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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
In reference to this dispute [1]. The following references are being disregarded, even by a admin!
First reference from "Japan Radio Television" [2] which is the Nippon News Network.
Second reference from "Oricon" [3], one of Japans leading sales ranking companies, that also provides its information to the general public, which is similar to "billboard" in the United States.
Third reference [4] from "GOO", a well known major entertainment site owned by NTT, one of the worlds largest telecommunications companies.
All three companies are well known worldwide, and all three references mention that the musician Michiya Mihashi sold more than 100 million records in 1983. It is easily verified using a web-based translator. In addition two translations were provided and disregarded. [5] [6] The admin mentioned that the Nippon News Network, and Oricon are not reliable sources, and that GOO is perhaps a forum or blog!
How are these references not acceptable? This statement by the admin is even hypocritical "comparable with, for example the RIAA or a page similar to AllMusic"
I also provided an English source [7] which has been disregarded. This article receives much vandalism from editors removing non-UK or US musicians, even those with reliable references written in English. It took a long fight last year to keep them there, and now this! There are many other musicians I was going to add but find it impossible. 220.253.192.72 ( talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Are dissertations considered primary or secondary sources? Here is the dissertation in question:
Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936
Thank you! Renee ( talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The above seems to be a masters "thesis" as opposed to a doctoral "dissertation." At least in the US, we don't tend to call masters theses, "dissertations" precisely to make this distinction. In the fields I have experience within I would not suggest using a masters thesis to source a novel claim. I note, of course, that this thesis was written in South Africa and I have no knowledge of their university system. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The abstract says it is a dissertation (pasted below ver batim):
Abstract (Summary) In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.
Also, the library says it has four copies here: a microfiche copy, an archive copy, and two main open collection copies. I'm not sure of how the South African system works either but some universities call all doctoral and master's documents "theses" for library purposes. My university won't import dissertations through inter-library loan from Africa because of the cost.
If it's Master's thesis I agree that it is not very rigorous and probably not a reliable source; but if it's a doctoral thesis, then I think it probably is. I wonder how we can find out for sure? PelleSmith -- how did you come to the conclusion that it was a Master's thesis? (I was basing my judgment on the abstract.) DGG -- as a librarian did you import dissertations abroad through the inter-loan system? Maybe you would know. (And yes, I know, we may not be able to get it anyways given it's in RSA.) Thanks for the comments everyone. Renee ( talk) 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the sources cited for this content reliable?
Tea cultivation in India has somewhat ambiguous origins. Though the extent of the popularity of tea in Ancient India is unknown, it is known that the tea plant was a wild plant in India that was indeed brewed by local inhabitants of different regions. [1]
The source of this is http://www.coffee-tea-etc.com/, a commercial website.
Indian legends credit the creation of tea as known in the modern sense to Bodhidharma (ca. 460-534), a monk born near Madras, India, and the founder of the Ch'an (or Zen) sect of Buddhism. [2] [3]
The sources of this are the commercial websites http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/, "The World's Most Popular Website Devoted to Men's Clothing Advice!"
Interestingly, ancient Japanese tales credit the origin of tea to Bodhidharma as well. [4] [5]
The sources of this are http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.lcy.net/, a commercial and personal website, respectively.
The first recorded reference to tea in India was in the ancient epic of the Ramayana, when Hanuman was sent to the Himalayas to bring the Sanjeevani tea plant for medicinal use. [6] [7] [8]
The sources of this are http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html, http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx, and the Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana.
http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html is a commercial website.
There is no mention of tea at http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx.
The Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana can be found online, but there is no mention of tea in the sourced Book VI, Canto CII, which can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry476.htm.
