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 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 |
Facebook app. Can this be used, along with other charity performance monitors, for information on the Facebook fundraising performance of a particular charity in determining notability for Wikipedia? Rumiton ( talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was suggesting. I am not sure why you are describing Causes as a "primary source." They are not echoing the Non-profit's data; they monitor the membership and donation figures themselves, like any other third party. Rumiton ( talk) 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to write an article on documentary filmmaker Ucu Agustin in my userspace, and I was wondering if Wikimedia could be used to reference her next endeavor. She received 700 million rupiah in a grant for the film from the Ford Foundation in collaboration with other groups, including Wikimedia, so this may pass WP:SPS. The information referenced would only be A) that she received a grant to produce the film, B) The total amount granted, and C) The title of the film Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not for notability. Treat like a press release. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into specifics for now, is there a substantial difference between citing a documentary and citing a book as a RS? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the following monograph be allowed as a reliable source for the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) articles. The monograph is called: The School of Advanced Military Studies in the 21st Century Some dissertations/theses/academic works are not considered reliable on Wikipedia; but, I believe this work should be allowed:
Is this site a reliable source about Kim Jong-il? See footnote 127 in the article. I can't see much about the site on the site, because the huge amount of spam it includes crashes my old-fashioned browser. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. You seem to be objecting to the use of the word "many" - not to the lack of a specific example, saying that in order to use "many", which is hard to invalidate - we'd have to have a better more reputable source than gloablsecurity?. Is that correct?
Jeff Song (
talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Creation and evolution in public education ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not your article's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Fuseau for that flimsy and tendentious piece of WP:WIKILAWYERing.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Not your article's talk page—if you've resolved the reliability issues (as you seem to have), discuss the content on your article's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Are the reviews on this website reliable/notable enough to be added to articles on artistic works like Habibi? Of the 17 contributors listed under "Contributors" on that site, two have their own Wikipedia articles, Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger. But Nadim Damluji, the author of the review of Habibi that one editor added to the Habibi article, is not. Is it acceptable? Nightscream ( talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Noah Berlatsky, the editor of the Hooded Utilitarian. I thought I would try to provide some more info about the site in hopes that it would be helpful.
I personally have written for the Atlantic, the Chicago Reader, the Washington Times, Reason, and a number of other established outlets. The site itself was hosted on The Comics Journal website for about a year. We have been linked by established comics sites, such as the Comics Journal, the Comics Reporter, and the Beat. We have also been linked by mainstream sites such as boing boing and io9. A post about the Wire by Sean Michael Robinson and Joy DeLyria was extremely popular and was linked by everyone from Harper's to the Boston Globe. The post has been expanded into a book and will be released in a couple of months.
As you mentioned, James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook both write for the site. We have also had guest posts over the years by creators and critics such as Ariel Schrag, Shaenon Garrity, Jason Thompson, Steven Grant. A number of academics have also written for us, including Craig Fischer, Peter Sattler, Qiana Whitted, Charles Hatfield, and Andrei Molotiu.
I believe you can confirm all that through google fairly easily.
Incidentally, the post by Nadim was widely linked and discussed through the comics community, including by the Comics Journal and by Eddie Campbell through his own blog.
Thanks for you interest in the site. I hope this was helpful. NoahB ( talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
NoahB ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at listed credentials I am not convinced that it is suitable as a source for philosophy articles - though it may well serve as a jump-off point for relevant sources of higher quality. Thoughts? u n☯ mi 01:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has questioned the reliability of the website Jesus Freak Hideout as a source for band genres. The discussion can be found here. I have asked about this site once before, and that time it was found to be reliable. Also, it is listed as a reliable source on the Wikiproject for Christian music. The editor opposing says that this consensus does not overcome it being self-published, and that the mentions in third-party sources are merely trivial.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
So what is the consensus?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There is only one source for the BLP James Kirchick, and that's to Taki's Magazine, which, based on our article about it, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. If that attack page is removed, there are no sources in the James Kirchick article at all, and a BLP PROD could be applied. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Sgerbic ( talk · contribs) has been adding dozens of external links to skeptoid.com, which is a skeptical blog/podcast/TV show. I think there might be some merit to judicous use of the website, operated by Brian Dunning (skeptic), who has some credibility in my opinion, but this user has been going through the archives and spamming links, for which they've been warned. I've left some in place on topics like Marfa lights and Devil's Footprints, where they seem to have value. I see no value in adding such links to topics like sin and faith. Any opinions? Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here are the other references that were not removed.
Skeptoid's 15 points on how to recognize pseudoscience fits well in this body of External links. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
These discussions about whether or not an EL should remain, should be discussed on the relevant page. Not here. And reverting an edit without a reason is not good policy. I thought the reason we were on the reliable sources noticeboard page was to discuss if Skeptoid is a reliable source or not?
I would like to add that I take issue with the claim that I am spamming anything. Each External Link I left is unique, and relevant to the page it was left on. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I just wanted to jump back in to say that my removing the skeptoid link from Pseudoscience wansn't based on reliability - I do think skeptoid is reliable. But per WP:EL, reliabilty isn't the only thing to consider. The EL section already had three other links to "how to spot pseudoscience" type articles, and before I noticed this thread here, Sgerbic's edits looked very much like spam to me, and to at least two other Wikipedians. (I now think it's pretty clear that Sgerbic was acting in good faith.)
Also, from WP:EL "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and "the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So the question should be "why add it?" rather than "why not add it?" I don't think I was wrong to remove it, I think it's redundant, but I won't remove it again now that it's been added back. I stand by my assertion above that it should be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy - like Acroterion, I think Dunning might have something to offer on the "fringier" topics, but there are many more appropriate resources on the harder science articles. Dawn Bard ( talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
What makes the information on this web site reliable? I see above that some of us may like the broadcasts and the presentation of content on the site, but that isn't how we determine reliability. The web site is self-published, not peer-reviewed. Has Dunning established reliability by publishing in reliable third-party publications?
The web site is definitely promotional, pushing Dunning's broadcasts, live shows, books, videos, swag, and requests for subscriptions ("tips") which detracts both from claims of reliability and from the general utility of the site for this project. There are other sites with similar content that are not promotional. Joja lozzo 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Mewulwe has objected to [32] to be considered a RS, stating that it "clearly copies Wikipedia". It was originally included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources as an acceptable source for unreferenced articles, but Mewulwe has objected for it to be listed there. Any thoughts on this? – Connormah ( talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm reviewing AFN Munich for DYK, and I have concerns over the use of this reference from About.com. I am quite wary of it, as it is a) a language exercise and b) from About.com. As I do not speak German fluently, I cannot verify that all information in the about.com article is supported with the other sources; the nominator wishes to keep the current about.com reference as it is bilingual. Should about.com be allowed here? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Need help on verifying sources. IMDB is obviously not reliable. However, the article is too big for me to check. Can you assist inspecting this article, please? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Used heavily in Global warming conspiracy theory, including to make statements about WP:BLPs (that Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbuchev are part of the conspiracy, for instance). Does this source have sufficient notability to be used for such claims? 86.** IP ( talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is the source for the claim that Jacques Chirac is involved in conspiracy, and http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover021607.htm for the claims about George Soros. None of these seem like sufficiently reliable sources to justify even a "these people are claimed to be part of the conspiracy" about WP:BLPs. There are lots of attacks made about lots of people on the internet, after all. 86.** IP ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Our writers are united in their commitment to those unique ideals that are essential to American liberty. At the same time, we at RenewAmerica wish to reiterate the disclaimer we publish at the bottom of all columns that appear on the website:
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
The same ultimately holds for writers of "analysis" pieces we publish — as well as all other writers who post at the site, or whose articles we may feature (or excerpt) from any source.
So that our writers might have sufficient freedom and latitude to express themselves (within RenewAmerica's clearly-defined commitment to our nation's most basic principles), we prefer to place the responsibility for the views of our writers upon the writers themselves. That's the only reasonable — and realistic — way to foster genuine diversity of opinion, as well as to inform our readers of a multiplicity of viewpoints.
Caution.
86.** IP himself is not very reliable. In particular, www.renewamerica.us is not, as he claims, "[u]sed heavily in
Global warming conspiracy theory". Also, there needs to be a careful distinction between a statement like "Al Gore is a conspiracist", citing (e.g.) www.renewamerica.us as authority re Al Gore, and the statement "www.renwamerica.us says 'Al Gore is a conspiracist'", citing www.renewamerica.us as authority re their own words. The point is not about Gore, but about a conspiracy theory, as the article makes clear. (If 86** hasn't gutted that part yet.) An otherwise unreliable source can be cited
about it self, or, here, about what it has siad. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for any comments. Itsmejudith ( talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Itsmejudith, let me boot Ulrichs:
Schwartz, S. A. (2011). "The Antique Roadshow: How Denier Movements Debunk Evolution, Climate Change, and Nonlocal Consciousness." Neuroquantology 9(1): 118-128. This paper describes the rise of three "denier" movements in the United States, and describes how each is actively engaged in trying to debunk and impede the free development of science: the Creationist Anti-evolutionists, the Climate Change Deniers, and the Consciousness Deniers. The last, a group that cannot, or will not, consider consciousness as anything other than physicalist processes.
