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 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
Is this partisan "nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples" which publishes reports "containing analysis and commentary" a notable source when not referred to by independent sources, and a reliable source for I-P related topics that it be used for making third-party claims? Ankh. Morpork 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look at their frontpage, and it shows us everything we need to know about this foundation. It's interests clearly aren't to promote peace in the Middle East and act non-partisanly, and it's a completely one-sided organization. On their homepage, 9/9 links in their middle column all deal with Israel in a negative light or attacking settlements. 6/6 latest additions also all deal with Israel or their elected government in a negative light. Both of their "special reports" tabs also deal with Israel, although I can't see the content, since it says that the content doesn't exist. On their left tab, they have a section with maps of Israel from 1947-2012, to allegedly show "the growth of Israel’s occupation and settlement project from the 1967 War to the present," a section called "Settlement database," a section called "Settlement freeze," a section with a report they write about settlements, and then an events section. And that's it.
To deny that there aren't other issues in the Middle East regarding conflicts and peace is silly - what about that "thing" going on in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed? Or that "thing" in Iraq? Etc etc. Not a single thing on their frontpage about it. OK, so even if they don't focus on the rest of the Middle East, fine. But their focus on Israel is solely to attack it or issue reports about settlements. They also fund Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, which is a one-sided anti-Israel organization.
It's clear where the foundation's line lays. They are one-sided and biased, and are obsessed with Israeli settlements, leading them to publish tons of reports on them and dedicate all their resources to it, while not focusing on anything on the Palestinian side to bring peace. In fact, I wouldn't even call them pro-Palestinian, as I don't see anything on their website to indicate that - they're just obsessed with Israel and settlements. And while that's perfectly OK for an organization to have, it doesn't make them into a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It makes them a biased advocacy organization. -- Jethro B 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, the context is simple. AnkhMorpork had repeatedly attempted to delete a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in schools run by the Palestinian National Authority. That paper had been hosted on FMEP, though I cant find it there now. Nathan Brown is a well known and respected academic specializing in Middle East politics, and he has written extensively on the subject of Palestinian textbooks. AnkhMorpork, on the basis of FMEP being a supposedly "non-RS", repeatedly removed that paper, absurdly calling it a primary source because it wasnt repeated by a newspaper. Note how he is asking for views on their personal reports. Of course he wont tell you what those personal reports are, because if somebody brought an academic paper authored by somebody of Nathan Brown's stature they would be laughed out of this noticeboard. So instead of actually answering the repeated request to specify what source is being challenged, you get these obfuscations as seen above. That is the context of this request, and it is plainly evident to anybody who looks at this, this and this. nableezy - 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I have never seen the quality of their facts and basic research called into question. It is generally accepted as top-shelf work by professionals. There is an implied assertion by the pro-settlement editors on this thread that their evil support for a two-state solution (horrors!) somehow negates the reliability of research that is generally accepted by professionals outside Wikipedia as reliable. And that's a crazy assertion. It's basically about manipulating tortuous internal Wikipedia "crowd-sourcing" logic to disqualify facts (not opinions) that some would prefer didn't exist. Dan Murphy ( talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Reliability is something that needs to be established with reference to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. That FMEP fails in that regard has nothing at all to do with a perceived bias among a perceived "band" of editors. If anything, the energies being invested here to try and demonstrate that there is a group of editors "banding together" for anything more likely than not is the result of a real and destructive bias on the part of those editors trying to impute bias to other editors with whom they don't see eye to eye and whom they'd much rather see banned from the Project than have to actually deal with the substance of their arguments. Enough with the red herrings. Is RMEP a partisan think tank operating with a defined political agenda? Yes. Is the material it publishes peer-reviewed? No. Is there an editorial board that monitors FMEP.org's output? No. Is some of the stuff published at FMEP.org reliable? Possibly; if the author of the material is an expert in the field, then there are circumstances in which the material can be used with attribution and in consideration of WP:UNDUE. Can FMEP in general be considered a reliable source for facts in the same way that we consider the New York Times and the National Geographic Society reliable sources for facts? No, it cannot; at best, it can be considered a reliable source for its own opinions.— Biosketch ( talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This is simply another of the multitude of NGO's that espouse a distinct position, and cannot be relied upon to objectively present material pertaining to I-P matters. There does not appear to be any editorial overview and they openly declare their Middle East "vision" on their website. They should not be used for I-P issues unless where referred to by a reliable third party source. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: I think that the website is fine,it is stating factual evidence as far as I can see and carries articles by various authors including Israeli academics.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
blocked sock
I've had an edit reversed on Johann Hari's article. This is what I wrote:
Hari has also been accused of using the same pseudonym he used on Wikipedia (David Rose) to write "gay incest porn" online, which used some racist stereotypes. [1] [2]
This was reversed on the grounds that a blog should not be acceptable for an article about a living person. My understanding of the rules is that it depends on the blog: if it's written by a professional and is subject to editorial control, then it's just as good as a newspapaer article. I think that these two sources pass the test, although I admit that the Blottr source is less respectable than the Telegraph one.
I have tried to find more sources, but unfortunately a lot are described as "blogs". Conservative Home ran the story, but used this blog as the source. I can't say that I'd heard of "Jack of Kent" and thought that this would fall into the unacceptable category, but this post was examined during in the Leveson Inquiry, which suggests that it has some national significance in the debate about irresponsible journalists.
The details on the erotica are printed at the end of this article by Christine Odone. I can't find the actual article on Google, and suspect that there's a good reason for that.
Are these sources sufficient to justify an edit to the article on Johann Hari to mention his authorship of online erotica? Epa101 ( talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
They are acceptable as they are not self-published and are written by professionals. That's stated here and here. However, I was not aware of the WP:NEWSBLOG point. That is relevant in moderating their use. Epa101 ( talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) What I think is a more tricky area of policy is the Jack of Kent blog. He says on it that he posts in a purely personal capacity and not as part of the New Statesman, so I can understand that this undermines its claims as a reliable source. However, this was the blog that was central to identifying Hari's disruption on Wikipedia and use of "David Rose" as a pseudonym. This was mentioned when he appeared as a witness before the Leveson Inquiry. I would argue that his blog is relevant to this particular subject, since it was central to the whole story, and that his follow-up post (on the subject of erotica) is relevant. Epa101 ( talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's much support for this change. Case closed. Epa101 ( talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A good number of organizations have websites run by ex-members which are extremely negative to the organization. I assume they can be cited in a controversy or criticism section as expressing their own views. They would seem to be primary sources talking about themselves. However, on ECyD the ReGAIN site is cited generalizing what was probably the case in a few limited circumstances a while back. Unfortunately, no date is given but by several other aspects, it would look like the situation they are explaining is about 8-15 years ago.
ECyD was accused by some critics in the past of over zealous recruitment of youth. They claimed that the Challenge and Conquest clubs were aimed at recruiting members into ECyD and are separated by gender to emphasize discernment of vocation at a young age. The same critics also claim that the clubs focus on members who have qualities that will attract other girls and boys into the clubs.
The header ends with a summary of this and a citation. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As several editors of hip hop articles are repeatedly using this as a source, I thought I would bring it up here. Personally, I'm not too sure, as its page here is just a redirect to some other magazine where the editor of this site works. Also, the links meant to give information about the site (" About RR" and " Who We Are") display nothing. However, I need some further consensus. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm interesting in using this site in the above article to verify voice actors. The only other option I have found is IMDB which we don't use, and the game credits themselves give on a list of cast but not what they actually did (Because that's logical). I had a look around the above site and it doesn't appear to be user edited, and seems credible from appearance, but I can't see any kind of credential that confirms why it would be. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake, your voice actor credit is wrong for this specific character?
Our site is not perfect but unlike user submitted sites like imdb, wikipedia or tv.com our sources come from official voice actor websites, resumes, DVD credits and other legitimate sources.
We do make mistakes sometimes. If you feel strongly that we made a credit mistake we would be more than happy to correct it, but only if you provide a legitimate source. We're sorry that we can't just take your word for it. We need actual proof.
Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
- BTVA Admin Team
The Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones [5] is used in the Criticism section of this article: La Luz del Mundo, a religious minority. I am pretty certain the source is highly biased and lacks academic integrity. It has written contentious material about La Luz del Mundo which it calls "Mexico's most secretive religious sect." No other scholar that has written about La Luz del Mundo uses it a source. It has been discussed in the talk page [6], and two editors concluded it was not reliable. However, another editor still thinks it is reliable and constantly reverts edits. A request for comment has been placed but it has been slow in the coming, perhaps because most of it is in Spanish. This is the only thing that is in English [7]. So is this source reliable?
It also seems there is no peer reviewing even within the source itself. The source itself states that: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Ajaxfiore ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This LetsSingIt link; http://artists.letssingit.com/stooshe-lyrics-black-heart-487gp1p was added to Black Heart (song) as a source for the song being part of the R&B genre. LetsSingIt appears to be a news/lyrics site and I have my doubts about it's reliability and weather that page can be edited by anyone. I'm hoping someone with more musical knowledge than I might be able to help. The editor who added the link said it was reliable and I notice that it is used in a few music articles on here (mostly in pages of artists and songs I've never heard of). Myself and another user are planning to take the Black Heart article to GAN at some point, so a definite answer on this would be great. - JuneGloom Talk 00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable or independent enough in the article about Ansel Faraj?
Notes:
Please check the article and comment. Thank you. Give me a {{ tb}} if you deem it necessary. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a new article rejected twice for 'lack of references' - I've provided links to two internationally-published books which reference the subject of the article. There's little or no other online references to the subject. The subject shares the same name as another already on Wikipedia, so this is effectively the first reference to this new subject, and I feel the Wiki is required to not only document the subject I'm writing about, but also to differentiate the subject from the one already referenced on Wikipedia.
