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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
I have a close personal/professional connection with the 3D@Home Consortium, which publishes the 3D University site to educate consumers on 3D televisions. They are a non-profit trade organization (topic experts) focused on educating consumers on 3D televisions, but are funded by the manufacturers and thus - I believe - potentially bias. We discussed adding information to Wikipedia (including academic reports and information from other sources) to fulfill the company's mission to its member organizations to educate consumers on 3D televisions.
My question is:
Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A editor at Talk:Saint_Patrick's_Day#Patty.27s_.28Sic.29_and_sick appears to be insisting on inserting WP:SLANG terms into an article [1]. No serious academic reference calls it either of these names and it seems inappropriate to do so on the article per WP:RS and WP:SOURCE. The editor also argues that wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses and insists that whether a source is "serious" or not doesn't necessarily come into it. Comments? IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Lalate.com is being used as a reference in articles about Dog the Bounty Hunter Duane Chapman & Duane Lee Chapman, II. A quick review of the site( http://news.lalate.com/2012/03/21/duane-lee-chapman-leland-chapman-leave-dog-the-bounty-hunter-exclusive-details/) shows bad editing and misattributed quotes. I notice that this website was brought up some time ago but no real concensus was arrived at. It appears that this website is an amateur blog but I would like other opinions. I personally would say it is not a RS. Daffydavid ( talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This article relies entirely self published books and lesser sources as references. I was hoping for input on whether there are sufficient sources here to construct a decent article. Polyquest ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I submit the article I made, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, for review of verifiability. Oct13 ( talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello? Oct13 ( talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, guys! Just as a reminder, it is good to use book reviews to determine accuracies or possible controversies related to a book and keep notes on them in the talk pages.
I started an article on one book. When the book reviews alleged errors of fact, I took notes of those allegations at Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China#Alleged_inaccuracies - It will help people later in determining which pieces of info stated in the book are okay to include. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In this edit [2] user:Shrigley seems to be of the opinion this [3] letter to the editor may be used to support statements of fact. I disagreed and reverted his edit [4], he then reverted me [5]. I am also of the opinion that the second source used in this edit may not be used for statements of fact. Pakistan: A Hard Country Public Affairs; 1st (2011) ISBN 978-1610390217 by Anatol Lieven as this source is not from an academic publisher and thus should be attributed to Lieven as his opinion. I base this on the fact the book is entirely written from the perspective he gained during his travel in the region. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
[6] is being used in our article Homs by two editors (maybe). See [7] and the earlier edits [8] and [9] (we may also have COI issues here). I'm not sure how or if we can use this, and it would be nice to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I recently noticed that Robert.johnson27453 ( talk · contribs) has added material to several articles citing Rupert Gerritsen as a source. Several of these cites e.g. [13] [14] [15] reference "Rupert Gerritsen (2011) Beyond the Frontier: Explorations in Ethnohistory, Batavia Online Publishing".
I was concerned that BOP might not meet sourcing requirements; I tried Googling but for an online publishing company, its web footprint is vanishingly small - it doesn't even seem to have its own website. The only references I can find to BOP are in connection with Gerritsen, and one PDF published by BOP appears to give Gerritsen's personal website as BOP's:
Batavia Online Publishing
Canberra, Australia
http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com
Published by Batavia Online Publishing 2011
Copyright © Rupert Gerritsen
This leads me to think that BOP is Gerritsen's private press. His website also lists another publication (not via BOP) in quite a different field: "A Conjectural Preon Theory and its Implications has just been published... This publication proposes a new paradigm in particle physics." Copy available via his website. Among other things, it offers to overturn the Standard Model with a theory stating that "There is only one fundamental particle, and its antiparticle, the neutrino". While I'm not a physicist, I get a bit dubious about claims of this sort...
Another source cited by Robert is "Rupert Gerritsen, Australia and the Origins of Agriculture (2008)". According to the 'publications' section of Gerritsen's website, this was published by "Oxford: Archaeopress", confirmed on their website. It's not clear from their website whether their publication process involves editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. I'm not a historian either - hoping somebody here could provide an informed opinion on whether this is a source that should be cited.
Robert also cites two articles by Gerritsen in the Hydrographic Journal at Wouter Loos and Hutt River (Western Australia): "Rupert Gerritsen 2007 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1’, Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25" and "Rupert Gerritsen 2009 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2’, Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41". The Hydrographic Journal does seem a bit weightier than the other publishers mentioned above, but I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a RS on a historical topic.
In addition, Ring of Stones has a couple of sections about Gerritsen's work, cited to his book And Their Ghosts May Be Heard, published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Again, I don't know whether FACP has editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. This material was added by Bill Woerlee ( talk · contribs), who is also mentioned with thanks on Gerritsen's website.
All in all, I have doubts about how much of this material should be cited on WP, but I'd like feedback from editors with more expertise in these fields. -- GenericBob ( talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I tried editing the Unification Church article on something that i deem offensive. It was written there that Jews admitted Jesus as king of the jews. My edit was undone, and the person who did it cited a "reliable" source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1932.cfm The article is called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" and cuttingedge.com says that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminati have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. You can also see the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church . Thank you for your time!-- Albertlberman ( talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kriya yoga is the ultimate science of spirituality.
Now a days, there are several websites on this subject itself. Many of them cater wrong info though. Just for name and fame, they have created their websites with more focus on alluring people to their websites, rather than educating people on the subtle subject of Kriya yoga.
Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga.
Over a certain period of time, I have noticed Kriyayogashymacharan.org is one such website which has maintained that sanity. It’s the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. Founder-director of this mission is Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, World Kriyayoga Master.
He is disciple of Yogivar Sri Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya, grandson of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Lahiri Mahasaya is the greatest Yogi who revived Kriyayoga. Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya only, asked Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee to write one authentic biography on the life Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya, based on the 26 personal diaries scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya himself. This book is ‘Purana Purusha’. On a later date, another book ‘Who Is This Shama Churn’ was written, based on the same 26 diaries, again by Dr. Chatterjee. Till date, ‘Purana Purusha’ is indeed the most authentic book on ‘Kriya yoga’.
Thousands of soul seekers across the globe are getting benefitted through this website, every year. Thousands are getting initiated into Kriya yoga every year.
http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. I would request Wikipedia to sincerely look into the matter. Considering this as a reliable source would certainly help Wikipedia readers hugely. As this website hosts loads of important data and provides careful guidance to all the soul-seekers across the globe. I would request Wikipedia to have a look into this site and its topics.
But, of late, it was felt, that among huge dilution of proper knowledge in Kriya yoga; it’s high time that the exact info should be propagated to everyone. And hence, some info (which were already there) were amended in the ‘kriya yoga’ page. And http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org has been given as a reference.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Right. So, if an website says - "Sun rises in the east" .. is that an opinion or a reliable source ?? !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Absoultely. When we are talking about Kriya yoga, the assertions of the great yogi who imparted this knowledge of Sadhana - Lahiri Mahasaya has to be supreme.
Now, isn't it bewildering if we say the Yogi who imparted Kriya Yoga is giving opinions only ??!! Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga. and http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is that very site, who's info are based on the 26 confidential diaries written by Lahiri Mahasaya !!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was just putting the site as a reference in the Kriya Yoga page. Nothing more than that !!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Right you are. The article is not that equipped. Well, Lahiri Mahasaya is that person who imparted Kriya Yoga.
A simple google search "Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya Kriya Yoga" would reveal this fact
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the site http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has already been referred in the article. I was just trying to modify the article. And, hence, was putting the website as reference in some places.
Regarding Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission, Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee and Kriya yoga :
Information put over there are best to their knowledge, while sticking to truthfulness - this I believe firmly.
Furthermore, other reliable resources, which I had earlier provided to substantiate the facts about http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ :
are quite famous platforms for spirituality from all the avenues.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012250630200.htm
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The site was already used as a reference. I was recently further modifying the article 'kriya Yoga' and hence used this site as reference.
admin Ronz deleted the portion and asked me to have a discussion on this page on whether the site is reliable resource or not !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The portions which were added, and later asked to verify on this page :
Inside Practice section : ---------------
According to Purana Purusha by Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee -
"The sastras have similarly noted thus Niscalam Brahma ucyate—the static or still state is Brahma."
The Yogasadhana to reach that static state of Prana is Kriyayoga. The aim of kriyayoga is union with the Absolute, the Ultimate. It is science of the soul, or Atma-vidya.[9]
Dr. Chatterjee opines on this Sadhana as -
"The one and same Prana exists in humans, all living creatures, trees, earth, rocks, fire, water, air, sky, planets all are bound by the same discipline, it is the Prana-pervaded universe. Everything evolves from Prana, again after death reverts to Prana"
Inside Lineages Section : ----------------
Sri Satyacharan Lahiri the grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya authorized[22] his disciple Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee[23] to initiate in Kriya yoga. He also authorized him to write a biography "Purana Purusha" on the life of Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri from his 26 confidential diaries.[24]. On a later date, another book Who Is This Shama Churn was scripted by him based on these 26 diaries, revealing the divine identity of Lahiri Mahasaya.[25] In both the books, Dr. Chatterjee describes vividly on the science of Kriya yoga.[26] Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee has founded Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission on Sept 30th 1991[27]; headquartered in Kakdwip, West Bengal, India; to spread worldwide awareness about Lahiri Mahasaya and his sacred teaching - Kriyayoga. The Mission also its temples in Degaon, Pune, Maharashtra, India and Bankura, West Bengal, India.[28]
References used :
http://www.crossandlotus.com/Masters/lairi_mahasaya.html http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/pithysayings1.php
http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/akc-spiritual-lineage.php http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Kriya_Yoga/The_science_of_soul22010.asp http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yogacharya.php http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yss-mission.php http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yssm-centers.php
Akash 2011 (
talk) 06:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what admin Ronz had to say in the talk page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriya_Yoga
Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Andy.
As against the quoted portions above, my simple agenda was to know - on what basis was the site kriyayogashyamacharan.org called not reliable on that particular context.
