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 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 |
Electronic Intifada is being discussed above, but Soosim has also removed references to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in the Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud article, which is a reliable source for the facts being presented, and whose opinion would be notable and worth including even if it were only an opinion. Some think these facts are inconvenient, but none of the facts referenced are controversial, and are backed up by other reliable sources. To my knowledge, no one has denied the claims. And if they do, the source should not be removed, rather it should be made clear that this is the position of the PCHR. Until then, it can be stated as fact, but either way the source should not be removed. Mr G ( talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the Capital Press a Reliable Source for an article about ranch owner Frank L. VanderSloot and his activities? I maintain that it is, but User:Rhode Island Red and User:RobertRosen maintain that it is not. Capital Press is both a newspaper and a website. It also sends out newsletters. It covers agriculture in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. It engages in trade journalism. You can buy the paper edition on newsstands, as shown on this map. You can get a job there, if you are so interested. It's published by the East Oregonian Publishing Company. More info is at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Cheese_factory. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory. [1] [2] Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, [1] and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods. [3] [2]
In 1994, VanderSloot was approached by Firth, Idaho, dairy farmer Gaylen Clayson with a plea to invest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho, after Kraft Foods had announced a decision to close it. In response, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the plant, which closed anyway within six months, after an investment company assumed control. Dairymen crowded into a local meeting hall afterward to make another plea to VanderSloot, who thereupon paid off a $2 million debt owed to the dairymen, staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows. [1] [3] He later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties. "My business is Melaleuca and that's what I need to pay attention to," he said. [1] In 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods. [4]
Collect, the point of going to the noticeboards is to get unbiased input from editors outside the fray. You are very much inside the fray, and your accusation about contentious cavils does not move us any closer towards resolution. The content and the source are what's at issue here. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Capital Press is the 10th largest NEWSPAPER in Oregon. [5] It has an audited circulation of 35,582. [6] Can we agree that it is Reliable? (The other remarks by RIR should really be handled on the Talk Page or on another NoticeBoard.) Is this a fair summation? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
This keeps getting reverted from Brandon Teena by the same person. Apparently the subject's mother is not a reliable source for causes of transgenderism and therefore shouldn't be in the article: She also said that her child's transgenderism was a defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self: "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her." - http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,85098,00.html As this is a biography article and not a medical one, then I think that reason is ridiculous. Zaalbar ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion: The source itself, EW, is adequate. The story itself comes from the AP, which is generally considered reliable. The same AP story was also picked up by the Guardian, which is also considered reliable. See The Guardian article.
However, the source cited does not support all the proposed content. The source cited only supports the direct quote from the mother. It does not support the claims "her child's transgenderism was a
defense mechanism that was developed in response to
childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self" as the source cited does not mention transgenderism, a defense mechanism, or the idea that the transgenderism was in respone to childhood sexual abuse. These are all very contentious claims and support for these claims is not found in the source cited. Either excellent sourcing needs to be found for these claims, or these claims should be removed from the article until such sourcing can be found. Content like "Ms. Brandon said, 'She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her.'" would be supported by the source.
Zad
68
19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing the Guardian article does is add a little bit of the article author's own interpretation of the mother's words. "Gender bending" isn't a term medical professionals use, and it would be a misrepresentation of the source to attempt to take the Guardian article author's interpretation of the mother's words regarding her daughter, and use it to support the very definitive-sounding content proposed--"A
defense mechanism that was developed in response to
childhood sexual abuse" sounds like something read off a psychiatrist's report; the mother's quote doesn't support that.
Zad
68
20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm also looking at how this same story was reported in other sources:
People,
Philly.com. Of the four sources I found (EW, Guardian, People, Philly), all report that Ms. Brandon said she was angry the film did not mention that Brandon Teena was molested. Only two seem to make some sort inference that Ms. Brandon meant that it was, in the opinion of the mother, the cause of Brandon's change: Guardian says "an event to which she attributes her daughter's gender-bending", Philly juxtaposes "She said Teena Brandon began dressing in men's clothing and dating women" next to the sentence. In my opinion, the sources can be used to explain why the mother was angry, but should not be used to go as far as to also say that the mother felt that the molestation caused the change. Better sourcing would be needed for that. Can you find a longer interview with the mother, where she gives more detail? Without that, I would not feel comfortable using these sources to include content along this line.
Zad
68
20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Metalwani.com is a website which reviews and gives coverage to metal music. However, there has not been proper discussion as to whether or not it meets the guidelines set forth by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. A user by the name of Mpdt ( talk · contribs) kept adding reviews from the website, and made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his/her additions, despite repeated attempts at discussions from editors such as myself. An edit like this is just about the typical edit from Mpdt. This person carried out his act of ignoring by deleted the notices from his talk page. The Mpdt account was blocked indefinitely for this behavior. Ever since then, accounts such as Stonedjesus ( talk · contribs) and the curiously named PortnoyMike ( talk · contribs), who is probably not Mike Portnoy needless to say, have added mentions of Metal Wani to Wikipedia. While the latter two are new accounts, both with fewer than seven edits as of this post, neither of them have discussed how and why Metal Wani is relevant as per REVSITE. The website appears to be run by one person, who happens to be an admirer of Mike Portnoy (as said before, there was a PortnoyMike account promoting Metal Wani on Wikipedia). This information is revealed in the "Who Am I" section of the website. It might be safe to say that metalwani.com can be listed under non-professional reviews for REVSITE, but I would like to gather some input from other individuals instead of adding it on my own volition right now. Thank you. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 09:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like feedback on this source for the Frank L. VanderSloot BLP: http://www.frankvanderslootresponse.com/att-general.html
This website has been established as VanderSloot's by reliable sources. I'd like to say something like, "In 2012, VanderSloot released what he said was a letter from the Idaho Attorney General that called into question some of Greenwald's claims." Andrew ( talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Andrew's question was nicely, politely worded, and I suppose he has his answer by now: No. We should all look for a RS where VDS has responded to the charges against him, and then we could use these other two citations as backup. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a section on using commercial websites or sites of businesses as refs? How about non-for-profit organizations? If I were to cite a fact on the non-profit organization GPTMC would that be permitted? I'm sorry if somewhere somebody talks about this, but I couldn't find it.-- 69.119.249.56 ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP. LittleBen ( talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I would like to state that the above song is one of my special songs and I would like to develop its article further. Well, generally song articles require info about their background, recording etc and a famous song like this one would require so. Now in the article at the end, there are many links to different interpretations of the song. My question to RSN is are those links reliable? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/.
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
(a.) Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.” Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.
(b.) VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran attack ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann. Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.
(c.) VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues
(d.) Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues
(e.) According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and other legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones Magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang. Frank_L._VanderSloot#Defamation_lawsuit_threats
Comment: The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article Glenn is not writing as a journalist (note his non-journalist assertion that VanderSloot "has a history of virulent anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)," but he is a partisan commentator. 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#47302840
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
"Three op-eds published by the Wall Street Journal criticized the campaign's treatment of VanderSloot and other top Romney donors.[95][91][96] The critiques, two of which were authored by Wall Street Journal contributor Kimberley Strassel, were disputed by Rachel Maddow,[97] Lewiston Morning Tribune editor Marty Trillhaase,[98] and David Shere of Media Matters for America.[99]"
"VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from commentators and gay-rights advocates.[11][40][100][97][101][102][103][104]"
"According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang.[40][97]"
Note: Please also address the copyright issue. I am posting a referral at the Copyright Notice Board.
Reliable source. Is Rachel Maddow a WP:Reliable source? Can what her show reports be considered Reliable in Wikipedia terms? Sometimes her show is Good Reporting, and sometimes it is Commentary. Should WP make a distinction, based upon which hat she is wearing? Her show often casts negative aspersions on living people: Does that aspect of her show negate using her as a Reliable Source?
Copyright. RM's television show is copyrighted. Because of the copyright, can we link to it in the way that this article has — that is, simply as a source for the sentence, phrase or paragraph to which it refers?
I'm not making an argument one way or the other here because I really want to know what how noninvolved editors see this, and also I am pretty much confused by the rules about linking to copyrighted material, because there was a big kerfluffle on the VanderSloot page a few weeks ago about linking to another copyrighted video, which link was eventually eliminated at the insistence of an uninvolved editor that it violated the [[WP:BLP}} policy. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC).
An IP editor added a statement regarding Lucca Comics & Games, on the San Diego Comic Con article using a blog as the reference for the change. Is this blog a reliable source?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. THe text in question is as follows:
State Rep. Jim Buchy (R-OH) gave an interview with Al Jazeera . The reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want to have an abortion. He stated, "Well, there’s probably a lot of — I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get — some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never — It’s a question I have never thought about." These comments were picked up nationally, including by the Rachel Maddow Show. [1] [2] [3] [4]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
The sources in question are Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's Show, and Al Jazera. The current conversation on the talk page can be found here. Relevant conversations for Al Jazera can be found Here and here . One discussion I found for Think Progress can be found here here.
Thanks in advance. Casprings ( talk) 22:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI; TWO parts to this. The first, as Casprings was told on the Article page, is that there is a transcript/video/story on Al Jazeera where this candidate responded to a question. That is fact, and Casprings has been told that the fact that it was said satisfies WP:RS on several bases, but that this clip from the interview was not in any way notable, by WP:RS. The second part is, is the expansion of this clip to state in WP's voice through a whole section on the candidate's "rape controversy" that he actually meant x or y, when he clearly made a half-hearted attempt to answer and then said, I don't know. THOSE can only be attributed to the other refs. The real question is if you can take that the attack blogs SAID this is a controversy as fact not opinion, can this be said without attribution as to opinion, and whether erecting a section which just states (actually pretty hyperbolic) commentary/attacks of what he "might" have meant is sufficiently notable to overcome WP:BLP concerns as a WP:RS. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 14:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Franklin Mint was a marketer of "mass-market collectibles" including "coins" or medallions, ceramic plates, books, and die-cast miniature automobiles. Much of the content has appeared to be ads or perhaps fancruft mostly about the die-cast cars. Are the following sources considered reliable in this context? I've added commercial pages from the websites after the * (because I don't think commercial sites are in general reliable sources)
Current, Jenny. No date. Met Collectibles / Toys. Hoosier Met Website dedicated to Nash Metropolitans. [14]
Flickr Reitwagen. 2012. Franklin Mint's Daimler Reitwagen. Flickr photo gallery. [15]
Johnson, Dana. 1998. Collector's Guide to Diecast Toys and Scale Models, Second Edition. Padukah, Kentucky: Collector Books, A Division of Schroeder Publishing. ISBN 1-57432-041-6.
JSS Software. 2012. The Franklin Mint Diecast Model Library. Independent diecast database website dedicated to reviews of diecast models. [16]
Olson, Randall. 2007. GM in Miniature. Dorcester, England: Veloce Publishing. ISBN:978-1-84584-156-0.
