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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, this fella is claiming that Blogspot is a reliable source... Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#blogspot Shii (tock) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it appears to be just a random blog being cited as a reliable source for photos of old magazines. Shii (tock) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Here it is: http://jungle-report.blogspot.de/2012/03/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wescom Credit Union (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I went through the archives and could not find if a Better Business Bureau rating is considered a reliable source. An IP editor has been adding the BBB rating of
Wescom Credit Union
here and
here. This rating does not seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article but I would like to refer to a specific policy or guideline if I remove it. Any advice or pointing me in the right direction to a previous discussion would be appreciated. Thanks,
72Dino (
talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the Christian Post a reliable source for the claim that Zhang Wenfang, a woman (BLP) in China, was forced to undergo an abortion? I argue that based on the CP's history of what could generously be described as failure to fact-check and less generously described as deliberate propaganda on abortion issues, they are not a reliable source for any story relating to abortion. They regularly report, for instance, that studies show abortion causes breast cancer (all major medical bodies completely reject this), that the morning-after pill prevents implantation, which anti-abortion advocates consider to be abortion (modern studies agree that the pill works by preventing fertilization), and that the recent American healthcare law will fund abortions (this is legally impossible, which is why real news sources agree that these claims are nonsense). Given their obvious subordination of fact-checking to an anti-abortion agenda, they clearly fail WP:RS's requirement that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and are unsuitable for use in WP article space.
Particularly suspicious is the fact that it's been two weeks since this story broke and reliable sources just won't touch it. Mainstream media has been all over the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, and news outlets are starting to pick up similar stories from other women (eg. the BBC on Pan Chunyan). But Zhang Wenfang is only in sources with an anti-abortion agenda such as LifeNews, National Right to Life News, Christian Post, and OneNewsNow.
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | Whereas the Nazis were responsible for the wholesale murder of more than 6 million Jews, those today who support the practice of abortion homicide are no less complicit in the systematic slaughter of 55-million-and-counting equally precious human beings post Roe v. Wade. | ” |
— Matt Barber, Christian Post |
[1] < Would this be considered a reliable source? It has a mention on Anime News network, Blu-ray.com cites them without comment, About.com Guide Deb Aoki links to one of their articles, and ICV2 cites them with attribution.
On the Rudolph Rummel article, this was used as a source for criticism. It was apparently posted to "MarxMail.org", and the editor who added it claims that it was written by someone named Louis Proyect. Proyect may be a reliable source but I don't know who he is, and I didn't see his name in the article. It looks dubious to me, but CartoonDiablo insists that I would be biased to remove it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer contains the following statement...
A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments.
...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to this blog post with replies. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source issue or an original research issue or both. Thanks! Location ( talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If I may bring up another one. The article contains this statement:
With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.[10]
...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to 911vancouverhearings.com. It appears to be primarily promotional, but there is no "About us" and I'm not sure how this is judged by RSN. Thanks! Location ( talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I also have a question pertaining to YouTube as a reliable source. The article states:
On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories. In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."
Although the statements are not currently cited, I believe one or both were previously linked to viewer-uploaded YouTube clips. My interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview is that clips would need to be uploaded by Fox or a legitimate archiving entity for them to be used as reliable sources. Is that correct? Are these links alone even enough to state that he appeared on Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly? Thanks! Location ( talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Would this TMZ article be reliable source for info regarding Sage Stallone's death? Shark96z ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is written by a staff writer of an unedited blog. There is no way that this is reliable for news, such as the death or conditions of the death of an individual. Moreover, the "content" is a montage of quotations—and TMZ has no fact checking or editorial policy. This is a definitional example of an unreliable source. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone offer an opinion of the reliability of anandtech.com? This is specifically in reference to Talk:iPhone 4#Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)I've added the citation, thanks all. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, would Fashion Model Directory be a reliable source at all? It doesn't seem so to me. For the curious, I'm now in a "dispute" at Lily Cole, wherein the IMDB, Fashion Model Directory, and other similar sites list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. However, The Observer, an actual newspaper, printed on January 6, 2008 that she just turned 20 ( link here). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time ( Link here). She twitted a picture of a birthday cake, saying "24", on December 27, 2011 (implying a December 27, 1987 birthdate); ( link here). When someone wished Cole a happy birthday the night after December 27, 2011, she replied with a thank you on her verified Twitter account ( link here). British Birth Records list Lily Luahana Cole as having her birth registered in February 1988, which fits with the December 27, 1987 date that she asserts. Surely, given her verified Twitter account, this is an open-and-shut case, and something like a Fashion Model Directory can be duly ignored? All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.
Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.
What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.
I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 ( talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is Wright, David (9 March 2012).
"Feedback: Timeline for the Flood".
Answers in Genesis. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for
Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents. Cpsoper ( talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.
I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,[3] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this [free speech on evolution] campaign is the [Discovery] Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
QClash is currently going through a pre-afd discussion about notability due to a lack of reliable, independent third party sources over an extended period of time. QClash is a sports rivalry, involving two teams from the Australian Football League. The articles sources are comprised solely of the AFL.com.au website and various sub-domains (domains for individual teams).
The Australian Football League itself owns and operates the AFL.com.au website. This source is already used over 4,000 times on the site so this source covers far more than this singular topic.
A point has been raised that we should consider sources from the AFL.com.au to be independent, third-party reliable sources for topics about the Australian Football League and Australian Rules Football. The basis of this claim is that because the writers label themselves 'journalists' they do not have any conflict of interest and should be considered independent and third-party for the purposes of wikipedia and it's various guidelines in regards to topics involving those subjects.
I have several problems with that in regards to WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. A third party must be independent and unaffiliated with the subject. This site is owned and operated by the Australian Football League and the title of afl.com.au is The Official Site of the Australian Football League. There is a clear conflict of interest and complete lack of independence on display in the very title of the site. The writers on that site are paid for by the Australian Football League to write on topics owned or directly involving the company that hired them, that the articles are directly affiliated with the subject and topics. Hiring and paying someone who calls themselves a 'journalist' to write them doesn't make the resulting article any more independent or reliable than having had someone titled 'marketing manager' or the CEO write them.
I believe this source cannot be considered an independent third-party source on topics related to the Australian Football League. Can I get a ruling or consensus on this? Macktheknifeau ( talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
afl.com.au appears to be a news aggregation site. Many, many articles there are harvested from external sources, and those that aren't seem to be written by reputable journalists. My random pick was [6] which includes a footnote "The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs". The poster seems to be implying this is like a media department writing COI material (which is complete nonsense). I see no reason to think this is not a reliable source. It is also true that Macktheknife needs to WP:DROPIT. Moondyne ( talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the Niche Marketing section of the Internet Marketing page needed work, so I re-wrote it over the course of a day or two. Several times I attempted to use a self-published source (blog) from an expert in the field. I attempted to argue that the source is an expert based on their having been invited to publish five articles on a recognized online journal in that field (They have been a contributor also on other journals in the field, but I chose the most recognized one.) The source was a how-to blog for SEO and the author (Aviva Blumstein) was previously published on Search Engine People which was recognized as a reliable third-party source by: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ and http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ and http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO
Am I misunderstanding the following policy from WP:RS: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may be acceptable 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.
In particular, the section in question is the Niche Marketing section of Internet Marketing which can be found at this link to id 502828086. A useful diff for the section might be this.My attempted justification can be found on the talk page of Internet marketing, in a section entitled "Niche Marketing section needed work" The sources I'm citing can be found at: http://www.debi-z.com/2012/03/27/convert-the-converted/ and http://www.debi-z.com/2011/05/09/how-do-i-find-the-best-keywords-for-my-site/
Please explain to me if and how I'm being silly. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 ( talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
i was wondering if this report [7], published by "center for american progress", complies with wp:rs, and if it can be used as a source on the islamophobia-page?.-- altetendekrabbe 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
is musicOMH a reliable source to use for critical responses about songs and albums? For example, this. Till I Go Home 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article on Little Russia states that "The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists." It cites the following source for this statement:
I fully agree that this is a reliable source for attitudes by Ukrainian nationalist attitudes at the time it was written. But it is it a reliable source for now?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.
Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)
I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.
Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.
The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this [8] published on a personal website.
Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, this review was used to source the following information.
It was described as "2007's greatest LP" in Drowned in Sound
Robinson's vocals have been described as..."genius soundbites emerging from his catalogue of last real bluesman howls, yabbers and harrowing squeals".