If an admin has already mentioned that, then there has to be certain reasons behind calling it non-reliable. For which, I was asked to discuss the matter here !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Kriya Yoga is not a subject which is confined in Indian subcontinent only. It's followed and practiced religiously by millions of people all across the globe. Yes, the origin is from India only. But, it's for all - regardless of the cast, creed, religions, colors etc.
In fact, awareness about Kriya Yoga is more in Europe or USA now a days!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 08:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, No. What I'm trying to say is :
Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. Hence he is the authority. His teachings and ideals are only to be followed, when it comes to Kriya Yoga. Over the years, Kriya Yoga, which was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya was diluted for some known/unknown reasons. There are still few of the enlightened Yoga masters who adhere to the unmodified/exact Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya. Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee is one of them. That's what I tried to mean.
By the word Yoga, I mean to say, the mergence of individual consciousness into cosmic consciousness. This only is Kriya Yoga as mentioned in the 1st sloka of Yoga Sutra of Maharshi [[Patanjali]. This only happens through Kriya Yoga Pranayama. Pranayama as expatiated in Gita Chapter 4, Sloka 29.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
And I absolutely agree with you when you say that the subject should be properly understandable in english/readable and understandable version. Yoga, Pranayama, Prana are typical Sanskrit terms and quite prevalent too, I guess.
I believe, the website kriyayogashyamacharan.org is organized by professional and responsible people, who took care of this fact while writin the contents. I would request you to have a glimpse of that.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear all,
Just few things to clarify :
Akash 2011 ( talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Andy,
Evidence for what ? While modifying the page Kriya Yoga, not only did I quote http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/, the following sites were also given as reference, which absolutely have no connection with Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission; I believe :
I would request you to please be specific, what more do you want as evidence ? As I have already quoted from eminent websites and Newspapers.
Regards.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, There's no agreeing-disagreeing or minority-majority inside this subject of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division either. It is exactly as imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee or http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has nothing to opine on his own. It's just re-iterating the words expressed by Lahiri Mahasaya, like many others do. That's it.
May be, the way I expressed the things were not proper and hence this miscommunication. I sincerely apologize for that.
Regards. Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you LuckyLouie. Thanks for your time and reply. And I need your help to sort this out.
I just want to add - Kriya Yoga is only One path. To be honest, there's nothing like 'Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya'. Simply because Kriya Yoga is of Lahiri Mahasaya only and none else.
The book that you quoted as Something like this shows the name of Paramahansa Yogananda. His Guru is Sri Yukteswar Giri. Now, Lahiri Mahasaya is again the Guru of Sri Yukteswar Giri. Hence, the source is always the same - Lahiri Mahasaya. Fact is - Kriya Yoga was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya only and several other Masters/Gurus followed that later on through Guru-shishya tradition. We can confirm this from the existing Wiki pages itself.
Regards.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
In Number of the Beast there are two sentences which read "A leading exponent of the Maometis interpretation was Charles Walmesley, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rama. He falsely claimed that the name Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus.[56]" The first sentence seems fine, but the second sentence is sourced by an anonymous review in an 1883 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine - [18]. Also, although you only discover this through the edit history, in the sentence "Gematria has also been used with the Greek word Maometis; which scholars have described as a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word." the bit about scholars describing it as dubiously etc comes from someone called David Thom who wrote a book called "The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts " [19] in 1848 (although the editor who added this thinks it was 1923). Are either of these sources reliable sources? I just removed something about Thom as I don't see his work as significant enough for the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the book of Brady is the only reliable source currently in use in that paragraph. Since Brady's book considers the issue over several pages, it should be enough by itself to cover the topic adequately. Zero talk 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
There are a fair number of places which are categorized as being considered haunted on the strength of having appeared in an episode of Ghost Adventures, e.g. Old Idaho State Penitentiary. I've never seen the program, but I'm dubious about using it as an authority for this. Mangoe ( talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I notice that this is used as a reference in a number of our articles. [23]. It describes itself as a "CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God." It's actually a one-man band run by one Matt Slick [24]. This reliable source [25] comments "In Slick's version of reactive countercult evangelism, potential apologists need not even understand what they are saying, let alone comprehend the questions to which they have been asked to respond. Rather, their "evangelism" requires them to do nothing more than cut, paste, and repost the prepackaged responses provided by Slick. They become "instant experts" in the very worst tradition of the World Wide Web.". I presume that there is very little that we should actually be using this site for as a source? Help would be appreciated in dealing with this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I have recently joined wiki and my posts have been removed to my dismay!
I understand the objections to YouTube as a source - that it is user uploaded and maybe subject to spoofs etc. however in the case of bbc or Eurosport coverage of a snooker match this objection seems to be of no concern - it seems unlikely that a user would go to the trouble of faking this. In this case first hand footage of the match seems more reliable to me than a 2nd had journalistic account of this. I recently tried to add to an article on ronnie o'sullivan saying that he had won the masters in 2005. I posted a clip of the final frame with Eurosport commentary. This was disallowed. - see below.
My request is that in the case of official sporting coverage - a YouTube link is deemed firsthand and admissible as a reference.
[edit]YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism
Are you seriously suggesting that articles from the bbc or from the guardian are more reliable than YouTube footage of the actual event? This is a ridiculous assertion. journalists make mistakes whereas YouTube footage of the match is uncontestable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.80.214 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012 No-one is contesting that he actually won the Masters, which is what that Youtube link seems to show. There is certainly no video footage of Neil Robertson saying what he did, and the other source about Steve Davis is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." This makes Youtube unreliable source. The BBC and the Guardian websites have "editorial oversight", and this makes them reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. It's clear you have a higher respect for the bbc and guardian journalism than I have! They make mistakes all the time - especially in a minority sport like snooker. It's a fair point about neil Robertson, it will be hard to find in print but there may be ... YouTube footage of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2012 Youtube footage is still not reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently added a factual and sourced edit to the page on David Michael Jacobs. Subsequently Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) removed my edit and added unsourced and libelous statements about one of Jacobs' former research subjects. I undid Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs)'s edit, and posted on the talk page to explain that they must not add unsourced and libelous material about people. Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) once again removed my factual and sourced edit and reinstated their unsourced and libelous statements in the article. I then took the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Michael_Jacobs). On the noticeboard Cusop Dingle ( talk · contribs) responded by removing Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs)’s unsourced and libelous edit from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and said that such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources and that it must be discussed, and consensus obtained at Talk:David Michael Jacobs first. I subsequently posted information about the sources for my factual and sourced edit on the talk page, but Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) responded with unsubstantiated personal attacks, and no consensus has been reached. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Michael_Jacobs#Reversed_Edit)
The opening sentence of the David Michael Jacobs article is:
David Michael Jacobs is an American Historian and recently retired Associate Professor of History at Temple University specializing in twentieth century American history and culture. Jacobs is also well known in the field of Ufology for his research and authoring of books on the subject of alleged alien abductions.
My edit was the following sentence about a major controversy over Jacobs’ work in the field of Ufology:
His work caused controversy in the field of Ufology following the public release of recordings of hypnosis sessions that he conducted with a research subject of his known by the pseudonym "Emma Woods".
I provided nine sources for my edit which were the following:
The remaining sources were a series of episodes of the Paratopia radio show that addressed Jacobs’ work and the controversy over it. The hosts, Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann, were careful to fact check what was broadcast to cover themselves legally, and they aired audio from Jacobs’ hypnosis sessions with his former research subject:
My edit is factual and informs readers of an important controversy over David Jacobs’ work. I believe that it is sourced by reputable sources, and that it should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if you could you look into the matter for me. Thank you.
Michaela181 (
talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the following book look like a reliable source for medical claims? Becker, Marty (2002). The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-6808-2. IRWolfie- ( talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Prem Rawat article, an editor wants to insert additional material about a supporting quote, specifically mentioning that an Associate Chair of Criminal Justice of the University of Texas, San Antonio (Dr. Gilbert), is also an "expert" in the field of Restorative Justice. As evidence, he has given the following statement "When TPRF quotes Dr Gilbert, they describe him as "an expert in the new field of restorative justice."", although he has not provided any specific source for that claim within TPRF. TPRF is The Prem Rawat Foundation. It is a registered charity. They provide a program for prisoners that Dr. Gilbert endorsed. He further cites the fact that in Dr. Gilbert's CV linked from the UTSA website, it says he is "Director, Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy" (CV link here). His CV and the university (which is the source for our quote) has ample evidence that he is an expert in Criminal Justice, and our article attributes that. The editor also managed to find one article, co-written, "Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths by: Jung Choi, Diane Green, Michael Gilbert", in one journal, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. This editor also claims that we must enhance Dr. Gilbert's description because "If Dr Gilbert was a conventional criminologist his observations would carry a different weight. He is a forerunner in a new, and most would say, much improved and more human [ sic] way of doing things." He also adds "From his LinkedIn account, he is a member of "Restorative Justice - volunteers & practitioners" and "Restorative Justice International." I believe this is fringe, and completely unnecessary text. I also don't believe that his limited demonstrable experience in this field should in any way overshadow his solid credentials as an expert in the umbrella field of Criminal Justice. Thoughts? -- Maelefique (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
For the unbelievably bored among you, the entire discussion thus far is on the talk page here as well. -- Maelefique (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'm hoping some of you might think of something smart. I would really like to work out the distillation process on the Benrinnes article, but I don't have a proper source for it. What I do have is this blogspot post. The Blogspot post itself is kind enough to provide its sources, but I don't have access to those, so I can't look it up myself. It would certainly help the article if this could be included, but I wouldn't see how. So I'm hoping for something smart from the noticeboard here. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like an independent opinion whether Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and Shepherd the Flock of God, both published by Watch Tower, could be used as RS in articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is raised at JW:talk (only for Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock).