In an 1877 pamphlet written by Samuel Baildon, and published by W.Newman and Co. of Calcutta, he writes, "...various merchants in Calcutta were discussing the chance of imported China seeds thriving in Assam, when a native from the province present, seeing some tea said, "We have the plant growing wild in our jungles." It is then documented that the Assamese nobleman, Maniram Dutta Barua, (also known as Maniram Dewan) showed British surveyors existing fields used for tea cultivation and wild tea plants growing in the Assamese jungle. [9]
The source of this is http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/, a personal webpage. 12.15.120.169 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
68.196.117.231 ( talk · contribs) added this link to each of the twenty "sexy wives" listed. Should it be reverted?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding information given to me by my sensei. I'm noticing that the kyudo entry has "This article doesn't cite its sources" warnings on it... a good deal of us learned techniques from senseis who learned the techniques from their senseis... and so on. This means that the information we are citing is verbal, not physical. Some martial arts, such as Karate have a great wealth of knowledge printed in the general media, some, like Kyudo (Which I am a practicioner), only has a handful of books, and, as you might imagine, the rules sometimes conflict as they are from differing schools. How does one cite a Martial Arts Sensei as their source. We practice martial arts for a long time, and the knowledge is handed down this way. If we can't cite sources, will the article simply remain with the warning? Or will it ultimately be removed? Aabh ( talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This has to do with the UltimateBet cheating scandal - more on the talk page there. I need to know whether the included link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=208114 can be considered a reliable source. Ordinarily self-publishing does not qualify, but if you'll look at the information included I believe this is an exception. Useful notes on the talk page there on whether the information on the cheating scandal should be included would also be appreciated. Adam ( talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources says that:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.(emphasis added)
I added emphasis since I only would like to discuss "respected publishing houses[']" status as one of the most reliable sources. I would like to know whether the following qualify as such:
As regards to both I would like to know if they are reliable sources in the field of Religion and philosophy, and perhaps history of religion as well. For example, Brill has published a voluminous Encyclopedia of Islam, while Routledge has printed the the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Encyclopedia of Ethics.
I know that of course the author and publication itself affect the reliability, but can the above publishers be considered "respected" in a similar way as university presses or academic journals are? Bless sins ( talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Among the external links on this article are [ [14]] and [ [15]], both of which are evidently 'authorise' by Rohl. Are these acceptable as external links? Secondly, Rohl himself added a paragraph using one of these lists as a reference to something said by Kenneth Kitchen at a conference which I removed [16] - was my action correct in doing this? Given Kitchen's known opposition to Rohl, I feel something more is required than just a link to a mailing list, verbatim copy of a video recording or not (and you can't read the list unless you are a member). Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The following content was removed [17] because Reporters without borders is considered by that editor WP:UNDUE for stating about Xinhua News Agency that is "the world's biggest propaganda agency".
There is RfC here Talk:Xinhua_News_Agency#Reporters_Without_Borders, which is not commented yet by neutral editors, so please give us your thoughts. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::I do not know what is the reference for your statement "there is no overwhelming consensus about media watchdog groups or reporters that indicate that Xinhua is not a propaganda instrument". Please see wikipedia policy
WP:NOT#OR. My point here is that RWB is a highly controversial organization which has been accused of having ties with the
CIA. I do not know which country you are talking about other than Europe/US respect this organization or how there is a global consensus about the reliability of this organization. I have plenty of sources to prove this organization is simply a propaganda machinery of the western liberal democracies. The organization also receives fund by the
National Endowment for Democracy which itself is a controversial organization.
RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. We cannot reference this article from biased, politically motivated and controversial organization. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: All discussion is going on in Talk:Xinhua News Agency. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm in the process of the WP:GAN review of Cold fusion and I've been challenged on this point, so here I am. I was told to point you guys to the following page, which says nice things about the reliability of this website: http://www.newenergytimes.com/contact/contact.htm#quotes. I have explained that websites by themselves are almost never considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. This website is an important external link for the article, because it's helpful for getting proponents up to speed, but it's an unapologetic proponent's site that admits a financial connection to its subject matter. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
New Energy Times is a project of New Energy Institute, a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to investigate, analyze, educate and report on the progress of new, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources and research. Its primary focus is the subject of low energy nuclear reactions, part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion." New Energy Institute seeks to advance the development and application of clean energy, accessible and affordable for everyone. In order to remain a neutral, unbiased and impartial source of news and analysis, New Energy Timestm and New Energy Institute Inc. do not conduct their own scientific research, do not invest in or maintain ownership in any of the companies or technologies they report on, and do not try to acquire any intellectual property rights in the field.
