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 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | → | Archive 125 |
Martin Hosking ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we use a company SEC filing as a source for biographical material about one of its officers? The material here would be
From 1994 to 1996, Mr. Hosking was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, a management consulting company. Prior to that time, Mr. Hosking served with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a Diplomat in Egypt and Syria and held various senior posts in Canberra, Australia. Mr. Hosking holds a B.A. in history and economics from the University of Melbourne, Australia.
Seems to me that it's a primary source and some of the material is self-serving and BLP-related. I would feel the same if the background material were on the company's website.
At the same time, it's not horribly self-serving, and you'd think the company would be careful about what it says. I'd really prefer a secondary source, though.
My musings aside, is the source reliable for the assertions?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a bit of experience with SEC filings. There are very strong legal reasons why they are truthful and so on the facts would rank ahead of most other sources including secondary . So as a primary source they have high credibility. They can be coloured, of course, and I would avoid taking the adjectives at face value (e.g. "senior"). XcommR ( talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
And while the SEC filing is a primary source for some content, for material like this it's a secondary source. The corporate employment records themselves, etc., or the subject's CV, perhaps, would be primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading, this, the TV Guide website is a primary source that requires interpretation. OTOH, not having read through every last blow-by-blow revert in this edit war, nobody has come up with anything better. It does seem, um, dubious however that episodes sat around for five years before being aired for the first time. One would hope that there was some source out there that could make a definite statement about when the series ended its first run. Mangoe ( talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, Suzanne Finstad's Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley (1997, new edition 2006) seems to be a reliable source. The book is written by a reputable biographer, journalist and lawyer who has received the Frank Wardlaw Prize in 1984 for literary excellence for her first book. The book is well sourced, as the author spent three years researching and writing the first biography of Priscilla Presley, thereby providing a detailed account of Priscilla’s childhood, including Priscilla’s discovery of her true father at eleven, her courtship by Elvis when she was 14 years old, their marriage, and her management of Elvis Presley Enterprises after their divorce and his death. The study is based on extensive interviews with Priscilla herself, her family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis’s circle in Memphis and in Germany. Harmony Books, which is part of The Crown Publishing Group, a subsidiary of Random House (the world's largest book publisher publishing across several categories including fiction, non-fiction, biography, autobiography and memoir, cooking, health, business, and lifestyle) published Child Bride in the United States in 1997; Century London, a successful publisher of bestselling authors, published the book in the U.K.
However, some users claim that the book is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards, as Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. It should be noted that the book's author, Suzanne Finstad, was not part of the lawsuit. Furthermore, in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny."
It is interesting to note that most parts of Finstad's book have been republished without difficulties in a new edition that appeared some years after the said lawsuit. Query: may Finstad's Child Bride be used as a reliable source, if Currie Grant's statements are not cited? Onefortyone ( talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
ElvisFan1981 ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I won't argue it any more. ElvisFan1981 ( talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this site is a reliable source on the characters? NB I'm not asking about the actors. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band
Deftones, the source says:
I have to point that a source from the
post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor
[2] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.
[3]
What does the people at RS/N think?
Thrash Hits homepage:
[4]
-
Trascendence (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the official fan site for Philip K. Dick, http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/ (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com) a reliable source? There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.
The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exists elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.
Also, another fact is that this site was the official Philip K. Dick site until the domain name was taken over but the Estate. The content here is not only generated by one fan but by scholars who are fans of the writer. The content linked to is from published works by scholars who teach or write or other secondary and primary sources like Wikipedia requires. I don't believe that the site is a fan site as defined by Wikipedia.
I would like to add these links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick to the site:
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/ An encyclopedia of all of Philip K. Dick's writing
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdicktionary/ A listing of all of the words that Philip K. Dick created in his writing
Horselover Fat ( talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to ascertain 'the next step' in having a site which is currently classified as non-RS, re-classified as RS.
On March 27, following suggestion by Dirk Beetstra, I opened this item on RS/N: [ [5]]
I made the case and presented evidence for the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being an authoritative news-based online publication for which an RS classification would be appropriate.
To date we've had one response: "Sounds RS to me" (from Collect) on March 27.
In the absence of any voices raised for AusBT being not suitable for RS, what's the next step in having AusBT re-classified as RS?
I've spent the last 30 minutes poking around Wikipedia but can't see any clear evidence of what the process is for progressing and finalising this, nor how related current actions such as automatic non-RS flagging by an XLinkBot can be amended.
I'd appreciate any suggestions or clarity on finalising this, thanks.
Djsflynn ( talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I used the fact box in
this source to write the following: The Western Wall is one of the holiest of Jewish sites, sacred because it is a remnant of the ancient wall that once enclosed the Jewish
Second Temple.
An editor has described this as original research. Your thoughts please.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::The press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority [2] upon which the Mail story is based might be a better source. There is a mention in the Jerusalem Post. [3] Any published papers by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron might be better but they may not appear for some time. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently, Andy Dingley added three sources to The City of Lost Children to backup the claim that this is a "steampunk" movie. I do not think any of these sources pass muster as reliable sources, but I want some opinions from editors here. The sources are: The Steampunk Tribune ( http://steampunktribune.com), the website of the Brattle Film Theatre ( http://brattlefilm.org/) in Cambridge, Mass., and The Steampunk Forge ( http://thesteampunkforge.wordpress.com). None of the sources provided actually back up the claim made in the article, i.e. that the "film is widely regarded as one of the first steampunk films". Two blogs and the website of a movie theatre do not seem sufficient to backup this claim. All they really argue is that people in the steampunk subculture have laid claim to the film and draw inspiration from it. This is essentially the same argument made over and over when people attempt to claim, without sufficient sources, that Brazil is a steampunk film. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Also raised at WP:ANI#user:RepublicanJacobite.2C_Steampunk.2C_WP:OWN_and_forum_shopping. RepublicanJacobite has removed all three of the references again. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The article entitled Mazhory uses an article "Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables", by Mykola Riabchuk. This article was first published on Ukraine Analysis The article claims to be an analysis of incidents where rich and well connected people in Ukraine are reported by newspapers to have engaged in violent criminal acts. The article says that they are all connected to the conservative party, which in Ukraine is known as the Party of the Regions.
I believe that Riabchuk's article is an opinion piece by someone described as a journalist. If it is, then various wikipedia policies such as WP:NEWSORG and Wikipedia:No original research would class it as a primary source.
Mykola Riabchuk's claims are a fringe theory. They are (or appear to be) political propaganda attacking one political party in Ukraine. In reality, there are criminals in all political parties in Ukraine, and very large numbers of criminal investigations are currently being pursued in Ukraine against politicians of all political parties and also against other public servants who are believed to have abused their power.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I posted the following in the article on
Amitabh Bachchan:
=== Amitabh Bachchan on Ajmal Kasab ===
In 2009, Amitabh Bachchan posted a comment on his blog that the lone surviving terrorist of 26/11 attacks, [[Ajmal_Kasab|Amir Ajmal Kasab]], is the "safest person" in the country. Maharashtra Chief Minister [[Ashok_Chavan|Ashok Chavan]] disapproved this comment but according to media reports, Maharashtra Government had till that time spent rupees 31 crores to protect [[Ajmal_Kasab|Kasab]].<ref> {{cite news|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/state-news/maha-cm-disapproves-of-kasab-most-safe-comment_584895.html|publisher=[[Zee News]] |title=Maha CM disapproves of 'Kasab most safe' comment: PTI |accessdate=2012-04-16}}</ref>.