1. http://www.bashaoorpakistan.com/urdu/download-urdu-novel-peer-e-kamil-pbuh-umera-ahmed/
2. http://www.pubarticles.com/article-critical-analysis-of-urdu-novels-of-umera-ahmed-1295436479.html
3. http://www.onlineurdunovels.com/author.php?no=1&a=Umera%20Ahmed
4. http://www.chowrangi.com/peer-e-kamil.html / http://www.chowrangi.com
1,2,3 and 4th links have been cited to article Umera Ahmad and Pir-e-Kamil, please give your bold and fair opinion sothat unreliable source? templetes on the said articles can be removed or remained. About link 4,I am sure of its relialibity, it is a kind of news journal/magazine. I hope editors will spare a bit time to give their review.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 11:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
An admin gave me a block threat over this edit, saying Daily Mail is usually not reliable. Is it true Daily Mail is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia will eventually have to come up with another term than "reliable source" - in Wikipedianese, it mainly means a known publisher which actually checks stories published it. It has nothing to do with the source being inerrant or infallible at all. The more "interesting" a claim is, the more likely it is to be sensationalized by any publisher (even the New York Times has done this). It is not really in Wikipedia's purview to be "as interesting as possible" but rather to give a neutrally worded and oriented article on any topic. In the case at hand, WP:BLP applies as one person is, indeed, a "living person" making the strictures quite strong. As a result, the admin rightly objected to a claim made without exceedingly strong sourcing (even the NYT as a "sole source" would likely be insufficient - this is not a Daily Mail case really at all). If you did provide such exceedingly strong sourcing, then the claim would likely be allowed. I can not, however, find "exceeding strong sourcing" for the claim. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this report: [33] its by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, is it a reliable source? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Anon IP:200.148.33.5, is using this source, James H. Guill, A history of the Azores Islands , Volume 5, page 139, in the article
Antipope Felix V in which he/she states that Amadeus VIII(later Felix V) had a daughter Margaride that married a Willem van der Haegen.
[34]
The author James H. Guill, is only known for his history of the Azores and I found nothing in any other published sources that support this supposed daughter,Margaride, or that Willem was a grandson of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.
[35]
Any thoughts concerning Guill's reliability as a genealogical source? --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Can pictures be used as evidence of the existence of something or does that involve interpretation and, thus, make them original research? The article in question is Ninjatō and the sources being used are this and this. They are being used as references for sentences stating the swords are on display in specific museums. The issue I have with this is that 1) You have to be able to read Japanese and interpret the Japanese in these pictures to confirm this and 2) there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there. Silver seren C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it, is this a reliable source? Silver seren C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a parallel discussion currently at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tommy_Morrison_the_boxer where I commented "I have occasionally wondered about this (principle, I mean, not this photo). Why do we allow images with no reliable source to back them up, when we wouldn't allow arguments like 'It seems plausible to me' for written content?" Cusop Dingle ( talk) 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Recently, an editor removed a large amount of content from List of emoticons ( history), on the grounds that the removed emoticons were not reliably sourced. Since then there's been something of a backlash on the talk page, and after seeing complaints both on Reddit and from a friend I thought I'd bring the issue here for some new eyes.
Previously the emoticons under the "2channel emoticons" header were sourced to the 2channel emoticons board. Here's why I think this attribution is OK:
What do you think? What should be the standard of sources for emoticons? Thanks! .froth. ( talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a controversial priest who died 10 years ago. In his lifetime he was widely published and probably interviewed 100's of thousands of times. Both he and his work have been written about. Many of these sources are listed in the article; however the bulk of the references (including everything from number of languages he spoke to him acting as the Vatican's own 007) are tied to an audio cassette put out by his followers which sounds like an obituary, eulogy: Doran, Brian (2001) (cassette), Malachi Martin: God's Messenger - In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, published by Catholic Treasures. I am not comfortable with this as source material for a biographical piece. Am I wrong? I say this as a fan of the priest's nonfiction writing before he suffered a stroke. I think better source material can be found is all. I just don't want to get into a pissing contest with some of the editors. Thanks-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to source the filmography for Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have a few questions about what would be a reliable source for a cast listing:
Thanks for any help. - Purplewowies ( talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
How about this article? Are its sources reliable? Some Archive.org sites are invalid due to copyright issues, including URAA? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This relates to Internet Evolution, an online community which seems notable because of its list of contributors. In addition to a New York Times source, I have used independent, national trade magazine sources, including sources owned by Crain Communications and Haymarket Group. These are being challenged as "press releases." It seems to me that viable articles on commercial organizations will often be based in large part on information from trade magazines. It's also obvious that the coverage might be prompted by press releases. If the article simply reproduces a press release, I would say it was not independent or reliable. In my examples, however, (refs 2,3 and 4), these are by-lined articles with individual, unique content including (different) quotes, apparently from direct interviews.
Surely articles of this sort are distinguishable from press releases. After all, mainstream news sources use press releases. Thanks for any guidance. WebHorizon ( talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons
Are US Weekly and People considered reliable sources? The reviewer for a GAN I nominated said that "People and US Weekly hardly high class reliable sources, rather they are tabloid press". Till I Go Home ( talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
are articles published by UPI at UPIS usable? -- Semitransgenic talk. 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is Henry Charles Lea's book History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888) usable in the article Saint Dominic? Is it usable if attributed "According to the 19th century historian Henry Charles Lea?" Is this any good as a convenience link? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)is used on a whole lot of commercial Web sites that sell sea buckthorn oil. The article itself doesn't give many hints as to where it was published, although the credentials of all of the authors looks solid. Xu Mingyu, for example, is cited in the references of the paper as having written these two papers:
Would the first paper cited above be considered a reliable source?
Please advise if this could be considered a reliable source for “ Quebec - Yellow Birch” on National emblem#Trees. Daicaregos ( talk) 12:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
After working on Tom Ferrick (baseball)'s wikipedia article, I decided to send his son an e-mail and let him know I worked on his dad's wikipedia article, and ask him what he thought of my work after seeing that he was a writer.
He responded to my e-mail letting me know that he liked it, and made a $50 donation to wikipedia to thank me. His e-mail also included additional information-- very good information I might add-- about his father. The information he sent me is worth adding to the article, but there really isn't any way to reference it. Is there anything I can do?-- Johnny Spasm ( talk) 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for comment at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn is made. Unscintillating ( talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
On this article two sources are used to back the claim that Pakistan denies giving financial and military support to the Taliban. The first source used says While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite. [39] The second [40] Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. I am of the opinion that this is a misrepresentation of the sources as it cherry picks one sentence and ignores the rest. Should the sentence be amended from Pakistan vigorously denies it to accurately represent the sources as in this edit. [41] were I wrote Pakistan vigorously denies giving support since the September 11 attacks. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is being continued at WP:NPOVN#Taliban and the article talk page. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Overstock.com there is a conflict of sources. The Associated Press reported that the company set up fake websites. The entire segment was removed by a user who said the reporter was "wrong," citing a Wall Street Journal account. [42]. I've reinstated both versions, as I don't think we can choose between the two. Was this correct? Can we disregard an Associated Press report because we believe it to be wrong? The two versions are not mutually exclusive, but I hesitate and ask for advice because I don't want wrong information in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure the AP is wrong, but it may be. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Source: Pehlivanoğlu Işıl. Assia Djebar'ın L'amour, la Fantasia ve la Disparition de la Langue Française Başlıklı Romanlarında Sömürgecilik Ekseninde Dil ve Kimlik. T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları (Fransız Dili ve Edebiyatı) Anabilim Dalı. 2010. URL: http://acikarsiv.ankara.edu.tr/browse/6288/ışıl_pehlivanoğlu_tez.pdf.pdf. Accessed: 2011-12-31. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/64LWMWPPu)
Disputed sentence: France is the most accused country of the Rwandan Genocide because of the support to Hutu government for the genocide.
Aside from the grammatical problems, the sentence appears to accuse France of supporting the genocide. I consider that an exceptional claim and don't believe the cited source is adequate (whether or not it supports the claim, which is somewhat in doubt). The article is Rwandan Genocide, the most recent diff is this one, and there is a talk page thread.