These sources are used to support statements like
"One website reviewing Franklin Mint vehicles points out that though the lines of the 1:24 scale 1948 Tucker were "clean and precise" the model suffered from unrealistic thick hinges, window plastic 'glass' correct in some places but lacking in others, and misplacement of steering wheel and other interior parts (JSS Software 2012)."
Smallbones( smalltalk) 06:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite}}
) to make it more obvious which part of the article is using which reference.G'day, I am wondering about "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 0810872021, and whether Scarecrow Press can be considered a reliable publisher. Does anyone have any information that would help? This [17] indicates that the book was originally from Penn State. Assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am just starting with Wikipedia, and wanted to know if a musician's official web site is considered a reliable source for information about them, especially when it comes to basic bio info, like where/when the person was born, and where they went to school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusiclady ( talk • contribs)
The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. The map of Israel shows the West Bank simply as Samaria and Judea. The map notes that both Samaria and Judea were Under Jordanian Rule Until 1967.[10] The website notes that the Board of Deputies is the official elected representative roof-body of the Jewish Community in New South Wales,..[11]/
To my knowledge, no one else has commented on the opinion of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Could i make a the point that I am not commenting on the article at all? I am just noting what it contains. I think there is a distinction. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
All
There are at least two possible objections to what I have done:-
This is a matter of judgement.
Even to have given the possible explanations might have amounted to Original Research: I refrained from doing so. In answer to Fifelfoo, I gave the simplest reading of the map possible. If my reading is wrong, please tell me. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
At Osorkon III David Rohl ( talk · contribs) added a paper written by him and Peter James saying that "The identification of HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III was first proposed by David Rohl and Peter James in a paper published in 1982". I reverted this as COI and as needing an independent source stating that they were the first. Rohl reverted me [19] with the edit summary "Please do not undo an edit until you can demonstrate that it is factually incorrect. The additions to the article are published and verifiable." I don't think we can use an author as a reliable source that the author was the first to do anything. I'm also not convinced that a "Sis Workshop" paper, published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies is a reliable source in any case for this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the one with the circular reasoning Cyclopia. It is not the task of an inventor or discoverer or composer to prove that no-one came up with his invention, discovery or composition before him. That is a nonsense. It is up to the person challenging primacy to produce contrary evidence predating publication. An inventor patents his invention on a particular date. In doing so he does not have to prove primacy. A discoverer publishes his findings and his work is copyrighted. He does not have to prove primacy. A composer writes a piece of music and has it published and copyrighted. He does not have to prove that no-one came up with the tune before him. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Rohl published an article in an academic journal (a verifiable source, which was fully referenced and which complied with all Wiki critera for verifiability) arguing the evidence for the discovery of a new pharaoh. This was confirmed by another scholar several years later (a reference to this was given in the Wiki article dealing with this new pharaoh). An editor of Wikipedia then removes all mention of Rohl's work from the Wikipedia article dealing with the discovery of this new pharaoh and, in doing so, credits the discovery to the secondary scholar who had confirmed Rohl's discovery. The original Wikipedia article had mentioned Rohl's primacy but the later editor chose to remove that reference written by a Wikipedia author/editor independent of Rohl who had read the secondary scholar's article giving Rohl primacy. As a result, Rohl's discovery is deliberately and knowingly suppressed by Wikipedia. Who is in the wrong here? David Rohl ( talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
David emailed me a proposed amendment to Sheshonk IV which I have posted at Talk:Sheshonk IV#Rewrite suggested by David Rohl. I hope this can be worked out without any further ado. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A user has removed a line from the article on Art Pope which reads
Additionally, during the same year, the John William Pope Foundation donated $1.35 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, [1] the sister group [2] of the conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity. [3] [4] [5]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
as a violation of WP:SYNTH. I have argued that this is not synth because the first source ("The John William Pope Foundation, headed by North Carolina multimillionaire Art Pope, gave the Americans for Prosperity Foundation $1.35 million in 2010.") establishes the bulk of the sentence, while the other sources only add additional details -- that AfPF is the sister group of AfP, and that it's a conservative political action group. However, there is very little activity on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate more eyes on the issue. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Grand Comics Database a reliable source?
I am concerned because it is being used to verify claims on BLPs. For example, in Al Gordon (comics),
In 1982, Gordon left Marvel for DC Comics to ink writer-penciler-co-creator Scott Shaw and fill-in penciler Stan Goldberg on the funny-animal superhero series Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew. In 1983, Gordon did a year-and-a-half run at the independent Eclipse Comics, inking Will Meugniot on Will and Mark Evanier's The DNAgents, as well as inking Rick Hoberg for the company's spin-off series Surge and its anthology Eclipse Monthly.
Afterward, he returned to Marvel to become the regular inker on the company's flagship series Fantastic Four, and on the science-fiction adventure limited series Rocket Raccoon (with Mike Mignola penciling). Other work around this time includes issues of The Eternals and Power Pack, and Marvel's licensed series Thundercats and Transformers.
Freelancing once again for DC, Gordon in 1987 began inking Kevin Maguire while working with plotter/thumbnail artist Keith Giffen on Justice League International. Two years later, Gordon, this time inking Giffen, also began cowriting with Giffen and Tom and Mary Bierbaum for DC's revamped Legion of Super Heroes. Gordon took over the complete writing and scripting chores for issues #21 though 24 (Aug. 1991), while continuing to ink Giffen.
In 1992 he began adapting a childhood creation citation needed, WildStar, with Jerry Ordway for creator-owned company Image Comics. WildStar: Sky Zero was the title of the miniseries that was written, inked, edited (with the help of Bud Shakespeare) and produced by Gordon, and penciled by Jerry Ordway. There was also a continuing WildStar series started with penciler Chris Marrinan.
At the time of writing, all of that information is referenced only to GCD, here [22].
I am concerned that it is not appropriate to reference info on living people to that source.
Shaz0t ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Shaz0t's entire purpose here is to harm the encyclopedia by using our policies as weapons against us. I don't know if the motivation is simply to fuck with "the man" (as Wikipedia has become, as the primary source of online information), the furtherance of anarchy, or an adolescent thrill with messing around with important shit, but it would behoove us to take editors such as this into our consideration as we discuss the future of Wikipedia....
I remember when I learned, much to my frustration, that we couldn't use CBDB as a source because its info was user-generated. I assumed the same was of Grand CDB, but was then told by someone (I don't remember who or when) that it was okay, because Grand was not UG. Now I'm seeing that some people here are saying it's not reliable. So is it or isn't it? Betty Rose says that it's "clearly along similar lines to IMDB", but the mission statement that she quotes from Grand CDB doesn't make it user-generated. It's whether its info is restricted to a staff of editors. (And more generally to IRS, whether it's considered an authoritative, reliable source by the industry.) So is it? This is important, because Tenebrae says that it shouldn't be used for info on anything other than itself, yet there are scores of comics-related articles, including BLPs, that indicate Grand as a reference, often in the References section without any inline citations. Nightscream ( talk) 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's take this from a policy point of view (using WP:RS at least as a guide), and also in comparison to other reference works.
I'd like to hear how GCD may differ from any encyclopedia (or other compendium of information) that we might use as a reference. And also how it may be the same as any encyclopedia we might reference. Please list the specifics. - jc37 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Several new users that may be unaware of this board keep asserting that Time Magaizines award for The 100 Most Influential People award to Bunker Roy is not a reliable source for claims in the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy about the number of students who have attended the programs and the training they have received. They have been requested to bring their concerns here, but they must not have known where it was and so instead have inserted their concerns using lots of individual tags on the article and have used the talk page to give in exhaustive detail multiple times to state that they did not believe that we should use Time as a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
OK another editor has appeared claiming that it is "just an essay" and not supported by Time's fact checking authority. Can someone please weigh in? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Source:
Article: A Congressman's (or Congressmen's) profile.
Content: Would those be reliable sources? I was thinking of using the two articles as a source to show a bill the certain Congressmen had introduced?
The article might say: "The Congressman has introduced a bill that some say are an attempt to rollback the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Thanks. ─ Matthewi ( Talk) • 04:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments
I'm currently participating in an AfD discussion for a theater ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Peers Theater (2nd nomination)). My issue is this: I interpret "multiple sources" to mean that the sources must be from different avenues and that multiple reports from one source (magazine/paper type) do not show a depth of coverage. I am aware that very rarely you will have a situation where one source can show notability, such as someone doing something overwhelmingly notable that would keep an article in and of itself, but typically that source is not a magazine posting multiple theater reviews. The other editor believes that multiple reviews from one source (Pittsburgh Magazine, in this instance) establishes notability for the subject. I would really appreciate some input on this and if I'm correct, for someone to please confirm this in the AfD. I simply do not think that one magazine is enough for notability, no matter how many times they report on something. I'm also curious as to whether or not theater reviews are enough to establish notability for a theater. The theater is mentioned as the place the performances are taking place, but there are no sources that actually cover the theater itself or its launching, which is troubling. Any assistance on this would be helpful. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In the deletion discussion over the Palestinian incitement page, I pointed out that articles by the Jerusalem Post and the Israeli government were not likely to provide objective information about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Plot Spoiler objected, and suggested I bring up the problem here.
The Post articles in question may be viewed here, here, here, and here; at least the ones that were on the Internet. As for these three sources (oddly, the third one doesn't seem to come up all the time).
As examples of how these quotes are used, I quote the article:
According to the Israeli government, "There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli or antisemitic incitement and terrorism. The extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society nurtures a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism. The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs, theater and cinema have been mobilized for extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination, which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. This incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive in Palestinian society, particularly in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip."
That is from the opening paragraphs of the opening paragraphs of the article, and cites the Israeli government website. While the sentence is fact -- the government absolutely did say that -- it is the nail in the coffin of the first three paragraphs as pro-Israeli.
According to the document, incitement against Israel is "an integral part of the fabric of life inside the PA. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages are heard regularly in the government and private media and in the mosques and are taught in schools books."
More quoting the government, this time through the Jerusalem Post. I notice they aren't quoting the PLO or Hamas.
In response to a PA television broadcast glorifying the murderers of the Fogel family in the Itamar massacre
I won't say I know much about the Itamar massacre, but the Post article it cites is clearly not unbiased.
CarniCat ( meow) 18:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is similar to the concerns expressed for the Palestinian incitement article in the section above. While we know that things like JPost, Ynetnews, Times of Israel, ect are reliable sources, I feel that for all reliable sources, there are going to be topics that are difficult for them to cover neutrally. This is because the newspapers themselves are too close to the subject. In regards to the current situation in Israel/Gaza, I have argued a couple of times on Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense that we should minimize the use of Pro-Israel or Pro-Hamas sources, such as those listed above, unless they are being used to discuss their own region. We should not use them to discuss the other region, instead relying on truly secondary, outside source coverage.