My opinions from the talk page: «It is appairently leaked on the internet, but a similar case regarding a letter headed to elders in JW congregations was dismissed as RS from most "independent" editors at RS noticeboard (I have to clearify the case is not yet closed), as the letter was not published on a reliable website, or confirmed by WTS, and was not concidered as "public accessible"» ... «The source appair not to be according to the description in Wikipedia:Published. I'll quote from the sector "discussion": "The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review the source ... The third party is someone who is unaffiliated with the editor, publisher, group or institution in control of the source," and a quote from examples: "Any item that is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'." As far as I can see, no exemplares are legally accessible for the public.» (See talk page for full discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.)
The book is only legally accesible for JW elders (from the talkpage, defending user: "The Shepherd the Flock book, however, is indisputably published by the WTS, though its official distribution is limited to congregation elders), is considered as property of WTS, and is only borrowed by the elders.
The "letter" mentioned, is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations (the link doesn't work anymore). In my opinion it is clear parallels between the letter and the book, and the only difference I can see, is the existence of the book is confirmed by WTS. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Self-published sources from the Watchtower, or, for that matter, the Vatican, can in general reasonably be considered reliable sources for non-controversial material about a subject, or for the opinions of the group itself, with some attention paid to the degree to which the material is clearly self-serving. I would have to think that those same basic standards would apply for this material as well. John Carter ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The title pretty much says it all. Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists [1] and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies. | ” |
“ | An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. | ” |
@WLU: Usually textbooks are tertiary or secondary sources for the most part. So you would have to be more specific concerning why and for what aspect exactly you'd suspect it to be a primary source. However more important than a formal distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary is the quality and reputation of the source. This seems to be a a book by renowned academic published with a renowned academic publisher, so I see no reason, why it couldn't or shouldn't be used as a source.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Now if WLU will kindly focus on content and refrain from personal attacks...
Are we in agreement that F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any term defined by any other RS as to be synonymous with infantilism without requiring WP:SYNTH? (This wouldn't be CB&B since CB&B doesn't mention "masochistic gynaephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms. This is odd considering that all the authors discussed so far work together.) BitterGrey ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@WLU, Greybitter: No offense but you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere. Since apparently you cannot agree on correct interpretation of the (reliable) source in question, you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine). There other WP editors with background knowledge on the subject may comment on the correct interpretation/use of the source. Alternatively request a third opinion or use a conflict resolution site, but please refrain from using this site as platform for your personal disagreements. The idea of site is to request reliability assessment from 3rd editors, it is not meant to continue your personal conflict/arguments. For that use the article's talk page or your personal talk pages or maybe some conflict resolution site.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I realize that this was marked resolved, but one point bares mentioning here. BitterGrey's idea of a primary source isn't correct. The Oxford Textbook is not a primary source by definition. If an article in the Textbook refers to a study and makes claims about that study that are incorrect then it makes incorrect claims, but that doesn't make it a primary source. Whether or not the Textbook is correct in its claim about the study it refers to is not a matter for this board to resolve, as Kmhkmh has pointed out several times. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This is now an ANI posting, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time. F&B doesn't define masochistic gynaephiles as "individuals who pretend they are children". In the section "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" on page 561 (first column, at bottom) it's talking about gynaephiles, who are masochistic, and these individuals who are both masochistic and gynaephiles are at the same time acting out sexual fantasies by pretending to be little boys or babies. In other words, Freund & Blanchard are discussing infantilists who also happen to be masochistic gynaephiles (or masochistic gynaephiles who also happen to be infantilists). So we were wrong in our interpretation of that section as a definition, but it doesn't matter since the paper is actually discussing a group of infantilists. The core use of the paper on parphilic infantilism is exactly the same, and it still beautifully illustrates how two groups (pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists) can be superficially similar in behaviour but completely different in motivation and etiology (as expressed on page 561, second column continued on page 562, "The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups."). All the uses remain the same, and Paul B's comment still applies. I've got to eat crow on that misinterpretation, but fortunately there's no changes required on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the past you have declined to answer such simple questions, I would assume it does not support your pre-existing conclusion and because the answers indicate that the sources are accurately summarized in their distinction between infantilists and pedophiles. I have little doubt that this practice will continue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
[81] asserts that hopenothate.org.uk is an RS because "they're organised by Searchlight)" The problem I have is that the website does not make that claim. At all. In fact it appears to be a specific activist organization, and hence not a "reliable source" per Wikipedia rules. [82] appears to indicate that there is no association between the two, and that the head of "HnH" is no longer associated with Searchlight. As the source is not Searchlight, and there is no connection between the two, the RS nature of the site must be considered afresh - and I assert that it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and, at most, can only be cited as to its own opinion, properly weighted. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP recently added Hitsdailydouble.com to the Chris Brown discography article as a source for album sales. Is it reliable? Oz talk 07:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sources cited in this article, almost all of which are from Creationist organisations and in this context I would have thought, not to be relied upon. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to understand what, if anything this video can be used for. It is not uploaded by the source. It is uploaded by someone who's about section says:
Since it wasn't uploaded by the producer of the footage (La Nuova TV it looks like), can it be used for *anything* other than saying this youtube video exists?
I also have questions about the RS-ness of www.lanuovatv.it (the original source I'm assuming) as well, as their website indicates no editorial oversight control or business credentials, which I think is necessary for a "news" channel, but that might be a question for another day. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Slumz.boxden.com reliable as a source for US album sales? Oz talk 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Congrtulations for finally changing his birth year from 1960 (wrong) to 1956 (right). However, the actual birthdate is still wrong. It is March 23 (right) not May 5 (wrong). This information can be verfied by Icon Film Productions, who are responsible for the making of the show "River Monsters".
I wanted to add some precision to claims to do with Greater London being called ceremonial county. Conspicuously not called so by any official websites such as [84]
The first thing to realise is that Greater London was explicitly not made a county although removing counties:
London Government Act 1963 3 (1) (a)
"no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;"
views the schedule (appendix) as creating a county of London [85] because it defines it as "the counties for the purposes of this act"
However if you look at the order that follows on from the act: [86] Greater London is not constituted as a county.
The legal definition for the area can be confirmed from a later act from 2001 [87] Referring to "The Lordships Lieutentant"
The problem is that surprisingly strong POV issues arise from this - because it suggests there was usage of the word county for Greater London. Now the term Geographic county also redirects to this page and then there is the issue of Middlesex etc. There is little point going into the details butone example when a historically important area has no reference to the county it was in (and many still regard it to be in) i,e. Kingston [88] but states that is in the ceremonial county of Greater London.
The page claiming GL is a CC has been up since 2003 and still I cannot find any evidence to support an unambiguous claim that GL is a ceremonial county independent of wikipedia's claim.
Also being stopped from referring to Greater London as an area before admin body 1965 despite being used from before 1907 perhpas this is the clearest reference [89] The region is called "Greater London." Tetron76 ( talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The LGA 1888 did not abolish or alter the historic Counties themselves. The General Register Office's Census Report of 1891 carefully distinguished between what it dubbed the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. No subsequent Act has ever tried to alter or abolish the historic Counties; their continued existence has been consistently reaffirmed by the Government.
Swan Upping is the annual census of the swan population on stretches of the Thames in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire
I'm being accused of being unreasonable for rejecting several sources on the topic of Nelly Furtado's citizenship.