Whittaker, J. Wilson (2007). "A comparison of neurocognitive functioning in pedophilic child molesters, nonpedophilic child molesters and normal adult males." Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah, United States -- Utah. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3255199).
The above dissertation is currently used in Pedophilia to support its definition as "a sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children." In all, 5 peer-reviewed studies are cited for this definition. If necessary, I can easy find more, given it's the predominant definition in scientific souces.
PetraSchelm believes that dissertations are iffy as reliable sources. Petra and Jack-A-Roe would prefer to cite American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which defines paedophilia as "the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." IMO, sources that specialize in a particular subject, in this case paedophilia, are likely to be more precise and reliable as sources. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow all the discussion here, but I don't see any reason why a Doctoral dissertation would NOT be reliable. DigitalC ( talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an editing war over at Tokwiro Enterprises between user 2005 and members of various online gambling forums who have conducted and continue to conduct a great deal of original research regarding an online poker cheating scandal on UltimateBet. Tokwiro Enterprises owns and operates UltimateBet as well as Absolute Poker which had its own cheating scandal last year. An incredible amount of time, investigation, and collaboration have gone into exposing the truth, which is summed up extensively in this post on the Two Plus Two forums. User 2005 believes, seemingly rightfully, that supplying that post (and by default association, the subsequent replies by other users) as a source goes against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources because it is original research and its writers have an obvious agenda. He argues that linking to this published article, which barely scratches the surface of the scandal and omits most of the damning details, is one way to source the information while still adhering to the guidelines.
Even ignoring the obvious urgency after which these details are being sought, I have two major problems with waiting for the relevant information to be published before being able to cite it. For one thing, this is verified, substantial, and significant research which simply has not been picked up by a website or magazine. The difference between this documentation and other citable sources is simply that no managers have had an interest in being the first to tie his name or the name of his publication to it. Secondly, and most importantly in this particular instance, the publications which we are relying on to get the story out are heavily influenced by the ad money supplied by the same company which is under fire in this investigation. Further, I don't understand how the publication of this research makes it any more reliable in this case. All of the numbers, facts, statistics, screenshots, correspondence, and other proof are there on the message board and as verifiable as they would be if a news source picked up the full story. In other words, the very people who have compiled the facts and broken open the scandal have become some of the major players in this story and therefore are more reliable than anyone who gets their information second-hand just to turn around and publish it.
Basically, I was hoping for some discussion about citing original research as a source when it is obvious that it is more thorough and reliable than anything that has been published about the subject. I didn't post this on the No original research notice board because nobody refutes the claim that it is original research, but its reliability is still debatable. Are there any exceptions or precedences that would allow us to cite the original messageboard post? Albedoa ( talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[18] Is this a reliable source. I have removed this several times, but the user adds back that too in introduction of [19] Mahaakaal ( talk) 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a disagreement going on at the Feng Shui article between myself and another editor. The issue is over whether the web site link http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/daily_mvt_nmp_e.php from the Canadian government is a reliable source. -- Sedonafengshui ( talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We just had an addition to Robot, and I reverted (without prejudice...I left nice notes asking for help with this one), based on a little skepticism and on the source, a website that links to a free newspaper: http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/35/robot-dreams-the-strange-tale-of-a-mans-quest-to-rebuild-his-mechanical-childhood-friend. David Gerard, who has been around for a while and knows a lot, reverted me. Can I get a general ruling on free newspapers, and/or this particular source? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a question on two sources. I am trying to source the DVD release dates for Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1). Two sources I have found are TvShowsonDVD.com and Amazon. Would these two sources be considered reliable for DVD release dates? — Parent5446 ☯ ( message email) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered this part of wikipedia a few days ago and I wanted to post a question about using NFL.com for determining a starting quarterback and getting a definition of a starter in the NFL. A few months ago I questioned whether Trent Green was ever a starter for the St. Louis Rams. I was using the 2007 St. Louis Rams Media Guide as a reference and it did not list Green as being a starter for the franchise during the 2000 season. Others pointed out that Green is listed as starting games for the Rams in 2000 as shown on NFL.com.