Thanks for any help. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit war at Bilderberg Group, although being discussed on the talk page, about this. There's nothing in the article about this occurring, and it's based on a sidebar here [43] that says "Meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while an opposition MP". 'Verifiability not truth' is being raised as the reason to keep it it, and Loremaster isn't even willing to remove it from the lead. As is pointed out on the talk page, Clinton was already well known, and Blair was at the meeting 4 years before becoming PM. If this were true -and signficant, ie relevant to their becoming household names--, then it would have been an item of discussion by pundits. As it is, it is in an article by a free-lance journalist who isn't a specialist in politics [44] and not only that, it's in a sidebar and those are often written by editors (such as the text that introduces the piece). So we can't be sure of its authorship. I'm arguing that this is a trivial comment, author unknown, and not a reliable source for such a bold statement. The editor insisting it stay was asked to provide other sources but hasn't so far. Dougweller ( talk) 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories over whether this material is or is not acceptable as a reliable, verifiable source for a claim that the US Marine Corps has no record of their snipers ever having attempted (unsuccessfully) to reenact the assassination as described in the Warren Commission report. One editor is repeatedly inserting the statement, while another is repeatedly removing it, and each of them claims he has policy on his side. — Richwales ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is missing the point. The USMC Historical Office says there is no official report on the matter. Anyone who wants to confirm can easily contact the USMC Historical Office on the matter. More significantly, if someone claims there is an official report -- where is it? If there is no official report of the sniper test, it is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Where is the official report validating the sniper test? AFAIK there isn't one, and so the comments about the sniper test are invalid by Wikipedia's own standards. We can certainly say that the author of the sniper story, Craig Roberts, identified no official documentation backing up his claim, and without official documentation the sniper test is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Would there be any objection to commenting that: "No one has ever produced official USMC documentation validating this test or demonstrating its forensic value." This is a true statement. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that's playing "prove a negative". Roberts did not identify any official USMC source for his assertions; no search online even indicates the existence of any such USMC record; and anyone who cares to contact the USMC will be informed there's nothing there. The simple fact is that Roberts made uncorroborated and unverified assertions; certainly it would seem relevant to the credibility of Wikipedia to point this out. If the phrasing is an issue, then let me know what phrasing would be appropriate. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Somebody – an admin at that – honestly believes there's a legitimate possibility that an unpublished private purported email meets the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability? Really? So each reader is supposed to "verify" this assertion by sending their own email to the Marine Corps? Absurd.
That said, the anon IP does have a point that the entire paragraph about the Quantico test has other legitimate issues. The sourcing appears to be a private blog interpreting Roberts' book. The only source for the Hathcock quote is (that posting about) the book. The book itself, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza ( ISBN 978-0-9639062-0-5) appears to be a self-published source. (On his website, riflewarrior.com, Roberts identifies himself as "Proprietor of 'Consolidated Press International'", the publisher of the book.) So while the "rebuttal" is obvious original research, I think anything in the article (i.e., the Quantico test and a subsequent mention in the Federal Reserve section) sourced to the book without mention in a reliable secondary source should also be removed. Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I should emphasize my main issue is that the Hathcock test is being presented as a "proof" of conspiracy in the article, but I have tried hard to figure out where the story came from, and I can't find a trace of it -- very often conspiracy stories are garbled versions of true facts, but I don't even get that much out of it. Not accepting emails as proof? No complaint about that, but my question is: where IS the proof of the story?
It's not even logical. CBS NEWS did a really spiffy marksmanship test in 1967 with some of the 11 shooters out-shooting Oswald, none were pro shooters, Hathcock could have blown the doors off all of them. And what brief did the USMC have to investigate the assassination? None, and they would have stepped on all kinds of toes to contradict other investigations. If it was some informal goofing around, then why would anyone think it significant as "proof"?
But that's as much as I can say. I recommend striking the entire Hathcock issue as dubious, but you'll do what you think best. Give it some real thought and I'll live with the decision. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's my point. I can't find one. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh! That was my point all along. I just ended up coming to it from a completely bass-ackwards arguing position. I am shamed. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Are the biographies given on AllRovi considered reliable for BLPs? I'm trying to expand Jerry Hardin, and I'm not finding much beyond a very brief biography in an X-Files guide book, which understandably focusses a lot on his role, rather than him. However, a biography of his daughter Melora Hardin on AllRovi ( here) provides some details I'd like to include, for example his wife's name. Nothing contentious, but I'd just like to be sure given how cautiously BLPs are generally approached. GRAPPLE X 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Intelius a reliable source for a DOB? It is used in the Kath Soucie article (I know that even the Intelius article doesn't indicate the month, day or the precise year - just the present age). There was a brief discussion of Intelius on RSN here, but not much analysis. We also have an article on Intelius, but I don't know that it really resolves this issue. Although not strictly a primary source, Intelius strikes me as pretty close because one assumes it's getting its information from public records. Worse, unless you pay them, you don't even know what records they are using (and that assumes they tell you if you pay them).
Opinions?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
1. A full citation of the source in question. 2. A link to the source in question. 3. The article in which it is being used. For example article name 4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. 5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
1. "Giant asteroid passes near Earth" BBC News, November 9, 2011 and "Asteroid 2005 YU55 passes close by Earth" The Washington Post, November 9, 2011
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15572634 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/asteroid-2055-yu55-passes-close-by-earth-how-close-did-it-get/2011/11/09/gIQAdQpw5M_story.html
3. 2005 YU55
4. On November 8, 2011, NASA released a statement mentioning a number of puzzling structures on the surface of the asteroid, which were detected as it passed near the Earth.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_YU55#Strange.2FPuzzling_structures
Diff of deletion of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2005_YU55&diff=465285428&oldid=465241886
Other editors are claiming the BBC and Washington Post are "low-quality" sources and that press releases from NASA (a primary source) are sufficient. They have deleted the press report references, claiming they are inaccurate. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the problem currently (as I understand it from looking at the deletion diff and reading the article talk page discussion) is that this line in the article was based only on one primary source (press releases from NASA), so I added mainstream press reports in order to provide secondary sources. But the secondary sources were deleted. I should also add that this was widely reported in the mainstream press, so that readers looking for this in the article would likely be surprised not to see it mentioned there, as I was. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 23:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a threat intended to stifle discussion. If major mainstream news organizations found this notable, chances are it's notable. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When writing a new article that is a biography of a living person - can that person be a reliable source? קולנואני ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No as that would fail WP:V Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nelson Antonio Denis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are sources in this article reliable? I see one statement overcited. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
I have been trying to get an article approved on a software that I am using to design websites. I am having trouble getting the article approved for one reason or another. Each time I submit for review I seem to get a new list of things to change and take out and add. It now seems that I have had to take so much useful information out I would like to share with others because of questions on reliability of the sources. I have referenced the page of the software as well as independent review websites. Please can someone help me to get this page uploaded. The article I have been trying to upload to Wikipedia can be found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/XSitePro
Thanks in advance for your help Carl
Okay, so I was watching an episode of Celebrity Ghost Stories on Hulu and I thought, "Could this episode be used as a reference for, say, Corey Feldman claiming that his grandmother's ghost helped influence his divorce?" Not that I would necessarily add something like that, but it's certainly out there for all to see, and I can't imagine it not being a RS when it's from his own mouth. My question is this: what is WP's position on using/linking Hulu as a reference to something like this, or anything else? Is linking Hulu stuff as a reference okay? Doc talk 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of video content, what topics do you want to research, Doc? What content? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Here is an instruction to citing a program: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/09/. Search at http://dmoz.org to find citation formats. -- George Ho ( talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I keep seeing this term - Cyberbaiting - pop up in media sources. Quick examples: supposedly from the NYT and huff post. There's only one meaningful reference in Google Scholar (the first I listed), but a half-million in plain Google. We do not currently have an article on this, and I'm waffling over whether we should make one. I'd like to, personally, but I'm uncomfortable with the current sourcing. Looking for input. -- Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm in the right place for this, but here goes. This image is stated to be of Ace Frehley, yet Zrinschchuck ( talk · contribs) keeps removing it from Frehley's article claiming the image is actually of Tommy Thayer. This is his rationale, what needs to be done here? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
TMZ.com must have come up before, but a search for TMZ but found nothing.
I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.
Currently, there is a dispute on Sons of Guns about TMZ's RS. It concerns this TMZ article:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories.
Glrx ( talk) 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Obtaining geographic coordinates#Coordinates and original research. -- Rs chen 7754 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but running a GPS is not like checking a single book in the library. It's WP:OR, pure and simple. It's no different from anyone making a claim in any article and saying "because I say so". There are lots of things like this that I think are valuable exercises, but nay in the sense that they would be good for some other website completely, and not directly on Wikipedia. If someone wants to make there own website for geographic coordinates, and that eventually because trusted enough to be seen as a reliable source, then the info would make sense to be added to Wikipedia sourced to that site. Glrx's example above is one of many ways allowing people to put down their own coordinates without a reliable source can be bad. We should not make an exception for this violation of key Wikipedia principles just because someone started up a Wikiproject for it. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just found this edit at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Several issues. 1. The book has a WP article. If one wishes to find it a "non-notable work" then AfD is -> that way. 2. an SPS from the author of the book is RS for what his own opinions are - whether the book is "unrelaible" or not is irrelevant to that issue. 3. The book is a published work - the question at best would be whether "Prometheus Books" is an RS publisher. As a publisher of over 2,500 books, the normal presumption for WP:RS is that it is indeed an RS publisher. If one looks at refs in WP articles, one can find a great many refs which someone would say are by "polemicists" but that is not how WP:RS works. In short - if you wish to AfD the article - go ahead. Meanwhile, WP:RS suggests that the material meets the Wikipedia policy. Collect ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
From WP:REDFLAG (all emphasis in quotations below added): {{Quote| Red flags that should prompt extra oldid=467080379 this edit] at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The opening sentence of The Legacy of Jihad (p. 24):
The late philosopher and theologian Jacques Ellul emphasized in his forward to Les chretientes d'Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude: VIIe-XXe siecle (1991) [ Bat Ye'or, ISBN 978-2204043472], how contemporary historiography whitewashed the basic realities of jihad war: ...
and further content from the two subsequent pages:
The prescient critiques of Jeffery and Rodinson anticipated the state of contemporary scholarship on jihad. Two salient examples of this current apologetic trend will suffice.