I don't think any of these meet our policies for reliable sourcing, but I'm posting it here to see if anyone thinks I'm missing something.— Kww( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we all know that she is in fact Portuguese Canadian, the problem being that there is no reliable source.........why don't you state her as "Portuguese Canadian" and type "citation needed", next to it......can that be done? Because stating her as "canadian", just because there is no direct source.....doesn't make the article more accurate, in my opinion. Manas justice ( talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just "what everyone knows".....several members have stated that according to the laws of Portugal, children of Portuguese parents are immediately citizens of Portugal. Since Nelly's parents were both born in Portugal, Nelly is a citizen of Portugal, without any doubt, and we also have a video in which she says, "I'm Portuguese Canadian"....so is that counted as a reliable source? 120.60.55.249 ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the situation goes well beyond what Kww described here, and notice that he decided to mention exactly what I argued to be the least important about this subject. The main issue here is that in the referred wikipedia text, Nelly Furtado´s Canadian citizenship was given for granted, which I don´t contest, based on the "ius soli" law principle, that predominates in the Americas. However, Portugal and most other European countries grant automatic citizenship based on "ius sanguinis". This means that the main principle to become a Canadian citizen, is to be born in Canada, and on the contrary, the main principle to become a Portuguese citizen, is to have Portuguese parents. Therefore, Nelly Furtado is both Canadian and Portuguese. Requests of a so called "proof" of her being a Portuguese citizen are just as absurd as asking for "proof" for her being a Canadian citizen, as she was granted both countries´ nationality after being born from Portuguese parents, in Canada. This can be checked at wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_nationality_law Again, I repeat, the granting of Portuguese citizenship in Nelly Furtado´s case is AUTOMATIC according to Portuguese law. If you need more references on Portuguese law books stating the same as the wikipedia article, please just say so. Nothing more than this should be needed, as countries should be treated as equals by wikipedia, as should their nationality laws. However, if anything else was to be needed, I feel that an interview given by herself, in Portuguese, to a Brazilian TV, where she says "I am Canadian, but also Portuguese", and further ahead even adds "my heart and soul are Portuguese", should be a good enough aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do But I say it once again, the main issue here is that she was granted Portuguese citizenship automatically, by birth, and that wikipedia should not privilege any country´s laws, or any person´s view of citizenship over another. She is a dual citizen of both Canada and Portugal. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so in your view, why is she reported as Canadian, as there is absolutely no source in the text for it? Also, herself saying she is both Portuguese and Canadian while being interviewd by a TV does not constitute a source for you? If the very person saying she is Portuguese is not a source, may I ask what is? 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Her exact words are "My parents are from the Azores. I was born in Canada, I am Canadian, but also Portuguese." She is clearly comparing her Canadian condition with her Portuguese condition. I would like to add that her parents being both Portuguese and born in Portugal is an undeniable fact, there are inumerous sources, and inumerous interviews of herself talking about it. There´s more than one where she also talks about how she always came to spend every single summer with her parents in the Azores, talking about her other Portuguese family members influencing her choice to do music, saying how she started singing in Portuguese far before than in English, etc. But for me, this is not the main point. People say that affirming she is Portuguese because her parents are Portuguese and that´s how citizenship is automatically granted under Portuguese law (and in most of Europe) is "deducing"... But for one to assume that she is Canadian because she was born in Canada, that is no longer "deducing"... For example, a person born in Portugal is not granted citizenship for being born in the country, but is automatically granted citizenship only if the parents are Portuguese, no matter where he or she is born. One should accept any concept of citizenship as long as it is in accordance to the law, and not admit a bias view that makes no argument against the "ius soli" follower countries, but demands "proof" for the "ius sanguinis" follower countries. It´s purely a matter of understanding what citizenship is, to see that she both Portuguese and Canadian. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
About her parents being Portuguese there are already reliable sources on the wikipedia text other than youtube. From there, to say that she is Portuguese, if a person is impartial, is exactly the same as saying she is Canadian because she was born in Canada. Same respect for both countries´ laws. No difference of any kind. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The law as described in this English translation posted is close to accurate, even if this is not the last version. All that is needed for a person born from a Portuguese parent abroad (Nelly´s case) to be considered officially a full Portuguese citizen, is to either be registered by the parent, or for the person to declare himself or herself as Portuguese at any point in life. I don´t know about her being registered or not, but there are many interviews where she talks about herself as being Portuguese, written and in video. Unfortunately, there is no picture of her Portuguese ID, and obviously there will never be, and that seems like the only thing that would be admissible by some people here to prove it, as her own words are not. So, this discussion does seem like going on in circles... 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I would think so too, I can give you a few right away, but they are in Portuguese and on youtube, and that seems to be unacceptable. I already posted the one where she most clearly said it, comparing it with her being Canadian, and it was considered not to be admissible. I just found another where she says "I´m proud of being Portuguese", but again, youtube and Portuguese... I will really try to see if I can find the original TV links, as these are TV interviews... 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Kww how many people who are a citizen of a country do you know that say that they are a "whatever" CITIZEN at any given time? Do you think anyone normal would ever talk about her nationality like that? When people ask about your nationality, do you add CITIZEN to the end of the sentence? Do you really think that makes any sense? And just like you said, where does she say she is a Canadian citizen? All I have seen so far were sources saying she was Canadian, not a citizen, right? 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If it is not a matter of being bias, and if it is not a matter of discriminating upon nationality, then a reliable source stating that she is a Canadian CITIZEN has to be added for such statement to be made as well. So, no nationality of any kind should be used for Nelly Furtado until a source that specifies she is a CITIZEN of any country according to the specifications indicated here is made. Can anyone impartially object against this? Same principles and justice for all. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems pretty WP:LAME. Please read over the battle over Chopin:
"Was Chopin Polish, French, Polish–French, or French–Polish? For years, there has been a low level (and at times high intensity) conflict about which country can claim Chopin as its son. Or was it Szopen? The observer learns a lot about the Napoleonic code, about the nuances of "citizenship," "nationality," and "ethnicity." Students of law can argue the finer points of jus sanguinis and jus soli. The use of "Polish born" is branded as a racist slur. There is spirited debate about whether the citing of a passage of law is considered original research, tantamount to "dropping Mentos into a bottle of Pepsi to see if it will explode." Can you emigrate from a country of which you are not a citizen? Can you receive citizenship if you already have it? The possibilities for intensive study are endless. Celebrity witnesses such as Obama, Churchill, Sean Taro Ono Lennon and Dr. Seuss are pressed into making appearances. Collateral damage even reaches WP:Lame, where the Chopin entry is removed because of an alleged lack of lameness. And then there are the trolls. Even Chopin's remains are divided. The body rests in Paris, the heart in Warsaw." A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Are y'all just doing this to make everyone over at the Prem Rawat article feel a little less silly about the things we are argue about? :) -- Maelefique (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nuclear Physics and Energy Catalyzer, the misleadingly titled "Journal of Nuclear Physics" is actually a self-published blog about a purported cold fusion device. However, Masud Ahmad, Fayyazuddin, and Samar Mubarak Mand contain citations to Journal of Nuclear Physics as if it was a legitimate scientific journal. This raises the following questions:
Is there more than one thing called "Journal of Nuclear Physics"?
Should the references to JoNP on the Ahmad/Fayyazuddin/Mand pages be labeled as being from a blog as we do on the Energy Catalyzer page? Deleted? Left as is?
Is there a central place where we keep a list of sources that are known to be unreliable? Should there be? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like some opinions here as to whether BostonHitman.com can be considered a reliable source. It is being used in the The Friends of Eddie Coyle article to source the claim that actor Robert Mitchum met with members of the Boston underworld while researching his role in the film. This seems like a very bold claim to me, and one that would require a very good source to support it. The question, then, is whether this website can be considered such a source. I have my doubts, but would like to hear what other editors think. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this source, [106] reliable for this claim "Troy Brooks stated Jesus Christ would return on this day (Tisha B'Av), with the 7 year Tribulation to precede from Feast of Trumpets Sept. 14, 2015 to Aug. 7, 2022." on this article List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events?
The debated change can be viewed here: [107] Freikorp ( talk) 05:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This is Troy Brooks who said this not some Rabbi. Troy is the first person on the planet to declare the Tribulation from Sept. 14, 2015 Feast of Trumpets (first rapture according to readiness this day) to Tisha B'Av Aug. 7, 2022 (Jesus steps down this day) for a total of 2,520 days. Troy owns biblocality.com. Mark Biltz has nothing to do with this timeline. Mark is thinking of other stuff unrelated and not seeing the Tetrad comes before the Tribulation. Rev. 6.12 occurs before the first trumpet of the Tribulation (8.7). Troy believes in Partial Rapture. Mark Biltz doesn't. First rapture is "before the throne" (7.9) before the first trumpet and it is according to readiness (Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10).
The source is at [108], an appendix to the Book of Mormon. Who wrote this and where isn't clear. See for instance this edit at Dan, at Jordan [109] and Carchemish [110]. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Decline of Nair Dominance: Society and Politics in Travancore 1847–1908. Sussex University Press.(1994) by Jeffrey, Robin ( ISBN 0856210544)
Is this book a reliable one on the concerned subject? I think the book is not available online. Can such a book be considered reliable?. - InarZan ( talk) 13:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Are other language sources acceptable? For example, are Malayalam language sources acceptable in articles related to Kerala? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Please sign your contributions.
See: WP:Reliable sources/Cost Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Andrea Lehotská ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a number of assertions about Lehotská's accomplishments in this article that are sourced to an Italian online periodical called Lettera 43 or L43. I'm not Italian and not familiar with Italian sources. Each of the citations in the Lehotská article point to a picture in a slide show with a blurb, and the material in our article is "supported" by that blurb. The very look of each of these pages makes me think unreliable, but I can't tell what kind of fact-checking is done by L43 generally and, more specifically, what kind of fact-checking is done in this particular section of its website, which they happily call "Gossip".
Can we use these citations for this material?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396 is given as the source for a claim:
The precis does not seem to make the claim, and the source is not available to me - can anyone verify that this is a proper claim as sourced? 22 pages seems a bit much to wade through if the text is as convoluted as the abstract. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The Messianic Judaism article cites Shoshanah Feher's "Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira" (1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 140) as positive proof that the movement began in the 1960s. The quote in fact is an off-hand undocumented assumption in the closing pages of the book ("This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose.") Such as weak source should not be accepted as an authoritative source for the purpose it's being used.-- DeknMike ( talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that no more of your words will be productive. (Note that ignoratio elenchi can also mean "Irrelevant conclusion: diverting attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.) Your circular arguments make no sense: "because Feher is a reliable source and agrees with those other reliable sources, we must therefore assume it is a reliable source." The whole point of seeking OUTSIDE discussion is to have a 3rd party look at the source and affirm its historical sourcing methodology. Neither Fifelfoo nor The Red Pen of Doom 'agreed' with the statement; they started a reasoned discussion, and you piled on with backstory to obscure the question. You must think that saying the same thing over and over will make it true ( argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum verbosum). -- DeknMike ( talk) 03:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Can this site be used as a reliable source for a minor and non-controversial information about a New Zealand building? It is a news site run by journalism students of Whitireia New Zealand. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Randy Cassingham a reliable source for this? He doesn't seem to have any relevant expertise. 86.** IP ( talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I've begun trying to remove the unreliable sources, then. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In the BLP article for B. Ramanath Rai, a now-deadlinked genealogical website is used to source the ethnicity ( Bunt) of the article subject. I found the website at Wayback, thus "Bellipady Family Website". bellipadyfamilytrus. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 18 October 2010..
This is tricky. As a general rule, in Indian-related articles at least, there is consensus that caste assertions require self-identification if the person is living, rather as with WP:BLPCAT. If that was the sole issue, then I would take this matter to WP:BLPN or WT:INB. However, I need first to determine whether a website that is no longer live, looks amateurish in design (although perhaps not by the standards of its day), and clearly falls within the general scope of being a self-published source can be reliable. We do not know if Rai himself had an involvement, whether it may have been his decision to pull the thing, etc. Bit of a nightmare, really, but I'd bet someone would argue that as a family site it amounts to self-identification for BLP purposes. My gut feeling is that it is unreliable as a source because we cannot determine whether he agreed to the details contained within it, but I would appreciate the opinion of others. - Sitush ( talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.
In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage. [7] Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, [2] [3] while others cite it to be a result of date rape. [5] [8] The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950. [9]
Can someone verify the following part of it?
The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950. [9]
If the marriage certificate is true, then almost all the biographers are wrong. That's serious.
I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility.
