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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
Sigh. As usual I'm here because a tendentious user won't accept an archetypically reliable source. Is the BBC reliable for the statements removed here? The user in question claims we need a primary source because news media are all biased, which is so exactly the opposite of how WP works that it's laughable. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages:
I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that:
Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site.
This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section.
I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that:
By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth.
In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that:
In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic.
This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner ( talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
is Washington Irving , a scholar to classic islamic history ? he wrote this book : "Washington Irving (1897), Mahomet and his Successors & Spanish Legends, Volume III, New York & London G.P, Putnam's Sons" and in this book he claim that aisha and ali were enemy together.-- Espiral ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference. [4] However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page, [5] they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. — Farix ( t | c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This is in reference to several discussions that I have seen and not any one particular article. Are BBB ratings considered reliable enough to reference in an article? The page for Better Business Bureau has a neutrality flag. Andrewman327 ( talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, is the much talked book, Israel's Tribes Today (2005) by Steven M. Collins a good source to be used on articles concerning Asian history? 117.207.55.94 ( talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ferdinand porsche was born in liberec czech republic which makes him a czech NOT austrian-german like your page states. he might of lived in austria and germany later in his life but he was czech. just wanted to point out your error.
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬ 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Reliable in this context, but seek a better one; it is borderline. The site in question is both an advocacy site and a news aggregator; the statement in question is a report of criticism of Pepsi, which exists. I would be careful of using descriptors in the source, since that implies fact, and the source is not impartial; they are assumed to overstate the importance of protests. I would also add that, even if the reports are WP:RS, if the only news source is lifenews , the section would be excluded by WP:UNDUE , even if it is not disputed that the protests happened.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the description accompanying this photograph a sufficiently reliable source for making an in-article assertion that the photograph depicts what its publishers claim it depicts? 24.177.121.137 ( talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Just 103 Wikipedia pages link to thatgrapejuice.net Also see http://website.informer.com/thatgrapejuice.net
In February 2012, it was announced that Bryan had signed a record deal with the Relentless Records. [ [7]]
She began writing poetry, moved on to rapping and then progressed to singing. [ ]
That Grape Juice said that she boasted 'originality in abundance'.[ ]
Home Run was released for digital download on July 15 in the UK, landing in at 11 at the end of its debut week[ ]
she performed an acoustic version of the song live...... on the 17 July 2012, for Ustream [ ]
I believe its reliable in context, but is it still just a blog...what is the relaxed independent opinion ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It is “the UK’s #1 Urban blog”. As describes in its "About us", so no. Not RS. Problems with these sites is, even if there may be some editoria oversite and possible fact checking (and we really don't know), more than likely the author wouldn't pass criteria for use as a blog can be written by just about anyone in the business or out.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Does the fact that this book was published by Brill Publishers and got a good review in this journal make it a reilable source to be used in articles related to New Atheism and its criticism? How about articles about New Atheist. For example the book discusses largely about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and their works. Can I use the stuff mentioned in the book in those articles? Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
The question is given the credits of this book, can I use what is mentioned in the Richard Dawkins article.-- 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Source: This article in Slate Magazine
Article: Republican Party (United States) (see this talk thread)
Content: Basically the whole thing. The fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated support for raising taxes on those who pay no income taxes. Secondarily, the statement that this position is the new GOP orthodoxy. ("Which it is.")
Comment: Obviously the title and byline are sensationalistic and probably POV. It has been contended that this source is opinion and therefore not reliable for its facts. I disagree and believe that it's analysis, not opinion, but even if it's opinion, the facts are reliable because they're supported by quotes and hyperlinks are provided to the original reporting. Have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss ( talk • contribs)
Re the statements by Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ: some (Binkernet, Horologium, TheTimesAreAChanging) have stated emphatically that attribution is required, but unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen an explanation as to why. Can someone please take a stab at an argument? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. It is not a signed opinion piece and NOWHERE on that article does it state that. IN FACT the bottum of the article clearly shows his title: David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. It is not an opinion or an analysis, but the reporting of an interview from the Wall Street Journal in this case. You are however, making an interpretation without demonstration and are using an opinion of what you think. The titles of article are not an indicator of being an editorial or opinion. And I checked and they are as well articles not editorials. Stick to the facts and not what we think. The context is accurate to what is written.
The paper asked Huntsman if "the half of American households no longer paying income tax—mainly working poor families and seniors—should be brought onto the income tax rolls."
He agreed, crediting the GOP's current front-runner for vice president, Sen. Marco Rubio, with the insight that "we don't have enough people paying taxes in this country."
The Journal called this position the "new GOP orthodoxy," which it is. When he announced his presidential bid two weeks ago, Perry told a room of conservative activists and bloggers that "we're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax." He was following on Bachmann, who'd just told the South Carolina Christian Chamber of Commerce the very same thing.
This article is a Relibale Source to reference these facts and I find nothing showing the author as an editorial writer for Slate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The passage in question is 'According to Arab Nyheter news agency "Al Jazeera has reported that Saudi security authorities arrested a suspect bird, who worked for Israeli intelligence (Mossad) and was flying in Saudi airspace to gather information on the country." [18]'
Is Arab Nyheter a reliable source for reproducing faithfully what Al Jazeera might have said? Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the essay at [8] RS for stating that Murray Rothbard directly connects Bismarckism to "right wing socialism" in an essay, or is an editor correct in stating
The quote from Rothbard directly is:
The Rothbard essay is also printed in several books - so the site used (Mises) is not the issue, only whether the Roghbard opinion belongs in an article on "Right wing socialism" or not at all. Collect ( talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I added a fact with verifiability into the green coffee article. Specifically:
Japanese researchers, studying green coffee bean extract consumption in mice, concluded that it "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver." [1]
This content was removed by another editor, claiming to violate WP:MEDRS. To my eye, the source ( BioMed Central) appears reliable and it apparently publishes hundreds of peer-reviewed, open-access journals, including the one in question "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine". I have re-added the material above, but would like to hear other editors' opinions on the matter. Additional context... The green coffee article is small and a popular sub-topic seems to be the purported health impact of consuming it. There are several other studies represented and cited in the article. Thanks! -- Ds13 ( talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback. Note that I'm not attempting to make a therapeutic claim. My claim was that research was done, published, and that the researchers concluded something. To my mind, a medical or therapeutic claim looks like "Substance X may help you lose weight.*ref*", while a non-medical claim would be "Researcher Y studied Substance X and concluded that it may help you lose weight.*ref*". A worthwhile distinction? Applicability of WP:MEDRS aside, the primary source issue is the more important principle. Noted. -- Ds13 ( talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this posting on the Realityblurred website was used as a source to add content into Restaurant Stakeout regarding whether it is really "reality" or not. However, I am highly skeptical as to whether it is reliable source and wanted some other feedback. Thanks, SassyLilNugget ( talk) 12:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem at the Battle of Aleppo (2012) article wether VoR is reliable source or not.
Two users ( User:I7laseral and User:Sopher99) claimed that the VoR is not a reliable source. This was the VoR's article that was problematic - [9].
Now, they claim it's not reliable because some "non-neutral" words were used in the article, namely "merceneries". However, number of sources reported that there are actually number of merceneries involved in the Syrian civil war. Check the Free Syrian Army article and foreign combatants. Croatian and Serb merceneries are fighting within ranks of the FSA for example. This was confrimed by high-ranking Croatian general. Thefore a word "mercenery" was used for a reason.
Now, as for Voice of Russia, it is a government owned multi-language broadcasting service. Just to make a note, BBC is government-owned as well, which doesn't mean it's not reliable. VoR is being broadcasted in 33 languages and it was established in 1929 (83 years ago). VoR is member of the European Broadcasting Union and the International Committee on Digital Radio Mondiale. So it is very prestigious broadcasting service.
-- Wüstenfuchs 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-Voice of Russia is a propaganda news-source (or rather one which filters out facts to support the Russian government's view).
-The other thing that I had a problem with was the use of "liberate". (by the way there are no mercenaries in Syria, there are foreign fighters (but not hired))
-Voice of Russia constantly takes the Syrian government claim's as fact, as oppose to normal RS which just takes claims form both sides as unverified until witnessed by their own reporters.
Sopher99 (
talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned about these edits - the user seems to be completely rewriting large chunks of numerous articles (usually character and plot sections), often eradicating references, eg and eg.2. There are also potential WP:TONE problems. Can someone look into this, or take and describe it better wherever needed? (It looks extensive, and I have no experience in this topic area). Thanks. — Quiddity ( talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.
Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996
I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit
Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)
In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.
"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".
There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?
From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138
A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.
From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222
Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...
From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml
Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby.
Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration.
-- Juraj Budak ( talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 ( talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Churn and change ( talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously?
Fifelfoo (
talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN?
His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion.
and
Cohen's final task is to explain how Serbia could have been so successful in
selling its twentieth-century heroic myths to the international community.... Except for this last theme (which includes an expose on the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society that MiloSevic founded in 1987) much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point, such as in exaggerating the popularity of Serbian pre-war fascist parties (which garnered a paltry 1% of the vote against Stojadinovic's government list and Macek's
united opposition) or in minimizing the popular Serb opposition to the March 1941 Tripartite Pact. Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild.
This provides a counterpoint to the review referenced by Fifelfoo, and was part of the case made by Churn and change which concluded that WP policy means that Cohen can be used for facts and opinions (with in-text attribution of the opinions). In several other fora, including at Talk:Chetniks here [13] User:Antidiskriminator has now declared that this discussion in fact means that Cohen is not considered reliable. That was not my impression. Can we get some clarification? Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day RSNers, I know you don't usually do this, but given the contention Cohen has caused here and at related article talkpages, could we please have a formal close of this discussion by one of the RSN editors who provided their opinion? I respect the fact that the consensus was not resounding, but this will go on for ever unless we get some formal advice recorded and the matter closed. That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book " Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Do you find the criticisms posed by a 20th century missionary on Muhammad a reliable third-party source?
2. Do you find Steve Fuller's criticism of Richard Dawkins a reliable third-party source? -- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Xinmsn is an online source largely used in articles about Singapore TV serials, movies and such. Is it a reliable source? Bonkers The Clown ( talk) 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is Nalwa, Vanit (2009).
Hari Singh Nalwa - Champion of the Khalsaji. New Delhi: Manohar Books.
ISBN
81-7304-785-5. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) a reliable source for historical information in
Hari Singh Nalwa. The article subject is controversial and the author not merely shares the name but heads the Hari Singh Nalwa Foundation Trust. A profile of her can be found
here.
I am particularly concerned about POV pushing - the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims. The source is used extensively in the article. - Sitush ( talk) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, I do not understand what you are getting at with your third or fourth points - they seem to be some sort of irrelevant debate concerning semantics.
I do not claim to be an "expert" in Sikh history, although I have a fair amount of experience in Indic articles and their POV/sourcing issues. The endogamous nature of many Indic communities gives rise to potential issues when it comes to reliability: a lot of "bigging up" of history goes on, whether written down or transmitted orally, and in fact I rather think that the majority do so. Alas, many British Raj authors took those community histories as fact, and those authors too are regularly considered to be unreliable. Nalwa clearly has a close association with the subject, is probably herself a Sikh, represents an advocacy group that promotes the subject of our article, etc: these are all substantial alarm signals. Although she is not a trained historian nor, it seems, translator (she relies a lot on Persian texts etc), she is, of course, theoretically a valid source for her own interpretation ... but that does not mean much at all here. Your comment that "While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information." is almost the exact opposite of how we usually evaluate.
As for your sixth point, well, it is being used for numerous claims, although slightly fewer than 24 hours ago because I have removed some copyvios (I'll reinstate in non-copyvio form if appropriate but am not wasting my time doing so until the reliability is ascertained). - Sitush ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, no this is not a "coffee table hagiography" and that point of view simply dismisses the book with undue personal opinion. Second, the publisher claims to publish scholarly work[ [17] so the fact that you call other publications fluff, again has no bearing on this book. Many publisher put out both academic and "fluff". This is not a history book and I see no claim of such anywhere. It is a biography from a clearly defined author who has a direct connection to the figure. That doesn't mean we dismiss it out of hand. I have scanned through the book and find the claim that it is a "work of avocation" to be a little off base. Yes, the author is described as writing with "unconcealed pride", but oddly enough that is in a review by Khushwant Singh who is considered an authority on Sikh history and is indeed a "peer review". I am not sure if what you are looking for is Western peer reviews to accept this or multiple reviews. The fact is an RS has several criteria and we don't just toss them all out and say "Oh no, you can't use that. It says good things about the figure", well it also says neutral and negative things. He wasn't a saint, and no one is treating him that way. Yes, this book has a weakened RS claim because the author is not known for work in the field of either history or biography, but this isn't a fraud or a fringe idea we are talking about. The association with the Foundation itself doesn't seem to mean much. Seriously, how does this effect RS? Are we saying by association with a charitable foundation it is somehow of less value? This just seems to be excuse making to exclude. This is surely not the strongest RS I have ever seen, but it can't be blown off because of the things being mentioned, it just lowers it's strength and use is a matter of consensus. There seems to be little reasoning using the criteria for RS. The author seems to be an expert on this figure and that cannot be denied, they simply are not a historian and I don't think that works completely against them, just weakens the case for RS, not destroys it. The publisher is not a pay to publish or a vanity press and the work itself cannot be dismissed as fringe, innacurate or unduly self serving (it isn't about themself). The weakest part of the book is the author and lack of multiple peer reviews. As I said, this can't be used for large chunks of information but it also cannot be dismissed. It just isn't a very strong RS, but does not actualy fail criteria.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nalwa is head of a trust that promotes the memory of what is likely to be an ancestor, given the effects of endogamy. I cannot determine how many people are actively involved in administering the trust but it could well just be her, given this notice of their website's "author". She has academic clout as a neuroscientist and she has an interest in a subject that is very marketable among Sikhs. With no offence intended, it is apparent to anyone who regularly edits Indic caste/history articles that ancestor hero worship is a feature of Indic life that is not replicated to the same degree in, say, Europe. Someone in her position would probably have no trouble getting a book of putative research on any subject published. While her publisher is not lulu.com etc nor her own website, she is no more authoritative on the subject matter than, say, royalark.net (deemed unreliable here) but has the kudos of unrelated (excuse the pun) academic stature. The book could thus well be construed as being self-published, and the profits go to the Trust. It is certainly not yet much cited and not independent of the subject matter, and her efforts regarding Hari Singh Nalwa seem not to have been published by reliable third parties. Perhaps at some time in the future this will change but we do not deal in "maybes" here.
If we accept your rationale, Amadscientist, then this noticeboard might as well cease to exist since everything could be dealt with by WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN. Now there's an idea that would likely go down like a lead balloon ... - Sitush ( talk) 08:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Before I bow out completely here let me just say that the above is not accurate as far as I can tell for an accusation of self publishing as the listed publisher is Manohar Publications (May 1, 2010) [18]. I would also note that some of the the above is pretty outrageous to claim here and could well boarder on BLP issues.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Discuss the edits not the editor
|
---|
|
General
Can primary sources generally be used for descriptive purposes?
A
"The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from: 39-42) This can be embedded in a context based on reliable, secondary literature.
B
C
A user has tried to insert into the BNP article a more up to date membership total, the source used is the ellectorial commisions BNP submited membership accounts. It has been susgested that this is not RS, so is it RS or not? There is no eividacen this has been challenged ir that any one has said the number are fraudualnt. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
At Muslim Mafia (book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a bit of a pov magnet, in January Rosclese removed material with the edit summary " (let's start cleaning up a few of the unreliable sources - it's also possible that some of the reliable sources are misrepresented, but this is a start)". Yesterday Gun Powder Ma restored it saying " care to state your reasons for removing large chunks of referenced material?" which is a bit puzzling since she did. I reverted him with the edit summary "probably because of the sources, eg a scanned pdf which we clearly can't use, someone who claims Obama is a Muslim, over-reliance on Emerson's website, etc" and he restored it again, saying "ou are invited to present this in more detail per WP:BRD on talk page" which I'd say is wrong because from my viewpoint BRD began with his current restoration (which could be argued of course) and I clearly said that you can't use scanned letters. The source for these letters is Steven Emerson's website [22]. I'm not sure of the copyright status of letters from members of the House of Congress but I've always understood we don't use scanned copies of letters from non-official sites, am I right? There are also other clearer copyvio links, eg [23] which is a segment from an MSNBC show. But that's not an RSN issue. Dougweller ( talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
This article
[24] from Novaya Gazeta Nezavisimaya Gazeta claims that Russia is providing intelligence support to Syria in the ongoing Syrian civil war. I have not find any RS supporting this claim, and I'm not sure if this Novaya Gazeta article is reliable or not. There is a
mediation going on for the Syrian civil war article and a person has been using this source, which is written in Russian. If you can help, please respond soon, the parties involved in the mediation would appreciate it. --
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
search engine optimization Sources cited on this website does not stick with traditional idea of credible sources. There's an excessive weight in repeating the point of view of Eric Goldman and Matt Cutts not just in this article, but many internet marketing articles in general.
There are sources like SEOMoz.com and V7n.com and I'm uncertain if they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources.
Please provide input regarding reliable sources for matters like search engine optimization and internet marketing. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Aurangzeb is a very well-studied historical character, a Mughal Emperor, and there are many modern sources that can be used to create a great article. However, the article has been subject to substantial sock activity. I am not even going to try to phrase this neutrally because, frankly, it is a crazy situation. But someone insists that Sarkar, Sir Jadunath (1947). Maasir-i-Alamgiri A history of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. is a reliable source for all sorts of statements made at Aurangzeb and I would appreciate confirmation.
Jadunath Sarkar was a respected historian but the source is merely a translation without commentary, other than an introduction. The work that is translated is a biography and was written in the time of Aurangzeb by a courtier, as was traditional for emperors of the period. Aurangzeb is known to have had control of the content and it is inevitably hagiographic. It contains masses of flowery prose and is practically a ghost-written autobiography. It received a brief mention elsewhere recently in this thread. While primary sources have their uses, it is my opinion that given the origins and the available modern historiography, we should rely on the latter. If the latter refers to the 17th-century source then that is fine but the source itself is not reliable for anything other than an in-context direct quotation - and that would carry little weight.
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that his greatest work of fiction would be his autobiography. That is certainly true of works produced in the Mughal period, in my opinion. BTW, the link is as per the article and thus is scribd.com: obviously, that is inappropriate and I'll be fixing it should consensus go against me here. - Sitush ( talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a reliable source for anything. The source is primary and is old (the book was written during Aurangzeb's reign and the translation dates to 1947). If there is anything of value in the book, then there has been ample time for other historians to comment on, analyze, or authenticate the assertions in the book and that's where we should be looking for sources. And this applies to everything in the book including any assertion of facts. -- regentspark ( comment) 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Jesus Seeking opinions on sources I posed a question to obtain opinions, and I though I should also ask here given that people here are really familiar with sourcing issues:
The specific statements made by each source are on the talk page there, as well as the clarification that there are no opposing sources at all that dispute what these sources say. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
DGG is both logical and correct. That is the scholarly consensus, regardless of what people at large (or any of us) may think of it. And I agree with his characterization of not accepting it as the scholarly consensus as "grasping at straws". Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I want to know that whether the book India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) by Weer Rajendra Rishi meets the criteria of WP:RS, mentioned the fact that Rishi has been awarded with the Padma Shri by the President of India, for his contributions in the field of linguistics? Checking-in here, because notability doesn't itself guarantee reliability, and book covers some serious hot-topics, e.g. [26]! 117.200.53.160 ( talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
At User:Albacore/Mike Capel I have a draft for the article Mike Capel. I want to use ancestory.com to reference his mother and father's names as well as his the name of his wife. The two references I would use are from here. Albacore ( talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Albacore, firstly, you have done a great job at expanding that article. Congratulations! Second, I concur with others here that using primary public document sources, such as those hosted on ancestry.com, should not be used, except possibly to augment a secondary source. The danger of OR and in even error based on erroneous assumptions about identification of the right person and about accuracy of the data/collection are just too great to be left to WP editors. This is most especially the case where we are talking about a living person, as we are here. WP's BLP policy specifically forbids the use of public records such as this per WP:BLPPRIMARY. All this to say the answer is no. Slp1 ( talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi RSN people. Just following up on a past discussion about the Conan chronologies article.
Right now, the article is relying on two authors published at self published websites:
I tried removing them on that basis, but someone reverted based on the fact that they were both published in REHUPA.
REHUPA is the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association". Their website describes them "an amateur press association dedicated to the study of author Robert E. Howard. The purpose of this site is to provide a forum for members to present their work to the public, as well as to serve as a source of reliable information about the life and writings of REH.
My questions:
The more direct the answers, the better. I've been surprised with how contentious this issue is, and the feedback has been somewhat off topic to this point. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented say are as follows:
Are those sources sufficient for the statement that the incident became known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
An IP has been repeatedly removing Myers's contemptuous assessment of Pivar's "Lifecode" theories, as related in his blog Pharyngula ( link), asserting that Myers is not an acceptable source by our standards. I personally would tend to disagree: he's a scientist writing in his own field, and (for instance) his blog is commended by Nature. My one qualm about this is his notoriously confrontational manner, which leads me personally to devalue the intensity of his condemnations. But at any rate we need some resolution to this edit war. Mangoe ( talk) 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Some excerpts from the policy page that pre-empts other Wiki-decisions
Hence, as I see it, the determining question is whether pzmyers's blog is subject to the kind of editorial oversight which includes either the peer-review (before publication) of a reputable academic journal or the fact-checking dept. (again, before publication) of a reputable journal such as The New Yorker. It is irrelevant that PZ Myers has a following, is widely regarded as ...etc., or is a reputable biologist with refereed publications to his credit. It is also irrelevant whether there exists any convenient alternative for debunkers to rely on in their mission of debunking... I am starting to get the feeling that PZ Myers, Massimo Pigliucci, and some of the watchers of this article have a sense of mission. 173.70.4.26 ( talk) 00:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
From the wikipedia article on the blog in question:
Case closed? Maybe I am more sensitive to these issues than some Wiki editors since I am a professional editor and am on the advisory board of three scientific journals (oh, well, none of them prestigious) 173.70.4.26 ( talk) 03:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No, you are selectively reading the policy. I will repeat your excerpt from above, but will add emphasis for what is a key section you gloss over:
PZ Myers's blog clearly meets this criteria. End of discussion. Oh, and anyone can claim to be whatever they want on-line, I have no reason to doubt your claims, similarly I have no reason to believe them either. Such claims of expertise are irrelevant here and give your opinions no special weight. - Nick Thorne talk 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not restructure other users' posts, especially as you did here by making one post look like two separate posts, breaking the logical sequence of the discussion and thus changing the meaning. This is rude and breaks the talk page guidelines. I have moved your comment to immediately follow mine, in sequence, where it belongs.
Since we are not talking about a BLP issue, your quoted section above is not relevant. - Nick Thorne talk 05:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think just on the policy interpretation question 173.70.4.26 is indeed not fully correct.
Please note that I am not stating that we should cite this particular blog on this particular occasion, only that policy does not absolutely forbid it. When policy does not forbid something, it becomes a responsibility to seek consensus in a common sense way, consistent with the spirit of the policy pages. The policy pages do give good guidelines about what kind of evidence can count as a good argument for using or not using a source.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In Right-wing politics the following edit has been challenged as not being from a reliable source:
The book is by an autjor noted for writing on the topic, and is published by Palgrave MacMillan which I thought was a reliable source. The claim is a direct quote, thus can not be somethng misinterpreted easily.
Is Palgrave MacMillan a publisher of "high school lesson plans" as one person averred, or is this a Wikipedia acceptable source for the use to which it is being placed? Many thanks. Collect ( talk) 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
would be nice if something more "academic" could be found but I see nothing wrong with this. Mind, I've not actually looked at the article and if the issue is with regard to weighting then perhaps the challenger could provide some balance? Presumably their objection is because they disagree with the content? - Sitush ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Note the textbook synopsis is This is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the major concepts encountered in political analysis. Each is defined clearly and fully, and its significance for political argument and practice is explored It is not called a high school study guide, nor is it used as one. It is nearly three hundred pages long. This text is used as a reference in multiple works by other authors. It is used as a college text for students of Government. Googlescholar says it is cited by 167 - which is a non-trivial level of notability for a reliable source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There are two unresolved lawsuits mentioned in the magicJack article. Is a lawsuit a reliable source? Here's the material in question:
On June 24, 2009, CANADIANMAGICJACK.CA LTD, filed a lawsuit against magicJack LP with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver Registry (No. S-094744). On September 21 2012, Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd was sued by NetTalk for damages in excess of $200,000,000 for patent infringement with the magickjack plus device.[1] [2]
The only source given for the first is in the text: Registry (No. S-094744). There are two sources given for the second: Text of complaint and Demand for Jury Trial and the Palm Beach Post.
I guess the sorts of questions I have are: 1) Anyone can make any claim in a lawsuit. Should Wikipedia be repeating these claims? 2) Lawsuits involving large corporations are frequent. Need an article mention every lawsuit filed? 3) Should we be citing unresolved lawsuits, or lawsuits that have had little or no media attention? Also, the article mentions a third lawsuit that was resolved, with magicJack losing its defamation suit against Boing Boing. I can't find any coverage of that other than in blogs. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The site religioustolerance.org appears to me to be a self-published amateur stie. It is being used to justify this claim, which has its own issues which I will discuss on the article talk page. Be that as it may, I question using this site as an authority. Mangoe ( talk) 12:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP hopper is insisting [29] that this be in the article Dhul-Qarnayn. Oktan Keles is a fringe Turkish author who thinks the Chinese 'pyramids' are Turkish. The book seems to be also called "Dream of a Recluse" [30] and [31] but I can't find anything in Google books. This is the publisher's page for him and his books [32] and the book's page [33]. I can't make much sense of the translation of the summary:" The devil wizard crew chief in Istanbul, Turkey. One of the best men around here do not planlamasa things. Latif, select the team for that matter. The task with the permission of your God. Crescent prayers with us. Organization of melamine. On top of that Latif Baba: - Your order on top of the head. This is a very dangerous Mayruk wizard. Contact Hz. Moses (pbuh) must be the Sceptre. On top of that Abi Ilhami: - Prayers are ASA. Remember, he realized that eye, hand grasped the scepter, and languages: Bismillah ... Swivel around whatever is in the name of magic. ..." Another page for the book is [34]. Dougweller ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times (was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, posted about it on the talk page with no response, and the discussion started by me on the WP:Administrator's noticeboard was closed with directions to take the matter to the "appropriate discussion page"). I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on the page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The mention of them is removed from the page at the time of my writing this, but it will probably be put back in yet again by that IP editor. So, I am requesting help to resolve this dispute. Sancap ( talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
William M. Branham was a controversial Christian minister from the mid 20th century who has a comparatively small following around the world today. There are a few academic publications that examine Branham’s claims critically but most of the criticism of his claims (some of which are of a supernatural nature) are made by single ex followers who maintain self published personal web sites for this purpose, such as “Seek Ye the Truth” (John Collins) and "Believe the Sign" (Jeremy Bergen) I would appreciate some feedback on the validity of using these self published sources in the article on Branham. Rev107 ( talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which noticeboard exactly this should go in, but since it's about the referencing of the article, i'm putting it here. And it's not really a dispute resolution thing, because the two of us just have a disagreement on whether referencing is appropriate for the statement or not, so other opinions on whether it should be referenced would be helpful. The article in question is Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Yendor of yinn would like to add this information to the article. I wasn't entirely sure on its accuracy, so I removed it and asked for a reference. We have been discussing this here on my talk page. Yender feels like the information is common knowledge that doesn't have to be sourced and that, if necessary, a link to Australia's visa policies and ownership of the Coral Sea Islands would be enough.
I am not sure about this. I feel questionable on whether Cato Island currently falls under this or, more specifically, whether Australia actually bothers to enforce anything in regards to non-Australian people visiting the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom. I would be much more comfortable with a source specifically stating that people need a visa to visit the Kingdom
What do you guys think? Silver seren C 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as people visiting Australia they need to obtain a visa: "Unless you are an Australian or New Zealand citizen, you will need a visa to enter Australia. New Zealand passport holders can apply for a visa upon arrival in the country. All other passport holders must apply for a visa before leaving home. You can apply for a range of visas, including tourist visas and working holiday visas, at your nearest Australian Consulate. For more detailed information go to the Australian government Visas & Immigration website" http://www.australia.com/plan/before-you-go/planning-a-trip.aspx Here is another link http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/remote-offshore-territories/coral-sea-islands.html
Therefore, people trying to visit the Coral Sea Islands Territory (or the the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea) because they are homosexual will still need an Australian Visa (unless they are Australian citizens, obviously). Yendor of yinn ( talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Anything that is likely to be disputed needs a reliable, secondary source. As Red Pen stated, this is not at allundisputable fact like the sky is blue or the sun sets in the west. This needs a reference for many reasons.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Article
Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in publish and peer reviewed sources..
Here is the content added.
According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union.
[35]
Diffs
Please confirm if the source posted [40] is considered compliant with Wikipedia policy.
LoveMonkey ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
According to admin Ed Johnson its undue weight [41]..Please post invalid sources here so that they can be exercised from the article..Also I recently added a bibliography I added secondary sources that (except for God created Lenin) were peer reviewed. This is hard to tell but I tried to use the valid sourcing criteria from WP:VS and use recent material, however that material also uses some of the older sources already in the article. LoveMonkey ( talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, because of a discussion on talk:Hans Eysenck I have to ask here if some scientiffic releases about politic-science are reliabels sources.
The sources, partley in german, assert right-wing acitivitys of a psychologist.
Some other useres won't accept them because they try to deny any of Eysencks far-right publications. Now I have to ask you, if these high-quality-sources are really high-quality-sources. -- WSC ® 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am currently mediating a case between two users relating to the articles Naturalistic pantheism and pantheism. We have agreed to use this noticeboard to decide whether certain sources are reliable when discussion between the two parties does not lead to a solution. Currently, we are discussing whether the World Pantheist Movement (WPM) should have any coverage on the naturalistic pantheism article, and whether its beliefs can be described as naturalistic pantheism. We have agreed that the WPM can be included in the article is reliable sources identify its beliefs as naturalistic pantheism. A number of sources have been provided, but their reliability, and relevance to this specific issue, is disputed.
The sources under discussion are:
I'd like to sum up the current proposal for sourcing the following statement: "The World Pantheist Movement promotes Naturalistic Pantheism, which it describes as including reverence for the universe, realism and strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method."
The above approach avoids synthesis and complies with Wikipedia policies on RS. I believe it answers all of the objections from editors not directly involved in the particular dispute.-- Naturalistic ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); line feed character in |date=
at position 9 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 67 (
help)
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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
Sigh. As usual I'm here because a tendentious user won't accept an archetypically reliable source. Is the BBC reliable for the statements removed here? The user in question claims we need a primary source because news media are all biased, which is so exactly the opposite of how WP works that it's laughable. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages:
I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that:
Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site.
This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section.
I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that:
By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth.
In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that:
In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic.
This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner ( talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
is Washington Irving , a scholar to classic islamic history ? he wrote this book : "Washington Irving (1897), Mahomet and his Successors & Spanish Legends, Volume III, New York & London G.P, Putnam's Sons" and in this book he claim that aisha and ali were enemy together.-- Espiral ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference. [4] However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page, [5] they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. — Farix ( t | c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This is in reference to several discussions that I have seen and not any one particular article. Are BBB ratings considered reliable enough to reference in an article? The page for Better Business Bureau has a neutrality flag. Andrewman327 ( talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, is the much talked book, Israel's Tribes Today (2005) by Steven M. Collins a good source to be used on articles concerning Asian history? 117.207.55.94 ( talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ferdinand porsche was born in liberec czech republic which makes him a czech NOT austrian-german like your page states. he might of lived in austria and germany later in his life but he was czech. just wanted to point out your error.
An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and
diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner.
|
Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬ 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Reliable in this context, but seek a better one; it is borderline. The site in question is both an advocacy site and a news aggregator; the statement in question is a report of criticism of Pepsi, which exists. I would be careful of using descriptors in the source, since that implies fact, and the source is not impartial; they are assumed to overstate the importance of protests. I would also add that, even if the reports are WP:RS, if the only news source is lifenews , the section would be excluded by WP:UNDUE , even if it is not disputed that the protests happened.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the description accompanying this photograph a sufficiently reliable source for making an in-article assertion that the photograph depicts what its publishers claim it depicts? 24.177.121.137 ( talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Just 103 Wikipedia pages link to thatgrapejuice.net Also see http://website.informer.com/thatgrapejuice.net
In February 2012, it was announced that Bryan had signed a record deal with the Relentless Records. [ [7]]
She began writing poetry, moved on to rapping and then progressed to singing. [ ]
That Grape Juice said that she boasted 'originality in abundance'.[ ]
Home Run was released for digital download on July 15 in the UK, landing in at 11 at the end of its debut week[ ]
she performed an acoustic version of the song live...... on the 17 July 2012, for Ustream [ ]
I believe its reliable in context, but is it still just a blog...what is the relaxed independent opinion ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It is “the UK’s #1 Urban blog”. As describes in its "About us", so no. Not RS. Problems with these sites is, even if there may be some editoria oversite and possible fact checking (and we really don't know), more than likely the author wouldn't pass criteria for use as a blog can be written by just about anyone in the business or out.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Does the fact that this book was published by Brill Publishers and got a good review in this journal make it a reilable source to be used in articles related to New Atheism and its criticism? How about articles about New Atheist. For example the book discusses largely about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and their works. Can I use the stuff mentioned in the book in those articles? Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
The question is given the credits of this book, can I use what is mentioned in the Richard Dawkins article.-- 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Source: This article in Slate Magazine
Article: Republican Party (United States) (see this talk thread)
Content: Basically the whole thing. The fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated support for raising taxes on those who pay no income taxes. Secondarily, the statement that this position is the new GOP orthodoxy. ("Which it is.")
Comment: Obviously the title and byline are sensationalistic and probably POV. It has been contended that this source is opinion and therefore not reliable for its facts. I disagree and believe that it's analysis, not opinion, but even if it's opinion, the facts are reliable because they're supported by quotes and hyperlinks are provided to the original reporting. Have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss ( talk • contribs)
Re the statements by Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ: some (Binkernet, Horologium, TheTimesAreAChanging) have stated emphatically that attribution is required, but unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen an explanation as to why. Can someone please take a stab at an argument? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. It is not a signed opinion piece and NOWHERE on that article does it state that. IN FACT the bottum of the article clearly shows his title: David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. It is not an opinion or an analysis, but the reporting of an interview from the Wall Street Journal in this case. You are however, making an interpretation without demonstration and are using an opinion of what you think. The titles of article are not an indicator of being an editorial or opinion. And I checked and they are as well articles not editorials. Stick to the facts and not what we think. The context is accurate to what is written.
The paper asked Huntsman if "the half of American households no longer paying income tax—mainly working poor families and seniors—should be brought onto the income tax rolls."
He agreed, crediting the GOP's current front-runner for vice president, Sen. Marco Rubio, with the insight that "we don't have enough people paying taxes in this country."
The Journal called this position the "new GOP orthodoxy," which it is. When he announced his presidential bid two weeks ago, Perry told a room of conservative activists and bloggers that "we're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax." He was following on Bachmann, who'd just told the South Carolina Christian Chamber of Commerce the very same thing.
This article is a Relibale Source to reference these facts and I find nothing showing the author as an editorial writer for Slate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The passage in question is 'According to Arab Nyheter news agency "Al Jazeera has reported that Saudi security authorities arrested a suspect bird, who worked for Israeli intelligence (Mossad) and was flying in Saudi airspace to gather information on the country." [18]'
Is Arab Nyheter a reliable source for reproducing faithfully what Al Jazeera might have said? Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the essay at [8] RS for stating that Murray Rothbard directly connects Bismarckism to "right wing socialism" in an essay, or is an editor correct in stating
The quote from Rothbard directly is:
The Rothbard essay is also printed in several books - so the site used (Mises) is not the issue, only whether the Roghbard opinion belongs in an article on "Right wing socialism" or not at all. Collect ( talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I added a fact with verifiability into the green coffee article. Specifically:
Japanese researchers, studying green coffee bean extract consumption in mice, concluded that it "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver." [1]
This content was removed by another editor, claiming to violate WP:MEDRS. To my eye, the source ( BioMed Central) appears reliable and it apparently publishes hundreds of peer-reviewed, open-access journals, including the one in question "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine". I have re-added the material above, but would like to hear other editors' opinions on the matter. Additional context... The green coffee article is small and a popular sub-topic seems to be the purported health impact of consuming it. There are several other studies represented and cited in the article. Thanks! -- Ds13 ( talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback. Note that I'm not attempting to make a therapeutic claim. My claim was that research was done, published, and that the researchers concluded something. To my mind, a medical or therapeutic claim looks like "Substance X may help you lose weight.*ref*", while a non-medical claim would be "Researcher Y studied Substance X and concluded that it may help you lose weight.*ref*". A worthwhile distinction? Applicability of WP:MEDRS aside, the primary source issue is the more important principle. Noted. -- Ds13 ( talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this posting on the Realityblurred website was used as a source to add content into Restaurant Stakeout regarding whether it is really "reality" or not. However, I am highly skeptical as to whether it is reliable source and wanted some other feedback. Thanks, SassyLilNugget ( talk) 12:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem at the Battle of Aleppo (2012) article wether VoR is reliable source or not.
Two users ( User:I7laseral and User:Sopher99) claimed that the VoR is not a reliable source. This was the VoR's article that was problematic - [9].
Now, they claim it's not reliable because some "non-neutral" words were used in the article, namely "merceneries". However, number of sources reported that there are actually number of merceneries involved in the Syrian civil war. Check the Free Syrian Army article and foreign combatants. Croatian and Serb merceneries are fighting within ranks of the FSA for example. This was confrimed by high-ranking Croatian general. Thefore a word "mercenery" was used for a reason.
Now, as for Voice of Russia, it is a government owned multi-language broadcasting service. Just to make a note, BBC is government-owned as well, which doesn't mean it's not reliable. VoR is being broadcasted in 33 languages and it was established in 1929 (83 years ago). VoR is member of the European Broadcasting Union and the International Committee on Digital Radio Mondiale. So it is very prestigious broadcasting service.
-- Wüstenfuchs 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-Voice of Russia is a propaganda news-source (or rather one which filters out facts to support the Russian government's view).
-The other thing that I had a problem with was the use of "liberate". (by the way there are no mercenaries in Syria, there are foreign fighters (but not hired))
-Voice of Russia constantly takes the Syrian government claim's as fact, as oppose to normal RS which just takes claims form both sides as unverified until witnessed by their own reporters.
Sopher99 (
talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned about these edits - the user seems to be completely rewriting large chunks of numerous articles (usually character and plot sections), often eradicating references, eg and eg.2. There are also potential WP:TONE problems. Can someone look into this, or take and describe it better wherever needed? (It looks extensive, and I have no experience in this topic area). Thanks. — Quiddity ( talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.
Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996
I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit
Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)
In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.
"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".
There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?
From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138
A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.
From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222
Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...
From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml
Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby.
Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration.
-- Juraj Budak ( talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 ( talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Churn and change ( talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously?
Fifelfoo (
talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN?
His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion.
and
Cohen's final task is to explain how Serbia could have been so successful in
selling its twentieth-century heroic myths to the international community.... Except for this last theme (which includes an expose on the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society that MiloSevic founded in 1987) much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point, such as in exaggerating the popularity of Serbian pre-war fascist parties (which garnered a paltry 1% of the vote against Stojadinovic's government list and Macek's
united opposition) or in minimizing the popular Serb opposition to the March 1941 Tripartite Pact. Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild.
This provides a counterpoint to the review referenced by Fifelfoo, and was part of the case made by Churn and change which concluded that WP policy means that Cohen can be used for facts and opinions (with in-text attribution of the opinions). In several other fora, including at Talk:Chetniks here [13] User:Antidiskriminator has now declared that this discussion in fact means that Cohen is not considered reliable. That was not my impression. Can we get some clarification? Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
G'day RSNers, I know you don't usually do this, but given the contention Cohen has caused here and at related article talkpages, could we please have a formal close of this discussion by one of the RSN editors who provided their opinion? I respect the fact that the consensus was not resounding, but this will go on for ever unless we get some formal advice recorded and the matter closed. That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book " Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Do you find the criticisms posed by a 20th century missionary on Muhammad a reliable third-party source?
2. Do you find Steve Fuller's criticism of Richard Dawkins a reliable third-party source? -- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Xinmsn is an online source largely used in articles about Singapore TV serials, movies and such. Is it a reliable source? Bonkers The Clown ( talk) 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is Nalwa, Vanit (2009).
Hari Singh Nalwa - Champion of the Khalsaji. New Delhi: Manohar Books.
ISBN
81-7304-785-5. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) a reliable source for historical information in
Hari Singh Nalwa. The article subject is controversial and the author not merely shares the name but heads the Hari Singh Nalwa Foundation Trust. A profile of her can be found
here.
I am particularly concerned about POV pushing - the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims. The source is used extensively in the article. - Sitush ( talk) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, I do not understand what you are getting at with your third or fourth points - they seem to be some sort of irrelevant debate concerning semantics.
I do not claim to be an "expert" in Sikh history, although I have a fair amount of experience in Indic articles and their POV/sourcing issues. The endogamous nature of many Indic communities gives rise to potential issues when it comes to reliability: a lot of "bigging up" of history goes on, whether written down or transmitted orally, and in fact I rather think that the majority do so. Alas, many British Raj authors took those community histories as fact, and those authors too are regularly considered to be unreliable. Nalwa clearly has a close association with the subject, is probably herself a Sikh, represents an advocacy group that promotes the subject of our article, etc: these are all substantial alarm signals. Although she is not a trained historian nor, it seems, translator (she relies a lot on Persian texts etc), she is, of course, theoretically a valid source for her own interpretation ... but that does not mean much at all here. Your comment that "While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information." is almost the exact opposite of how we usually evaluate.
As for your sixth point, well, it is being used for numerous claims, although slightly fewer than 24 hours ago because I have removed some copyvios (I'll reinstate in non-copyvio form if appropriate but am not wasting my time doing so until the reliability is ascertained). - Sitush ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, no this is not a "coffee table hagiography" and that point of view simply dismisses the book with undue personal opinion. Second, the publisher claims to publish scholarly work[ [17] so the fact that you call other publications fluff, again has no bearing on this book. Many publisher put out both academic and "fluff". This is not a history book and I see no claim of such anywhere. It is a biography from a clearly defined author who has a direct connection to the figure. That doesn't mean we dismiss it out of hand. I have scanned through the book and find the claim that it is a "work of avocation" to be a little off base. Yes, the author is described as writing with "unconcealed pride", but oddly enough that is in a review by Khushwant Singh who is considered an authority on Sikh history and is indeed a "peer review". I am not sure if what you are looking for is Western peer reviews to accept this or multiple reviews. The fact is an RS has several criteria and we don't just toss them all out and say "Oh no, you can't use that. It says good things about the figure", well it also says neutral and negative things. He wasn't a saint, and no one is treating him that way. Yes, this book has a weakened RS claim because the author is not known for work in the field of either history or biography, but this isn't a fraud or a fringe idea we are talking about. The association with the Foundation itself doesn't seem to mean much. Seriously, how does this effect RS? Are we saying by association with a charitable foundation it is somehow of less value? This just seems to be excuse making to exclude. This is surely not the strongest RS I have ever seen, but it can't be blown off because of the things being mentioned, it just lowers it's strength and use is a matter of consensus. There seems to be little reasoning using the criteria for RS. The author seems to be an expert on this figure and that cannot be denied, they simply are not a historian and I don't think that works completely against them, just weakens the case for RS, not destroys it. The publisher is not a pay to publish or a vanity press and the work itself cannot be dismissed as fringe, innacurate or unduly self serving (it isn't about themself). The weakest part of the book is the author and lack of multiple peer reviews. As I said, this can't be used for large chunks of information but it also cannot be dismissed. It just isn't a very strong RS, but does not actualy fail criteria.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nalwa is head of a trust that promotes the memory of what is likely to be an ancestor, given the effects of endogamy. I cannot determine how many people are actively involved in administering the trust but it could well just be her, given this notice of their website's "author". She has academic clout as a neuroscientist and she has an interest in a subject that is very marketable among Sikhs. With no offence intended, it is apparent to anyone who regularly edits Indic caste/history articles that ancestor hero worship is a feature of Indic life that is not replicated to the same degree in, say, Europe. Someone in her position would probably have no trouble getting a book of putative research on any subject published. While her publisher is not lulu.com etc nor her own website, she is no more authoritative on the subject matter than, say, royalark.net (deemed unreliable here) but has the kudos of unrelated (excuse the pun) academic stature. The book could thus well be construed as being self-published, and the profits go to the Trust. It is certainly not yet much cited and not independent of the subject matter, and her efforts regarding Hari Singh Nalwa seem not to have been published by reliable third parties. Perhaps at some time in the future this will change but we do not deal in "maybes" here.
If we accept your rationale, Amadscientist, then this noticeboard might as well cease to exist since everything could be dealt with by WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN. Now there's an idea that would likely go down like a lead balloon ... - Sitush ( talk) 08:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Before I bow out completely here let me just say that the above is not accurate as far as I can tell for an accusation of self publishing as the listed publisher is Manohar Publications (May 1, 2010) [18]. I would also note that some of the the above is pretty outrageous to claim here and could well boarder on BLP issues.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Discuss the edits not the editor
|
---|
|
General
Can primary sources generally be used for descriptive purposes?
A
"The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from: 39-42) This can be embedded in a context based on reliable, secondary literature.
B
C
A user has tried to insert into the BNP article a more up to date membership total, the source used is the ellectorial commisions BNP submited membership accounts. It has been susgested that this is not RS, so is it RS or not? There is no eividacen this has been challenged ir that any one has said the number are fraudualnt. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
At Muslim Mafia (book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a bit of a pov magnet, in January Rosclese removed material with the edit summary " (let's start cleaning up a few of the unreliable sources - it's also possible that some of the reliable sources are misrepresented, but this is a start)". Yesterday Gun Powder Ma restored it saying " care to state your reasons for removing large chunks of referenced material?" which is a bit puzzling since she did. I reverted him with the edit summary "probably because of the sources, eg a scanned pdf which we clearly can't use, someone who claims Obama is a Muslim, over-reliance on Emerson's website, etc" and he restored it again, saying "ou are invited to present this in more detail per WP:BRD on talk page" which I'd say is wrong because from my viewpoint BRD began with his current restoration (which could be argued of course) and I clearly said that you can't use scanned letters. The source for these letters is Steven Emerson's website [22]. I'm not sure of the copyright status of letters from members of the House of Congress but I've always understood we don't use scanned copies of letters from non-official sites, am I right? There are also other clearer copyvio links, eg [23] which is a segment from an MSNBC show. But that's not an RSN issue. Dougweller ( talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
This article
[24] from Novaya Gazeta Nezavisimaya Gazeta claims that Russia is providing intelligence support to Syria in the ongoing Syrian civil war. I have not find any RS supporting this claim, and I'm not sure if this Novaya Gazeta article is reliable or not. There is a
mediation going on for the Syrian civil war article and a person has been using this source, which is written in Russian. If you can help, please respond soon, the parties involved in the mediation would appreciate it. --
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
search engine optimization Sources cited on this website does not stick with traditional idea of credible sources. There's an excessive weight in repeating the point of view of Eric Goldman and Matt Cutts not just in this article, but many internet marketing articles in general.
There are sources like SEOMoz.com and V7n.com and I'm uncertain if they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources.
Please provide input regarding reliable sources for matters like search engine optimization and internet marketing. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Aurangzeb is a very well-studied historical character, a Mughal Emperor, and there are many modern sources that can be used to create a great article. However, the article has been subject to substantial sock activity. I am not even going to try to phrase this neutrally because, frankly, it is a crazy situation. But someone insists that Sarkar, Sir Jadunath (1947). Maasir-i-Alamgiri A history of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. is a reliable source for all sorts of statements made at Aurangzeb and I would appreciate confirmation.
Jadunath Sarkar was a respected historian but the source is merely a translation without commentary, other than an introduction. The work that is translated is a biography and was written in the time of Aurangzeb by a courtier, as was traditional for emperors of the period. Aurangzeb is known to have had control of the content and it is inevitably hagiographic. It contains masses of flowery prose and is practically a ghost-written autobiography. It received a brief mention elsewhere recently in this thread. While primary sources have their uses, it is my opinion that given the origins and the available modern historiography, we should rely on the latter. If the latter refers to the 17th-century source then that is fine but the source itself is not reliable for anything other than an in-context direct quotation - and that would carry little weight.
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that his greatest work of fiction would be his autobiography. That is certainly true of works produced in the Mughal period, in my opinion. BTW, the link is as per the article and thus is scribd.com: obviously, that is inappropriate and I'll be fixing it should consensus go against me here. - Sitush ( talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a reliable source for anything. The source is primary and is old (the book was written during Aurangzeb's reign and the translation dates to 1947). If there is anything of value in the book, then there has been ample time for other historians to comment on, analyze, or authenticate the assertions in the book and that's where we should be looking for sources. And this applies to everything in the book including any assertion of facts. -- regentspark ( comment) 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Jesus Seeking opinions on sources I posed a question to obtain opinions, and I though I should also ask here given that people here are really familiar with sourcing issues:
The specific statements made by each source are on the talk page there, as well as the clarification that there are no opposing sources at all that dispute what these sources say. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
DGG is both logical and correct. That is the scholarly consensus, regardless of what people at large (or any of us) may think of it. And I agree with his characterization of not accepting it as the scholarly consensus as "grasping at straws". Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I want to know that whether the book India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) by Weer Rajendra Rishi meets the criteria of WP:RS, mentioned the fact that Rishi has been awarded with the Padma Shri by the President of India, for his contributions in the field of linguistics? Checking-in here, because notability doesn't itself guarantee reliability, and book covers some serious hot-topics, e.g. [26]! 117.200.53.160 ( talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
At User:Albacore/Mike Capel I have a draft for the article Mike Capel. I want to use ancestory.com to reference his mother and father's names as well as his the name of his wife. The two references I would use are from here. Albacore ( talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Albacore, firstly, you have done a great job at expanding that article. Congratulations! Second, I concur with others here that using primary public document sources, such as those hosted on ancestry.com, should not be used, except possibly to augment a secondary source. The danger of OR and in even error based on erroneous assumptions about identification of the right person and about accuracy of the data/collection are just too great to be left to WP editors. This is most especially the case where we are talking about a living person, as we are here. WP's BLP policy specifically forbids the use of public records such as this per WP:BLPPRIMARY. All this to say the answer is no. Slp1 ( talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi RSN people. Just following up on a past discussion about the Conan chronologies article.
Right now, the article is relying on two authors published at self published websites:
I tried removing them on that basis, but someone reverted based on the fact that they were both published in REHUPA.
REHUPA is the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association". Their website describes them "an amateur press association dedicated to the study of author Robert E. Howard. The purpose of this site is to provide a forum for members to present their work to the public, as well as to serve as a source of reliable information about the life and writings of REH.
My questions:
The more direct the answers, the better. I've been surprised with how contentious this issue is, and the feedback has been somewhat off topic to this point. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented say are as follows:
Are those sources sufficient for the statement that the incident became known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
An IP has been repeatedly removing Myers's contemptuous assessment of Pivar's "Lifecode" theories, as related in his blog Pharyngula ( link), asserting that Myers is not an acceptable source by our standards. I personally would tend to disagree: he's a scientist writing in his own field, and (for instance) his blog is commended by Nature. My one qualm about this is his notoriously confrontational manner, which leads me personally to devalue the intensity of his condemnations. But at any rate we need some resolution to this edit war. Mangoe ( talk) 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Some excerpts from the policy page that pre-empts other Wiki-decisions
Hence, as I see it, the determining question is whether pzmyers's blog is subject to the kind of editorial oversight which includes either the peer-review (before publication) of a reputable academic journal or the fact-checking dept. (again, before publication) of a reputable journal such as The New Yorker. It is irrelevant that PZ Myers has a following, is widely regarded as ...etc., or is a reputable biologist with refereed publications to his credit. It is also irrelevant whether there exists any convenient alternative for debunkers to rely on in their mission of debunking... I am starting to get the feeling that PZ Myers, Massimo Pigliucci, and some of the watchers of this article have a sense of mission. 173.70.4.26 ( talk) 00:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
From the wikipedia article on the blog in question:
Case closed? Maybe I am more sensitive to these issues than some Wiki editors since I am a professional editor and am on the advisory board of three scientific journals (oh, well, none of them prestigious) 173.70.4.26 ( talk) 03:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No, you are selectively reading the policy. I will repeat your excerpt from above, but will add emphasis for what is a key section you gloss over:
PZ Myers's blog clearly meets this criteria. End of discussion. Oh, and anyone can claim to be whatever they want on-line, I have no reason to doubt your claims, similarly I have no reason to believe them either. Such claims of expertise are irrelevant here and give your opinions no special weight. - Nick Thorne talk 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not restructure other users' posts, especially as you did here by making one post look like two separate posts, breaking the logical sequence of the discussion and thus changing the meaning. This is rude and breaks the talk page guidelines. I have moved your comment to immediately follow mine, in sequence, where it belongs.
Since we are not talking about a BLP issue, your quoted section above is not relevant. - Nick Thorne talk 05:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think just on the policy interpretation question 173.70.4.26 is indeed not fully correct.
Please note that I am not stating that we should cite this particular blog on this particular occasion, only that policy does not absolutely forbid it. When policy does not forbid something, it becomes a responsibility to seek consensus in a common sense way, consistent with the spirit of the policy pages. The policy pages do give good guidelines about what kind of evidence can count as a good argument for using or not using a source.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In Right-wing politics the following edit has been challenged as not being from a reliable source:
The book is by an autjor noted for writing on the topic, and is published by Palgrave MacMillan which I thought was a reliable source. The claim is a direct quote, thus can not be somethng misinterpreted easily.
Is Palgrave MacMillan a publisher of "high school lesson plans" as one person averred, or is this a Wikipedia acceptable source for the use to which it is being placed? Many thanks. Collect ( talk) 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
would be nice if something more "academic" could be found but I see nothing wrong with this. Mind, I've not actually looked at the article and if the issue is with regard to weighting then perhaps the challenger could provide some balance? Presumably their objection is because they disagree with the content? - Sitush ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Note the textbook synopsis is This is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the major concepts encountered in political analysis. Each is defined clearly and fully, and its significance for political argument and practice is explored It is not called a high school study guide, nor is it used as one. It is nearly three hundred pages long. This text is used as a reference in multiple works by other authors. It is used as a college text for students of Government. Googlescholar says it is cited by 167 - which is a non-trivial level of notability for a reliable source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There are two unresolved lawsuits mentioned in the magicJack article. Is a lawsuit a reliable source? Here's the material in question:
On June 24, 2009, CANADIANMAGICJACK.CA LTD, filed a lawsuit against magicJack LP with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver Registry (No. S-094744). On September 21 2012, Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd was sued by NetTalk for damages in excess of $200,000,000 for patent infringement with the magickjack plus device.[1] [2]
The only source given for the first is in the text: Registry (No. S-094744). There are two sources given for the second: Text of complaint and Demand for Jury Trial and the Palm Beach Post.
I guess the sorts of questions I have are: 1) Anyone can make any claim in a lawsuit. Should Wikipedia be repeating these claims? 2) Lawsuits involving large corporations are frequent. Need an article mention every lawsuit filed? 3) Should we be citing unresolved lawsuits, or lawsuits that have had little or no media attention? Also, the article mentions a third lawsuit that was resolved, with magicJack losing its defamation suit against Boing Boing. I can't find any coverage of that other than in blogs. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The site religioustolerance.org appears to me to be a self-published amateur stie. It is being used to justify this claim, which has its own issues which I will discuss on the article talk page. Be that as it may, I question using this site as an authority. Mangoe ( talk) 12:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP hopper is insisting [29] that this be in the article Dhul-Qarnayn. Oktan Keles is a fringe Turkish author who thinks the Chinese 'pyramids' are Turkish. The book seems to be also called "Dream of a Recluse" [30] and [31] but I can't find anything in Google books. This is the publisher's page for him and his books [32] and the book's page [33]. I can't make much sense of the translation of the summary:" The devil wizard crew chief in Istanbul, Turkey. One of the best men around here do not planlamasa things. Latif, select the team for that matter. The task with the permission of your God. Crescent prayers with us. Organization of melamine. On top of that Latif Baba: - Your order on top of the head. This is a very dangerous Mayruk wizard. Contact Hz. Moses (pbuh) must be the Sceptre. On top of that Abi Ilhami: - Prayers are ASA. Remember, he realized that eye, hand grasped the scepter, and languages: Bismillah ... Swivel around whatever is in the name of magic. ..." Another page for the book is [34]. Dougweller ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times (was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, posted about it on the talk page with no response, and the discussion started by me on the WP:Administrator's noticeboard was closed with directions to take the matter to the "appropriate discussion page"). I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on the page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The mention of them is removed from the page at the time of my writing this, but it will probably be put back in yet again by that IP editor. So, I am requesting help to resolve this dispute. Sancap ( talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
William M. Branham was a controversial Christian minister from the mid 20th century who has a comparatively small following around the world today. There are a few academic publications that examine Branham’s claims critically but most of the criticism of his claims (some of which are of a supernatural nature) are made by single ex followers who maintain self published personal web sites for this purpose, such as “Seek Ye the Truth” (John Collins) and "Believe the Sign" (Jeremy Bergen) I would appreciate some feedback on the validity of using these self published sources in the article on Branham. Rev107 ( talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which noticeboard exactly this should go in, but since it's about the referencing of the article, i'm putting it here. And it's not really a dispute resolution thing, because the two of us just have a disagreement on whether referencing is appropriate for the statement or not, so other opinions on whether it should be referenced would be helpful. The article in question is Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Yendor of yinn would like to add this information to the article. I wasn't entirely sure on its accuracy, so I removed it and asked for a reference. We have been discussing this here on my talk page. Yender feels like the information is common knowledge that doesn't have to be sourced and that, if necessary, a link to Australia's visa policies and ownership of the Coral Sea Islands would be enough.
I am not sure about this. I feel questionable on whether Cato Island currently falls under this or, more specifically, whether Australia actually bothers to enforce anything in regards to non-Australian people visiting the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom. I would be much more comfortable with a source specifically stating that people need a visa to visit the Kingdom
What do you guys think? Silver seren C 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as people visiting Australia they need to obtain a visa: "Unless you are an Australian or New Zealand citizen, you will need a visa to enter Australia. New Zealand passport holders can apply for a visa upon arrival in the country. All other passport holders must apply for a visa before leaving home. You can apply for a range of visas, including tourist visas and working holiday visas, at your nearest Australian Consulate. For more detailed information go to the Australian government Visas & Immigration website" http://www.australia.com/plan/before-you-go/planning-a-trip.aspx Here is another link http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/remote-offshore-territories/coral-sea-islands.html
Therefore, people trying to visit the Coral Sea Islands Territory (or the the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea) because they are homosexual will still need an Australian Visa (unless they are Australian citizens, obviously). Yendor of yinn ( talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Anything that is likely to be disputed needs a reliable, secondary source. As Red Pen stated, this is not at allundisputable fact like the sky is blue or the sun sets in the west. This needs a reference for many reasons.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Article
Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in publish and peer reviewed sources..
Here is the content added.
According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union.
[35]
Diffs
Please confirm if the source posted [40] is considered compliant with Wikipedia policy.
LoveMonkey ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
According to admin Ed Johnson its undue weight [41]..Please post invalid sources here so that they can be exercised from the article..Also I recently added a bibliography I added secondary sources that (except for God created Lenin) were peer reviewed. This is hard to tell but I tried to use the valid sourcing criteria from WP:VS and use recent material, however that material also uses some of the older sources already in the article. LoveMonkey ( talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, because of a discussion on talk:Hans Eysenck I have to ask here if some scientiffic releases about politic-science are reliabels sources.
The sources, partley in german, assert right-wing acitivitys of a psychologist.
Some other useres won't accept them because they try to deny any of Eysencks far-right publications. Now I have to ask you, if these high-quality-sources are really high-quality-sources. -- WSC ® 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am currently mediating a case between two users relating to the articles Naturalistic pantheism and pantheism. We have agreed to use this noticeboard to decide whether certain sources are reliable when discussion between the two parties does not lead to a solution. Currently, we are discussing whether the World Pantheist Movement (WPM) should have any coverage on the naturalistic pantheism article, and whether its beliefs can be described as naturalistic pantheism. We have agreed that the WPM can be included in the article is reliable sources identify its beliefs as naturalistic pantheism. A number of sources have been provided, but their reliability, and relevance to this specific issue, is disputed.
The sources under discussion are:
I'd like to sum up the current proposal for sourcing the following statement: "The World Pantheist Movement promotes Naturalistic Pantheism, which it describes as including reverence for the universe, realism and strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method."
The above approach avoids synthesis and complies with Wikipedia policies on RS. I believe it answers all of the objections from editors not directly involved in the particular dispute.-- Naturalistic ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); line feed character in |date=
at position 9 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 67 (
help)