I can't seem to get the message across to the reviewers that in order to have some online references to a subject, someone has to write the first one...... and I feel that I'm writing this first reference.
Comments, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 ( talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
1. I'm curious whether this link can be considered as reliable reference :
It's an article in E-novine (meaning "E-newspaper" in Serbian), a self-published online (non print, non broadcasting) website that posted a text directly from a personal blog, as noted at the bottom of the text ("Tekst preuzet sa bloga Zijada Burgića", meaning "Text taken from the blog of Zijad Burgic").
2. Several editors are attempting to use this news story as reliable for the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains (Boris Malagurski's film) articles on Wikipedia. In a dispute resolution case regarding the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, User:Psychonaut noted that "Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here." [8]
3. For those who don't understand Serbo-Croatian, the Srebrenica Genocide Blog (which is banned from Wikipedia), quickly provided a translation, followed by the Bosnian genocide blog - here.
The disputed article makes several false claims that attest to the unreliable nature of the article, and the source itself. An example is saying that Malagurski's " The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without providing a source for such claims. I checked, the only Malagurski film that was shown on Russian television is " Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", and that was on RT. The article says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, Canada's national broadcasting network, without any evidence. I checked with the CBC, he never appeared on that channel. If they mixed up CBC and CTV, since Malagurski did appear once or twice on CTV, then it shows how accurate they are. It also uses words and phrases like "(wow!?)" and slander (there are three libel law suits pending against the website, two filed by director Emir Kusturica and one by Stojan Drčelić), etc.
The Wikipedia E-novine article itself is very poorly written, mostly using references from their own website, and a few NGO websites and blogs. The founder's article on Wikipedia has, as the only two references, his own blog. I think this "news site" is highly unreliable, especially the article that is in question here, where they simply pasted a text from a blog. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This source [9] is being cited in Blekko, for ( diff). -- Lexein ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This was brought to my attention on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Is this a reputable study? Input on policy for commercial pages appreciated. A few days ago, User:Owen Engle inserted content citing ecigarette365.com to the "Health concerns" section of the Electronic cigarette article. The ecigarette365.com citation is an online survey conducted by a site that reviews electronic cigarettes. The source is neither reliable nor independent, and does not meet the guideline for medical sources, which requires reputable peer reviewed scientific journals and textbooks.
I removed the paragraph, but was quickly reverted by User:Owen Engle, who claimed that it "makes no health claims". This is false. The source, which was added to the Health Concerns section, does make a health claim (it alleges that "90% of participants that are using an e-cigarette feel better") and does fall under Wikipedia's guidelines for medical sources. My position is that ecigarettes365.com is not a reliable source for the Health cocnerns section of Electronic cigarettes. I welcome outside opinions, any assistance and comments are appreciated.-- xanchester (t) 17:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a developing edit war between me and another editor regarding the reliability of the torban.org website.
These three website are interconnected: http://torban.org, http://polyhumnion.org and http://turovsky.org. The polyhymnion site is owned by musician Roman Turovsky-Savchuk of New York, and it lists him as copyright owner. The torban and turovsky sites are using the same servers: DNS5.DOTEASY.COM and DNS6.DOTEASY.COM. The polyhymnion site links to the torban site here. The turovsky site links to the polyhymnion site here. Veteran editor User:Galassi silently changed a polyhymnion URL to a torban URL of the same title here at the Lute page. The style of all three websites is very similar, as if they were coded by the same webmaster.
User:Galassi has inserted various torban.org webpages into various articles, used as references or external links. I pulled these out but Galassi considers them to be okay.
These webpages are problematic because they have no author listed. Many on torban.org appear to be hosting images copied from elsewhere, very likely scanned from books and copied from other webpages without permission from the copyright holders. I don't know if the text is original or if it is copied; either way it fails WP:RS because there is no author. I think this is a self-published website and as such it is not reliable.
Galassi is a valuable veteran editor who was warned about copyrighted material in 2006 by Will Beback. His friend User:Torban helped write some of the related articles and helped put the above webpages into Wikipedia. Another such editor is User:Lute88 who editor Torban said he was related to. I think Galassi should be enjoined to stop adding unreliable sources, especially ones that have dubious copyright status and no listed author. Binksternet ( talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
2. The torban.org is a scholarly overview of the history of Ukrainian music written by several notable individuals who have wiki entries, and it is reliable as such. 3. torban.org and polyhymnion.org host official pages of several notable individuals. 4. http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html is an important ethnomusicological iconography resource, which is apparently not in the complainer's competence.-- Galassi ( talk) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This source has been discussed before on at least three occasions: Archive 20, Archive 37 and Archive 51.
There is an ongoing discussion here on whether EI can be used for "facts", and there is a disagreement as to what the outcome of the earlier discussions was. Therefore, let's assess if EI is reliable for a bland fact that doesn't express an opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, for example a statement that a well-known NGO said something.
My own take on this is that EI seems to fulfil criteria discussed in WP:V. This is evidenced in at least two ways, firstly as an editor argues in the Archive 20 discussion, the Financial Times and ITV expressly endorse EI for professionalism (WP:V says "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Secondly, sources that are known to be reliable refer to EI: The Guardian, The Guardian 2, BBC, BBC 2, Le Monde, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Der Spiegel. (Spiegel describes EI as a "highly partisan alternative news network").
Summing up, it seems to me EI isn't as good as the BBC, but for a bland fact should be OK much like FOX News. We use partisan news sources all the time.-- Dailycare ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Dailycare brings three archives.
If you want a taste of some of their blog posts, just check out this post, where the owner of the website rants at how upset he is that the White House allegedly uses "Israeli hummus" (despite being a conclusion drawn by this Haaretz writer, and not the White House itself). A terrible violation of human rights, one that is certainly a violation of the Geneva Conventions no doubt. What does this source that someone is disputing is reliable teaching us about hummus in the White House? "Middle Eastern” is an identity which Israel claims – whenever convenient – to appropriate the culture of local people whose land and rights it is busy violently stealing, while simultaneously attempting to erase and even outlaw their identities and history." Yeah, very reliable.-- Jethro B 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
:: I see not problem with the website,it has some really interesting stories on it that are not picked up by the world press and gives a Palestinian point of view.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This site makes Arutz Sheva seems like the Gospel in comparison. ::It has the obvious flaw of being self-published, it has an obvious conflict of interest as it is "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts. and admits to rectifying "mainstream news stories that might not be balanced in their view." This is an archetypal questionable source and should only be used as a source for describing itself. Ankh. Morpork 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
: A neutral point of view means that both views are heard,therefore there must be a Palestinian viewpoint as there is an Israeli one. EI represents the Palestinian viewpoint and I see no problem with it being used.The Palestinian viewpoint is almost ignored in the west by main stream media so if we cannot use Palestinian sources then where are we to get information from for their point of view?
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
::: The New York Times is not neutral/reliable at all,as I remember they ran off to the Whitehouse to ask what bits of the wikileaks cables they could print and anyway all sources are biased so I am not really getting what your point is.A site does not have to be neutral for it to be included as a source on wikipedia,if that was the case then we would be deleting many sources from the BBC,NYT and many other main stream media outlets,Foxnews? That the Palestinian do not have many media outlets means that the ones that they do have must be used with limits of course but not the limit that you just do not like them.EI represents the Palestinian view point of view.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)blocked sock
Ankh.
Morpork 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, can you please explain for the class what self-published means? nableezy - 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)A RSN request requires:
We don't have all three things here, and without it, this thread should be closed as a malformed RSN request.
Zad
68
02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
User:RobertRosen and me seem to have got into a dispute with the usage of thisas a reliable source for Aruna Roy's article. RobertRosen has reverted my edits stating that this entry on Ramon Magsaysay Awards website is not a reliable source as it cites tape recordings as one of its references. The author of this entry is a published author and the website is a notable one. Need another opinion on this. There are other instances too, such as this and this where I find RobertRosen's intentions questionable. morelM William 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the foundation's use of first-hand interviews as sources in compiling the biography: it would be a problem if a Wikipedia editor cited unpublished tape recordings as a source in a biography—that would violate the original research and verifiability policies. But it's not a problem to cite a reliable secondary source that draws upon such interviews. TheBlueCanoe 06:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
A) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to "assume good faith" when I repeatedly asked him to discuss (on talk pages) contentious BLP text I deleted from Aruna Roy concerning her personal and family details. The user wrote "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy."
B) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to take the discussion to our respective talk pages (since there are only 2 editors involved) or to the article talk page (to maintain a permanent record).
C) Now having brought the discussion to WP:RSN notice board, User:MorelMWilliam is taking the discussion to the WP:ANI board without allowing the increasingly complex RS debate to reach any conclusion with intervention of neutral editors. It is pertinent that the sole outside editor User:TheBlueCanoe has not taken note of even a single of my submissions.