Really, as a whole, I feel that we should be minimizing the use of any news sources in Gaza or Israel for these topics as much as possible. That would give us the greatest possibility of using and presenting neutral sources. I've had some agreement on the talk page and some disagreement, with those disagreeing saying that reliable sources are always reliable and that I should come here if i'm going to argue otherwise. Silver seren C 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Introducing Social Policy by Pearson Education suitable for this edit [25] Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard:
This is reporter/publisher Jack ODwyer who is questioning the sourcing policies of WP in connection with a 3,300-word entry on Public Relations Society of America that was posted in late October by Corporate Minion.
[I am leaving out apostrophes and quote marks because the away-from-home e-mail program I am using turns apostrophes into question marks] I consider the entry highly biased against me and the Odwyer Co. from the start as evidenced by a cartoon that ran for the first two weeks of the entry that pictured me as a male witch burning PRSA at the stake.
The source for that cartoon was the website of Derek DeVries, an elected delegate of PRSA and hardly a neutral source. Corporate Minion took it down following my complaint. Corporate Minion also corrected many other mistakes including saying there were 19 sections of PRSA when there are only 14. References to PRSA having the most influential awards program (Silver Anvil) were also taken down.
When I challenged a number of the sources for the article (the number got as high as 82 and it is now 65) a number of references to sources and topics were removed. The original word count was cut from 4,697 to the current 3,240. WP has staged a vast retreat on this topic.
A fundamental mistake WP is making, and which plays right into what PRSA tries to say, is that there is some kind of personal feud between the Society and me. For instance, WP says that in 1994 ODwyer had a copyright dispute with PRSA regarding the Societys information package. The PRSA copying practices date back to 1976 according to PRSA itself.
That is misleading and wrong because 12 authors who were illegally copied complained to PRSA which refused to give them a penny or even talk to them. It was not some personal dispute of mine. There is plenty of documentation of this quest of the authors. The Society claimed it was a library and was only charging a loan fee ($18 for members and $55 for non-members). But libraries can only send out single copies of something under strict rules. Only one copy must be in circulation. There must be no commercial advantage either direct or indirect. The notice of copyright must be on every copy sent out. PRSA, distributing about 3,800 packets a year, had multiple copies in circulation at once because it promised 24-hour delivery but let users keep the packets (60-120 pages of materials) for up to three weeks. PRSA was netting about $60,000 a year from this practice according to its own records. What library charges $55 to borrow an article? None of the articles had copyright notices on them. I have a boxful of copied articles from 12 packets that were purchased if only someone from WP would come to our offices.
ODwyer Competitors are Deemed Reliable
My beef with WP about sourcing is that WP regards as neutral and reliable all of our competitors including PR Week U.S. and U.K.; PR Newser website; Bulldog Reporter website; PR News Online website, and Advertising Age.
There are links to articles in all those media criticizing the ODwyer Co. for one thing or another but no links at all to ODwyer articles although we have been covering PRSA and PR subjects since 1968. Only one of the WP links is favorable to the ODwyer Co. The WP policy on sourcing is inconsistent. It quotes the New York Times nine times but only supplies links to five of the articles. A highly favorable mention by the NYT of the ODwyer Co. in which it called the ODwyer Newsletter the bible of PR, was removed after two weeks. I cannot get an explanation for that. I could give you the link to the NYT story but it might get this commentary blocked. I am not putting any links in this piece.
Only the ODwyer Co. has covered 40 PRSA Assemblies in a row until 2011 when not only our reporters, but all reporters were barred from that governing body. PRSA has thus failed to live up to the Public in its name since reporters are part of the public and PRSA had allowed reporters into the Assembly for 40 years.
Only the ODwyer Co. reports the annual and quarterly finances of the Society, something that can be easily sourced. A search of the 12 years of ODwyer archives will reveal more than 4,000 stories and editorials about PRSA. It has never been able to refute any of our coverage although it has tried to block it for many years.
Because of our detailed coverage of PRSA, including failed efforts since 1999 to let any member run for national office rather than just the 18% who are Accredited, the Society has for many years refused to deal with us. The board voted its first boycott in 1999 but rescinded it the next year after member complaints. But the boycott was re-instituted around 2005 and continues even though the National Press Club and others have urged PRSA not to do this.
So the ODwyer Co. is being punished for doing just what journalists are supposed to do, provide close coverage of any subject. The other PR trades are deemed neutral and reliable when their coverage of the Society has been sparse.
The ODwyer Co. is not getting fair treatment from WP.
I attended at the beginning of 2011 an anniversary celebration of WP at New York University. I stayed for about two hours and met many Wikipedians including administrator David Goodman. I have invited him to come to our offices and see some of the documentation that we have.
WP says it does not carry documents but one of the links in the PRSA article is to the bylaws of the Society. That is an example of inconsistency and I could cite many more. For instance, it has removed a link to a legal opinion in which I was praised for reporting what Dean Rotbart had told the 1993 annual conference of PRSA. The link was number 57 and was to Current Legal Issues in Publishing. In the article, Jane Kirtley of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press praised the ODwyer Co. and me for establishing that reporters have the right to cover each other and anything that is given in a public place.
WP has removed two links favorable to me and the sources now add up to eight that are negative to me including seven that are linked and one positive one to me that is linked. I am losing 8-1.
I am hoping for fairness and justice from WP.
Cordially, Opjack271 ( talk) 18:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Jack ODwyer
Although I am the primary author of the PRSA article that O'Dwyer finds deplorable, I had offered to assist him in making a cogent and concise argument for his position.
His main premise is that the current section about his dispute with the PRSA portrays it as a "dispute" rather than a "journalist covering the news." The "dispute" portrayal is reflective of what is available in secondary sources, but he contests that those sources are O'Dwyer competitors. Additionally, many of the PR mags cited are "PR booster" publications with sympathetic viewpoints towards organizations like PRSA, especially since a large portion of their advertising revenues likely come from PRSA members.
I do not necessarily support this view, but I am making an effort to better articulate his viewpoint, so he can get a more meaningful response from other editors. Per WP:COI he has not been making any direct edits to the article and his identity is disclosed. Corporate 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Can a doctor who is basing their opinion on newspaper reports, quoted in a newspaper, be cited as a reliable source for making a claim about whether or not a particular treatment would have resulted in a successful outcome? as this content used in this article Death of Savita Halappanavar -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Are either of the following sources reliable for the following contested statements at The 40-Year-Old Virgin. "The film was criticized by Harry Forbes of Catholic News Service for promoting "the false premise that there's something intrinsically wrong with an unmarried man being sexually inexperienced", [28] and by conservative columnist Cal Thomas for not being a "tribute to self-control or purity. [29]
Another editor has removed the entire paragraph with the following edit summary: "Removed irrelevant minority opinion on mainstream movie. This reference provides a skewed and partisan reflection on the film's reception." I can certainly understand the editors point, I'm just not sure what wiki policy says on including criticism from sources such as these. Freikorp ( talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia WP:RULES call for reliable secondary sourcing. Secondary sourcing is important because we are supposed to leave the determination of what is or is not notable enough to comment on up to others, experts in their fields. The columns of individual commentators are primary sources for the opinions of those individuals. Ideally there should be some other independent reliable source that makes mention of Forbes and Thomas to show that their opinions hold weight and are noteworthy enough to include. The commentators that are in the article--Ebert & Roeper, Entertainment Weekly (Gleiberman) and Dargis (NY Times)--are nationally recognized and widely cited. You can prove this to yourself by, for example, searching Google News for and you get dozens (Gleiberman) to over 100 (Ebert, Dargis) results. If you do the same test with Cal Thomas you get zero results. Thomas isn't even in the business of reviewing movies, so it's hard to see how his opinion would be notable enough to include. On the other hand, Harry Forbes is a professional movie reviewer with mainstream news credentials. However, the same Google test shows no results either--I was actually surprised to find that. Without support in reliable sources to show the notability of the opinions of those individual commentators, I can't see a good argument for keeping them in the article.
Think of it this way: if a non-notable (according to generally-accepted reliable sources) Catholic commentator's opinion were allowed to stay, then why not the opinions of specialist Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Mormon commentators too, plus the opinions published by columnists hosted on the websites of Cat Fanciers, Bronies, the Flat Earth society, the Steamfitter's Union, etc.? We need to look to reliable secondary sources to determine whose opinions are notable. Hope this is helpful...
Zad
68
03:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
http://beforeitsnews.com/about/ states:
Seems to be more an open wiki than anything else. The main plus is that they have an editorial policy http://beforeitsnews.com/editorial/ . I didn't see anything about the site in the archives. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Of course not, nor is the GeorgiaTraveller website. But a new(?) editor insists he can use them, see [30] and remove reliable sources that disagree. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. I'm struggling with this editor who is adding badly worded and usually unsourced edits to various articles, eg [31] and various other edits. Dougweller ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A dispute is going on at Talk:Sherry Chayat whether or not The Shimano Archive can be used as a reliable source.
2. Aricle: Sherry Chayat - see also Talk:Sherry Chayat
3. Content:
On August 20th, 2012, Sherry Chayat wrote to Jeff Shore, a Professor at Hanazono University, the Rinzai Zen university associated with the Rinzai head temple, Myoshin-ji, asking him to find out whether the rumors that her teacher, Eido Shimano, was not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa Roshi, were true. Professor Shore researched her question, and wrote to Ms. Chayat on October 6th, 2012, saying, "I have checked into it here in Japan. Eido Shimano is indeed not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa. I trust this answers your question." Professor Shore added, in response to another email from Ms. Chayat on October 7th, 2012, that, "If so, then you realize that there are no legitimate "successors" to Eido, and that their role as teachers of Rinzai Zen is null and void."
4. Additional info:
The first group of documents in the Eido Roku™ files became available on August 21, 2008 and they were distributed to a number of scholars, investigators, Zen clerics and students worldwide. These documents were a part of the Aitken Archives in the University of Hawai'i and have been authenticated by University archivist Lynn Ann Davis. With the permission of Aitken Rōdaishi, Kobutsu Malone published these Aiken-Shimano archives on the Internet in March 2010. Subsequently, many more documents have been added to the collection.(source: The Shimano Archive
SZ: Yeah, what has been your, let’s call it ethical approach, towards maintaining the Shimano archives? Do you strive for a level of neutrality in your work?
KM: I can tell you one thing, I have struggled mightily not to editorialize in the Archives. But it’s a failing in some respects, because, I mean I do choose what goes up there and what doesn’t, and you know, when you look at it, you know, there’s some snide comments here and there, and there are some unflattering photographs, and so on, and so forth. Yes…
But I try to minimize that, and, yet again, I also need to be able to speak somewhat freely; but I’ve tried to keep myself out of it. It’s a difficult balancing act because I’m so, so incredibly personally involved, and I, you know, I’ve been hurt through the damage that has been done to my family members, to myself, to my friends, to other students, and to people that I’ve witnessed over many, many years of damage that resulted from ‘Shimano-ism’ – the personality culture that he, uh, perpetuated. And I see it as incredibly damaging, and I think it’s done far more damage than it has good. I can unreservedly state: that I think Shimano has damaged far more people than he has, uh, assisted. Yes…
SZ: What’s your main concern in all this? Do you worry that he will reassert himself as a teacher somehow again, or be reinstalled again at Zen Studies Society ?
