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 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
Could someone please give opinions on the quality and reliability of sources used here. Details are included into the linked discussion. I've addressed several guys listed here asking them to confirm the sources. But only one of them replied so far very shortly. Thank you in advance. -- Nazar ( talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As a brief overview of Ryden, she is a controversial figure in and out of religious circles. I would like to get some opinions for the inclusion of some text for the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén in the Vassula Ryden article, and more importantly what people think of the 4 references that I would like to use to backup the text in question.
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Ryden's answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings. As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments”. He also advised that the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops regarding the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organized by Mrs. Ryden. [1] [2] [3] [4]
I will proceed to explain the details of the references in their numerical order:
Source 1) Hvidt (see reference #1) was a primary witness to the 2000-2004 dialogue which concluded in an interview with Joseph Ratzinger (now pope Benedict), in which Ryden and Hvidt were present. Niels Christian Hvidt obtained his doctoral degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University and made observations that were published in a part of his book, with Oxford University Press as the publisher. The book, under the direction of Fr. Prof. Elmar Salmann of the Pontifical Institute of Sant’Anselmo, is Hvidt’s doctoral dissertation, which investigates the issue of Christian Prophecy WP:3PARTY. This also makes it compliant with WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:IRS Scholarship
Here is a quote from the book (page 119, first paragraph) that I am basing most of my text on:
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Ryde´n through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’ The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.
Source 2) This source contains Josheph Ratzinger's 2004 letter in its entirety, also mentioned in Hvidts text
Source 3) Part two of this 2007 letter by William Levada confirms that the dialogue took place (see point 2). This reference is already being used in the article as a source for Levada's 2007 letter.
Source 4) This source is from a Swiss magazine. Ryden has lived in Switzerland for a considerable number of years, hence a lot of the publications regarding her are based in Switzerland, French and other foreign based sources. The last paragraph in the entire article reconfirms the issuing of the Josheph Ratzinger letter, dated July 10, 2004.
The original text is as follows:
La publication de ce dialogue a été annoncée dans une lettre datée du 10 juillet 2004, signée du cardinal Ratzinger en personne, adressée à plusieurs Présidents de Conférences épiscopales catholiques qui avaient exprimé leur souci concernant Vassula et ses écrits. Sa Sainteté leur expliquait dans son courrier que la position de la CDF est modifiée envers Vassula et ses écrits. Le Cardinal désire que chacun lise les questions posées par la CDF à Vassula et les réponses qu’elle leur a apportées.
The translated text Google Translate from French to English results in:
The publication of this dialogue was announced in a letter dated July 10, 2004, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in person, addressed to several Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences who expressed concern about Vassula and her writings. His Holiness explained to them in his letter that the position of the CDF is amended to Vassula and her writings. Cardinal wants everyone to read the questions posed by the CDF to Vassula and the responses it has made them.
Note that I am only intending to use the first part of the aforementioned text which mentions the July 10, 2004 letter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to know if the 4 combined aforementioned sources (considering they are cross referencing each other) would be good enough to include my proposed text, at least until I can find more publications (I know they are out there) which confirm the dialogue took place. Opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Arkatakor ( talk) 13:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned to IRWolfie- I am looking for other opinions than the people who have participated in that conversation, including yourself. Also I would advise that you stop trying remove the dispute tag. Currently there at least 2 ongoing disputes being made with regard to this article, as mentioned by IRWolfie- Arkatakor ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And nonetheless his book (source 1 in this topic) meets wikipedia criteria for reliable sources with flying colors, a point which you completely refused to acknowledge. RE: "did his thesis paper on her", as I already mentioned to you, in point 3 of my comment dated 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC), Rydén is mentioned only as one of the examples of prophecy within a chapter dedicated to historical examples of prophecy, which constitutes only one dimension of the larger framework of the book’s content.
The fact that you overlooked that point (among probably all the others in that post) clearly demonstrates that you seem unable or unwilling to register the information I have been trying to bring across to you.
For this reason I decided to cease discussing this topic with you any further and instead make a post here, to get a totally independent and objective view from someone who has not been involved in the discussion. Arkatakor ( talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You might also recall that I have said 3 or more times in this topic already, that I am not interested in your opinion or that of anyone else who has been involved in the Vassula Ryden dispute. Thanks. Arkatakor ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - User Arkatakor asked me, an uninvolved editor, to comment on this (because I also commented on the DRN page). It would be nice to have some other source for the 2000-2004 dialogs, especially a Vatican source. For example, the 1995 Vatican pronouncement is on the Vatican website here ... does the Vatican have something comparable for the 2000-2004 dialogs? Also: The sources above indicate that Ryden included some of the 2000-2004 dialogs in subsequent editions of her books. It is appropriate for the article to summarize the content of her books; and the post-2004 amendment which included some of this dialog could be mentioned in the article. That is permitted under the principle that a primary source or fringe source can be used as a citation for describing the content/view of the source itself. Thus, Ryden's book could be used to present her view of this purported dialog. But the article could not word it in such a way to suggest that the dialog conclusively happened ... it must simply say that Ryden claims the dialog happened, and that she amended her books in the year 200X to include blah, blah. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Some users cannot understand that a closed discussion is closed, and not to be reopened, even in another section. Reopening such a closed discussion amounts to disruption. Given the above disruption of RS/N process, further disruption is not required. Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fifelfoo: Thank you for closing the "Discussion by involved editors bringing their dispute to WP:RS/N" discussion. I had no intentions of bringing the dispute to this RSN and was on the verge of reporting the users who participated in it for harassment. Your comment on Hvidt's work conforms with the comments I made to justify its usage in the Vassula Ryden talk page. Noleander: I will wait to see if you have any further input based on Fifelfoo's emphasis on the quality of Hvidts work before I comment any further. Thanks. Arkatakor ( talk) 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
An Arabic-language source is being used to support a contentious claim on Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber. The article's come up at WP:BLP/N; I've done some cleanup as have others. I know foreign-language sources are permitted. Because I do not understand Arabic, however, I cannot verify the following:
Especially with the second part of that claim, I'm not sure that it does based on googletranslate, but that doesn't mean a great deal as it isn't much help with Asian languages. The source is possibly called Sharq newspaper. Thanks. -- 92.6.202.54 ( talk) 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
These are used in a number of articles as a source for biographies, see [2] and [3]. Any comments? Neither one of them feels reliable to me. Dougweller ( talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find any guideline or policy that speaks to this issue so I assume we treat each one on a simple case by case basis. My question is, how do we determine if an e-book is a reliable source, not self published (someone paid to have it published) or self published by an unnotable figure etc. Is this just a matter of looking very close at each use, determining the credentials of the author and their mainstream notablility, the publishing company (determining if they allow pay-for-publishing) and the overall notability of the publication? Are there any specific criteria i may look to in even an essay form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on the reliability of sources in Operation Sharp and Smooth. The discussion does unfortunately not take place on the talk page but here:
And here:
User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Explanation_required
AnkhMorpork ( talk) is of the opinion that I’m using unreliable sources. He mentions two specific cases. One case concerns an Arabic newspaper article (from al-Mustaqbal). I have frankly no idea why he believes it to be unreliable.
The other case may be more interesting to hear other views on. It concerns the initial Israel Defence Forces (IDF) statement about the Baalbek raid, supporting this content:
According to the IDF ten "terrorists" were killed and five captured during a "precise surgical raid", that claimed no IDF or civilian casualties.
This is the original link to the IDF home page:
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55483.EN
Unfortunately, this link is now dead, but I found the statement reproduced here:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=788256&Date=8/3/2006
AnkhMorpork seems to be of the impression that this link expresses the "views" of the United Jerusalem Foundation, rather than that of the IDF. It does not. The United Jerusalem Foundation is a pro-Israeli organization that among other things republishes thousands of articles relevant to Israel, including statements from the IDF. They usually provide links to the original files. I have never come across a case where they have faked or tampered with documents. It would be very surprising if they did so with an official Israeli statement.
Furthermore, all of the facts and the quotes that I use in the Wikipedia article are also found in these two reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0907.pdf (p. 124 and 129)
I prefer however to link to the United Jerusalem page since it contains the complete IDF statement. I have tried several times to recover it through the Wayback Machine. They seem to have kept a copy of the page from 2007:
When I try to access it I get the following message:
"Bummer. The machine that serves this file is down. We're working on it."
If somebody has any other idea how to retrieve the original link I am grateful for suggestions.
Assuming we cannot retrieve the original IDF statement, what is the best way to handle this problem? Should we make an explicit remark in the footnote that the original link is dead? Should we keep the United Jerusalem link or switch to the HRW / Amnesty links? Or use both?
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 08:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting.
For other editors, to supply the deficits in Jokkmokks-Goran's ability to cite sources as requested, the al-Mustaqbal article is:
Is used to support the following claim, "An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting." plus a list of names.
I also have trouble with the math based on that source, and the conclusion you are drawing for the same reason as Fiflefoo. I understand how you get there, but it is not supported by the source, and using the source for it is original research. The article is very clear, going so far as naming each name. The person who fell from the helicopter was not injured during the fighting, therefore was not listed as a casualty of battle. Therefore, claiming he is, is OR. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Our religious organization recently built a Mosque in Mexico, and we put a Wiki citation to chronicle its development and existence, especially as it is the only Mosque located in Baja California. Is this or the content outside of Wiki guidelines? Cite: Masyid al Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.184.136.253 ( talk • contribs)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
I have a query whether these websites would be considered reliable in the context of providing information on Irish politics.
The Cedarloungerevolution is a blog which contains an online archive containing a number of documents from a number of historical and current left ing groups. IEL is an archive of election literature. It also contains infromation on past local election results in Ireland. The final website is run by Dr Adrian Kavanagh of NUI Maynooth.
If these websites are unreliable can anyone give an explanation as to why so? UNATCOReviewer ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
reliable source
here some tag for trying not deleted Frederic Gracia page I place here some reliable references found and added within a ten-day grace period, for this article may be not deleted.
Is this piece in Tablet magazine a reliable source for support of the 'Criticism' section of our article titled The Zeitgeist Movement? (And the 'Criticism' section of the related articles Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward [hereafter called 'the Zeitgeist movies'].)
I apologize for the posting below being long. The only reason for that is that the piece in Tablet magazine is very long, and has many problems.
I think there are two sets of issues:
(a) General problems with Tablet magazine, and
(b) Specific problems with the particular piece in Tablet, authored by Michelle Goldberg.
(a) This is the About Us of Tablet. This is the Home page of Nextbook Inc. This is the Staff page of Nextbook Inc.
As you can see, none of these pages contain clear info on whether Tablet has a reliable publication process. For example, the only staff persons mentioned are an executive director, editorial director and a creative director. But there is no info on how many people, if any, are directly engaged in, say, checking facts and accuracy, analyzing legal issues, and closely scrutinizing the writing. And there is no info on the source of the funding.
(b) Regarding the specific article in Tablet by Michelle Goldberg: In the sequel, I believe I provide proof that the article may contain lies, concealment of inconvenient truths, and distortions and twists of other truths.
Goldberg's Tablet pieces expresses a negative POV about The Zeitgeist Movement. She states anywhere from common criticism that is supported by our set of reliable sources (for example, allegations that the Zeitgeist movement advocates utopianism, communism, an un-realistic global socio-economic system, etc), but Goldberg's Tablet piece focuses mostly on extremely negative, paranoia-based, fear-mongering-based, hate-mongering-based criticisms of The Zeitgeist Movement (and the three Zeitgeist movies), criticisms that are not supported, nor even mentioned, by any of the reliable sources that support our article: the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, Globes (an Israeli financial newspaper), TheMarker (another Israeli financial newspaper), and TheMarker Television (Israel). (The Zeitgeist movement was also interviewed 5 times on RT Television, where it was also [mildly] criticized.) Goldberg has commodified Tablet readers' natural hatred and fear of anti-semitism, and is apparently attempting to financially profit from that fear and hatred, by using the Zeitgeist movement as a coat-rack.
If the Zeitgeist movement and its 3 films were (reasonably, not to mention widely) believed to be anti-Jewish within the (Hebrew-speaking, or English-speaking, or global) Jewish community, would it not be reasonable to assume that, at the very least, the two Israeli papers and the Israeli TV interview would characterize the movie as anti-Jewish? After all, the lede of our article on Israel states: "Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state."
Literally thousands of articles have been written in hundreds of highly reliable sources around the globe over the last 6 years accusing Wall Street (and global) bankers of malfeasance. If Michelle Goldberg's analysis is a reliable source, then the authors of all these articles in reliable sources are anti-semites and Nazis. And so are all the participants in Occupy Wall Street, and the thousands of members of the Zeitgeist movement who are Jewish, including the members of the Israeli chapter of the movement.
Furthermore, in all our reliable sources, members of the Zeitgeist movement were given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond to criticism, and all these sources printed the movement's responses to critical allegations. Again, the Tablet stands out as an extreme exception: there is no indication in the Tablet piece that Goldberg provided the movement with a reasonable opportunity to respond to her allegations, or that she reviewed the many tens of hours of videos posted on the movement's official website, to find counter-arguments to balance her biased accusations.