References
Cantor
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BTW, I have already posted this to help desk, village pump, and Wikiprojecr Fact and Reference Check... no success so far. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 April 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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
I have a close personal/professional connection with the 3D@Home Consortium, which publishes the 3D University site to educate consumers on 3D televisions. They are a non-profit trade organization (topic experts) focused on educating consumers on 3D televisions, but are funded by the manufacturers and thus - I believe - potentially bias. We discussed adding information to Wikipedia (including academic reports and information from other sources) to fulfill the company's mission to its member organizations to educate consumers on 3D televisions.
My question is:
Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A editor at Talk:Saint_Patrick's_Day#Patty.27s_.28Sic.29_and_sick appears to be insisting on inserting WP:SLANG terms into an article [1]. No serious academic reference calls it either of these names and it seems inappropriate to do so on the article per WP:RS and WP:SOURCE. The editor also argues that wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses and insists that whether a source is "serious" or not doesn't necessarily come into it. Comments? IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Lalate.com is being used as a reference in articles about Dog the Bounty Hunter Duane Chapman & Duane Lee Chapman, II. A quick review of the site( http://news.lalate.com/2012/03/21/duane-lee-chapman-leland-chapman-leave-dog-the-bounty-hunter-exclusive-details/) shows bad editing and misattributed quotes. I notice that this website was brought up some time ago but no real concensus was arrived at. It appears that this website is an amateur blog but I would like other opinions. I personally would say it is not a RS. Daffydavid ( talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This article relies entirely self published books and lesser sources as references. I was hoping for input on whether there are sufficient sources here to construct a decent article. Polyquest ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I submit the article I made, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, for review of verifiability. Oct13 ( talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello? Oct13 ( talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, guys! Just as a reminder, it is good to use book reviews to determine accuracies or possible controversies related to a book and keep notes on them in the talk pages.
I started an article on one book. When the book reviews alleged errors of fact, I took notes of those allegations at Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China#Alleged_inaccuracies - It will help people later in determining which pieces of info stated in the book are okay to include. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In this edit [2] user:Shrigley seems to be of the opinion this [3] letter to the editor may be used to support statements of fact. I disagreed and reverted his edit [4], he then reverted me [5]. I am also of the opinion that the second source used in this edit may not be used for statements of fact. Pakistan: A Hard Country Public Affairs; 1st (2011) ISBN 978-1610390217 by Anatol Lieven as this source is not from an academic publisher and thus should be attributed to Lieven as his opinion. I base this on the fact the book is entirely written from the perspective he gained during his travel in the region. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
[6] is being used in our article Homs by two editors (maybe). See [7] and the earlier edits [8] and [9] (we may also have COI issues here). I'm not sure how or if we can use this, and it would be nice to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I recently noticed that Robert.johnson27453 ( talk · contribs) has added material to several articles citing Rupert Gerritsen as a source. Several of these cites e.g. [13] [14] [15] reference "Rupert Gerritsen (2011) Beyond the Frontier: Explorations in Ethnohistory, Batavia Online Publishing".
I was concerned that BOP might not meet sourcing requirements; I tried Googling but for an online publishing company, its web footprint is vanishingly small - it doesn't even seem to have its own website. The only references I can find to BOP are in connection with Gerritsen, and one PDF published by BOP appears to give Gerritsen's personal website as BOP's:
Batavia Online Publishing
Canberra, Australia
http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com
Published by Batavia Online Publishing 2011
Copyright © Rupert Gerritsen
This leads me to think that BOP is Gerritsen's private press. His website also lists another publication (not via BOP) in quite a different field: "A Conjectural Preon Theory and its Implications has just been published... This publication proposes a new paradigm in particle physics." Copy available via his website. Among other things, it offers to overturn the Standard Model with a theory stating that "There is only one fundamental particle, and its antiparticle, the neutrino". While I'm not a physicist, I get a bit dubious about claims of this sort...
Another source cited by Robert is "Rupert Gerritsen, Australia and the Origins of Agriculture (2008)". According to the 'publications' section of Gerritsen's website, this was published by "Oxford: Archaeopress", confirmed on their website. It's not clear from their website whether their publication process involves editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. I'm not a historian either - hoping somebody here could provide an informed opinion on whether this is a source that should be cited.
Robert also cites two articles by Gerritsen in the Hydrographic Journal at Wouter Loos and Hutt River (Western Australia): "Rupert Gerritsen 2007 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1’, Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25" and "Rupert Gerritsen 2009 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2’, Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41". The Hydrographic Journal does seem a bit weightier than the other publishers mentioned above, but I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a RS on a historical topic.
In addition, Ring of Stones has a couple of sections about Gerritsen's work, cited to his book And Their Ghosts May Be Heard, published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Again, I don't know whether FACP has editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. This material was added by Bill Woerlee ( talk · contribs), who is also mentioned with thanks on Gerritsen's website.
All in all, I have doubts about how much of this material should be cited on WP, but I'd like feedback from editors with more expertise in these fields. -- GenericBob ( talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I tried editing the Unification Church article on something that i deem offensive. It was written there that Jews admitted Jesus as king of the jews. My edit was undone, and the person who did it cited a "reliable" source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1932.cfm The article is called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" and cuttingedge.com says that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminati have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. You can also see the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church . Thank you for your time!-- Albertlberman ( talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kriya yoga is the ultimate science of spirituality.
Now a days, there are several websites on this subject itself. Many of them cater wrong info though. Just for name and fame, they have created their websites with more focus on alluring people to their websites, rather than educating people on the subtle subject of Kriya yoga.
Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga.
Over a certain period of time, I have noticed Kriyayogashymacharan.org is one such website which has maintained that sanity. It’s the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. Founder-director of this mission is Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, World Kriyayoga Master.
He is disciple of Yogivar Sri Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya, grandson of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Lahiri Mahasaya is the greatest Yogi who revived Kriyayoga. Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya only, asked Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee to write one authentic biography on the life Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya, based on the 26 personal diaries scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya himself. This book is ‘Purana Purusha’. On a later date, another book ‘Who Is This Shama Churn’ was written, based on the same 26 diaries, again by Dr. Chatterjee. Till date, ‘Purana Purusha’ is indeed the most authentic book on ‘Kriya yoga’.
Thousands of soul seekers across the globe are getting benefitted through this website, every year. Thousands are getting initiated into Kriya yoga every year.
http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. I would request Wikipedia to sincerely look into the matter. Considering this as a reliable source would certainly help Wikipedia readers hugely. As this website hosts loads of important data and provides careful guidance to all the soul-seekers across the globe. I would request Wikipedia to have a look into this site and its topics.
But, of late, it was felt, that among huge dilution of proper knowledge in Kriya yoga; it’s high time that the exact info should be propagated to everyone. And hence, some info (which were already there) were amended in the ‘kriya yoga’ page. And http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org has been given as a reference.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Right. So, if an website says - "Sun rises in the east" .. is that an opinion or a reliable source ?? !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Absoultely. When we are talking about Kriya yoga, the assertions of the great yogi who imparted this knowledge of Sadhana - Lahiri Mahasaya has to be supreme.
Now, isn't it bewildering if we say the Yogi who imparted Kriya Yoga is giving opinions only ??!! Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga. and http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is that very site, who's info are based on the 26 confidential diaries written by Lahiri Mahasaya !!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was just putting the site as a reference in the Kriya Yoga page. Nothing more than that !!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Right you are. The article is not that equipped. Well, Lahiri Mahasaya is that person who imparted Kriya Yoga.
A simple google search "Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya Kriya Yoga" would reveal this fact
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the site http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has already been referred in the article. I was just trying to modify the article. And, hence, was putting the website as reference in some places.
Regarding Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission, Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee and Kriya yoga :
Information put over there are best to their knowledge, while sticking to truthfulness - this I believe firmly.
Furthermore, other reliable resources, which I had earlier provided to substantiate the facts about http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ :
are quite famous platforms for spirituality from all the avenues.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012250630200.htm
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The site was already used as a reference. I was recently further modifying the article 'kriya Yoga' and hence used this site as reference.
admin Ronz deleted the portion and asked me to have a discussion on this page on whether the site is reliable resource or not !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The portions which were added, and later asked to verify on this page :
Inside Practice section : ---------------
According to Purana Purusha by Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee -
"The sastras have similarly noted thus Niscalam Brahma ucyate—the static or still state is Brahma."
The Yogasadhana to reach that static state of Prana is Kriyayoga. The aim of kriyayoga is union with the Absolute, the Ultimate. It is science of the soul, or Atma-vidya.[9]
Dr. Chatterjee opines on this Sadhana as -
"The one and same Prana exists in humans, all living creatures, trees, earth, rocks, fire, water, air, sky, planets all are bound by the same discipline, it is the Prana-pervaded universe. Everything evolves from Prana, again after death reverts to Prana"
Inside Lineages Section : ----------------
Sri Satyacharan Lahiri the grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya authorized[22] his disciple Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee[23] to initiate in Kriya yoga. He also authorized him to write a biography "Purana Purusha" on the life of Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri from his 26 confidential diaries.[24]. On a later date, another book Who Is This Shama Churn was scripted by him based on these 26 diaries, revealing the divine identity of Lahiri Mahasaya.[25] In both the books, Dr. Chatterjee describes vividly on the science of Kriya yoga.[26] Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee has founded Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission on Sept 30th 1991[27]; headquartered in Kakdwip, West Bengal, India; to spread worldwide awareness about Lahiri Mahasaya and his sacred teaching - Kriyayoga. The Mission also its temples in Degaon, Pune, Maharashtra, India and Bankura, West Bengal, India.[28]
References used :
http://www.crossandlotus.com/Masters/lairi_mahasaya.html http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/pithysayings1.php
http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/akc-spiritual-lineage.php http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Kriya_Yoga/The_science_of_soul22010.asp http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yogacharya.php http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yss-mission.php http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yssm-centers.php
Akash 2011 (
talk) 06:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what admin Ronz had to say in the talk page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriya_Yoga
Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Andy.
As against the quoted portions above, my simple agenda was to know - on what basis was the site kriyayogashyamacharan.org called not reliable on that particular context.