Some of the co-editors are frequently removing it, terming it as trivia. Amitabh Bachchan is a cinema icon in India and his view on security and terrorism in the India matter a lot. The information is properly sourced and is verifiable. Please enlighten me on the issue.
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
The source looks reliable, which is what this page is for. Whether the information should or should not be in the article is a different matter. You'll need to discuss the issues (eg WP:UNDUE) at the article talk page: click here. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on the Journal of Hate Studies? Looks like it's published by Gonzaga University, and the program of hate studies appears to be based out of the same institution. As of last August, it appears to have failed to catch on [7], though perhaps things have changed in the subsequent 8 months. Seems an odd little journal and field, though probably notable [8] [9]. It's used as a reference in corrective rape and I'm wondering if it's sufficiently reliable for use at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In a controversial May 2006 raid, Swedish RKP and local police seized the servers of BitTorrent tracker The Pirate Bay, causing a three day outage. The raid appeared to be motivated by pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a group that filed police complaints in Stockholm and Gothenborg in 2004 and 2005 against The Pirate Bay and sent a letter to Sweden's state secretary requesting action. [10] The raid was publicized as a success by the MPAA, but ridiculed by The Pirate Bay's operators. The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film. [11]
A dispute has arisen on
Trade group efforts against file sharing whether TorrentFreak is an appropriate source or not. TF has been discussed twice before. First in
May 2009 and again in
April 2010.
On this occasion, a perfectly reasonable complaint by the Motion Picture Association of America to Swedish authorities regarding the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay is conveyed by TorrentFreak under the headline "MPAA Begged Sweden to Take Down The Piratebay". A tad overstated, one might say, but the dismissive and disparaging tone is a common theme with TorrentFreak, who often attribute the worst possible motivations to individuals and groups who hold a different philosophy.
Arguments in favour of using TF include:
Arguments against:
In the current discussion ( torrentfreak meets WP:RS) I'm in the minority by arguing against inclusion (3 to 1). I am told that hundreds of external links to TF already exist on Wikipedia; that it's recognised by Wikipedians as reliable for "straight news reporting"; and that I am "pushing a pro-industry POV" for desiring a neutral source. Clarity and fresh input is most welcome because this area is still a learning processes for me, regardless of outcome. — ThePowerofX 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Mazhory, the list of citations include a large number in Russian and Ukrainian. These are very good citations.
Does the title need to be translated into English as well as appearing in the original text?
I interpreted Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations as meaning that since the titles were being quoted in a foreign language, translations into English of the titles must also be given. However this is disputed. Please advise.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable? Really, the amount of episodes would be verified by paper, not electronics. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Education_Services There is a discussion about the California Miramar University article. Specifically on whether or not Education_Services is a reliable source for the history of Pacific Western University, which was the previous name for CMU. One side of the argument is that "State of California that officially lists and recognizes ES as the recognized and official source of records for PWU California by the State of California, employers, government agencies, law enforcement agencies and the courts. This puts ES in a recognized second party position to comment on all aspects of the article dealing with students and graduates of PWU California regardless of the 2004 GAO report. Note: the State of California site lists ES as the, "custodian of records". It does not distinguish merely academic/student records." My view is that there is a bit of word play going on here. I think that within academic institution terms a "custodian of records" is understood to be graduation records, not records for history of an institution. To me the ES website is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Doing a reverse address lookup for suite #1304 at 11835 Carmel Mtn. Road on Google maps I find Keller Williams Realty: 11835 Carmel Mountain Rd #1304, San Diego, CA 92128 not Education Services. My view is that ES is apparently owned or somehow related to CMU. Looking at the ES website, it does not appear to be a reliable source for CMU history. The address thing is more like icing on the cake, so to speak.
Your opinion would be welcome. Zugman ( talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Movopia (specifically, these pages on it: [13], [14], [15]) acceptable to support these edits to the Mike Manning (actor) article? Nightscream ( talk) 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Boyé Lafayette De Mente is an alumnus of Thunderbird School of Global Management. He is neither a sociologist, nor a sexologist. But an editor insists the book Sex and the Japanese: The Sensual Side of Japan (p.115) written by him could be used as an RS for the article Car sex for the information "In Japan, car sex is known as Ka sekusu. This a common practice among Japanese youth." Second opinion is needed. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This crap is a plague; currently it is cited in 75 articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#MobileReference for background. Is there a way to automatically slap a tag on all citations to MobileReference (and periodically repeat that since new instances are bound to crop up) to alert editors and readers that this stuff is absolutely unacceptable for sourcing? An article that cites fake sources is worse than an article that cites no sources at all. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On the article Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact, I was recommended on the talk page to add to the article information from the following source:
Robert A. Freitas Jr., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, First Edition, Xenology Research Institute, Sacramento, CA, 1979
While the book is not self-published, or published by an organization connected to the author beyond whatever is required to get a book published, the very name "Xenology Research Institute" raises eyebrows. The book cannot be found on Google Books (as far as I know from numerous searches of "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact") and I have yet to see anything about a more recent (2008) edition in Google News. The book is only attested to on blogs and various organizations.
However, the book itself does not seem bad. The information seems to be quite accurate at first glance, and even upon a deeper reading of some parts, the information passes every test with flying colors. The book has citations to reliable sources and is logically believable. I am torn regarding its reliability, and request an outside individual to make a fair and honest study of the book.
The book is available online; just search its title. Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 06:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say that someone who was an expert in the field 20+ years ago, who has not published anything since, would still be considered an expert today? Is there an expiry date on "expert"-ness? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis regarding the possible inclusion of a selfpublished e-book in the article. The book is one of a few works published about this fringe theory and is interesting because it has the participation of a well known specialist - but it has not generated any new interest in the scholarly community and it has not been reviewed or evaluated by other scholars (no peer review, and no post-publication reviews). The question is whether the book can/should be mentioned as an example of a recent publication not whether it can be used to support statements of fact. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Are original articles published by natllawreview.com reliable, per se? The site has advertising and they are promotional. Submissions ("well-researched legal analysis or how-to articles") are reviewed mainly for interest to their readers. There is no listed editorial board. Authors pay a "nominal fee" to have their articles published unless they are from a non-profit. In return, authors' names and their firms' names and logos (even promotional videos) are prominently displayed on the article page and new submissions are featured on the main page. "... the National Law Review provides an excellent opportunity for your firm to put your name and knowledge in front of thousands of legal consumers who are actively seeking your expertise."
From About Us:
From the FAQ:
(They also distribute articles from other sources, but I think those should be validated based on the original source. I am only questioning their original articles.) Joja lozzo 04:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this article The National Law Review. The web site is the online presence of a law journal going back a long time. I don't know if that would alter our thinking since it still appears to be promotional and below academic review standards. Joja lozzo 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Kind of feel like the National Law Review is being singled out here a bit. Are there any examples or instances of incorrect or slanted information being attributed to the National Law Review. Many of the references listed above are taken out of context. For example, if you read on the same page that the "Jojalozzo" tries to draw the conclusion that their is no editorial board: "We do not publish firm press releases or other promotional material. But if you have written an analytical article examining a recent court decision, legal trend, or legislative action, we encourage and welcome your submission for publication consideration." Somebody there is deciding what gets published. The National Law Review first started publishing in 1888. It does publish content from law firms, generally some of the United State's largest and most have partners involved in their authorship. Virtually every law firm and law school which contributes to the National Law Review has a wiki page as they are some of the most established legal organizations in the United States. The contributing law firms and law schools are opening listed here: http://www.natlawreview.com/National-Law-Review-Contributing-Law-Firms-Organizations. If the listing is reviewed, most of the law firms listed are AM Law ranked or Martindale Hubble recognized law firms and all of the law schools are accredited by the ABA. Additionally, if you read further about the advertising standards of the National Law Review, they expressly state that they do no accept direct ads from Law Firms. If accepting advertising alone is a disqualification to be listed as a reference, kindly disqualify all citations to every major newspaper, and journalist website too.