KM: I see that as a concrete possibility, yes.
SZ: What do you think the reaction would be to that?
KM: Well, given the reaction of the Buddhist community, I mean, everybody wants to be so, quote, “Buddhist,” unquote, that nobody’s going to stand up and say, “Hey, what the fuck is going on here?” I mean, the initial offering on the Shimano Archive was distributed to all three of the Buddhist glossies. I think it was distributed twice to individual magazines. And there was a deafening silence. No response. No one did anything. No one followed up on it. They ignored it.
SZ: So you feel they didn’t want to touch it?
KM: They didn’t want to touch it. It was handed, I handed it to the New York Times, and not just myself, but in the past others approached various publications and tried to expose the situation. One in particular was Robin Westen …
SZ: In the “Village Voice”, is that right?
KM: Well, I think there was another… I think ‘The New Yorker’ was approached, and I think, finally, it was the ‘Village Voice,’ and they were afraid of a lawsuit. And that was understandable, because basically, she was coming in with a very specific set of allegations; and the thing with specific allegations is that you can always deny them.
SZ: Sure. Especially if it happened years ago, you know?
KM: Yeah: “These are just allegations, these people are crazy, this is revenge, this is whatever, blah, blah, blah…” That can go on; but the one thing that I have managed to do with the Archive, and it wasn’t just Robert Aitken, his material was really the seed that started of the Archive; … on his suggestion that I go totally public with it, initially I had reservations, and people said “ Oh, you’re gonna get sued!”
And, you know, I pointed out ”Well, be that as it may, I have no assets.” You know, given my health situation, I live off a Social Security Disability check, and I have no savings, zero, nothing. I’ve got a few books and some tools, and my dog Harley and a fourteen-year-old car. What are you gonna do, take that away from me?
Um, actually, you can. But there are certain things you can sue people for…to file a lawsuit against somebody it’s got to be worth your while…
SZ: Sure. You have to have some validity to your case; otherwise, you might just end up paying the person you tried to sue.
KM: The thing is with Shimano and with the Zen Studies Society, given the amount of information that I had, and the fact that I made it public immediately pretty much, it was no longer just a set of allegations: it was a mountain of allegations. And, you know, allegation after allegation after allegation; and pretty soon, when you read it all, and you begin to get the picture and it comes through loud and clear. And that’s what’s happened with it; people have recognized the volume is just enormous! (source: Kobutsu Malone interview at SweepingZen)
Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Hi, my two cents. As Kobutsu Malone says above, The New York Times reports this incident. It is surely a reliable source. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone recently added this reference to the second paragraph of the "Martial arts career" section of Frank Dux, presumably to back up the "disputed by Dux" part. Someone else removed it, saying the source is dubious. I've checked the talk page and can't see why he thinks this (I may have missed it). I believe it's only fair, per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, to include both sides of Dux's story, not just the side calling bullshit on him. But, if this is an unreliable source, it obviously can't be used. Thoughts? InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Good Morning America a reliable source? I'm sure it must depend...but my memory from having seen GMA in the states is that it's not a serous news show--more of a series of human interest stories prone to editorializing and dramatizing. The specific article in question is [33], being used to verify the statement,
has been described as "the largest bat rescue center on the planet".
on Bat World Sanctuary. A COI editor has pointed out that this is very unlikely to be true, given the relatively small size of this location and a site that she claims is listed in Guineess as having 10,000 times more bats. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, my post is here regarding some of the links highlighted in the External links section of the above article here. I have added them here one by one.
My question is that how reliable are these so called websites? They look like fan-sites with their varied interpretations of the song, so just asking my fellow editors to guide me in their reliability. Thanks — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
I would appreciate some uninvolved input to resolve a dispute about a source at Ian Stevenson. It concerns whether an article by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu has been removing it and the material it supports. [34] [35] Discussion here. Ian Stevenson (1918–2007) was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who devoted his life to interviewing children who claimed to have past-life memories. Several philosophers are interested in his research, because it has implications for the mind-body problem, namely whether it makes sense to think of consciousness existing independently of a brain. One philosopher who has written about this is Robert Almeder, author of Beyond Death: Evidence for Life After Death (Charles C Thomas, 1987) and Death and Personal Survival (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992). Almeder is supportive of Stevenson, arguing that no one knows whether consciousness can exist without a brain. Against this is the philosopher Paul Edwards (1923–2004) of the New School of Social Research, who devotes a chapter in his Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (Prometheus Books, 1996) to criticism of Stevenson, and to Almeder's arguments in support of him.
In 1997 Almeder published a response to Edwards in "A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11(4), 1997, pp. 499–526. I have used this article as a source for Almeder's definition of what he calls the "minimalist reincarnation hypothesis" in the second paragraph of of this section in the Stevenson article. See extended content below for the paragraph.
The definition is not contentious, and no one has objected to it. But there are objections to the use of this article as a source because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The editor-in-chief of this journal is another philosopher, Stephen E. Braude, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. [36] The journal is regarded by some editors as not an RS for anything, because it is not peer-reviewed (the journal says it is peer-reviewed, the editors say it is not; I don't know which is true), and because it specializes in anomalies (parapsychology, etc).
My argument in favour of using this article as a source is as follows:
I am currently using this article only as a source for Almeder's definition. However, I am thinking of extending the Stevenson article to say more about Edwards's arguments against Stevenson and Almeder, and Almeder's rebuttal of those arguments. The rebuttal is in the article that people are objecting to. I would therefore like to be allowed to use this one article as a source in the Stevenson article. I feel the need to add that I don't myself believe in reincarnation, but I find it interesting that a psychiatrist spent so many years researching it, and I would like us to have a decent article on him. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Discussion
It's not to be seen as a source that just happens not to be peer-reviewed. JSE is a pseudo-journal. Nothing in it is reliable for factual claims in the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy or humanities. However, it may be reliable as a primary source for what proponents of fringe theories assert. Even then, mainstream analysis of the fringe theories, e.g. by a sociologist of science, a media analyst, even a respected commentator in the mainstream press would be preferable. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Essence of the argumentWhat some editors are arguing here is that if Robert Almeder, an academic who has been published independently in this field before, had written the same essay in a journal they approved of, it would be an RS. If he had published exactly the same words on his blog, it would be an RS (per WP:SELFPUB, which is policy). But the same words from the same academic are not an RS if published in the Scientific Journal of Exploration. That seems irrational. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would prevent things going round in further circles to point out that the text inserted into the article doesn't seem to be a correct representation of the source in any case.
The problem being that Almeder gives that definition on page 502 of the source, but he doesn't say anything that implies it is associated with Stevenson. It is just Almeder's own defintion. In fact, it seems somewhat at odds with Stevenson's view of reincarnation. Almeder's minimal version talks about "irreducible traits of human personality" being passed from person to person - i.e. something purely psychological. But, as can be seen from the WP article, one of Stevenson's main claims is that people get birthmarks where their past selves had scars - i.e. something bodily. Formerip ( talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Example of the kind of thing the source is needed forHere is one example. Edwards highlights a Stevenson case study that he regards as very weak, and presents it as a reason not to trust Stevenson's methods. I have added that case to the article here. In his essay, Almeder argues that Edwards has misrepresented Stevenson, that it is not a typical case, and that he took the description from the wrong book, not the original one where the case was written up properly. Now, even though I could see that myself from Stevenson's work, I can't write that opinion without it being OR. But if I'm also not allowed to source the material to an academic making the same point, it leaves the article POV and misleading. So if Almeder is not allowed, that example from Edwards should be removed. But if I try to remove it, I'll be reverted, because it makes Stevenson look bad, and so the editors who don't like him will want to keep it. This is what I mean by being asked to edit with one arm tied behind my back. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:PARITY does not say that. These responses miss two points that I keep trying to highlight, because they are crucial, and I'd appreciate it if you could address them.
Publication sequence
Reply to Blueboar – I think I have the Edwards-Almeder publishing sequence about reincarnation in order now. Edwards and Almeder discussed Stevenson in the following, and in several discussed each other, or their disagreement about Stevenson was discussed by a third (academic) party.
It is number 10 that we're discussing here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thought experiment for DominusDominus, you say on your user page that you have a background in microbiology. So imagine this scenario:
Suppose you were writing a Wikipedia article on Smith's new idea, and you wrote to him and said: "For heaven's sake, please tell me why you published that last paper in Really Weird Little Magazine?" And he replied that he could have published it anywhere, but he likes Really Weird Little Magazine and he thinks there are sometimes good things in it. And he doesn't care what other people think about the place of publication, because he has reached a point in his career where he doesn't have to care about things like that. Add that Jones has died to rule out any BLP complications. Would you seriously use only 1–4 as sources, but not 5, no matter what 5 said? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Response from the authorI made Professor Almeder aware of this discussion a few days ago, and we've exchanged a few emails about it. He has given me permission to summarize and quote from the correspondence. Regarding the journal, he wrote:
Note that I haven't seen Almeder's exchange with Steven Hales in Philosophia, but if Hales addressed the 1997 essay in his paper(s), that deals with the objection that there was no academic response to it. Almeder went on to say that he wanted in the 1997 essay to clarify the minimalist conception of reincarnation because Edwards seemed to conflate all reincarnationist views with religious belief and superstition. He also wrote:
He added that the editor who is opposing his work (I assume he meant Dominus, but this could apply to anyone) should feel free to contact him directly with his reasons. If anyone wants to do that, please email me and I'll pass on the details. He also pointed out that he has written a chapter, "The Major Objections from Reductive Materialism Against Belief in the Existence of Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism", in Alexander Moreira-Almeida and Franklin Santana Santos, Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Relationship, Springer 2011, pp. 16–33 (reincarnation discussed on pp. 21–22, 24, 32). I hope this further addresses the issue of whether he has expertise in this area. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
This has become so long that uninvolved editors may be reluctant to comment, so this is a summary. The policy question is whether reliability invariably rests with the publication, or whether it can also rest with the author. Sorry for banging on about it, but we sometimes need to cite experts who published in odd places (or self-published) in the interests of NPOV.
I would like to use this essay by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy, as a source for our biography of Ian Stevenson (not a BLP). Stevenson was a psychiatrist who interviewed children who claimed to have lived before. Almeder's essay is a response to another philosopher, Paul Edwards, who devoted a chapter of a book to criticism of Stevenson. I would like to include the criticism and the response. Both philosophers had published several times before about Ian Stevenson and each other. See the publishing sequence above.