Thank you. user:IjonTichyIjonTichy
Based on their About page, they have editorial oversight and are staffed by professionals with degrees in journalism, and their articles have been republished by multiple times by at least one other reliable source. For example: Good Samaritans. I would say that it's reliable. While scholarly sources may be more desirable, often times with fringe theories, such sources don't exist and we should use the best that are available. If in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just blocked one of the participants in this dispute for edit warring, and then started nosing about to see what it is all about. I haven't and won't be editing the article, however. I agree with everybody that the Tablet article is a reliable source, but also concur with Fifelfoo and others that high quality, scholarly articles about the movement are best. I've just found this scholarly article] which talks about the Zeitgeit Movement thus "The second [illustration of conspirituality] is weighted towards conspiracy theory. It was taken from the Zeitgeist Movement, a web site promoting global activism connected to Zeitgeist the Movie, a 2007 web movie. Zeitgeist alleges, among other things, that organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job. The producers claim that the movie has been viewed 100 million times." I can send copies of this article to anybody who sends me an email through WP mail. Here is another source which will likely require a German speaker: the article is the one by Björn Milbradt in the online peer-reviewed journal "Conflict & communication online". The (English) introduction says that the article "offers reasons why 'fixed' definitions of anti-Semitism are in some ways inadequate. "Anti-Semitism after Auschwitz" is basically characterized by its vagueness and the need to work with allusions rather than with manifest resentments. In 'Zeitgeist' this is accomplished by providing viewers with a description of an alleged international conspiracy and some indications of whom the filmmakers hold responsible for it. 'Zeitgeist' can be interpreted as a document that systematically develops the grassroots of an actualized manifest anti-Semitism." These articles might prove helpful to editors, perhaps. -- Slp1 ( talk) 00:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Rationale:
wp:SELFPUB: "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."
Compton is an award-winning scholar in the relevant field, hence, per our guideliens, his self-published monograph on the Romney family's roots should be considered reliable esp. for non-controversial assertions.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)1. It is self-published. 2. the assertion that he is an award-winning scholar (in what field?) is a possible issue. 3. The assertions are considered controversial by at least one editor. "Todd Compton" has zero mentions in the NYT archives, which seems to raise doubts on my part. In fact, Awards from the "Mormon History Association" are, IMO, considered "minor awards" and insufficient to grant him "expert" status for a self-published source. Even if they are listed in his Wikipedia article. With the reference being a SPS from the ... Mormon History Association! Sorry the "award-winning" claim is a teensy bit weak. Thus he is not an "expert in the field" per Wikipedia guidelines (awards from minor organizations are generally ignored), he does not qualify as an academic for a year teaching at a university, and the nature of the "third party publishers" is a valid issue - the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting Mormon studies. It does not qualify as an "academic publisher" alas. And the articles show he is primarily a "theology person" [4] which is a problem with using his person website. Google News archives show he was employed by the Deseret News [5] , but that is about it for notability in any news reports. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I note that Todd Compton's piece has extensive footnotes with many, many, many sources given. Even if there is doubt about the piece, many of the sources it lists can be used. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Although Mormon studies is a fast-growing academic discipline, Mr. Quinn -- a former professor at Mormon-run Brigham Young University and the author of six books on Mormon history -- can't find a job. In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. ... ... Supporting himself on research grants and fellowships, Mr. Quinn cemented his scholarly reputation by publishing four books on Mormon history between 1994 and 1998, including a two-volume study of the church's interactions with politics and American society. In 1999, he began pursuing a full-time faculty job, to no avail. Few secular schools at the time sought a specialist in Mormonism. ... ... Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses. Utah eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with [Edited: someone else]. Arizona State University's department of religious studies recommended to the university administration that Mr. Quinn be offered a one-year appointment for 2004-05. It was starting a doctoral-degree program with a focus on religion in the Americas. Aware that Mr. Quinn was controversial, the faculty took pains to stress to administrators that his scholarship was first-rate, says Tracy Fessenden, a professor of American religions. --- Apr. 6, 2006 WSJ
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ... Articles are peer reviewed. ... Journal of Mormon History ... Articles are peer reviewed, generally of strong scholaraly caliber...."--- THE EMERGENCE OF MORMON STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Armand L. Mauss – from American Sociology of Religion: Histories, Volume 13 of Religion and the Social Order ( BRILL, 2007).
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"Outside of Utah and Illinois, very few other university presses have taken on Mormon-related books, as will be apparent from a glance down the bibliography at the end of this chapter. Most prominent among those that have is Oxford University Press, which has recently published several such books, but the University of Oklahoma Press has recently also decided to expand its Mormon list. Of the commercial presses, by far the most important one in Mormon Studies is Signature Books, based in Salt Lake City, which has produced a number of distinguished scholarly works about Mormons, both in history and in current issues, since its inception in 1980. Some of its books have been quite critical, at least implicitly, of traditional Mormon truth-claims, policies, or practices, which have made it less appealing to both authors and readers of a more orthodox bent. Nevertheless, it is the single most prolific commercial publisher of scholarly work on the Mormons. Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City also specializes in Mormon Studies, but it is a much newer and smaller operation and primarily a specialized publisher of limited editions of important works that might not otherwise be published. So far it has published works in history and theology, with little or nothing of a social-scientific kind."--- Mauss (ibid.)
Is this source [6] reliable for this statement: "A response condemning this statement was made by the Jewish website Aleph Melbourne." To see the article, contested edit, and the statement being "condemned" click here: [7] Freikorp ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Not to make a major discussion out of a military order, however, if I do, pardon me.
I had a minor discussion with User:Yopie and the user believes it is fringe to use theories, however, there are many uses of theories to show about the Templar facts, and has deleted my book source when I had the right to use the book source of "Henry Dunant un die Templer". If deleting the main theory, then why didn't the user have the right to delete the theory of Knights Templar (freemasony) since it can be a major fringe, due to its theoretical definition of investigation between the Knights Templar and freemasonry. I was just about to edit a possible theory with the shriners, who are met with speculation with the Templars and the Red Cross Movement, from whom, Henry Dunant, was indeed a freemason. If theoretical sources are aloud to legends for military orders vanished for many centuries, then please explain Yopie why delete a possible theory of many theories, when the theory of above mine is also part fringed, the section called Knights Templar (Freemasonry), theorizing with Free Masons and Templars(possible X and Y), although, they suggest they are not from the Templar movement.
My main paragraph and source was used on this article:
There are similarities between the Committee of the Red Cross and the Knights Templar. Since, the creation of the Red Cross movement, Henry Dunant, the founder of the Committee, was a freemason in Switzerland, where it was rumored some of the knights had fled to the highlands of Switzerland and helped the villagers by blending with the civilians, to escape persecution from Pope Clement V and King Philip IV. It is a possible theory the movement still shows their presence by helping the wounded, meek, sick, and for other needs around the world.
Source Book from very few known:
| last = Quellmalz | first = Alfred | title = "Henri Dunant und die Templer" | publisher = Gebietsleitung d. Tempelgesellschaft, | year= 1964 | location = Stuttgart, Germany | pages = 62 | isbn = 978-3639064797
One major problem is that the name "Knights Templar" has been used by so many individuals and groups who have not the slightest connection with the Masonic groups or witht he historis Knights Templar -- which means that every "nut case" who says the two words can end up in articles on the Knights Templar <g>. As for the link to the IRC, one significant problem is that one person with the posited link to freemasons does not make any sort of a case that the large group which absolutely included non-Masons was a secret societ of Knights Templar. Amazingly enough, the idea of helping others was not restricted to that group. The word "fringe" is thus properly applied. Collect ( talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
That explains alot for the proper word of "fringe" ideas used in the section for the theories of Shriners and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).-- GoShow (........)16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a question I originally posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85, but I was pointed here.
I'm looking to determine the reliability of this source. It seems to be unavailable on the Internet, but it is used in a number of places, including History of scientific method and Book of Optics. The claims it is making seem quite dubious, e.g. (paraphrased) "Alhazen's scientific approach resembled the modern scientific method." These two particular articles also contain a numbered procedure for the scientific method (hypothesis, test, etc) and give this as the source - but I'm pretty sure that's a much more recent innovation, and the two lists are not consistent with each other.
This is the answer I already received:
Thanks a lot! Arc de Ciel ( talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to use a variety of Overseas Development Institute publications to provide additional insight to a number of articles. For example, I want to add the following section to the Pastoralism article:
Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute explored the management of natural resources relating to pastoralism in the Horn of Africa. They highlight that the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations [1]. As a result, agencies working in this area are obliged to consider a range of relevant issues, and not focus on any one issue in isolation. Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial.
ODI is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian policy. Founded in 1960, it has made major contributions to research, dissemination and policy change, on all aspects of development and humanitarian policy. The Institute has a staff of around 150, half of whom are researchers, with the remainder providing a wide range of support services.
ODI's mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.
With a reputation for high-quality research and policy advice, ODI is in demand by governments, international institutions and other partners around the globe. Through their core research programmes they work across a wide range of sectors that have a direct impact on the well-being of the poorest people in developing countries. In addition, ODI offers consultancy services that include monitoring and evaluation and the development and delivery of tailored training courses, as well as expertise in communications and knowledge management.
ODI attaches great importance to dissemination and public policy work. The Institute:
- publishes two peer reviewed journals – Development Policy Review and Disasters – as well as a range of authoritative publications such as ODI Briefing Papers, Working Papers and Opinions
- has a large public affairs programme, with many public meetings and seminars also streamed live online
- runs international networks, for example the Humanitarian Practice Network and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network
- hosts the Secretariat for the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)
- provides support to parliamentary activities, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD).
ODI also manages the ODI Fellowship Scheme, which has placed postgraduate economists in government positions in developing countries since 1963.
The ODI is held in high esteem by both international policy makers and the global scholarly community. For example, t The James McGann Think Tank Index, updated annually, ranked the ODI second in the world for International Development Think Tanks. in 2009
[2] ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the
Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the
World Bank.
ODI’s research programmes cover a vast range of development and humanitarian issues. Further information is available in the Institute’s Annual Report, and on the website.
[3]
NewsAndEventsGuy and I have been discussing whether ODI publications are a reliable source. I am very much of the opinion that they are. My talk page provides extensive evidence to support my position. It would be great to have some further input from other editors to confirm for certain that this is the case.
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to write a very thorough question. However, I'm not sure I fully followed it, did you want to include the section above entitled "The status, history and mission of ODI" in the Pastoralism article? Or is that just there to try and help your case and convince us that you're right? I'm thinking it's the latter, in which case, please don't do that (feel free to remove it), we can do our own research here thank you.
Assuming I'm correct, discussing the first part of your question, ODI seems like an RS source for this claim, although I would change your first sentence a bit as it's almost an exact quote of your source, and if you're doing that a lot in the article you're going to run into wp:copyvio issues. The source seems solid, and you've even included an inline attribution. I don't see the problem here. They appear to be experts, and this is their analysis. However, this does not mean that I can say yes to them being RS for "additional insight to a number of articles" as you mention above. RS-ness is evaluated on a context basis (it also does not cover notability or any other issues for your articles). Just because they are RS for this edit does not mean they are RS for every edit you would like to make. I'm only making comment on the one you've provided here. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments and advice. Despayre - I would certainly only put the section relating to Pastoralism into the article; the information about ODI was merely to provide information about ODI to other users. Someone had previously recommended that I do this.
I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications. I will be sure not to paraphrase from the publication itself in order to avoid copyright problems. Thank you DGG for highlighting this. I think ODI publications have a lot to offer in terms of providing current, well researched findings to wikipedia users.
Many thanks again for your input!
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Easy question,
WP:SPS generally refers to a single person, who may or may not be an expert, not usually to organisations who, in this case, has a staff of people with obvious experience and expertise. If you look at the staff listing for ODI, they have extensive expertise in this field, ergo, they're RS. However, as I pointed out to Polly, it helped that it was cited inline, and it may not be RS for other things she wants to use them for. The same policy would probably apply to some questions about right/left wing extreme groups too, assuming they had the education/expertise/experience on staff to back up their point of view, and they didn't stumble into
WP:FRINGE problems. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply from the bolded section of Polly's comment above, but whatever she wants to do with her edits seems a little outside the scope of this board. Having said that, if you feel she's used something from ODI in a way that it shouldn't be, or may not be RS, please bring it back here and we'll evaluate that. As I said, ODI likely won't be RS for everything, but I can't speculate without context (which would make it not speculation at all
. --
Despayre
tête-à-tête 15:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
All ODI briefing papers, working papers, background notes and journal articles are peer reviewed. ODI is the UK's leading think tank on international development and internationally was ranked second only to the Brookings institute, according to the James McGann Think Tank Index [1]. ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank. ODI has no political allegiances. I have taken on board the comments raised here, and understand that the extent to which a source is a reliable source depends on the exact context. Are you happy for me to make edits with this is mind?
Many thanks,
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Prog Sphere is a growing online progressive music magazine with thousands of hits every week. We update every day with new CD reviews as well as interviews, album and concert reviews, and other music related content. We are covering vast field of music genres ranging from progressive rock, progressive metal, jazz fusion, stoner rock, to psychedelic, space rock and its related subgenres.
We consider that we are a reliable source of informations that could be used on Wikipedia, as we bring the "ontopic" material that is reliable and is the point of interest.
Any thoughts?
Is this piece in the Ventura County Reporter a reliable source for support of any aspect/ section of The Zeitgeist Movement? (For example in support of a brief discussion of the movement's key/ core ideas, etc.) Does the Ventura County Reporter have a reliable publication process?
Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an abundance of cites to allmusic.com at The Beatles, is this self-published website a WP:RS? — GabeMc ( talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
A section of work (see
here for the removed info) was recently removed from the
List of James Bond novels and stories article as it was "based entirely on self-published source", in line with
WP:SPS. The section was entirely based on one work, Griswold, John (2006).
Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories.
AuthorHouse.
ISBN
978-1-4259-3100-1. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) The publisher is the self-publisher AuthorHouse, (
Wikilink;
weblink). I think a decision on the reliability of this source could assist; a
partial discussion has taken place before moving over to here.
