policy required that the books be covered in verifiable, secondary sources, and that a print copy of their press release was neither, but if they could forward me secondary sources for it, I would see if it were possible. Nick Hayes emailed me an iFanboy writeup and 2 Bleeding Cool writeups that I believe would help qualify the book for an article, but I have some uncertainties about two of the other sources he gave me, and need to run them by you folks here.
The first is this review at Grovel.org. It looks like a good site, but I really don't know how to judge whether it's considered authoritative in the field, aside from the fact that I've never heard of it.
The second site is this review at The Font Feed. Again, it looks like a respectable site, but how it looks is hardly an objective criterion, I'd imagine. Aside from this and the fact that it's used in the Quantum of Solace and National Punctuation Day articles here on Wikipedia (which by itself doesn't make it an rs), I'm not sure how to evaluate it.
Can you give your thoughts on these two sites? Nightscream ( talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
First, there is no "disputed" claim, just a question. Second, I was unaware that I asked anyone here to become an "instant subject matter expert". (I was also unaware that having to wait a week for a response was "instant".)
As for the graphic novel, I thought that coverage in RS's qualfies a subject for notability. This one has been covered in several. But now you're saying that it has to have won awards? Seriously? Nightscream ( talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I've since been given reviews and reports by Wired magazine, Bleeding Cool, iFanboy and Jay-Z's website. Nightscream ( talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Admin,
About the article in Davina Reichman please:
Is this a reliable source: [Golden, Sasha, "Davina Reichman – Australian fashion entrepreneur & producer takes NYC", 22 October 2011] to reference the above article?
The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
Reichman influenced and inspired fashion designers. Nicola Finetti and Michael Lo Sordo utilised the show as a platform to launch their respective new collections at Austrian Fashion Week. Lo Sordo printed Horder's artworks for his entire collection in 2010 and Finetti printed Peppin's artworks on garments for his 2011 and 2012 collection.
The diff: [15]
Thank you.
Domenico.y ( talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
This has been brought up before, but the last time was 2009. Since then, it's extremely widely used. Every TV editor on here uses TVbytheNumbers. It's the only place that posts final numbers for television ratings (everywhere else uses fast affiliate ratings—and doesn't post the finals later in the day). From my experience, they've never been wrong. Can it be included as a reliable source now? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since TVbytheNumbers partnered with Zap2it, whose parent company is Tribune Media Services, I would think that more than satisfies the prerequisite "editorial oversight" a source should preferably have to be considered "reliable". Chicken monkey 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this site reliable enough to add the content of its reviews to the Reception areas of South Park episode articles? Nightscream ( talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
NyTeknik has been involved directly with measuring and testing a fringe theory device the Energy Catalyzer. For example: [16] "Ny Teknik recently participated in two new tests of the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’, providing more accurate measurements to reduce possible error sources. ... In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in three ways: ..." Does this make them a primary source? Both sides of the debate agree that "They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events". IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is some part of Nyteknik's reporting that you think is not suitable, then we can discuss. Trying get a complete ban on Nyteknik's reporting through this Noticeboard is completely unjust and not in line with the spirit of the underlying principle. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The Ny Teknik reporter was indeed present at the demonstration. That does not make them a participant. Making suggestions still don't qualify as it would be the equivalent of a reporter asking questions. // Liftarn ( talk)
I agree with what POVbrigand wrote: the source is not a primary FRINGE source. The professionality of Ny Teknik is out of doubt.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Can a primary source who participated in an event as discussed above be an independent source. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is being used in many pages as a reliable source for numbers of followers for various religions but the study it quotes is from 1990 and the copyright and last update is from 2000. There are newer sources for some of this data (like the ARIS study) so is adherents.com a reliable source for this usage?
In particular is a dispute over it's use in the Talk:Christianity in the United States#Adherents.com is out of date article. Alatari ( talk) 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Is Unreality Magazine considered a reliable source? It looks like a sci-fi/superhero fanboy blog to me, but I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. It is currently being used as a source for an obscure reference to A Clockwork Orange in the video game Conker's Bad Fur Day in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal hobby site used to source numerous DYKs (which include but are not limited to BLPs, against
WP:SPS).
Nice pictures, though-- those pants belong in some National Register of Historic Sightings.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess this board is dead or dying, so I'll expain myself why it's not a reliable source (even though our WP:SPS page already does that):
Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [1] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
That's that-- the burden is on the person wanting to use this self-published hobby site to explain where her work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications, and why her hobby work is worth reporting if no one else has reported it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Are these reliable sources for an article on Purpose.
Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am working on the article Francis Alfred Broad. I have access to some of the family records; in particular I have a photocopy of a printed union membership card. This card confirms (to me) that F. A. Broad, "by trade a[n] Electrical Instrument Maker, member number 33, South London number 5 branch, Scientific Instrument Makers' Trades Society". It is signed by Broad, the president J Holmes and the secretary H J Carter. Is this ephemeral or a reliable source? -- Senra ( Talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In articles about wrestling pay-per-view events, is it permissible to use the official home video release of the event as a source for match results?
Blozier2006 ( talk) 02:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that FilmBug.Com is being used as a source or external link on 272 articles, but at the bottom of some subject's pages at FilmBug, there is a statement:
This is WP:CIRCULAR. Now, not all of the FilmBug articles use Wikipedia as their source, (Emily Watson's FilmBug article, for instance, acknowledges her Weinstein Company bio), but it looks to me like all the mentions of FilmBug in Wikipedia articles will have to be gone through and deleted when circularly referencing is present. I wanted to get some feedback on the usage of FilmBug and my plan to delete it as a source where appropriate. Sheree North, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: N–O are some of the articles that have a circular reference issue, the issue seems to mostly pop up when the subject is dead. Shearonink ( talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my first time posting on this board, please bear with me if I get it wrong, I've been reading for a couple of months and finally worked up the nerve to start a section.