I have a problem with using the NFL to determine a starter. First of all the franchise determines whom is a starter and whom is not, not the league. Thus, the media guides and/or franchise web pages would be a better source of information. Secondly, the NFL.com just shows who lined up during the first snap of the ball during a game. I have always thought that a starter was someone who was listed as a first string player, not who lined up at the start of a game. Sometimes a starter (i.e. first string player) will not take the first snap due to injury, but they are still considered the starter. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Nationmaster stats page on Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country cites the source of its reported data as electionworld.org. The Electionworld.org home page says, "Electionworld is transferring its content to the Politics section of Wikipedia ..." and then redirects visitors to the User:Electionworld/Electionworld page on Wikipedia.
WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." This has been discussed to some extent at Talk:Conscription#Pseudo-democracy?.
Question: may the Nationmaster Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country web page be cited as a supporting source? -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a edit war and its causes problems, being new i dont know how to report it well the main argument is, Is Youtube reliable here. First allow me to explian the situation, on a game article fans are discussing the heros love interest and its getting viscious, however somone put up a compromise he deleted all the love edits and added this in their place 'Many Fans think that she and (Heros name here) are in love this has not been decided (Youtube as source and video example)' he put this on both characters they were arguing about as it was true and fair their argument was proof it was true along with the youtube sources. However a few of the arguers werent content with this so they erased it and continued the war say 'Its agaisnt wikipedia to use Youtube as a source' however the guildlines say that infact there is NO blanket ban on this they however also say 'You can use Youtube to tell facts about the game, you must use the official site.' The one who put this down says 'the official site cant speak for fans however videos on youtube can as it is fans who made them.' Anyway question is: Is Youtube a reliable source in this case.
Youcallhimdoctorjones ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly citing a report from the New York Post, which miscontrues a comment in an interview with John Hurt in The Times to make it appear he has dismissed the film. I've appealed numerous times to this editor and consensus has been reached on the talk page, but he/she is not listening. Alientraveller ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has objected to my deletion of skepdic.com as a source on a WP page on a controverial topic. The WP page has primary references (peer reviewed articles in mainstream science journals) claiming one thing, and skepdic.com makes the opposite claim, but with no references to the scientific literature. When I deleted skepdic.com as a source, the other editor said, "That book and the companion website dismantle many of the arguments put forth by proponents of PPG."
Am I off base? Any input would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent; thank you. For the future, how can I learn how to search archives before I end up repeatin old questions again?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Author of this article based it to a large degree on the text whose author and his references are unknown, coming from unverified webpage. This is the source [21], it is in Polish and I have doubts if it fulfills the WP:VERIFY as well as WP:FRINGE. Thank you. Tymek ( talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
About 80% of the article Rat Bastard Protective Association is based on material from a personal website, http://lgwilliams.com/ . I have tried to remove the questionable material, however this has been resisted by the editor who is probably also the author of the source material. Although there are likely COI issues here as well, one needs to start somewhere and rather than spamming both COI and RS noticeboards this is where I ended up. This has not gone to Third Opinion as there are some civility issues involved. I'm pretty confident that in this instance a personal website violates RS, so I'm mainly interested in having another editor stick his/her head in as a circuit breaker. Thanks! Debate ( talk) 11:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to get some input here from editors as to whether the publication The Village Voice can be used as a WP:RS source on Wikipedia. The Village Voice has been recognized with numerous awards, including (3) Pulitzer Prize awards 2007, 2000, and 1981, the National Press Foundation Award 2001, the George Polk Award 1960, and many other prestigious awards. However, The Village Voice has also received awards in the " tabloid" genre [22].