Regarding advertising, reliable newspapers and magazines maintain a firewall between advertising and editorial divisions. The online National Law Review does not appear to do that. It solicits content with a promise of promoting the firm or organization that provides the material. It does not appear that NLR's editorial decisions are isolated from revenue making decisions. The fact that editorial decision process is so loosely defined does nothing to improve the picture.
I think we could approach this site according to the same criteria as self-published sources which are considered reliable when we can establish the credentials of the authors. I do not think we can confer blanket reliability on all NLR content, since it appears that they will publish interesting, readable content that is written by most any lawyer who pays them to publish it. Joja lozzo 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was adding the truth given by Sri Lankan Defence Ministry Website [2] The Nation (Sri Lanka) and http://sinhalaya.com that Channel 4 is funded by LTTE.It has been been removed.
It is funded by money from the LTTE [3] [4] [5] රණකාමි333 ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Sri Lanka News | Ministry of Defence and Urban Development Archived 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine that is Defence.lk website is a government website and is a reliable site and http://sinhalaya.com is anti terrorist site. රණකාමි333 ( talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if these guys can be considered reliable. For example, a contributor is citing what looks to me like unsupported gossip about new characters coming to the series, Young Justice. Looking at their 'About' page doesn't fill me with confidence as to any real substantive editorial oversight or separation of fact from fan gossip. Any suggestions as to how I can address this? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been in discussion with Kashif Siddiqi for a long time now regarding his article, he's been e-mailing me news stories & websites etc. to expand his article. He's sent me an e-mail containing a letter from the Pakistan Football Federation confirming his number of international caps, looks legit to me, on headed paper, how can I source it on the article? Giant Snowman 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure sourced exist out there confirming the contents, but none in English, and I don't speak Urdu. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll e-mail back asking him to get the PFF to put a scan on their website. Thanks, Giant Snowman 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So just to clarify the original question, am I right in understanding that personal letters may be reliable depending on the context, but that unpublished personal letters are a categorical exception because they are collectively too fraught with potential for POV introduction? In other words, the usability analysis of unpublished letters dies before we get to the question of reliability because A)It is difficult to verify and B)There is too much potential for misuse. Is that about right? - Thibbs ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Pandolin is a website I came across a few times while searching for film-related stuff. I would like to know whether this can be considered a reliable source; the website seems to be well-organised but gives a very bloggy feel. Very specifically, I was interested in this, this and this. They are all interviews of people related to films. Are interviews usable as reliable source despite the source website? I mean, they are interviews. Thanks. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have recently been going through WikiProject Video Games' list of sources to determine reliability in cases where multiple prior discussions of the source have already taken place. So I've dug through the talk archives there and here, and I've come up with a number of summaries for these prior discussions. Based on these prior discussions I have attempted to determine what the current consensus is regarding the reliability of the source.
This is not always a simple task and I have requested input from WP:VG members to A)Verify that I have properly summarized the prior discussions, and B)Weigh in on whether the source is reliable or not. I have received a tepid response (2 or 3 editors reviewed a good number of my summaries and weighed in, and perhaps 4 or 5 others commented on at least 1 summary) and consequently there are still 4 more source summaries that need comment at east to verify that I've properly analyzed prior discussions. I would be very grateful if someone(s) here could take a look at these sources. I'll provide links to the 4 summaries below:
Please comment on whether I've properly summarized the prior emergent consensus and if you feel up to it please comment on the reliability of the source. You may also check out the other sources listed in the grand list if you're in the mood. While some summaries have collected comments from up to 4 editors, the bulk of them only have a single 3rd party comment so more (contemporary 2012-era) eyes would be helpful. - Thibbs ( talk) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned by some of the sources used in this article about a British private middle-school (Junior-high). Most of the references appear to be from local newspapers which seem to report on sporting fixtures, awards, scholarships and other routine school matters. This seems to reflect this newspaper's unusual editorial policy rather than any significant notability of the school, since just about every British private school engages in similar activities (e.g. sports, awards, scholarships etc). There's no actual news. Are these kinds of sources considered to be sufficiently reliable to establish notability of a school? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this webpage an rs for edits like this? (Update:) Oh wait, it says "Wordpress" at the bottom of the page. That makes it just a blog, right? Nightscream ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A lot of off-topic bickering, 99% from involved editors from Jefferson talk page. No specific question regarding a statement and a source here anywhere. |
---|
Not relevant for RS/N... |
Are self published summary articles written by a private organization like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) considered reliable when there is no author/expert taking credit for the authorship? The policy reads: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine) I have seen some editors use a web-page article from the TJF as a reliable source, but there is no "established expert" or author and the info in the article has not been published by reliable third-party publications. Are these web page summary articles with no author/expert considered reliable sources? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The TJF and the Smithsonian are American institutions. There is no need to have a single author source, such as in a book or article, if the established web pages are not considered fringe web sites. Please stop attacking American institutions. As an American citizen I give full support to dedicated professionalism at both the TJF and the Smithsonian. Both of these sites have emails that users can get information requests on how these sites source their material. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For instance, in 1996 in his American Sphinx, Ellis had rejected the idea that Jefferson was the father, based on his interpretation of character. At the announcement of the DNA results in 1998 and after, Ellis talked on PBS Newshour and in other venues to say he had changed his mind: he believed the DNA results for a descendant of Hemings' youngest son showed that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with her. [8] Others came to similar conclusions. In 1998 Annette Gordon-Reed published a revised version of her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), which had critically examined the historiography related to the controversy, and showed how historians had overlooked significant evidence. The 1998 edition incorporated the DNA results, which she interpreted as affirming the paternity of Jefferson of Hemings' children, when combined with other historical evidence. Peter S. Onuf, now Thomas Jefferson Professor at UVA, and Jan Lewis edited Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture (1999), a collection of essays related to the topic. It included Philip D. Morgan's "Interracial Sex In the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World c.1700-1820", on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children in relation to his culture. [9]. Joshua D. Rothman published Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Interracial Relationships Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861, University of North Carolina Press, 2003, which acknowledged Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, and explored its meaning in the context of other interracial relationships in Charlottesville and Virginia. [10] These are examples of work being published by academic presses that were establishing the consensus referred to in the TJF article of 2010; others can be cited. Some historians, particularly those associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, have continued to disagree with these conclusions and have published other accounts. Parkwells ( talk) 13:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Closing commentsThe TJF is not an acceptable source for the
Hemings controversy, as they are clearly biased and selective in their evaluation of DNA and other evidence. At a press conference the TJF refused to admit that one of the its own committee members, Ken Wallenborn, M.D. not only noticed that the TJF committee had already made up their minds 'before' the DNA and other evidence was evaluated, but that they routinely dismissed evidence that pointed to other possible father(s) of Sally Hemings children. Head of that committee was
Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American/Special Programs at TJF. Another committee member
Lucia (Cinder) Stanton has made openly derogatory remarks towards Jefferson and
refers to him as "elusive and slippery" in her book 'Those who labored for my happiness' (hardly an objective title). Meanwhile NAACP president
Julian Bond sits on the TJF board of directors. The fact that this private organization harbored bias before evaluation of evidence and was/is personally involved with Hemings descendants collecting the 'oral history' that their report so heavily relied on more than establishes their bias and as such, plainly demonstrates that they are not reliable to use as a source for a 'Controversy' with so few tangible facts. --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
What a curious discussion. The original objection was that material published by the Foundation is not reliable because it is self-published. Then the objection was that no author was attributed to the material cited. Then, after others replied that the Foundation has well-established expertise on the topic of Jefferson's life with prestigious scholars as board members, that publishing anonymous summary material by non-profit organizations is standard practice, and that the citations from the Foundation are used in a tertiary manner to help establish a summary claim of historical consensus, the objection now has become that the Foundation is biased. The tactic seems to be that if one objection doesn't work, raise another one. The attribution of bias is based on several factors. Among these are: members of the Foundation argued for Jefferson's patrimony based on historical evidence before it was confirmed by biological evidence, a committee member used a quotation from Jefferson's writings as the title of a book, and a board member is president of an organization that promotes the advancement of an historically oppressed group through judicial and legislative action. Why bring up such weak objections about an issue that has nothing to do with self-publishing, the original objection? Is it because bias is really the fundamental issue? Raising the issue of bias, suggests that an ulterior motive is being used to besmirch the character of an otherwise respected person. How does it denigrate Jefferson to say that after his wife died he a had a long-term relationship with a woman he was not married to and that he had several children with her? Perhaps this makes a him a even more interesting and well-rounded human being than he was before this relationship came to light. This suggestion is only meant to show that this whole issue seems to arise from a felt need to defend Jefferson against unwarranted allegations and that this felt need may stem from a bias of its own -- a bias based on outdated beliefs about what is socially acceptable. Although these biases were certainly prevalent in Jefferson's time, Jefferson apparently rose above them. Perhaps it is better to follow his example and not let those biases govern our judgments today.