The Christopher Walken article has a subsection that lists many of the various actors and comedians who do an impersonation of Walken. Every single one has a "citation needed" clinging to the name. I have located clips of some of these impersonations, but they are located on youtube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems youtube is source(a) non grata around these parts. From what I can gather, the reasoning for this is that youtube is user generated, and thus unreliable, in addition to it being open for audio and visual manipulation, etc... However, the clips I found are pretty clearly NOT manipulated, and for many of them I was able to find multiple clips from different settings. For example, Kevin Spacey: [19] (that clip was uploaded BY AFI, a prestigious film institute, very unlikely they manipulated any clip of their yearly gala) [20] [21] [22].
Could I use youtube as a source JUST for this specific purpose, the Christopher Walken impersonations? Also, I would only use it if I could find a clip in settings like the ones I linked to above, galas and interviews or talk shows, and would not use any clip that could be perceived as sketchy or iffy.
Thanks in advance, and please let me know if I've put this in the wrong place. -- Ella Plantagenet ( talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the links. I wrote an essay detailing the use of YouTube videos at WP:VIDEOLINK. For these specific videos, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a repository for every funny video of impersonations of the guy. It appears trivial. I assume a firmly reliable secondary source at least mentions that he is often impersonated without a list of various celebrities. Assume Good Faith applies to editors here and says nothing of uploaders at YouTube. All that aside, most of these videos appear to be copyright violations from uploaders who are not posting from an organization that is considered a reliable source. Some of them are OK and it looks like a few "sources" are provided without links. All could be formatted to comply with MoS but I question the need.
Cptnono ( talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Raised from here
I have doubts on the reliability this Australian online fashion magazine in view of the following mission statement: "Tangent is a playground for people who appreciate fashion as art. It targets people who indulge in their identity and want to discover every secret corner of fashion first. Tangent entertains with the most unconventional editorials, exclusive content, fashion videos and live stream interviews. Tangent magazine fuses the hottest international labels with the edgy Australian fashion, to give our readers a potent mix of style to inspire their wardrobes" [underlined by me]. In practical terms, I find the 2 articles (I) cited in Davina Reichman overenthusiastic in tone. What do other editors think? Racconish Tk 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see this as being resolved. User:Racconish, an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose primary edits have been removing sources and content comes to the noticeboard. He is met here by User:JFHJr, also an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose edits have also been removing sources and content, who even recently unsuccessfully nominated it for deletion. I imagine a less biased opinion should be required. I personally am not very knowledgeable about fashion, but the mag in question does seem to have a publishing history, professional staff, and professional quality writing and photography. The fact that it says it's here to entertain does not inherently make it unreliable, fashion is a fairly frivolous subject, and intended to be entertaining. -- GRuban ( talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor continues to use this writer [23] as a reliable source for articles relating to Indian history, eg Siege of Jinji and Aurangzeb (blanked at the moment due to copyvio issues with edits added by the same editor). [24] and related pages are the ones involved in this specific complaint. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on use of self published sources in this article will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 19:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this website ( [25]) a reliable source for boxing statistics? Frankly, I can't tell how the site works or who is responsible for it. It also seems to somehow link with Wikipedia in both using information from Wikipedia (nothing wrong with that) and keeping track of what it perceives to be Wikipedia problems (odd). Although I don't think it matters much, the Freeda Foreman article uses the website as a source.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's considered reliable for modern and prominent boxers. Relatively speaking it's probably considered as the most reliable on-line source for boxing records but of course that's not a relevant criterion. It also has biographical info on some boxers but afaik this is an open or semi-open wiki so it should definitely not be used as a source. Pichpich ( talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Article:
Diet in Hinduism
The claim: Contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country, according to recent census data as of 2004.[7] Brahmins of East India and Kashmir and the Saraswat Brahmins of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.
The source:
The Hindu, url:
[26]
The challenge to the source:
[27]
The objection to the source seems to be based on the editor's view that the census doesn't address dietary concerns. I don't know if this assertion is valid or not, but the newspaper reports some very specific numbers to back up its claim, which leads me to question where they got the stats if the didn't get it from the census (which they claim they did). The Hindu seems to be a respectable mainstream source that qualifies under WP:NEWSORG, so in my interpretation of the guidlines it is trustworthy for reporting stats that it says it has taken from the census data. In the absence of proof that The Hindu is not accurately reporting data, I don't see how the objection to its use is valid. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [ [30]]):
The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.
The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.
Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [ [31]]. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have an article up for FAC and a concern found on the nomination is if three sources, gs.inside-games generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl, are considered reliable. Can someone answer that? GamerPro64 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
A citation from this book was brought into the article about the village of Jish:
The book is "Blood Brothers" by Hazard and Chacour (p.57), the latter claiming being a witness to events of the 1948 war, claiming being 8 years old [32]. The book seems to be largely an improvised story, rather than a witness account (he was 8 year old as he claims), heavily influenced by religious and political thought. Some numbers are extremely exaggerated, like "tens of thousands of killed" in the 1948 war, which puts real doubt on realism and accuracy of Chacour's "memoirs". We might be able to use this book for some information, but doubtfully it can be used to support claims of massacre. It has been discussed here. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The book "Blood Brothers" brings extraordinary claims on killings which are certain to be wrong. I remind again that the book says tens of thousands of Palestinians died in 1948 war, which is at least an error, but possibly a deliberate exaggeration from "thousands" of Palestinian Jews and Arabs to tens of thousands Palestinian Arabs alone. Due to such attitude, other claims by the book are highly doubtful and need another source to be verified. In addition it is a primary source, which creates huge doubt on verifability of childhood memories of Elias, and it doesn't matter if he is respected and honored to great degree as a clergy man. Greyshark09 ( talk) 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How do I report or prevent another website from taking my website LINK and constantly moving it to the bottom of the LINKS section?