...
[Bat Ye'or] highlights ... the "thematic structure" of Esposito's selective overview, typical of the prevailing modern apologetic genre: ...
Just something to consider. Fat&Happy ( talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Current reference is to [55] and says 55 million records, handful of new users are insisting it is 100 million based on [56], which to me does not seem as reliable. Thoughts?-- Jac16888 Talk 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, i'm traveling & editing from a dumbphone so forgive me if my markup's sloppy. The news emerging now re GE prompted me to visit the company's article, where there is a FAIR.org source by one Sam Husseini, described as "FAIR's activist coordinator": "Felons On The Air." Currently it's reference #69. Can FAIR be considered an RS in this context? I don't have a problem with the information itself, incidentally, but i do think a neutral source like Bloomberg or Reuters should be insisted on in an article like this. Article: General Electric. Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1254 — Biosketch ( talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a Japanese website, if http://www.lifehacker.jp/2011/12/111225magician.html could be a reliable resource for article Magican? By the way, please tell me at least how much reliable resource we should provide when editing an article?Thanks.
In the opinion of editors here, do the sources cited below reliably support the statements made in this passage of text?
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Catholic Answers [1] is a Catholic Apologist website. I feel that it should be viewed as a legitimate source on Wikipeida for general facts about the Catholic Church and its history. Some of the articles carry a Nihil Obstat while others do not. A Nihil Obstat is basically a stamp of approval that is given by an empowered clergy member that means that there is no moral or doctrinal errors (in accordance with the Catholic Faith) are found in the document. It doesn't mean that the Church agrees with the opinion of the author, et cetera. After having read into the source, it would seem as if there is a review process for articles, and solid sources (Bible passages, CCC paragraph number, Ecumenical Council) are always given to support their answer. The website's professed mission is basically to be a resource of Catholic Apologists. Because of these reasons, I think that we should view it as a fairly good source that will prove useful in writing basic information about Catholicism. It's not as academic as say a book on theology, but yet some real work, research, and review goes into the source. One editor on here sometimes gets in a debate with me about the site. She terms it as having an agenda and therefore we shouldn't trust it. I guess in a technical sense you could say it has an agenda in that it wishes to teach and clarify the Catholic Faith, but I don't see that I ruining the possibility of it being a source. Particularly, at least as far as I've seen, other sources support it. So no, I'm not advocating that we use this as a source to in-depth theology, but it does seem to be good enough for some general background information, and shouldn't be deemed as having an agenda. -- Fictio-cedit-veritati ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So:
Please cease and desist doing me the incivility of insulting my intelligent by offering such transparently ludicrous arguments. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) First off, please keep a polite tone as per WP:EQ and WP:CIV. You insulting my arguments is not logical, and it does nothing to further this conversation. 1) You need to substantiate this claim. The mission statement that you provides doesn't, it basically just says that it wants to spread Catholic knowledge. For this first claim to be met you will need to directly show that the website attempts to cast teachings, etc., in the best possible light- not simply explain them. 2) No, just because the source seeks to help spread knowledge, doesn't mean that it has some compromising connection to the Church. Again, they are separate bodies, and one independently explains the other. Go back to the textbook analogy (an analogy you have yet to refute). Church history is to Catholic Answers as US history is to US published textbook- both are independent of what they are publishing about and both wish to spread knowledge of their respective topic, thusly attempting to spread that topics knowledge (as per the mission statement). 3) An interesting claim, but as it stands, unsubstantiated. If you care to provide solid sources that give support to this claim, I'll be happy to take a look. Note though, that even finding two different sources that disagree on some historical fact doesn't prove anything other than different perspectives. Just as the US published textbook about US history may be different from the UK published textbook on US history. If, in an article a difference of opinion on historical fact came up, obviously, both sources would be noted as that would help further the depth of knowledge of the reader. -- Fictio-cedit-veritati ( talk) 05:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Fictio-cedit-veritati: That my claim is substantiated is blindingly obvious from the definitions of Catholic Answers' own core self-descriptions:
Neither of these activities has the least implication of neutral, disinterested provision of information. Therefore it is not "insulting" to point out that your argument does not have the least smidgeon of merit. You may also notice that nobody else is giving your argument the slightest credence, so kindly WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Catholic.com is not always reliable, and in areas where it is reliable there are better sources to use. Net result: we should not use Catholic.com as a source. Binksternet ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
|
In the article Occupy Marines an article in the The Raw Story is used a source. Elements of the article are contradicted by other sources and it is used to source some contentious statements about funding. The wikilink states this is a weblog publication, so I have some concerns about its use as a WP:RS. I consider it should be used with caution. I would welcome external opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Nowa ( talk) 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Along with a newly formed online entity 'Occupy Police', Occupy Marines has been described as "staking out a new realm of metaphorical occupations" beyond the physical territories associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement
The purpose of this thread was to elicit outside opinion on the reliability of the Raw Story as a source. From the web page it appears to be a collection of blogs, which as an WP:SPS would not usually be considered a reliable source. Trawling through the archives of WP:RSN I have found that in the past it was not considered a reliable source and it was advised not to use it. John seems to relish creating unnecessary conflict and turning things on their head. The Raw Story has been challenged as to whether it is a reliable source, the onus is actually on him and others to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of WP:RS, it is not on me to demonstrate it is unreliable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the site Family Tree Legends, and didn't find any references to it in the RSN archives; can I get a consensus on whether or not its data is reliable for WP:BLP purposes? At the article Peter Ostrum, Connormah ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using it to cite the DOB of the article subject, and I want to be 100% on the reliability of the source used. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be badgery, but can anybody else provide input on this matter? Rivertorch and I recommend removing the FTL citation, and Connormah feels its reliable but seems lukewarm on its maintenance. I like my consensuses (consensi?) to have more input before accepting it in my favor. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have an ongoing dispute with an editor over my source use on the article Ryan Doyle (created last month). I've spent exhaustive, full time days studying what she's asked me to study and revising my writing. She's spent, and has asked I come here, a suggestion seconded by the dispute resolution board: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ryan Doyle. My qualms particular to her aside, she's correct that a lot of my opinions, questions, etc., are community issues, or disputes with what the majority of editors may feel. I act, feel, and argue from what I claim to be a brilliant understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia. The more I'm directed to guidelines, the more support I find for things I already believed, and the more justifications I've come up with to back my view. The whole point, e.g., of WP:YT, is to filter out people who are not established experts/etc. If Doyle is an established expert, then he is by definition a reliable source for information.
I clearly, absolutely agree that all the generic disputes one would usually have with the article on a first glance, i.e. minus my endless scrutiny of facts and policy, would be warranted. This has nothing to do with the particulars of the topic, the content of all references, which are a clear factor in the policies. Three editors total have agreed about the poor source status, but none have addressed the particulars at length, and none are anywhere near as versed with the subject as I am. That makes it a battle between my experience, and editors' abilities to judge situations at a glance, which I claim is inadequate in this case.
The entire spirit of the point of barring original research as defined ad nauseum, supports my "research" to prove Doyle's worth with references and policy. I claim there is a special factor that the more questionable sources when examined inter-intrinsically (new word) clearly show Doyle notable and reliable. This is backed in policy by that all factors should be weighed as a complex whole (including content). A lot of people act mechanically around here, not dynamically. No one will say "Doyle is not notable, because..." or "Doyle isn't an important person, because..." They simply state surface policy that if X comes from Y source in Z ways, it can't be included. I've not done research that can't be verified, I've done analysis that can be verified, but no one will verify it. Squish7 ( talk) 07:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note to all: Since this was filed I've given the article a major rewrite/copy edit, and reduced its length by more than half. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started an RFC on the use of primary sources in Calvary Chapel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Talk:Calvary Chapel#RFC: Use of primary sources. Regulars may wish to comment. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[58] shows why no source, however "reliable" is to be ever taken as "truth" -- unless you can really believe Theodore Roosevelt in 1933 banned private ownership of gold ... Anyone care to think Spiegel Online should now be barred? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Some folks seem to think an error makes a source not "RS" - the point made is that all sources suffer brain-rot from time to time. 2. I thought the rationale was exceedingly clear - I do not know in any way why Rosco seems to think otherwise at all. 3. All too often, folks here fail to understand what WP:RS actually refers to - which has absolutely nothing to do with "facts" but only with "can we verify that the place published it". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (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 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 |
Facebook app. Can this be used, along with other charity performance monitors, for information on the Facebook fundraising performance of a particular charity in determining notability for Wikipedia? Rumiton ( talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was suggesting. I am not sure why you are describing Causes as a "primary source." They are not echoing the Non-profit's data; they monitor the membership and donation figures themselves, like any other third party. Rumiton ( talk) 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to write an article on documentary filmmaker Ucu Agustin in my userspace, and I was wondering if Wikimedia could be used to reference her next endeavor. She received 700 million rupiah in a grant for the film from the Ford Foundation in collaboration with other groups, including Wikimedia, so this may pass WP:SPS. The information referenced would only be A) that she received a grant to produce the film, B) The total amount granted, and C) The title of the film Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not for notability. Treat like a press release. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into specifics for now, is there a substantial difference between citing a documentary and citing a book as a RS? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the following monograph be allowed as a reliable source for the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) articles. The monograph is called: The School of Advanced Military Studies in the 21st Century Some dissertations/theses/academic works are not considered reliable on Wikipedia; but, I believe this work should be allowed:
Is this site a reliable source about Kim Jong-il? See footnote 127 in the article. I can't see much about the site on the site, because the huge amount of spam it includes crashes my old-fashioned browser. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. You seem to be objecting to the use of the word "many" - not to the lack of a specific example, saying that in order to use "many", which is hard to invalidate - we'd have to have a better more reputable source than gloablsecurity?. Is that correct?