|
My original question was general and brief. If you need a specific statement in the Jefferson article this is one:
This is the address/page of the source being used.
Since this source, the TJF, were involved in the evaluation of DNA and other evidence and was exposed by one of their own committee members for strong negative bias/opinion before the evaluation had even begun and for ignoring evidence that didn't support their 'conclusion' I believe it is inappropriate to use this as a source, for the Controversy only. I also believe there are RS policy issues involving expert authors and self published material involved here. Thanks for your patience. My apologies for my part in the lengthy discussions. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, are these sources reliable for sourcing the sentence "Theodor Herzl saw Zionism as a "colonial idea"?
Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | The English were the first to recognize the necessity of colonial expansion in the modern world. Therefore, the flag of Great Britain is flying across the seas. And, therefore, I believe, the Zionist idea, which is a colonial idea, must be understood in England easily and quickly. | ” |
The ut tick has been adding http://ThePoliticalGuide.com to the external links section of several members of the US House and Senate. It doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source, although from a cursory glance it doesn't seem to be pushing a particular POV. Thoughts? Arbor8 ( talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to add Aravindan Neelakandan's summary of the above, using a series of articles starting with this as a source. However, I was stopped by Sitush. Can you please resolve the dispute?
vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki ( talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Wikipedia ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website. රණකාමි333 ( talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Source : Rajendra Prasad: A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - pp. 475-491, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 [25]: The section related to Saint Thomas Christians is authored by C.D Sebastian. Is it reliable a reliable source for the information regarding social status and cultural identity of the community? -- AshLey Msg 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
An important part of a dispute [28] at Programme for International Student Assessment is regarding this source: [29] (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? User:CartoonDiablo argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under poverty lines. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: [30]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link [31] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at nasspblogs. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: [32] which in turn seems to be citing this source: [33] (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. Poverty lines can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this specific article:
David Strovny. "Bathroom Sex Positions". AskMen.com. IGN. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the Bathroom sex article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N ( [38] [39] [40]) have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. Gobōnobo + c 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is occurring here:
We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.
I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from 64.223.235.254 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.
It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia, going to primary sources is most definitely not the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA 64.223.235.254 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continue, with a pronounced IDHT attitude and refusal to seek to understand our policies here. NPA and AGF aren't followed at all. RS isn't understood, with a denial that Time Magazine be used as a RS. They also insist that IMDB is a reliable source for her age, and refuse to accept our policies about the use of IMDB. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. Specifically, an anonymous editor added "American rapper Cage sampled the score in his song 'Agent Orange,'" and used the site to source this claim. Taking a look at the About Us page on whosampled.com, it says that the content is user-generated but is moderated, and gives a list of who the volunteer moderators are. This sounds a lot like what we do here at WP, and leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source. I would like to hear some other opinions, though, before removing the information from the article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not [41] is a reliable source? Angryapathy ( talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: [42] and [43]. I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Pogrom#Paragraphs_removed has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:
[In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them.] These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.
Here are some snippets from the wiki article Sam Harris (author):
Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.
Views gratefully received. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As others have said, this source could be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Sputnikmusic a reliable source to use in articles for songs and albums? For example this. The reviewer is apparently a user of the site, but I have seen the site used in other articles previously. Till I Go Home ( talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?
Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of William John Sullivan but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Can this be used? It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!
User:Kwamikagami argues that in our article on the Secular Islam Summit, we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that this article is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference was organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The summit was criticized by the Council on American–Islamic Relations as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.
I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — kwami ( talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — kwami ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on Creme Puff (cat) concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on Guinness World Records publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded [44]. There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on Guinness to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.
So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with Guinness World Records in general? — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for Gone with the Wind. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Worldwide_highest-grossing_films_.28adjusted_for_inflation.29_Guinness_World_Records_2012_.28.D1.81.29. Betty Logan ( talk) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, "According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive". — GabeMc ( talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of Will Tuttle's entry at List of vegans. The dispute is over whether the sources constitute RS status in regards to the claim he is vegan. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.
The edit in question: [45]
The sources:
The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You can read the policy for yourself at WP:SELFPUB. It is part of the Verifiability policy (policy, not a guideline):
It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page here below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. — GabeMc ( talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a question about three websites being used to source "cultural references" in The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald article. There is currently a dispute about the content in that section, and these are the only three examples that have any source at all, but I doubt any of these pass muster.
First is metal-archives.com, which previous discussions here on RSN indicate is not a reliable source. In this case, it is only useful to source that the band Jag Panzer recorded a cover of this song. That proves nothing about its notability.
Next is www.paulgross.org/music.htm, the personal/career website of Canadian actor/musician Paul Gross. This is being used to source the claim that he intended to use the song on his show Due South, but ultimately decided to write a song of his own. The page does support that claim, but the claim and the source are trivial.
Last is http://wiki.ytmnd.com, which sources the claim that there is a fad on this website relating to the song. To this, I have to say, "So what?" Even if the source supports the claim, this is utterly irrelevant to the song, and is completely trivial, not to mention obscure.
I would like to hear what other editors think of this information and the sources used to support these claims. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to know about the following sources whether they are reliable for quoting the casualty figure in the article Siachen Conflict:
There is also a related discussion on talk page of the article. On a side note majority of the troops died there because of extreme climatic conditions. -- SMS Talk 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
First this is an important figure of casualty in a war theater which cannot be poorly sourced. This figure will be used in the Infobox of the article so we need to be careful about not using improper sources.