My question is this: does the single word "tabloid" negate the other awards such as the (3) Pulitzer Prizes and the George Polk Award? Can we use The Village Voice as a source on Wikipedia? Or should it not be used as a source simply because of the taboo word "tabloid"? Some input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
<< Given the controversies related to that publication, caution needs to be exercised when using it as a source. The reliability of the specific material that wants to be used, need to be assessed in the context of the claim made. If not overly contentious, and if not challenged by other sources, or if this is the only source for a claim, etc. are the questions needed to be asked. Blanket statements about a source being reliable or not as an absolute, do not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor wants to include some scientific claims made by an anonymous author in a newsletter. I don't believe that this meets the criteria of WP:Reliable_Sources. The newsletter is not peer-reviewed, there is no reputation about fact-checking (either positive or negative), it is not a mainstreatm media outlet, and there is no way to verify the reputation of the anonymous author.
The claims are in the newsletter of the GLBT Division of the American Psychological Association (APA), but the newsletter is not part of APA's peer reviewed journal program. Specifically, the other editor wants to use the article on page 3 of this as a source.
The other editor believes that being a newsletter of an otherwise legit organization is sufficient.
Any input would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know this noticeboard existed... what a shame!!! There's ongoing problems at Miss Universe 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the standard of referencing. I've taken a hardline approach (much stricter than I usually do) because I've heard people outside Wikipedia openly criticizing the accuracy of the article. Since I feel that it is possible to make this article as accurate as possible, I have taken the position that each delegate should be referenced and those that cannot be referenced excluded until such time as the information can be verified. There is currently debate over what exactly constitutes a reliable source in this context. I have put a hidden comment stating commonly added sources that I feel do not satisfy WP:RS and WP:SPS: specifically sites like Global Beauties (which is essentially a secondary sourced fan site that has been inaccurate in the past) and blogs like [23]. There has also been a debate over whether an Icelandic source can be used in lieu of an appropriate English-language source. Without getting into the other issues that have developed from the referencing problem, can someone take a look at the article, at the article's history, and give an opinion as to whether what is currently going on is appropriate or too harsh, and whether the statement I have included on what does not constitute a reliable source is accurate or should be removed? Thank you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There is a dispute on the Primal Therapy article regarding no original research. Specifically, one of the edit warriors there has created a self-published website in which he makes anonymous serious claims about 3rd parties. He then inserted quotations from himself of his opinions into the text of the wikipedia article itself.
I removed that quotation (although I didn't remove the reference to the self-published website), and I added something to the discussion in which I pointed out that the quotation violates no original research and WP:verifiability.
My change was reverted, the quotation was re-added to the page, and it was pointed out (in the discussion) that the author was an "eyewitness" so it's supposedly legitimate. I pointed out that no original research specifically forbids "eyewitness" testimony from anonymous, self-published websites; and I removed the quotation again. This time, I provided a detailed explanation on the discussion page of which policies the quotation violates and why (here, at the bottom of the section).
My change was reverted again, and the quotation was re-added, this time without discussion.
I do not wish to revert any further because I would run afoul of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, I don't wish to participate in the ferocious edit war raging there. The user in question (PsychMajor902) has made 12 consecutive reversions to various primal therapy-related pages over the last several days, and it seems probable that he will revert my changes once again. (Note that sometimes he reverts by not using the 'undo' button but by manually reverting the text).
Please note that most of the page editors are "interested parties", including myself--I underwent primal therapy many years ago and did not witness the events claimed on the author's self-published website. However what I witnessed (or didn't witness) is not really relevant; wikipedia is not the place for personal observation or opinion. I just wanted to offer a full disclosure here.
I don't believe there's any possibility of consensus, since I have pointed out (repeatedly and in great detail) the relevant wikipedia policies, but the the editors in question revert relentlessly anyway without any meaningful discussion or explanation.