Jeff Song (
talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Creation and evolution in public education ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not your article's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Fuseau for that flimsy and tendentious piece of WP:WIKILAWYERing.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Not your article's talk page—if you've resolved the reliability issues (as you seem to have), discuss the content on your article's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Are the reviews on this website reliable/notable enough to be added to articles on artistic works like Habibi? Of the 17 contributors listed under "Contributors" on that site, two have their own Wikipedia articles, Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger. But Nadim Damluji, the author of the review of Habibi that one editor added to the Habibi article, is not. Is it acceptable? Nightscream ( talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Noah Berlatsky, the editor of the Hooded Utilitarian. I thought I would try to provide some more info about the site in hopes that it would be helpful.
I personally have written for the Atlantic, the Chicago Reader, the Washington Times, Reason, and a number of other established outlets. The site itself was hosted on The Comics Journal website for about a year. We have been linked by established comics sites, such as the Comics Journal, the Comics Reporter, and the Beat. We have also been linked by mainstream sites such as boing boing and io9. A post about the Wire by Sean Michael Robinson and Joy DeLyria was extremely popular and was linked by everyone from Harper's to the Boston Globe. The post has been expanded into a book and will be released in a couple of months.
As you mentioned, James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook both write for the site. We have also had guest posts over the years by creators and critics such as Ariel Schrag, Shaenon Garrity, Jason Thompson, Steven Grant. A number of academics have also written for us, including Craig Fischer, Peter Sattler, Qiana Whitted, Charles Hatfield, and Andrei Molotiu.
I believe you can confirm all that through google fairly easily.
Incidentally, the post by Nadim was widely linked and discussed through the comics community, including by the Comics Journal and by Eddie Campbell through his own blog.
Thanks for you interest in the site. I hope this was helpful. NoahB ( talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
NoahB ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at listed credentials I am not convinced that it is suitable as a source for philosophy articles - though it may well serve as a jump-off point for relevant sources of higher quality. Thoughts? u n☯ mi 01:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has questioned the reliability of the website Jesus Freak Hideout as a source for band genres. The discussion can be found here. I have asked about this site once before, and that time it was found to be reliable. Also, it is listed as a reliable source on the Wikiproject for Christian music. The editor opposing says that this consensus does not overcome it being self-published, and that the mentions in third-party sources are merely trivial.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
So what is the consensus?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There is only one source for the BLP James Kirchick, and that's to Taki's Magazine, which, based on our article about it, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. If that attack page is removed, there are no sources in the James Kirchick article at all, and a BLP PROD could be applied. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Sgerbic ( talk · contribs) has been adding dozens of external links to skeptoid.com, which is a skeptical blog/podcast/TV show. I think there might be some merit to judicous use of the website, operated by Brian Dunning (skeptic), who has some credibility in my opinion, but this user has been going through the archives and spamming links, for which they've been warned. I've left some in place on topics like Marfa lights and Devil's Footprints, where they seem to have value. I see no value in adding such links to topics like sin and faith. Any opinions? Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here are the other references that were not removed.
Skeptoid's 15 points on how to recognize pseudoscience fits well in this body of External links. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
These discussions about whether or not an EL should remain, should be discussed on the relevant page. Not here. And reverting an edit without a reason is not good policy. I thought the reason we were on the reliable sources noticeboard page was to discuss if Skeptoid is a reliable source or not?
I would like to add that I take issue with the claim that I am spamming anything. Each External Link I left is unique, and relevant to the page it was left on. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I just wanted to jump back in to say that my removing the skeptoid link from Pseudoscience wansn't based on reliability - I do think skeptoid is reliable. But per WP:EL, reliabilty isn't the only thing to consider. The EL section already had three other links to "how to spot pseudoscience" type articles, and before I noticed this thread here, Sgerbic's edits looked very much like spam to me, and to at least two other Wikipedians. (I now think it's pretty clear that Sgerbic was acting in good faith.)
Also, from WP:EL "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and "the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So the question should be "why add it?" rather than "why not add it?" I don't think I was wrong to remove it, I think it's redundant, but I won't remove it again now that it's been added back. I stand by my assertion above that it should be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy - like Acroterion, I think Dunning might have something to offer on the "fringier" topics, but there are many more appropriate resources on the harder science articles. Dawn Bard ( talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
What makes the information on this web site reliable? I see above that some of us may like the broadcasts and the presentation of content on the site, but that isn't how we determine reliability. The web site is self-published, not peer-reviewed. Has Dunning established reliability by publishing in reliable third-party publications?
The web site is definitely promotional, pushing Dunning's broadcasts, live shows, books, videos, swag, and requests for subscriptions ("tips") which detracts both from claims of reliability and from the general utility of the site for this project. There are other sites with similar content that are not promotional. Joja lozzo 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Mewulwe has objected to [32] to be considered a RS, stating that it "clearly copies Wikipedia". It was originally included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources as an acceptable source for unreferenced articles, but Mewulwe has objected for it to be listed there. Any thoughts on this? – Connormah ( talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm reviewing AFN Munich for DYK, and I have concerns over the use of this reference from About.com. I am quite wary of it, as it is a) a language exercise and b) from About.com. As I do not speak German fluently, I cannot verify that all information in the about.com article is supported with the other sources; the nominator wishes to keep the current about.com reference as it is bilingual. Should about.com be allowed here? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Need help on verifying sources. IMDB is obviously not reliable. However, the article is too big for me to check. Can you assist inspecting this article, please? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Used heavily in Global warming conspiracy theory, including to make statements about WP:BLPs (that Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbuchev are part of the conspiracy, for instance). Does this source have sufficient notability to be used for such claims? 86.** IP ( talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is the source for the claim that Jacques Chirac is involved in conspiracy, and http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover021607.htm for the claims about George Soros. None of these seem like sufficiently reliable sources to justify even a "these people are claimed to be part of the conspiracy" about WP:BLPs. There are lots of attacks made about lots of people on the internet, after all. 86.** IP ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Our writers are united in their commitment to those unique ideals that are essential to American liberty. At the same time, we at RenewAmerica wish to reiterate the disclaimer we publish at the bottom of all columns that appear on the website:
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
The same ultimately holds for writers of "analysis" pieces we publish — as well as all other writers who post at the site, or whose articles we may feature (or excerpt) from any source.
So that our writers might have sufficient freedom and latitude to express themselves (within RenewAmerica's clearly-defined commitment to our nation's most basic principles), we prefer to place the responsibility for the views of our writers upon the writers themselves. That's the only reasonable — and realistic — way to foster genuine diversity of opinion, as well as to inform our readers of a multiplicity of viewpoints.
Caution.
86.** IP himself is not very reliable. In particular, www.renewamerica.us is not, as he claims, "[u]sed heavily in
Global warming conspiracy theory". Also, there needs to be a careful distinction between a statement like "Al Gore is a conspiracist", citing (e.g.) www.renewamerica.us as authority re Al Gore, and the statement "www.renwamerica.us says 'Al Gore is a conspiracist'", citing www.renewamerica.us as authority re their own words. The point is not about Gore, but about a conspiracy theory, as the article makes clear. (If 86** hasn't gutted that part yet.) An otherwise unreliable source can be cited
about it self, or, here, about what it has siad. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for any comments. Itsmejudith ( talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Itsmejudith, let me boot Ulrichs:
Schwartz, S. A. (2011). "The Antique Roadshow: How Denier Movements Debunk Evolution, Climate Change, and Nonlocal Consciousness." Neuroquantology 9(1): 118-128. This paper describes the rise of three "denier" movements in the United States, and describes how each is actively engaged in trying to debunk and impede the free development of science: the Creationist Anti-evolutionists, the Climate Change Deniers, and the Consciousness Deniers. The last, a group that cannot, or will not, consider consciousness as anything other than physicalist processes.