If an admin has already mentioned that, then there has to be certain reasons behind calling it non-reliable. For which, I was asked to discuss the matter here !
Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Kriya Yoga is not a subject which is confined in Indian subcontinent only. It's followed and practiced religiously by millions of people all across the globe. Yes, the origin is from India only. But, it's for all - regardless of the cast, creed, religions, colors etc.
In fact, awareness about Kriya Yoga is more in Europe or USA now a days!
Akash 2011 ( talk) 08:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, No. What I'm trying to say is :
Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. Hence he is the authority. His teachings and ideals are only to be followed, when it comes to Kriya Yoga. Over the years, Kriya Yoga, which was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya was diluted for some known/unknown reasons. There are still few of the enlightened Yoga masters who adhere to the unmodified/exact Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya. Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee is one of them. That's what I tried to mean.
By the word Yoga, I mean to say, the mergence of individual consciousness into cosmic consciousness. This only is Kriya Yoga as mentioned in the 1st sloka of Yoga Sutra of Maharshi [[Patanjali]. This only happens through Kriya Yoga Pranayama. Pranayama as expatiated in Gita Chapter 4, Sloka 29.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
And I absolutely agree with you when you say that the subject should be properly understandable in english/readable and understandable version. Yoga, Pranayama, Prana are typical Sanskrit terms and quite prevalent too, I guess.
I believe, the website kriyayogashyamacharan.org is organized by professional and responsible people, who took care of this fact while writin the contents. I would request you to have a glimpse of that.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear all,
Just few things to clarify :
Akash 2011 ( talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Andy,
Evidence for what ? While modifying the page Kriya Yoga, not only did I quote http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/, the following sites were also given as reference, which absolutely have no connection with Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission; I believe :
I would request you to please be specific, what more do you want as evidence ? As I have already quoted from eminent websites and Newspapers.
Regards.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 06:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, There's no agreeing-disagreeing or minority-majority inside this subject of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division either. It is exactly as imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee or http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has nothing to opine on his own. It's just re-iterating the words expressed by Lahiri Mahasaya, like many others do. That's it.
May be, the way I expressed the things were not proper and hence this miscommunication. I sincerely apologize for that.
Regards. Akash 2011 ( talk) 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you LuckyLouie. Thanks for your time and reply. And I need your help to sort this out.
I just want to add - Kriya Yoga is only One path. To be honest, there's nothing like 'Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya'. Simply because Kriya Yoga is of Lahiri Mahasaya only and none else.
The book that you quoted as Something like this shows the name of Paramahansa Yogananda. His Guru is Sri Yukteswar Giri. Now, Lahiri Mahasaya is again the Guru of Sri Yukteswar Giri. Hence, the source is always the same - Lahiri Mahasaya. Fact is - Kriya Yoga was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya only and several other Masters/Gurus followed that later on through Guru-shishya tradition. We can confirm this from the existing Wiki pages itself.
Regards.
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
In Number of the Beast there are two sentences which read "A leading exponent of the Maometis interpretation was Charles Walmesley, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rama. He falsely claimed that the name Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus.[56]" The first sentence seems fine, but the second sentence is sourced by an anonymous review in an 1883 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine - [18]. Also, although you only discover this through the edit history, in the sentence "Gematria has also been used with the Greek word Maometis; which scholars have described as a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word." the bit about scholars describing it as dubiously etc comes from someone called David Thom who wrote a book called "The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts " [19] in 1848 (although the editor who added this thinks it was 1923). Are either of these sources reliable sources? I just removed something about Thom as I don't see his work as significant enough for the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the book of Brady is the only reliable source currently in use in that paragraph. Since Brady's book considers the issue over several pages, it should be enough by itself to cover the topic adequately. Zero talk 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
There are a fair number of places which are categorized as being considered haunted on the strength of having appeared in an episode of Ghost Adventures, e.g. Old Idaho State Penitentiary. I've never seen the program, but I'm dubious about using it as an authority for this. Mangoe ( talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I notice that this is used as a reference in a number of our articles. [23]. It describes itself as a "CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God." It's actually a one-man band run by one Matt Slick [24]. This reliable source [25] comments "In Slick's version of reactive countercult evangelism, potential apologists need not even understand what they are saying, let alone comprehend the questions to which they have been asked to respond. Rather, their "evangelism" requires them to do nothing more than cut, paste, and repost the prepackaged responses provided by Slick. They become "instant experts" in the very worst tradition of the World Wide Web.". I presume that there is very little that we should actually be using this site for as a source? Help would be appreciated in dealing with this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I have recently joined wiki and my posts have been removed to my dismay!
I understand the objections to YouTube as a source - that it is user uploaded and maybe subject to spoofs etc. however in the case of bbc or Eurosport coverage of a snooker match this objection seems to be of no concern - it seems unlikely that a user would go to the trouble of faking this. In this case first hand footage of the match seems more reliable to me than a 2nd had journalistic account of this. I recently tried to add to an article on ronnie o'sullivan saying that he had won the masters in 2005. I posted a clip of the final frame with Eurosport commentary. This was disallowed. - see below.
My request is that in the case of official sporting coverage - a YouTube link is deemed firsthand and admissible as a reference.
[edit]YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism
Are you seriously suggesting that articles from the bbc or from the guardian are more reliable than YouTube footage of the actual event? This is a ridiculous assertion. journalists make mistakes whereas YouTube footage of the match is uncontestable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.80.214 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012 No-one is contesting that he actually won the Masters, which is what that Youtube link seems to show. There is certainly no video footage of Neil Robertson saying what he did, and the other source about Steve Davis is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." This makes Youtube unreliable source. The BBC and the Guardian websites have "editorial oversight", and this makes them reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. It's clear you have a higher respect for the bbc and guardian journalism than I have! They make mistakes all the time - especially in a minority sport like snooker. It's a fair point about neil Robertson, it will be hard to find in print but there may be ... YouTube footage of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2012 Youtube footage is still not reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently added a factual and sourced edit to the page on David Michael Jacobs. Subsequently Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) removed my edit and added unsourced and libelous statements about one of Jacobs' former research subjects. I undid Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs)'s edit, and posted on the talk page to explain that they must not add unsourced and libelous material about people. Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) once again removed my factual and sourced edit and reinstated their unsourced and libelous statements in the article. I then took the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Michael_Jacobs). On the noticeboard Cusop Dingle ( talk · contribs) responded by removing Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs)’s unsourced and libelous edit from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and said that such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources and that it must be discussed, and consensus obtained at Talk:David Michael Jacobs first. I subsequently posted information about the sources for my factual and sourced edit on the talk page, but Mistereyuz ( talk · contribs) responded with unsubstantiated personal attacks, and no consensus has been reached. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Michael_Jacobs#Reversed_Edit)
The opening sentence of the David Michael Jacobs article is:
David Michael Jacobs is an American Historian and recently retired Associate Professor of History at Temple University specializing in twentieth century American history and culture. Jacobs is also well known in the field of Ufology for his research and authoring of books on the subject of alleged alien abductions.
My edit was the following sentence about a major controversy over Jacobs’ work in the field of Ufology:
His work caused controversy in the field of Ufology following the public release of recordings of hypnosis sessions that he conducted with a research subject of his known by the pseudonym "Emma Woods".
I provided nine sources for my edit which were the following:
The remaining sources were a series of episodes of the Paratopia radio show that addressed Jacobs’ work and the controversy over it. The hosts, Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann, were careful to fact check what was broadcast to cover themselves legally, and they aired audio from Jacobs’ hypnosis sessions with his former research subject:
My edit is factual and informs readers of an important controversy over David Jacobs’ work. I believe that it is sourced by reputable sources, and that it should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if you could you look into the matter for me. Thank you.
Michaela181 (
talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the following book look like a reliable source for medical claims? Becker, Marty (2002). The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-6808-2. IRWolfie- ( talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Prem Rawat article, an editor wants to insert additional material about a supporting quote, specifically mentioning that an Associate Chair of Criminal Justice of the University of Texas, San Antonio (Dr. Gilbert), is also an "expert" in the field of Restorative Justice. As evidence, he has given the following statement "When TPRF quotes Dr Gilbert, they describe him as "an expert in the new field of restorative justice."", although he has not provided any specific source for that claim within TPRF. TPRF is The Prem Rawat Foundation. It is a registered charity. They provide a program for prisoners that Dr. Gilbert endorsed. He further cites the fact that in Dr. Gilbert's CV linked from the UTSA website, it says he is "Director, Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy" (CV link here). His CV and the university (which is the source for our quote) has ample evidence that he is an expert in Criminal Justice, and our article attributes that. The editor also managed to find one article, co-written, "Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths by: Jung Choi, Diane Green, Michael Gilbert", in one journal, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. This editor also claims that we must enhance Dr. Gilbert's description because "If Dr Gilbert was a conventional criminologist his observations would carry a different weight. He is a forerunner in a new, and most would say, much improved and more human [ sic] way of doing things." He also adds "From his LinkedIn account, he is a member of "Restorative Justice - volunteers & practitioners" and "Restorative Justice International." I believe this is fringe, and completely unnecessary text. I also don't believe that his limited demonstrable experience in this field should in any way overshadow his solid credentials as an expert in the umbrella field of Criminal Justice. Thoughts? -- Maelefique (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
For the unbelievably bored among you, the entire discussion thus far is on the talk page here as well. -- Maelefique (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'm hoping some of you might think of something smart. I would really like to work out the distillation process on the Benrinnes article, but I don't have a proper source for it. What I do have is this blogspot post. The Blogspot post itself is kind enough to provide its sources, but I don't have access to those, so I can't look it up myself. It would certainly help the article if this could be included, but I wouldn't see how. So I'm hoping for something smart from the noticeboard here. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like an independent opinion whether Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and Shepherd the Flock of God, both published by Watch Tower, could be used as RS in articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is raised at JW:talk (only for Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock).