The Griswold book goes a little further than the usual self-published sources and deserves to be classed as "reliable" for the following reasons:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help));{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help).These are all without looking at a number of references used by the mainstream fansites, MI6-hq.com and commanderbond.net. Short of an endorsement from a beyond-the-grave Fleming himself, I'm not sure what else is needed to verify the credibility of the book. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, Are you happy that Griswold is a reliable source to use? Many thanks. SchroCat ( ^ • @) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: it is a domain owned and operated by Fairfax Media, and hosted on Fairfax Media servers. Its primary use appears to be for the use of its journalists and on-air 'personalities'. Fairfax Media is the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and radio station 2UE. Please also note the whois of the domain: http://whois.domaintools.com/mytalk.com.au I am using it to source a JPG photograph in the Craig Thomson affair article, which highlights inconsistencies in the alleged evidence against him. It was removed as an 'unreliable source', however Senator George Brandis thought the photo was good enough to submit to the NSW Police in his letter of 23 August 2011 to the NSW Police Commissioner and use as his "Annexure A"; please see [10] - which admittedly is from mytalk.com.au. As mytalk.com.au is itself an annexure of Fairfax Media, and they were a defendant in the defamation case of the article's subject, I believe the JPG should be restored (and the Brandis letter may be added) for the purposes of the article at issue. That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks. 2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' ( http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Wikipedia as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source? 121.216.230.139 ( talk) 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
Dear IP editor. You may have never encountered the idea of a "source" or a "citation" before, the following may help progress discussion. Only specific objects, ie: particular newspaper articles, segments of radio shows, books, authored chapters in edited books, parliamentary reports, or specific pages on a website may be reliable. A newspaper, a radio channel, a publisher, an editor, a parliament or an entire website are not sources. Please specifically indicate which objects you'd like us to discuss by citation. For example: Author (year) "Title of specific work" Title of newspaper, book, website, or radio show containing work page number or URL reference. Please note that some content on otherwise reliable sources may not be considered either reliable or worthy of weight of inclusion into the encyclopaedia. In particular: opinion pieces are often misused; primary sources, ie: material requiring original interpretation to make sense of, are often misused. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
These are from the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies#Diwaniyya Podcast. The center itself would normally be a reliable source, but these are from what is described as " It connotes open discussion, a meeting of the minds. Diwaniyya is not another news program or political commentary podcast; it offers a wider view of a multifaceted Middle East. Through thought-provoking conversations on different issues in the region, Diwaniyya contextualizes current events and trends." Oh great, I hate it when you start one thing and it leads to another, eg this is copyvio from [11]. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. One of the edits is at [12]. Several similar links have been added by two editors, and the authors of the podcasts are Shoshi Shmuluvitz (one of the editors adding the links) and Ben Silbee [13]. Both editors adding the links are staff there. The two authors are graduate students and I'm not convinced that we should be using these podcasts (besides the COI issue). I'll invite them to comment here. Dougweller ( talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug, this is Ben Silsbee, one of the co-producers at Diwaniyya. You are correct in stating that both of us are graduate students and we understand the COI issue. The podcast is a fully funded publication of the Moshe Dayan Center and receives the approval of the academics and guests involved as well as regular review for content from Professor Uzi Rabi, the director of our center. I would also like to clarify that the podcast is an academic product, NOT op-eds, as some users have indicated. The text, taken from our description, is press copy indicating that show topics are not necessarily tied into current events, as is the case with many other Dayan Center publications. The show is in an interview format with guests who have the extensive publication history necessary for relevance in an academic setting, such as Martin Kramer, Meir Litvak, Ofra Bengio, Liat Kozma, and many others. The rare episodes which do not feature senior researchers speaking about their researchers have been either expert interviews with figures such as Haaretz reporter Avi Issacharoff, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of Academic Affairs director Mahdi Abdul Hadi, or the occasional "man-on-the-street" style report, such as interviewing Christian Pilgrims at Christmas in Bethlehem.
I think for clarity purposes we need to distinguish again between the Diwaniyya blog and the podcast itself. In my opinion, the content of the podcast, which is on the record and sourced from either reliable academic sources or newsworthy subjects should not be considered op-ed. The blog, which is the text portion on www.diwaniyya.blogspot.com is written primarily by graduate students, and while it reflects current academic research in the given subject for wikipedia purposes I agree that the source article should be cited rather than the summary blog posts. With regards to the podcasts themselves, the benefits of citing these on a Wikipedia page are twofold: they are primary sources with regards to the research of the guests and are useful not only for research purposes on the subject at hand, but for historiography purposes, e.g. Washington Institute for Near East Policy Fellow Martin Kramer's work on Western views of Islamic reformer Jamal Al-din al-Afghani may be found in short form in his published work but are significantly augmented and clarified in the episode of the podcast in which he is a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catblender ( talk • contribs)
I have two sources:
In connection to that, my question is: are these two sources reliable for the following statement:
Thank you in advance.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) On Heni, who are the peer reviewers? If all the "peers" believe that the purpose of commemorating the Latvian Legion is to glorify Arajs and other collaborators who murdered Jews in the Holocaust (a patently false and inflammatory claim), that isn't a very objective community. Arajs' crimes against humanity are well documented and universally acknowledged for what they are. Heni's piece from which you quote states the complete opposite, not only have Latvians not acknowledged Arajs' crimes against humanity, but the anti-Semitic lot of them including the government itself celebrate his contributions to eradicating Jewry. Heni's is an advocacy opinion piece, regardless of who reviewed it and gave it a "pass." VєсrumЬа ► TALK 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
User Boydbastian is an insider with the company of the article. He brought to the communities attention that their "Athlete Guarantee Program" has evolved since its inception with the RS we currently have from Toledo Blade. The article above is an interview with Timothy Bradley about this weekend's Bradley vs. Pacquiano boxing match. On the surface, the source seems to have editorial oversight: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ - However, this source has been vehemently contested by the primary editor of this article as non-RS, SPS, and even went so far to say the company, Boydbastian, or myself must have paid this reporter to post an article that is "clearly promotional in nature".
If you'd like to read the entire talk banter it is here.
I'd like to get a read from the community on this source, and whether or not this is RS for Boxing news, which the news site appears to me to be. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you - I appreciate any independent community feedback. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Euzen ( talk · contribs) has been slowly edit-warring for several weeks to push an outdated, naive folk etymology into the Names of Istanbul article [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This is sourced to a mid-19th century work by a Greek writer called Scarlatos Byzantios, the author of a Greek dictionary and a book on the history of Constantinople. Byzantios, while still occasionally quoted on matters of general history, is utterly outdated with respect to his linguistics: he had no knwledge of what in his lifetime was the emerging modern academic discipline of historical linguistics, and continued the centuries-old practice of guesswork "etymologies" that were essentially made up on the spot, on the basis of chance resemblances with any modern word in any language a writer cared to think of. Moreover, in his days, there had not been any serious study of Balkan placename histories yet. The foundational works on Thracian, Illyrian and other similar substrate languages in SE European toponyms were written only in the 20th century. The current academic consensus is that the name in question here (Lygos), just like most other old toponyms in the area, is of Thracian origin. Byzantios in 1851 could not possibly have had anything pertinent to say about this, because the whole discipline on which such judgments are based was not yet developed.
Euzen clearly isn't willing to listen, and I frankly have no patience to discuss furthern with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
For those who believe that Fut.Perf's concern is purely linguistic and not at all ethnic: The ref. to Sc.Byzantios's doesn't say that "this is THE etymology" but "according to". F.P., with all his linguistic fervour, or anyone else, did not supply any other etymology of the name Lygos. Besides, this is not exactly an "etymology", as the name is identical with it's assumed source. I had added to the article (see discussion) one more reference, linking the name Lygos with the root of other names like Lygii, Ligures and Lugdunum (
EYÜPSULTAN SYMPOSIA I - VIII : SELECTED ARTICLES p. 221.) published by an internationally accepted contemporary Turk professor. However, this publication doesn't support the view that Fut.Perf. likes, that Byzantium is of "Thracian" origin and connects it with a homeric word. Unfortunately, this online publication obviously has been attacked by hackers who added a nonsense, that some christian saints of 4th c. are ... muslims. That was perfect for F.P. who erase the reference to the name. At the same time he (F.P.) promotes as a source a Popist priest who's job was to promote Unia in the Balkans (a church referring to a certain nation of the Balkans, who's national mythology absorbs most of F.P's interest) (
[22]) and who (Janin) does not give his sources supporting a "thracian etymology" of Lygos. For those who don't know, there are no "Thracian" texts and no serious scientist would claim that he knows about Thracian language(s) any more than some isolated names and words. Just for the history, Unia's only opponent is the Greek Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
N.B. All the above said, I have no bad feelings for F.B. We both know that "Our names is our souls" as
Odysseas Elytis said. :)
--
Euzen (
talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see then what modern scholarship thinks about Sk. Byzantios. I cite here some contemporary (post-WWII) scholarly works referencing Sc. Byzantios. The name is variantly found also as Skarlatos, Scarlatus, Vyzantios, Byzantius. I excluded Greek authors, as they could be biased by national feelings.
Noticeably, he is cited as a source on ambiguous or rare words and on proposed etymologies, as in:
Echos d'Orient: revue bimestrielle de théologie ... , 1971, vol. 22. “Scarlatos Byzantios a proposé une etymologie moins fantaisiste ... “
Pierre Cabanes (1993) Actes du IIe Colloque international de Clermond-Ferrand, 5-27 octobre 1990, Volume 2: “On conservera donc le nom d' Amphineus, fils d'Hector, qui est généralement oublié dans les lexiques (à l'exception de quelques raretés, comme le vieux dictionnaire de Scarlatos Byzantios, où nous l'avons dépisté) et pour cela est resté ...”
But R. Janin does refer to Byzantios:
Constantinople byzantine, by R. Janin, p. 259 :)
In some other works:
After this, I propose that his opinion on the origin of toponym "Lygos" be included in the article as "According to..." or "Sk. Byz. claimed that...", possibly adding "a view that is not to be found in other sources", adding of course any other opinion on this toponyme (as controversial or not).
--
Euzen (
talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Apart from our opinions, do we have any source supporting another etymology or claiming that Sk. Byzantios was wrong?
2) Apart from Pliny, do we have other ancient author or an archaeological finding claiming that the old name of Byzantium was "Lygos"? Certainly we don't, therefore, following Someguy's reasoning, we should delete that paragraph.
Btw, in saying "Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories ... only about the history thereof", Someguy gave me a good idea: A history of etymological opinions on Istanbul. Or "Lygos, a toponym and it's history". Thanks Someguy, this is some idea. --
Euzen (
talk) 11:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
F.P. I admire your ability to turn everything upside-down. Janin (the "reliable") is not talking about a "Thrakian name" but the name of a possible "Thrakian settlement" attested (the name) by a Roman author about 8 centuries after it was supposedly used. So, the one source (janin) does not contradict the other (Byzantios), for the same reason that today Ankara is a Turkish settlement but has a Greek name.
A separate article on the toponym(s) will certainly have more material and encyclopedic interest than, e.g., the series of one-line articles on the mayors of Elbasan, like this
Hafez Musa Ali Basha, which you are requested to review when we are done with Lygos.
--
Euzen (
talk) 09:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Is everyhit.com a WP:RS? — GabeMc ( talk) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Specifically,
They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act.[348]
[348] of course being a cite to everyhit.com — GabeMc ( talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The source in question:
I edit was removed and it was cited that "no primary sources) (undo)" and "- you've already been told this is unacceptable per policy) (undo)"
The WP:Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brett_Kimberlin&diff=497145663&oldid=497142780
Also note that the same person that undid this edit says in the talk page that "And there's nothing "notable" about naming a senator in a lawsuit."
You would think people name US Senators in lawsuits all the time. Well they don't.
Mattsky ( talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23 Thanks for the link. It would have been nice if you gave it to me in one of our earlier exchanges. It would have penetrated a lot easier.
Mattsky ( talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It is too bad others can't be helpful with out the nasty attitude.
Mattsky ( talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Source states in reference to the death toll of the 1929 Palestine riots: In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots." Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64
I seek third party opinion on whether to interpret this to mean that of the predominantly British inflicted Arab deaths (universally accepted), Jews killed specifically seven people, or does this mean that Jews killed at least seven people? Ankh. Morpork 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that greater context is required so I have tried to list the other views on this issue. If I took this too far, I apologise. Ankh. Morpork 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed text: "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232 while trying to suppress the riots, and some sources stated that six Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources indicating seven."
The concern is how to present the Jewish inflicted Arab death toll. Some sources state 6, the BBC cites 110 caused by British police (from a seemingly agreed upon 116 total), and other sources indicate indirectly that the figure might have been higher. I have tried to achieve a formulation that covers both these viewpoints. Is it acceptable?
This issue has been contentious and ongoing for a while and many of the regular I-P editors have already expressed an opinion. I appreciate that I may have worded my query inaccurately and of course I have no objections to anyone pointing this out, but ideally I would prefer third party comment only and even better would be strictly comment from editors that do not edit I-P topics at all (Wishful thinking, I know). Thank you
Death toll:
Title: A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories
Author: Ahron Bregman
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
Page:24
Title: It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah
Author: Marlin Levin
Contributor: Esther Kustanowitz
Publisher: Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2002
Titre: The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases
Auteur: Martin Gilbert
Éditeur: Routledge, 2005
Title: Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History
Author: Weldon C. Matthews
Publisher: I.B.Tauris, 2006
A description of an individual attack
Title: A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press
Authors: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman
Translated by: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman
Publisher: Princeton University Press, 2008
Subsequent trials
This is an excerpt from the Wiki article with the following sources cited of which I have not been able to locate and directly quote from.
Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. 7 February 1930, New York Times: p. 9. 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Ankh. Morpork 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Please supply full scholarly citations. Author (Year) "Sub-work title if required" Work title Place published: Publisher, page range or URL. You're asking a hell of a lot here, have the courtesy to supply the information required to do the job. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As Ank has explained the rational for his proposal I shall briefly explain the rational for opposing the proposal then allow third party editors to opine. The main issue I see with AnkhMorpork's proposal is that the three sources that he relies on for the claim of 6 Arabs killed by Jews are all tertiary sources, none of them cite references or provide footnotes for their claims. Two of the sources are popular history books, the third is an "atlas" of the conflict (which basically provides maps, with one sentence summaries of important events in the conflict). I don't consider any of these to be high quality sources. What is more the 6 figure is contradicted by a number of high quality academic sources, the official British report into the riots which states that in the worst case of Jewish attacks 7 Arabs were killed, as well as the court cases following the riots in which Jews were convicted of 7 murders. None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity and I think our article should be based on these sources. Also the suggested edit intended for insertion into the lead, where it will contradict well sourced information from the article body. Dlv999 ( talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
While I applaud the effort to improve the quality of history sources, I don't agree with all of Fifelfoo's judgments. It is certainly true that newspapers are bad sources for history, but they are not bad sources for news. So when a contemporary newspaper reports that someone was found guilty of some crime in a court, it is fine to note it unless there is a quality secondary source that denies it. In this case there is a fine academic source noting the fact of the convictions and only some details are taken from the contemporary newspapers with no interpretation. It fits the "purely illustrative purposes" section of WP:HISTRS. Zero talk 11:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is also simply not true that use of sources like official reports is OR. Zero talk 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Title: The Arab-Israeli conflict: its history in maps
Auther: Martin Gilbert
Publisher: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984 Ankh. Morpork 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
,Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence
"Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"
Hi all. Was just wondering about this source: [23]. It's all a bit too techy for me to understand, but as I understand it it's a huge database of information relating to the Commodore 64. A new editor recently created this article, and sourced the website heavily. I removed the content as I don't consider it to be reliable - on this page of the website, it states under "Information" that:
As all the information is user-submitted and not uniformly reviewed/moderated/verified by any kind of editorial team it seems pretty clear to me that it's not a reliable source. However, the author contacted me and asked for clarification, and so I said I would get a third opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics asked me on my talk page whether the various US state department of education websites and documents discussing the Quantile Framework are acceptable sources, in particular:
My understanding is that they are primary sources, and while they can be used with care (in particular to verify that those states do use the Quantile Framework), they cannot establish the Quantile Framework's notability. Am I correct? Huon ( talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Please review the post I made on the talk page ( diff). Discussion can continue here, but it is preferred there. Thanks very much. 69.155.128.40 ( talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
“ | It is evident that Classmates.com routinely sends e-mails indicating that one of the recipient's classmates is looking for him/her. Allegedly, this is frequently untrue, and Classmates.com currently faces a lawsuit for this practice (which, if the allegation is true, constitutes fraud). [1] | ” |
“ | Seattle-based Classmates.com has agreed to pay up to $9.5 million to its users to settle a lawsuit that accused the social network of sending fraudulent emails that told recipients their old friends from school wished to reconnect (and the recipients would need to buy Classmates.com memberships to receive their old friends' contact information). The lead plaintiffs in the case, David Catapano and Anthony Michaels, would each receive $20,500 as part of that provision. | ” |
No source was cited on the second statement in concern. The first statement states "allegedly", the second statement is more definite. The reference appears to have a more definite tone to it, however, there may be other references cited in the article that point to possible deception rather than definite deception. Please provide a second opinion. I do not wish to make changes with the knowledge I have so far. 69.155.128.40 ( talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sources cited:
Source: Heroes & Villains a "coffee table" book containing photos by David Steen. Only 350 copies were produced. Everything in the book is by David Steen, except the forward is by Roger Moore.
Article: David Steen (photographer)
Content: "Steen’s other subjects, featured in his published book of photographs, include: Burt Lancaster[2], John Hurt[2], Dirk Bogarde[2], Dudley Moore and Peter Cook[2], the Rolling Stones[2], the Beatles[2], Robert Mitchum[2], Richard Harris[2], Ian Fleming[2], Orson Welles[2], John Cleese[2], Michael Caine[2], Truman Capote[2], Noël Coward[2], Pete Townshend[2], Lester Piggott[2], Rudolf Nureyev[2], James Coburn[2], Tom Jones[2], Somerset Maugham[2], Harold Robbins[2], Robert Shaw[2], Brian Epstein[2], Cliff Richard[2], Marc Bolan[2], Peter O’Toole[2], Bill Wyman[2], Harrison Ford[2], Roger Daltrey[2], Jack Palance[2], David Niven[2], Mickey Rooney[2], Saul Bellow[2], Evelyn Waugh[2], Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond[2], El Cordobes[2], Jason Robards[2], Terence Conran[2], Sammy Davis Jr[2], Graham Hill[2], Donald Sutherland[2], Bobby Moore[2], Ringo Starr[2], Pierce Brosnan[2], Alex ‘Hurricane’ Higgins[2], James Mason[2], Sir Ralph Richardson[2], Tom Stoppard[2], President Tito[2], Placido Domingo[2], Julie Christie[2], Twiggy[3][4], Sophia Loren[2], Ingrid Bergman[2], Jane Seymour[2], Bianca Jagger[2], Elizabeth Taylor[2], Britt Ekland[2]."
Question: My understanding is that book by a person cannot be used for claims about 3rd parties.
There is also the Amazon refs in the article that are sourcing that a photo inside the book is by Steen, but the Amazon refs never mentions Steen. I know this is clearly out of bounds, but article's author thinks otherwise. Bgwhite ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
On sunny days mothers would leave their babies in prams outside their homes and, to earn extra money, Steen would borrow a camera, photograph the babies, and have the pictures printed at a chemist shop. He would pay a shilling a print and then knock at the door of the mother and sell her a photo of her baby for two shillings.
There are many photographers of celebs. Some of these photographers put out books of photos of celebs. Some of these books appear in editions of five thousand or more, from established publishers (Phaidon, etc). A list of the celebs photographed in such a book hardly seems encyclopedic. I don't understand why a list of the celebs photographed in a self-published edition of 350 is any more encyclopedic. (Especially as I've seen plenty of photos of these people elsewhere. Now, if the book verifiably contained photos of Howard Hughes, J D Salinger and Thomas Pynchon, it would be a different matter.) -- Hoary ( talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Would this be considred reliable for listing genres for the article http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,8976881,00.html Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
I thought Allmusic was dismissed for Genres Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Yeah I understand now Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Uh, how is Artistdirect unreliable? It's a professional company, for crying out loud. It's just as reliable as Allmusic. Panic Reaper ( talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you also post on his talk about that sidebox genres from allmusic have been dismissed Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Well Allmusic has profiles for bands and artists, well at the left handside theres a box which lists genres, members, moods etc. Well I want people to know that Wikipedia has dismissed Allmusic for being a reliable source when it comes to GENRES, and i was hoping you could let PanicReaper know that those have been counted as unreliable Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
The San Francisco Chronicle has a blog called called City Brights - see here [24] The blog is contained on the San Francisco Chronicle's official website, however it carries this editor's note - "This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." Would this be a reliable source? The specific article that I would like to use can be seen here [25] -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The edits in question are here.
Interactions on the RS issue here
Here is the Hebrew news source re the note News1, with the note and its contents. Here is the poor google translation. This looks like RS to me. The World Net Daily article is [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669 here]. Israel Today's archives no longer contain the article, but it does contain the image of the note [27] and its editor has received but not yet replied to my enquiries, but copies of screenshots of the original article on 30/4/2007 are widespread.
Attempted interpretations and images of the note are still being addressed on what is reported to have been Kaduri's own site Intensive discussion on the meaning of the note is documented elsewhere here for example. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks as always for your trenchant opinions, RolandR. First, I think we must clarify that there is no attempt to claim that Yitzhak Kaduri identified Jesus the Nazarene as the Messiah in the edits, and that has been hotly contested by the considerable party of Rabbinic supporters of the note's genuineness. As to his belief that Messiah's return was immminent, that is sourced from Maariv not News One or the note's contents. Can you prove your claims about Kaduri.net? Did it not serve as his own site before his death? If not, why didn't he or his family disown it then? Neither interestingly, to my knowledge, is there any formal denial of the note's provenance, on line. Please correct me if I err. The presence of the image of the note in its archives, is strong corroboration of the widely published Israel Today article - even if it has curiously subsequently been withdrawn, and its editor not responding to enquiry. I wonder if others would like to comment about News One, especially since the journalist Yoav Yitzhak later joined Maariv, who's 'muck-raking' appears more acceptable here - isn't this a common description of a primary task for journalists? Cpsoper ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for corrections. For clarity's sake, the Maariv article has a whole paragraph entitled, 'המשיח עתיד להגיע', or 'the Messiah will come'. The paragraph below specifies in Kaduri's view this would be soon, and contains his claim of having met the Messiah, presumably mystically or in a vision, a year before. It was not my claim that the obituary mentioned the note, it was a year too early, simply that his strong Messianic expectation is well attested. Again for clarity, Kaduri's purported note does not name the Nazarene, he describes the Messiah, but by acronym, a common Kabbalistic technique, the derived name by Rabbinic Orthodox Jews, many of whom believe the note to be genuine, is Yehoshua. Any evidence of your statements about Kaduri.net? I would value the opinions of others on News One's value as RS. Cpsoper ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Have had communication from Israel Today editor, the article was in their print edition for 2007, 'We did feature it on our website for a time after WorldNetDaily wrote about it, but the article did not get reprinted online when we revamped our website.' I also hope to have news from Kaduri.net soon. I'd still be grateful for other views on News1. I see it is used elsewhere on wiki in at least two places as RS, Ronald Lauder and Nahum Barnea. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to transcribe these comments to talk if you agree appropriate. I await your response to questions of evidence on kaduri.net there, Shuki. Perhaps we should clarify with NFC whether it 'merely picked up the note picture' from kaduri.net, I agree that would not constitute proper journalism? Though the Israel Today and WND articles went further, as you know. I agree NFC is ordinarily RS, there are at least three other citations Gideon Levy, Yoel Lavy and Haaretz. If it were not ordinarily RS, these should also be amended. Cpsoper ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I grant my Hebrew is not excellent, but my reading of the page does suggest first hand sighting of the note, not a second hand report 'הגיע הערב (ג', 23.1.07) לידי Nfc.', the crucial word being 'to my hand'. There are also details about the note's writing which also imply first hand enquiry. It appears to be corroborated by the other two sources (though there may be some interdependence between WDN and IT) and of course kaduri.net. Cpsoper ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Granted, so, RR, is it still proposed that when NFC says, the note arrived to 'the hands of Nfc' on the evening of 23/1/07, and cites 'אנשי חצרו', 'men of his court' that this was generated only by seeing the note on Kaduri.net without another primary source? If that is the case, it would not be professional journalism, especially if as you and Shuki have claimed kaduri.net does not represent Rabbi Kaduri. However it doesn't seem at all likely, NFC also first broke the story about Kaduri's claims to have met the Messiah in 29/10/2005, so they have sources in his seminary. Cpsoper ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ with you both. NFC has been repeatedly accepted as RS for other pages, despite RR's global objection to the site. (I may have difficulty in counting but 'several editors' appears to be two at most, one specifically only to this incident.) Why must we start with assuming that NFC acted unprofessionally in this particular case, when it is RS elsewhere? What about the other two independent sources? Others on this noticeboard are discussing weblogs as RS! - these other two sources are identifiable, widely accessed institutions, with a track record in fact checking, self-correction, and are multiply-edited, with archived records. The question is not one of opinion, but of the incident of the note's discovery. From whence the onus to prove NFC acted out of character with its recognised modus operandi? There is ample evidence NFC has had connexion with Kaduri's seminary. The statement that NFC had the note idiomatically 'in hand' on 23/1/2007, in the evening is on the link above, Shuki. If there is a dispute about the note's provenance, please produce your sources. We have seen none except those you have so far chosen to reject. In addition, neither of you have as yet cited any formal evidence to contest the claim in print that kaduri.net represented the rabbi semi-officially during his life. I accept the note and its interpretation is controversial, and an entry should reflect that, but the evidence of its historicity is well substantiated, and I fear perhaps other considerations are affecting your weighing the nature of the sources. In the absence of objections I will cross post some of this discussion to the talk page. Cpsoper ( talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I recognise that 'reliable' sources may only be useful in specific contexts, and share considerable reservations about some of WND's reportage. However I note that a wiki-site specific google search for WND as a source returns nearly 500 hits, and includes some highly controversial subjects for which editors have considered it reliable. These include Johnny Chung, Failed terrorism plots, Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia), Project Daniel. For Israel today, there are 36 hits on a wiki-site specific search, and again include many Israel topics, like the beauty queen Liran Kohner, the charity Yad Sarah and List of artifacts significant to the Bible. These also include its use as RS on some highly controversial subjects, like Majdi Halabi, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and Gaza Baptist Church. Comments welcome. Cpsoper ( talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In a sense this may be a waste of time, as the editor seem unwilling to listen, but at Ancient Egyptian race controversy an editor, despite an ArbCom warning and discussions at the talk page and WP:NPOVN, insists that an exhibition of the Fitzwilliam Museum is one of several "conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research". The material in question is:
More recently the Fitzwilliam Museum of the University of Cambridge has dedicated the new "Kemet" exhibit to showing ancient Egypt in it's "proper African context". <ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">,{{cite web|title= Kemet|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/index.html}}</ref> The exhibit is based heavily on the work of scholars such as S.O.Y Keita, Ossama Abdel Meguid and Mpay Kemboly. The Museum also has the "Black to Kemet" exhibit which presents Egyptian art and posing the question;
"Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today."
<ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">Andrew Crowe ,{{cite web|title= Black to Kemet Placing Egypt in Africa|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/kemet/}}</ref>
I can't find any definitive statement on race by the museum. I can't even find the "proper African context" although I can find " placing Egypt in its African cultural context." [28]. I will say that the exhibition uses work by S. O. Y. Keita who does not believe in the concept of race and does not call Egyptians black, although he does say that the present population is probably similar to the ancient population.