1. http://www.bashaoorpakistan.com/urdu/download-urdu-novel-peer-e-kamil-pbuh-umera-ahmed/
2. http://www.pubarticles.com/article-critical-analysis-of-urdu-novels-of-umera-ahmed-1295436479.html
3. http://www.onlineurdunovels.com/author.php?no=1&a=Umera%20Ahmed
4. http://www.chowrangi.com/peer-e-kamil.html / http://www.chowrangi.com
1,2,3 and 4th links have been cited to article Umera Ahmad and Pir-e-Kamil, please give your bold and fair opinion sothat unreliable source? templetes on the said articles can be removed or remained. About link 4,I am sure of its relialibity, it is a kind of news journal/magazine. I hope editors will spare a bit time to give their review.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 11:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
An admin gave me a block threat over this edit, saying Daily Mail is usually not reliable. Is it true Daily Mail is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia will eventually have to come up with another term than "reliable source" - in Wikipedianese, it mainly means a known publisher which actually checks stories published it. It has nothing to do with the source being inerrant or infallible at all. The more "interesting" a claim is, the more likely it is to be sensationalized by any publisher (even the New York Times has done this). It is not really in Wikipedia's purview to be "as interesting as possible" but rather to give a neutrally worded and oriented article on any topic. In the case at hand, WP:BLP applies as one person is, indeed, a "living person" making the strictures quite strong. As a result, the admin rightly objected to a claim made without exceedingly strong sourcing (even the NYT as a "sole source" would likely be insufficient - this is not a Daily Mail case really at all). If you did provide such exceedingly strong sourcing, then the claim would likely be allowed. I can not, however, find "exceeding strong sourcing" for the claim. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this report: [33] its by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, is it a reliable source? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Anon IP:200.148.33.5, is using this source, James H. Guill, A history of the Azores Islands , Volume 5, page 139, in the article
Antipope Felix V in which he/she states that Amadeus VIII(later Felix V) had a daughter Margaride that married a Willem van der Haegen.
[34]
The author James H. Guill, is only known for his history of the Azores and I found nothing in any other published sources that support this supposed daughter,Margaride, or that Willem was a grandson of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.
[35]
Any thoughts concerning Guill's reliability as a genealogical source? --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Can pictures be used as evidence of the existence of something or does that involve interpretation and, thus, make them original research? The article in question is Ninjatō and the sources being used are this and this. They are being used as references for sentences stating the swords are on display in specific museums. The issue I have with this is that 1) You have to be able to read Japanese and interpret the Japanese in these pictures to confirm this and 2) there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there. Silver seren C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it, is this a reliable source? Silver seren C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a parallel discussion currently at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tommy_Morrison_the_boxer where I commented "I have occasionally wondered about this (principle, I mean, not this photo). Why do we allow images with no reliable source to back them up, when we wouldn't allow arguments like 'It seems plausible to me' for written content?" Cusop Dingle ( talk) 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Recently, an editor removed a large amount of content from List of emoticons ( history), on the grounds that the removed emoticons were not reliably sourced. Since then there's been something of a backlash on the talk page, and after seeing complaints both on Reddit and from a friend I thought I'd bring the issue here for some new eyes.
Previously the emoticons under the "2channel emoticons" header were sourced to the 2channel emoticons board. Here's why I think this attribution is OK:
What do you think? What should be the standard of sources for emoticons? Thanks! .froth. ( talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a controversial priest who died 10 years ago. In his lifetime he was widely published and probably interviewed 100's of thousands of times. Both he and his work have been written about. Many of these sources are listed in the article; however the bulk of the references (including everything from number of languages he spoke to him acting as the Vatican's own 007) are tied to an audio cassette put out by his followers which sounds like an obituary, eulogy: Doran, Brian (2001) (cassette), Malachi Martin: God's Messenger - In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, published by Catholic Treasures. I am not comfortable with this as source material for a biographical piece. Am I wrong? I say this as a fan of the priest's nonfiction writing before he suffered a stroke. I think better source material can be found is all. I just don't want to get into a pissing contest with some of the editors. Thanks-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to source the filmography for Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have a few questions about what would be a reliable source for a cast listing:
Thanks for any help. - Purplewowies ( talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
How about this article? Are its sources reliable? Some Archive.org sites are invalid due to copyright issues, including URAA? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This relates to Internet Evolution, an online community which seems notable because of its list of contributors. In addition to a New York Times source, I have used independent, national trade magazine sources, including sources owned by Crain Communications and Haymarket Group. These are being challenged as "press releases." It seems to me that viable articles on commercial organizations will often be based in large part on information from trade magazines. It's also obvious that the coverage might be prompted by press releases. If the article simply reproduces a press release, I would say it was not independent or reliable. In my examples, however, (refs 2,3 and 4), these are by-lined articles with individual, unique content including (different) quotes, apparently from direct interviews.
Surely articles of this sort are distinguishable from press releases. After all, mainstream news sources use press releases. Thanks for any guidance. WebHorizon ( talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons
Are US Weekly and People considered reliable sources? The reviewer for a GAN I nominated said that "People and US Weekly hardly high class reliable sources, rather they are tabloid press". Till I Go Home ( talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
are articles published by UPI at UPIS usable? -- Semitransgenic talk. 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is Henry Charles Lea's book History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888) usable in the article Saint Dominic? Is it usable if attributed "According to the 19th century historian Henry Charles Lea?" Is this any good as a convenience link? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)is used on a whole lot of commercial Web sites that sell sea buckthorn oil. The article itself doesn't give many hints as to where it was published, although the credentials of all of the authors looks solid. Xu Mingyu, for example, is cited in the references of the paper as having written these two papers:
Would the first paper cited above be considered a reliable source?
Please advise if this could be considered a reliable source for “ Quebec - Yellow Birch” on National emblem#Trees. Daicaregos ( talk) 12:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
After working on Tom Ferrick (baseball)'s wikipedia article, I decided to send his son an e-mail and let him know I worked on his dad's wikipedia article, and ask him what he thought of my work after seeing that he was a writer.
He responded to my e-mail letting me know that he liked it, and made a $50 donation to wikipedia to thank me. His e-mail also included additional information-- very good information I might add-- about his father. The information he sent me is worth adding to the article, but there really isn't any way to reference it. Is there anything I can do?-- Johnny Spasm ( talk) 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for comment at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn is made. Unscintillating ( talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
On this article two sources are used to back the claim that Pakistan denies giving financial and military support to the Taliban. The first source used says While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite. [39] The second [40] Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. I am of the opinion that this is a misrepresentation of the sources as it cherry picks one sentence and ignores the rest. Should the sentence be amended from Pakistan vigorously denies it to accurately represent the sources as in this edit. [41] were I wrote Pakistan vigorously denies giving support since the September 11 attacks. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is being continued at WP:NPOVN#Taliban and the article talk page. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Overstock.com there is a conflict of sources. The Associated Press reported that the company set up fake websites. The entire segment was removed by a user who said the reporter was "wrong," citing a Wall Street Journal account. [42]. I've reinstated both versions, as I don't think we can choose between the two. Was this correct? Can we disregard an Associated Press report because we believe it to be wrong? The two versions are not mutually exclusive, but I hesitate and ask for advice because I don't want wrong information in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure the AP is wrong, but it may be. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Source: Pehlivanoğlu Işıl. Assia Djebar'ın L'amour, la Fantasia ve la Disparition de la Langue Française Başlıklı Romanlarında Sömürgecilik Ekseninde Dil ve Kimlik. T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları (Fransız Dili ve Edebiyatı) Anabilim Dalı. 2010. URL: http://acikarsiv.ankara.edu.tr/browse/6288/ışıl_pehlivanoğlu_tez.pdf.pdf. Accessed: 2011-12-31. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/64LWMWPPu)
Disputed sentence: France is the most accused country of the Rwandan Genocide because of the support to Hutu government for the genocide.
Aside from the grammatical problems, the sentence appears to accuse France of supporting the genocide. I consider that an exceptional claim and don't believe the cited source is adequate (whether or not it supports the claim, which is somewhat in doubt). The article is Rwandan Genocide, the most recent diff is this one, and there is a talk page thread.