The argument against using the essay is that Almeder published it in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which deals with parapsychology and similar issues. The argument for is that WP:V says reliability can rest with the author:
If we can use self-published sources when the author is an expert, we should be able to apply the same expert exemption to an essay published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. See the author's statement about this in the section above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A previous discussion on this noticeboard about this journal concluded that it is an RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact. During the current discussion, the opinion of involved editors (those already on article talk) was:
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 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 |
Electronic Intifada is being discussed above, but Soosim has also removed references to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in the Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud article, which is a reliable source for the facts being presented, and whose opinion would be notable and worth including even if it were only an opinion. Some think these facts are inconvenient, but none of the facts referenced are controversial, and are backed up by other reliable sources. To my knowledge, no one has denied the claims. And if they do, the source should not be removed, rather it should be made clear that this is the position of the PCHR. Until then, it can be stated as fact, but either way the source should not be removed. Mr G ( talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the Capital Press a Reliable Source for an article about ranch owner Frank L. VanderSloot and his activities? I maintain that it is, but User:Rhode Island Red and User:RobertRosen maintain that it is not. Capital Press is both a newspaper and a website. It also sends out newsletters. It covers agriculture in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. It engages in trade journalism. You can buy the paper edition on newsstands, as shown on this map. You can get a job there, if you are so interested. It's published by the East Oregonian Publishing Company. More info is at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Cheese_factory. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory. [1] [2] Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, [1] and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods. [3] [2]
In 1994, VanderSloot was approached by Firth, Idaho, dairy farmer Gaylen Clayson with a plea to invest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho, after Kraft Foods had announced a decision to close it. In response, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the plant, which closed anyway within six months, after an investment company assumed control. Dairymen crowded into a local meeting hall afterward to make another plea to VanderSloot, who thereupon paid off a $2 million debt owed to the dairymen, staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows. [1] [3] He later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties. "My business is Melaleuca and that's what I need to pay attention to," he said. [1] In 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods. [4]
Collect, the point of going to the noticeboards is to get unbiased input from editors outside the fray. You are very much inside the fray, and your accusation about contentious cavils does not move us any closer towards resolution. The content and the source are what's at issue here. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Capital Press is the 10th largest NEWSPAPER in Oregon. [5] It has an audited circulation of 35,582. [6] Can we agree that it is Reliable? (The other remarks by RIR should really be handled on the Talk Page or on another NoticeBoard.) Is this a fair summation? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
This keeps getting reverted from Brandon Teena by the same person. Apparently the subject's mother is not a reliable source for causes of transgenderism and therefore shouldn't be in the article: She also said that her child's transgenderism was a defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self: "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her." - http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,85098,00.html As this is a biography article and not a medical one, then I think that reason is ridiculous. Zaalbar ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion: The source itself, EW, is adequate. The story itself comes from the AP, which is generally considered reliable. The same AP story was also picked up by the Guardian, which is also considered reliable. See The Guardian article.
However, the source cited does not support all the proposed content. The source cited only supports the direct quote from the mother. It does not support the claims "her child's transgenderism was a
defense mechanism that was developed in response to
childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self" as the source cited does not mention transgenderism, a defense mechanism, or the idea that the transgenderism was in respone to childhood sexual abuse. These are all very contentious claims and support for these claims is not found in the source cited. Either excellent sourcing needs to be found for these claims, or these claims should be removed from the article until such sourcing can be found. Content like "Ms. Brandon said, 'She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her.'" would be supported by the source.
Zad
68
19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing the Guardian article does is add a little bit of the article author's own interpretation of the mother's words. "Gender bending" isn't a term medical professionals use, and it would be a misrepresentation of the source to attempt to take the Guardian article author's interpretation of the mother's words regarding her daughter, and use it to support the very definitive-sounding content proposed--"A
defense mechanism that was developed in response to
childhood sexual abuse" sounds like something read off a psychiatrist's report; the mother's quote doesn't support that.
Zad
68
20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm also looking at how this same story was reported in other sources:
People,
Philly.com. Of the four sources I found (EW, Guardian, People, Philly), all report that Ms. Brandon said she was angry the film did not mention that Brandon Teena was molested. Only two seem to make some sort inference that Ms. Brandon meant that it was, in the opinion of the mother, the cause of Brandon's change: Guardian says "an event to which she attributes her daughter's gender-bending", Philly juxtaposes "She said Teena Brandon began dressing in men's clothing and dating women" next to the sentence. In my opinion, the sources can be used to explain why the mother was angry, but should not be used to go as far as to also say that the mother felt that the molestation caused the change. Better sourcing would be needed for that. Can you find a longer interview with the mother, where she gives more detail? Without that, I would not feel comfortable using these sources to include content along this line.
Zad
68
20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Metalwani.com is a website which reviews and gives coverage to metal music. However, there has not been proper discussion as to whether or not it meets the guidelines set forth by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. A user by the name of Mpdt ( talk · contribs) kept adding reviews from the website, and made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his/her additions, despite repeated attempts at discussions from editors such as myself. An edit like this is just about the typical edit from Mpdt. This person carried out his act of ignoring by deleted the notices from his talk page. The Mpdt account was blocked indefinitely for this behavior. Ever since then, accounts such as Stonedjesus ( talk · contribs) and the curiously named PortnoyMike ( talk · contribs), who is probably not Mike Portnoy needless to say, have added mentions of Metal Wani to Wikipedia. While the latter two are new accounts, both with fewer than seven edits as of this post, neither of them have discussed how and why Metal Wani is relevant as per REVSITE. The website appears to be run by one person, who happens to be an admirer of Mike Portnoy (as said before, there was a PortnoyMike account promoting Metal Wani on Wikipedia). This information is revealed in the "Who Am I" section of the website. It might be safe to say that metalwani.com can be listed under non-professional reviews for REVSITE, but I would like to gather some input from other individuals instead of adding it on my own volition right now. Thank you. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 09:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like feedback on this source for the Frank L. VanderSloot BLP: http://www.frankvanderslootresponse.com/att-general.html
This website has been established as VanderSloot's by reliable sources. I'd like to say something like, "In 2012, VanderSloot released what he said was a letter from the Idaho Attorney General that called into question some of Greenwald's claims." Andrew ( talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Andrew's question was nicely, politely worded, and I suppose he has his answer by now: No. We should all look for a RS where VDS has responded to the charges against him, and then we could use these other two citations as backup. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a section on using commercial websites or sites of businesses as refs? How about non-for-profit organizations? If I were to cite a fact on the non-profit organization GPTMC would that be permitted? I'm sorry if somewhere somebody talks about this, but I couldn't find it.-- 69.119.249.56 ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP. LittleBen ( talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I would like to state that the above song is one of my special songs and I would like to develop its article further. Well, generally song articles require info about their background, recording etc and a famous song like this one would require so. Now in the article at the end, there are many links to different interpretations of the song. My question to RSN is are those links reliable? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/.
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
(a.) Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.” Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.
(b.) VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran attack ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann. Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.
(c.) VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues
(d.) Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues
(e.) According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and other legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones Magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang. Frank_L._VanderSloot#Defamation_lawsuit_threats
Comment: The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article Glenn is not writing as a journalist (note his non-journalist assertion that VanderSloot "has a history of virulent anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)," but he is a partisan commentator. 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#47302840
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
"Three op-eds published by the Wall Street Journal criticized the campaign's treatment of VanderSloot and other top Romney donors.[95][91][96] The critiques, two of which were authored by Wall Street Journal contributor Kimberley Strassel, were disputed by Rachel Maddow,[97] Lewiston Morning Tribune editor Marty Trillhaase,[98] and David Shere of Media Matters for America.[99]"
"VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from commentators and gay-rights advocates.[11][40][100][97][101][102][103][104]"
"According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang.[40][97]"
Note: Please also address the copyright issue. I am posting a referral at the Copyright Notice Board.
Reliable source. Is Rachel Maddow a WP:Reliable source? Can what her show reports be considered Reliable in Wikipedia terms? Sometimes her show is Good Reporting, and sometimes it is Commentary. Should WP make a distinction, based upon which hat she is wearing? Her show often casts negative aspersions on living people: Does that aspect of her show negate using her as a Reliable Source?
Copyright. RM's television show is copyrighted. Because of the copyright, can we link to it in the way that this article has — that is, simply as a source for the sentence, phrase or paragraph to which it refers?
I'm not making an argument one way or the other here because I really want to know what how noninvolved editors see this, and also I am pretty much confused by the rules about linking to copyrighted material, because there was a big kerfluffle on the VanderSloot page a few weeks ago about linking to another copyrighted video, which link was eventually eliminated at the insistence of an uninvolved editor that it violated the [[WP:BLP}} policy. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC).
An IP editor added a statement regarding Lucca Comics & Games, on the San Diego Comic Con article using a blog as the reference for the change. Is this blog a reliable source?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. THe text in question is as follows:
State Rep. Jim Buchy (R-OH) gave an interview with Al Jazeera . The reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want to have an abortion. He stated, "Well, there’s probably a lot of — I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get — some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never — It’s a question I have never thought about." These comments were picked up nationally, including by the Rachel Maddow Show. [1] [2] [3] [4]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
The sources in question are Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's Show, and Al Jazera. The current conversation on the talk page can be found here. Relevant conversations for Al Jazera can be found Here and here . One discussion I found for Think Progress can be found here here.
Thanks in advance. Casprings ( talk) 22:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI; TWO parts to this. The first, as Casprings was told on the Article page, is that there is a transcript/video/story on Al Jazeera where this candidate responded to a question. That is fact, and Casprings has been told that the fact that it was said satisfies WP:RS on several bases, but that this clip from the interview was not in any way notable, by WP:RS. The second part is, is the expansion of this clip to state in WP's voice through a whole section on the candidate's "rape controversy" that he actually meant x or y, when he clearly made a half-hearted attempt to answer and then said, I don't know. THOSE can only be attributed to the other refs. The real question is if you can take that the attack blogs SAID this is a controversy as fact not opinion, can this be said without attribution as to opinion, and whether erecting a section which just states (actually pretty hyperbolic) commentary/attacks of what he "might" have meant is sufficiently notable to overcome WP:BLP concerns as a WP:RS. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 14:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Franklin Mint was a marketer of "mass-market collectibles" including "coins" or medallions, ceramic plates, books, and die-cast miniature automobiles. Much of the content has appeared to be ads or perhaps fancruft mostly about the die-cast cars. Are the following sources considered reliable in this context? I've added commercial pages from the websites after the * (because I don't think commercial sites are in general reliable sources)
Current, Jenny. No date. Met Collectibles / Toys. Hoosier Met Website dedicated to Nash Metropolitans. [14]
Flickr Reitwagen. 2012. Franklin Mint's Daimler Reitwagen. Flickr photo gallery. [15]
Johnson, Dana. 1998. Collector's Guide to Diecast Toys and Scale Models, Second Edition. Padukah, Kentucky: Collector Books, A Division of Schroeder Publishing. ISBN 1-57432-041-6.
JSS Software. 2012. The Franklin Mint Diecast Model Library. Independent diecast database website dedicated to reviews of diecast models. [16]
Olson, Randall. 2007. GM in Miniature. Dorcester, England: Veloce Publishing. ISBN:978-1-84584-156-0.