I would like the page to be protected with the quotation removed, and for the relevant editor (PsychMajor902) to be limited to one reversion. Thanks.
Note that I first added this post to the no original research noticeboard but they told me to put it here. Thanks. Twerges ( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Primal Therapy is a WP:FRINGE theory, therefore, per WP:PARITY top-notch critic sources are not required. Therefore disputed website is (IMHO) perfectly linkable.
Please read WP:FRINGE:
Is Countercurrents.org RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Rupert Sheldrake's training is in biochemistry, but is prominent for his writings on, and claims about, parapsychology and (undetectable) morphic fields. These claims have been dismissed and branded pseudoscience (quite apart from the fact that parapsychology is itself widely considered to be a fringe science). Does he have value as a WP:RS, beyond the minimal standard of WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, and the strict restrictions that this section of WP:V imposes? Particularly, is he a reliable source for claims he makes tangential to his parapsychology/morphic fields claims (particularly tenuous claims that he is somehow following in Charles Darwin's footsteps), or would this be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an unreliable source? Further, is he a reliable source for presenting these claims as fact, as the article on him frequently does? Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the sections, but from my past experience, I guess that a good answer would be that 1) yes, you need to attribute the opinions to Sheldrake, not just present them as fact. But 2) you don't need to continually attribute, but if it is clear you are describing Sheldrake's opinions, continual attribution is not necessary. Sheldrake is not a good RS for other articles, or bald claims of fact, any more than any controversial source would be. Just report in a neutaral tone what he says, what his critics say, etc.
If you are editing the article with the attitude that these things are to be described as "undetectable" instead of unproven to the scientific community as a whole, then you'll have problems with getting the tone right. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This journal is discussed in the article on its current editor, Giuseppe Sermonti. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A web forum would not be an RS. Is that what you mean? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi: it is better to be silent and thought to be ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You have clearly not read the article on Giuseppe Sermonti, and have no idea what Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rivista di Biologia is a reliable source by WP standards. It is a refereed journal publishing articles in "the fields of theoretical biology, in its broadest sense." It has published articles by "many prestigious Italian and international authors (such as E. Giglio-Tos, D. Rosa, J. Eccles, B. Goodwin, G. Webster, R. Thom, F. Varela, A. Lima-de-Faria)." There are over 1100 scholarly articles and 100 review articles from this journal indexed in PubMed, about half of which are "post-Sermonti". Articles from "post-Sermonti" Rivista have dozens of citations from other peer-reviewed journals, for example M Conrad, The Geometry of Evolution (87 citations), M Barbieri, The Organic Codes (54 citations), N Ceyhan, A Ugur, Investigation of in vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Honey (16 citations), etc.. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on Society for Psychical Research seems to claim that it is, but its references for its statement (one of which is to the SPR itself, the other of which is to a brief mention in a list of organisations) that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals" do not appear to verify this claim. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals". I would think that there would be serious questions over both the "peer-reviewed" & the "scientific" parts, that would not be allayed by simply taking the SPR's own word for it. All sorts of fringe science and pseudoscience claim 'peer review' without the credible processes to back it up. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved at least one claim of 'peer review' by a 'peer' who later turned out had never even read the book in question, merely discussed it over the phone with its (then potential) publisher. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The two times that this journal's reliability has been discussed previously, it has been viewed fairly negatively:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I have an article up at FAC at the moment and have encountered an unexpected setback: navweaps.com, a site I use because I feel it to be reliable, has been called questionable by a participant in the FAC. I asked on the coordinator page for the MILHIST project, and my and one other coordinator are of the opinion that the website is a reliable source becuase of the sources section sited on the individual weapon pages used in the inline citations, such as this one on the main guns of the Iowa and Montana class of battleships (scroll all the way to the bottom and you will see what I mean). I bear the editor (Wackymacs, I believe, is his screen name) no malice for his repeated questioning of the sources, but I need an honest, outside opinion on the website's suitability as a source from a group that is independent of the entire review, and from where I stand that would be this venue since no one here has (to my knowledge) commented on the FAC, nor do I believe anyone here has any plans to. That makes this the most neutral place I can ask this question. All I need to know for sure is whether the site qualifies as reliable by Wikipedia standards, or whether I need to go deeper into the sourcing. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alterinfo is an Italian group who's website is hosted on Geocities since 1999 and contains large excerpts from books and articles. With a few exceptions (letters to the webmaster, etc), everything on that website was already published "on paper". I am wondering if it is safe to use those sources. Most of the pages are in a different language (Italian) but it does contain few english pages.