"Swedish American farmer who shaped trees as a hobby"
Published by General Books LLC in 2010 Google books Book about different American Swedish people, with some text about Alex Erlandson's life and his trees.
My questions are, given that it is using the wording as a describing term would the above citation be:
No the publisher is a poison press with no editorial responsibility for content; and, who regularly uses wikipedia as the source content of their text. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article Libertarianism:
Is the PRIMARY source Holcombe, Randall G. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf.+Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable. reliable for generalised claims about libertarianism including claims in the sociology and history of ideas of libertarianism, such as, "Another common justification is that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough."
Is the PRIMARY source, whose partisan political publisher disclaimed any editorial responsibility, Birch, Paul (1998). " Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States". Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes no. 28: 4. ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010. notable as an argument to support a general discussion of libertarianism and law such as, "Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will out-compete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly." Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No these aren't reliable sources for anything. Holcombe's article is hosted by a partisan site and he himself is apparently a partisan. (And those eyes will be haunting my tonight.) He's not highly distinguished or notable such that he's eligible to serve as a spokesman for the Libertarian movement generally. Paul Birch is apparently a lot less distinguished, but I think this is him. He's an astronomer. If he's an anarcho-capitalist as I gather he is then he's way fringe. I think there's an article on anarcho-capitalism and basically material on that should be confined to that article, beyond the merest mentions.
So the Birch material is just clearly and equivocally of no use. Holcombe's better but he's still basically a nobody and per Fifelfoo he's not got standing to say what libertarians hold, nor is is probably even notable enough to be included as "some commentators" in a "some commentators say..." type construction, although I'm not sure of that. Do we not have actual reliable sources from neutral political scientists and historians of political philosophy and so forth, or absent that at least from heavy-hitter libertarians, who have standing to address these issues? Can we use those instead? Herostratus ( talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is Anthony de Jasay (1996).
"Hayek: Some Missing Pieces" (PDF). The Review of Austrian Economics. 9 (1): 107–18.
ISSN
0889-3047. Prior to 1998 RAE was not peer-reviewed, therefore this article fails to me HQRS criteria
reliable for "Another view,
contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement." reliable for the significance of this view in a high order article like Libertarianism. Please note that we have unimpeachably reliable sources for this point already. RAE wasn't peer reviewed prior to 1998 when it was
ISSN
0889-3047 (using Ulrich's periodicals directory). Subsequently to 1998, when it changed ISSN, it became peer reviewed. I am only interested in this article, and the period when RAE wasn't peer reviewed.
I would delete this source myself, as we have two scholarlies on the same point, but I fear the appearance of editorial bias, and so am seeking a secondary opinion. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi a user has expressed an opinion that what appears to be a government web site is an unreliable or questionable source for Vietnam war articles. This is the site http://www.quangngai.gov.vn/quangngai/english//homepage/20128761658_1995/ and the articles are Binh Hoa massacre and Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In reviewing the Ruby Laffoon article, which is currently at FAC, I noticed that the article's main source is:
The book is self-published and my understanding is that the author must therefore meet the requirements set out at WP:SPS (i.e. that he is an expert in his field). I asked about this at the FAC and Acdixon ( talk · contribs), the nominator, gave this response:
As a reviewer, I feel unable to say "well, it's clear that Gipson does/doesn't pass SPS" – it genuinely looks borderline to me. To be honest, I have very little experience in determining the reliability of SPS's, hence the post to this board. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to touch base with the president of the Hopkins County Historical Society to get some more information about Gipson's qualifications. I haven't found any reviews of the book in journals so far, nor have I found anything else Gipson published yet. Acdixon ( talk · contribs · count) 14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Found nothing on JSTOR.— Racconish Tk 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments everyone. Like Acdixon, I have been unable to find any reviews (though I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right places). I did find this (someone's PhD dissertation from 2009), which shows that Gipson wrote the book as his master's thesis. A search on google books does lead to the same conclusion as TFD – it has been accepted as RS by respected historians.
Books/journals that recommend Gipson as suggested reading:
Books/journals that reference Gipson:
— Jenks24 ( talk) 01:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped flesh out this issue. There were a lot of techniques for determining reliability used here that I will try to remember and use in any future cases. I will still let you know if I am able to contact the president of the HCHS and get any further info. Problematically, he is notorious for not using email. Acdixon ( talk · contribs · count) 14:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for GA and one of the reasons if failed was because the user deemed "TV Line" as unreliable. I don't think it's been discussed before, but I believe it to be reliable. I don't think there's an article on here that doesn't used it. It has many exclusives. It's founder, Michael Ausiello used to work for TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly and staff members on the site used to work for TV Guide, E! Online and Deadline.com. It is partnered with Deadline.com and owned by PMC (company). Jayy008 ( talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll like to point out this previously discussed archive [33] which regards pakdef.info as a non reliable source (calling it a self published website) by some editors while bharat-rakshak.com on the other hand is being widely quoted on wikipedia. Note, that both are military consortiums of Pakistan & India and have articles on military histories of the two countries. Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both should be allowed to be quoted since they have similar mission statements and similar objectives. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
We have to consider the two cases separately. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the questionable sources section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Wikipedia sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). Zuggernaut ( talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Military consortium run by retired Indian military officers. Its publications are often in contradiction with neutral sources (as seen on Operation Dwarka's talk page. It was claimed on [62] that it is checked by Indian military sources, but as it turns out by running a whois on the website that it is hosted outside Indian jurisdiction in united kingdom, so this claim turns out to be invalid. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Bharat-Raksakh is considered an respected source throughout. It is cited in most respected publications like
An google book search reveals that Bharat-Rakshak is cited in about 1100+ books [63] - unsigned. Swift&silent ( talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[ [64]
One of my articles is currently undergoing a GA review at Talk:6955 kHz/GA1. I am using this to cite the sentence "Chappelle shot the episode in September 2010, with some of the scenes set at a dug-out lot in Vancouver". Someone basically took photographs of the television series Fringe while filming the episode " 6955 kHz", and I have used these photos to indicate the date and site of filming. As someone who has seen the episode, I know that the photographs are accurate (i.e. the photographs scenes are in that episode). The reviewer is unsure if this constitutes a RS however, and we just wanted to seek a second opinion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/ 2013 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Source: This is the official blog of a famous stylist. http://conradofado.blogspot.com This is confirmed by a backlink in his official website: http://www.conradofado.com/
Is it considered a reliable source? What do you think? -- Pikks ( talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The source is this one: http://www.sophisti.pl/artykuly/artykuly/bizuteria-na-letnie-festiwale.html This article has been written by the redactor of Sophisti.pl a very important and famous stylist. Sophisti every year organizes the Warsaw Fashion Street event and many other events as well as the Warsaw Fashion Week. The article describes a project to which the most popular fashion bloggers took part.