These sources are used to support statements like
"One website reviewing Franklin Mint vehicles points out that though the lines of the 1:24 scale 1948 Tucker were "clean and precise" the model suffered from unrealistic thick hinges, window plastic 'glass' correct in some places but lacking in others, and misplacement of steering wheel and other interior parts (JSS Software 2012)."
Smallbones( smalltalk) 06:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite}}
) to make it more obvious which part of the article is using which reference.G'day, I am wondering about "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 0810872021, and whether Scarecrow Press can be considered a reliable publisher. Does anyone have any information that would help? This [17] indicates that the book was originally from Penn State. Assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am just starting with Wikipedia, and wanted to know if a musician's official web site is considered a reliable source for information about them, especially when it comes to basic bio info, like where/when the person was born, and where they went to school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusiclady ( talk • contribs)
The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. The map of Israel shows the West Bank simply as Samaria and Judea. The map notes that both Samaria and Judea were Under Jordanian Rule Until 1967.[10] The website notes that the Board of Deputies is the official elected representative roof-body of the Jewish Community in New South Wales,..[11]/
To my knowledge, no one else has commented on the opinion of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Could i make a the point that I am not commenting on the article at all? I am just noting what it contains. I think there is a distinction. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
All
There are at least two possible objections to what I have done:-
This is a matter of judgement.
Even to have given the possible explanations might have amounted to Original Research: I refrained from doing so. In answer to Fifelfoo, I gave the simplest reading of the map possible. If my reading is wrong, please tell me. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
At Osorkon III David Rohl ( talk · contribs) added a paper written by him and Peter James saying that "The identification of HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III was first proposed by David Rohl and Peter James in a paper published in 1982". I reverted this as COI and as needing an independent source stating that they were the first. Rohl reverted me [19] with the edit summary "Please do not undo an edit until you can demonstrate that it is factually incorrect. The additions to the article are published and verifiable." I don't think we can use an author as a reliable source that the author was the first to do anything. I'm also not convinced that a "Sis Workshop" paper, published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies is a reliable source in any case for this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the one with the circular reasoning Cyclopia. It is not the task of an inventor or discoverer or composer to prove that no-one came up with his invention, discovery or composition before him. That is a nonsense. It is up to the person challenging primacy to produce contrary evidence predating publication. An inventor patents his invention on a particular date. In doing so he does not have to prove primacy. A discoverer publishes his findings and his work is copyrighted. He does not have to prove primacy. A composer writes a piece of music and has it published and copyrighted. He does not have to prove that no-one came up with the tune before him. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Rohl published an article in an academic journal (a verifiable source, which was fully referenced and which complied with all Wiki critera for verifiability) arguing the evidence for the discovery of a new pharaoh. This was confirmed by another scholar several years later (a reference to this was given in the Wiki article dealing with this new pharaoh). An editor of Wikipedia then removes all mention of Rohl's work from the Wikipedia article dealing with the discovery of this new pharaoh and, in doing so, credits the discovery to the secondary scholar who had confirmed Rohl's discovery. The original Wikipedia article had mentioned Rohl's primacy but the later editor chose to remove that reference written by a Wikipedia author/editor independent of Rohl who had read the secondary scholar's article giving Rohl primacy. As a result, Rohl's discovery is deliberately and knowingly suppressed by Wikipedia. Who is in the wrong here? David Rohl ( talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
David emailed me a proposed amendment to Sheshonk IV which I have posted at Talk:Sheshonk IV#Rewrite suggested by David Rohl. I hope this can be worked out without any further ado. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A user has removed a line from the article on Art Pope which reads
Additionally, during the same year, the John William Pope Foundation donated $1.35 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, [1] the sister group [2] of the conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity. [3] [4] [5]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
as a violation of WP:SYNTH. I have argued that this is not synth because the first source ("The John William Pope Foundation, headed by North Carolina multimillionaire Art Pope, gave the Americans for Prosperity Foundation $1.35 million in 2010.") establishes the bulk of the sentence, while the other sources only add additional details -- that AfPF is the sister group of AfP, and that it's a conservative political action group. However, there is very little activity on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate more eyes on the issue. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Grand Comics Database a reliable source?
I am concerned because it is being used to verify claims on BLPs. For example, in Al Gordon (comics),
In 1982, Gordon left Marvel for DC Comics to ink writer-penciler-co-creator Scott Shaw and fill-in penciler Stan Goldberg on the funny-animal superhero series Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew. In 1983, Gordon did a year-and-a-half run at the independent Eclipse Comics, inking Will Meugniot on Will and Mark Evanier's The DNAgents, as well as inking Rick Hoberg for the company's spin-off series Surge and its anthology Eclipse Monthly.
Afterward, he returned to Marvel to become the regular inker on the company's flagship series Fantastic Four, and on the science-fiction adventure limited series Rocket Raccoon (with Mike Mignola penciling). Other work around this time includes issues of The Eternals and Power Pack, and Marvel's licensed series Thundercats and Transformers.
Freelancing once again for DC, Gordon in 1987 began inking Kevin Maguire while working with plotter/thumbnail artist Keith Giffen on Justice League International. Two years later, Gordon, this time inking Giffen, also began cowriting with Giffen and Tom and Mary Bierbaum for DC's revamped Legion of Super Heroes. Gordon took over the complete writing and scripting chores for issues #21 though 24 (Aug. 1991), while continuing to ink Giffen.
In 1992 he began adapting a childhood creation citation needed, WildStar, with Jerry Ordway for creator-owned company Image Comics. WildStar: Sky Zero was the title of the miniseries that was written, inked, edited (with the help of Bud Shakespeare) and produced by Gordon, and penciled by Jerry Ordway. There was also a continuing WildStar series started with penciler Chris Marrinan.
At the time of writing, all of that information is referenced only to GCD, here [22].
I am concerned that it is not appropriate to reference info on living people to that source.
Shaz0t ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Shaz0t's entire purpose here is to harm the encyclopedia by using our policies as weapons against us. I don't know if the motivation is simply to fuck with "the man" (as Wikipedia has become, as the primary source of online information), the furtherance of anarchy, or an adolescent thrill with messing around with important shit, but it would behoove us to take editors such as this into our consideration as we discuss the future of Wikipedia....
I remember when I learned, much to my frustration, that we couldn't use CBDB as a source because its info was user-generated. I assumed the same was of Grand CDB, but was then told by someone (I don't remember who or when) that it was okay, because Grand was not UG. Now I'm seeing that some people here are saying it's not reliable. So is it or isn't it? Betty Rose says that it's "clearly along similar lines to IMDB", but the mission statement that she quotes from Grand CDB doesn't make it user-generated. It's whether its info is restricted to a staff of editors. (And more generally to IRS, whether it's considered an authoritative, reliable source by the industry.) So is it? This is important, because Tenebrae says that it shouldn't be used for info on anything other than itself, yet there are scores of comics-related articles, including BLPs, that indicate Grand as a reference, often in the References section without any inline citations. Nightscream ( talk) 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's take this from a policy point of view (using WP:RS at least as a guide), and also in comparison to other reference works.
I'd like to hear how GCD may differ from any encyclopedia (or other compendium of information) that we might use as a reference. And also how it may be the same as any encyclopedia we might reference. Please list the specifics. - jc37 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Several new users that may be unaware of this board keep asserting that Time Magaizines award for The 100 Most Influential People award to Bunker Roy is not a reliable source for claims in the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy about the number of students who have attended the programs and the training they have received. They have been requested to bring their concerns here, but they must not have known where it was and so instead have inserted their concerns using lots of individual tags on the article and have used the talk page to give in exhaustive detail multiple times to state that they did not believe that we should use Time as a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
OK another editor has appeared claiming that it is "just an essay" and not supported by Time's fact checking authority. Can someone please weigh in? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Source:
Article: A Congressman's (or Congressmen's) profile.
Content: Would those be reliable sources? I was thinking of using the two articles as a source to show a bill the certain Congressmen had introduced?
The article might say: "The Congressman has introduced a bill that some say are an attempt to rollback the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Thanks. ─ Matthewi ( Talk) • 04:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments
I'm currently participating in an AfD discussion for a theater ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Peers Theater (2nd nomination)). My issue is this: I interpret "multiple sources" to mean that the sources must be from different avenues and that multiple reports from one source (magazine/paper type) do not show a depth of coverage. I am aware that very rarely you will have a situation where one source can show notability, such as someone doing something overwhelmingly notable that would keep an article in and of itself, but typically that source is not a magazine posting multiple theater reviews. The other editor believes that multiple reviews from one source (Pittsburgh Magazine, in this instance) establishes notability for the subject. I would really appreciate some input on this and if I'm correct, for someone to please confirm this in the AfD. I simply do not think that one magazine is enough for notability, no matter how many times they report on something. I'm also curious as to whether or not theater reviews are enough to establish notability for a theater. The theater is mentioned as the place the performances are taking place, but there are no sources that actually cover the theater itself or its launching, which is troubling. Any assistance on this would be helpful. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In the deletion discussion over the Palestinian incitement page, I pointed out that articles by the Jerusalem Post and the Israeli government were not likely to provide objective information about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Plot Spoiler objected, and suggested I bring up the problem here.
The Post articles in question may be viewed here, here, here, and here; at least the ones that were on the Internet. As for these three sources (oddly, the third one doesn't seem to come up all the time).
As examples of how these quotes are used, I quote the article:
According to the Israeli government, "There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli or antisemitic incitement and terrorism. The extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society nurtures a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism. The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs, theater and cinema have been mobilized for extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination, which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. This incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive in Palestinian society, particularly in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip."
That is from the opening paragraphs of the opening paragraphs of the article, and cites the Israeli government website. While the sentence is fact -- the government absolutely did say that -- it is the nail in the coffin of the first three paragraphs as pro-Israeli.
According to the document, incitement against Israel is "an integral part of the fabric of life inside the PA. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages are heard regularly in the government and private media and in the mosques and are taught in schools books."
More quoting the government, this time through the Jerusalem Post. I notice they aren't quoting the PLO or Hamas.
In response to a PA television broadcast glorifying the murderers of the Fogel family in the Itamar massacre
I won't say I know much about the Itamar massacre, but the Post article it cites is clearly not unbiased.
CarniCat ( meow) 18:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is similar to the concerns expressed for the Palestinian incitement article in the section above. While we know that things like JPost, Ynetnews, Times of Israel, ect are reliable sources, I feel that for all reliable sources, there are going to be topics that are difficult for them to cover neutrally. This is because the newspapers themselves are too close to the subject. In regards to the current situation in Israel/Gaza, I have argued a couple of times on Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense that we should minimize the use of Pro-Israel or Pro-Hamas sources, such as those listed above, unless they are being used to discuss their own region. We should not use them to discuss the other region, instead relying on truly secondary, outside source coverage.