Besides they do not give any clue on how they reached the figure of 15000, Which makes them unfit for such an important figure in the Infobox of the Siachen conflict article more discussion is on Talk:Siachen conflict-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
ill
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).salon.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | → | Archive 125 |
Martin Hosking ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we use a company SEC filing as a source for biographical material about one of its officers? The material here would be
From 1994 to 1996, Mr. Hosking was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, a management consulting company. Prior to that time, Mr. Hosking served with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a Diplomat in Egypt and Syria and held various senior posts in Canberra, Australia. Mr. Hosking holds a B.A. in history and economics from the University of Melbourne, Australia.
Seems to me that it's a primary source and some of the material is self-serving and BLP-related. I would feel the same if the background material were on the company's website.
At the same time, it's not horribly self-serving, and you'd think the company would be careful about what it says. I'd really prefer a secondary source, though.
My musings aside, is the source reliable for the assertions?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a bit of experience with SEC filings. There are very strong legal reasons why they are truthful and so on the facts would rank ahead of most other sources including secondary . So as a primary source they have high credibility. They can be coloured, of course, and I would avoid taking the adjectives at face value (e.g. "senior"). XcommR ( talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
And while the SEC filing is a primary source for some content, for material like this it's a secondary source. The corporate employment records themselves, etc., or the subject's CV, perhaps, would be primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading, this, the TV Guide website is a primary source that requires interpretation. OTOH, not having read through every last blow-by-blow revert in this edit war, nobody has come up with anything better. It does seem, um, dubious however that episodes sat around for five years before being aired for the first time. One would hope that there was some source out there that could make a definite statement about when the series ended its first run. Mangoe ( talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, Suzanne Finstad's Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley (1997, new edition 2006) seems to be a reliable source. The book is written by a reputable biographer, journalist and lawyer who has received the Frank Wardlaw Prize in 1984 for literary excellence for her first book. The book is well sourced, as the author spent three years researching and writing the first biography of Priscilla Presley, thereby providing a detailed account of Priscilla’s childhood, including Priscilla’s discovery of her true father at eleven, her courtship by Elvis when she was 14 years old, their marriage, and her management of Elvis Presley Enterprises after their divorce and his death. The study is based on extensive interviews with Priscilla herself, her family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis’s circle in Memphis and in Germany. Harmony Books, which is part of The Crown Publishing Group, a subsidiary of Random House (the world's largest book publisher publishing across several categories including fiction, non-fiction, biography, autobiography and memoir, cooking, health, business, and lifestyle) published Child Bride in the United States in 1997; Century London, a successful publisher of bestselling authors, published the book in the U.K.
However, some users claim that the book is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards, as Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. It should be noted that the book's author, Suzanne Finstad, was not part of the lawsuit. Furthermore, in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny."
It is interesting to note that most parts of Finstad's book have been republished without difficulties in a new edition that appeared some years after the said lawsuit. Query: may Finstad's Child Bride be used as a reliable source, if Currie Grant's statements are not cited? Onefortyone ( talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
ElvisFan1981 ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I won't argue it any more. ElvisFan1981 ( talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this site is a reliable source on the characters? NB I'm not asking about the actors. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band
Deftones, the source says:
I have to point that a source from the
post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor
[2] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.
[3]
What does the people at RS/N think?
Thrash Hits homepage:
[4]
-
Trascendence (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the official fan site for Philip K. Dick, http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/ (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com) a reliable source? There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.
The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exists elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.
Also, another fact is that this site was the official Philip K. Dick site until the domain name was taken over but the Estate. The content here is not only generated by one fan but by scholars who are fans of the writer. The content linked to is from published works by scholars who teach or write or other secondary and primary sources like Wikipedia requires. I don't believe that the site is a fan site as defined by Wikipedia.
I would like to add these links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick to the site:
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/ An encyclopedia of all of Philip K. Dick's writing
http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdicktionary/ A listing of all of the words that Philip K. Dick created in his writing
Horselover Fat ( talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to ascertain 'the next step' in having a site which is currently classified as non-RS, re-classified as RS.
On March 27, following suggestion by Dirk Beetstra, I opened this item on RS/N: [ [5]]
I made the case and presented evidence for the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being an authoritative news-based online publication for which an RS classification would be appropriate.
To date we've had one response: "Sounds RS to me" (from Collect) on March 27.
In the absence of any voices raised for AusBT being not suitable for RS, what's the next step in having AusBT re-classified as RS?
I've spent the last 30 minutes poking around Wikipedia but can't see any clear evidence of what the process is for progressing and finalising this, nor how related current actions such as automatic non-RS flagging by an XLinkBot can be amended.
I'd appreciate any suggestions or clarity on finalising this, thanks.
Djsflynn ( talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I used the fact box in
this source to write the following: The Western Wall is one of the holiest of Jewish sites, sacred because it is a remnant of the ancient wall that once enclosed the Jewish
Second Temple.
An editor has described this as original research. Your thoughts please.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::The press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority [2] upon which the Mail story is based might be a better source. There is a mention in the Jerusalem Post. [3] Any published papers by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron might be better but they may not appear for some time. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently, Andy Dingley added three sources to The City of Lost Children to backup the claim that this is a "steampunk" movie. I do not think any of these sources pass muster as reliable sources, but I want some opinions from editors here. The sources are: The Steampunk Tribune ( http://steampunktribune.com), the website of the Brattle Film Theatre ( http://brattlefilm.org/) in Cambridge, Mass., and The Steampunk Forge ( http://thesteampunkforge.wordpress.com). None of the sources provided actually back up the claim made in the article, i.e. that the "film is widely regarded as one of the first steampunk films". Two blogs and the website of a movie theatre do not seem sufficient to backup this claim. All they really argue is that people in the steampunk subculture have laid claim to the film and draw inspiration from it. This is essentially the same argument made over and over when people attempt to claim, without sufficient sources, that Brazil is a steampunk film. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Also raised at WP:ANI#user:RepublicanJacobite.2C_Steampunk.2C_WP:OWN_and_forum_shopping. RepublicanJacobite has removed all three of the references again. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The article entitled Mazhory uses an article "Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables", by Mykola Riabchuk. This article was first published on Ukraine Analysis The article claims to be an analysis of incidents where rich and well connected people in Ukraine are reported by newspapers to have engaged in violent criminal acts. The article says that they are all connected to the conservative party, which in Ukraine is known as the Party of the Regions.
I believe that Riabchuk's article is an opinion piece by someone described as a journalist. If it is, then various wikipedia policies such as WP:NEWSORG and Wikipedia:No original research would class it as a primary source.
Mykola Riabchuk's claims are a fringe theory. They are (or appear to be) political propaganda attacking one political party in Ukraine. In reality, there are criminals in all political parties in Ukraine, and very large numbers of criminal investigations are currently being pursued in Ukraine against politicians of all political parties and also against other public servants who are believed to have abused their power.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I posted the following in the article on
Amitabh Bachchan:
=== Amitabh Bachchan on Ajmal Kasab ===
In 2009, Amitabh Bachchan posted a comment on his blog that the lone surviving terrorist of 26/11 attacks, [[Ajmal_Kasab|Amir Ajmal Kasab]], is the "safest person" in the country. Maharashtra Chief Minister [[Ashok_Chavan|Ashok Chavan]] disapproved this comment but according to media reports, Maharashtra Government had till that time spent rupees 31 crores to protect [[Ajmal_Kasab|Kasab]].<ref> {{cite news|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/state-news/maha-cm-disapproves-of-kasab-most-safe-comment_584895.html|publisher=[[Zee News]] |title=Maha CM disapproves of 'Kasab most safe' comment: PTI |accessdate=2012-04-16}}</ref>.