Can it be considered a reliable source? -- Pikks ( talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the reference: http://www.portamoda.pl/index.php/wydarzenia/1867-warsaw-fashion-weekend-za-nami.html It describes the Warsaw Fashion Weekend event. An event organized by BlackBerry and a mobile carrier. As per the contact page of this site, it is a company and the editors are journalists, fashion stylists, etc.
Can it be considered a reliable source? Thanks -- Pikks ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
Citations to Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited are sometimes deleted in Wikipedia on the basis that it is self-published. That is not disputed but IMO the fact that it is self-published is irrelevant in this case as the book is commonly cited from other works on narcissism. I have seen quite a few books on narcissism published over the last few years and I would say that more than half either cite Vaknin or list his book as recommended reading. For example:
It seems bizarre that Vaknin's book is frequently cited in other literature but is not allowed to be cited in Wikipedia. Also Vaknin's views are widely sought in the quality media and he is an acknowledged authority and expert, for example:
Vaknin has a huge longstanding reputation as a journalist and editor for serious journals such as:
He co-authored a book (Macedonian Economy on a Crossroads) with the later president of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski). -- Penbat ( talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
WTH? Mr. Vaknin's BLP appears to be "not good." While he may be a nut, the fact is that he was used as a reporter by UPI ( [3]) His c.v. makes clear that the "Pacific Western University" which was unaccredited in Hawaii was not where he got a Ph. D. so that sort of BLP violating claim should be redacted from this discussion entirely. The link to PWU-CA given in the article states that it is not affiliated with any other institution. Also the degree is not a "Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy of Physics" (per [4]) but a Ph.D with a major in Physics. In point of fact, not all physicists with doctorates have a D.Sc., many Ph.D. are around. I do not care how much a nut a guy is, it is wrong and contrary to WP:BLP to make such a claim in any article or discussion on Wikipedia. Also any bit about socks is not relevant to his actual status in current discussions. Once the "diploma mill" claim is shown inapt, the rest of Will's arguments fail, alas. Will - you did a lot of research here. But Wikipedia does not use what we know as the basis for what we assert in articles. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Will Beback, Kim Dent-Brown and Itsmejudith and the others elsewhere over the years who have stated that Vaknin is not a reliable source for anything connected to personality disorders. Given that these are medical topics, the more stringent WP:MEDRS apply. I can add yet another time when this topic has been discussed with Penbat. As requested by him/her, I analyzed the sources for his expert status here here. I am disappointed that once again s/he continued to claim (amongst other things) that the self-published books of Thomas and Scott are a source that Vaknin is considered an expert. It's good that this has come to WP:RSN and hopefully this can be the end of it. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
On this page the author cites http://www.brucekirbymarine.com as the source. In fact the URL is http://www.brucekirbymarine.org. Long story as to why this happened, but it would be good to get it changed, and I could see how to do that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.14 ( talk)
Is or isn't POGO reliable? This was last questioned last year without result.
Hcobb ( talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A reference is being used in the controversies section of the Corona del Mar High School article from this website. As not a lot of eyes are on the high school article and this section is being disputed, I would like to get some feedback about this being a reliable source or not. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Jagged 85 has been attempting to add material sourced to Alex Jones, Mathaba News Agency, Pravda.ru, and PressTV to pages such as Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya. To me, these sources are blatantly not WP:RS, as they espouse viewpoints far from mainstream, in WP:FRINGE-land. However, he does not seem to see this. I am having difficulty explaining myself further, as I pretty much have taken the gross unreliability of these sources for granted, so I brought the matter here to gain input. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As for the official mouthpiece of a totalitarian state, such as Mathaba, it really takes an inordinate amount of naivety to think they don't cook things up ever. If you want a good Arab-based news source, Al Jazeera is excellent. Better than the BBC a lot of the time, especially in matters like this.
As for PressTV - it's the government-run broadcaster for, according to Reporters without borders, the country holding the record for the most journalists held in prison. As an example of the problem, PressTv has been censured by Index on Censorship for broadcasting an interview with an opposition journalist recanting under duress in an Iranian prison. We really shouldn't be touching it. I don't know much about other good Farsi news agencies, but then again, it's not clear at all why it's important to have Iranian sources as opposed to, say, Czech, Nigerian or Indonesian ones.
And as for Alex Jones - do you not know who he is? He is fringe. That's the point of what he does - tell people things The Man doesn't want you to know. If he were ever what the men in dark suits call a "reliable source", he would have sold out.