Here is my reason for removing the information
I did some research and found that DiS has been repeatedly described as unreliable at RSN. See this and more importantly this. Drowned in Sound's terms state that "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy". The sight contains user submitted content, and the particular content we are dealing with was submitted by "Adam Anonymous". That hardly gives me confidence in the reliability of anything posted by him. In any case, the information presented by him is his opinion which means that it was described as the best album in 2007 by a contributor of DiS, not DiS itself. I find no reason for Wikipedia to feature the opinions of a contributor, hidden by anonymity, to a site that doesn't take responsibility for it's content or the accuracy thereof
Thanks for helping out on this one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO WP:EXCEPTIONAL and if credible there should be found other, better respected sources to back it up. bridies ( talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.
I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book. [15] I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)
However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News [ [16]] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new " incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly. [17]
this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The
Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There seem to no consensus if the source should be used or not maybe a RFC is a proper way to continue?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:
"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31]"
with the citations being:
[30] Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
[31] E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
(Wikipedia does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)
Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page
http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000
a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?
On the yes side, are these statements:
"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."
"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"
"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"
On the no side is this:
"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."
...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.
Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). [27] [28] I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier, [29], but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this [30] dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki ( talk • contribs)
Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:
From "Production":
From "Critical response":
Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets. [31] [32] Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles. [33] The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year. [34] So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?
Several discussions at Dungeons & Dragons related AfDs and talk pages lately have been going nowhere, due to the contested issue of the independence of certain sources. The articles are all concerning creatures within the Dungeons & Dragons game system ( this one, for example), and the sources in question are all sourcebooks for the Dungeons & Dragons game system.
In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors [35] and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.
There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffiliated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.
Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per WP:SOURCES). - Sudo Ghost 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Disappearance of Robin Graham (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:
The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.
Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.
Thanks! Location ( talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Wikipedia article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu ( talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar ( talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland ( talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith ( talk)
It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:
Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)
Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK [1]. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.
Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper) [2]
The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Wikipedia article Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light, second paragraph.
When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.
My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 ( talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
References:
We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ( [38] and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website ( [39]) that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable ( [40]). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
[43] "The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith ( talk)
The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 ( talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the ( Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics, and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.-- GoShow ( ...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Something that bothers me about zodiac sign articles, which are mostly astrology but sometimes contain elements of astronomy, is reliable sources for the dates on which the sun enters and leaves a given sign. A pattern in these articles is that someone will quote an online astrology source which gives definite dates. For reasons stated in the next paragraph, these dates are necessarily an approximation, but at least they are a verifiable approximation which vandalism-fighters can refer to when dubious changes are made. Then some well-meaning IP comes along and changes the dates to a different approximation, which while plausible, disagree with the cited source.
The dates are necessarily an approximation; the two biggest factors causing different dates are the time zone and the place of the year in the four-year leap year sequence. I imagine the various online sources are using Universal time, but this is seldom stated explicitly. The method of choosing a typical or average date over the course of the leap year sequence is never stated. Perhaps an approach is to make the various infoboxes more rigorous with citations to reliable sources that explicitly state their methodology. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group [45] in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in dhimmitude article.Thank you in advance-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article is authored by [46]-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding narrowly this diff showing removal of a link to a Dept of Justice document the Institute for Research Middle East Policy obtained through FOIA and put on its website (along with many others). The document supports statements by two other WP:RS. (For your convenience, here is the actual document link: Photostat of November 21, 1962 letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General to American Zionist Organization regarding registration as foreign agent.)
At this April WP:RSN discussion over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials were presented and several editors opined it was fine to link to its documents in this manner. (I can repeat the list and a number more if people really want to see them again.) Nevertheless, User:Biosketch who made the above edit claims there is no such "consensus" to link to such documents on IRMEP's site.
Unfortunately, despite the title of that first thread “IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs” editors who do not want IRMEP opinions seen as WP:RS kept bring up that issue resulting in a ridiculously long thread. So hopefully if we focus on one article and one document we can have a short discussion without the histrionics generated last time. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
— Biosketch ( talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com.