As I said, he's been told this a number of times, but just as he's been told that the Britannica is not a reliable source, he keeps reinserting it. Dougweller ( talk) 10:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
Could someone please give opinions on the quality and reliability of sources used here. Details are included into the linked discussion. I've addressed several guys listed here asking them to confirm the sources. But only one of them replied so far very shortly. Thank you in advance. -- Nazar ( talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As a brief overview of Ryden, she is a controversial figure in and out of religious circles. I would like to get some opinions for the inclusion of some text for the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén in the Vassula Ryden article, and more importantly what people think of the 4 references that I would like to use to backup the text in question.
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Ryden's answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings. As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments”. He also advised that the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops regarding the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organized by Mrs. Ryden. [1] [2] [3] [4]
I will proceed to explain the details of the references in their numerical order:
Source 1) Hvidt (see reference #1) was a primary witness to the 2000-2004 dialogue which concluded in an interview with Joseph Ratzinger (now pope Benedict), in which Ryden and Hvidt were present. Niels Christian Hvidt obtained his doctoral degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University and made observations that were published in a part of his book, with Oxford University Press as the publisher. The book, under the direction of Fr. Prof. Elmar Salmann of the Pontifical Institute of Sant’Anselmo, is Hvidt’s doctoral dissertation, which investigates the issue of Christian Prophecy WP:3PARTY. This also makes it compliant with WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:IRS Scholarship
Here is a quote from the book (page 119, first paragraph) that I am basing most of my text on:
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Ryde´n through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’ The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.
Source 2) This source contains Josheph Ratzinger's 2004 letter in its entirety, also mentioned in Hvidts text
Source 3) Part two of this 2007 letter by William Levada confirms that the dialogue took place (see point 2). This reference is already being used in the article as a source for Levada's 2007 letter.
Source 4) This source is from a Swiss magazine. Ryden has lived in Switzerland for a considerable number of years, hence a lot of the publications regarding her are based in Switzerland, French and other foreign based sources. The last paragraph in the entire article reconfirms the issuing of the Josheph Ratzinger letter, dated July 10, 2004.
The original text is as follows:
La publication de ce dialogue a été annoncée dans une lettre datée du 10 juillet 2004, signée du cardinal Ratzinger en personne, adressée à plusieurs Présidents de Conférences épiscopales catholiques qui avaient exprimé leur souci concernant Vassula et ses écrits. Sa Sainteté leur expliquait dans son courrier que la position de la CDF est modifiée envers Vassula et ses écrits. Le Cardinal désire que chacun lise les questions posées par la CDF à Vassula et les réponses qu’elle leur a apportées.
The translated text Google Translate from French to English results in:
The publication of this dialogue was announced in a letter dated July 10, 2004, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in person, addressed to several Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences who expressed concern about Vassula and her writings. His Holiness explained to them in his letter that the position of the CDF is amended to Vassula and her writings. Cardinal wants everyone to read the questions posed by the CDF to Vassula and the responses it has made them.
Note that I am only intending to use the first part of the aforementioned text which mentions the July 10, 2004 letter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to know if the 4 combined aforementioned sources (considering they are cross referencing each other) would be good enough to include my proposed text, at least until I can find more publications (I know they are out there) which confirm the dialogue took place. Opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Arkatakor ( talk) 13:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned to IRWolfie- I am looking for other opinions than the people who have participated in that conversation, including yourself. Also I would advise that you stop trying remove the dispute tag. Currently there at least 2 ongoing disputes being made with regard to this article, as mentioned by IRWolfie- Arkatakor ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And nonetheless his book (source 1 in this topic) meets wikipedia criteria for reliable sources with flying colors, a point which you completely refused to acknowledge. RE: "did his thesis paper on her", as I already mentioned to you, in point 3 of my comment dated 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC), Rydén is mentioned only as one of the examples of prophecy within a chapter dedicated to historical examples of prophecy, which constitutes only one dimension of the larger framework of the book’s content.
The fact that you overlooked that point (among probably all the others in that post) clearly demonstrates that you seem unable or unwilling to register the information I have been trying to bring across to you.
For this reason I decided to cease discussing this topic with you any further and instead make a post here, to get a totally independent and objective view from someone who has not been involved in the discussion. Arkatakor ( talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You might also recall that I have said 3 or more times in this topic already, that I am not interested in your opinion or that of anyone else who has been involved in the Vassula Ryden dispute. Thanks. Arkatakor ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - User Arkatakor asked me, an uninvolved editor, to comment on this (because I also commented on the DRN page). It would be nice to have some other source for the 2000-2004 dialogs, especially a Vatican source. For example, the 1995 Vatican pronouncement is on the Vatican website here ... does the Vatican have something comparable for the 2000-2004 dialogs? Also: The sources above indicate that Ryden included some of the 2000-2004 dialogs in subsequent editions of her books. It is appropriate for the article to summarize the content of her books; and the post-2004 amendment which included some of this dialog could be mentioned in the article. That is permitted under the principle that a primary source or fringe source can be used as a citation for describing the content/view of the source itself. Thus, Ryden's book could be used to present her view of this purported dialog. But the article could not word it in such a way to suggest that the dialog conclusively happened ... it must simply say that Ryden claims the dialog happened, and that she amended her books in the year 200X to include blah, blah. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Some users cannot understand that a closed discussion is closed, and not to be reopened, even in another section. Reopening such a closed discussion amounts to disruption. Given the above disruption of RS/N process, further disruption is not required. Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fifelfoo: Thank you for closing the "Discussion by involved editors bringing their dispute to WP:RS/N" discussion. I had no intentions of bringing the dispute to this RSN and was on the verge of reporting the users who participated in it for harassment. Your comment on Hvidt's work conforms with the comments I made to justify its usage in the Vassula Ryden talk page. Noleander: I will wait to see if you have any further input based on Fifelfoo's emphasis on the quality of Hvidts work before I comment any further. Thanks. Arkatakor ( talk) 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
An Arabic-language source is being used to support a contentious claim on Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber. The article's come up at WP:BLP/N; I've done some cleanup as have others. I know foreign-language sources are permitted. Because I do not understand Arabic, however, I cannot verify the following:
Especially with the second part of that claim, I'm not sure that it does based on googletranslate, but that doesn't mean a great deal as it isn't much help with Asian languages. The source is possibly called Sharq newspaper. Thanks. -- 92.6.202.54 ( talk) 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
These are used in a number of articles as a source for biographies, see [2] and [3]. Any comments? Neither one of them feels reliable to me. Dougweller ( talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find any guideline or policy that speaks to this issue so I assume we treat each one on a simple case by case basis. My question is, how do we determine if an e-book is a reliable source, not self published (someone paid to have it published) or self published by an unnotable figure etc. Is this just a matter of looking very close at each use, determining the credentials of the author and their mainstream notablility, the publishing company (determining if they allow pay-for-publishing) and the overall notability of the publication? Are there any specific criteria i may look to in even an essay form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on the reliability of sources in Operation Sharp and Smooth. The discussion does unfortunately not take place on the talk page but here:
And here:
User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Explanation_required
AnkhMorpork ( talk) is of the opinion that I’m using unreliable sources. He mentions two specific cases. One case concerns an Arabic newspaper article (from al-Mustaqbal). I have frankly no idea why he believes it to be unreliable.
The other case may be more interesting to hear other views on. It concerns the initial Israel Defence Forces (IDF) statement about the Baalbek raid, supporting this content:
According to the IDF ten "terrorists" were killed and five captured during a "precise surgical raid", that claimed no IDF or civilian casualties.
This is the original link to the IDF home page:
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55483.EN
Unfortunately, this link is now dead, but I found the statement reproduced here:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=788256&Date=8/3/2006
AnkhMorpork seems to be of the impression that this link expresses the "views" of the United Jerusalem Foundation, rather than that of the IDF. It does not. The United Jerusalem Foundation is a pro-Israeli organization that among other things republishes thousands of articles relevant to Israel, including statements from the IDF. They usually provide links to the original files. I have never come across a case where they have faked or tampered with documents. It would be very surprising if they did so with an official Israeli statement.
Furthermore, all of the facts and the quotes that I use in the Wikipedia article are also found in these two reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0907.pdf (p. 124 and 129)
I prefer however to link to the United Jerusalem page since it contains the complete IDF statement. I have tried several times to recover it through the Wayback Machine. They seem to have kept a copy of the page from 2007:
When I try to access it I get the following message:
"Bummer. The machine that serves this file is down. We're working on it."
If somebody has any other idea how to retrieve the original link I am grateful for suggestions.
Assuming we cannot retrieve the original IDF statement, what is the best way to handle this problem? Should we make an explicit remark in the footnote that the original link is dead? Should we keep the United Jerusalem link or switch to the HRW / Amnesty links? Or use both?
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 08:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting.
For other editors, to supply the deficits in Jokkmokks-Goran's ability to cite sources as requested, the al-Mustaqbal article is:
Is used to support the following claim, "An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting." plus a list of names.
I also have trouble with the math based on that source, and the conclusion you are drawing for the same reason as Fiflefoo. I understand how you get there, but it is not supported by the source, and using the source for it is original research. The article is very clear, going so far as naming each name. The person who fell from the helicopter was not injured during the fighting, therefore was not listed as a casualty of battle. Therefore, claiming he is, is OR. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Our religious organization recently built a Mosque in Mexico, and we put a Wiki citation to chronicle its development and existence, especially as it is the only Mosque located in Baja California. Is this or the content outside of Wiki guidelines? Cite: Masyid al Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.184.136.253 ( talk • contribs)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
I have a query whether these websites would be considered reliable in the context of providing information on Irish politics.
The Cedarloungerevolution is a blog which contains an online archive containing a number of documents from a number of historical and current left ing groups. IEL is an archive of election literature. It also contains infromation on past local election results in Ireland. The final website is run by Dr Adrian Kavanagh of NUI Maynooth.
If these websites are unreliable can anyone give an explanation as to why so? UNATCOReviewer ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
reliable source
here some tag for trying not deleted Frederic Gracia page I place here some reliable references found and added within a ten-day grace period, for this article may be not deleted.
Is this piece in Tablet magazine a reliable source for support of the 'Criticism' section of our article titled The Zeitgeist Movement? (And the 'Criticism' section of the related articles Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward [hereafter called 'the Zeitgeist movies'].)
I apologize for the posting below being long. The only reason for that is that the piece in Tablet magazine is very long, and has many problems.
I think there are two sets of issues:
(a) General problems with Tablet magazine, and
(b) Specific problems with the particular piece in Tablet, authored by Michelle Goldberg.
(a) This is the About Us of Tablet. This is the Home page of Nextbook Inc. This is the Staff page of Nextbook Inc.
As you can see, none of these pages contain clear info on whether Tablet has a reliable publication process. For example, the only staff persons mentioned are an executive director, editorial director and a creative director. But there is no info on how many people, if any, are directly engaged in, say, checking facts and accuracy, analyzing legal issues, and closely scrutinizing the writing. And there is no info on the source of the funding.
(b) Regarding the specific article in Tablet by Michelle Goldberg: In the sequel, I believe I provide proof that the article may contain lies, concealment of inconvenient truths, and distortions and twists of other truths.
Goldberg's Tablet pieces expresses a negative POV about The Zeitgeist Movement. She states anywhere from common criticism that is supported by our set of reliable sources (for example, allegations that the Zeitgeist movement advocates utopianism, communism, an un-realistic global socio-economic system, etc), but Goldberg's Tablet piece focuses mostly on extremely negative, paranoia-based, fear-mongering-based, hate-mongering-based criticisms of The Zeitgeist Movement (and the three Zeitgeist movies), criticisms that are not supported, nor even mentioned, by any of the reliable sources that support our article: the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, Globes (an Israeli financial newspaper), TheMarker (another Israeli financial newspaper), and TheMarker Television (Israel). (The Zeitgeist movement was also interviewed 5 times on RT Television, where it was also [mildly] criticized.) Goldberg has commodified Tablet readers' natural hatred and fear of anti-semitism, and is apparently attempting to financially profit from that fear and hatred, by using the Zeitgeist movement as a coat-rack.
If the Zeitgeist movement and its 3 films were (reasonably, not to mention widely) believed to be anti-Jewish within the (Hebrew-speaking, or English-speaking, or global) Jewish community, would it not be reasonable to assume that, at the very least, the two Israeli papers and the Israeli TV interview would characterize the movie as anti-Jewish? After all, the lede of our article on Israel states: "Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state."
Literally thousands of articles have been written in hundreds of highly reliable sources around the globe over the last 6 years accusing Wall Street (and global) bankers of malfeasance. If Michelle Goldberg's analysis is a reliable source, then the authors of all these articles in reliable sources are anti-semites and Nazis. And so are all the participants in Occupy Wall Street, and the thousands of members of the Zeitgeist movement who are Jewish, including the members of the Israeli chapter of the movement.
Furthermore, in all our reliable sources, members of the Zeitgeist movement were given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond to criticism, and all these sources printed the movement's responses to critical allegations. Again, the Tablet stands out as an extreme exception: there is no indication in the Tablet piece that Goldberg provided the movement with a reasonable opportunity to respond to her allegations, or that she reviewed the many tens of hours of videos posted on the movement's official website, to find counter-arguments to balance her biased accusations.