Really, as a whole, I feel that we should be minimizing the use of any news sources in Gaza or Israel for these topics as much as possible. That would give us the greatest possibility of using and presenting neutral sources. I've had some agreement on the talk page and some disagreement, with those disagreeing saying that reliable sources are always reliable and that I should come here if i'm going to argue otherwise. Silver seren C 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Introducing Social Policy by Pearson Education suitable for this edit [25] Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard:
This is reporter/publisher Jack ODwyer who is questioning the sourcing policies of WP in connection with a 3,300-word entry on Public Relations Society of America that was posted in late October by Corporate Minion.
[I am leaving out apostrophes and quote marks because the away-from-home e-mail program I am using turns apostrophes into question marks] I consider the entry highly biased against me and the Odwyer Co. from the start as evidenced by a cartoon that ran for the first two weeks of the entry that pictured me as a male witch burning PRSA at the stake.
The source for that cartoon was the website of Derek DeVries, an elected delegate of PRSA and hardly a neutral source. Corporate Minion took it down following my complaint. Corporate Minion also corrected many other mistakes including saying there were 19 sections of PRSA when there are only 14. References to PRSA having the most influential awards program (Silver Anvil) were also taken down.
When I challenged a number of the sources for the article (the number got as high as 82 and it is now 65) a number of references to sources and topics were removed. The original word count was cut from 4,697 to the current 3,240. WP has staged a vast retreat on this topic.
A fundamental mistake WP is making, and which plays right into what PRSA tries to say, is that there is some kind of personal feud between the Society and me. For instance, WP says that in 1994 ODwyer had a copyright dispute with PRSA regarding the Societys information package. The PRSA copying practices date back to 1976 according to PRSA itself.
That is misleading and wrong because 12 authors who were illegally copied complained to PRSA which refused to give them a penny or even talk to them. It was not some personal dispute of mine. There is plenty of documentation of this quest of the authors. The Society claimed it was a library and was only charging a loan fee ($18 for members and $55 for non-members). But libraries can only send out single copies of something under strict rules. Only one copy must be in circulation. There must be no commercial advantage either direct or indirect. The notice of copyright must be on every copy sent out. PRSA, distributing about 3,800 packets a year, had multiple copies in circulation at once because it promised 24-hour delivery but let users keep the packets (60-120 pages of materials) for up to three weeks. PRSA was netting about $60,000 a year from this practice according to its own records. What library charges $55 to borrow an article? None of the articles had copyright notices on them. I have a boxful of copied articles from 12 packets that were purchased if only someone from WP would come to our offices.
ODwyer Competitors are Deemed Reliable
My beef with WP about sourcing is that WP regards as neutral and reliable all of our competitors including PR Week U.S. and U.K.; PR Newser website; Bulldog Reporter website; PR News Online website, and Advertising Age.
There are links to articles in all those media criticizing the ODwyer Co. for one thing or another but no links at all to ODwyer articles although we have been covering PRSA and PR subjects since 1968. Only one of the WP links is favorable to the ODwyer Co. The WP policy on sourcing is inconsistent. It quotes the New York Times nine times but only supplies links to five of the articles. A highly favorable mention by the NYT of the ODwyer Co. in which it called the ODwyer Newsletter the bible of PR, was removed after two weeks. I cannot get an explanation for that. I could give you the link to the NYT story but it might get this commentary blocked. I am not putting any links in this piece.
Only the ODwyer Co. has covered 40 PRSA Assemblies in a row until 2011 when not only our reporters, but all reporters were barred from that governing body. PRSA has thus failed to live up to the Public in its name since reporters are part of the public and PRSA had allowed reporters into the Assembly for 40 years.
Only the ODwyer Co. reports the annual and quarterly finances of the Society, something that can be easily sourced. A search of the 12 years of ODwyer archives will reveal more than 4,000 stories and editorials about PRSA. It has never been able to refute any of our coverage although it has tried to block it for many years.
Because of our detailed coverage of PRSA, including failed efforts since 1999 to let any member run for national office rather than just the 18% who are Accredited, the Society has for many years refused to deal with us. The board voted its first boycott in 1999 but rescinded it the next year after member complaints. But the boycott was re-instituted around 2005 and continues even though the National Press Club and others have urged PRSA not to do this.
So the ODwyer Co. is being punished for doing just what journalists are supposed to do, provide close coverage of any subject. The other PR trades are deemed neutral and reliable when their coverage of the Society has been sparse.
The ODwyer Co. is not getting fair treatment from WP.
I attended at the beginning of 2011 an anniversary celebration of WP at New York University. I stayed for about two hours and met many Wikipedians including administrator David Goodman. I have invited him to come to our offices and see some of the documentation that we have.
WP says it does not carry documents but one of the links in the PRSA article is to the bylaws of the Society. That is an example of inconsistency and I could cite many more. For instance, it has removed a link to a legal opinion in which I was praised for reporting what Dean Rotbart had told the 1993 annual conference of PRSA. The link was number 57 and was to Current Legal Issues in Publishing. In the article, Jane Kirtley of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press praised the ODwyer Co. and me for establishing that reporters have the right to cover each other and anything that is given in a public place.
WP has removed two links favorable to me and the sources now add up to eight that are negative to me including seven that are linked and one positive one to me that is linked. I am losing 8-1.
I am hoping for fairness and justice from WP.
Cordially, Opjack271 ( talk) 18:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Jack ODwyer
Although I am the primary author of the PRSA article that O'Dwyer finds deplorable, I had offered to assist him in making a cogent and concise argument for his position.
His main premise is that the current section about his dispute with the PRSA portrays it as a "dispute" rather than a "journalist covering the news." The "dispute" portrayal is reflective of what is available in secondary sources, but he contests that those sources are O'Dwyer competitors. Additionally, many of the PR mags cited are "PR booster" publications with sympathetic viewpoints towards organizations like PRSA, especially since a large portion of their advertising revenues likely come from PRSA members.
I do not necessarily support this view, but I am making an effort to better articulate his viewpoint, so he can get a more meaningful response from other editors. Per WP:COI he has not been making any direct edits to the article and his identity is disclosed. Corporate 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Can a doctor who is basing their opinion on newspaper reports, quoted in a newspaper, be cited as a reliable source for making a claim about whether or not a particular treatment would have resulted in a successful outcome? as this content used in this article Death of Savita Halappanavar -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Are either of the following sources reliable for the following contested statements at The 40-Year-Old Virgin. "The film was criticized by Harry Forbes of Catholic News Service for promoting "the false premise that there's something intrinsically wrong with an unmarried man being sexually inexperienced", [28] and by conservative columnist Cal Thomas for not being a "tribute to self-control or purity. [29]
Another editor has removed the entire paragraph with the following edit summary: "Removed irrelevant minority opinion on mainstream movie. This reference provides a skewed and partisan reflection on the film's reception." I can certainly understand the editors point, I'm just not sure what wiki policy says on including criticism from sources such as these. Freikorp ( talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia WP:RULES call for reliable secondary sourcing. Secondary sourcing is important because we are supposed to leave the determination of what is or is not notable enough to comment on up to others, experts in their fields. The columns of individual commentators are primary sources for the opinions of those individuals. Ideally there should be some other independent reliable source that makes mention of Forbes and Thomas to show that their opinions hold weight and are noteworthy enough to include. The commentators that are in the article--Ebert & Roeper, Entertainment Weekly (Gleiberman) and Dargis (NY Times)--are nationally recognized and widely cited. You can prove this to yourself by, for example, searching Google News for and you get dozens (Gleiberman) to over 100 (Ebert, Dargis) results. If you do the same test with Cal Thomas you get zero results. Thomas isn't even in the business of reviewing movies, so it's hard to see how his opinion would be notable enough to include. On the other hand, Harry Forbes is a professional movie reviewer with mainstream news credentials. However, the same Google test shows no results either--I was actually surprised to find that. Without support in reliable sources to show the notability of the opinions of those individual commentators, I can't see a good argument for keeping them in the article.
Think of it this way: if a non-notable (according to generally-accepted reliable sources) Catholic commentator's opinion were allowed to stay, then why not the opinions of specialist Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Mormon commentators too, plus the opinions published by columnists hosted on the websites of Cat Fanciers, Bronies, the Flat Earth society, the Steamfitter's Union, etc.? We need to look to reliable secondary sources to determine whose opinions are notable. Hope this is helpful...
Zad
68
03:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
http://beforeitsnews.com/about/ states:
Seems to be more an open wiki than anything else. The main plus is that they have an editorial policy http://beforeitsnews.com/editorial/ . I didn't see anything about the site in the archives. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Of course not, nor is the GeorgiaTraveller website. But a new(?) editor insists he can use them, see [30] and remove reliable sources that disagree. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. I'm struggling with this editor who is adding badly worded and usually unsourced edits to various articles, eg [31] and various other edits. Dougweller ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A dispute is going on at Talk:Sherry Chayat whether or not The Shimano Archive can be used as a reliable source.
2. Aricle: Sherry Chayat - see also Talk:Sherry Chayat
3. Content:
On August 20th, 2012, Sherry Chayat wrote to Jeff Shore, a Professor at Hanazono University, the Rinzai Zen university associated with the Rinzai head temple, Myoshin-ji, asking him to find out whether the rumors that her teacher, Eido Shimano, was not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa Roshi, were true. Professor Shore researched her question, and wrote to Ms. Chayat on October 6th, 2012, saying, "I have checked into it here in Japan. Eido Shimano is indeed not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa. I trust this answers your question." Professor Shore added, in response to another email from Ms. Chayat on October 7th, 2012, that, "If so, then you realize that there are no legitimate "successors" to Eido, and that their role as teachers of Rinzai Zen is null and void."
4. Additional info:
The first group of documents in the Eido Roku™ files became available on August 21, 2008 and they were distributed to a number of scholars, investigators, Zen clerics and students worldwide. These documents were a part of the Aitken Archives in the University of Hawai'i and have been authenticated by University archivist Lynn Ann Davis. With the permission of Aitken Rōdaishi, Kobutsu Malone published these Aiken-Shimano archives on the Internet in March 2010. Subsequently, many more documents have been added to the collection.(source: The Shimano Archive
SZ: Yeah, what has been your, let’s call it ethical approach, towards maintaining the Shimano archives? Do you strive for a level of neutrality in your work?
KM: I can tell you one thing, I have struggled mightily not to editorialize in the Archives. But it’s a failing in some respects, because, I mean I do choose what goes up there and what doesn’t, and you know, when you look at it, you know, there’s some snide comments here and there, and there are some unflattering photographs, and so on, and so forth. Yes…
But I try to minimize that, and, yet again, I also need to be able to speak somewhat freely; but I’ve tried to keep myself out of it. It’s a difficult balancing act because I’m so, so incredibly personally involved, and I, you know, I’ve been hurt through the damage that has been done to my family members, to myself, to my friends, to other students, and to people that I’ve witnessed over many, many years of damage that resulted from ‘Shimano-ism’ – the personality culture that he, uh, perpetuated. And I see it as incredibly damaging, and I think it’s done far more damage than it has good. I can unreservedly state: that I think Shimano has damaged far more people than he has, uh, assisted. Yes…
SZ: What’s your main concern in all this? Do you worry that he will reassert himself as a teacher somehow again, or be reinstalled again at Zen Studies Society ?