— User:Fifelfoo
{outdent}} Biosketch wrote above: As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Given that request for such information, let us again list such sources that do just that, the first two very directly, the rest by simply using them:
I would hope NPOV editors agree that this is more than sufficient evidence that: "the authenticity of these documents is upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable." If not, we are going to have to scour Wikipedia of thousands of primary source references. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 25 July 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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, this fella is claiming that Blogspot is a reliable source... Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#blogspot Shii (tock) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it appears to be just a random blog being cited as a reliable source for photos of old magazines. Shii (tock) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Here it is: http://jungle-report.blogspot.de/2012/03/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wescom Credit Union (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I went through the archives and could not find if a Better Business Bureau rating is considered a reliable source. An IP editor has been adding the BBB rating of
Wescom Credit Union
here and
here. This rating does not seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article but I would like to refer to a specific policy or guideline if I remove it. Any advice or pointing me in the right direction to a previous discussion would be appreciated. Thanks,
72Dino (
talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the Christian Post a reliable source for the claim that Zhang Wenfang, a woman (BLP) in China, was forced to undergo an abortion? I argue that based on the CP's history of what could generously be described as failure to fact-check and less generously described as deliberate propaganda on abortion issues, they are not a reliable source for any story relating to abortion. They regularly report, for instance, that studies show abortion causes breast cancer (all major medical bodies completely reject this), that the morning-after pill prevents implantation, which anti-abortion advocates consider to be abortion (modern studies agree that the pill works by preventing fertilization), and that the recent American healthcare law will fund abortions (this is legally impossible, which is why real news sources agree that these claims are nonsense). Given their obvious subordination of fact-checking to an anti-abortion agenda, they clearly fail WP:RS's requirement that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and are unsuitable for use in WP article space.
Particularly suspicious is the fact that it's been two weeks since this story broke and reliable sources just won't touch it. Mainstream media has been all over the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, and news outlets are starting to pick up similar stories from other women (eg. the BBC on Pan Chunyan). But Zhang Wenfang is only in sources with an anti-abortion agenda such as LifeNews, National Right to Life News, Christian Post, and OneNewsNow.
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | Whereas the Nazis were responsible for the wholesale murder of more than 6 million Jews, those today who support the practice of abortion homicide are no less complicit in the systematic slaughter of 55-million-and-counting equally precious human beings post Roe v. Wade. | ” |
— Matt Barber, Christian Post |
[1] < Would this be considered a reliable source? It has a mention on Anime News network, Blu-ray.com cites them without comment, About.com Guide Deb Aoki links to one of their articles, and ICV2 cites them with attribution.
On the Rudolph Rummel article, this was used as a source for criticism. It was apparently posted to "MarxMail.org", and the editor who added it claims that it was written by someone named Louis Proyect. Proyect may be a reliable source but I don't know who he is, and I didn't see his name in the article. It looks dubious to me, but CartoonDiablo insists that I would be biased to remove it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer contains the following statement...
A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments.
...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to this blog post with replies. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source issue or an original research issue or both. Thanks! Location ( talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If I may bring up another one. The article contains this statement:
With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.[10]
...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to 911vancouverhearings.com. It appears to be primarily promotional, but there is no "About us" and I'm not sure how this is judged by RSN. Thanks! Location ( talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I also have a question pertaining to YouTube as a reliable source. The article states:
On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories. In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."
Although the statements are not currently cited, I believe one or both were previously linked to viewer-uploaded YouTube clips. My interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview is that clips would need to be uploaded by Fox or a legitimate archiving entity for them to be used as reliable sources. Is that correct? Are these links alone even enough to state that he appeared on Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly? Thanks! Location ( talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Would this TMZ article be reliable source for info regarding Sage Stallone's death? Shark96z ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is written by a staff writer of an unedited blog. There is no way that this is reliable for news, such as the death or conditions of the death of an individual. Moreover, the "content" is a montage of quotations—and TMZ has no fact checking or editorial policy. This is a definitional example of an unreliable source. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone offer an opinion of the reliability of anandtech.com? This is specifically in reference to Talk:iPhone 4#Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)I've added the citation, thanks all. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, would Fashion Model Directory be a reliable source at all? It doesn't seem so to me. For the curious, I'm now in a "dispute" at Lily Cole, wherein the IMDB, Fashion Model Directory, and other similar sites list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. However, The Observer, an actual newspaper, printed on January 6, 2008 that she just turned 20 ( link here). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time ( Link here). She twitted a picture of a birthday cake, saying "24", on December 27, 2011 (implying a December 27, 1987 birthdate); ( link here). When someone wished Cole a happy birthday the night after December 27, 2011, she replied with a thank you on her verified Twitter account ( link here). British Birth Records list Lily Luahana Cole as having her birth registered in February 1988, which fits with the December 27, 1987 date that she asserts. Surely, given her verified Twitter account, this is an open-and-shut case, and something like a Fashion Model Directory can be duly ignored? All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.
Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.
What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.
I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 ( talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is Wright, David (9 March 2012).
"Feedback: Timeline for the Flood".
Answers in Genesis. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for
Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents. Cpsoper ( talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.
I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,[3] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this [free speech on evolution] campaign is the [Discovery] Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
QClash is currently going through a pre-afd discussion about notability due to a lack of reliable, independent third party sources over an extended period of time. QClash is a sports rivalry, involving two teams from the Australian Football League. The articles sources are comprised solely of the AFL.com.au website and various sub-domains (domains for individual teams).
The Australian Football League itself owns and operates the AFL.com.au website. This source is already used over 4,000 times on the site so this source covers far more than this singular topic.
A point has been raised that we should consider sources from the AFL.com.au to be independent, third-party reliable sources for topics about the Australian Football League and Australian Rules Football. The basis of this claim is that because the writers label themselves 'journalists' they do not have any conflict of interest and should be considered independent and third-party for the purposes of wikipedia and it's various guidelines in regards to topics involving those subjects.
I have several problems with that in regards to WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. A third party must be independent and unaffiliated with the subject. This site is owned and operated by the Australian Football League and the title of afl.com.au is The Official Site of the Australian Football League. There is a clear conflict of interest and complete lack of independence on display in the very title of the site. The writers on that site are paid for by the Australian Football League to write on topics owned or directly involving the company that hired them, that the articles are directly affiliated with the subject and topics. Hiring and paying someone who calls themselves a 'journalist' to write them doesn't make the resulting article any more independent or reliable than having had someone titled 'marketing manager' or the CEO write them.
I believe this source cannot be considered an independent third-party source on topics related to the Australian Football League. Can I get a ruling or consensus on this? Macktheknifeau ( talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
afl.com.au appears to be a news aggregation site. Many, many articles there are harvested from external sources, and those that aren't seem to be written by reputable journalists. My random pick was [6] which includes a footnote "The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs". The poster seems to be implying this is like a media department writing COI material (which is complete nonsense). I see no reason to think this is not a reliable source. It is also true that Macktheknife needs to WP:DROPIT. Moondyne ( talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the Niche Marketing section of the Internet Marketing page needed work, so I re-wrote it over the course of a day or two. Several times I attempted to use a self-published source (blog) from an expert in the field. I attempted to argue that the source is an expert based on their having been invited to publish five articles on a recognized online journal in that field (They have been a contributor also on other journals in the field, but I chose the most recognized one.) The source was a how-to blog for SEO and the author (Aviva Blumstein) was previously published on Search Engine People which was recognized as a reliable third-party source by: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ and http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ and http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO
Am I misunderstanding the following policy from WP:RS: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may be acceptable 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.
In particular, the section in question is the Niche Marketing section of Internet Marketing which can be found at this link to id 502828086. A useful diff for the section might be this.My attempted justification can be found on the talk page of Internet marketing, in a section entitled "Niche Marketing section needed work" The sources I'm citing can be found at: http://www.debi-z.com/2012/03/27/convert-the-converted/ and http://www.debi-z.com/2011/05/09/how-do-i-find-the-best-keywords-for-my-site/
Please explain to me if and how I'm being silly. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 ( talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
i was wondering if this report [7], published by "center for american progress", complies with wp:rs, and if it can be used as a source on the islamophobia-page?.-- altetendekrabbe 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
is musicOMH a reliable source to use for critical responses about songs and albums? For example, this. Till I Go Home 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article on Little Russia states that "The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists." It cites the following source for this statement:
I fully agree that this is a reliable source for attitudes by Ukrainian nationalist attitudes at the time it was written. But it is it a reliable source for now?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.
Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)
I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.
Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.
The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this [8] published on a personal website.
Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, this review was used to source the following information.
It was described as "2007's greatest LP" in Drowned in Sound
Robinson's vocals have been described as..."genius soundbites emerging from his catalogue of last real bluesman howls, yabbers and harrowing squeals".