D) User:MorelMWilliam (having brought this matter to WP:RSN by describing it as a "dispute" with me) consistently refused to follow WP:DR's protocols and sneeringly dismissed it thus "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". RobertRosen ( talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
E) I have hence suggested that we "cool off" and move the debate to the article talk page after that, and without precipitously activating higher dispute mechanisms. RobertRosen ( talk) 08:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is a direct copyvio of her SPS bio at [15] which means it can not be used in the first place. How come no one noted this? There is no valid reason for so using a copyright violation, and the SPS bio is similary not RS for a BLP. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Daryagunj, New-Delhi 110 002. Telephone 0091-11-23278034." Their website is [18] and they have an extensive catalog which is regularly cited on Wikipedia as Reliable Sources especially on India related pages. I have already said that I regard the RMAF citation as a reliable source about Aruna Roy's RM award and the basis for which they awarded it to her. I do not regard the RMAF biography by LKT a reliable source for AR's personal details. I do not regard the RMAF as a neutral or credible award/foundation. It is administered by the Rockefeller Foundation and the junior Magsaysay award by the Ford Foundation to further American interests. That's another edit war building up, so please stop this now and read Arundhati Roy om RMAF instead [19]. RobertRosen ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here. First, I do not assume any of the facts in your source are wrong. HOWEVER, the Awardee profiles are by their very nature, promotional. Further, there is no editorial supervision or standard, and both points argue that they are not good WP:RS. On the other hand, WP:RS does allow for WP:SELFSOURCE , or other such usually questionable sources, if the claims/facts being made are otherwise uncontroversial. Could all interested editors PLEASE go back to the Article Talk page and sort through which facts are in dispute; the ref cited cannot be used universally but could be used in limited circumstances, and the two cases need to be sorted out. preferably with proper specificity and difs. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.
-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've searched this through the Amazon book preview feature & I think this checks out. When I search for "Chinese" in the text I get 10 results one of which reads: "They [Africans] are now just ahead of the Chinese the most academically successful minority in previous studies.[20] Yet the author of the Bell Curve and all its ..." When I search for "Sunday Times" I get an endnote numbered 20 which cites the following source: Sunday Times 23 Jan 1994. The article title is "Africans move to the top of Britain's Education Ladder". So I think they just got the newspaper title wrong but it might be worth taking a trip to the library to verify this. If you really want me to I could probably dig out the Sunday Times article ... Actually, I can't link to it due to copyright violation, but if you search for the title of the Sunday Times article you only get 4 results. One of these is to some Google Group and if you log-in you can see the whole article which confirms the content above. Also you see the citation used here [26] - see bottom of that page. I think it's legitimate.
Is this "reference" valid: ''<ref>[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/1117/1224307706864.html The Irish Times, ''An ecumenical matter'', Revd MICHAEL THOMPSON, Thursday, November 17, 2011.]</ref> It alludes to a letter to the editor of a newspaper, published on the "Letters to the editor" page of the Irish Times newspaper. It has appeared, as a "reference", in a number of articles, all contributed by the same editor, for example, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin Hohenloh + 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Hezbollah article, is the Simon Wiesenthal Center an appropriate source for the unattributed statement of fact that, "Hezbollah also used anti-Semitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts.".
The cited article is here. Note that the Wiesenthal center article does not itself even report the statement as fact, rather it reports that a certain "Kamel el Batel" produced slides documenting the alleged materials. ("Kamel el Batel" produces one google hit, which happens to be the Wiesenthal center article [34]).
The Wiesenthal Center "mission" statement, which can be viewed here states that "The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations."
Given that we don't use mainstream, non-nationally affiliated Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as RS for facts in the Wikipedia voice it would seem odd if this human rights organization, that has a self declared mission to "stand with Israel" would meet the requirements for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice for material in an article about a long term adversary of that country. Dlv999 ( talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Like any human right organisation they should be attributed properly as they expert in the field we could use their statement much like HRW.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this source [35], reliable for this statement:
"Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?". (AD 347-407)"
The article in question is Cessationism. Piney.com cites this source for their website [36]. Shouldn't we just use piney's source directly? I can't see why piney themselves should be considered reliable. Freikorp ( talk) 15:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this website being used a few times now, and it doesn't look particularly reliable (or well organised) to me so I was hoping for a broad opinion of the site in general as well. Freikorp ( talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
My first impression is that yes, it likely is, but I'm involved in the article in question, and wanted to get independent opinions. Article is IsAnybodyDown?, a "revenge porn" site that has been the topic of a recent blog-war. But until now, beyond the blogs, there was IMHO little if anything to show actual notability for the web site itself. So I filed an AFD on it a week ago. Today, there has been released an Ars Technica article that covers the controversy. I'm not in my mind coming up with any reason why AT should not be considered a RS, but I wanted extra opinions on the issue. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to hear community's opinion on the article authored by Ronald Aronson (Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245). Can this article be considered as a reliable non-fringe secondary source?
Thank you in advance.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Book review in essence. Usable for the author's own opinions about the reliable sources reviewed, and properly noted as his opinions.
Collect (
talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a "book review" as referred to above but rather a review article - that is an article length treatment by an acknowledged expert in the field of a range of methodological and interpretative issues relating to a particular historiographical topic. This particular article happens to be a very fair, even-handed, insightful and non-polemical variant of the genre. It absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. In fact, as a secondary review of the field, it's an ideal source for wikipedia and this topic. FiachraByrne ( talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Paul...what is it exactly that you are asking?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past. That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement
Thank you all for your explanations. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the Lodi News-Sentinel story a reliable source in the context it is used? [40]: "According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow." [41] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a good source. UPI at that time was one of the best news-gathering organizations in the world, particularly good in South America. It would have not put out a story unless it relied on the source as credible and would have issued a correction if an error was called to its attention. That said, it would be best to give the name of the author. "According to H.J. Wellman, in an article written for United Press International . . . " GeorgeLouis ( talk) 14:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: Ashley, J.R. (1998).
The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
ISBN
0-7864-1918-0. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Article
The Ashley book is used for a couple lines in the
Tenedos article. Having read many other discussions of Alexander the Great and the island, most downplay the island, but Ashley refers to the island many times. I was curious, looked into it and do not believe J.R. Ashley or his source for most of the claims about the island,
Curtius, are reputable sources per
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, namely the line that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". This has been discussed on the
Tenedos talk page and one editor asked me to "seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN." (Although others agree the source is not reliable) I'm here to get an uninvolved opinion. Question: Is Ashley a reputable source for specifics about the island of Tenedos? (Since exhaustiveness is the best way to handle things on that article, I'll follow that here.)
Ashley page 50 "At Tenedos, the 3,000 Greek mercenaries and oarsman captured there were used to reinforce the Macedonian fleet (Curtius IV:5)." And in Tenedos page note 48: "He also took on board 3000 Greek mercenaries and oarsmen from Tenedos in his army and navy."
Ashley page 95 "Hegelochus captured Tenedos after it had revolted from the Persians. He then besieged Chios." (No source for claim, probably Arrian). And in Tenedos page note 46: "Alexander's commander Hegelochus of Macedonia captured the island from the Persians."
Ashley page 106-107 "Instead of keeping the fleet concentrated, Pharnabazus dispersed it simultaneously to four different operations; besiging Mytilene, besiging Tenedos, assisting the Spartans in their result, and attempting to reconquer the cities along the Carian and Lycian coasts that had been lost to Alexander...Ten ships were sent to Cyclades under Datames, while a hundred went on to Tenedos...The walls of Tenedos were destroyed and its citizens forced to resume the peace of Antalcidas with Darius." (Source in endnotes: Curtius II) And in Tenedos page note 45: "During the campaign of Alexander the Great against the Persians, Pharnabazus, the Persian commander, laid siege to Tenedos with a hundred ships and eventually captured it as Alexander could not send a fleet in time to save the island. The island's walls were demolished and the islanders had to accept the old treaty with the Persian emperor Darius I: the Peace of Antalcidas."
(This claim above is the one that first got me interested in the source, because it seems in most histories that the 100 ships went to Sifnos, see here, here for Arrian, here. Ashley does talk about the ships then going to Sifnos, but the 100 ships to Tenedos rather than 100 ships to Sifnos was just weird)
Ashley page 162 "Several of the Aegean islands also revolted, including Tenedos, Lesbos and Chios." (No direct reference given for claim, based on context and nearby citations, probably Curtius) And in Tenedos page note 44: "Along with other Aegean islands such as Lesbos, Tenedos also rebelled against the Persian dominance at this time."
I feel that theatrehistory.com is not a suitable source, but I'm not an expert in this area and would appreciate comments from editors with more expertise. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.
Theatrehistory.com is a collection of web pages that, in many cases, contain verbatim copies of previously published works. Links to the site can be found in many WP articles, both as external links and in citations. The website has numerous advertisements and commercial links are sprinkled throughout. When I click internal links, I often get a popup window that advertises Netflix, etc. There is no "about this site" discussion, so one cannot be sure of the purpose of the site or the motives or identity of its operator, nor can the authority of its nameless authors be determined. Aside from the spam aspect, I'm concerned about possible copyvios; all of the works I've looked at so far were published before 1923 or lack an author's name, but I haven't examined every copied work at the site. On the other hand, if there are no copyvios, the copied works are readily available as primary sources, which are more direct (and less offensive) than this tertiary source. Lambtron ( talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It is written by an unnamed author and I have no idea who that is, nor does the site give any hint about who the editors are or, for that matter, who is responsible for the site's content. Consequently, the article has approximately the reliability of a blog. And in case it's not obvious, argumentum ad populum doesn't mitigate this or other critical shortcomings. Lambtron ( talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As one of the primary contributors to La Luz del Mundo (which is currently undergoing a major overhaul), I have a question:
The reason I ask is because this dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). I don't think that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if this dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article. Most of the history section of this article found here references this dissertation.
All comments are greatly appreciated! Regards, RidjalA ( talk) 20:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"The earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM. According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors." [44]
"Rumors around Catholics(??) that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research, though the church narrative does carry a story of abuse carried out by one of its members.(pg 157)
Do not tell anyone, but the way those dissertation defenses work is that the smart students pick their committee members in a way that the problems are minimized. There may be other faculty members in the same department that would have failed the student. The committee may not be imposed but student selected. In many cases some committee members do not even read the whole dissertation, but have generally made their mind up about the student as "scholar or hopeless" in the past 3 years, as they have observed him/her. So a PhD thesis is generally interesting to read, but if it does not get published as a book, etc. by a good publishers, I would not totally rely on it. But in this case, he may have good pointers to follow. But a number of items used in the article based on the thesis are non-controversial, and could hence be used for sure. Overall, his thesis looks good to use for those basic assertions, regardless of how many are used. History2007 ( talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are Mantak Chia or his books reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have been working on this article for quite a while and just became aware of new information in the form of old (1942) copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph (Australia). Most of the info is archived and is already referred to in the article, but there is some that is not. I know these are OK sources (though weight issues will need discussion) but my question is: what do I need to do? Should I scan the relevant pages and upload them to Photobucket? Would that suffice? Rumiton ( talk) 10:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been adding http://www.grande-rock.com as a reliable source for reviews to album articles:
The problems I have are that there only appear to be two editors and they use pseudonyms--thanos, rockavlon--rather than real names. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who they are. It appears to be a glorified music blog although, based on the interviews, they do have access to a lot of small bands. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Melodicrcok.com is just one person? And so? By the way thanos is not a pseudonym. There also metaltom, dora, newseditor & admin as users. Do not hide things for your won sake. By that you say that an ezine is not notable? There are interviews with small and big bands as well? Does it ring a bell? So, you decide what's notable or not when the band and the labels have already spoken? Soon, there will be a page on wiki about Grande Rock. So, do not get mad. There so many articles that are truly trash do not deal with notable and well-written ones. Hard Rocker 13 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Any by the way what do you know about music or what's your background so to say if a post is bad or not? That's just your opinion. You not objective. An ezine is notable when it's more than 10(!) yearls online and is cooperating with bands and labels. If that's not enough for you then that's your problem. Hard Rocker 13 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any indication that the site and its reviewers meet the criteria for professional reviewers/reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The bands Poison, Sabaton, The Flower Kings, Circus Maximus, Threshold, Vision Divine, Sparzanza, Eclipse (just ot name a few) are not meeting your prof criteria?! Then you're probably irrelevant with this kind of music and surely you can't tell what's reliable or not. Hard Rocker 13 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If those bands talk to an ezine then that ezine is notable ans reliable. Those bands do not talk to everyone on the net. This ain't you average blog site that a kid owns it. This is a prof ezine by people who have been doing this job for over a decade. Hard Rocker 13 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't get your point. They meet all the criteria. We are not talking for reviews but for bands that have been interviewed. And I believe that criteria for those bands are more strict than wikis where you can find thousands of trash articles. So what's you point here? I say they're meeting all the criteria. What's your say? This is called censorship. I have to deal with two young guys that are irrelevant with music and keep talking without saying anything.Hard Rocker 13 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You make accusations, spreading rumors and telling things that have never happened. This is censorship. Do you get it? I never said about retired reviewers!! OK i'll have to say one more time. This is not a blog. Can you tell the difference between a blog and an ezine? I guess not. Secondly, the bands and the labels that are cooperating with a site are making it reliable and notable. Not a bunch of kids on wiki that killing their time and have nothing to do with the music scene. Obviously neither of you can prove that is not an elephant, neither do I. So what's the point here? This is an uproar that was caused by a couple of fellows around here. Is that how wiki works? There thousands of trash articles around wiki and you wanna shut down a reliable, & notable site that's providing true info about rock/metal music? For what? I think this is called pure fascism.Hard Rocker 13 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Very funny! Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism. You did learn something today! If there are not any unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary as you said then why must be put into the non-notable category? Cause you say so? If you can prove than a source is not notable then probably it is notable and reliable. I can't think of better & serious reliable sources that the bands & labels sites. Can you? I can shows you a few sites here in wiki that are not even sites - just blogs that you say they are notable. What are you trying to do here exactly? Hard Rocker 13 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So you have already decided? That's it? A couple of guys decided that I should stop posting from Grande Rock, cause you can't prove that it is reliable so you decide that it's not? Huh! Is that the way things go around here? Do I need to bring some friends over to say the opposite? Who gathers the most guys wins?! What happened within a year and a site from notable became non-notable? All the posts till now are fine but from now own are not? How does it go? Hard Rocker 13 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)( talk)
I was just informed by the guys that some music labels, other ezines & band sites have used sources from Grande Rock. That according to the wiki article makes it reliable. OK here you go. 1st: http://glassonyonpublicity.wordpress.com/category/review/, 2nd http://gonzo-multimedia.blogspot.gr/search/label/erik%20norlander, 3rd http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records/, 4th http://www.dangerousdogrecords.co.uk/website/AOR_Reviews.html, 5th http://www.thresh.net/marchofprogress.htm. 6th http://unisonicfanclub.com/?s=mandy+meyer&search=Search, 7th http://www.bonrud.com/2012/10/05/grande-rock-reviews-save-tomorrow/. So is that enough to call it reliable or you need more? According to the wiki rules this is more than enough. What's your say now? Will you help me restore the old posts you have erased? Hard Rocker 13 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
so, no. you need third-party, independent sources of estblished credibility noting the value/reliability of the content on a site to establish that the site has a reputation for fact checking etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Such as? According to the wiki article this is OK. This source http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records does not promote anything. It shows that Grande Rock is notable. Read the last sentence. You cannot bypass things without reading them at all. The blog sources are from labels that have reproduced the reviews. The labels are totally notable, they do not promote anything, just giving some feedback to the fans. Band's Fan Club that has linked to the site isn't good for you? What's good tell me? I think it is OK but you're not really wanna help do things right. All you're saying is no no no? Give me an example of such indie source then. Facebook posts are OK? Twitter? Hard Rocker 13 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
Here's a source from Blabbermouth - I think you can't say that this ain't notable!!! http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171270. You can't deny also the fact that the writer of this article is giving reliability to Grande Rock: http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records. Other sources: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/darkology/altered_reflections/, http://www.michaelharrisguitar.com/, http://plotn08.com/2012/09/the-michael-des-barres-band-carnaby-street-2012/. If you wanna help I think all these sources are more than good. I can't prove that I'm not an elephant anymore. There are ezines on wiki that do not have such resources but you have given them the credit. That's unfair. Hard Rocker 13 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I see that you do not care to give any help. Blabbermouth is the biggest site out there. Linking back to Grande Rock means that the site has something good to offer. A notable site gives credit to another one that's notable & reliable. Can you tell me if ever Spin or Rolling Stone have published an article for a webzine?! Not even for Blabber! OK I got it if Rolling Stone talks about Grande Rock then it will be notable or else not. So, I'll make you a list of how many webzines you have to delete from wiki. For every reliable link you have something to say. That means you're kinda biased. You say the source is bad and then a great site like Blabber use a source from that site! I guess Blabber is not good either for you. I have read the article far too many times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what Blabbermout & TBFMonline have done! Tell me why these sites are better than Grande Rock and which big site has made any reference to them: Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? As for the two alternate persona etc. I can only take as a joke right! There's a complete list on the old site as well. It's been up for more than 10 years, this at least should mean something! Hard Rocker 13 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I do realize that a couple of guys are wannabe the wiki-judges here. You know when accusing a site of not being reliable in public without being able to proved it if needed then this is called detraction. I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity and talking trash about a site without carrying if that will affect people's jobs or not. If you can't prove that a site is non-notable then surely it's notable. The same goes if you can't approve that someone's guilty then he's not. It's so easy for you to understand. I told you there's a complete list of people being especially in the Greek rock/metal scene for ages. The editorial process is the same for every reliable webzine. There's a cooperation with labels that sending stuff (digital & physical) and expect feedback, artist & bands (big and small) that are being interviewed, people that arranging live shows have also added Grande Rock on their posters (wanna see some?). What do you need? As for the Facebook and Twitter I cans see that you not aware of how things work. Check out Myspace 4 thousands friends isn't good for you? Once it was Myspace not it's FB... and so on. Those profiles are less than a year created.
You didn't tell me if those webzines are also reliable and if they were featured in Rolling Stone?! Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? You're trying to avoid it. There are ads by labels on magazines that are featuring quotes from Grande Rock's reviews? Is that good for you? Wanna see some links? By the way do you have anything to do with music in general or just fooling around? You are just a user like me. Your word doesn't count more. Is there an Admin here or what? And yes, Blabber is consider to be one of the top 5 sites in rock/metal music. We're talking about music sites, you can't obviously compare it with FB! You know how to misrepresent things! I see that this site isn't good for you. You're probably are an ultimate wiki-Judge or something.Hard Rocker 13 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I'm not as well-versed on WP's rules when it comes to reliability and notability, but I'll just say this: for a representative of a supposedly "professional" website/ezine/webzine or whatever it's called, AORmaniac13 has thus far conducted himself in an extremely unprofessional manner in almost response he's posted. If that's the kind of attitude staff at Grande Rock want to present to the viewing public, I'd certainly not consider reading any of their reviews, let alone support their increasingly immature and downright hostile requests for a spot on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Personally, I'll stick to relying on established music review publications which refrain from personal insults and poor use of English. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery is a new article evidently created to make a point (see talk page) about a writer of dubious notability. The claims "r his commentary regarding the Pax Britannica in 1936 when he argued for increased trade and friendly relations between Britain and the USA. He suggested the two nations had a "common interest in preserving the international peace", and was a lead proponent of the Special Relationship," are backed by two sources. One of them is a book by the subject. The other is [47] by Ali Parchami [48] which mentions him but only cursorily. Dougweller ( talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says "He was a researcher into the ancient origins of their nobility through which he claimed the title of Count." No sources is given other than his own work. And for some reason his books and his patent are listed with his 'count' name even though that's not the name on the patent or books. Dougweller ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | ← | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
Is this partisan "nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples" which publishes reports "containing analysis and commentary" a notable source when not referred to by independent sources, and a reliable source for I-P related topics that it be used for making third-party claims? Ankh. Morpork 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look at their frontpage, and it shows us everything we need to know about this foundation. It's interests clearly aren't to promote peace in the Middle East and act non-partisanly, and it's a completely one-sided organization. On their homepage, 9/9 links in their middle column all deal with Israel in a negative light or attacking settlements. 6/6 latest additions also all deal with Israel or their elected government in a negative light. Both of their "special reports" tabs also deal with Israel, although I can't see the content, since it says that the content doesn't exist. On their left tab, they have a section with maps of Israel from 1947-2012, to allegedly show "the growth of Israel’s occupation and settlement project from the 1967 War to the present," a section called "Settlement database," a section called "Settlement freeze," a section with a report they write about settlements, and then an events section. And that's it.
To deny that there aren't other issues in the Middle East regarding conflicts and peace is silly - what about that "thing" going on in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed? Or that "thing" in Iraq? Etc etc. Not a single thing on their frontpage about it. OK, so even if they don't focus on the rest of the Middle East, fine. But their focus on Israel is solely to attack it or issue reports about settlements. They also fund Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, which is a one-sided anti-Israel organization.
It's clear where the foundation's line lays. They are one-sided and biased, and are obsessed with Israeli settlements, leading them to publish tons of reports on them and dedicate all their resources to it, while not focusing on anything on the Palestinian side to bring peace. In fact, I wouldn't even call them pro-Palestinian, as I don't see anything on their website to indicate that - they're just obsessed with Israel and settlements. And while that's perfectly OK for an organization to have, it doesn't make them into a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It makes them a biased advocacy organization. -- Jethro B 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, the context is simple. AnkhMorpork had repeatedly attempted to delete a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in schools run by the Palestinian National Authority. That paper had been hosted on FMEP, though I cant find it there now. Nathan Brown is a well known and respected academic specializing in Middle East politics, and he has written extensively on the subject of Palestinian textbooks. AnkhMorpork, on the basis of FMEP being a supposedly "non-RS", repeatedly removed that paper, absurdly calling it a primary source because it wasnt repeated by a newspaper. Note how he is asking for views on their personal reports. Of course he wont tell you what those personal reports are, because if somebody brought an academic paper authored by somebody of Nathan Brown's stature they would be laughed out of this noticeboard. So instead of actually answering the repeated request to specify what source is being challenged, you get these obfuscations as seen above. That is the context of this request, and it is plainly evident to anybody who looks at this, this and this. nableezy - 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I have never seen the quality of their facts and basic research called into question. It is generally accepted as top-shelf work by professionals. There is an implied assertion by the pro-settlement editors on this thread that their evil support for a two-state solution (horrors!) somehow negates the reliability of research that is generally accepted by professionals outside Wikipedia as reliable. And that's a crazy assertion. It's basically about manipulating tortuous internal Wikipedia "crowd-sourcing" logic to disqualify facts (not opinions) that some would prefer didn't exist. Dan Murphy ( talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Reliability is something that needs to be established with reference to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. That FMEP fails in that regard has nothing at all to do with a perceived bias among a perceived "band" of editors. If anything, the energies being invested here to try and demonstrate that there is a group of editors "banding together" for anything more likely than not is the result of a real and destructive bias on the part of those editors trying to impute bias to other editors with whom they don't see eye to eye and whom they'd much rather see banned from the Project than have to actually deal with the substance of their arguments. Enough with the red herrings. Is RMEP a partisan think tank operating with a defined political agenda? Yes. Is the material it publishes peer-reviewed? No. Is there an editorial board that monitors FMEP.org's output? No. Is some of the stuff published at FMEP.org reliable? Possibly; if the author of the material is an expert in the field, then there are circumstances in which the material can be used with attribution and in consideration of WP:UNDUE. Can FMEP in general be considered a reliable source for facts in the same way that we consider the New York Times and the National Geographic Society reliable sources for facts? No, it cannot; at best, it can be considered a reliable source for its own opinions.— Biosketch ( talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This is simply another of the multitude of NGO's that espouse a distinct position, and cannot be relied upon to objectively present material pertaining to I-P matters. There does not appear to be any editorial overview and they openly declare their Middle East "vision" on their website. They should not be used for I-P issues unless where referred to by a reliable third party source. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: I think that the website is fine,it is stating factual evidence as far as I can see and carries articles by various authors including Israeli academics.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
blocked sock
I've had an edit reversed on Johann Hari's article. This is what I wrote:
Hari has also been accused of using the same pseudonym he used on Wikipedia (David Rose) to write "gay incest porn" online, which used some racist stereotypes. [1] [2]
This was reversed on the grounds that a blog should not be acceptable for an article about a living person. My understanding of the rules is that it depends on the blog: if it's written by a professional and is subject to editorial control, then it's just as good as a newspapaer article. I think that these two sources pass the test, although I admit that the Blottr source is less respectable than the Telegraph one.
I have tried to find more sources, but unfortunately a lot are described as "blogs". Conservative Home ran the story, but used this blog as the source. I can't say that I'd heard of "Jack of Kent" and thought that this would fall into the unacceptable category, but this post was examined during in the Leveson Inquiry, which suggests that it has some national significance in the debate about irresponsible journalists.
The details on the erotica are printed at the end of this article by Christine Odone. I can't find the actual article on Google, and suspect that there's a good reason for that.
Are these sources sufficient to justify an edit to the article on Johann Hari to mention his authorship of online erotica? Epa101 ( talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
They are acceptable as they are not self-published and are written by professionals. That's stated here and here. However, I was not aware of the WP:NEWSBLOG point. That is relevant in moderating their use. Epa101 ( talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) What I think is a more tricky area of policy is the Jack of Kent blog. He says on it that he posts in a purely personal capacity and not as part of the New Statesman, so I can understand that this undermines its claims as a reliable source. However, this was the blog that was central to identifying Hari's disruption on Wikipedia and use of "David Rose" as a pseudonym. This was mentioned when he appeared as a witness before the Leveson Inquiry. I would argue that his blog is relevant to this particular subject, since it was central to the whole story, and that his follow-up post (on the subject of erotica) is relevant. Epa101 ( talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's much support for this change. Case closed. Epa101 ( talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A good number of organizations have websites run by ex-members which are extremely negative to the organization. I assume they can be cited in a controversy or criticism section as expressing their own views. They would seem to be primary sources talking about themselves. However, on ECyD the ReGAIN site is cited generalizing what was probably the case in a few limited circumstances a while back. Unfortunately, no date is given but by several other aspects, it would look like the situation they are explaining is about 8-15 years ago.
ECyD was accused by some critics in the past of over zealous recruitment of youth. They claimed that the Challenge and Conquest clubs were aimed at recruiting members into ECyD and are separated by gender to emphasize discernment of vocation at a young age. The same critics also claim that the clubs focus on members who have qualities that will attract other girls and boys into the clubs.
The header ends with a summary of this and a citation. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As several editors of hip hop articles are repeatedly using this as a source, I thought I would bring it up here. Personally, I'm not too sure, as its page here is just a redirect to some other magazine where the editor of this site works. Also, the links meant to give information about the site (" About RR" and " Who We Are") display nothing. However, I need some further consensus. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm interesting in using this site in the above article to verify voice actors. The only other option I have found is IMDB which we don't use, and the game credits themselves give on a list of cast but not what they actually did (Because that's logical). I had a look around the above site and it doesn't appear to be user edited, and seems credible from appearance, but I can't see any kind of credential that confirms why it would be. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake, your voice actor credit is wrong for this specific character?
Our site is not perfect but unlike user submitted sites like imdb, wikipedia or tv.com our sources come from official voice actor websites, resumes, DVD credits and other legitimate sources.
We do make mistakes sometimes. If you feel strongly that we made a credit mistake we would be more than happy to correct it, but only if you provide a legitimate source. We're sorry that we can't just take your word for it. We need actual proof.
Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
- BTVA Admin Team
The Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones [5] is used in the Criticism section of this article: La Luz del Mundo, a religious minority. I am pretty certain the source is highly biased and lacks academic integrity. It has written contentious material about La Luz del Mundo which it calls "Mexico's most secretive religious sect." No other scholar that has written about La Luz del Mundo uses it a source. It has been discussed in the talk page [6], and two editors concluded it was not reliable. However, another editor still thinks it is reliable and constantly reverts edits. A request for comment has been placed but it has been slow in the coming, perhaps because most of it is in Spanish. This is the only thing that is in English [7]. So is this source reliable?
It also seems there is no peer reviewing even within the source itself. The source itself states that: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Ajaxfiore ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This LetsSingIt link; http://artists.letssingit.com/stooshe-lyrics-black-heart-487gp1p was added to Black Heart (song) as a source for the song being part of the R&B genre. LetsSingIt appears to be a news/lyrics site and I have my doubts about it's reliability and weather that page can be edited by anyone. I'm hoping someone with more musical knowledge than I might be able to help. The editor who added the link said it was reliable and I notice that it is used in a few music articles on here (mostly in pages of artists and songs I've never heard of). Myself and another user are planning to take the Black Heart article to GAN at some point, so a definite answer on this would be great. - JuneGloom Talk 00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable or independent enough in the article about Ansel Faraj?
Notes:
Please check the article and comment. Thank you. Give me a {{ tb}} if you deem it necessary. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a new article rejected twice for 'lack of references' - I've provided links to two internationally-published books which reference the subject of the article. There's little or no other online references to the subject. The subject shares the same name as another already on Wikipedia, so this is effectively the first reference to this new subject, and I feel the Wiki is required to not only document the subject I'm writing about, but also to differentiate the subject from the one already referenced on Wikipedia.
I can't seem to get the message across to the reviewers that in order to have some online references to a subject, someone has to write the first one...... and I feel that I'm writing this first reference.
Comments, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 ( talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
1. I'm curious whether this link can be considered as reliable reference :
It's an article in E-novine (meaning "E-newspaper" in Serbian), a self-published online (non print, non broadcasting) website that posted a text directly from a personal blog, as noted at the bottom of the text ("Tekst preuzet sa bloga Zijada Burgića", meaning "Text taken from the blog of Zijad Burgic").
2. Several editors are attempting to use this news story as reliable for the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains (Boris Malagurski's film) articles on Wikipedia. In a dispute resolution case regarding the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, User:Psychonaut noted that "Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here." [8]
3. For those who don't understand Serbo-Croatian, the Srebrenica Genocide Blog (which is banned from Wikipedia), quickly provided a translation, followed by the Bosnian genocide blog - here.
The disputed article makes several false claims that attest to the unreliable nature of the article, and the source itself. An example is saying that Malagurski's " The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without providing a source for such claims. I checked, the only Malagurski film that was shown on Russian television is " Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", and that was on RT. The article says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, Canada's national broadcasting network, without any evidence. I checked with the CBC, he never appeared on that channel. If they mixed up CBC and CTV, since Malagurski did appear once or twice on CTV, then it shows how accurate they are. It also uses words and phrases like "(wow!?)" and slander (there are three libel law suits pending against the website, two filed by director Emir Kusturica and one by Stojan Drčelić), etc.
The Wikipedia E-novine article itself is very poorly written, mostly using references from their own website, and a few NGO websites and blogs. The founder's article on Wikipedia has, as the only two references, his own blog. I think this "news site" is highly unreliable, especially the article that is in question here, where they simply pasted a text from a blog. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This source [9] is being cited in Blekko, for ( diff). -- Lexein ( talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This was brought to my attention on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Is this a reputable study? Input on policy for commercial pages appreciated. A few days ago, User:Owen Engle inserted content citing ecigarette365.com to the "Health concerns" section of the Electronic cigarette article. The ecigarette365.com citation is an online survey conducted by a site that reviews electronic cigarettes. The source is neither reliable nor independent, and does not meet the guideline for medical sources, which requires reputable peer reviewed scientific journals and textbooks.
I removed the paragraph, but was quickly reverted by User:Owen Engle, who claimed that it "makes no health claims". This is false. The source, which was added to the Health Concerns section, does make a health claim (it alleges that "90% of participants that are using an e-cigarette feel better") and does fall under Wikipedia's guidelines for medical sources. My position is that ecigarettes365.com is not a reliable source for the Health cocnerns section of Electronic cigarettes. I welcome outside opinions, any assistance and comments are appreciated.-- xanchester (t) 17:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a developing edit war between me and another editor regarding the reliability of the torban.org website.
These three website are interconnected: http://torban.org, http://polyhumnion.org and http://turovsky.org. The polyhymnion site is owned by musician Roman Turovsky-Savchuk of New York, and it lists him as copyright owner. The torban and turovsky sites are using the same servers: DNS5.DOTEASY.COM and DNS6.DOTEASY.COM. The polyhymnion site links to the torban site here. The turovsky site links to the polyhymnion site here. Veteran editor User:Galassi silently changed a polyhymnion URL to a torban URL of the same title here at the Lute page. The style of all three websites is very similar, as if they were coded by the same webmaster.
User:Galassi has inserted various torban.org webpages into various articles, used as references or external links. I pulled these out but Galassi considers them to be okay.
These webpages are problematic because they have no author listed. Many on torban.org appear to be hosting images copied from elsewhere, very likely scanned from books and copied from other webpages without permission from the copyright holders. I don't know if the text is original or if it is copied; either way it fails WP:RS because there is no author. I think this is a self-published website and as such it is not reliable.
Galassi is a valuable veteran editor who was warned about copyrighted material in 2006 by Will Beback. His friend User:Torban helped write some of the related articles and helped put the above webpages into Wikipedia. Another such editor is User:Lute88 who editor Torban said he was related to. I think Galassi should be enjoined to stop adding unreliable sources, especially ones that have dubious copyright status and no listed author. Binksternet ( talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
2. The torban.org is a scholarly overview of the history of Ukrainian music written by several notable individuals who have wiki entries, and it is reliable as such. 3. torban.org and polyhymnion.org host official pages of several notable individuals. 4. http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html is an important ethnomusicological iconography resource, which is apparently not in the complainer's competence.-- Galassi ( talk) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This source has been discussed before on at least three occasions: Archive 20, Archive 37 and Archive 51.
There is an ongoing discussion here on whether EI can be used for "facts", and there is a disagreement as to what the outcome of the earlier discussions was. Therefore, let's assess if EI is reliable for a bland fact that doesn't express an opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, for example a statement that a well-known NGO said something.
My own take on this is that EI seems to fulfil criteria discussed in WP:V. This is evidenced in at least two ways, firstly as an editor argues in the Archive 20 discussion, the Financial Times and ITV expressly endorse EI for professionalism (WP:V says "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Secondly, sources that are known to be reliable refer to EI: The Guardian, The Guardian 2, BBC, BBC 2, Le Monde, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Der Spiegel. (Spiegel describes EI as a "highly partisan alternative news network").
Summing up, it seems to me EI isn't as good as the BBC, but for a bland fact should be OK much like FOX News. We use partisan news sources all the time.-- Dailycare ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Dailycare brings three archives.
If you want a taste of some of their blog posts, just check out this post, where the owner of the website rants at how upset he is that the White House allegedly uses "Israeli hummus" (despite being a conclusion drawn by this Haaretz writer, and not the White House itself). A terrible violation of human rights, one that is certainly a violation of the Geneva Conventions no doubt. What does this source that someone is disputing is reliable teaching us about hummus in the White House? "Middle Eastern” is an identity which Israel claims – whenever convenient – to appropriate the culture of local people whose land and rights it is busy violently stealing, while simultaneously attempting to erase and even outlaw their identities and history." Yeah, very reliable.-- Jethro B 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
:: I see not problem with the website,it has some really interesting stories on it that are not picked up by the world press and gives a Palestinian point of view.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This site makes Arutz Sheva seems like the Gospel in comparison. ::It has the obvious flaw of being self-published, it has an obvious conflict of interest as it is "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts. and admits to rectifying "mainstream news stories that might not be balanced in their view." This is an archetypal questionable source and should only be used as a source for describing itself. Ankh. Morpork 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
: A neutral point of view means that both views are heard,therefore there must be a Palestinian viewpoint as there is an Israeli one. EI represents the Palestinian viewpoint and I see no problem with it being used.The Palestinian viewpoint is almost ignored in the west by main stream media so if we cannot use Palestinian sources then where are we to get information from for their point of view?
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
::: The New York Times is not neutral/reliable at all,as I remember they ran off to the Whitehouse to ask what bits of the wikileaks cables they could print and anyway all sources are biased so I am not really getting what your point is.A site does not have to be neutral for it to be included as a source on wikipedia,if that was the case then we would be deleting many sources from the BBC,NYT and many other main stream media outlets,Foxnews? That the Palestinian do not have many media outlets means that the ones that they do have must be used with limits of course but not the limit that you just do not like them.EI represents the Palestinian view point of view.
Kabulbuddha (
talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)blocked sock
Ankh.
Morpork 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, can you please explain for the class what self-published means? nableezy - 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)A RSN request requires:
We don't have all three things here, and without it, this thread should be closed as a malformed RSN request.
Zad
68
02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
User:RobertRosen and me seem to have got into a dispute with the usage of thisas a reliable source for Aruna Roy's article. RobertRosen has reverted my edits stating that this entry on Ramon Magsaysay Awards website is not a reliable source as it cites tape recordings as one of its references. The author of this entry is a published author and the website is a notable one. Need another opinion on this. There are other instances too, such as this and this where I find RobertRosen's intentions questionable. morelM William 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the foundation's use of first-hand interviews as sources in compiling the biography: it would be a problem if a Wikipedia editor cited unpublished tape recordings as a source in a biography—that would violate the original research and verifiability policies. But it's not a problem to cite a reliable secondary source that draws upon such interviews. TheBlueCanoe 06:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
A) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to "assume good faith" when I repeatedly asked him to discuss (on talk pages) contentious BLP text I deleted from Aruna Roy concerning her personal and family details. The user wrote "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy."
B) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to take the discussion to our respective talk pages (since there are only 2 editors involved) or to the article talk page (to maintain a permanent record).
C) Now having brought the discussion to WP:RSN notice board, User:MorelMWilliam is taking the discussion to the WP:ANI board without allowing the increasingly complex RS debate to reach any conclusion with intervention of neutral editors. It is pertinent that the sole outside editor User:TheBlueCanoe has not taken note of even a single of my submissions.
D) User:MorelMWilliam (having brought this matter to WP:RSN by describing it as a "dispute" with me) consistently refused to follow WP:DR's protocols and sneeringly dismissed it thus "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". RobertRosen ( talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
E) I have hence suggested that we "cool off" and move the debate to the article talk page after that, and without precipitously activating higher dispute mechanisms. RobertRosen ( talk) 08:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is a direct copyvio of her SPS bio at [15] which means it can not be used in the first place. How come no one noted this? There is no valid reason for so using a copyright violation, and the SPS bio is similary not RS for a BLP. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Daryagunj, New-Delhi 110 002. Telephone 0091-11-23278034." Their website is [18] and they have an extensive catalog which is regularly cited on Wikipedia as Reliable Sources especially on India related pages. I have already said that I regard the RMAF citation as a reliable source about Aruna Roy's RM award and the basis for which they awarded it to her. I do not regard the RMAF biography by LKT a reliable source for AR's personal details. I do not regard the RMAF as a neutral or credible award/foundation. It is administered by the Rockefeller Foundation and the junior Magsaysay award by the Ford Foundation to further American interests. That's another edit war building up, so please stop this now and read Arundhati Roy om RMAF instead [19]. RobertRosen ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here. First, I do not assume any of the facts in your source are wrong. HOWEVER, the Awardee profiles are by their very nature, promotional. Further, there is no editorial supervision or standard, and both points argue that they are not good WP:RS. On the other hand, WP:RS does allow for WP:SELFSOURCE , or other such usually questionable sources, if the claims/facts being made are otherwise uncontroversial. Could all interested editors PLEASE go back to the Article Talk page and sort through which facts are in dispute; the ref cited cannot be used universally but could be used in limited circumstances, and the two cases need to be sorted out. preferably with proper specificity and difs. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.
-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've searched this through the Amazon book preview feature & I think this checks out. When I search for "Chinese" in the text I get 10 results one of which reads: "They [Africans] are now just ahead of the Chinese the most academically successful minority in previous studies.[20] Yet the author of the Bell Curve and all its ..." When I search for "Sunday Times" I get an endnote numbered 20 which cites the following source: Sunday Times 23 Jan 1994. The article title is "Africans move to the top of Britain's Education Ladder". So I think they just got the newspaper title wrong but it might be worth taking a trip to the library to verify this. If you really want me to I could probably dig out the Sunday Times article ... Actually, I can't link to it due to copyright violation, but if you search for the title of the Sunday Times article you only get 4 results. One of these is to some Google Group and if you log-in you can see the whole article which confirms the content above. Also you see the citation used here [26] - see bottom of that page. I think it's legitimate.
Is this "reference" valid: ''<ref>[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/1117/1224307706864.html The Irish Times, ''An ecumenical matter'', Revd MICHAEL THOMPSON, Thursday, November 17, 2011.]</ref> It alludes to a letter to the editor of a newspaper, published on the "Letters to the editor" page of the Irish Times newspaper. It has appeared, as a "reference", in a number of articles, all contributed by the same editor, for example, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin Hohenloh + 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Hezbollah article, is the Simon Wiesenthal Center an appropriate source for the unattributed statement of fact that, "Hezbollah also used anti-Semitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts.".
The cited article is here. Note that the Wiesenthal center article does not itself even report the statement as fact, rather it reports that a certain "Kamel el Batel" produced slides documenting the alleged materials. ("Kamel el Batel" produces one google hit, which happens to be the Wiesenthal center article [34]).
The Wiesenthal Center "mission" statement, which can be viewed here states that "The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations."
Given that we don't use mainstream, non-nationally affiliated Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as RS for facts in the Wikipedia voice it would seem odd if this human rights organization, that has a self declared mission to "stand with Israel" would meet the requirements for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice for material in an article about a long term adversary of that country. Dlv999 ( talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Like any human right organisation they should be attributed properly as they expert in the field we could use their statement much like HRW.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this source [35], reliable for this statement:
"Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?". (AD 347-407)"
The article in question is Cessationism. Piney.com cites this source for their website [36]. Shouldn't we just use piney's source directly? I can't see why piney themselves should be considered reliable. Freikorp ( talk) 15:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this website being used a few times now, and it doesn't look particularly reliable (or well organised) to me so I was hoping for a broad opinion of the site in general as well. Freikorp ( talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
My first impression is that yes, it likely is, but I'm involved in the article in question, and wanted to get independent opinions. Article is IsAnybodyDown?, a "revenge porn" site that has been the topic of a recent blog-war. But until now, beyond the blogs, there was IMHO little if anything to show actual notability for the web site itself. So I filed an AFD on it a week ago. Today, there has been released an Ars Technica article that covers the controversy. I'm not in my mind coming up with any reason why AT should not be considered a RS, but I wanted extra opinions on the issue. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to hear community's opinion on the article authored by Ronald Aronson (Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245). Can this article be considered as a reliable non-fringe secondary source?
Thank you in advance.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Book review in essence. Usable for the author's own opinions about the reliable sources reviewed, and properly noted as his opinions.
Collect (
talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a "book review" as referred to above but rather a review article - that is an article length treatment by an acknowledged expert in the field of a range of methodological and interpretative issues relating to a particular historiographical topic. This particular article happens to be a very fair, even-handed, insightful and non-polemical variant of the genre. It absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. In fact, as a secondary review of the field, it's an ideal source for wikipedia and this topic. FiachraByrne ( talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Paul...what is it exactly that you are asking?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past. That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement
Thank you all for your explanations. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the Lodi News-Sentinel story a reliable source in the context it is used? [40]: "According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow." [41] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a good source. UPI at that time was one of the best news-gathering organizations in the world, particularly good in South America. It would have not put out a story unless it relied on the source as credible and would have issued a correction if an error was called to its attention. That said, it would be best to give the name of the author. "According to H.J. Wellman, in an article written for United Press International . . . " GeorgeLouis ( talk) 14:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: Ashley, J.R. (1998).
The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
ISBN
0-7864-1918-0. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Article
The Ashley book is used for a couple lines in the
Tenedos article. Having read many other discussions of Alexander the Great and the island, most downplay the island, but Ashley refers to the island many times. I was curious, looked into it and do not believe J.R. Ashley or his source for most of the claims about the island,
Curtius, are reputable sources per
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, namely the line that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". This has been discussed on the
Tenedos talk page and one editor asked me to "seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN." (Although others agree the source is not reliable) I'm here to get an uninvolved opinion. Question: Is Ashley a reputable source for specifics about the island of Tenedos? (Since exhaustiveness is the best way to handle things on that article, I'll follow that here.)
Ashley page 50 "At Tenedos, the 3,000 Greek mercenaries and oarsman captured there were used to reinforce the Macedonian fleet (Curtius IV:5)." And in Tenedos page note 48: "He also took on board 3000 Greek mercenaries and oarsmen from Tenedos in his army and navy."
Ashley page 95 "Hegelochus captured Tenedos after it had revolted from the Persians. He then besieged Chios." (No source for claim, probably Arrian). And in Tenedos page note 46: "Alexander's commander Hegelochus of Macedonia captured the island from the Persians."
Ashley page 106-107 "Instead of keeping the fleet concentrated, Pharnabazus dispersed it simultaneously to four different operations; besiging Mytilene, besiging Tenedos, assisting the Spartans in their result, and attempting to reconquer the cities along the Carian and Lycian coasts that had been lost to Alexander...Ten ships were sent to Cyclades under Datames, while a hundred went on to Tenedos...The walls of Tenedos were destroyed and its citizens forced to resume the peace of Antalcidas with Darius." (Source in endnotes: Curtius II) And in Tenedos page note 45: "During the campaign of Alexander the Great against the Persians, Pharnabazus, the Persian commander, laid siege to Tenedos with a hundred ships and eventually captured it as Alexander could not send a fleet in time to save the island. The island's walls were demolished and the islanders had to accept the old treaty with the Persian emperor Darius I: the Peace of Antalcidas."
(This claim above is the one that first got me interested in the source, because it seems in most histories that the 100 ships went to Sifnos, see here, here for Arrian, here. Ashley does talk about the ships then going to Sifnos, but the 100 ships to Tenedos rather than 100 ships to Sifnos was just weird)
Ashley page 162 "Several of the Aegean islands also revolted, including Tenedos, Lesbos and Chios." (No direct reference given for claim, based on context and nearby citations, probably Curtius) And in Tenedos page note 44: "Along with other Aegean islands such as Lesbos, Tenedos also rebelled against the Persian dominance at this time."
I feel that theatrehistory.com is not a suitable source, but I'm not an expert in this area and would appreciate comments from editors with more expertise. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.
Theatrehistory.com is a collection of web pages that, in many cases, contain verbatim copies of previously published works. Links to the site can be found in many WP articles, both as external links and in citations. The website has numerous advertisements and commercial links are sprinkled throughout. When I click internal links, I often get a popup window that advertises Netflix, etc. There is no "about this site" discussion, so one cannot be sure of the purpose of the site or the motives or identity of its operator, nor can the authority of its nameless authors be determined. Aside from the spam aspect, I'm concerned about possible copyvios; all of the works I've looked at so far were published before 1923 or lack an author's name, but I haven't examined every copied work at the site. On the other hand, if there are no copyvios, the copied works are readily available as primary sources, which are more direct (and less offensive) than this tertiary source. Lambtron ( talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It is written by an unnamed author and I have no idea who that is, nor does the site give any hint about who the editors are or, for that matter, who is responsible for the site's content. Consequently, the article has approximately the reliability of a blog. And in case it's not obvious, argumentum ad populum doesn't mitigate this or other critical shortcomings. Lambtron ( talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As one of the primary contributors to La Luz del Mundo (which is currently undergoing a major overhaul), I have a question:
The reason I ask is because this dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). I don't think that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if this dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article. Most of the history section of this article found here references this dissertation.
All comments are greatly appreciated! Regards, RidjalA ( talk) 20:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"The earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM. According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors." [44]
"Rumors around Catholics(??) that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research, though the church narrative does carry a story of abuse carried out by one of its members.(pg 157)
Do not tell anyone, but the way those dissertation defenses work is that the smart students pick their committee members in a way that the problems are minimized. There may be other faculty members in the same department that would have failed the student. The committee may not be imposed but student selected. In many cases some committee members do not even read the whole dissertation, but have generally made their mind up about the student as "scholar or hopeless" in the past 3 years, as they have observed him/her. So a PhD thesis is generally interesting to read, but if it does not get published as a book, etc. by a good publishers, I would not totally rely on it. But in this case, he may have good pointers to follow. But a number of items used in the article based on the thesis are non-controversial, and could hence be used for sure. Overall, his thesis looks good to use for those basic assertions, regardless of how many are used. History2007 ( talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are Mantak Chia or his books reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have been working on this article for quite a while and just became aware of new information in the form of old (1942) copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph (Australia). Most of the info is archived and is already referred to in the article, but there is some that is not. I know these are OK sources (though weight issues will need discussion) but my question is: what do I need to do? Should I scan the relevant pages and upload them to Photobucket? Would that suffice? Rumiton ( talk) 10:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been adding http://www.grande-rock.com as a reliable source for reviews to album articles:
The problems I have are that there only appear to be two editors and they use pseudonyms--thanos, rockavlon--rather than real names. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who they are. It appears to be a glorified music blog although, based on the interviews, they do have access to a lot of small bands. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Melodicrcok.com is just one person? And so? By the way thanos is not a pseudonym. There also metaltom, dora, newseditor & admin as users. Do not hide things for your won sake. By that you say that an ezine is not notable? There are interviews with small and big bands as well? Does it ring a bell? So, you decide what's notable or not when the band and the labels have already spoken? Soon, there will be a page on wiki about Grande Rock. So, do not get mad. There so many articles that are truly trash do not deal with notable and well-written ones. Hard Rocker 13 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Any by the way what do you know about music or what's your background so to say if a post is bad or not? That's just your opinion. You not objective. An ezine is notable when it's more than 10(!) yearls online and is cooperating with bands and labels. If that's not enough for you then that's your problem. Hard Rocker 13 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any indication that the site and its reviewers meet the criteria for professional reviewers/reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The bands Poison, Sabaton, The Flower Kings, Circus Maximus, Threshold, Vision Divine, Sparzanza, Eclipse (just ot name a few) are not meeting your prof criteria?! Then you're probably irrelevant with this kind of music and surely you can't tell what's reliable or not. Hard Rocker 13 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If those bands talk to an ezine then that ezine is notable ans reliable. Those bands do not talk to everyone on the net. This ain't you average blog site that a kid owns it. This is a prof ezine by people who have been doing this job for over a decade. Hard Rocker 13 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't get your point. They meet all the criteria. We are not talking for reviews but for bands that have been interviewed. And I believe that criteria for those bands are more strict than wikis where you can find thousands of trash articles. So what's you point here? I say they're meeting all the criteria. What's your say? This is called censorship. I have to deal with two young guys that are irrelevant with music and keep talking without saying anything.Hard Rocker 13 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You make accusations, spreading rumors and telling things that have never happened. This is censorship. Do you get it? I never said about retired reviewers!! OK i'll have to say one more time. This is not a blog. Can you tell the difference between a blog and an ezine? I guess not. Secondly, the bands and the labels that are cooperating with a site are making it reliable and notable. Not a bunch of kids on wiki that killing their time and have nothing to do with the music scene. Obviously neither of you can prove that is not an elephant, neither do I. So what's the point here? This is an uproar that was caused by a couple of fellows around here. Is that how wiki works? There thousands of trash articles around wiki and you wanna shut down a reliable, & notable site that's providing true info about rock/metal music? For what? I think this is called pure fascism.Hard Rocker 13 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Very funny! Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism. You did learn something today! If there are not any unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary as you said then why must be put into the non-notable category? Cause you say so? If you can prove than a source is not notable then probably it is notable and reliable. I can't think of better & serious reliable sources that the bands & labels sites. Can you? I can shows you a few sites here in wiki that are not even sites - just blogs that you say they are notable. What are you trying to do here exactly? Hard Rocker 13 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So you have already decided? That's it? A couple of guys decided that I should stop posting from Grande Rock, cause you can't prove that it is reliable so you decide that it's not? Huh! Is that the way things go around here? Do I need to bring some friends over to say the opposite? Who gathers the most guys wins?! What happened within a year and a site from notable became non-notable? All the posts till now are fine but from now own are not? How does it go? Hard Rocker 13 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)( talk)
I was just informed by the guys that some music labels, other ezines & band sites have used sources from Grande Rock. That according to the wiki article makes it reliable. OK here you go. 1st: http://glassonyonpublicity.wordpress.com/category/review/, 2nd http://gonzo-multimedia.blogspot.gr/search/label/erik%20norlander, 3rd http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records/, 4th http://www.dangerousdogrecords.co.uk/website/AOR_Reviews.html, 5th http://www.thresh.net/marchofprogress.htm. 6th http://unisonicfanclub.com/?s=mandy+meyer&search=Search, 7th http://www.bonrud.com/2012/10/05/grande-rock-reviews-save-tomorrow/. So is that enough to call it reliable or you need more? According to the wiki rules this is more than enough. What's your say now? Will you help me restore the old posts you have erased? Hard Rocker 13 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
so, no. you need third-party, independent sources of estblished credibility noting the value/reliability of the content on a site to establish that the site has a reputation for fact checking etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Such as? According to the wiki article this is OK. This source http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records does not promote anything. It shows that Grande Rock is notable. Read the last sentence. You cannot bypass things without reading them at all. The blog sources are from labels that have reproduced the reviews. The labels are totally notable, they do not promote anything, just giving some feedback to the fans. Band's Fan Club that has linked to the site isn't good for you? What's good tell me? I think it is OK but you're not really wanna help do things right. All you're saying is no no no? Give me an example of such indie source then. Facebook posts are OK? Twitter? Hard Rocker 13 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
Here's a source from Blabbermouth - I think you can't say that this ain't notable!!! http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171270. You can't deny also the fact that the writer of this article is giving reliability to Grande Rock: http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records. Other sources: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/darkology/altered_reflections/, http://www.michaelharrisguitar.com/, http://plotn08.com/2012/09/the-michael-des-barres-band-carnaby-street-2012/. If you wanna help I think all these sources are more than good. I can't prove that I'm not an elephant anymore. There are ezines on wiki that do not have such resources but you have given them the credit. That's unfair. Hard Rocker 13 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I see that you do not care to give any help. Blabbermouth is the biggest site out there. Linking back to Grande Rock means that the site has something good to offer. A notable site gives credit to another one that's notable & reliable. Can you tell me if ever Spin or Rolling Stone have published an article for a webzine?! Not even for Blabber! OK I got it if Rolling Stone talks about Grande Rock then it will be notable or else not. So, I'll make you a list of how many webzines you have to delete from wiki. For every reliable link you have something to say. That means you're kinda biased. You say the source is bad and then a great site like Blabber use a source from that site! I guess Blabber is not good either for you. I have read the article far too many times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what Blabbermout & TBFMonline have done! Tell me why these sites are better than Grande Rock and which big site has made any reference to them: Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? As for the two alternate persona etc. I can only take as a joke right! There's a complete list on the old site as well. It's been up for more than 10 years, this at least should mean something! Hard Rocker 13 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I do realize that a couple of guys are wannabe the wiki-judges here. You know when accusing a site of not being reliable in public without being able to proved it if needed then this is called detraction. I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity and talking trash about a site without carrying if that will affect people's jobs or not. If you can't prove that a site is non-notable then surely it's notable. The same goes if you can't approve that someone's guilty then he's not. It's so easy for you to understand. I told you there's a complete list of people being especially in the Greek rock/metal scene for ages. The editorial process is the same for every reliable webzine. There's a cooperation with labels that sending stuff (digital & physical) and expect feedback, artist & bands (big and small) that are being interviewed, people that arranging live shows have also added Grande Rock on their posters (wanna see some?). What do you need? As for the Facebook and Twitter I cans see that you not aware of how things work. Check out Myspace 4 thousands friends isn't good for you? Once it was Myspace not it's FB... and so on. Those profiles are less than a year created.
You didn't tell me if those webzines are also reliable and if they were featured in Rolling Stone?! Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? You're trying to avoid it. There are ads by labels on magazines that are featuring quotes from Grande Rock's reviews? Is that good for you? Wanna see some links? By the way do you have anything to do with music in general or just fooling around? You are just a user like me. Your word doesn't count more. Is there an Admin here or what? And yes, Blabber is consider to be one of the top 5 sites in rock/metal music. We're talking about music sites, you can't obviously compare it with FB! You know how to misrepresent things! I see that this site isn't good for you. You're probably are an ultimate wiki-Judge or something.Hard Rocker 13 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Hard Rocker
I'm not as well-versed on WP's rules when it comes to reliability and notability, but I'll just say this: for a representative of a supposedly "professional" website/ezine/webzine or whatever it's called, AORmaniac13 has thus far conducted himself in an extremely unprofessional manner in almost response he's posted. If that's the kind of attitude staff at Grande Rock want to present to the viewing public, I'd certainly not consider reading any of their reviews, let alone support their increasingly immature and downright hostile requests for a spot on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Personally, I'll stick to relying on established music review publications which refrain from personal insults and poor use of English. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery is a new article evidently created to make a point (see talk page) about a writer of dubious notability. The claims "r his commentary regarding the Pax Britannica in 1936 when he argued for increased trade and friendly relations between Britain and the USA. He suggested the two nations had a "common interest in preserving the international peace", and was a lead proponent of the Special Relationship," are backed by two sources. One of them is a book by the subject. The other is [47] by Ali Parchami [48] which mentions him but only cursorily. Dougweller ( talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says "He was a researcher into the ancient origins of their nobility through which he claimed the title of Count." No sources is given other than his own work. And for some reason his books and his patent are listed with his 'count' name even though that's not the name on the patent or books. Dougweller ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)