KM: I see that as a concrete possibility, yes.
SZ: What do you think the reaction would be to that?
KM: Well, given the reaction of the Buddhist community, I mean, everybody wants to be so, quote, “Buddhist,” unquote, that nobody’s going to stand up and say, “Hey, what the fuck is going on here?” I mean, the initial offering on the Shimano Archive was distributed to all three of the Buddhist glossies. I think it was distributed twice to individual magazines. And there was a deafening silence. No response. No one did anything. No one followed up on it. They ignored it.
SZ: So you feel they didn’t want to touch it?
KM: They didn’t want to touch it. It was handed, I handed it to the New York Times, and not just myself, but in the past others approached various publications and tried to expose the situation. One in particular was Robin Westen …
SZ: In the “Village Voice”, is that right?
KM: Well, I think there was another… I think ‘The New Yorker’ was approached, and I think, finally, it was the ‘Village Voice,’ and they were afraid of a lawsuit. And that was understandable, because basically, she was coming in with a very specific set of allegations; and the thing with specific allegations is that you can always deny them.
SZ: Sure. Especially if it happened years ago, you know?
KM: Yeah: “These are just allegations, these people are crazy, this is revenge, this is whatever, blah, blah, blah…” That can go on; but the one thing that I have managed to do with the Archive, and it wasn’t just Robert Aitken, his material was really the seed that started of the Archive; … on his suggestion that I go totally public with it, initially I had reservations, and people said “ Oh, you’re gonna get sued!”
And, you know, I pointed out ”Well, be that as it may, I have no assets.” You know, given my health situation, I live off a Social Security Disability check, and I have no savings, zero, nothing. I’ve got a few books and some tools, and my dog Harley and a fourteen-year-old car. What are you gonna do, take that away from me?
Um, actually, you can. But there are certain things you can sue people for…to file a lawsuit against somebody it’s got to be worth your while…
SZ: Sure. You have to have some validity to your case; otherwise, you might just end up paying the person you tried to sue.
KM: The thing is with Shimano and with the Zen Studies Society, given the amount of information that I had, and the fact that I made it public immediately pretty much, it was no longer just a set of allegations: it was a mountain of allegations. And, you know, allegation after allegation after allegation; and pretty soon, when you read it all, and you begin to get the picture and it comes through loud and clear. And that’s what’s happened with it; people have recognized the volume is just enormous! (source: Kobutsu Malone interview at SweepingZen)
Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Hi, my two cents. As Kobutsu Malone says above, The New York Times reports this incident. It is surely a reliable source. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone recently added this reference to the second paragraph of the "Martial arts career" section of Frank Dux, presumably to back up the "disputed by Dux" part. Someone else removed it, saying the source is dubious. I've checked the talk page and can't see why he thinks this (I may have missed it). I believe it's only fair, per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, to include both sides of Dux's story, not just the side calling bullshit on him. But, if this is an unreliable source, it obviously can't be used. Thoughts? InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Good Morning America a reliable source? I'm sure it must depend...but my memory from having seen GMA in the states is that it's not a serous news show--more of a series of human interest stories prone to editorializing and dramatizing. The specific article in question is [33], being used to verify the statement,
has been described as "the largest bat rescue center on the planet".
on Bat World Sanctuary. A COI editor has pointed out that this is very unlikely to be true, given the relatively small size of this location and a site that she claims is listed in Guineess as having 10,000 times more bats. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, my post is here regarding some of the links highlighted in the External links section of the above article here. I have added them here one by one.
My question is that how reliable are these so called websites? They look like fan-sites with their varied interpretations of the song, so just asking my fellow editors to guide me in their reliability. Thanks — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
I would appreciate some uninvolved input to resolve a dispute about a source at Ian Stevenson. It concerns whether an article by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu has been removing it and the material it supports. [34] [35] Discussion here. Ian Stevenson (1918–2007) was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who devoted his life to interviewing children who claimed to have past-life memories. Several philosophers are interested in his research, because it has implications for the mind-body problem, namely whether it makes sense to think of consciousness existing independently of a brain. One philosopher who has written about this is Robert Almeder, author of Beyond Death: Evidence for Life After Death (Charles C Thomas, 1987) and Death and Personal Survival (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992). Almeder is supportive of Stevenson, arguing that no one knows whether consciousness can exist without a brain. Against this is the philosopher Paul Edwards (1923–2004) of the New School of Social Research, who devotes a chapter in his Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (Prometheus Books, 1996) to criticism of Stevenson, and to Almeder's arguments in support of him.
In 1997 Almeder published a response to Edwards in "A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11(4), 1997, pp. 499–526. I have used this article as a source for Almeder's definition of what he calls the "minimalist reincarnation hypothesis" in the second paragraph of of this section in the Stevenson article. See extended content below for the paragraph.
The definition is not contentious, and no one has objected to it. But there are objections to the use of this article as a source because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The editor-in-chief of this journal is another philosopher, Stephen E. Braude, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. [36] The journal is regarded by some editors as not an RS for anything, because it is not peer-reviewed (the journal says it is peer-reviewed, the editors say it is not; I don't know which is true), and because it specializes in anomalies (parapsychology, etc).
My argument in favour of using this article as a source is as follows:
I am currently using this article only as a source for Almeder's definition. However, I am thinking of extending the Stevenson article to say more about Edwards's arguments against Stevenson and Almeder, and Almeder's rebuttal of those arguments. The rebuttal is in the article that people are objecting to. I would therefore like to be allowed to use this one article as a source in the Stevenson article. I feel the need to add that I don't myself believe in reincarnation, but I find it interesting that a psychiatrist spent so many years researching it, and I would like us to have a decent article on him. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Discussion
It's not to be seen as a source that just happens not to be peer-reviewed. JSE is a pseudo-journal. Nothing in it is reliable for factual claims in the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy or humanities. However, it may be reliable as a primary source for what proponents of fringe theories assert. Even then, mainstream analysis of the fringe theories, e.g. by a sociologist of science, a media analyst, even a respected commentator in the mainstream press would be preferable. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Essence of the argumentWhat some editors are arguing here is that if Robert Almeder, an academic who has been published independently in this field before, had written the same essay in a journal they approved of, it would be an RS. If he had published exactly the same words on his blog, it would be an RS (per WP:SELFPUB, which is policy). But the same words from the same academic are not an RS if published in the Scientific Journal of Exploration. That seems irrational. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would prevent things going round in further circles to point out that the text inserted into the article doesn't seem to be a correct representation of the source in any case.
The problem being that Almeder gives that definition on page 502 of the source, but he doesn't say anything that implies it is associated with Stevenson. It is just Almeder's own defintion. In fact, it seems somewhat at odds with Stevenson's view of reincarnation. Almeder's minimal version talks about "irreducible traits of human personality" being passed from person to person - i.e. something purely psychological. But, as can be seen from the WP article, one of Stevenson's main claims is that people get birthmarks where their past selves had scars - i.e. something bodily. Formerip ( talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Example of the kind of thing the source is needed forHere is one example. Edwards highlights a Stevenson case study that he regards as very weak, and presents it as a reason not to trust Stevenson's methods. I have added that case to the article here. In his essay, Almeder argues that Edwards has misrepresented Stevenson, that it is not a typical case, and that he took the description from the wrong book, not the original one where the case was written up properly. Now, even though I could see that myself from Stevenson's work, I can't write that opinion without it being OR. But if I'm also not allowed to source the material to an academic making the same point, it leaves the article POV and misleading. So if Almeder is not allowed, that example from Edwards should be removed. But if I try to remove it, I'll be reverted, because it makes Stevenson look bad, and so the editors who don't like him will want to keep it. This is what I mean by being asked to edit with one arm tied behind my back. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:PARITY does not say that. These responses miss two points that I keep trying to highlight, because they are crucial, and I'd appreciate it if you could address them.
Publication sequence
Reply to Blueboar – I think I have the Edwards-Almeder publishing sequence about reincarnation in order now. Edwards and Almeder discussed Stevenson in the following, and in several discussed each other, or their disagreement about Stevenson was discussed by a third (academic) party.
It is number 10 that we're discussing here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thought experiment for DominusDominus, you say on your user page that you have a background in microbiology. So imagine this scenario:
Suppose you were writing a Wikipedia article on Smith's new idea, and you wrote to him and said: "For heaven's sake, please tell me why you published that last paper in Really Weird Little Magazine?" And he replied that he could have published it anywhere, but he likes Really Weird Little Magazine and he thinks there are sometimes good things in it. And he doesn't care what other people think about the place of publication, because he has reached a point in his career where he doesn't have to care about things like that. Add that Jones has died to rule out any BLP complications. Would you seriously use only 1–4 as sources, but not 5, no matter what 5 said? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Response from the authorI made Professor Almeder aware of this discussion a few days ago, and we've exchanged a few emails about it. He has given me permission to summarize and quote from the correspondence. Regarding the journal, he wrote:
Note that I haven't seen Almeder's exchange with Steven Hales in Philosophia, but if Hales addressed the 1997 essay in his paper(s), that deals with the objection that there was no academic response to it. Almeder went on to say that he wanted in the 1997 essay to clarify the minimalist conception of reincarnation because Edwards seemed to conflate all reincarnationist views with religious belief and superstition. He also wrote:
He added that the editor who is opposing his work (I assume he meant Dominus, but this could apply to anyone) should feel free to contact him directly with his reasons. If anyone wants to do that, please email me and I'll pass on the details. He also pointed out that he has written a chapter, "The Major Objections from Reductive Materialism Against Belief in the Existence of Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism", in Alexander Moreira-Almeida and Franklin Santana Santos, Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Relationship, Springer 2011, pp. 16–33 (reincarnation discussed on pp. 21–22, 24, 32). I hope this further addresses the issue of whether he has expertise in this area. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
This has become so long that uninvolved editors may be reluctant to comment, so this is a summary. The policy question is whether reliability invariably rests with the publication, or whether it can also rest with the author. Sorry for banging on about it, but we sometimes need to cite experts who published in odd places (or self-published) in the interests of NPOV.
I would like to use this essay by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy, as a source for our biography of Ian Stevenson (not a BLP). Stevenson was a psychiatrist who interviewed children who claimed to have lived before. Almeder's essay is a response to another philosopher, Paul Edwards, who devoted a chapter of a book to criticism of Stevenson. I would like to include the criticism and the response. Both philosophers had published several times before about Ian Stevenson and each other. See the publishing sequence above.
The argument against using the essay is that Almeder published it in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which deals with parapsychology and similar issues. The argument for is that WP:V says reliability can rest with the author:
If we can use self-published sources when the author is an expert, we should be able to apply the same expert exemption to an essay published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. See the author's statement about this in the section above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A previous discussion on this noticeboard about this journal concluded that it is an RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact. During the current discussion, the opinion of involved editors (those already on article talk) was: