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 135 | ← | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | → | Archive 145 |
Source: iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com
Discussion: Cydia Talk about use of iClarified.com in Cydia. I'm also wondering if these sources are appropriate anywhere else surrounding topics of Apple devices.
Content: "In addition to offering software to install, in September 2009 Cydia was improved to help users have the option to downgrade (or upgrade) their device to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple"
ihackintosh is a blog by a group of three students. iClarified.com does not even have an about page, but WHOIS page indicates its a personal website. Another editor argues that these sources should be admissible, because a few authors of books published through O'Reilley Media suggested these as good sources in their opinion.
It was just that "here are some good sources to check out" and the like. According to WP:SPS, it reads that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
Evidence presented me is that possibly reliable sources simply issued opinions as they're "good places" to visit, but the persons behind the sites or the sites themselves have not met the criteria above. So far, it looks like they fall under personal webpage and personal blog category. I'm looking for interpretation on if these sources could generally mean more than such.
Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:
Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.
User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.
RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].
In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.
Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've (twice now) added an edit to this article concerning items it sells on its online store - mugs and t-shirts saying "Islamophobic and proud of it". It's been removed twice by the same editor with the claim that we can't use the blog's website itself as a source for what it sells as it is a primary source. The editor gives other reasons at Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog) but if you read the talk page from the top it looks more like an argument over whether the blog is Islamophobic or not, with the editor who is deleting me saying " does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". That's a different issue of course as are the other reasons he gives for deleting me, but his main reason still seems to be his claim that we can't use it as it is a primary source. Note that we not surprisingly are already using the website as a source in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm lost now. Are you saying we can't use it as a source for what it sells in its online store? Are you saying we need to remove the sentences about its self-declared goal and that it has a condensed version available in English? Surely this is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and is actually covered by WP:SPS:
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:
Dougweller ( talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I have two questions related to the United Nations website :
1. Is this a reliable source to provide geographical and political data regarding a country, such as its borders, its capital, its population, ... ?
2. At worse, in case of controversy on the matter (let's think about Western Sahara claimed by a lot of people), is not the UN's point of view one of the highest due:weight regarding the way wikipedia must display information ?
Pluto2012 ( talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"un.org" has been accused of simply following whatever the Generral Assembly deems to be the truth on any given subject -- and is citable as the "UN published position". This is not necessarily exactly the same as "fact" unfortunately. Where disputes exist, the UN is known occasionally to "take sides" in territorial disputes, names of capital cities, etc. Collect ( talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power) by J. Evetts Haley is a reliable source for an uncontroversial statement in John Douglas Kinser: "He owned Butler Park, located across the Colorado River in Austin.[2]" According to a September 1987 issue of Texas Monthly (a reliable source) discussing the book: 1) "It was the most controversial book ever written about a Texan, and although it fell quickly into obscurity, it became a cause célèbre of the 1964 election." 2) "At almost 7.5 million copies, A Texan Looks at Lyndon had become the best-selling book of any kind in the country and the most successful political book of all time." 3) It was self-published... "Haley says no publishing house would touch it". 4) Haley carried a vendetta against Johnson and "Historians today dismiss the polemic as a venomous propaganda piece..." I'm not sure how to reconcile this with WP:SPS. Given the book's relative notability, it this something that can be used in other sources, too? Should in-text attribution be required? - Location ( talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have a concern over a SkyVector source on List of airports in the Okanagan, which I am planning to take to featured list status. A peer reviewer suggested that SkyVector could be unreliable, and I am now questioning this noticeboard. I personally do believe it is reliable, but, again, am not exactly certain. I was hoping that the reliable sources noticeboard could help me on this. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBr and ley 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://cuban-exile.com/ a reliable source for material in Operation 40? More specifically:
Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone objected to these sources in Astronomical naming conventions (I have added more sources):
A comet is named after up to its first independent discoverers, up to a maximum of three names, separated by hyphens. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
In 1939, the Bureau introduced the current 'trinomial nomenclature', which recognizes the names of up to three independent discoverers of a comet, listed in discovery-order.
What if two or more different people discover the same comet at about the same time? This problem is solved by allowing a comet to bear as many as three names. The names are separated by hyphens. Thus we have had comets such as Ikeya-Seki and Arend-Roland. It has been decided that more than three names would be ridiculous and cumbersome. Therefore, we do not hear of comets such as Jones-Smith-James-Olson-Walters-Peterson-Garcia-Welch!
Naming comets. Comets are more commonly named for their discoverers; up to three independent co-discoverers may share the credit
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
Thus, when sometimes the discover has a double name, the hyphen is dropped from the comet's name in order to show that there was only one discoverer. For example, in 1986 Stephen Singer-Brewster discovered a comet. It is known as as "Comet Singer Brewster."
I believe that they are adequate to source these short statements of fact. I coaxed these texts out of Google Books after many efforts. I can't find out the author and article title for some of these refs, but they are from journals and books that are reliable in the field of astronomy. Anyone willing to spend a few bucks can verify all the references.
They are not isolated sentences, I have fuller quotes in a list that I have been compiling for months, and all sources support these statements.
Should I remove the refs where I can only see fragments, or can they stay? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: as per WP:VERIFY and in particular WP:NOENG, I suggest it would be a reasonable courtesy to provide links to English search results on English Wikipedia. Three ( [3], [4] and [5]) of the six references originally provided in this section result from searches within the Spanish language version of Google Books. Would the original poster consider using the Google Books citation tool to both Anglicise the URL and, as an added benefit, provide citation consistency? -- Senra ( talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Article on Johannes Letzmann currently claims that one was a "Nazi sympathizer". I removed the claim due to poor sourcing with the reason given on comment line. Historical overview about meteorology at Graz can be found here. Now the claim has been restored without much of explanation. I'll ask one who added the claim to provide exact context where the claim is taken from. Even if the claim is there on the talk show, this is likely a rumor related to the fact that Letzmann moved from Estonia to Germany during the time when Nazis were in charge, but escaping from war and having a job in a German university during that time yet doesn't make one a "Nazi sympathizer". I find this claim being a serious attack which can't be in a biography without a reliable source (where the claim was taken by one who mentioned it in a talk show) on Letzmann's political views. 88.196.241.249 ( talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am just checking to see if sage journals ( http://online.sagepub.com/) is a reliable source?
From what I have read it seems to be a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals therefore I am assuming it is a credible source of information. Thanks in advance. -- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. I made a small edit to a page a few days ago and while i was reading threw the talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times. The odd thing is that diffrent editors appear to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times.
Most of the section was based on sage publications and I just wanted to see if sage was a credible source of information before I took any further action.
Thanks again for the quick reply-- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
At issue is:
1. whether Mitchell Bard's credentials as follows, as well as his notability/accolades/recognitions as listed here meets WP:RS (note that, like many of that article's particularly political (Mideast Conflict) sources, he is often being cited as a biased source in accord with section 3.7 of WP:RS, in order to give both sides' political viewpoints, with the disputed source being firmly on 1 of those political "sides".) and other issues on the Talk page about whether publications from the AICE group he's related to are a self-pub source & if so, do his credentials make him exempt from the SPS rule for the reasons on the Talk page that are quotes pulled from the WP:RS rules, which allow recognized experts to be self-published? Please come and post your reasoning on the Talk page.
2. Feel free to also review the rest of that article's sources --and especially those @ the bottom of the page that I've called out-- for WP:RS also, if you have the time & interest.
3. Whether Nableezy or I violated edit-warring rules, given his 3 reverts & my 2 on 12/23-12/24, as shown on the History page. (pls also note: Nableezy was involved in another dispute with user cptnono commenting: "Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back...") I realize this an arbitration/behavior issue not specific to WP content, but the WP:RS dispute led to him making 3 reverts & me making 2.
JH Robbins 72.48.252.105 ( talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumble across various self-publishing companies such as Trafford Publishing and iUniverse quite frequently. In List of The X-Files episodes, is it appropriate to tag a Trafford book in the bibliography (i.e. Kessenich, Tom (2002). Examination. New York: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-55369-812-6.) with {{Self-published source}}? In Bohemian Grove, is it appropriate to tag an iUniverse book in the bibliography (i.e. Hanson, Mike. Bohemian Grove: Cult Of Conspiracy, iUniverse Inc, 2004) with {{Self-published source}}?
My tag of the former was reverted with the explanation: "while this is an accurate tag, i'm not seeing what its purpose is. unless the accuracy and validity of the source is being actively questioned why should we tag it with something?" My impression is that the tag is to alert other editors to material that does not have editor oversight and may not have been checked for accuracy and validity, and therefore may need to be eliminated or replaced with a better source. (I will invite the other editor here for feedback.) Location ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is what I find as his short bio in an independent history related website:
When looking on
Google Scholar, even though I do not find any papers published by him in English (perhaps because he does not know the language), I am able to see academic publications that cite his works:
1. (PhD thesis Michigan University: search for "jafarian")
2.(journal paper: click on "Download This Paper" )
3. (journal paper: requires subscription, but his name appears in Google Scholar link provided earlier).
My question is whether I can refer to him as a scholar in matters related to Islamic/Iranian history, even though I know he is definitely a believer and for examples uses honorifics for religious figures.-- User 99 119 ( talk) 13:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a source being used at this article that appears contentious. It is published in what is, to all appearances, a peer-reviewed journal, though the article has a distinctly personal slant. It was initially tagged as self-published, though it is clearly not. I suppose the question is along the lines of, does the personal tone disqualify it as RS, or does the peer review process qualify it as such?
discussion is here
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell me if you feel [6] would be considered as a reliable source, please? It is used in Tamaskan dog which I recently nominated for deletion. I know most of the other refs used are not WP:RS as they are facebook, forums etc but I wanted to check before I make further comment about the article as I don't want to make myself look even more like the inexperienced idiot I most undoubtedly am! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The " Savage Love" article about Dan Savage's advice column has been expanded recently with material based entirely on Savage's writings. I think it is proper to require at least one WP:SECONDARY source per section so that minor points are not highlighted as major. There is some edit warring there—new eyes are indicated. Binksternet ( talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article
Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.
My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.
Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past [7] [8], and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material. [9]
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Is [11] a reliable source for this BLP [12]. Thanks. Note that it is the only source in the article - maybe this guy isn't notable enough for us anyway. Dougweller ( talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Source: Australian head of state dispute - a well-sourced Wikipedia article.
Article: Head of state
Content:
There is an ongoing debate in Australia and in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch or the local viceregal representative—actually is the head of state.
Discussion: As the wikilink to the Australian head of state dispute article is provided, is there a requirement to also provide the many reliable sources in that article when referencing it in another article? An editor is removing this material, saying,:
I see this as vandalism, given that the dispute exists and the statement is reliably sourced, albeit at one remove. -- Pete ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete, please don't falsely state an agreement was reached here, as you did in your restoration edit & edit summary at Head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You do not appear to be using the Wikipedia article as a "source" so the use of wikilinking to extant articles is proper, and is not a violation of
WP:RS.
[13] National Geographic is RS for QE II as "chief odf state". As is the CIA world factbook
[14] . in fact, every source I found says QE II usChief of State of Australia.
[15] Encyclopedia of World Consitutions states succinctly The queen or the king, acting through the representative the governor-general, is the Australian head of state. BTW, I noited the "Duke of Normandy" excursion on the article talk page -- the custom for many hundreds of years is that the toast is to the most closely related title to the place where the toast is made. On the Isle of Man, the customary toast, indeed, is to "The Lord of Mann, Queen Elizabeth II". If no name is given, then the toast is just to "The Lord of Mann." Ditto in Lancaster (explained to me in depth there, as a matter of fact) and in the Channel Islands (told to me by a Jersey resident). This does not make the local title "higher", nor does it remove the title "Queen" where the name is given, it simply states that the monarch has a peculaiar and direct connection to that place. Pre-WW II, if one were in India, one might toast the "Emperor of India, King George VI", because that was the closest direct title he had in India. In London, one would not toast "The Emperor" because that was not his closest title to the place where the toast was given. Simple explanation to the weird discourse there.
Collect (
talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Officially - HRH QE II is "head of state" for Australia - and by her own decision she assigns the functions of "head of state" to the GG - but that does not mean that she is not "head of state" as a "defined office". " Plenipotentiary" is a neat word. Collect ( talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to establish that it is reasonable to identify the Head of State of Australia as Queen Elizabeth II, but that there is reasonable grounds to also mention the ongoing argument on the topic and to include a link to the Australian head of state dispute article. That would be giving both sides of the argument reasonable coverage wouldn't it? Djapa Owen ( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm wondering whether this page [16] (or, more specifically, this one [17]) meets reliable sources criteria. It is used in a BLP ( Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Ancestry) and I don't think it qualifies as reliable (not to mention the fact that the content it supports is trivial). Surtsicna ( talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone consider this reliable?
http://scis.nova.edu/~rbuckley/Film%20Essay.pdf
It's been published under http://scis.nova.edu/ which is a well-known university, but I'm not sure if an essay in the university archive works. It's old, and I can find no way to access this from the root link of the university now. So I'm not sure if it's cited or peer-reviewed or anything of that. Can it be considered scholarly monograph? I wanna know if it's reliable. I only want to use one sentence in "The Matrix (film}" article:
"Linear interpolation was used to fill in any gaps of the still images to produce a fluent dynamic motion."
Any suggestion on how to archive the pdf , BTW?
Another source is http://www.sbc.ac.in/voice/bullet.htm
I'm using it for the same article. What I want to use is:
"To cope up with the problem of camera rigs, these stills are scanned and enhanced by computers to get a real time view of the scene. The computer generated "lead in" and "lead out" slides are filled in between frames in sequence to get an illusion of orbiting the scene. This method of enhancing the bullet time is called interpolation." Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
"Sunday October 21, 2012 we play our first ever live show as a 4 piece. It is with great honor we welcome our new comrade, Sos to the fold for this special ritual."
The only other places I can find his name is their twitter page and facebook, but those aren't allowed as sources. But I don't know if I'm allowed to put the name on the member list instead and NOT mention in the body. I have no idea. Because I must put his name there but there's barely sources, this is the only one which quotes the band.
BlastBeat4 ( talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I want to write an article on a Mexican religious group called El Buen Pastor(The Good Shepherd). However, most sources only mention this group in the context of it's "parent" church La Luz del Mundo, from which El Buen Pastor broke off in 1942. I have found two sources which provide value information on the group, but they are both theses. The first is a dissertation by historian Jason Dormady, "Not just a better Mexico" : intentional religious community and the Mexican state, 1940-1964. [21] Dormady later wrote a book titled Primitive Revolution : restorationist religion and the idea of the Mexican Revolution, 1940-1968 [22] which closely resembles his thesis, but omits this information, perhaps because it was irrelevant (nonetheless valuable). The other is a tesis de licenciatura (bachelor's thesis) titled Catolicismo y evangelio al este del estado de Puebla [23] by Sergio Luis Contreras. This thesis provides excerpts from El Buen Pastor's official history, and one of the thesis adviser's Elio Masferrer Kan is (in my opinion) an authority in the field. The director Carlos Garma Navarro is also (in my opinion) an expert in the field. Dormady uses La Luz del Mundo and independent sources to describe the schism that took place in 1942, while Contreras uses El Buen Pastor and independent sources. Using both Dormady and Contreras would ensure a high level of neutrality on such a sensitive topic.
My question is therefore: can I use these two sources in the article I want to create? I believe El Buen Pastor church meets minimum notability requirements. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Does (or how does) WP:MEDRS apply to claims and reports of healing achieved through Christian Science practices?
I have raised a query [24] on the talk page concerning this.
The para in question is here (result of multiple edits over time):
Although the church and its founder make these statements, in the United States, it is the individual's choice what type of care he or she may undergo. Some members deviate from this advice, and the negative outcomes regarding children can be found in the media. Despite negative outcomes due to deviation, any total is still far below[original research?] that of some medical alternatives (prescribed drugs) which are considered some of the deadliest[52]. Defending the record of Christian Science, Robert Peel questions the claim by the medical establishment to be the exclusive authority on healing. He writes that "nosocomial illness – an umbrella term for a whole catalogue of infections acquired inside the hospital – has proved fatal to some patients who entered the hospital for treatment for a very minor ailment."[53] Peel cites a 1978 estimation that of "32 million persons admitted to American hospitals each year, about 1.5 million develop some kind of nosocomial infection, and 15,000 die of it."[54] (See also Iatrogenesis.)
The sources in question are:
I appreciate there is a difference between relating historical reports of spiritual/miraculous healing, and making statements about medical efficacy — the query is more how that line is drawn, particularly in regard to sources used, for this topic. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
More eyes are needed to bring Common Sense [ [26]] to the article on Christian Science. There is plenty in every section of the Talk Pages to indicate what is happening. In my view, 3O is not being heeded, and emerging consensus is being ignored. I am of the opinion that disruptive editing has been a recurring problem in this article. I read here that Wikipedia articles on religion draw partly from the sacred texts of that religion, as well as reliable secondary sources. I also read that the reliability of a source depends on context. I am finding that the most reliable sources have been misused in the article, and discussion in the talk pages about that seem to be disregarded. Particularly these sections of the Talk Pages to start. [ [27]] [ [28]] [ [29]] [ [30]]
If one looks into the footnotes of so-called "reliable sources", it is obvious that the those sources hold a biased opinion of Christian Science medically, theologically, scientifically. A balanced viewpoint should emerge, but a biased viewpoint should not be coming through in Wikipedia's voice, which it is in this article. Sources which accurately describe Christian Science have been objected to by several editors, and reliable sources have been used out of context. Friends whom I have sent to the Talk Pages (who are not Christian Scientists) have remarked that it isn't right what is happening with this article.
There are too many instances in the article of what I am describing to focus on specific instances. What I am hoping for is for someone to go in and take an overview of what has happened. If there is a better place for me to post this, I am open to advice from someone outside of the present discussion: LeviTee ( talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is available from two sources: WaldorfCritics.org and WaldorfLibrary.org
I think it would be an excellent source for use in Waldorf education, specifically in the section Waldorf education#Racism controversy. However this article and particularly this aspect of the subject is highly contentious so I want an opinion on the suitability of this source before using it in the article. In particular I am concerned that the article is not (that I can find) published by an academic publisher but is hosted on highly partisan websites (although the sites in question are on opposite sides of the pro- v. anti-Steiner controversy). The article is, however, an addendum to a paper the authors published (with other collaborators) in a more relaible source (Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02354381 (I don't know how to make that into a link here)) and (as discussed in the article itself) this article was in an earlier draft intended to be incorporated into that main paper. The main paper itself is already cited as a source in the WP article.
To use this source I would introduce it in the context of the main study conducted by McDermott et al into the Milwaukee school and say something like:
McDermott and Oberman discuss Steiner's teachings that humans fall into different races with different places in the evolution of consciousness and different mental and spiritual abilities; cite a study showing that many followers of Steiner consider him infallible; report observing a display of racist attitudes from representatives of the international Waldorf community; express concern about the possible prevalence of racist attitudes amongst some Steiner-Waldorf teachers; and urge the Waldorf movement to tackle racist issues in Steiner's teachings.
However the authors also report that the Milwaukee school they observed (and produced their main report on) not only did not display racism but was actively confronting racism (which they also credit Waldorf educators in Black townships in South Africa with doing) and cite with approval efforts within the anthroposophy and Waldorf communities to confront and reject racism.
John Stumbles ( talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In Talk:James H. Fetzer, an editor wants to know if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html is a reliable source for James Fetzer's views regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thanks! Location ( talk) 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Kuroneko currently cites Jim Breen's dictionary [32] as a source for the meaning of a phrase in the Japanese title. Reliable sources don't translate the title (the English title is a shortening of the Japanese title Yabu no naka no kuroneko), but WP:NCFILM says we should provide a translation anyway. The title has two meanings in Japanese, a literal one, and a figurative one that is overwhelmingly more common, but that is not the issue here.
It was mentioned that WWWJDIC might be WP:USERG, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Jim Breen is a recognized expert in Japanese language studies, and his dictionary is one of the most widely-used J-E dictionaries. His website is also his official homepage as a Research Fellow of Monash University. The dictionary also claims to be copyright the " Electronic Dictionary Research and Development Group".
What does everyone else think about this?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 05:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The operating project, EDRDG, is run by Monash University, a reputable Australian university, and primary author/maintainer Jim Breen is not only notable enough to have his own WP page, he's a Senior Research Fellow at Monash's Japanese Studies Centre and his scholarly work (incl. much about WWWJDIC) has been published extensively in reliable sources. The dictionary and its predecessors JDIC and EDICT have been actively worked on since 1991. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database, and WWWJDIC is described as "reliable and close to comprehensive" by sources like the Japan Times.
All that said, sources like Kōjien are still a step above WWWJDIC in authoritativeness, but for anything even vaguely modern or slangy WWWJDIC's quite often as good as it gets. Jpatokal ( talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The WWWJDIC can be considered a user-generated site. It states plainly: Users of WWWJDIC are welcome to submit amendments to the dictionary files, and also to submit new entries. I have submitted new words & definitions, and I have submitted additional definitions or pronunciations to existing words or kanji. That said, the provider is supposed to add a reference that can verify the new word/definition, and new definitions are annotated if they have not been confirmed by Jim Breen (or his staff, I suppose). So, user generated, but also based on established dictionaries, and also I believe quite respected among Japanophiles. Concur with User:Jpatokal. Boneyard90 ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It also might be pointed out that the WWWJDIC-definition that JoshuSasori was continues to challenge was is yabu no naka (don't know how to link WWWJDIC entry but
[36] is a carbon-copy), which virtually matches that of Kōjien and Daijisen.
elvenscout742 (
talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not all of the entries are reviewed by the panel. In the past i've put in a few test additional translation entries which changed the emphasis of a translation (then i removed them) and seen translations by other people under entries for words which i've done scholarly study of in my specialised, study field: 自然農法, which are not the best translations by any means—also obvious by reference to Kenkyūsha's and so on without even my special scholarly studies—and must not be used as reliable sources. It's a pity, and i think great Jim Breen will better the system to become much more robust in reliability, soon, or perhaps already has—since it's been a year or two ago for me.
I've used it as an ancillary source (as a second ref) after the first most reliable source (ref), eg. Kenkyūsha's. It is better to go to beyond WWWJDIC to its sources and reference those instead, eg. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and numerous others.
For EDICT (Jpn–Eng General) and the default setting of: "Special Text–glossing", which automatically and conveniently incorporates a decision tree choice of various DICTs, depending on your input text—including the often helpful ENAMDICT (person's names)—they are not blanket reliable in my 10+ years of experience using it and IMHO. For these, it is better to dig deeper by repeating the search.
First the most general search you want.
Then, if that was a composite "Special Text–glossing" or "Expanded Text–glossing" setting, then break up your text into sections according to the different dictionaries it has used to output the result.
Sequentially set it to each one of those dictionaries' individual settings and input each of those sections of your text;
for each of those dictionaries' results dig deeper into the history of the translation source within WWWJDIC, often per single words/compound words, as there are not so many long phrases whole translations.
Hence, is that specific translation a reliable source or not? If it was altered by a member of the public without in turn providing sources as basis, and without in turn then getting reviewed by the panel of experts, then no. If it is in turn based on a reliable source then ok. If it is a name ENAMDICT output when it should have decided to use EDICT to translate its meaning to English, then no, and then you have to take that text back as input to specifically set EDICT translation and then repeat the history check again.
When needed i've regularly done this specific checking of this source (each word/compound word) for reliability.
It sounds too complicated when written in description here, but it is not too complicated when we get used to it.
For quick edification, such as in WP talk posts, and quick checking one's memory recall, it's fine amongst others, such as my Mac's (free) built–in, great big Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus linked directly to the great big Shōgakukan (Daijisen±) E<–>J, Japanese and Japanese synonyms dictionaries. For editing here in WP the Mac Shōgakukan<–>Oxford is much more convenient than WWWJDIC. If someone (hasn't a Mac and) is lazy for all this WWWJDIC reliability checking, the most convenient and best sources would be to have: Kenkyūsha's and Kōjien, big hardcopies (or computer software) on one's own desk (or desktop). I wish I had, for even more reliable sources and more convenience. I have access to them in the Uni. library. I hope that helps people in general here. ——-- macropneuma 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I might add for my summation, capsule, that in my humble 10+ years of on & off experiences with WWWJDIC, the emphasis of it is on the digital dictionary technologies, not so much emphasis on the highest standards of lexicographical scholarship, as certain dictionaries we've already mentioned above, and including we all know the Oxford English. This is emphasis, and no criticism of Jim Breen or WWWJDIC at all. i perceive, of course, that emphasis to be his purpose and emphasis too; so WWWJDIC is very well fit for its purpose (to me), and i think very fit for Jim Breen's purposes; which are not the same emphases as WP's most reliable sources, purposes. Why, we needn't be (emphasising) using a less reliable source, WWWJDIC, when we can use the widely acknowledged, most reliable, best, sources, we've cited above; and put the WP sourcing emphasis on those. There's no reason not to use WWWJDIC here when fit for the purpose, just not everywhere, generally, reliable. Thanks elvenscout742 & co., for me, at least, a stimulating discussion. ——-- macropneuma 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Second last sentence added for to be sure. :) ——-- macropneuma 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Off topic, irrelevant, false positive and reply.
|
---|
|
I'm not trying to imply finishing this discussion section, in my summation, capsule, above, just my version of my summation, so far, not closing off the section, and my little, genuine, thanks, i also learned certain key things. Anyone having more to say, please, i mean to be encouraging you, in good faith (&c.) ... . ——-- macropneuma 15:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Mark Lane is probably the first Warren Commission critic and one of many controversial figures in the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts. Lane's views are supported by many other critics and rejected by various debunkers who have called him "unscrupulous" [37]. A sentence in Mark Lane (author) states:
This is a close paraphrase of page 162 in "J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War" by R. Andrew Kiel who, from the little information I can find, "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio" [38] and has supported other conspiracy-oriented individuals [39].:
I have voiced a challenge to the word "ignore" in the above context in that it implies "intentional disregard", and have suggested that it be changed to either "not interviewed" or be attributed to the original author. Although there appears to be consensus for this change in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), one editor has insisted that it is a proper reflection of a statement of fact (per WP:YESPOV) and suggested that the issue be raised here. So...
Thanks! Location ( talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Location claims that Press TV cannot be used to establish notability for Jim Fetzers outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint that the Sandy Hook massacre can be blamed on Israel. Press TV is the main and official news agency of Iran, and Veterans Today is an american-based website that also carries Press TV stories and its contributors, but thus also carries stories approved by the government of Iran. Both have been noted by ADL and Washington Post as carrying wildly anti-semitic anti-israel propoganda. It is hard to document Fetzer if WP disallows two of his most important outlets and source of supporters with similar viewpoints. Kourosh Ziabari was deleted because it was claimed that his many contributions to both outlets were not "notable", and a similar case is being made for Mark Dankof who similarly appear on Press TV and American anti-war websites. If these writers are acting as stealth propgandists for a hostile nation-state, it impossible to document them if they are to be deleted simply because they have been ignored by mainstream pro-Israel western media, yet heavily promoted by pro-Iranian pro-Palestine outlets. Redhanker ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a problem of sourcing, but of original research. I've commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Are the reports and other publications of established NGOs such as this Foundation for Middle East Peace RS? For example, he is a very short report consisting solely of statistical data settler demographics -- Ubikwit ( talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
-- Ubikwit ( talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)UbikwitShould every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [43] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [44].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone can demonstrate that this source is not authentic or is an inaccurate reproduction of this speech, I think that it's reliable as a primary source. Primary sources are allowed, although secondary sources are often preferred, especially when establishing weight. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the following:
I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [45] [46]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? ( John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location ( talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
In these two recent edits
[47]
[48] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met
WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage”
[49]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source:
Consumer Reports
[50]
I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [51]. Puhlaa ( talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A question... From the comments above it seems that there have been some editors who call the
Consumer Reports a reliable source for a discussion of consumer opinion; No editor has yet called Consumer Reports an unreliable source. If Consumer Reports is thus considered reliable according to
WP:RS, it seems from the comments that the next step is then to assess the quality of this specific survey published by Consumer Reports to decide if it is good enough for inclusion in the article? There have been some editors who have criticized the methodology of this particular survey, or the way the results are presented by the source. My question is, does Wikipedia provide guidelines or policy on how we are to critically evaluate the quality of this specific survey, or the way these authors have presented their data, so that we can assess for bias that could disqualify this specific report from inclusion in the article? If not, how do we determine if the criticisms of this specific CR report presented above are enough to warrant exclusion of the specific Consumer Reports survey?
Puhlaa (
talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
{od}A list of outdated primary sources doesn't carry much weight. Per wp:MEDRS, we look for peer-reviewed, current, secondary sources (ideally systematic reviews) as the best choice for medical assertions. The Consumer Reports piece is neither peer-reviewed nor secondary. If no comparable MEDRS existed, it might be of interest, but that is not the case. We have Cochrane systematic reviews such as PMID 21248591, PMID 20393942, PMID20640863. How could we justify the use of lower-quality primary sources to challenge them? Just being a reliable source isn't the point. We want the best available reliable sources. This doesn't come close. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ma'an News Agency is a wire service founded in 2005 and is located in the West Bank and Gaza. I would like advice on the reliability of its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as I noticed it was being used in Operation Pillar of Defense.
Ma'an's chief editor was described as "batshit insane" and liable to "spout[ing] out the craziest theories every once in a while" in emails published by Wikileaks, which it says are from the Stratfor Global Intelligence Company. The emails also described Ma'an's chief editor as a staunch supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and reported that he promised a group of Palestinians that they would liberate Jerusalem with military honour. Ma'an's English editor has clarified the objective of the organisation, writing on its website: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement...In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."
Ma'an has published repugnant antisemitic opinion pieces. This one, recently published, states that it is a historical fact that Jews are cowards, universally hated, a nation of conspirators, are worse than feeding vampires, and that the curse of God compels them to continue with their deceit and violence. An excerpt has been translated here.
Nor does it seem overly concerned over the accuracy of its news articles.
Ma'an provided a sanitised translation of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination, and published unchallenged outlandish claims, such as "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.
It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.
Ma'an queried whether the Itamar massacre was in fact perpetrated by Israelis and later reported that the IDF had arrested all the Thai workers inside the Itamar settlement in relation to the murders. No other regular news network ran with this story and the Jerusalem Post noted that Maan did not provide a source for this information. Ma'an then published an opinion piece reflecting on Maan's reliable reporting that it was in fact a foreign worker that had perpetrated the Itamar massacre and that this had stymied Israel's "planned international campaign". (Excerpt translated here.)
This was all bogus. The IDF had raided the West Bank town of Awata hours after the attack suspecting that the assailants had come from there. Itamar's mayor responded that the settlement did not even have any foreign workers. Two Palestinians were arrested for the Itamar murders and confessed to the murders. Their feats were praised on Palestinian TV.
Ma'an published a crazy conspiracy theory that Palestinians were being attacked by non indigenous pigs deliberately released by settlers into the Salfit area. The Ma'an article cited the report of the "Applied Research Institute" to substantiate these claims - yet, the organisation's report were quoting Ma'an's stories, so in effect, Ma'am were quoting themselves to support their own bizarre claims.
Finally, the way Ma'an and other established news organisations report events is often at odds.
An editor has pointed out that Ma'an's stories have been cited by the BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Does this however confer reliability on Ma'an when it has not been cited by regular news networks?
Arutz Sheva, a pro-settler media organisation, has also been cited by the Guardian and the NYT. The Palestinian Media Watch has been cited by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Russia Today, Jyllands-Posten and the Sydney Morning Herald among a host of international media outlets. It has been cited by Hillary Clinton and PMW's director has addressed parliaments about its findings.
Yet, editors have generally refrained from using PMW in wikpedia's Israel-Palestine topics when it has not been cited by other media because of its slanted objective. Is this not similarly the case with Ma'an? Ankh. Morpork 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This entire post is predicated on a user wishing to remove one of the very few Palestinian sources used in an article replete with Israeli sources, including voice of the settlers Arutz Sheva. An attempt to distort these articles even further by denying any voice to Palestinians. How that is allowed is rather beyond me. Additionally, there is a BLP violation in the above by calling, on the basis of a leaked email by an employee at Stratfor, a living person "batshit insane".
But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC, [63] [64] the Guardian, [65] [66] [67] al-Jazeera, [68] [69] and the New York Times. [70] [71] [72] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.
Finally, I must object to the continued misuse of this board by AnkhMorpork. As can be seen in his past attempts to disqualify entire sources that just so happen to not be Zionist in tone (eg here), he is refusing to actually link to what is being used as a source and is instead seeking to remove from Wikipedia an entire news organization that just happens to be written by Palestinians. Just happens of course. If an op-ed being racist or otherwise objectionable is cause for not allowing news stories from the same outlet, then should Yedioth Ahronoth be removed because they hosted an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey.? Should the Jerusalem Post be disqualified because they printed an op-ed that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? Of course not. But that is the argument made here, that because an organization published a single persons opinion as a single persons opinion that is somehow objectionable that their news reports are unreliable. That is an asinine argument, but if it is accepted here then we'll have to go about deleting any ynet or jpost link on these pages as well. nableezy - 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Some quotes from WP:RS:
If somebody has some evidence that our verifiability policy or reliable sources guideline call for the above to be washed away due to users not liking a frickin op-ed they published, by all means provide it. nableezy - 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This thread is exactly what I meant on the talk page about people trying to use this project to carry on their own quarrels. What article are we talking about? Please give full bibliographic details of the proposed source. What statement is it meant to support? ON NO ACCOUNT (I never shout) mention other completely different sources that are perceived to have the opposite bias. Reformulate the question correctly and you may get one or two uninvolved comments. If you are unwilling to do that then I will report one or more of the participants in this thread for trolling. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly the same type of case as the preceding entry on this page (see comment by Dan Murphy I quoted). If editors have a problem with an op-ed piece they should address that piece specifically and any other such pieces on a case-by-case basis, and not try to designate the publication as a whole as not an RS. Ubikwit ( talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Tom Harrison, that is the problem in a nutshell! However, not being one to write nutshells, rather tomes, here is my take on it. I doubt if there were a settler newspaper that claimed to "deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of living" as a settler on land Palestinians claimed as their own, it would be considered reliable for information regarding Palestinians. Or would a newspaper that carried op-eds claiming that Palestinian Muslims (rather than 'Jews') are universally hated conspirators, worse than feeding vampires and cursed by God to be deceitful and violent would be considered reliable about Palestinian Muslims? Could a paper that would publish such tripe be accepted as reliable about the people they clearly despise and by whom they feel victimized? No trustworthy news organisation would ever publish something as racist as that revolting opinion piece in Ma'an. It is something that you would expect to find on Stormfront - never on a respectable media outlet. This, in combination with its documented inaccuracies demonstrate its total unreliability with regard to Israel/Palestine situation. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
In this edit User:AnkhMorpork gave a different reason for calling Maan News unreliable:
And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false
He seems to think that israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability, and anything that differs from them are false. When your perspective on reliability is so one-sided, you are bound to create a lot of conflict on a project that has a diverse user group. PerDaniel ( talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No matter how much you try to change the discussion, the fact is that he measured how true or false a report was by comparing it to israeli reports. This does not bode well for his ability to understand WP:NPOV. PerDaniel ( talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false
The question I think we are being asked to rule on is this:
In Operation Pillar of Defense, is this report reliable for the statement On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone.?
The above is the way that a question on RSN ought to be formulated.
My opinion, based on WP policies and guidelines is, yes, it is RS for that statement. The report is based on an interview that the family of a dead man gave to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. We have no reason to doubt that the family gave their side of the story in that way. The Ma'an report in this case is consistent with an AFP report, also cited. The Israeli Navy view is also included: that the fisherman approached the exclusion zone from land and not from the sea. There does not seem to be any disagreement that the fisherman was killed and another man wounded.
The general character of Ma'an is only relevant to the extent that it affects the reliability of this particular text to support this particular statement in this particular article. It seems pretty clear that Ma'an carries a bias, which is typical of newspapers and news magazines but not typical of news agencies. Ma'an does not have the level of reliability of AP, AFP or Reuters. I do not (yet) think that, taken as a whole, it is an extremist source. The excerpt in Arabic that has been posted here is viciously antisemitic. It does not seem to be typical of material on the website, at least not on the English version. (The most recent article in the Analysis section is This Christmas, remember Palestine's Christians by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as far from extremism as you can get.) The article in Arabic does not appear on the English site. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Ma'an news agency, which is a fairly reliable source of news about both the Gaza Strip and the PA, has lost its server for the time being. The site offers an apology to its many readers and promises to come back soon.' The Jewish Press November 14th, 2012.
The above post disregards the fact that the page Operation Pillar of Defense contains numerous quotes from ma'an, not merely the one mentioned by User:Itsmejudith. Therefore the reformulation they proposed is inappropriate. Meanwhile, User:WLRoss (Wayne) addressed some of the substantive issues involved, and deserves a response, even though ultimately his comments fail to refute the facts about the unreliability of ma'an, as I will show. User:WLRoss claimed that:
1. "That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts."
2. "Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?"
3. "Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used."
4. "Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan."
5. "Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report."
6. "AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission."
7. "Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades." "
8. "@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne"
You are rejecting my re-formulation as a question about whether a source supports one statement? That is at odds with the established methods of this board. I strongly suggest that we do look at the Ma'an references one by one. If you do not like that approach then please post on this board's talk page explaining why you wish us to overturn our usual method of one query at a time. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing off topic discussion
|
---|
The truth on pigs?I tried to research the pig situation and came across an interesting CNN article here which seems to suggest that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged the pig problem. Namely, after making the pig claim, the article goes on to say that Barak called the attackers "hooligans." Does Barak know more than we do, or does CNN know less than we do? If anybody has any relevant information this would be appreciated. Tkuvho ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not just collapse/hide this detour - either here or in a new section about whatever the topic is.
CarolMooreDC 20:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [74]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The site seems to be run by Steve Hoffman, a music engineer of some repute. An article from his website is currently being used at the article George Harrison (which will be nominated for FA status this week) to cite the following info:
On 12 November, the three living Beatles met for the last time for a luncheon at Harrison's hotel in New York, with McCartney flying in from London with his fiancee Heather Mills. The party laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired to leave the three ex-Beatles alone together for the last time.
While the info is definitely in the source cited, I am not certain that the source itself meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is in the format of a message board, for one thing, which raises some immediate flags. While I don't think Mr Hoffman simply invented facts that sounded nice, I am wary about citing his article if others doubt its reliability. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue at hand is the second reference. The statement as presented above implies that the NPR reference is making a statement that the Arizona legislation would prevent doctors (in Arizona) from being liable for malpractice. Not only does the source not say this, but it actually contradicts this supposition by saying The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts .
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war ( English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).
Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.
-- Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following from Conversion therapy for sourcing concerns:
NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity. [3] [4]
I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. Can some folks please offer input? Thank you. Insomesia ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Concur. ► Belchfire- TALK 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the source can only be used to verify the view of the source, and should be clearly attributed, and any content verified by that should be neutrally worded. I do not see it as a reliable source outside of what I have just stated. Secondary or tertiary reliable source(s) should be used for other content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering is YouTube a reliable source? Like YouTube videos of interviews with recording artists? A lot of YouTube sources are being used in the Brandy Norwood article. I've tried to remove them because I think it's not reliable but Brandy's fans who keep reverting my edits say it is. — Oz 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The "References" and "External links" section of William Robert Plumlee contains a link to http://toshplumlee.info/ , which appears to be a collection of primary source government documents obtained via the FOIA. Who is responsible for the website and gathering the information is not indicated, plus some of the documents appear to have comments "filling in" whatever information was redacted (e.g. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/fbi9o.PDF). Furthermore, the documents appear to be cherry-picked in that other primary source information on the subject can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). I believe this to be an unreliable source, however, I hope to obtain a second opinion on whether or not this could be removed from both sections of the article. Thanks! Location ( talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 ( talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another from the I/P morass, attempted blanket dismissal of the Guardian in order to discredit this [83] article, as per discussion at Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. -- Ubikwit ( talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering how extensively relying on Sheldon Brown's original research and self published source for various bicycle related articles, such as Bicycle_wheel. Would his website's contents be reliable source or should we only use it very sparingly? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I really don't care how many times you have contacted the gentleman. His self published homepage is not a RS for citing facts, but only for citing his opinion. Kill me. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Since his work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", his self-published work is a reliable source for that field. But as ever, it's not the case that sources are either Reliable or Not; whether or not something is a reliable source depends on exactly what statement is to be sourced. Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Some way above, we're told: While [Brown] may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage. At this point, it cannot be self-published, because a corpse is in no fit state to publish. Yes, it has editorial oversight (or "oversite"): This page tells us that "this site is being actively maintained, updated and expanded by his wife, Harriet Fell, and his close friend John Allen, co-author of most editions of Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics." This page is one in which we see Allen at work. (And who is Allen? This site explains.) Cycling for Dummies (a demographic perhaps not entirely unrepresented here) calls Brown a "great bicycle guru". The Urban Biking Handbook calls him an "authority on all things bicycle". Something titled 21 Nights in July: The Physics and Metaphysics of Cycling rather excitedly refers to him as a "bike mechanic and recently deceased genius". And he's cited in One Less Car, a book from an actual university press. And there's more of this kind of thing at Google Books. Yes he is a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. (And no I'm not related to him. Indeed, I first heard of him only a few months ago, years after his death.) -- Hoary ( talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | → | Archive 145 |
Source: iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com
Discussion: Cydia Talk about use of iClarified.com in Cydia. I'm also wondering if these sources are appropriate anywhere else surrounding topics of Apple devices.
Content: "In addition to offering software to install, in September 2009 Cydia was improved to help users have the option to downgrade (or upgrade) their device to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple"
ihackintosh is a blog by a group of three students. iClarified.com does not even have an about page, but WHOIS page indicates its a personal website. Another editor argues that these sources should be admissible, because a few authors of books published through O'Reilley Media suggested these as good sources in their opinion.
It was just that "here are some good sources to check out" and the like. According to WP:SPS, it reads that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
Evidence presented me is that possibly reliable sources simply issued opinions as they're "good places" to visit, but the persons behind the sites or the sites themselves have not met the criteria above. So far, it looks like they fall under personal webpage and personal blog category. I'm looking for interpretation on if these sources could generally mean more than such.
Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:
Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.
User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.
RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].
In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.
Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've (twice now) added an edit to this article concerning items it sells on its online store - mugs and t-shirts saying "Islamophobic and proud of it". It's been removed twice by the same editor with the claim that we can't use the blog's website itself as a source for what it sells as it is a primary source. The editor gives other reasons at Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog) but if you read the talk page from the top it looks more like an argument over whether the blog is Islamophobic or not, with the editor who is deleting me saying " does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". That's a different issue of course as are the other reasons he gives for deleting me, but his main reason still seems to be his claim that we can't use it as it is a primary source. Note that we not surprisingly are already using the website as a source in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm lost now. Are you saying we can't use it as a source for what it sells in its online store? Are you saying we need to remove the sentences about its self-declared goal and that it has a condensed version available in English? Surely this is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and is actually covered by WP:SPS:
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:
Dougweller ( talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I have two questions related to the United Nations website :
1. Is this a reliable source to provide geographical and political data regarding a country, such as its borders, its capital, its population, ... ?
2. At worse, in case of controversy on the matter (let's think about Western Sahara claimed by a lot of people), is not the UN's point of view one of the highest due:weight regarding the way wikipedia must display information ?
Pluto2012 ( talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"un.org" has been accused of simply following whatever the Generral Assembly deems to be the truth on any given subject -- and is citable as the "UN published position". This is not necessarily exactly the same as "fact" unfortunately. Where disputes exist, the UN is known occasionally to "take sides" in territorial disputes, names of capital cities, etc. Collect ( talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power) by J. Evetts Haley is a reliable source for an uncontroversial statement in John Douglas Kinser: "He owned Butler Park, located across the Colorado River in Austin.[2]" According to a September 1987 issue of Texas Monthly (a reliable source) discussing the book: 1) "It was the most controversial book ever written about a Texan, and although it fell quickly into obscurity, it became a cause célèbre of the 1964 election." 2) "At almost 7.5 million copies, A Texan Looks at Lyndon had become the best-selling book of any kind in the country and the most successful political book of all time." 3) It was self-published... "Haley says no publishing house would touch it". 4) Haley carried a vendetta against Johnson and "Historians today dismiss the polemic as a venomous propaganda piece..." I'm not sure how to reconcile this with WP:SPS. Given the book's relative notability, it this something that can be used in other sources, too? Should in-text attribution be required? - Location ( talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have a concern over a SkyVector source on List of airports in the Okanagan, which I am planning to take to featured list status. A peer reviewer suggested that SkyVector could be unreliable, and I am now questioning this noticeboard. I personally do believe it is reliable, but, again, am not exactly certain. I was hoping that the reliable sources noticeboard could help me on this. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBr and ley 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Is http://cuban-exile.com/ a reliable source for material in Operation 40? More specifically:
Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone objected to these sources in Astronomical naming conventions (I have added more sources):
A comet is named after up to its first independent discoverers, up to a maximum of three names, separated by hyphens. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
In 1939, the Bureau introduced the current 'trinomial nomenclature', which recognizes the names of up to three independent discoverers of a comet, listed in discovery-order.
What if two or more different people discover the same comet at about the same time? This problem is solved by allowing a comet to bear as many as three names. The names are separated by hyphens. Thus we have had comets such as Ikeya-Seki and Arend-Roland. It has been decided that more than three names would be ridiculous and cumbersome. Therefore, we do not hear of comets such as Jones-Smith-James-Olson-Walters-Peterson-Garcia-Welch!
Naming comets. Comets are more commonly named for their discoverers; up to three independent co-discoverers may share the credit
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
Thus, when sometimes the discover has a double name, the hyphen is dropped from the comet's name in order to show that there was only one discoverer. For example, in 1986 Stephen Singer-Brewster discovered a comet. It is known as as "Comet Singer Brewster."
I believe that they are adequate to source these short statements of fact. I coaxed these texts out of Google Books after many efforts. I can't find out the author and article title for some of these refs, but they are from journals and books that are reliable in the field of astronomy. Anyone willing to spend a few bucks can verify all the references.
They are not isolated sentences, I have fuller quotes in a list that I have been compiling for months, and all sources support these statements.
Should I remove the refs where I can only see fragments, or can they stay? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: as per WP:VERIFY and in particular WP:NOENG, I suggest it would be a reasonable courtesy to provide links to English search results on English Wikipedia. Three ( [3], [4] and [5]) of the six references originally provided in this section result from searches within the Spanish language version of Google Books. Would the original poster consider using the Google Books citation tool to both Anglicise the URL and, as an added benefit, provide citation consistency? -- Senra ( talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Article on Johannes Letzmann currently claims that one was a "Nazi sympathizer". I removed the claim due to poor sourcing with the reason given on comment line. Historical overview about meteorology at Graz can be found here. Now the claim has been restored without much of explanation. I'll ask one who added the claim to provide exact context where the claim is taken from. Even if the claim is there on the talk show, this is likely a rumor related to the fact that Letzmann moved from Estonia to Germany during the time when Nazis were in charge, but escaping from war and having a job in a German university during that time yet doesn't make one a "Nazi sympathizer". I find this claim being a serious attack which can't be in a biography without a reliable source (where the claim was taken by one who mentioned it in a talk show) on Letzmann's political views. 88.196.241.249 ( talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am just checking to see if sage journals ( http://online.sagepub.com/) is a reliable source?
From what I have read it seems to be a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals therefore I am assuming it is a credible source of information. Thanks in advance. -- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. I made a small edit to a page a few days ago and while i was reading threw the talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times. The odd thing is that diffrent editors appear to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times.
Most of the section was based on sage publications and I just wanted to see if sage was a credible source of information before I took any further action.
Thanks again for the quick reply-- CR.ROWAN ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
At issue is:
1. whether Mitchell Bard's credentials as follows, as well as his notability/accolades/recognitions as listed here meets WP:RS (note that, like many of that article's particularly political (Mideast Conflict) sources, he is often being cited as a biased source in accord with section 3.7 of WP:RS, in order to give both sides' political viewpoints, with the disputed source being firmly on 1 of those political "sides".) and other issues on the Talk page about whether publications from the AICE group he's related to are a self-pub source & if so, do his credentials make him exempt from the SPS rule for the reasons on the Talk page that are quotes pulled from the WP:RS rules, which allow recognized experts to be self-published? Please come and post your reasoning on the Talk page.
2. Feel free to also review the rest of that article's sources --and especially those @ the bottom of the page that I've called out-- for WP:RS also, if you have the time & interest.
3. Whether Nableezy or I violated edit-warring rules, given his 3 reverts & my 2 on 12/23-12/24, as shown on the History page. (pls also note: Nableezy was involved in another dispute with user cptnono commenting: "Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back...") I realize this an arbitration/behavior issue not specific to WP content, but the WP:RS dispute led to him making 3 reverts & me making 2.
JH Robbins 72.48.252.105 ( talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumble across various self-publishing companies such as Trafford Publishing and iUniverse quite frequently. In List of The X-Files episodes, is it appropriate to tag a Trafford book in the bibliography (i.e. Kessenich, Tom (2002). Examination. New York: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-55369-812-6.) with {{Self-published source}}? In Bohemian Grove, is it appropriate to tag an iUniverse book in the bibliography (i.e. Hanson, Mike. Bohemian Grove: Cult Of Conspiracy, iUniverse Inc, 2004) with {{Self-published source}}?
My tag of the former was reverted with the explanation: "while this is an accurate tag, i'm not seeing what its purpose is. unless the accuracy and validity of the source is being actively questioned why should we tag it with something?" My impression is that the tag is to alert other editors to material that does not have editor oversight and may not have been checked for accuracy and validity, and therefore may need to be eliminated or replaced with a better source. (I will invite the other editor here for feedback.) Location ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is what I find as his short bio in an independent history related website:
When looking on
Google Scholar, even though I do not find any papers published by him in English (perhaps because he does not know the language), I am able to see academic publications that cite his works:
1. (PhD thesis Michigan University: search for "jafarian")
2.(journal paper: click on "Download This Paper" )
3. (journal paper: requires subscription, but his name appears in Google Scholar link provided earlier).
My question is whether I can refer to him as a scholar in matters related to Islamic/Iranian history, even though I know he is definitely a believer and for examples uses honorifics for religious figures.-- User 99 119 ( talk) 13:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a source being used at this article that appears contentious. It is published in what is, to all appearances, a peer-reviewed journal, though the article has a distinctly personal slant. It was initially tagged as self-published, though it is clearly not. I suppose the question is along the lines of, does the personal tone disqualify it as RS, or does the peer review process qualify it as such?
discussion is here
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell me if you feel [6] would be considered as a reliable source, please? It is used in Tamaskan dog which I recently nominated for deletion. I know most of the other refs used are not WP:RS as they are facebook, forums etc but I wanted to check before I make further comment about the article as I don't want to make myself look even more like the inexperienced idiot I most undoubtedly am! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The " Savage Love" article about Dan Savage's advice column has been expanded recently with material based entirely on Savage's writings. I think it is proper to require at least one WP:SECONDARY source per section so that minor points are not highlighted as major. There is some edit warring there—new eyes are indicated. Binksternet ( talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article
Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.
My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.
Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past [7] [8], and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material. [9]
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Is [11] a reliable source for this BLP [12]. Thanks. Note that it is the only source in the article - maybe this guy isn't notable enough for us anyway. Dougweller ( talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Source: Australian head of state dispute - a well-sourced Wikipedia article.
Article: Head of state
Content:
There is an ongoing debate in Australia and in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch or the local viceregal representative—actually is the head of state.
Discussion: As the wikilink to the Australian head of state dispute article is provided, is there a requirement to also provide the many reliable sources in that article when referencing it in another article? An editor is removing this material, saying,:
I see this as vandalism, given that the dispute exists and the statement is reliably sourced, albeit at one remove. -- Pete ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete, please don't falsely state an agreement was reached here, as you did in your restoration edit & edit summary at Head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 15:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You do not appear to be using the Wikipedia article as a "source" so the use of wikilinking to extant articles is proper, and is not a violation of
WP:RS.
[13] National Geographic is RS for QE II as "chief odf state". As is the CIA world factbook
[14] . in fact, every source I found says QE II usChief of State of Australia.
[15] Encyclopedia of World Consitutions states succinctly The queen or the king, acting through the representative the governor-general, is the Australian head of state. BTW, I noited the "Duke of Normandy" excursion on the article talk page -- the custom for many hundreds of years is that the toast is to the most closely related title to the place where the toast is made. On the Isle of Man, the customary toast, indeed, is to "The Lord of Mann, Queen Elizabeth II". If no name is given, then the toast is just to "The Lord of Mann." Ditto in Lancaster (explained to me in depth there, as a matter of fact) and in the Channel Islands (told to me by a Jersey resident). This does not make the local title "higher", nor does it remove the title "Queen" where the name is given, it simply states that the monarch has a peculaiar and direct connection to that place. Pre-WW II, if one were in India, one might toast the "Emperor of India, King George VI", because that was the closest direct title he had in India. In London, one would not toast "The Emperor" because that was not his closest title to the place where the toast was given. Simple explanation to the weird discourse there.
Collect (
talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Officially - HRH QE II is "head of state" for Australia - and by her own decision she assigns the functions of "head of state" to the GG - but that does not mean that she is not "head of state" as a "defined office". " Plenipotentiary" is a neat word. Collect ( talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to establish that it is reasonable to identify the Head of State of Australia as Queen Elizabeth II, but that there is reasonable grounds to also mention the ongoing argument on the topic and to include a link to the Australian head of state dispute article. That would be giving both sides of the argument reasonable coverage wouldn't it? Djapa Owen ( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm wondering whether this page [16] (or, more specifically, this one [17]) meets reliable sources criteria. It is used in a BLP ( Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Ancestry) and I don't think it qualifies as reliable (not to mention the fact that the content it supports is trivial). Surtsicna ( talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone consider this reliable?
http://scis.nova.edu/~rbuckley/Film%20Essay.pdf
It's been published under http://scis.nova.edu/ which is a well-known university, but I'm not sure if an essay in the university archive works. It's old, and I can find no way to access this from the root link of the university now. So I'm not sure if it's cited or peer-reviewed or anything of that. Can it be considered scholarly monograph? I wanna know if it's reliable. I only want to use one sentence in "The Matrix (film}" article:
"Linear interpolation was used to fill in any gaps of the still images to produce a fluent dynamic motion."
Any suggestion on how to archive the pdf , BTW?
Another source is http://www.sbc.ac.in/voice/bullet.htm
I'm using it for the same article. What I want to use is:
"To cope up with the problem of camera rigs, these stills are scanned and enhanced by computers to get a real time view of the scene. The computer generated "lead in" and "lead out" slides are filled in between frames in sequence to get an illusion of orbiting the scene. This method of enhancing the bullet time is called interpolation." Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
"Sunday October 21, 2012 we play our first ever live show as a 4 piece. It is with great honor we welcome our new comrade, Sos to the fold for this special ritual."
The only other places I can find his name is their twitter page and facebook, but those aren't allowed as sources. But I don't know if I'm allowed to put the name on the member list instead and NOT mention in the body. I have no idea. Because I must put his name there but there's barely sources, this is the only one which quotes the band.
BlastBeat4 ( talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I want to write an article on a Mexican religious group called El Buen Pastor(The Good Shepherd). However, most sources only mention this group in the context of it's "parent" church La Luz del Mundo, from which El Buen Pastor broke off in 1942. I have found two sources which provide value information on the group, but they are both theses. The first is a dissertation by historian Jason Dormady, "Not just a better Mexico" : intentional religious community and the Mexican state, 1940-1964. [21] Dormady later wrote a book titled Primitive Revolution : restorationist religion and the idea of the Mexican Revolution, 1940-1968 [22] which closely resembles his thesis, but omits this information, perhaps because it was irrelevant (nonetheless valuable). The other is a tesis de licenciatura (bachelor's thesis) titled Catolicismo y evangelio al este del estado de Puebla [23] by Sergio Luis Contreras. This thesis provides excerpts from El Buen Pastor's official history, and one of the thesis adviser's Elio Masferrer Kan is (in my opinion) an authority in the field. The director Carlos Garma Navarro is also (in my opinion) an expert in the field. Dormady uses La Luz del Mundo and independent sources to describe the schism that took place in 1942, while Contreras uses El Buen Pastor and independent sources. Using both Dormady and Contreras would ensure a high level of neutrality on such a sensitive topic.
My question is therefore: can I use these two sources in the article I want to create? I believe El Buen Pastor church meets minimum notability requirements. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Does (or how does) WP:MEDRS apply to claims and reports of healing achieved through Christian Science practices?
I have raised a query [24] on the talk page concerning this.
The para in question is here (result of multiple edits over time):
Although the church and its founder make these statements, in the United States, it is the individual's choice what type of care he or she may undergo. Some members deviate from this advice, and the negative outcomes regarding children can be found in the media. Despite negative outcomes due to deviation, any total is still far below[original research?] that of some medical alternatives (prescribed drugs) which are considered some of the deadliest[52]. Defending the record of Christian Science, Robert Peel questions the claim by the medical establishment to be the exclusive authority on healing. He writes that "nosocomial illness – an umbrella term for a whole catalogue of infections acquired inside the hospital – has proved fatal to some patients who entered the hospital for treatment for a very minor ailment."[53] Peel cites a 1978 estimation that of "32 million persons admitted to American hospitals each year, about 1.5 million develop some kind of nosocomial infection, and 15,000 die of it."[54] (See also Iatrogenesis.)
The sources in question are:
I appreciate there is a difference between relating historical reports of spiritual/miraculous healing, and making statements about medical efficacy — the query is more how that line is drawn, particularly in regard to sources used, for this topic. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
More eyes are needed to bring Common Sense [ [26]] to the article on Christian Science. There is plenty in every section of the Talk Pages to indicate what is happening. In my view, 3O is not being heeded, and emerging consensus is being ignored. I am of the opinion that disruptive editing has been a recurring problem in this article. I read here that Wikipedia articles on religion draw partly from the sacred texts of that religion, as well as reliable secondary sources. I also read that the reliability of a source depends on context. I am finding that the most reliable sources have been misused in the article, and discussion in the talk pages about that seem to be disregarded. Particularly these sections of the Talk Pages to start. [ [27]] [ [28]] [ [29]] [ [30]]
If one looks into the footnotes of so-called "reliable sources", it is obvious that the those sources hold a biased opinion of Christian Science medically, theologically, scientifically. A balanced viewpoint should emerge, but a biased viewpoint should not be coming through in Wikipedia's voice, which it is in this article. Sources which accurately describe Christian Science have been objected to by several editors, and reliable sources have been used out of context. Friends whom I have sent to the Talk Pages (who are not Christian Scientists) have remarked that it isn't right what is happening with this article.
There are too many instances in the article of what I am describing to focus on specific instances. What I am hoping for is for someone to go in and take an overview of what has happened. If there is a better place for me to post this, I am open to advice from someone outside of the present discussion: LeviTee ( talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is available from two sources: WaldorfCritics.org and WaldorfLibrary.org
I think it would be an excellent source for use in Waldorf education, specifically in the section Waldorf education#Racism controversy. However this article and particularly this aspect of the subject is highly contentious so I want an opinion on the suitability of this source before using it in the article. In particular I am concerned that the article is not (that I can find) published by an academic publisher but is hosted on highly partisan websites (although the sites in question are on opposite sides of the pro- v. anti-Steiner controversy). The article is, however, an addendum to a paper the authors published (with other collaborators) in a more relaible source (Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02354381 (I don't know how to make that into a link here)) and (as discussed in the article itself) this article was in an earlier draft intended to be incorporated into that main paper. The main paper itself is already cited as a source in the WP article.
To use this source I would introduce it in the context of the main study conducted by McDermott et al into the Milwaukee school and say something like:
McDermott and Oberman discuss Steiner's teachings that humans fall into different races with different places in the evolution of consciousness and different mental and spiritual abilities; cite a study showing that many followers of Steiner consider him infallible; report observing a display of racist attitudes from representatives of the international Waldorf community; express concern about the possible prevalence of racist attitudes amongst some Steiner-Waldorf teachers; and urge the Waldorf movement to tackle racist issues in Steiner's teachings.
However the authors also report that the Milwaukee school they observed (and produced their main report on) not only did not display racism but was actively confronting racism (which they also credit Waldorf educators in Black townships in South Africa with doing) and cite with approval efforts within the anthroposophy and Waldorf communities to confront and reject racism.
John Stumbles ( talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In Talk:James H. Fetzer, an editor wants to know if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html is a reliable source for James Fetzer's views regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thanks! Location ( talk) 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Kuroneko currently cites Jim Breen's dictionary [32] as a source for the meaning of a phrase in the Japanese title. Reliable sources don't translate the title (the English title is a shortening of the Japanese title Yabu no naka no kuroneko), but WP:NCFILM says we should provide a translation anyway. The title has two meanings in Japanese, a literal one, and a figurative one that is overwhelmingly more common, but that is not the issue here.
It was mentioned that WWWJDIC might be WP:USERG, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Jim Breen is a recognized expert in Japanese language studies, and his dictionary is one of the most widely-used J-E dictionaries. His website is also his official homepage as a Research Fellow of Monash University. The dictionary also claims to be copyright the " Electronic Dictionary Research and Development Group".
What does everyone else think about this?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 05:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The operating project, EDRDG, is run by Monash University, a reputable Australian university, and primary author/maintainer Jim Breen is not only notable enough to have his own WP page, he's a Senior Research Fellow at Monash's Japanese Studies Centre and his scholarly work (incl. much about WWWJDIC) has been published extensively in reliable sources. The dictionary and its predecessors JDIC and EDICT have been actively worked on since 1991. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database, and WWWJDIC is described as "reliable and close to comprehensive" by sources like the Japan Times.
All that said, sources like Kōjien are still a step above WWWJDIC in authoritativeness, but for anything even vaguely modern or slangy WWWJDIC's quite often as good as it gets. Jpatokal ( talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The WWWJDIC can be considered a user-generated site. It states plainly: Users of WWWJDIC are welcome to submit amendments to the dictionary files, and also to submit new entries. I have submitted new words & definitions, and I have submitted additional definitions or pronunciations to existing words or kanji. That said, the provider is supposed to add a reference that can verify the new word/definition, and new definitions are annotated if they have not been confirmed by Jim Breen (or his staff, I suppose). So, user generated, but also based on established dictionaries, and also I believe quite respected among Japanophiles. Concur with User:Jpatokal. Boneyard90 ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It also might be pointed out that the WWWJDIC-definition that JoshuSasori was continues to challenge was is yabu no naka (don't know how to link WWWJDIC entry but
[36] is a carbon-copy), which virtually matches that of Kōjien and Daijisen.
elvenscout742 (
talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not all of the entries are reviewed by the panel. In the past i've put in a few test additional translation entries which changed the emphasis of a translation (then i removed them) and seen translations by other people under entries for words which i've done scholarly study of in my specialised, study field: 自然農法, which are not the best translations by any means—also obvious by reference to Kenkyūsha's and so on without even my special scholarly studies—and must not be used as reliable sources. It's a pity, and i think great Jim Breen will better the system to become much more robust in reliability, soon, or perhaps already has—since it's been a year or two ago for me.
I've used it as an ancillary source (as a second ref) after the first most reliable source (ref), eg. Kenkyūsha's. It is better to go to beyond WWWJDIC to its sources and reference those instead, eg. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and numerous others.
For EDICT (Jpn–Eng General) and the default setting of: "Special Text–glossing", which automatically and conveniently incorporates a decision tree choice of various DICTs, depending on your input text—including the often helpful ENAMDICT (person's names)—they are not blanket reliable in my 10+ years of experience using it and IMHO. For these, it is better to dig deeper by repeating the search.
First the most general search you want.
Then, if that was a composite "Special Text–glossing" or "Expanded Text–glossing" setting, then break up your text into sections according to the different dictionaries it has used to output the result.
Sequentially set it to each one of those dictionaries' individual settings and input each of those sections of your text;
for each of those dictionaries' results dig deeper into the history of the translation source within WWWJDIC, often per single words/compound words, as there are not so many long phrases whole translations.
Hence, is that specific translation a reliable source or not? If it was altered by a member of the public without in turn providing sources as basis, and without in turn then getting reviewed by the panel of experts, then no. If it is in turn based on a reliable source then ok. If it is a name ENAMDICT output when it should have decided to use EDICT to translate its meaning to English, then no, and then you have to take that text back as input to specifically set EDICT translation and then repeat the history check again.
When needed i've regularly done this specific checking of this source (each word/compound word) for reliability.
It sounds too complicated when written in description here, but it is not too complicated when we get used to it.
For quick edification, such as in WP talk posts, and quick checking one's memory recall, it's fine amongst others, such as my Mac's (free) built–in, great big Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus linked directly to the great big Shōgakukan (Daijisen±) E<–>J, Japanese and Japanese synonyms dictionaries. For editing here in WP the Mac Shōgakukan<–>Oxford is much more convenient than WWWJDIC. If someone (hasn't a Mac and) is lazy for all this WWWJDIC reliability checking, the most convenient and best sources would be to have: Kenkyūsha's and Kōjien, big hardcopies (or computer software) on one's own desk (or desktop). I wish I had, for even more reliable sources and more convenience. I have access to them in the Uni. library. I hope that helps people in general here. ——-- macropneuma 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I might add for my summation, capsule, that in my humble 10+ years of on & off experiences with WWWJDIC, the emphasis of it is on the digital dictionary technologies, not so much emphasis on the highest standards of lexicographical scholarship, as certain dictionaries we've already mentioned above, and including we all know the Oxford English. This is emphasis, and no criticism of Jim Breen or WWWJDIC at all. i perceive, of course, that emphasis to be his purpose and emphasis too; so WWWJDIC is very well fit for its purpose (to me), and i think very fit for Jim Breen's purposes; which are not the same emphases as WP's most reliable sources, purposes. Why, we needn't be (emphasising) using a less reliable source, WWWJDIC, when we can use the widely acknowledged, most reliable, best, sources, we've cited above; and put the WP sourcing emphasis on those. There's no reason not to use WWWJDIC here when fit for the purpose, just not everywhere, generally, reliable. Thanks elvenscout742 & co., for me, at least, a stimulating discussion. ——-- macropneuma 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Second last sentence added for to be sure. :) ——-- macropneuma 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Off topic, irrelevant, false positive and reply.
|
---|
|
I'm not trying to imply finishing this discussion section, in my summation, capsule, above, just my version of my summation, so far, not closing off the section, and my little, genuine, thanks, i also learned certain key things. Anyone having more to say, please, i mean to be encouraging you, in good faith (&c.) ... . ——-- macropneuma 15:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Mark Lane is probably the first Warren Commission critic and one of many controversial figures in the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts. Lane's views are supported by many other critics and rejected by various debunkers who have called him "unscrupulous" [37]. A sentence in Mark Lane (author) states:
This is a close paraphrase of page 162 in "J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War" by R. Andrew Kiel who, from the little information I can find, "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio" [38] and has supported other conspiracy-oriented individuals [39].:
I have voiced a challenge to the word "ignore" in the above context in that it implies "intentional disregard", and have suggested that it be changed to either "not interviewed" or be attributed to the original author. Although there appears to be consensus for this change in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), one editor has insisted that it is a proper reflection of a statement of fact (per WP:YESPOV) and suggested that the issue be raised here. So...
Thanks! Location ( talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Location claims that Press TV cannot be used to establish notability for Jim Fetzers outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint that the Sandy Hook massacre can be blamed on Israel. Press TV is the main and official news agency of Iran, and Veterans Today is an american-based website that also carries Press TV stories and its contributors, but thus also carries stories approved by the government of Iran. Both have been noted by ADL and Washington Post as carrying wildly anti-semitic anti-israel propoganda. It is hard to document Fetzer if WP disallows two of his most important outlets and source of supporters with similar viewpoints. Kourosh Ziabari was deleted because it was claimed that his many contributions to both outlets were not "notable", and a similar case is being made for Mark Dankof who similarly appear on Press TV and American anti-war websites. If these writers are acting as stealth propgandists for a hostile nation-state, it impossible to document them if they are to be deleted simply because they have been ignored by mainstream pro-Israel western media, yet heavily promoted by pro-Iranian pro-Palestine outlets. Redhanker ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a problem of sourcing, but of original research. I've commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Are the reports and other publications of established NGOs such as this Foundation for Middle East Peace RS? For example, he is a very short report consisting solely of statistical data settler demographics -- Ubikwit ( talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
-- Ubikwit ( talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)UbikwitShould every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [43] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [44].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone can demonstrate that this source is not authentic or is an inaccurate reproduction of this speech, I think that it's reliable as a primary source. Primary sources are allowed, although secondary sources are often preferred, especially when establishing weight. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the following:
I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [45] [46]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? ( John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location ( talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
In these two recent edits
[47]
[48] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met
WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage”
[49]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source:
Consumer Reports
[50]
I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [51]. Puhlaa ( talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A question... From the comments above it seems that there have been some editors who call the
Consumer Reports a reliable source for a discussion of consumer opinion; No editor has yet called Consumer Reports an unreliable source. If Consumer Reports is thus considered reliable according to
WP:RS, it seems from the comments that the next step is then to assess the quality of this specific survey published by Consumer Reports to decide if it is good enough for inclusion in the article? There have been some editors who have criticized the methodology of this particular survey, or the way the results are presented by the source. My question is, does Wikipedia provide guidelines or policy on how we are to critically evaluate the quality of this specific survey, or the way these authors have presented their data, so that we can assess for bias that could disqualify this specific report from inclusion in the article? If not, how do we determine if the criticisms of this specific CR report presented above are enough to warrant exclusion of the specific Consumer Reports survey?
Puhlaa (
talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
{od}A list of outdated primary sources doesn't carry much weight. Per wp:MEDRS, we look for peer-reviewed, current, secondary sources (ideally systematic reviews) as the best choice for medical assertions. The Consumer Reports piece is neither peer-reviewed nor secondary. If no comparable MEDRS existed, it might be of interest, but that is not the case. We have Cochrane systematic reviews such as PMID 21248591, PMID 20393942, PMID20640863. How could we justify the use of lower-quality primary sources to challenge them? Just being a reliable source isn't the point. We want the best available reliable sources. This doesn't come close. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ma'an News Agency is a wire service founded in 2005 and is located in the West Bank and Gaza. I would like advice on the reliability of its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as I noticed it was being used in Operation Pillar of Defense.
Ma'an's chief editor was described as "batshit insane" and liable to "spout[ing] out the craziest theories every once in a while" in emails published by Wikileaks, which it says are from the Stratfor Global Intelligence Company. The emails also described Ma'an's chief editor as a staunch supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and reported that he promised a group of Palestinians that they would liberate Jerusalem with military honour. Ma'an's English editor has clarified the objective of the organisation, writing on its website: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement...In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."
Ma'an has published repugnant antisemitic opinion pieces. This one, recently published, states that it is a historical fact that Jews are cowards, universally hated, a nation of conspirators, are worse than feeding vampires, and that the curse of God compels them to continue with their deceit and violence. An excerpt has been translated here.
Nor does it seem overly concerned over the accuracy of its news articles.
Ma'an provided a sanitised translation of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination, and published unchallenged outlandish claims, such as "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.
It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.
Ma'an queried whether the Itamar massacre was in fact perpetrated by Israelis and later reported that the IDF had arrested all the Thai workers inside the Itamar settlement in relation to the murders. No other regular news network ran with this story and the Jerusalem Post noted that Maan did not provide a source for this information. Ma'an then published an opinion piece reflecting on Maan's reliable reporting that it was in fact a foreign worker that had perpetrated the Itamar massacre and that this had stymied Israel's "planned international campaign". (Excerpt translated here.)
This was all bogus. The IDF had raided the West Bank town of Awata hours after the attack suspecting that the assailants had come from there. Itamar's mayor responded that the settlement did not even have any foreign workers. Two Palestinians were arrested for the Itamar murders and confessed to the murders. Their feats were praised on Palestinian TV.
Ma'an published a crazy conspiracy theory that Palestinians were being attacked by non indigenous pigs deliberately released by settlers into the Salfit area. The Ma'an article cited the report of the "Applied Research Institute" to substantiate these claims - yet, the organisation's report were quoting Ma'an's stories, so in effect, Ma'am were quoting themselves to support their own bizarre claims.
Finally, the way Ma'an and other established news organisations report events is often at odds.
An editor has pointed out that Ma'an's stories have been cited by the BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Does this however confer reliability on Ma'an when it has not been cited by regular news networks?
Arutz Sheva, a pro-settler media organisation, has also been cited by the Guardian and the NYT. The Palestinian Media Watch has been cited by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Russia Today, Jyllands-Posten and the Sydney Morning Herald among a host of international media outlets. It has been cited by Hillary Clinton and PMW's director has addressed parliaments about its findings.
Yet, editors have generally refrained from using PMW in wikpedia's Israel-Palestine topics when it has not been cited by other media because of its slanted objective. Is this not similarly the case with Ma'an? Ankh. Morpork 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This entire post is predicated on a user wishing to remove one of the very few Palestinian sources used in an article replete with Israeli sources, including voice of the settlers Arutz Sheva. An attempt to distort these articles even further by denying any voice to Palestinians. How that is allowed is rather beyond me. Additionally, there is a BLP violation in the above by calling, on the basis of a leaked email by an employee at Stratfor, a living person "batshit insane".
But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC, [63] [64] the Guardian, [65] [66] [67] al-Jazeera, [68] [69] and the New York Times. [70] [71] [72] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.
Finally, I must object to the continued misuse of this board by AnkhMorpork. As can be seen in his past attempts to disqualify entire sources that just so happen to not be Zionist in tone (eg here), he is refusing to actually link to what is being used as a source and is instead seeking to remove from Wikipedia an entire news organization that just happens to be written by Palestinians. Just happens of course. If an op-ed being racist or otherwise objectionable is cause for not allowing news stories from the same outlet, then should Yedioth Ahronoth be removed because they hosted an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey.? Should the Jerusalem Post be disqualified because they printed an op-ed that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? Of course not. But that is the argument made here, that because an organization published a single persons opinion as a single persons opinion that is somehow objectionable that their news reports are unreliable. That is an asinine argument, but if it is accepted here then we'll have to go about deleting any ynet or jpost link on these pages as well. nableezy - 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Some quotes from WP:RS:
If somebody has some evidence that our verifiability policy or reliable sources guideline call for the above to be washed away due to users not liking a frickin op-ed they published, by all means provide it. nableezy - 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This thread is exactly what I meant on the talk page about people trying to use this project to carry on their own quarrels. What article are we talking about? Please give full bibliographic details of the proposed source. What statement is it meant to support? ON NO ACCOUNT (I never shout) mention other completely different sources that are perceived to have the opposite bias. Reformulate the question correctly and you may get one or two uninvolved comments. If you are unwilling to do that then I will report one or more of the participants in this thread for trolling. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly the same type of case as the preceding entry on this page (see comment by Dan Murphy I quoted). If editors have a problem with an op-ed piece they should address that piece specifically and any other such pieces on a case-by-case basis, and not try to designate the publication as a whole as not an RS. Ubikwit ( talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Tom Harrison, that is the problem in a nutshell! However, not being one to write nutshells, rather tomes, here is my take on it. I doubt if there were a settler newspaper that claimed to "deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of living" as a settler on land Palestinians claimed as their own, it would be considered reliable for information regarding Palestinians. Or would a newspaper that carried op-eds claiming that Palestinian Muslims (rather than 'Jews') are universally hated conspirators, worse than feeding vampires and cursed by God to be deceitful and violent would be considered reliable about Palestinian Muslims? Could a paper that would publish such tripe be accepted as reliable about the people they clearly despise and by whom they feel victimized? No trustworthy news organisation would ever publish something as racist as that revolting opinion piece in Ma'an. It is something that you would expect to find on Stormfront - never on a respectable media outlet. This, in combination with its documented inaccuracies demonstrate its total unreliability with regard to Israel/Palestine situation. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
In this edit User:AnkhMorpork gave a different reason for calling Maan News unreliable:
And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false
He seems to think that israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability, and anything that differs from them are false. When your perspective on reliability is so one-sided, you are bound to create a lot of conflict on a project that has a diverse user group. PerDaniel ( talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No matter how much you try to change the discussion, the fact is that he measured how true or false a report was by comparing it to israeli reports. This does not bode well for his ability to understand WP:NPOV. PerDaniel ( talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false
The question I think we are being asked to rule on is this:
In Operation Pillar of Defense, is this report reliable for the statement On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone.?
The above is the way that a question on RSN ought to be formulated.
My opinion, based on WP policies and guidelines is, yes, it is RS for that statement. The report is based on an interview that the family of a dead man gave to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. We have no reason to doubt that the family gave their side of the story in that way. The Ma'an report in this case is consistent with an AFP report, also cited. The Israeli Navy view is also included: that the fisherman approached the exclusion zone from land and not from the sea. There does not seem to be any disagreement that the fisherman was killed and another man wounded.
The general character of Ma'an is only relevant to the extent that it affects the reliability of this particular text to support this particular statement in this particular article. It seems pretty clear that Ma'an carries a bias, which is typical of newspapers and news magazines but not typical of news agencies. Ma'an does not have the level of reliability of AP, AFP or Reuters. I do not (yet) think that, taken as a whole, it is an extremist source. The excerpt in Arabic that has been posted here is viciously antisemitic. It does not seem to be typical of material on the website, at least not on the English version. (The most recent article in the Analysis section is This Christmas, remember Palestine's Christians by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as far from extremism as you can get.) The article in Arabic does not appear on the English site. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Ma'an news agency, which is a fairly reliable source of news about both the Gaza Strip and the PA, has lost its server for the time being. The site offers an apology to its many readers and promises to come back soon.' The Jewish Press November 14th, 2012.
The above post disregards the fact that the page Operation Pillar of Defense contains numerous quotes from ma'an, not merely the one mentioned by User:Itsmejudith. Therefore the reformulation they proposed is inappropriate. Meanwhile, User:WLRoss (Wayne) addressed some of the substantive issues involved, and deserves a response, even though ultimately his comments fail to refute the facts about the unreliability of ma'an, as I will show. User:WLRoss claimed that:
1. "That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts."
2. "Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?"
3. "Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used."
4. "Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan."
5. "Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report."
6. "AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission."
7. "Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades." "
8. "@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne"
You are rejecting my re-formulation as a question about whether a source supports one statement? That is at odds with the established methods of this board. I strongly suggest that we do look at the Ma'an references one by one. If you do not like that approach then please post on this board's talk page explaining why you wish us to overturn our usual method of one query at a time. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing off topic discussion
|
---|
The truth on pigs?I tried to research the pig situation and came across an interesting CNN article here which seems to suggest that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged the pig problem. Namely, after making the pig claim, the article goes on to say that Barak called the attackers "hooligans." Does Barak know more than we do, or does CNN know less than we do? If anybody has any relevant information this would be appreciated. Tkuvho ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not just collapse/hide this detour - either here or in a new section about whatever the topic is.
CarolMooreDC 20:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [74]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The site seems to be run by Steve Hoffman, a music engineer of some repute. An article from his website is currently being used at the article George Harrison (which will be nominated for FA status this week) to cite the following info:
On 12 November, the three living Beatles met for the last time for a luncheon at Harrison's hotel in New York, with McCartney flying in from London with his fiancee Heather Mills. The party laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired to leave the three ex-Beatles alone together for the last time.
While the info is definitely in the source cited, I am not certain that the source itself meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is in the format of a message board, for one thing, which raises some immediate flags. While I don't think Mr Hoffman simply invented facts that sounded nice, I am wary about citing his article if others doubt its reliability. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue at hand is the second reference. The statement as presented above implies that the NPR reference is making a statement that the Arizona legislation would prevent doctors (in Arizona) from being liable for malpractice. Not only does the source not say this, but it actually contradicts this supposition by saying The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts .
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war ( English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).
Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.
-- Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following from Conversion therapy for sourcing concerns:
NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity. [3] [4]
I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. Can some folks please offer input? Thank you. Insomesia ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Concur. ► Belchfire- TALK 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the source can only be used to verify the view of the source, and should be clearly attributed, and any content verified by that should be neutrally worded. I do not see it as a reliable source outside of what I have just stated. Secondary or tertiary reliable source(s) should be used for other content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering is YouTube a reliable source? Like YouTube videos of interviews with recording artists? A lot of YouTube sources are being used in the Brandy Norwood article. I've tried to remove them because I think it's not reliable but Brandy's fans who keep reverting my edits say it is. — Oz 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The "References" and "External links" section of William Robert Plumlee contains a link to http://toshplumlee.info/ , which appears to be a collection of primary source government documents obtained via the FOIA. Who is responsible for the website and gathering the information is not indicated, plus some of the documents appear to have comments "filling in" whatever information was redacted (e.g. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/fbi9o.PDF). Furthermore, the documents appear to be cherry-picked in that other primary source information on the subject can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). I believe this to be an unreliable source, however, I hope to obtain a second opinion on whether or not this could be removed from both sections of the article. Thanks! Location ( talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 ( talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another from the I/P morass, attempted blanket dismissal of the Guardian in order to discredit this [83] article, as per discussion at Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. -- Ubikwit ( talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering how extensively relying on Sheldon Brown's original research and self published source for various bicycle related articles, such as Bicycle_wheel. Would his website's contents be reliable source or should we only use it very sparingly? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I really don't care how many times you have contacted the gentleman. His self published homepage is not a RS for citing facts, but only for citing his opinion. Kill me. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Since his work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", his self-published work is a reliable source for that field. But as ever, it's not the case that sources are either Reliable or Not; whether or not something is a reliable source depends on exactly what statement is to be sourced. Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Some way above, we're told: While [Brown] may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage. At this point, it cannot be self-published, because a corpse is in no fit state to publish. Yes, it has editorial oversight (or "oversite"): This page tells us that "this site is being actively maintained, updated and expanded by his wife, Harriet Fell, and his close friend John Allen, co-author of most editions of Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics." This page is one in which we see Allen at work. (And who is Allen? This site explains.) Cycling for Dummies (a demographic perhaps not entirely unrepresented here) calls Brown a "great bicycle guru". The Urban Biking Handbook calls him an "authority on all things bicycle". Something titled 21 Nights in July: The Physics and Metaphysics of Cycling rather excitedly refers to him as a "bike mechanic and recently deceased genius". And he's cited in One Less Car, a book from an actual university press. And there's more of this kind of thing at Google Books. Yes he is a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. (And no I'm not related to him. Indeed, I first heard of him only a few months ago, years after his death.) -- Hoary ( talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)