Thanks for any help. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit war at Bilderberg Group, although being discussed on the talk page, about this. There's nothing in the article about this occurring, and it's based on a sidebar here [43] that says "Meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while an opposition MP". 'Verifiability not truth' is being raised as the reason to keep it it, and Loremaster isn't even willing to remove it from the lead. As is pointed out on the talk page, Clinton was already well known, and Blair was at the meeting 4 years before becoming PM. If this were true -and signficant, ie relevant to their becoming household names--, then it would have been an item of discussion by pundits. As it is, it is in an article by a free-lance journalist who isn't a specialist in politics [44] and not only that, it's in a sidebar and those are often written by editors (such as the text that introduces the piece). So we can't be sure of its authorship. I'm arguing that this is a trivial comment, author unknown, and not a reliable source for such a bold statement. The editor insisting it stay was asked to provide other sources but hasn't so far. Dougweller ( talk) 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories over whether this material is or is not acceptable as a reliable, verifiable source for a claim that the US Marine Corps has no record of their snipers ever having attempted (unsuccessfully) to reenact the assassination as described in the Warren Commission report. One editor is repeatedly inserting the statement, while another is repeatedly removing it, and each of them claims he has policy on his side. — Richwales ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is missing the point. The USMC Historical Office says there is no official report on the matter. Anyone who wants to confirm can easily contact the USMC Historical Office on the matter. More significantly, if someone claims there is an official report -- where is it? If there is no official report of the sniper test, it is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Where is the official report validating the sniper test? AFAIK there isn't one, and so the comments about the sniper test are invalid by Wikipedia's own standards. We can certainly say that the author of the sniper story, Craig Roberts, identified no official documentation backing up his claim, and without official documentation the sniper test is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Would there be any objection to commenting that: "No one has ever produced official USMC documentation validating this test or demonstrating its forensic value." This is a true statement. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that's playing "prove a negative". Roberts did not identify any official USMC source for his assertions; no search online even indicates the existence of any such USMC record; and anyone who cares to contact the USMC will be informed there's nothing there. The simple fact is that Roberts made uncorroborated and unverified assertions; certainly it would seem relevant to the credibility of Wikipedia to point this out. If the phrasing is an issue, then let me know what phrasing would be appropriate. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Somebody – an admin at that – honestly believes there's a legitimate possibility that an unpublished private purported email meets the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability? Really? So each reader is supposed to "verify" this assertion by sending their own email to the Marine Corps? Absurd.
That said, the anon IP does have a point that the entire paragraph about the Quantico test has other legitimate issues. The sourcing appears to be a private blog interpreting Roberts' book. The only source for the Hathcock quote is (that posting about) the book. The book itself, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza ( ISBN 978-0-9639062-0-5) appears to be a self-published source. (On his website, riflewarrior.com, Roberts identifies himself as "Proprietor of 'Consolidated Press International'", the publisher of the book.) So while the "rebuttal" is obvious original research, I think anything in the article (i.e., the Quantico test and a subsequent mention in the Federal Reserve section) sourced to the book without mention in a reliable secondary source should also be removed. Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I should emphasize my main issue is that the Hathcock test is being presented as a "proof" of conspiracy in the article, but I have tried hard to figure out where the story came from, and I can't find a trace of it -- very often conspiracy stories are garbled versions of true facts, but I don't even get that much out of it. Not accepting emails as proof? No complaint about that, but my question is: where IS the proof of the story?
It's not even logical. CBS NEWS did a really spiffy marksmanship test in 1967 with some of the 11 shooters out-shooting Oswald, none were pro shooters, Hathcock could have blown the doors off all of them. And what brief did the USMC have to investigate the assassination? None, and they would have stepped on all kinds of toes to contradict other investigations. If it was some informal goofing around, then why would anyone think it significant as "proof"?
But that's as much as I can say. I recommend striking the entire Hathcock issue as dubious, but you'll do what you think best. Give it some real thought and I'll live with the decision. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's my point. I can't find one. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh! That was my point all along. I just ended up coming to it from a completely bass-ackwards arguing position. I am shamed. MrG 70.56.53.105 ( talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Are the biographies given on AllRovi considered reliable for BLPs? I'm trying to expand Jerry Hardin, and I'm not finding much beyond a very brief biography in an X-Files guide book, which understandably focusses a lot on his role, rather than him. However, a biography of his daughter Melora Hardin on AllRovi ( here) provides some details I'd like to include, for example his wife's name. Nothing contentious, but I'd just like to be sure given how cautiously BLPs are generally approached. GRAPPLE X 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Intelius a reliable source for a DOB? It is used in the Kath Soucie article (I know that even the Intelius article doesn't indicate the month, day or the precise year - just the present age). There was a brief discussion of Intelius on RSN here, but not much analysis. We also have an article on Intelius, but I don't know that it really resolves this issue. Although not strictly a primary source, Intelius strikes me as pretty close because one assumes it's getting its information from public records. Worse, unless you pay them, you don't even know what records they are using (and that assumes they tell you if you pay them).
Opinions?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
1. A full citation of the source in question. 2. A link to the source in question. 3. The article in which it is being used. For example article name 4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. 5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
1. "Giant asteroid passes near Earth" BBC News, November 9, 2011 and "Asteroid 2005 YU55 passes close by Earth" The Washington Post, November 9, 2011
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15572634 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/asteroid-2055-yu55-passes-close-by-earth-how-close-did-it-get/2011/11/09/gIQAdQpw5M_story.html
3. 2005 YU55
4. On November 8, 2011, NASA released a statement mentioning a number of puzzling structures on the surface of the asteroid, which were detected as it passed near the Earth.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_YU55#Strange.2FPuzzling_structures
Diff of deletion of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2005_YU55&diff=465285428&oldid=465241886
Other editors are claiming the BBC and Washington Post are "low-quality" sources and that press releases from NASA (a primary source) are sufficient. They have deleted the press report references, claiming they are inaccurate. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the problem currently (as I understand it from looking at the deletion diff and reading the article talk page discussion) is that this line in the article was based only on one primary source (press releases from NASA), so I added mainstream press reports in order to provide secondary sources. But the secondary sources were deleted. I should also add that this was widely reported in the mainstream press, so that readers looking for this in the article would likely be surprised not to see it mentioned there, as I was. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 23:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a threat intended to stifle discussion. If major mainstream news organizations found this notable, chances are it's notable. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When writing a new article that is a biography of a living person - can that person be a reliable source? קולנואני ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No as that would fail WP:V Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nelson Antonio Denis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are sources in this article reliable? I see one statement overcited. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
I have been trying to get an article approved on a software that I am using to design websites. I am having trouble getting the article approved for one reason or another. Each time I submit for review I seem to get a new list of things to change and take out and add. It now seems that I have had to take so much useful information out I would like to share with others because of questions on reliability of the sources. I have referenced the page of the software as well as independent review websites. Please can someone help me to get this page uploaded. The article I have been trying to upload to Wikipedia can be found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/XSitePro
Thanks in advance for your help Carl
Okay, so I was watching an episode of Celebrity Ghost Stories on Hulu and I thought, "Could this episode be used as a reference for, say, Corey Feldman claiming that his grandmother's ghost helped influence his divorce?" Not that I would necessarily add something like that, but it's certainly out there for all to see, and I can't imagine it not being a RS when it's from his own mouth. My question is this: what is WP's position on using/linking Hulu as a reference to something like this, or anything else? Is linking Hulu stuff as a reference okay? Doc talk 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of video content, what topics do you want to research, Doc? What content? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Here is an instruction to citing a program: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/09/. Search at http://dmoz.org to find citation formats. -- George Ho ( talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I keep seeing this term - Cyberbaiting - pop up in media sources. Quick examples: supposedly from the NYT and huff post. There's only one meaningful reference in Google Scholar (the first I listed), but a half-million in plain Google. We do not currently have an article on this, and I'm waffling over whether we should make one. I'd like to, personally, but I'm uncomfortable with the current sourcing. Looking for input. -- Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm in the right place for this, but here goes. This image is stated to be of Ace Frehley, yet Zrinschchuck ( talk · contribs) keeps removing it from Frehley's article claiming the image is actually of Tommy Thayer. This is his rationale, what needs to be done here? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
TMZ.com must have come up before, but a search for TMZ but found nothing.
I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.
Currently, there is a dispute on Sons of Guns about TMZ's RS. It concerns this TMZ article:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories.
Glrx ( talk) 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Obtaining geographic coordinates#Coordinates and original research. -- Rs chen 7754 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but running a GPS is not like checking a single book in the library. It's WP:OR, pure and simple. It's no different from anyone making a claim in any article and saying "because I say so". There are lots of things like this that I think are valuable exercises, but nay in the sense that they would be good for some other website completely, and not directly on Wikipedia. If someone wants to make there own website for geographic coordinates, and that eventually because trusted enough to be seen as a reliable source, then the info would make sense to be added to Wikipedia sourced to that site. Glrx's example above is one of many ways allowing people to put down their own coordinates without a reliable source can be bad. We should not make an exception for this violation of key Wikipedia principles just because someone started up a Wikiproject for it. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just found this edit at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Several issues. 1. The book has a WP article. If one wishes to find it a "non-notable work" then AfD is -> that way. 2. an SPS from the author of the book is RS for what his own opinions are - whether the book is "unrelaible" or not is irrelevant to that issue. 3. The book is a published work - the question at best would be whether "Prometheus Books" is an RS publisher. As a publisher of over 2,500 books, the normal presumption for WP:RS is that it is indeed an RS publisher. If one looks at refs in WP articles, one can find a great many refs which someone would say are by "polemicists" but that is not how WP:RS works. In short - if you wish to AfD the article - go ahead. Meanwhile, WP:RS suggests that the material meets the Wikipedia policy. Collect ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
From WP:REDFLAG (all emphasis in quotations below added): {{Quote| Red flags that should prompt extra oldid=467080379 this edit] at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The opening sentence of The Legacy of Jihad (p. 24):
The late philosopher and theologian Jacques Ellul emphasized in his forward to Les chretientes d'Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude: VIIe-XXe siecle (1991) [ Bat Ye'or, ISBN 978-2204043472], how contemporary historiography whitewashed the basic realities of jihad war: ...
and further content from the two subsequent pages:
The prescient critiques of Jeffery and Rodinson anticipated the state of contemporary scholarship on jihad. Two salient examples of this current apologetic trend will suffice.
...
[Bat Ye'or] highlights ... the "thematic structure" of Esposito's selective overview, typical of the prevailing modern apologetic genre: ...
Just something to consider. Fat&Happy ( talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Current reference is to [55] and says 55 million records, handful of new users are insisting it is 100 million based on [56], which to me does not seem as reliable. Thoughts?-- Jac16888 Talk 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, i'm traveling & editing from a dumbphone so forgive me if my markup's sloppy. The news emerging now re GE prompted me to visit the company's article, where there is a FAIR.org source by one Sam Husseini, described as "FAIR's activist coordinator": "Felons On The Air." Currently it's reference #69. Can FAIR be considered an RS in this context? I don't have a problem with the information itself, incidentally, but i do think a neutral source like Bloomberg or Reuters should be insisted on in an article like this. Article: General Electric. Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1254 — Biosketch ( talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a Japanese website, if http://www.lifehacker.jp/2011/12/111225magician.html could be a reliable resource for article Magican? By the way, please tell me at least how much reliable resource we should provide when editing an article?Thanks.
In the opinion of editors here, do the sources cited below reliably support the statements made in this passage of text?
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Catholic Answers [1] is a Catholic Apologist website. I feel that it should be viewed as a legitimate source on Wikipeida for general facts about the Catholic Church and its history. Some of the articles carry a Nihil Obstat while others do not. A Nihil Obstat is basically a stamp of approval that is given by an empowered clergy member that means that there is no moral or doctrinal errors (in accordance with the Catholic Faith) are found in the document. It doesn't mean that the Church agrees with the opinion of the author, et cetera. After having read into the source, it would seem as if there is a review process for articles, and solid sources (Bible passages, CCC paragraph number, Ecumenical Council) are always given to support their answer. The website's professed mission is basically to be a resource of Catholic Apologists. Because of these reasons, I think that we should view it as a fairly good source that will prove useful in writing basic information about Catholicism. It's not as academic as say a book on theology, but yet some real work, research, and review goes into the source. One editor on here sometimes gets in a debate with me about the site. She terms it as having an agenda and therefore we shouldn't trust it. I guess in a technical sense you could say it has an agenda in that it wishes to teach and clarify the Catholic Faith, but I don't see that I ruining the possibility of it being a source. Particularly, at least as far as I've seen, other sources support it. So no, I'm not advocating that we use this as a source to in-depth theology, but it does seem to be good enough for some general background information, and shouldn't be deemed as having an agenda. -- Fictio-cedit-veritati ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So:
Please cease and desist doing me the incivility of insulting my intelligent by offering such transparently ludicrous arguments. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) First off, please keep a polite tone as per WP:EQ and WP:CIV. You insulting my arguments is not logical, and it does nothing to further this conversation. 1) You need to substantiate this claim. The mission statement that you provides doesn't, it basically just says that it wants to spread Catholic knowledge. For this first claim to be met you will need to directly show that the website attempts to cast teachings, etc., in the best possible light- not simply explain them. 2) No, just because the source seeks to help spread knowledge, doesn't mean that it has some compromising connection to the Church. Again, they are separate bodies, and one independently explains the other. Go back to the textbook analogy (an analogy you have yet to refute). Church history is to Catholic Answers as US history is to US published textbook- both are independent of what they are publishing about and both wish to spread knowledge of their respective topic, thusly attempting to spread that topics knowledge (as per the mission statement). 3) An interesting claim, but as it stands, unsubstantiated. If you care to provide solid sources that give support to this claim, I'll be happy to take a look. Note though, that even finding two different sources that disagree on some historical fact doesn't prove anything other than different perspectives. Just as the US published textbook about US history may be different from the UK published textbook on US history. If, in an article a difference of opinion on historical fact came up, obviously, both sources would be noted as that would help further the depth of knowledge of the reader. -- Fictio-cedit-veritati ( talk) 05:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Fictio-cedit-veritati: That my claim is substantiated is blindingly obvious from the definitions of Catholic Answers' own core self-descriptions:
Neither of these activities has the least implication of neutral, disinterested provision of information. Therefore it is not "insulting" to point out that your argument does not have the least smidgeon of merit. You may also notice that nobody else is giving your argument the slightest credence, so kindly WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Catholic.com is not always reliable, and in areas where it is reliable there are better sources to use. Net result: we should not use Catholic.com as a source. Binksternet ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
|
In the article Occupy Marines an article in the The Raw Story is used a source. Elements of the article are contradicted by other sources and it is used to source some contentious statements about funding. The wikilink states this is a weblog publication, so I have some concerns about its use as a WP:RS. I consider it should be used with caution. I would welcome external opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Nowa ( talk) 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Along with a newly formed online entity 'Occupy Police', Occupy Marines has been described as "staking out a new realm of metaphorical occupations" beyond the physical territories associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement
The purpose of this thread was to elicit outside opinion on the reliability of the Raw Story as a source. From the web page it appears to be a collection of blogs, which as an WP:SPS would not usually be considered a reliable source. Trawling through the archives of WP:RSN I have found that in the past it was not considered a reliable source and it was advised not to use it. John seems to relish creating unnecessary conflict and turning things on their head. The Raw Story has been challenged as to whether it is a reliable source, the onus is actually on him and others to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of WP:RS, it is not on me to demonstrate it is unreliable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the site Family Tree Legends, and didn't find any references to it in the RSN archives; can I get a consensus on whether or not its data is reliable for WP:BLP purposes? At the article Peter Ostrum, Connormah ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using it to cite the DOB of the article subject, and I want to be 100% on the reliability of the source used. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be badgery, but can anybody else provide input on this matter? Rivertorch and I recommend removing the FTL citation, and Connormah feels its reliable but seems lukewarm on its maintenance. I like my consensuses (consensi?) to have more input before accepting it in my favor. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have an ongoing dispute with an editor over my source use on the article Ryan Doyle (created last month). I've spent exhaustive, full time days studying what she's asked me to study and revising my writing. She's spent, and has asked I come here, a suggestion seconded by the dispute resolution board: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ryan Doyle. My qualms particular to her aside, she's correct that a lot of my opinions, questions, etc., are community issues, or disputes with what the majority of editors may feel. I act, feel, and argue from what I claim to be a brilliant understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia. The more I'm directed to guidelines, the more support I find for things I already believed, and the more justifications I've come up with to back my view. The whole point, e.g., of WP:YT, is to filter out people who are not established experts/etc. If Doyle is an established expert, then he is by definition a reliable source for information.
I clearly, absolutely agree that all the generic disputes one would usually have with the article on a first glance, i.e. minus my endless scrutiny of facts and policy, would be warranted. This has nothing to do with the particulars of the topic, the content of all references, which are a clear factor in the policies. Three editors total have agreed about the poor source status, but none have addressed the particulars at length, and none are anywhere near as versed with the subject as I am. That makes it a battle between my experience, and editors' abilities to judge situations at a glance, which I claim is inadequate in this case.
The entire spirit of the point of barring original research as defined ad nauseum, supports my "research" to prove Doyle's worth with references and policy. I claim there is a special factor that the more questionable sources when examined inter-intrinsically (new word) clearly show Doyle notable and reliable. This is backed in policy by that all factors should be weighed as a complex whole (including content). A lot of people act mechanically around here, not dynamically. No one will say "Doyle is not notable, because..." or "Doyle isn't an important person, because..." They simply state surface policy that if X comes from Y source in Z ways, it can't be included. I've not done research that can't be verified, I've done analysis that can be verified, but no one will verify it. Squish7 ( talk) 07:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note to all: Since this was filed I've given the article a major rewrite/copy edit, and reduced its length by more than half. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started an RFC on the use of primary sources in Calvary Chapel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Talk:Calvary Chapel#RFC: Use of primary sources. Regulars may wish to comment. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[58] shows why no source, however "reliable" is to be ever taken as "truth" -- unless you can really believe Theodore Roosevelt in 1933 banned private ownership of gold ... Anyone care to think Spiegel Online should now be barred? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Some folks seem to think an error makes a source not "RS" - the point made is that all sources suffer brain-rot from time to time. 2. I thought the rationale was exceedingly clear - I do not know in any way why Rosco seems to think otherwise at all. 3. All too often, folks here fail to understand what WP:RS actually refers to - which has absolutely nothing to do with "facts" but only with "can we verify that the place published it". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)