My opinions from the talk page: «It is appairently leaked on the internet, but a similar case regarding a letter headed to elders in JW congregations was dismissed as RS from most "independent" editors at RS noticeboard (I have to clearify the case is not yet closed), as the letter was not published on a reliable website, or confirmed by WTS, and was not concidered as "public accessible"» ... «The source appair not to be according to the description in Wikipedia:Published. I'll quote from the sector "discussion": "The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review the source ... The third party is someone who is unaffiliated with the editor, publisher, group or institution in control of the source," and a quote from examples: "Any item that is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'." As far as I can see, no exemplares are legally accessible for the public.» (See talk page for full discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.)
The book is only legally accesible for JW elders (from the talkpage, defending user: "The Shepherd the Flock book, however, is indisputably published by the WTS, though its official distribution is limited to congregation elders), is considered as property of WTS, and is only borrowed by the elders.
The "letter" mentioned, is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations (the link doesn't work anymore). In my opinion it is clear parallels between the letter and the book, and the only difference I can see, is the existence of the book is confirmed by WTS. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Self-published sources from the Watchtower, or, for that matter, the Vatican, can in general reasonably be considered reliable sources for non-controversial material about a subject, or for the opinions of the group itself, with some attention paid to the degree to which the material is clearly self-serving. I would have to think that those same basic standards would apply for this material as well. John Carter ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The title pretty much says it all. Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists [1] and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies. | ” |
“ | An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. | ” |
@WLU: Usually textbooks are tertiary or secondary sources for the most part. So you would have to be more specific concerning why and for what aspect exactly you'd suspect it to be a primary source. However more important than a formal distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary is the quality and reputation of the source. This seems to be a a book by renowned academic published with a renowned academic publisher, so I see no reason, why it couldn't or shouldn't be used as a source.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Now if WLU will kindly focus on content and refrain from personal attacks...
Are we in agreement that F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any term defined by any other RS as to be synonymous with infantilism without requiring WP:SYNTH? (This wouldn't be CB&B since CB&B doesn't mention "masochistic gynaephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms. This is odd considering that all the authors discussed so far work together.) BitterGrey ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@WLU, Greybitter: No offense but you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere. Since apparently you cannot agree on correct interpretation of the (reliable) source in question, you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine). There other WP editors with background knowledge on the subject may comment on the correct interpretation/use of the source. Alternatively request a third opinion or use a conflict resolution site, but please refrain from using this site as platform for your personal disagreements. The idea of site is to request reliability assessment from 3rd editors, it is not meant to continue your personal conflict/arguments. For that use the article's talk page or your personal talk pages or maybe some conflict resolution site.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I realize that this was marked resolved, but one point bares mentioning here. BitterGrey's idea of a primary source isn't correct. The Oxford Textbook is not a primary source by definition. If an article in the Textbook refers to a study and makes claims about that study that are incorrect then it makes incorrect claims, but that doesn't make it a primary source. Whether or not the Textbook is correct in its claim about the study it refers to is not a matter for this board to resolve, as Kmhkmh has pointed out several times. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This is now an ANI posting, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time. F&B doesn't define masochistic gynaephiles as "individuals who pretend they are children". In the section "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" on page 561 (first column, at bottom) it's talking about gynaephiles, who are masochistic, and these individuals who are both masochistic and gynaephiles are at the same time acting out sexual fantasies by pretending to be little boys or babies. In other words, Freund & Blanchard are discussing infantilists who also happen to be masochistic gynaephiles (or masochistic gynaephiles who also happen to be infantilists). So we were wrong in our interpretation of that section as a definition, but it doesn't matter since the paper is actually discussing a group of infantilists. The core use of the paper on parphilic infantilism is exactly the same, and it still beautifully illustrates how two groups (pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists) can be superficially similar in behaviour but completely different in motivation and etiology (as expressed on page 561, second column continued on page 562, "The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups."). All the uses remain the same, and Paul B's comment still applies. I've got to eat crow on that misinterpretation, but fortunately there's no changes required on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the past you have declined to answer such simple questions, I would assume it does not support your pre-existing conclusion and because the answers indicate that the sources are accurately summarized in their distinction between infantilists and pedophiles. I have little doubt that this practice will continue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
[81] asserts that hopenothate.org.uk is an RS because "they're organised by Searchlight)" The problem I have is that the website does not make that claim. At all. In fact it appears to be a specific activist organization, and hence not a "reliable source" per Wikipedia rules. [82] appears to indicate that there is no association between the two, and that the head of "HnH" is no longer associated with Searchlight. As the source is not Searchlight, and there is no connection between the two, the RS nature of the site must be considered afresh - and I assert that it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and, at most, can only be cited as to its own opinion, properly weighted. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP recently added Hitsdailydouble.com to the Chris Brown discography article as a source for album sales. Is it reliable? Oz talk 07:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sources cited in this article, almost all of which are from Creationist organisations and in this context I would have thought, not to be relied upon. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to understand what, if anything this video can be used for. It is not uploaded by the source. It is uploaded by someone who's about section says:
Since it wasn't uploaded by the producer of the footage (La Nuova TV it looks like), can it be used for *anything* other than saying this youtube video exists?
I also have questions about the RS-ness of www.lanuovatv.it (the original source I'm assuming) as well, as their website indicates no editorial oversight control or business credentials, which I think is necessary for a "news" channel, but that might be a question for another day. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Slumz.boxden.com reliable as a source for US album sales? Oz talk 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Congrtulations for finally changing his birth year from 1960 (wrong) to 1956 (right). However, the actual birthdate is still wrong. It is March 23 (right) not May 5 (wrong). This information can be verfied by Icon Film Productions, who are responsible for the making of the show "River Monsters".
I wanted to add some precision to claims to do with Greater London being called ceremonial county. Conspicuously not called so by any official websites such as [84]
The first thing to realise is that Greater London was explicitly not made a county although removing counties:
London Government Act 1963 3 (1) (a)
"no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;"
views the schedule (appendix) as creating a county of London [85] because it defines it as "the counties for the purposes of this act"
However if you look at the order that follows on from the act: [86] Greater London is not constituted as a county.
The legal definition for the area can be confirmed from a later act from 2001 [87] Referring to "The Lordships Lieutentant"
The problem is that surprisingly strong POV issues arise from this - because it suggests there was usage of the word county for Greater London. Now the term Geographic county also redirects to this page and then there is the issue of Middlesex etc. There is little point going into the details butone example when a historically important area has no reference to the county it was in (and many still regard it to be in) i,e. Kingston [88] but states that is in the ceremonial county of Greater London.
The page claiming GL is a CC has been up since 2003 and still I cannot find any evidence to support an unambiguous claim that GL is a ceremonial county independent of wikipedia's claim.
Also being stopped from referring to Greater London as an area before admin body 1965 despite being used from before 1907 perhpas this is the clearest reference [89] The region is called "Greater London." Tetron76 ( talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The LGA 1888 did not abolish or alter the historic Counties themselves. The General Register Office's Census Report of 1891 carefully distinguished between what it dubbed the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. No subsequent Act has ever tried to alter or abolish the historic Counties; their continued existence has been consistently reaffirmed by the Government.
Swan Upping is the annual census of the swan population on stretches of the Thames in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire
I'm being accused of being unreasonable for rejecting several sources on the topic of Nelly Furtado's citizenship.