Thank you. user:IjonTichyIjonTichy
Based on their About page, they have editorial oversight and are staffed by professionals with degrees in journalism, and their articles have been republished by multiple times by at least one other reliable source. For example: Good Samaritans. I would say that it's reliable. While scholarly sources may be more desirable, often times with fringe theories, such sources don't exist and we should use the best that are available. If in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just blocked one of the participants in this dispute for edit warring, and then started nosing about to see what it is all about. I haven't and won't be editing the article, however. I agree with everybody that the Tablet article is a reliable source, but also concur with Fifelfoo and others that high quality, scholarly articles about the movement are best. I've just found this scholarly article] which talks about the Zeitgeit Movement thus "The second [illustration of conspirituality] is weighted towards conspiracy theory. It was taken from the Zeitgeist Movement, a web site promoting global activism connected to Zeitgeist the Movie, a 2007 web movie. Zeitgeist alleges, among other things, that organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job. The producers claim that the movie has been viewed 100 million times." I can send copies of this article to anybody who sends me an email through WP mail. Here is another source which will likely require a German speaker: the article is the one by Björn Milbradt in the online peer-reviewed journal "Conflict & communication online". The (English) introduction says that the article "offers reasons why 'fixed' definitions of anti-Semitism are in some ways inadequate. "Anti-Semitism after Auschwitz" is basically characterized by its vagueness and the need to work with allusions rather than with manifest resentments. In 'Zeitgeist' this is accomplished by providing viewers with a description of an alleged international conspiracy and some indications of whom the filmmakers hold responsible for it. 'Zeitgeist' can be interpreted as a document that systematically develops the grassroots of an actualized manifest anti-Semitism." These articles might prove helpful to editors, perhaps. -- Slp1 ( talk) 00:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Rationale:
wp:SELFPUB: "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."
Compton is an award-winning scholar in the relevant field, hence, per our guideliens, his self-published monograph on the Romney family's roots should be considered reliable esp. for non-controversial assertions.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)1. It is self-published. 2. the assertion that he is an award-winning scholar (in what field?) is a possible issue. 3. The assertions are considered controversial by at least one editor. "Todd Compton" has zero mentions in the NYT archives, which seems to raise doubts on my part. In fact, Awards from the "Mormon History Association" are, IMO, considered "minor awards" and insufficient to grant him "expert" status for a self-published source. Even if they are listed in his Wikipedia article. With the reference being a SPS from the ... Mormon History Association! Sorry the "award-winning" claim is a teensy bit weak. Thus he is not an "expert in the field" per Wikipedia guidelines (awards from minor organizations are generally ignored), he does not qualify as an academic for a year teaching at a university, and the nature of the "third party publishers" is a valid issue - the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting Mormon studies. It does not qualify as an "academic publisher" alas. And the articles show he is primarily a "theology person" [4] which is a problem with using his person website. Google News archives show he was employed by the Deseret News [5] , but that is about it for notability in any news reports. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I note that Todd Compton's piece has extensive footnotes with many, many, many sources given. Even if there is doubt about the piece, many of the sources it lists can be used. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Although Mormon studies is a fast-growing academic discipline, Mr. Quinn -- a former professor at Mormon-run Brigham Young University and the author of six books on Mormon history -- can't find a job. In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. ... ... Supporting himself on research grants and fellowships, Mr. Quinn cemented his scholarly reputation by publishing four books on Mormon history between 1994 and 1998, including a two-volume study of the church's interactions with politics and American society. In 1999, he began pursuing a full-time faculty job, to no avail. Few secular schools at the time sought a specialist in Mormonism. ... ... Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses. Utah eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with [Edited: someone else]. Arizona State University's department of religious studies recommended to the university administration that Mr. Quinn be offered a one-year appointment for 2004-05. It was starting a doctoral-degree program with a focus on religion in the Americas. Aware that Mr. Quinn was controversial, the faculty took pains to stress to administrators that his scholarship was first-rate, says Tracy Fessenden, a professor of American religions. --- Apr. 6, 2006 WSJ
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ... Articles are peer reviewed. ... Journal of Mormon History ... Articles are peer reviewed, generally of strong scholaraly caliber...."--- THE EMERGENCE OF MORMON STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Armand L. Mauss – from American Sociology of Religion: Histories, Volume 13 of Religion and the Social Order ( BRILL, 2007).
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"Outside of Utah and Illinois, very few other university presses have taken on Mormon-related books, as will be apparent from a glance down the bibliography at the end of this chapter. Most prominent among those that have is Oxford University Press, which has recently published several such books, but the University of Oklahoma Press has recently also decided to expand its Mormon list. Of the commercial presses, by far the most important one in Mormon Studies is Signature Books, based in Salt Lake City, which has produced a number of distinguished scholarly works about Mormons, both in history and in current issues, since its inception in 1980. Some of its books have been quite critical, at least implicitly, of traditional Mormon truth-claims, policies, or practices, which have made it less appealing to both authors and readers of a more orthodox bent. Nevertheless, it is the single most prolific commercial publisher of scholarly work on the Mormons. Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City also specializes in Mormon Studies, but it is a much newer and smaller operation and primarily a specialized publisher of limited editions of important works that might not otherwise be published. So far it has published works in history and theology, with little or nothing of a social-scientific kind."--- Mauss (ibid.)
Is this source [6] reliable for this statement: "A response condemning this statement was made by the Jewish website Aleph Melbourne." To see the article, contested edit, and the statement being "condemned" click here: [7] Freikorp ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Not to make a major discussion out of a military order, however, if I do, pardon me.
I had a minor discussion with User:Yopie and the user believes it is fringe to use theories, however, there are many uses of theories to show about the Templar facts, and has deleted my book source when I had the right to use the book source of "Henry Dunant un die Templer". If deleting the main theory, then why didn't the user have the right to delete the theory of Knights Templar (freemasony) since it can be a major fringe, due to its theoretical definition of investigation between the Knights Templar and freemasonry. I was just about to edit a possible theory with the shriners, who are met with speculation with the Templars and the Red Cross Movement, from whom, Henry Dunant, was indeed a freemason. If theoretical sources are aloud to legends for military orders vanished for many centuries, then please explain Yopie why delete a possible theory of many theories, when the theory of above mine is also part fringed, the section called Knights Templar (Freemasonry), theorizing with Free Masons and Templars(possible X and Y), although, they suggest they are not from the Templar movement.
My main paragraph and source was used on this article:
There are similarities between the Committee of the Red Cross and the Knights Templar. Since, the creation of the Red Cross movement, Henry Dunant, the founder of the Committee, was a freemason in Switzerland, where it was rumored some of the knights had fled to the highlands of Switzerland and helped the villagers by blending with the civilians, to escape persecution from Pope Clement V and King Philip IV. It is a possible theory the movement still shows their presence by helping the wounded, meek, sick, and for other needs around the world.
Source Book from very few known:
| last = Quellmalz | first = Alfred | title = "Henri Dunant und die Templer" | publisher = Gebietsleitung d. Tempelgesellschaft, | year= 1964 | location = Stuttgart, Germany | pages = 62 | isbn = 978-3639064797
One major problem is that the name "Knights Templar" has been used by so many individuals and groups who have not the slightest connection with the Masonic groups or witht he historis Knights Templar -- which means that every "nut case" who says the two words can end up in articles on the Knights Templar <g>. As for the link to the IRC, one significant problem is that one person with the posited link to freemasons does not make any sort of a case that the large group which absolutely included non-Masons was a secret societ of Knights Templar. Amazingly enough, the idea of helping others was not restricted to that group. The word "fringe" is thus properly applied. Collect ( talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
That explains alot for the proper word of "fringe" ideas used in the section for the theories of Shriners and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).-- GoShow (........)16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a question I originally posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85, but I was pointed here.
I'm looking to determine the reliability of this source. It seems to be unavailable on the Internet, but it is used in a number of places, including History of scientific method and Book of Optics. The claims it is making seem quite dubious, e.g. (paraphrased) "Alhazen's scientific approach resembled the modern scientific method." These two particular articles also contain a numbered procedure for the scientific method (hypothesis, test, etc) and give this as the source - but I'm pretty sure that's a much more recent innovation, and the two lists are not consistent with each other.
This is the answer I already received:
Thanks a lot! Arc de Ciel ( talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to use a variety of Overseas Development Institute publications to provide additional insight to a number of articles. For example, I want to add the following section to the Pastoralism article:
Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute explored the management of natural resources relating to pastoralism in the Horn of Africa. They highlight that the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations [1]. As a result, agencies working in this area are obliged to consider a range of relevant issues, and not focus on any one issue in isolation. Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial.
ODI is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian policy. Founded in 1960, it has made major contributions to research, dissemination and policy change, on all aspects of development and humanitarian policy. The Institute has a staff of around 150, half of whom are researchers, with the remainder providing a wide range of support services.
ODI's mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.
With a reputation for high-quality research and policy advice, ODI is in demand by governments, international institutions and other partners around the globe. Through their core research programmes they work across a wide range of sectors that have a direct impact on the well-being of the poorest people in developing countries. In addition, ODI offers consultancy services that include monitoring and evaluation and the development and delivery of tailored training courses, as well as expertise in communications and knowledge management.
ODI attaches great importance to dissemination and public policy work. The Institute:
- publishes two peer reviewed journals – Development Policy Review and Disasters – as well as a range of authoritative publications such as ODI Briefing Papers, Working Papers and Opinions
- has a large public affairs programme, with many public meetings and seminars also streamed live online
- runs international networks, for example the Humanitarian Practice Network and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network
- hosts the Secretariat for the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)
- provides support to parliamentary activities, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD).
ODI also manages the ODI Fellowship Scheme, which has placed postgraduate economists in government positions in developing countries since 1963.
The ODI is held in high esteem by both international policy makers and the global scholarly community. For example, t The James McGann Think Tank Index, updated annually, ranked the ODI second in the world for International Development Think Tanks. in 2009
[2] ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the
Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the
World Bank.
ODI’s research programmes cover a vast range of development and humanitarian issues. Further information is available in the Institute’s Annual Report, and on the website.
[3]
NewsAndEventsGuy and I have been discussing whether ODI publications are a reliable source. I am very much of the opinion that they are. My talk page provides extensive evidence to support my position. It would be great to have some further input from other editors to confirm for certain that this is the case.
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to write a very thorough question. However, I'm not sure I fully followed it, did you want to include the section above entitled "The status, history and mission of ODI" in the Pastoralism article? Or is that just there to try and help your case and convince us that you're right? I'm thinking it's the latter, in which case, please don't do that (feel free to remove it), we can do our own research here thank you.
Assuming I'm correct, discussing the first part of your question, ODI seems like an RS source for this claim, although I would change your first sentence a bit as it's almost an exact quote of your source, and if you're doing that a lot in the article you're going to run into wp:copyvio issues. The source seems solid, and you've even included an inline attribution. I don't see the problem here. They appear to be experts, and this is their analysis. However, this does not mean that I can say yes to them being RS for "additional insight to a number of articles" as you mention above. RS-ness is evaluated on a context basis (it also does not cover notability or any other issues for your articles). Just because they are RS for this edit does not mean they are RS for every edit you would like to make. I'm only making comment on the one you've provided here. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments and advice. Despayre - I would certainly only put the section relating to Pastoralism into the article; the information about ODI was merely to provide information about ODI to other users. Someone had previously recommended that I do this.
I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications. I will be sure not to paraphrase from the publication itself in order to avoid copyright problems. Thank you DGG for highlighting this. I think ODI publications have a lot to offer in terms of providing current, well researched findings to wikipedia users.
Many thanks again for your input!
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Easy question,
WP:SPS generally refers to a single person, who may or may not be an expert, not usually to organisations who, in this case, has a staff of people with obvious experience and expertise. If you look at the staff listing for ODI, they have extensive expertise in this field, ergo, they're RS. However, as I pointed out to Polly, it helped that it was cited inline, and it may not be RS for other things she wants to use them for. The same policy would probably apply to some questions about right/left wing extreme groups too, assuming they had the education/expertise/experience on staff to back up their point of view, and they didn't stumble into
WP:FRINGE problems. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply from the bolded section of Polly's comment above, but whatever she wants to do with her edits seems a little outside the scope of this board. Having said that, if you feel she's used something from ODI in a way that it shouldn't be, or may not be RS, please bring it back here and we'll evaluate that. As I said, ODI likely won't be RS for everything, but I can't speculate without context (which would make it not speculation at all
. --
Despayre
tête-à-tête 15:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
All ODI briefing papers, working papers, background notes and journal articles are peer reviewed. ODI is the UK's leading think tank on international development and internationally was ranked second only to the Brookings institute, according to the James McGann Think Tank Index [1]. ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank. ODI has no political allegiances. I have taken on board the comments raised here, and understand that the extent to which a source is a reliable source depends on the exact context. Are you happy for me to make edits with this is mind?
Many thanks,
Hannah Polly Williams ( talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Prog Sphere is a growing online progressive music magazine with thousands of hits every week. We update every day with new CD reviews as well as interviews, album and concert reviews, and other music related content. We are covering vast field of music genres ranging from progressive rock, progressive metal, jazz fusion, stoner rock, to psychedelic, space rock and its related subgenres.
We consider that we are a reliable source of informations that could be used on Wikipedia, as we bring the "ontopic" material that is reliable and is the point of interest.
Any thoughts?
Is this piece in the Ventura County Reporter a reliable source for support of any aspect/ section of The Zeitgeist Movement? (For example in support of a brief discussion of the movement's key/ core ideas, etc.) Does the Ventura County Reporter have a reliable publication process?
Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an abundance of cites to allmusic.com at The Beatles, is this self-published website a WP:RS? — GabeMc ( talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
A section of work (see
here for the removed info) was recently removed from the
List of James Bond novels and stories article as it was "based entirely on self-published source", in line with
WP:SPS. The section was entirely based on one work, Griswold, John (2006).
Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories.
AuthorHouse.
ISBN
978-1-4259-3100-1. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) The publisher is the self-publisher AuthorHouse, (
Wikilink;
weblink). I think a decision on the reliability of this source could assist; a
partial discussion has taken place before moving over to here.