Some of the co-editors are frequently removing it, terming it as trivia. Amitabh Bachchan is a cinema icon in India and his view on security and terrorism in the India matter a lot. The information is properly sourced and is verifiable. Please enlighten me on the issue.
Hindustanilanguage (
talk) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
The source looks reliable, which is what this page is for. Whether the information should or should not be in the article is a different matter. You'll need to discuss the issues (eg WP:UNDUE) at the article talk page: click here. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on the Journal of Hate Studies? Looks like it's published by Gonzaga University, and the program of hate studies appears to be based out of the same institution. As of last August, it appears to have failed to catch on [7], though perhaps things have changed in the subsequent 8 months. Seems an odd little journal and field, though probably notable [8] [9]. It's used as a reference in corrective rape and I'm wondering if it's sufficiently reliable for use at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In a controversial May 2006 raid, Swedish RKP and local police seized the servers of BitTorrent tracker The Pirate Bay, causing a three day outage. The raid appeared to be motivated by pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a group that filed police complaints in Stockholm and Gothenborg in 2004 and 2005 against The Pirate Bay and sent a letter to Sweden's state secretary requesting action. [10] The raid was publicized as a success by the MPAA, but ridiculed by The Pirate Bay's operators. The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film. [11]
A dispute has arisen on
Trade group efforts against file sharing whether TorrentFreak is an appropriate source or not. TF has been discussed twice before. First in
May 2009 and again in
April 2010.
On this occasion, a perfectly reasonable complaint by the Motion Picture Association of America to Swedish authorities regarding the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay is conveyed by TorrentFreak under the headline "MPAA Begged Sweden to Take Down The Piratebay". A tad overstated, one might say, but the dismissive and disparaging tone is a common theme with TorrentFreak, who often attribute the worst possible motivations to individuals and groups who hold a different philosophy.
Arguments in favour of using TF include:
Arguments against:
In the current discussion ( torrentfreak meets WP:RS) I'm in the minority by arguing against inclusion (3 to 1). I am told that hundreds of external links to TF already exist on Wikipedia; that it's recognised by Wikipedians as reliable for "straight news reporting"; and that I am "pushing a pro-industry POV" for desiring a neutral source. Clarity and fresh input is most welcome because this area is still a learning processes for me, regardless of outcome. — ThePowerofX 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Mazhory, the list of citations include a large number in Russian and Ukrainian. These are very good citations.
Does the title need to be translated into English as well as appearing in the original text?
I interpreted Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations as meaning that since the titles were being quoted in a foreign language, translations into English of the titles must also be given. However this is disputed. Please advise.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable? Really, the amount of episodes would be verified by paper, not electronics. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Education_Services There is a discussion about the California Miramar University article. Specifically on whether or not Education_Services is a reliable source for the history of Pacific Western University, which was the previous name for CMU. One side of the argument is that "State of California that officially lists and recognizes ES as the recognized and official source of records for PWU California by the State of California, employers, government agencies, law enforcement agencies and the courts. This puts ES in a recognized second party position to comment on all aspects of the article dealing with students and graduates of PWU California regardless of the 2004 GAO report. Note: the State of California site lists ES as the, "custodian of records". It does not distinguish merely academic/student records." My view is that there is a bit of word play going on here. I think that within academic institution terms a "custodian of records" is understood to be graduation records, not records for history of an institution. To me the ES website is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Doing a reverse address lookup for suite #1304 at 11835 Carmel Mtn. Road on Google maps I find Keller Williams Realty: 11835 Carmel Mountain Rd #1304, San Diego, CA 92128 not Education Services. My view is that ES is apparently owned or somehow related to CMU. Looking at the ES website, it does not appear to be a reliable source for CMU history. The address thing is more like icing on the cake, so to speak.
Your opinion would be welcome. Zugman ( talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Movopia (specifically, these pages on it: [13], [14], [15]) acceptable to support these edits to the Mike Manning (actor) article? Nightscream ( talk) 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Boyé Lafayette De Mente is an alumnus of Thunderbird School of Global Management. He is neither a sociologist, nor a sexologist. But an editor insists the book Sex and the Japanese: The Sensual Side of Japan (p.115) written by him could be used as an RS for the article Car sex for the information "In Japan, car sex is known as Ka sekusu. This a common practice among Japanese youth." Second opinion is needed. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This crap is a plague; currently it is cited in 75 articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#MobileReference for background. Is there a way to automatically slap a tag on all citations to MobileReference (and periodically repeat that since new instances are bound to crop up) to alert editors and readers that this stuff is absolutely unacceptable for sourcing? An article that cites fake sources is worse than an article that cites no sources at all. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On the article Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact, I was recommended on the talk page to add to the article information from the following source:
Robert A. Freitas Jr., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, First Edition, Xenology Research Institute, Sacramento, CA, 1979
While the book is not self-published, or published by an organization connected to the author beyond whatever is required to get a book published, the very name "Xenology Research Institute" raises eyebrows. The book cannot be found on Google Books (as far as I know from numerous searches of "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact") and I have yet to see anything about a more recent (2008) edition in Google News. The book is only attested to on blogs and various organizations.
However, the book itself does not seem bad. The information seems to be quite accurate at first glance, and even upon a deeper reading of some parts, the information passes every test with flying colors. The book has citations to reliable sources and is logically believable. I am torn regarding its reliability, and request an outside individual to make a fair and honest study of the book.
The book is available online; just search its title. Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 06:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say that someone who was an expert in the field 20+ years ago, who has not published anything since, would still be considered an expert today? Is there an expiry date on "expert"-ness? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis regarding the possible inclusion of a selfpublished e-book in the article. The book is one of a few works published about this fringe theory and is interesting because it has the participation of a well known specialist - but it has not generated any new interest in the scholarly community and it has not been reviewed or evaluated by other scholars (no peer review, and no post-publication reviews). The question is whether the book can/should be mentioned as an example of a recent publication not whether it can be used to support statements of fact. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Are original articles published by natllawreview.com reliable, per se? The site has advertising and they are promotional. Submissions ("well-researched legal analysis or how-to articles") are reviewed mainly for interest to their readers. There is no listed editorial board. Authors pay a "nominal fee" to have their articles published unless they are from a non-profit. In return, authors' names and their firms' names and logos (even promotional videos) are prominently displayed on the article page and new submissions are featured on the main page. "... the National Law Review provides an excellent opportunity for your firm to put your name and knowledge in front of thousands of legal consumers who are actively seeking your expertise."
From About Us:
From the FAQ:
(They also distribute articles from other sources, but I think those should be validated based on the original source. I am only questioning their original articles.) Joja lozzo 04:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this article The National Law Review. The web site is the online presence of a law journal going back a long time. I don't know if that would alter our thinking since it still appears to be promotional and below academic review standards. Joja lozzo 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Kind of feel like the National Law Review is being singled out here a bit. Are there any examples or instances of incorrect or slanted information being attributed to the National Law Review. Many of the references listed above are taken out of context. For example, if you read on the same page that the "Jojalozzo" tries to draw the conclusion that their is no editorial board: "We do not publish firm press releases or other promotional material. But if you have written an analytical article examining a recent court decision, legal trend, or legislative action, we encourage and welcome your submission for publication consideration." Somebody there is deciding what gets published. The National Law Review first started publishing in 1888. It does publish content from law firms, generally some of the United State's largest and most have partners involved in their authorship. Virtually every law firm and law school which contributes to the National Law Review has a wiki page as they are some of the most established legal organizations in the United States. The contributing law firms and law schools are opening listed here: http://www.natlawreview.com/National-Law-Review-Contributing-Law-Firms-Organizations. If the listing is reviewed, most of the law firms listed are AM Law ranked or Martindale Hubble recognized law firms and all of the law schools are accredited by the ABA. Additionally, if you read further about the advertising standards of the National Law Review, they expressly state that they do no accept direct ads from Law Firms. If accepting advertising alone is a disqualification to be listed as a reference, kindly disqualify all citations to every major newspaper, and journalist website too.