Here is my reason for removing the information
I did some research and found that DiS has been repeatedly described as unreliable at RSN. See this and more importantly this. Drowned in Sound's terms state that "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy". The sight contains user submitted content, and the particular content we are dealing with was submitted by "Adam Anonymous". That hardly gives me confidence in the reliability of anything posted by him. In any case, the information presented by him is his opinion which means that it was described as the best album in 2007 by a contributor of DiS, not DiS itself. I find no reason for Wikipedia to feature the opinions of a contributor, hidden by anonymity, to a site that doesn't take responsibility for it's content or the accuracy thereof
Thanks for helping out on this one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO WP:EXCEPTIONAL and if credible there should be found other, better respected sources to back it up. bridies ( talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.
I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book. [15] I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)
However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News [ [16]] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new " incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly. [17]
this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The
Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There seem to no consensus if the source should be used or not maybe a RFC is a proper way to continue?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:
"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31]"
with the citations being:
[30] Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
[31] E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
(Wikipedia does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)
Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page
http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000
a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?
On the yes side, are these statements:
"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."
"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"
"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"
On the no side is this:
"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."
...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.
Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). [27] [28] I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier, [29], but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this [30] dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki ( talk • contribs)
Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:
From "Production":
From "Critical response":
Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets. [31] [32] Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles. [33] The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year. [34] So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?
Several discussions at Dungeons & Dragons related AfDs and talk pages lately have been going nowhere, due to the contested issue of the independence of certain sources. The articles are all concerning creatures within the Dungeons & Dragons game system ( this one, for example), and the sources in question are all sourcebooks for the Dungeons & Dragons game system.
In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors [35] and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.
There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffiliated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.
Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per WP:SOURCES). - Sudo Ghost 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Disappearance of Robin Graham (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:
The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.
Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.
Thanks! Location ( talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Wikipedia article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu ( talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar ( talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland ( talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith ( talk)
It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:
Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)
Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK [1]. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.
Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper) [2]
The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Wikipedia article Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light, second paragraph.
When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.
My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 ( talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
References:
We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ( [38] and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website ( [39]) that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable ( [40]). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
[43] "The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith ( talk)
The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 ( talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the ( Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics, and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.-- GoShow ( ...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Something that bothers me about zodiac sign articles, which are mostly astrology but sometimes contain elements of astronomy, is reliable sources for the dates on which the sun enters and leaves a given sign. A pattern in these articles is that someone will quote an online astrology source which gives definite dates. For reasons stated in the next paragraph, these dates are necessarily an approximation, but at least they are a verifiable approximation which vandalism-fighters can refer to when dubious changes are made. Then some well-meaning IP comes along and changes the dates to a different approximation, which while plausible, disagree with the cited source.
The dates are necessarily an approximation; the two biggest factors causing different dates are the time zone and the place of the year in the four-year leap year sequence. I imagine the various online sources are using Universal time, but this is seldom stated explicitly. The method of choosing a typical or average date over the course of the leap year sequence is never stated. Perhaps an approach is to make the various infoboxes more rigorous with citations to reliable sources that explicitly state their methodology. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group [45] in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in dhimmitude article.Thank you in advance-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article is authored by [46]-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding narrowly this diff showing removal of a link to a Dept of Justice document the Institute for Research Middle East Policy obtained through FOIA and put on its website (along with many others). The document supports statements by two other WP:RS. (For your convenience, here is the actual document link: Photostat of November 21, 1962 letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General to American Zionist Organization regarding registration as foreign agent.)
At this April WP:RSN discussion over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials were presented and several editors opined it was fine to link to its documents in this manner. (I can repeat the list and a number more if people really want to see them again.) Nevertheless, User:Biosketch who made the above edit claims there is no such "consensus" to link to such documents on IRMEP's site.
Unfortunately, despite the title of that first thread “IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs” editors who do not want IRMEP opinions seen as WP:RS kept bring up that issue resulting in a ridiculously long thread. So hopefully if we focus on one article and one document we can have a short discussion without the histrionics generated last time. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
— Biosketch ( talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com.
— User:Fifelfoo
{outdent}} Biosketch wrote above: As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Given that request for such information, let us again list such sources that do just that, the first two very directly, the rest by simply using them:
I would hope NPOV editors agree that this is more than sufficient evidence that: "the authenticity of these documents is upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable." If not, we are going to have to scour Wikipedia of thousands of primary source references. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)