The Griswold book goes a little further than the usual self-published sources and deserves to be classed as "reliable" for the following reasons:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help));{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help).These are all without looking at a number of references used by the mainstream fansites, MI6-hq.com and commanderbond.net. Short of an endorsement from a beyond-the-grave Fleming himself, I'm not sure what else is needed to verify the credibility of the book. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, Are you happy that Griswold is a reliable source to use? Many thanks. SchroCat ( ^ • @) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: it is a domain owned and operated by Fairfax Media, and hosted on Fairfax Media servers. Its primary use appears to be for the use of its journalists and on-air 'personalities'. Fairfax Media is the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and radio station 2UE. Please also note the whois of the domain: http://whois.domaintools.com/mytalk.com.au I am using it to source a JPG photograph in the Craig Thomson affair article, which highlights inconsistencies in the alleged evidence against him. It was removed as an 'unreliable source', however Senator George Brandis thought the photo was good enough to submit to the NSW Police in his letter of 23 August 2011 to the NSW Police Commissioner and use as his "Annexure A"; please see [10] - which admittedly is from mytalk.com.au. As mytalk.com.au is itself an annexure of Fairfax Media, and they were a defendant in the defamation case of the article's subject, I believe the JPG should be restored (and the Brandis letter may be added) for the purposes of the article at issue. That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks. 2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' ( http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Wikipedia as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source? 121.216.230.139 ( talk) 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
Dear IP editor. You may have never encountered the idea of a "source" or a "citation" before, the following may help progress discussion. Only specific objects, ie: particular newspaper articles, segments of radio shows, books, authored chapters in edited books, parliamentary reports, or specific pages on a website may be reliable. A newspaper, a radio channel, a publisher, an editor, a parliament or an entire website are not sources. Please specifically indicate which objects you'd like us to discuss by citation. For example: Author (year) "Title of specific work" Title of newspaper, book, website, or radio show containing work page number or URL reference. Please note that some content on otherwise reliable sources may not be considered either reliable or worthy of weight of inclusion into the encyclopaedia. In particular: opinion pieces are often misused; primary sources, ie: material requiring original interpretation to make sense of, are often misused. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
These are from the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies#Diwaniyya Podcast. The center itself would normally be a reliable source, but these are from what is described as " It connotes open discussion, a meeting of the minds. Diwaniyya is not another news program or political commentary podcast; it offers a wider view of a multifaceted Middle East. Through thought-provoking conversations on different issues in the region, Diwaniyya contextualizes current events and trends." Oh great, I hate it when you start one thing and it leads to another, eg this is copyvio from [11]. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. One of the edits is at [12]. Several similar links have been added by two editors, and the authors of the podcasts are Shoshi Shmuluvitz (one of the editors adding the links) and Ben Silbee [13]. Both editors adding the links are staff there. The two authors are graduate students and I'm not convinced that we should be using these podcasts (besides the COI issue). I'll invite them to comment here. Dougweller ( talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug, this is Ben Silsbee, one of the co-producers at Diwaniyya. You are correct in stating that both of us are graduate students and we understand the COI issue. The podcast is a fully funded publication of the Moshe Dayan Center and receives the approval of the academics and guests involved as well as regular review for content from Professor Uzi Rabi, the director of our center. I would also like to clarify that the podcast is an academic product, NOT op-eds, as some users have indicated. The text, taken from our description, is press copy indicating that show topics are not necessarily tied into current events, as is the case with many other Dayan Center publications. The show is in an interview format with guests who have the extensive publication history necessary for relevance in an academic setting, such as Martin Kramer, Meir Litvak, Ofra Bengio, Liat Kozma, and many others. The rare episodes which do not feature senior researchers speaking about their researchers have been either expert interviews with figures such as Haaretz reporter Avi Issacharoff, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of Academic Affairs director Mahdi Abdul Hadi, or the occasional "man-on-the-street" style report, such as interviewing Christian Pilgrims at Christmas in Bethlehem.
I think for clarity purposes we need to distinguish again between the Diwaniyya blog and the podcast itself. In my opinion, the content of the podcast, which is on the record and sourced from either reliable academic sources or newsworthy subjects should not be considered op-ed. The blog, which is the text portion on www.diwaniyya.blogspot.com is written primarily by graduate students, and while it reflects current academic research in the given subject for wikipedia purposes I agree that the source article should be cited rather than the summary blog posts. With regards to the podcasts themselves, the benefits of citing these on a Wikipedia page are twofold: they are primary sources with regards to the research of the guests and are useful not only for research purposes on the subject at hand, but for historiography purposes, e.g. Washington Institute for Near East Policy Fellow Martin Kramer's work on Western views of Islamic reformer Jamal Al-din al-Afghani may be found in short form in his published work but are significantly augmented and clarified in the episode of the podcast in which he is a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catblender ( talk • contribs)
I have two sources:
In connection to that, my question is: are these two sources reliable for the following statement:
Thank you in advance.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) On Heni, who are the peer reviewers? If all the "peers" believe that the purpose of commemorating the Latvian Legion is to glorify Arajs and other collaborators who murdered Jews in the Holocaust (a patently false and inflammatory claim), that isn't a very objective community. Arajs' crimes against humanity are well documented and universally acknowledged for what they are. Heni's piece from which you quote states the complete opposite, not only have Latvians not acknowledged Arajs' crimes against humanity, but the anti-Semitic lot of them including the government itself celebrate his contributions to eradicating Jewry. Heni's is an advocacy opinion piece, regardless of who reviewed it and gave it a "pass." VєсrumЬа ► TALK 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
User Boydbastian is an insider with the company of the article. He brought to the communities attention that their "Athlete Guarantee Program" has evolved since its inception with the RS we currently have from Toledo Blade. The article above is an interview with Timothy Bradley about this weekend's Bradley vs. Pacquiano boxing match. On the surface, the source seems to have editorial oversight: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ - However, this source has been vehemently contested by the primary editor of this article as non-RS, SPS, and even went so far to say the company, Boydbastian, or myself must have paid this reporter to post an article that is "clearly promotional in nature".
If you'd like to read the entire talk banter it is here.
I'd like to get a read from the community on this source, and whether or not this is RS for Boxing news, which the news site appears to me to be. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you - I appreciate any independent community feedback. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Euzen ( talk · contribs) has been slowly edit-warring for several weeks to push an outdated, naive folk etymology into the Names of Istanbul article [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This is sourced to a mid-19th century work by a Greek writer called Scarlatos Byzantios, the author of a Greek dictionary and a book on the history of Constantinople. Byzantios, while still occasionally quoted on matters of general history, is utterly outdated with respect to his linguistics: he had no knwledge of what in his lifetime was the emerging modern academic discipline of historical linguistics, and continued the centuries-old practice of guesswork "etymologies" that were essentially made up on the spot, on the basis of chance resemblances with any modern word in any language a writer cared to think of. Moreover, in his days, there had not been any serious study of Balkan placename histories yet. The foundational works on Thracian, Illyrian and other similar substrate languages in SE European toponyms were written only in the 20th century. The current academic consensus is that the name in question here (Lygos), just like most other old toponyms in the area, is of Thracian origin. Byzantios in 1851 could not possibly have had anything pertinent to say about this, because the whole discipline on which such judgments are based was not yet developed.
Euzen clearly isn't willing to listen, and I frankly have no patience to discuss furthern with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
For those who believe that Fut.Perf's concern is purely linguistic and not at all ethnic: The ref. to Sc.Byzantios's doesn't say that "this is THE etymology" but "according to". F.P., with all his linguistic fervour, or anyone else, did not supply any other etymology of the name Lygos. Besides, this is not exactly an "etymology", as the name is identical with it's assumed source. I had added to the article (see discussion) one more reference, linking the name Lygos with the root of other names like Lygii, Ligures and Lugdunum (
EYÜPSULTAN SYMPOSIA I - VIII : SELECTED ARTICLES p. 221.) published by an internationally accepted contemporary Turk professor. However, this publication doesn't support the view that Fut.Perf. likes, that Byzantium is of "Thracian" origin and connects it with a homeric word. Unfortunately, this online publication obviously has been attacked by hackers who added a nonsense, that some christian saints of 4th c. are ... muslims. That was perfect for F.P. who erase the reference to the name. At the same time he (F.P.) promotes as a source a Popist priest who's job was to promote Unia in the Balkans (a church referring to a certain nation of the Balkans, who's national mythology absorbs most of F.P's interest) (
[22]) and who (Janin) does not give his sources supporting a "thracian etymology" of Lygos. For those who don't know, there are no "Thracian" texts and no serious scientist would claim that he knows about Thracian language(s) any more than some isolated names and words. Just for the history, Unia's only opponent is the Greek Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
N.B. All the above said, I have no bad feelings for F.B. We both know that "Our names is our souls" as
Odysseas Elytis said. :)
--
Euzen (
talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see then what modern scholarship thinks about Sk. Byzantios. I cite here some contemporary (post-WWII) scholarly works referencing Sc. Byzantios. The name is variantly found also as Skarlatos, Scarlatus, Vyzantios, Byzantius. I excluded Greek authors, as they could be biased by national feelings.
Noticeably, he is cited as a source on ambiguous or rare words and on proposed etymologies, as in:
Echos d'Orient: revue bimestrielle de théologie ... , 1971, vol. 22. “Scarlatos Byzantios a proposé une etymologie moins fantaisiste ... “
Pierre Cabanes (1993) Actes du IIe Colloque international de Clermond-Ferrand, 5-27 octobre 1990, Volume 2: “On conservera donc le nom d' Amphineus, fils d'Hector, qui est généralement oublié dans les lexiques (à l'exception de quelques raretés, comme le vieux dictionnaire de Scarlatos Byzantios, où nous l'avons dépisté) et pour cela est resté ...”
But R. Janin does refer to Byzantios:
Constantinople byzantine, by R. Janin, p. 259 :)
In some other works:
After this, I propose that his opinion on the origin of toponym "Lygos" be included in the article as "According to..." or "Sk. Byz. claimed that...", possibly adding "a view that is not to be found in other sources", adding of course any other opinion on this toponyme (as controversial or not).
--
Euzen (
talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Apart from our opinions, do we have any source supporting another etymology or claiming that Sk. Byzantios was wrong?
2) Apart from Pliny, do we have other ancient author or an archaeological finding claiming that the old name of Byzantium was "Lygos"? Certainly we don't, therefore, following Someguy's reasoning, we should delete that paragraph.
Btw, in saying "Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories ... only about the history thereof", Someguy gave me a good idea: A history of etymological opinions on Istanbul. Or "Lygos, a toponym and it's history". Thanks Someguy, this is some idea. --
Euzen (
talk) 11:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
F.P. I admire your ability to turn everything upside-down. Janin (the "reliable") is not talking about a "Thrakian name" but the name of a possible "Thrakian settlement" attested (the name) by a Roman author about 8 centuries after it was supposedly used. So, the one source (janin) does not contradict the other (Byzantios), for the same reason that today Ankara is a Turkish settlement but has a Greek name.
A separate article on the toponym(s) will certainly have more material and encyclopedic interest than, e.g., the series of one-line articles on the mayors of Elbasan, like this
Hafez Musa Ali Basha, which you are requested to review when we are done with Lygos.
--
Euzen (
talk) 09:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Is everyhit.com a WP:RS? — GabeMc ( talk) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Specifically,
They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act.[348]
[348] of course being a cite to everyhit.com — GabeMc ( talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The source in question:
I edit was removed and it was cited that "no primary sources) (undo)" and "- you've already been told this is unacceptable per policy) (undo)"
The WP:Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brett_Kimberlin&diff=497145663&oldid=497142780
Also note that the same person that undid this edit says in the talk page that "And there's nothing "notable" about naming a senator in a lawsuit."
You would think people name US Senators in lawsuits all the time. Well they don't.
Mattsky ( talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23 Thanks for the link. It would have been nice if you gave it to me in one of our earlier exchanges. It would have penetrated a lot easier.
Mattsky ( talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It is too bad others can't be helpful with out the nasty attitude.
Mattsky ( talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Source states in reference to the death toll of the 1929 Palestine riots: In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots." Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64
I seek third party opinion on whether to interpret this to mean that of the predominantly British inflicted Arab deaths (universally accepted), Jews killed specifically seven people, or does this mean that Jews killed at least seven people? Ankh. Morpork 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that greater context is required so I have tried to list the other views on this issue. If I took this too far, I apologise. Ankh. Morpork 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed text: "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232 while trying to suppress the riots, and some sources stated that six Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources indicating seven."
The concern is how to present the Jewish inflicted Arab death toll. Some sources state 6, the BBC cites 110 caused by British police (from a seemingly agreed upon 116 total), and other sources indicate indirectly that the figure might have been higher. I have tried to achieve a formulation that covers both these viewpoints. Is it acceptable?
This issue has been contentious and ongoing for a while and many of the regular I-P editors have already expressed an opinion. I appreciate that I may have worded my query inaccurately and of course I have no objections to anyone pointing this out, but ideally I would prefer third party comment only and even better would be strictly comment from editors that do not edit I-P topics at all (Wishful thinking, I know). Thank you
Death toll:
Title: A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories
Author: Ahron Bregman
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
Page:24
Title: It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah
Author: Marlin Levin
Contributor: Esther Kustanowitz
Publisher: Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2002
Titre: The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases
Auteur: Martin Gilbert
Éditeur: Routledge, 2005
Title: Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History
Author: Weldon C. Matthews
Publisher: I.B.Tauris, 2006
A description of an individual attack
Title: A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press
Authors: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman
Translated by: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman
Publisher: Princeton University Press, 2008
Subsequent trials
This is an excerpt from the Wiki article with the following sources cited of which I have not been able to locate and directly quote from.
Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. 7 February 1930, New York Times: p. 9. 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Ankh. Morpork 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Please supply full scholarly citations. Author (Year) "Sub-work title if required" Work title Place published: Publisher, page range or URL. You're asking a hell of a lot here, have the courtesy to supply the information required to do the job. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As Ank has explained the rational for his proposal I shall briefly explain the rational for opposing the proposal then allow third party editors to opine. The main issue I see with AnkhMorpork's proposal is that the three sources that he relies on for the claim of 6 Arabs killed by Jews are all tertiary sources, none of them cite references or provide footnotes for their claims. Two of the sources are popular history books, the third is an "atlas" of the conflict (which basically provides maps, with one sentence summaries of important events in the conflict). I don't consider any of these to be high quality sources. What is more the 6 figure is contradicted by a number of high quality academic sources, the official British report into the riots which states that in the worst case of Jewish attacks 7 Arabs were killed, as well as the court cases following the riots in which Jews were convicted of 7 murders. None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity and I think our article should be based on these sources. Also the suggested edit intended for insertion into the lead, where it will contradict well sourced information from the article body. Dlv999 ( talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
While I applaud the effort to improve the quality of history sources, I don't agree with all of Fifelfoo's judgments. It is certainly true that newspapers are bad sources for history, but they are not bad sources for news. So when a contemporary newspaper reports that someone was found guilty of some crime in a court, it is fine to note it unless there is a quality secondary source that denies it. In this case there is a fine academic source noting the fact of the convictions and only some details are taken from the contemporary newspapers with no interpretation. It fits the "purely illustrative purposes" section of WP:HISTRS. Zero talk 11:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is also simply not true that use of sources like official reports is OR. Zero talk 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Title: The Arab-Israeli conflict: its history in maps
Auther: Martin Gilbert
Publisher: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984 Ankh. Morpork 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
,Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence
"Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"
Hi all. Was just wondering about this source: [23]. It's all a bit too techy for me to understand, but as I understand it it's a huge database of information relating to the Commodore 64. A new editor recently created this article, and sourced the website heavily. I removed the content as I don't consider it to be reliable - on this page of the website, it states under "Information" that:
As all the information is user-submitted and not uniformly reviewed/moderated/verified by any kind of editorial team it seems pretty clear to me that it's not a reliable source. However, the author contacted me and asked for clarification, and so I said I would get a third opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics asked me on my talk page whether the various US state department of education websites and documents discussing the Quantile Framework are acceptable sources, in particular:
My understanding is that they are primary sources, and while they can be used with care (in particular to verify that those states do use the Quantile Framework), they cannot establish the Quantile Framework's notability. Am I correct? Huon ( talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Please review the post I made on the talk page ( diff). Discussion can continue here, but it is preferred there. Thanks very much. 69.155.128.40 ( talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
“ | It is evident that Classmates.com routinely sends e-mails indicating that one of the recipient's classmates is looking for him/her. Allegedly, this is frequently untrue, and Classmates.com currently faces a lawsuit for this practice (which, if the allegation is true, constitutes fraud). [1] | ” |
“ | Seattle-based Classmates.com has agreed to pay up to $9.5 million to its users to settle a lawsuit that accused the social network of sending fraudulent emails that told recipients their old friends from school wished to reconnect (and the recipients would need to buy Classmates.com memberships to receive their old friends' contact information). The lead plaintiffs in the case, David Catapano and Anthony Michaels, would each receive $20,500 as part of that provision. | ” |
No source was cited on the second statement in concern. The first statement states "allegedly", the second statement is more definite. The reference appears to have a more definite tone to it, however, there may be other references cited in the article that point to possible deception rather than definite deception. Please provide a second opinion. I do not wish to make changes with the knowledge I have so far. 69.155.128.40 ( talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sources cited:
Source: Heroes & Villains a "coffee table" book containing photos by David Steen. Only 350 copies were produced. Everything in the book is by David Steen, except the forward is by Roger Moore.
Article: David Steen (photographer)
Content: "Steen’s other subjects, featured in his published book of photographs, include: Burt Lancaster[2], John Hurt[2], Dirk Bogarde[2], Dudley Moore and Peter Cook[2], the Rolling Stones[2], the Beatles[2], Robert Mitchum[2], Richard Harris[2], Ian Fleming[2], Orson Welles[2], John Cleese[2], Michael Caine[2], Truman Capote[2], Noël Coward[2], Pete Townshend[2], Lester Piggott[2], Rudolf Nureyev[2], James Coburn[2], Tom Jones[2], Somerset Maugham[2], Harold Robbins[2], Robert Shaw[2], Brian Epstein[2], Cliff Richard[2], Marc Bolan[2], Peter O’Toole[2], Bill Wyman[2], Harrison Ford[2], Roger Daltrey[2], Jack Palance[2], David Niven[2], Mickey Rooney[2], Saul Bellow[2], Evelyn Waugh[2], Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond[2], El Cordobes[2], Jason Robards[2], Terence Conran[2], Sammy Davis Jr[2], Graham Hill[2], Donald Sutherland[2], Bobby Moore[2], Ringo Starr[2], Pierce Brosnan[2], Alex ‘Hurricane’ Higgins[2], James Mason[2], Sir Ralph Richardson[2], Tom Stoppard[2], President Tito[2], Placido Domingo[2], Julie Christie[2], Twiggy[3][4], Sophia Loren[2], Ingrid Bergman[2], Jane Seymour[2], Bianca Jagger[2], Elizabeth Taylor[2], Britt Ekland[2]."
Question: My understanding is that book by a person cannot be used for claims about 3rd parties.
There is also the Amazon refs in the article that are sourcing that a photo inside the book is by Steen, but the Amazon refs never mentions Steen. I know this is clearly out of bounds, but article's author thinks otherwise. Bgwhite ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
On sunny days mothers would leave their babies in prams outside their homes and, to earn extra money, Steen would borrow a camera, photograph the babies, and have the pictures printed at a chemist shop. He would pay a shilling a print and then knock at the door of the mother and sell her a photo of her baby for two shillings.
There are many photographers of celebs. Some of these photographers put out books of photos of celebs. Some of these books appear in editions of five thousand or more, from established publishers (Phaidon, etc). A list of the celebs photographed in such a book hardly seems encyclopedic. I don't understand why a list of the celebs photographed in a self-published edition of 350 is any more encyclopedic. (Especially as I've seen plenty of photos of these people elsewhere. Now, if the book verifiably contained photos of Howard Hughes, J D Salinger and Thomas Pynchon, it would be a different matter.) -- Hoary ( talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Would this be considred reliable for listing genres for the article http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,8976881,00.html Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
I thought Allmusic was dismissed for Genres Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Yeah I understand now Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Uh, how is Artistdirect unreliable? It's a professional company, for crying out loud. It's just as reliable as Allmusic. Panic Reaper ( talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you also post on his talk about that sidebox genres from allmusic have been dismissed Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
Well Allmusic has profiles for bands and artists, well at the left handside theres a box which lists genres, members, moods etc. Well I want people to know that Wikipedia has dismissed Allmusic for being a reliable source when it comes to GENRES, and i was hoping you could let PanicReaper know that those have been counted as unreliable Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd ( talk)
The San Francisco Chronicle has a blog called called City Brights - see here [24] The blog is contained on the San Francisco Chronicle's official website, however it carries this editor's note - "This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." Would this be a reliable source? The specific article that I would like to use can be seen here [25] -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The edits in question are here.
Interactions on the RS issue here
Here is the Hebrew news source re the note News1, with the note and its contents. Here is the poor google translation. This looks like RS to me. The World Net Daily article is [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669 here]. Israel Today's archives no longer contain the article, but it does contain the image of the note [27] and its editor has received but not yet replied to my enquiries, but copies of screenshots of the original article on 30/4/2007 are widespread.
Attempted interpretations and images of the note are still being addressed on what is reported to have been Kaduri's own site Intensive discussion on the meaning of the note is documented elsewhere here for example. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks as always for your trenchant opinions, RolandR. First, I think we must clarify that there is no attempt to claim that Yitzhak Kaduri identified Jesus the Nazarene as the Messiah in the edits, and that has been hotly contested by the considerable party of Rabbinic supporters of the note's genuineness. As to his belief that Messiah's return was immminent, that is sourced from Maariv not News One or the note's contents. Can you prove your claims about Kaduri.net? Did it not serve as his own site before his death? If not, why didn't he or his family disown it then? Neither interestingly, to my knowledge, is there any formal denial of the note's provenance, on line. Please correct me if I err. The presence of the image of the note in its archives, is strong corroboration of the widely published Israel Today article - even if it has curiously subsequently been withdrawn, and its editor not responding to enquiry. I wonder if others would like to comment about News One, especially since the journalist Yoav Yitzhak later joined Maariv, who's 'muck-raking' appears more acceptable here - isn't this a common description of a primary task for journalists? Cpsoper ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for corrections. For clarity's sake, the Maariv article has a whole paragraph entitled, 'המשיח עתיד להגיע', or 'the Messiah will come'. The paragraph below specifies in Kaduri's view this would be soon, and contains his claim of having met the Messiah, presumably mystically or in a vision, a year before. It was not my claim that the obituary mentioned the note, it was a year too early, simply that his strong Messianic expectation is well attested. Again for clarity, Kaduri's purported note does not name the Nazarene, he describes the Messiah, but by acronym, a common Kabbalistic technique, the derived name by Rabbinic Orthodox Jews, many of whom believe the note to be genuine, is Yehoshua. Any evidence of your statements about Kaduri.net? I would value the opinions of others on News One's value as RS. Cpsoper ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Have had communication from Israel Today editor, the article was in their print edition for 2007, 'We did feature it on our website for a time after WorldNetDaily wrote about it, but the article did not get reprinted online when we revamped our website.' I also hope to have news from Kaduri.net soon. I'd still be grateful for other views on News1. I see it is used elsewhere on wiki in at least two places as RS, Ronald Lauder and Nahum Barnea. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to transcribe these comments to talk if you agree appropriate. I await your response to questions of evidence on kaduri.net there, Shuki. Perhaps we should clarify with NFC whether it 'merely picked up the note picture' from kaduri.net, I agree that would not constitute proper journalism? Though the Israel Today and WND articles went further, as you know. I agree NFC is ordinarily RS, there are at least three other citations Gideon Levy, Yoel Lavy and Haaretz. If it were not ordinarily RS, these should also be amended. Cpsoper ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I grant my Hebrew is not excellent, but my reading of the page does suggest first hand sighting of the note, not a second hand report 'הגיע הערב (ג', 23.1.07) לידי Nfc.', the crucial word being 'to my hand'. There are also details about the note's writing which also imply first hand enquiry. It appears to be corroborated by the other two sources (though there may be some interdependence between WDN and IT) and of course kaduri.net. Cpsoper ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Granted, so, RR, is it still proposed that when NFC says, the note arrived to 'the hands of Nfc' on the evening of 23/1/07, and cites 'אנשי חצרו', 'men of his court' that this was generated only by seeing the note on Kaduri.net without another primary source? If that is the case, it would not be professional journalism, especially if as you and Shuki have claimed kaduri.net does not represent Rabbi Kaduri. However it doesn't seem at all likely, NFC also first broke the story about Kaduri's claims to have met the Messiah in 29/10/2005, so they have sources in his seminary. Cpsoper ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ with you both. NFC has been repeatedly accepted as RS for other pages, despite RR's global objection to the site. (I may have difficulty in counting but 'several editors' appears to be two at most, one specifically only to this incident.) Why must we start with assuming that NFC acted unprofessionally in this particular case, when it is RS elsewhere? What about the other two independent sources? Others on this noticeboard are discussing weblogs as RS! - these other two sources are identifiable, widely accessed institutions, with a track record in fact checking, self-correction, and are multiply-edited, with archived records. The question is not one of opinion, but of the incident of the note's discovery. From whence the onus to prove NFC acted out of character with its recognised modus operandi? There is ample evidence NFC has had connexion with Kaduri's seminary. The statement that NFC had the note idiomatically 'in hand' on 23/1/2007, in the evening is on the link above, Shuki. If there is a dispute about the note's provenance, please produce your sources. We have seen none except those you have so far chosen to reject. In addition, neither of you have as yet cited any formal evidence to contest the claim in print that kaduri.net represented the rabbi semi-officially during his life. I accept the note and its interpretation is controversial, and an entry should reflect that, but the evidence of its historicity is well substantiated, and I fear perhaps other considerations are affecting your weighing the nature of the sources. In the absence of objections I will cross post some of this discussion to the talk page. Cpsoper ( talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I recognise that 'reliable' sources may only be useful in specific contexts, and share considerable reservations about some of WND's reportage. However I note that a wiki-site specific google search for WND as a source returns nearly 500 hits, and includes some highly controversial subjects for which editors have considered it reliable. These include Johnny Chung, Failed terrorism plots, Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia), Project Daniel. For Israel today, there are 36 hits on a wiki-site specific search, and again include many Israel topics, like the beauty queen Liran Kohner, the charity Yad Sarah and List of artifacts significant to the Bible. These also include its use as RS on some highly controversial subjects, like Majdi Halabi, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and Gaza Baptist Church. Comments welcome. Cpsoper ( talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In a sense this may be a waste of time, as the editor seem unwilling to listen, but at Ancient Egyptian race controversy an editor, despite an ArbCom warning and discussions at the talk page and WP:NPOVN, insists that an exhibition of the Fitzwilliam Museum is one of several "conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research". The material in question is:
More recently the Fitzwilliam Museum of the University of Cambridge has dedicated the new "Kemet" exhibit to showing ancient Egypt in it's "proper African context". <ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">,{{cite web|title= Kemet|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/index.html}}</ref> The exhibit is based heavily on the work of scholars such as S.O.Y Keita, Ossama Abdel Meguid and Mpay Kemboly. The Museum also has the "Black to Kemet" exhibit which presents Egyptian art and posing the question;
"Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today."
<ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">Andrew Crowe ,{{cite web|title= Black to Kemet Placing Egypt in Africa|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/kemet/}}</ref>
I can't find any definitive statement on race by the museum. I can't even find the "proper African context" although I can find " placing Egypt in its African cultural context." [28]. I will say that the exhibition uses work by S. O. Y. Keita who does not believe in the concept of race and does not call Egyptians black, although he does say that the present population is probably similar to the ancient population.
As I said, he's been told this a number of times, but just as he's been told that the Britannica is not a reliable source, he keeps reinserting it. Dougweller ( talk) 10:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)