Regarding advertising, reliable newspapers and magazines maintain a firewall between advertising and editorial divisions. The online National Law Review does not appear to do that. It solicits content with a promise of promoting the firm or organization that provides the material. It does not appear that NLR's editorial decisions are isolated from revenue making decisions. The fact that editorial decision process is so loosely defined does nothing to improve the picture.
I think we could approach this site according to the same criteria as self-published sources which are considered reliable when we can establish the credentials of the authors. I do not think we can confer blanket reliability on all NLR content, since it appears that they will publish interesting, readable content that is written by most any lawyer who pays them to publish it. Joja lozzo 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was adding the truth given by Sri Lankan Defence Ministry Website [2] The Nation (Sri Lanka) and http://sinhalaya.com that Channel 4 is funded by LTTE.It has been been removed.
It is funded by money from the LTTE [3] [4] [5] රණකාමි333 ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Sri Lanka News | Ministry of Defence and Urban Development Archived 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine that is Defence.lk website is a government website and is a reliable site and http://sinhalaya.com is anti terrorist site. රණකාමි333 ( talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if these guys can be considered reliable. For example, a contributor is citing what looks to me like unsupported gossip about new characters coming to the series, Young Justice. Looking at their 'About' page doesn't fill me with confidence as to any real substantive editorial oversight or separation of fact from fan gossip. Any suggestions as to how I can address this? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been in discussion with Kashif Siddiqi for a long time now regarding his article, he's been e-mailing me news stories & websites etc. to expand his article. He's sent me an e-mail containing a letter from the Pakistan Football Federation confirming his number of international caps, looks legit to me, on headed paper, how can I source it on the article? Giant Snowman 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure sourced exist out there confirming the contents, but none in English, and I don't speak Urdu. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll e-mail back asking him to get the PFF to put a scan on their website. Thanks, Giant Snowman 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So just to clarify the original question, am I right in understanding that personal letters may be reliable depending on the context, but that unpublished personal letters are a categorical exception because they are collectively too fraught with potential for POV introduction? In other words, the usability analysis of unpublished letters dies before we get to the question of reliability because A)It is difficult to verify and B)There is too much potential for misuse. Is that about right? - Thibbs ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Pandolin is a website I came across a few times while searching for film-related stuff. I would like to know whether this can be considered a reliable source; the website seems to be well-organised but gives a very bloggy feel. Very specifically, I was interested in this, this and this. They are all interviews of people related to films. Are interviews usable as reliable source despite the source website? I mean, they are interviews. Thanks. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have recently been going through WikiProject Video Games' list of sources to determine reliability in cases where multiple prior discussions of the source have already taken place. So I've dug through the talk archives there and here, and I've come up with a number of summaries for these prior discussions. Based on these prior discussions I have attempted to determine what the current consensus is regarding the reliability of the source.
This is not always a simple task and I have requested input from WP:VG members to A)Verify that I have properly summarized the prior discussions, and B)Weigh in on whether the source is reliable or not. I have received a tepid response (2 or 3 editors reviewed a good number of my summaries and weighed in, and perhaps 4 or 5 others commented on at least 1 summary) and consequently there are still 4 more source summaries that need comment at east to verify that I've properly analyzed prior discussions. I would be very grateful if someone(s) here could take a look at these sources. I'll provide links to the 4 summaries below:
Please comment on whether I've properly summarized the prior emergent consensus and if you feel up to it please comment on the reliability of the source. You may also check out the other sources listed in the grand list if you're in the mood. While some summaries have collected comments from up to 4 editors, the bulk of them only have a single 3rd party comment so more (contemporary 2012-era) eyes would be helpful. - Thibbs ( talk) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned by some of the sources used in this article about a British private middle-school (Junior-high). Most of the references appear to be from local newspapers which seem to report on sporting fixtures, awards, scholarships and other routine school matters. This seems to reflect this newspaper's unusual editorial policy rather than any significant notability of the school, since just about every British private school engages in similar activities (e.g. sports, awards, scholarships etc). There's no actual news. Are these kinds of sources considered to be sufficiently reliable to establish notability of a school? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this webpage an rs for edits like this? (Update:) Oh wait, it says "Wordpress" at the bottom of the page. That makes it just a blog, right? Nightscream ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A lot of off-topic bickering, 99% from involved editors from Jefferson talk page. No specific question regarding a statement and a source here anywhere. |
---|
Not relevant for RS/N... |
Are self published summary articles written by a private organization like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) considered reliable when there is no author/expert taking credit for the authorship? The policy reads: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine) I have seen some editors use a web-page article from the TJF as a reliable source, but there is no "established expert" or author and the info in the article has not been published by reliable third-party publications. Are these web page summary articles with no author/expert considered reliable sources? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The TJF and the Smithsonian are American institutions. There is no need to have a single author source, such as in a book or article, if the established web pages are not considered fringe web sites. Please stop attacking American institutions. As an American citizen I give full support to dedicated professionalism at both the TJF and the Smithsonian. Both of these sites have emails that users can get information requests on how these sites source their material. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For instance, in 1996 in his American Sphinx, Ellis had rejected the idea that Jefferson was the father, based on his interpretation of character. At the announcement of the DNA results in 1998 and after, Ellis talked on PBS Newshour and in other venues to say he had changed his mind: he believed the DNA results for a descendant of Hemings' youngest son showed that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with her. [8] Others came to similar conclusions. In 1998 Annette Gordon-Reed published a revised version of her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), which had critically examined the historiography related to the controversy, and showed how historians had overlooked significant evidence. The 1998 edition incorporated the DNA results, which she interpreted as affirming the paternity of Jefferson of Hemings' children, when combined with other historical evidence. Peter S. Onuf, now Thomas Jefferson Professor at UVA, and Jan Lewis edited Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture (1999), a collection of essays related to the topic. It included Philip D. Morgan's "Interracial Sex In the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World c.1700-1820", on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children in relation to his culture. [9]. Joshua D. Rothman published Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Interracial Relationships Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861, University of North Carolina Press, 2003, which acknowledged Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, and explored its meaning in the context of other interracial relationships in Charlottesville and Virginia. [10] These are examples of work being published by academic presses that were establishing the consensus referred to in the TJF article of 2010; others can be cited. Some historians, particularly those associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, have continued to disagree with these conclusions and have published other accounts. Parkwells ( talk) 13:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Closing commentsThe TJF is not an acceptable source for the
Hemings controversy, as they are clearly biased and selective in their evaluation of DNA and other evidence. At a press conference the TJF refused to admit that one of the its own committee members, Ken Wallenborn, M.D. not only noticed that the TJF committee had already made up their minds 'before' the DNA and other evidence was evaluated, but that they routinely dismissed evidence that pointed to other possible father(s) of Sally Hemings children. Head of that committee was
Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American/Special Programs at TJF. Another committee member
Lucia (Cinder) Stanton has made openly derogatory remarks towards Jefferson and
refers to him as "elusive and slippery" in her book 'Those who labored for my happiness' (hardly an objective title). Meanwhile NAACP president
Julian Bond sits on the TJF board of directors. The fact that this private organization harbored bias before evaluation of evidence and was/is personally involved with Hemings descendants collecting the 'oral history' that their report so heavily relied on more than establishes their bias and as such, plainly demonstrates that they are not reliable to use as a source for a 'Controversy' with so few tangible facts. --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
What a curious discussion. The original objection was that material published by the Foundation is not reliable because it is self-published. Then the objection was that no author was attributed to the material cited. Then, after others replied that the Foundation has well-established expertise on the topic of Jefferson's life with prestigious scholars as board members, that publishing anonymous summary material by non-profit organizations is standard practice, and that the citations from the Foundation are used in a tertiary manner to help establish a summary claim of historical consensus, the objection now has become that the Foundation is biased. The tactic seems to be that if one objection doesn't work, raise another one. The attribution of bias is based on several factors. Among these are: members of the Foundation argued for Jefferson's patrimony based on historical evidence before it was confirmed by biological evidence, a committee member used a quotation from Jefferson's writings as the title of a book, and a board member is president of an organization that promotes the advancement of an historically oppressed group through judicial and legislative action. Why bring up such weak objections about an issue that has nothing to do with self-publishing, the original objection? Is it because bias is really the fundamental issue? Raising the issue of bias, suggests that an ulterior motive is being used to besmirch the character of an otherwise respected person. How does it denigrate Jefferson to say that after his wife died he a had a long-term relationship with a woman he was not married to and that he had several children with her? Perhaps this makes a him a even more interesting and well-rounded human being than he was before this relationship came to light. This suggestion is only meant to show that this whole issue seems to arise from a felt need to defend Jefferson against unwarranted allegations and that this felt need may stem from a bias of its own -- a bias based on outdated beliefs about what is socially acceptable. Although these biases were certainly prevalent in Jefferson's time, Jefferson apparently rose above them. Perhaps it is better to follow his example and not let those biases govern our judgments today.
|
My original question was general and brief. If you need a specific statement in the Jefferson article this is one:
This is the address/page of the source being used.
Since this source, the TJF, were involved in the evaluation of DNA and other evidence and was exposed by one of their own committee members for strong negative bias/opinion before the evaluation had even begun and for ignoring evidence that didn't support their 'conclusion' I believe it is inappropriate to use this as a source, for the Controversy only. I also believe there are RS policy issues involving expert authors and self published material involved here. Thanks for your patience. My apologies for my part in the lengthy discussions. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, are these sources reliable for sourcing the sentence "Theodor Herzl saw Zionism as a "colonial idea"?
Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | The English were the first to recognize the necessity of colonial expansion in the modern world. Therefore, the flag of Great Britain is flying across the seas. And, therefore, I believe, the Zionist idea, which is a colonial idea, must be understood in England easily and quickly. | ” |
The ut tick has been adding http://ThePoliticalGuide.com to the external links section of several members of the US House and Senate. It doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source, although from a cursory glance it doesn't seem to be pushing a particular POV. Thoughts? Arbor8 ( talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to add Aravindan Neelakandan's summary of the above, using a series of articles starting with this as a source. However, I was stopped by Sitush. Can you please resolve the dispute?
vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki ( talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Wikipedia ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website. රණකාමි333 ( talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Source : Rajendra Prasad: A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - pp. 475-491, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 [25]: The section related to Saint Thomas Christians is authored by C.D Sebastian. Is it reliable a reliable source for the information regarding social status and cultural identity of the community? -- AshLey Msg 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
An important part of a dispute [28] at Programme for International Student Assessment is regarding this source: [29] (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? User:CartoonDiablo argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under poverty lines. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: [30]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link [31] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at nasspblogs. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: [32] which in turn seems to be citing this source: [33] (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. Poverty lines can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this specific article:
David Strovny. "Bathroom Sex Positions". AskMen.com. IGN. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the Bathroom sex article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N ( [38] [39] [40]) have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. Gobōnobo + c 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is occurring here:
We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.
I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from 64.223.235.254 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.
It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia, going to primary sources is most definitely not the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA 64.223.235.254 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continue, with a pronounced IDHT attitude and refusal to seek to understand our policies here. NPA and AGF aren't followed at all. RS isn't understood, with a denial that Time Magazine be used as a RS. They also insist that IMDB is a reliable source for her age, and refuse to accept our policies about the use of IMDB. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. Specifically, an anonymous editor added "American rapper Cage sampled the score in his song 'Agent Orange,'" and used the site to source this claim. Taking a look at the About Us page on whosampled.com, it says that the content is user-generated but is moderated, and gives a list of who the volunteer moderators are. This sounds a lot like what we do here at WP, and leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source. I would like to hear some other opinions, though, before removing the information from the article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not [41] is a reliable source? Angryapathy ( talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: [42] and [43]. I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Pogrom#Paragraphs_removed has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:
[In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them.] These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.
Here are some snippets from the wiki article Sam Harris (author):
Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.
Views gratefully received. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As others have said, this source could be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Sputnikmusic a reliable source to use in articles for songs and albums? For example this. The reviewer is apparently a user of the site, but I have seen the site used in other articles previously. Till I Go Home ( talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?
Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of William John Sullivan but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Can this be used? It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!
User:Kwamikagami argues that in our article on the Secular Islam Summit, we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that this article is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference was organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The summit was criticized by the Council on American–Islamic Relations as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.
I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — kwami ( talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — kwami ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on Creme Puff (cat) concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on Guinness World Records publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded [44]. There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on Guinness to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.
So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with Guinness World Records in general? — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for Gone with the Wind. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Worldwide_highest-grossing_films_.28adjusted_for_inflation.29_Guinness_World_Records_2012_.28.D1.81.29. Betty Logan ( talk) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, "According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive". — GabeMc ( talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of Will Tuttle's entry at List of vegans. The dispute is over whether the sources constitute RS status in regards to the claim he is vegan. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.
The edit in question: [45]
The sources:
The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You can read the policy for yourself at WP:SELFPUB. It is part of the Verifiability policy (policy, not a guideline):
It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page here below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. — GabeMc ( talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a question about three websites being used to source "cultural references" in The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald article. There is currently a dispute about the content in that section, and these are the only three examples that have any source at all, but I doubt any of these pass muster.
First is metal-archives.com, which previous discussions here on RSN indicate is not a reliable source. In this case, it is only useful to source that the band Jag Panzer recorded a cover of this song. That proves nothing about its notability.
Next is www.paulgross.org/music.htm, the personal/career website of Canadian actor/musician Paul Gross. This is being used to source the claim that he intended to use the song on his show Due South, but ultimately decided to write a song of his own. The page does support that claim, but the claim and the source are trivial.
Last is http://wiki.ytmnd.com, which sources the claim that there is a fad on this website relating to the song. To this, I have to say, "So what?" Even if the source supports the claim, this is utterly irrelevant to the song, and is completely trivial, not to mention obscure.
I would like to hear what other editors think of this information and the sources used to support these claims. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to know about the following sources whether they are reliable for quoting the casualty figure in the article Siachen Conflict:
There is also a related discussion on talk page of the article. On a side note majority of the troops died there because of extreme climatic conditions. -- SMS Talk 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
First this is an important figure of casualty in a war theater which cannot be poorly sourced. This figure will be used in the Infobox of the article so we need to be careful about not using improper sources.
Besides they do not give any clue on how they reached the figure of 15000, Which makes them unfit for such an important figure in the Infobox of the Siachen conflict article more discussion is on Talk:Siachen conflict-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
ill
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).salon.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).