Can I get opinions on this site:
It has recently been added to a few articles; however, when looking at stories on the site, I'm seeing several non-professional elements (broken grammar, blatant spelling issues, capitalization, etc) which suggest this site has little to no editorial oversight. Also, the phrasing suggests a more casual writing style than is usually found in news sites. My gut reaction is that this is actually a scraper-type site that is being added to Wikipedia to attempt to gain page clicks (and thus far only added by a single user). But, I would like to see other opinions. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The article on Neck rings accurately states that the removal of rings does not pose a health threat. However, the article on Femininity claims that the removal of neck rings causes the neck muscles and head to collapse. Both statements are supported by sources. The argument on the Femininity article for keeping erroneous information is verifiability, not truth. Please comment on how to resolve this issue to reflect accurate information. Thanks. USchick ( talk) 14:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely the citing of any source (accurate or not) is good enough if the reliability of the source is such that an article written without bias can state that "According to X: a is 1 whilst according to Y: a is 2" where X and Y have both been published and have some measure of authority (even if accuracy can be challenged). Example: According to The Bible, Man was created by God whilst according to Geneticists, Man evolved from amoebas. That statement is unbiased and it's sources are not de facto correct but nevertheless the statement is sourced and provides insight into the subject ("How Man came about"). As an encyclopaedia we are not expected to state the truth but report on the facts. The facts are that two different sources tell two different tales. I suggest editing both articles to cite and report both sources and to not worry about which is right. fg t c 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the Femininity article goes, the question of reliability is moot because it's not a notable fact for that article. "Feminity" is a very broad topic and unless we want a near-book-length article we don't want to get into this level of detail. That section of the article properly points to Body modification as the main article, and it is there (or even just in Neck rings) that this level of detail should be covered. Herostratus ( talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Anthropological Survey of India has published a series of volumes on the communities of India. Here's the full citation:
This source is currently being used in the expansion of the Kunbi article but I'm sure it is used in several other articles all over Wikipedia about other communities of India. The work identifies about 4635 communities all over India. Details of the project that led to the publication of the volumes, the sources referred to, methodologies applied, number of person-days/hours spent on the project and per community, etc can be found in the foreword. Problems in language and presentation have been noted on the talk page of the Kunbi article. Is the source reliable for articles on the Indian caste system like the Kunbi? Relevant discussions are at Talk:Kunbi. Zuggernaut ( talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved back because parties involved in dispute commented on an archived thread.
The claim that the AnSI volume is a primary source is misleading since the general editor, K S Singh, clearly states in the foreword that pretty much all of the prominent and well-known works in this area have been used in the volume (Enthoven, Karve, Dandekar, the various constitutional lists of the OBC, SCs/STs of the government of India, etc).
Zuggernaut (
talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wise words, Andrew Dalby. An example of what can easily be taken out is: "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue" cited to these volumes? What does one make of this? Holding their noses, they down the cuppa and go plow up another acre? But, equally, it might be the answer a peasant farmer accepting benefits from a government is likely to give to that government's interviewer. Why would they admit that they like the taste and while away the (government funded) afternoon in idle chatter (like elsewhere in the civilized world). Do these volumes have details about alcoholic beverages (much in demand these days in all of rural India)? Good luck with the pruning. Both. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on alcohol consumption are replete in the volume. In fact they reflect the reality on the ground and the changing attitudes in India as you can see from these two random samples:
The are ample references to the gender bias problems in India in the form of higher drop-out rates for girls, about early, even teenage marriage for girls (in some cases as early as 12 years, page 1663). On page 748, it says In olden times girls were married before puberty, even now the common age of marriage for girls is 10-12 years.
There are equally critical comments about lack of economic progress, untcouchability (unconstitutional and illegal in India but recorded in this volume They accept water or cooked food from most of the neighbouring communities such as Kunbi, Patel, Mochi, Vasara, Padvi, Warli, Nai. They do not accept water and cooked food from Bhoi and Bhil but accept siddha from them..., page 162)
I do not see an iota of nationalism or platitudes about national progress in these volumes. The volume certainly has its share of slips and problems with presentation at times but I take back my words and I think using the source for the varna-jati classification should be non-controversial too. Zuggernaut ( talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, Racconish Tk 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This past weekend, I covered the New York Comic Con for Wikipedia, as I normally do, and two comics creators, Nick and Adam Hayes, gave me a copy of their graphic novel, Dark Age, and handed me a press release, asking if an article could be created on it. I explained to them the site's notability policy required that the books be covered in verifiable, secondary sources, and that a print copy of their press release was neither, but if they could forward me secondary sources for it, I would see if it were possible. Nick Hayes emailed me an iFanboy writeup and 2 Bleeding Cool writeups that I believe would help qualify the book for an article, but I have some uncertainties about two of the other sources he gave me, and need to run them by you folks here.
The first is this review at Grovel.org. It looks like a good site, but I really don't know how to judge whether it's considered authoritative in the field, aside from the fact that I've never heard of it.
The second site is this review at The Font Feed. Again, it looks like a respectable site, but how it looks is hardly an objective criterion, I'd imagine. Aside from this and the fact that it's used in the Quantum of Solace and National Punctuation Day articles here on Wikipedia (which by itself doesn't make it an rs), I'm not sure how to evaluate it.
Can you give your thoughts on these two sites? Nightscream ( talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
First, there is no "disputed" claim, just a question. Second, I was unaware that I asked anyone here to become an "instant subject matter expert". (I was also unaware that having to wait a week for a response was "instant".)
As for the graphic novel, I thought that coverage in RS's qualfies a subject for notability. This one has been covered in several. But now you're saying that it has to have won awards? Seriously? Nightscream ( talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I've since been given reviews and reports by Wired magazine, Bleeding Cool, iFanboy and Jay-Z's website. Nightscream ( talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Admin,
About the article in Davina Reichman please:
Is this a reliable source: [Golden, Sasha, "Davina Reichman – Australian fashion entrepreneur & producer takes NYC", 22 October 2011] to reference the above article?
The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
Reichman influenced and inspired fashion designers. Nicola Finetti and Michael Lo Sordo utilised the show as a platform to launch their respective new collections at Austrian Fashion Week. Lo Sordo printed Horder's artworks for his entire collection in 2010 and Finetti printed Peppin's artworks on garments for his 2011 and 2012 collection.
The diff: [15]
Thank you.
Domenico.y ( talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
This has been brought up before, but the last time was 2009. Since then, it's extremely widely used. Every TV editor on here uses TVbytheNumbers. It's the only place that posts final numbers for television ratings (everywhere else uses fast affiliate ratings—and doesn't post the finals later in the day). From my experience, they've never been wrong. Can it be included as a reliable source now? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since TVbytheNumbers partnered with Zap2it, whose parent company is Tribune Media Services, I would think that more than satisfies the prerequisite "editorial oversight" a source should preferably have to be considered "reliable". Chicken monkey 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this site reliable enough to add the content of its reviews to the Reception areas of South Park episode articles? Nightscream ( talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
NyTeknik has been involved directly with measuring and testing a fringe theory device the Energy Catalyzer. For example: [16] "Ny Teknik recently participated in two new tests of the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’, providing more accurate measurements to reduce possible error sources. ... In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in three ways: ..." Does this make them a primary source? Both sides of the debate agree that "They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events". IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is some part of Nyteknik's reporting that you think is not suitable, then we can discuss. Trying get a complete ban on Nyteknik's reporting through this Noticeboard is completely unjust and not in line with the spirit of the underlying principle. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The Ny Teknik reporter was indeed present at the demonstration. That does not make them a participant. Making suggestions still don't qualify as it would be the equivalent of a reporter asking questions. // Liftarn ( talk)
I agree with what POVbrigand wrote: the source is not a primary FRINGE source. The professionality of Ny Teknik is out of doubt.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Can a primary source who participated in an event as discussed above be an independent source. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is being used in many pages as a reliable source for numbers of followers for various religions but the study it quotes is from 1990 and the copyright and last update is from 2000. There are newer sources for some of this data (like the ARIS study) so is adherents.com a reliable source for this usage?
In particular is a dispute over it's use in the Talk:Christianity in the United States#Adherents.com is out of date article. Alatari ( talk) 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Is Unreality Magazine considered a reliable source? It looks like a sci-fi/superhero fanboy blog to me, but I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. It is currently being used as a source for an obscure reference to A Clockwork Orange in the video game Conker's Bad Fur Day in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal hobby site used to source numerous DYKs (which include but are not limited to BLPs, against
WP:SPS).
Nice pictures, though-- those pants belong in some National Register of Historic Sightings.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess this board is dead or dying, so I'll expain myself why it's not a reliable source (even though our WP:SPS page already does that):
Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [1] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
That's that-- the burden is on the person wanting to use this self-published hobby site to explain where her work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications, and why her hobby work is worth reporting if no one else has reported it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Are these reliable sources for an article on Purpose.
Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am working on the article Francis Alfred Broad. I have access to some of the family records; in particular I have a photocopy of a printed union membership card. This card confirms (to me) that F. A. Broad, "by trade a[n] Electrical Instrument Maker, member number 33, South London number 5 branch, Scientific Instrument Makers' Trades Society". It is signed by Broad, the president J Holmes and the secretary H J Carter. Is this ephemeral or a reliable source? -- Senra ( Talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In articles about wrestling pay-per-view events, is it permissible to use the official home video release of the event as a source for match results?
Blozier2006 ( talk) 02:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that FilmBug.Com is being used as a source or external link on 272 articles, but at the bottom of some subject's pages at FilmBug, there is a statement:
This is WP:CIRCULAR. Now, not all of the FilmBug articles use Wikipedia as their source, (Emily Watson's FilmBug article, for instance, acknowledges her Weinstein Company bio), but it looks to me like all the mentions of FilmBug in Wikipedia articles will have to be gone through and deleted when circularly referencing is present. I wanted to get some feedback on the usage of FilmBug and my plan to delete it as a source where appropriate. Sheree North, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: N–O are some of the articles that have a circular reference issue, the issue seems to mostly pop up when the subject is dead. Shearonink ( talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my first time posting on this board, please bear with me if I get it wrong, I've been reading for a couple of months and finally worked up the nerve to start a section.
The Christopher Walken article has a subsection that lists many of the various actors and comedians who do an impersonation of Walken. Every single one has a "citation needed" clinging to the name. I have located clips of some of these impersonations, but they are located on youtube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems youtube is source(a) non grata around these parts. From what I can gather, the reasoning for this is that youtube is user generated, and thus unreliable, in addition to it being open for audio and visual manipulation, etc... However, the clips I found are pretty clearly NOT manipulated, and for many of them I was able to find multiple clips from different settings. For example, Kevin Spacey: [19] (that clip was uploaded BY AFI, a prestigious film institute, very unlikely they manipulated any clip of their yearly gala) [20] [21] [22].
Could I use youtube as a source JUST for this specific purpose, the Christopher Walken impersonations? Also, I would only use it if I could find a clip in settings like the ones I linked to above, galas and interviews or talk shows, and would not use any clip that could be perceived as sketchy or iffy.
Thanks in advance, and please let me know if I've put this in the wrong place. -- Ella Plantagenet ( talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the links. I wrote an essay detailing the use of YouTube videos at WP:VIDEOLINK. For these specific videos, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a repository for every funny video of impersonations of the guy. It appears trivial. I assume a firmly reliable secondary source at least mentions that he is often impersonated without a list of various celebrities. Assume Good Faith applies to editors here and says nothing of uploaders at YouTube. All that aside, most of these videos appear to be copyright violations from uploaders who are not posting from an organization that is considered a reliable source. Some of them are OK and it looks like a few "sources" are provided without links. All could be formatted to comply with MoS but I question the need.
Cptnono ( talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Raised from here
I have doubts on the reliability this Australian online fashion magazine in view of the following mission statement: "Tangent is a playground for people who appreciate fashion as art. It targets people who indulge in their identity and want to discover every secret corner of fashion first. Tangent entertains with the most unconventional editorials, exclusive content, fashion videos and live stream interviews. Tangent magazine fuses the hottest international labels with the edgy Australian fashion, to give our readers a potent mix of style to inspire their wardrobes" [underlined by me]. In practical terms, I find the 2 articles (I) cited in Davina Reichman overenthusiastic in tone. What do other editors think? Racconish Tk 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see this as being resolved. User:Racconish, an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose primary edits have been removing sources and content comes to the noticeboard. He is met here by User:JFHJr, also an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose edits have also been removing sources and content, who even recently unsuccessfully nominated it for deletion. I imagine a less biased opinion should be required. I personally am not very knowledgeable about fashion, but the mag in question does seem to have a publishing history, professional staff, and professional quality writing and photography. The fact that it says it's here to entertain does not inherently make it unreliable, fashion is a fairly frivolous subject, and intended to be entertaining. -- GRuban ( talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor continues to use this writer [23] as a reliable source for articles relating to Indian history, eg Siege of Jinji and Aurangzeb (blanked at the moment due to copyvio issues with edits added by the same editor). [24] and related pages are the ones involved in this specific complaint. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on use of self published sources in this article will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 19:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this website ( [25]) a reliable source for boxing statistics? Frankly, I can't tell how the site works or who is responsible for it. It also seems to somehow link with Wikipedia in both using information from Wikipedia (nothing wrong with that) and keeping track of what it perceives to be Wikipedia problems (odd). Although I don't think it matters much, the Freeda Foreman article uses the website as a source.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's considered reliable for modern and prominent boxers. Relatively speaking it's probably considered as the most reliable on-line source for boxing records but of course that's not a relevant criterion. It also has biographical info on some boxers but afaik this is an open or semi-open wiki so it should definitely not be used as a source. Pichpich ( talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Article:
Diet in Hinduism
The claim: Contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country, according to recent census data as of 2004.[7] Brahmins of East India and Kashmir and the Saraswat Brahmins of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.
The source:
The Hindu, url:
[26]
The challenge to the source:
[27]
The objection to the source seems to be based on the editor's view that the census doesn't address dietary concerns. I don't know if this assertion is valid or not, but the newspaper reports some very specific numbers to back up its claim, which leads me to question where they got the stats if the didn't get it from the census (which they claim they did). The Hindu seems to be a respectable mainstream source that qualifies under WP:NEWSORG, so in my interpretation of the guidlines it is trustworthy for reporting stats that it says it has taken from the census data. In the absence of proof that The Hindu is not accurately reporting data, I don't see how the objection to its use is valid. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [ [30]]):
The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.
The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.
Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [ [31]]. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have an article up for FAC and a concern found on the nomination is if three sources, gs.inside-games generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl, are considered reliable. Can someone answer that? GamerPro64 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
A citation from this book was brought into the article about the village of Jish:
The book is "Blood Brothers" by Hazard and Chacour (p.57), the latter claiming being a witness to events of the 1948 war, claiming being 8 years old [32]. The book seems to be largely an improvised story, rather than a witness account (he was 8 year old as he claims), heavily influenced by religious and political thought. Some numbers are extremely exaggerated, like "tens of thousands of killed" in the 1948 war, which puts real doubt on realism and accuracy of Chacour's "memoirs". We might be able to use this book for some information, but doubtfully it can be used to support claims of massacre. It has been discussed here. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The book "Blood Brothers" brings extraordinary claims on killings which are certain to be wrong. I remind again that the book says tens of thousands of Palestinians died in 1948 war, which is at least an error, but possibly a deliberate exaggeration from "thousands" of Palestinian Jews and Arabs to tens of thousands Palestinian Arabs alone. Due to such attitude, other claims by the book are highly doubtful and need another source to be verified. In addition it is a primary source, which creates huge doubt on verifability of childhood memories of Elias, and it doesn't matter if he is respected and honored to great degree as a clergy man. Greyshark09 ( talk) 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How do I report or prevent another website from taking my website LINK and constantly moving it to the bottom of the LINKS section?
"Swedish American farmer who shaped trees as a hobby"
Published by General Books LLC in 2010 Google books Book about different American Swedish people, with some text about Alex Erlandson's life and his trees.
My questions are, given that it is using the wording as a describing term would the above citation be:
No the publisher is a poison press with no editorial responsibility for content; and, who regularly uses wikipedia as the source content of their text. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article Libertarianism:
Is the PRIMARY source Holcombe, Randall G. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf.+Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable. reliable for generalised claims about libertarianism including claims in the sociology and history of ideas of libertarianism, such as, "Another common justification is that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough."
Is the PRIMARY source, whose partisan political publisher disclaimed any editorial responsibility, Birch, Paul (1998). " Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States". Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes no. 28: 4. ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010. notable as an argument to support a general discussion of libertarianism and law such as, "Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will out-compete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly." Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No these aren't reliable sources for anything. Holcombe's article is hosted by a partisan site and he himself is apparently a partisan. (And those eyes will be haunting my tonight.) He's not highly distinguished or notable such that he's eligible to serve as a spokesman for the Libertarian movement generally. Paul Birch is apparently a lot less distinguished, but I think this is him. He's an astronomer. If he's an anarcho-capitalist as I gather he is then he's way fringe. I think there's an article on anarcho-capitalism and basically material on that should be confined to that article, beyond the merest mentions.
So the Birch material is just clearly and equivocally of no use. Holcombe's better but he's still basically a nobody and per Fifelfoo he's not got standing to say what libertarians hold, nor is is probably even notable enough to be included as "some commentators" in a "some commentators say..." type construction, although I'm not sure of that. Do we not have actual reliable sources from neutral political scientists and historians of political philosophy and so forth, or absent that at least from heavy-hitter libertarians, who have standing to address these issues? Can we use those instead? Herostratus ( talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is Anthony de Jasay (1996).
"Hayek: Some Missing Pieces" (PDF). The Review of Austrian Economics. 9 (1): 107–18.
ISSN
0889-3047. Prior to 1998 RAE was not peer-reviewed, therefore this article fails to me HQRS criteria
reliable for "Another view,
contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement." reliable for the significance of this view in a high order article like Libertarianism. Please note that we have unimpeachably reliable sources for this point already. RAE wasn't peer reviewed prior to 1998 when it was
ISSN
0889-3047 (using Ulrich's periodicals directory). Subsequently to 1998, when it changed ISSN, it became peer reviewed. I am only interested in this article, and the period when RAE wasn't peer reviewed.
I would delete this source myself, as we have two scholarlies on the same point, but I fear the appearance of editorial bias, and so am seeking a secondary opinion. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi a user has expressed an opinion that what appears to be a government web site is an unreliable or questionable source for Vietnam war articles. This is the site http://www.quangngai.gov.vn/quangngai/english//homepage/20128761658_1995/ and the articles are Binh Hoa massacre and Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In reviewing the Ruby Laffoon article, which is currently at FAC, I noticed that the article's main source is:
The book is self-published and my understanding is that the author must therefore meet the requirements set out at WP:SPS (i.e. that he is an expert in his field). I asked about this at the FAC and Acdixon ( talk · contribs), the nominator, gave this response:
As a reviewer, I feel unable to say "well, it's clear that Gipson does/doesn't pass SPS" – it genuinely looks borderline to me. To be honest, I have very little experience in determining the reliability of SPS's, hence the post to this board. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to touch base with the president of the Hopkins County Historical Society to get some more information about Gipson's qualifications. I haven't found any reviews of the book in journals so far, nor have I found anything else Gipson published yet. Acdixon ( talk · contribs · count) 14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Found nothing on JSTOR.— Racconish Tk 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments everyone. Like Acdixon, I have been unable to find any reviews (though I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right places). I did find this (someone's PhD dissertation from 2009), which shows that Gipson wrote the book as his master's thesis. A search on google books does lead to the same conclusion as TFD – it has been accepted as RS by respected historians.
Books/journals that recommend Gipson as suggested reading:
Books/journals that reference Gipson:
— Jenks24 ( talk) 01:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped flesh out this issue. There were a lot of techniques for determining reliability used here that I will try to remember and use in any future cases. I will still let you know if I am able to contact the president of the HCHS and get any further info. Problematically, he is notorious for not using email. Acdixon ( talk · contribs · count) 14:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for GA and one of the reasons if failed was because the user deemed "TV Line" as unreliable. I don't think it's been discussed before, but I believe it to be reliable. I don't think there's an article on here that doesn't used it. It has many exclusives. It's founder, Michael Ausiello used to work for TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly and staff members on the site used to work for TV Guide, E! Online and Deadline.com. It is partnered with Deadline.com and owned by PMC (company). Jayy008 ( talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll like to point out this previously discussed archive [33] which regards pakdef.info as a non reliable source (calling it a self published website) by some editors while bharat-rakshak.com on the other hand is being widely quoted on wikipedia. Note, that both are military consortiums of Pakistan & India and have articles on military histories of the two countries. Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both should be allowed to be quoted since they have similar mission statements and similar objectives. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
We have to consider the two cases separately. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the questionable sources section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Wikipedia sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). Zuggernaut ( talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Military consortium run by retired Indian military officers. Its publications are often in contradiction with neutral sources (as seen on Operation Dwarka's talk page. It was claimed on [62] that it is checked by Indian military sources, but as it turns out by running a whois on the website that it is hosted outside Indian jurisdiction in united kingdom, so this claim turns out to be invalid. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Bharat-Raksakh is considered an respected source throughout. It is cited in most respected publications like
An google book search reveals that Bharat-Rakshak is cited in about 1100+ books [63] - unsigned. Swift&silent ( talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[ [64]
One of my articles is currently undergoing a GA review at Talk:6955 kHz/GA1. I am using this to cite the sentence "Chappelle shot the episode in September 2010, with some of the scenes set at a dug-out lot in Vancouver". Someone basically took photographs of the television series Fringe while filming the episode " 6955 kHz", and I have used these photos to indicate the date and site of filming. As someone who has seen the episode, I know that the photographs are accurate (i.e. the photographs scenes are in that episode). The reviewer is unsure if this constitutes a RS however, and we just wanted to seek a second opinion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/ 2013 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Source: This is the official blog of a famous stylist. http://conradofado.blogspot.com This is confirmed by a backlink in his official website: http://www.conradofado.com/
Is it considered a reliable source? What do you think? -- Pikks ( talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The source is this one: http://www.sophisti.pl/artykuly/artykuly/bizuteria-na-letnie-festiwale.html This article has been written by the redactor of Sophisti.pl a very important and famous stylist. Sophisti every year organizes the Warsaw Fashion Street event and many other events as well as the Warsaw Fashion Week. The article describes a project to which the most popular fashion bloggers took part.
Can it be considered a reliable source? -- Pikks ( talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the reference: http://www.portamoda.pl/index.php/wydarzenia/1867-warsaw-fashion-weekend-za-nami.html It describes the Warsaw Fashion Weekend event. An event organized by BlackBerry and a mobile carrier. As per the contact page of this site, it is a company and the editors are journalists, fashion stylists, etc.
Can it be considered a reliable source? Thanks -- Pikks ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)