I don't think any of these meet our policies for reliable sourcing, but I'm posting it here to see if anyone thinks I'm missing something.— Kww( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we all know that she is in fact Portuguese Canadian, the problem being that there is no reliable source.........why don't you state her as "Portuguese Canadian" and type "citation needed", next to it......can that be done? Because stating her as "canadian", just because there is no direct source.....doesn't make the article more accurate, in my opinion. Manas justice ( talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just "what everyone knows".....several members have stated that according to the laws of Portugal, children of Portuguese parents are immediately citizens of Portugal. Since Nelly's parents were both born in Portugal, Nelly is a citizen of Portugal, without any doubt, and we also have a video in which she says, "I'm Portuguese Canadian"....so is that counted as a reliable source? 120.60.55.249 ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the situation goes well beyond what Kww described here, and notice that he decided to mention exactly what I argued to be the least important about this subject. The main issue here is that in the referred wikipedia text, Nelly Furtado´s Canadian citizenship was given for granted, which I don´t contest, based on the "ius soli" law principle, that predominates in the Americas. However, Portugal and most other European countries grant automatic citizenship based on "ius sanguinis". This means that the main principle to become a Canadian citizen, is to be born in Canada, and on the contrary, the main principle to become a Portuguese citizen, is to have Portuguese parents. Therefore, Nelly Furtado is both Canadian and Portuguese. Requests of a so called "proof" of her being a Portuguese citizen are just as absurd as asking for "proof" for her being a Canadian citizen, as she was granted both countries´ nationality after being born from Portuguese parents, in Canada. This can be checked at wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_nationality_law Again, I repeat, the granting of Portuguese citizenship in Nelly Furtado´s case is AUTOMATIC according to Portuguese law. If you need more references on Portuguese law books stating the same as the wikipedia article, please just say so. Nothing more than this should be needed, as countries should be treated as equals by wikipedia, as should their nationality laws. However, if anything else was to be needed, I feel that an interview given by herself, in Portuguese, to a Brazilian TV, where she says "I am Canadian, but also Portuguese", and further ahead even adds "my heart and soul are Portuguese", should be a good enough aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do But I say it once again, the main issue here is that she was granted Portuguese citizenship automatically, by birth, and that wikipedia should not privilege any country´s laws, or any person´s view of citizenship over another. She is a dual citizen of both Canada and Portugal. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so in your view, why is she reported as Canadian, as there is absolutely no source in the text for it? Also, herself saying she is both Portuguese and Canadian while being interviewd by a TV does not constitute a source for you? If the very person saying she is Portuguese is not a source, may I ask what is? 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Her exact words are "My parents are from the Azores. I was born in Canada, I am Canadian, but also Portuguese." She is clearly comparing her Canadian condition with her Portuguese condition. I would like to add that her parents being both Portuguese and born in Portugal is an undeniable fact, there are inumerous sources, and inumerous interviews of herself talking about it. There´s more than one where she also talks about how she always came to spend every single summer with her parents in the Azores, talking about her other Portuguese family members influencing her choice to do music, saying how she started singing in Portuguese far before than in English, etc. But for me, this is not the main point. People say that affirming she is Portuguese because her parents are Portuguese and that´s how citizenship is automatically granted under Portuguese law (and in most of Europe) is "deducing"... But for one to assume that she is Canadian because she was born in Canada, that is no longer "deducing"... For example, a person born in Portugal is not granted citizenship for being born in the country, but is automatically granted citizenship only if the parents are Portuguese, no matter where he or she is born. One should accept any concept of citizenship as long as it is in accordance to the law, and not admit a bias view that makes no argument against the "ius soli" follower countries, but demands "proof" for the "ius sanguinis" follower countries. It´s purely a matter of understanding what citizenship is, to see that she both Portuguese and Canadian. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
About her parents being Portuguese there are already reliable sources on the wikipedia text other than youtube. From there, to say that she is Portuguese, if a person is impartial, is exactly the same as saying she is Canadian because she was born in Canada. Same respect for both countries´ laws. No difference of any kind. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The law as described in this English translation posted is close to accurate, even if this is not the last version. All that is needed for a person born from a Portuguese parent abroad (Nelly´s case) to be considered officially a full Portuguese citizen, is to either be registered by the parent, or for the person to declare himself or herself as Portuguese at any point in life. I don´t know about her being registered or not, but there are many interviews where she talks about herself as being Portuguese, written and in video. Unfortunately, there is no picture of her Portuguese ID, and obviously there will never be, and that seems like the only thing that would be admissible by some people here to prove it, as her own words are not. So, this discussion does seem like going on in circles... 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I would think so too, I can give you a few right away, but they are in Portuguese and on youtube, and that seems to be unacceptable. I already posted the one where she most clearly said it, comparing it with her being Canadian, and it was considered not to be admissible. I just found another where she says "I´m proud of being Portuguese", but again, youtube and Portuguese... I will really try to see if I can find the original TV links, as these are TV interviews... 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Kww how many people who are a citizen of a country do you know that say that they are a "whatever" CITIZEN at any given time? Do you think anyone normal would ever talk about her nationality like that? When people ask about your nationality, do you add CITIZEN to the end of the sentence? Do you really think that makes any sense? And just like you said, where does she say she is a Canadian citizen? All I have seen so far were sources saying she was Canadian, not a citizen, right? 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If it is not a matter of being bias, and if it is not a matter of discriminating upon nationality, then a reliable source stating that she is a Canadian CITIZEN has to be added for such statement to be made as well. So, no nationality of any kind should be used for Nelly Furtado until a source that specifies she is a CITIZEN of any country according to the specifications indicated here is made. Can anyone impartially object against this? Same principles and justice for all. 194.79.73.25 ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems pretty WP:LAME. Please read over the battle over Chopin:
"Was Chopin Polish, French, Polish–French, or French–Polish? For years, there has been a low level (and at times high intensity) conflict about which country can claim Chopin as its son. Or was it Szopen? The observer learns a lot about the Napoleonic code, about the nuances of "citizenship," "nationality," and "ethnicity." Students of law can argue the finer points of jus sanguinis and jus soli. The use of "Polish born" is branded as a racist slur. There is spirited debate about whether the citing of a passage of law is considered original research, tantamount to "dropping Mentos into a bottle of Pepsi to see if it will explode." Can you emigrate from a country of which you are not a citizen? Can you receive citizenship if you already have it? The possibilities for intensive study are endless. Celebrity witnesses such as Obama, Churchill, Sean Taro Ono Lennon and Dr. Seuss are pressed into making appearances. Collateral damage even reaches WP:Lame, where the Chopin entry is removed because of an alleged lack of lameness. And then there are the trolls. Even Chopin's remains are divided. The body rests in Paris, the heart in Warsaw." A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Are y'all just doing this to make everyone over at the Prem Rawat article feel a little less silly about the things we are argue about? :) -- Maelefique (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nuclear Physics and Energy Catalyzer, the misleadingly titled "Journal of Nuclear Physics" is actually a self-published blog about a purported cold fusion device. However, Masud Ahmad, Fayyazuddin, and Samar Mubarak Mand contain citations to Journal of Nuclear Physics as if it was a legitimate scientific journal. This raises the following questions:
Is there more than one thing called "Journal of Nuclear Physics"?
Should the references to JoNP on the Ahmad/Fayyazuddin/Mand pages be labeled as being from a blog as we do on the Energy Catalyzer page? Deleted? Left as is?
Is there a central place where we keep a list of sources that are known to be unreliable? Should there be? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like some opinions here as to whether BostonHitman.com can be considered a reliable source. It is being used in the The Friends of Eddie Coyle article to source the claim that actor Robert Mitchum met with members of the Boston underworld while researching his role in the film. This seems like a very bold claim to me, and one that would require a very good source to support it. The question, then, is whether this website can be considered such a source. I have my doubts, but would like to hear what other editors think. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this source, [106] reliable for this claim "Troy Brooks stated Jesus Christ would return on this day (Tisha B'Av), with the 7 year Tribulation to precede from Feast of Trumpets Sept. 14, 2015 to Aug. 7, 2022." on this article List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events?
The debated change can be viewed here: [107] Freikorp ( talk) 05:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This is Troy Brooks who said this not some Rabbi. Troy is the first person on the planet to declare the Tribulation from Sept. 14, 2015 Feast of Trumpets (first rapture according to readiness this day) to Tisha B'Av Aug. 7, 2022 (Jesus steps down this day) for a total of 2,520 days. Troy owns biblocality.com. Mark Biltz has nothing to do with this timeline. Mark is thinking of other stuff unrelated and not seeing the Tetrad comes before the Tribulation. Rev. 6.12 occurs before the first trumpet of the Tribulation (8.7). Troy believes in Partial Rapture. Mark Biltz doesn't. First rapture is "before the throne" (7.9) before the first trumpet and it is according to readiness (Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10).
The source is at [108], an appendix to the Book of Mormon. Who wrote this and where isn't clear. See for instance this edit at Dan, at Jordan [109] and Carchemish [110]. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Decline of Nair Dominance: Society and Politics in Travancore 1847–1908. Sussex University Press.(1994) by Jeffrey, Robin ( ISBN 0856210544)
Is this book a reliable one on the concerned subject? I think the book is not available online. Can such a book be considered reliable?. - InarZan ( talk) 13:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Are other language sources acceptable? For example, are Malayalam language sources acceptable in articles related to Kerala? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Please sign your contributions.
See: WP:Reliable sources/Cost Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Andrea Lehotská ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a number of assertions about Lehotská's accomplishments in this article that are sourced to an Italian online periodical called Lettera 43 or L43. I'm not Italian and not familiar with Italian sources. Each of the citations in the Lehotská article point to a picture in a slide show with a blurb, and the material in our article is "supported" by that blurb. The very look of each of these pages makes me think unreliable, but I can't tell what kind of fact-checking is done by L43 generally and, more specifically, what kind of fact-checking is done in this particular section of its website, which they happily call "Gossip".
Can we use these citations for this material?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396 is given as the source for a claim:
The precis does not seem to make the claim, and the source is not available to me - can anyone verify that this is a proper claim as sourced? 22 pages seems a bit much to wade through if the text is as convoluted as the abstract. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The Messianic Judaism article cites Shoshanah Feher's "Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira" (1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 140) as positive proof that the movement began in the 1960s. The quote in fact is an off-hand undocumented assumption in the closing pages of the book ("This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose.") Such as weak source should not be accepted as an authoritative source for the purpose it's being used.-- DeknMike ( talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that no more of your words will be productive. (Note that ignoratio elenchi can also mean "Irrelevant conclusion: diverting attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.) Your circular arguments make no sense: "because Feher is a reliable source and agrees with those other reliable sources, we must therefore assume it is a reliable source." The whole point of seeking OUTSIDE discussion is to have a 3rd party look at the source and affirm its historical sourcing methodology. Neither Fifelfoo nor The Red Pen of Doom 'agreed' with the statement; they started a reasoned discussion, and you piled on with backstory to obscure the question. You must think that saying the same thing over and over will make it true ( argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum verbosum). -- DeknMike ( talk) 03:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Can this site be used as a reliable source for a minor and non-controversial information about a New Zealand building? It is a news site run by journalism students of Whitireia New Zealand. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Randy Cassingham a reliable source for this? He doesn't seem to have any relevant expertise. 86.** IP ( talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I've begun trying to remove the unreliable sources, then. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In the BLP article for B. Ramanath Rai, a now-deadlinked genealogical website is used to source the ethnicity ( Bunt) of the article subject. I found the website at Wayback, thus "Bellipady Family Website". bellipadyfamilytrus. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 18 October 2010..
This is tricky. As a general rule, in Indian-related articles at least, there is consensus that caste assertions require self-identification if the person is living, rather as with WP:BLPCAT. If that was the sole issue, then I would take this matter to WP:BLPN or WT:INB. However, I need first to determine whether a website that is no longer live, looks amateurish in design (although perhaps not by the standards of its day), and clearly falls within the general scope of being a self-published source can be reliable. We do not know if Rai himself had an involvement, whether it may have been his decision to pull the thing, etc. Bit of a nightmare, really, but I'd bet someone would argue that as a family site it amounts to self-identification for BLP purposes. My gut feeling is that it is unreliable as a source because we cannot determine whether he agreed to the details contained within it, but I would appreciate the opinion of others. - Sitush ( talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.
In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage. [7] Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, [2] [3] while others cite it to be a result of date rape. [5] [8] The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950. [9]
Can someone verify the following part of it?
The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950. [9]
If the marriage certificate is true, then almost all the biographers are wrong. That's serious.
I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility.
References
Cantor
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BTW, I have already posted this to help desk, village pump, and Wikiprojecr Fact and Reference Check... no success so far. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)