What of Bishop letters and other things posted on the website? Are they citable even though they are on a Geocities page? The letters are all in italian, being of italian origin i understand them perfectly, but other users that are not might have issues with verifying the information. Ncwfl ( talk) 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong of me to ask for a third party opinion on a source? As a base Geocities pages are not allowed, but i overlooked this for a moment and seeked assistance in determining the document's reliability. This is not gaming the system, asking for help from a neutral user that is not involved in the discourse is a perfectly normal way to ensure neutrality and reliability.-- Ncwfl ( talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Before I proceed any further, I would like to have a second opinion (and perhaps a third and fourth one) on Ingrid Ylva. Please note my comments on the talk page. Not a single reputable academic source has been used in this article. The problems that plague this page are similar to those for many other articles on mediaeval and early modern Swedish history.
What is one to do? Delete? Shorten articles to contain only what can be verified in reputable academic publications? Or does "verifiability, not truth" mean that anything any amateur or popular author has ever written has an equal claim to inclusion as stuff written by specialists? Olaus ( talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a longish comment to the talk page of the article last night. Olaus ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a disagreement going on at the Sollog article between myself and other editors. The issue is over whether Philadelphia City Paper is a reliable source for a BLP. My view is that it is not an acceptable source because the newspaper is a tabloid and is not a high quality source that is required for a BLP. Some of the information from this tabloid is highly defamatory in my opinion. Arnold1 ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
User:J Readings persists in removing a source from Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), claiming that it is a self-published source. The source is An Introduction to Intelligent Design which is part of Molecular Biosciences program at The University of Kansas-Lawrence Evolution Homepage. The source is, in fact, used as a source in the program syllabus at the university. I don't see SPS as an issue at all, so I'm reverting the user's edit. If someone here feels otherwise, please feel free to correct me. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please evaluate reliability of this source which is repeatedly inserted in article Holodomor denial by a group of users? This e-mail type source was used to "disprove" academic books published by notable historians in Harvard University Press and other similar places. Some relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you for consideration. Biophys ( talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG and Relata refero. Tauger could have easily put this summary in his book; no publisher would have raised a fuss about it. He's not criticizing Conquest, he's disagreeing Conquest's work. However, we should change WP:V if we're going to take the position that this is acceptable, should we not? Should I put up a section at WP:V about it and link to this discussion at Talk.Origins? ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Many editors have insisted that, because a certain organization is notable and authoritative, everything they publish should be considered as a reliable source. For example, an internet pamphlet, showing up on the National Academy of Sciences website, is called a reliable source because the NAS wrote it and they are considered highly notable and authoritative.
However, what if such pamphlet does not meet any of the other criteria used by wikipedians to consider a source as credible? For example, what if such a pamphlet:
It seems to me that using the 'came from an authoritative organization' as the only test of a source's crebility is equavilent to placing absolute infallibility on the organization. This seems extreme to me an needs to be looked at. Does anyone else agree with this?-- Sirwells ( talk) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
National Academies of Science, be they of England (The Royal Society) or of the United States (The National Academy of Science), are a special case. They usually do publish a peer reviewed scientific journal, but they also exist to create reliable reports about various scientific questions. If something is authored by a reliable National Academy, that means that is has been reviewed by several experts (peer review is usually only two experts and an editor or two; the expert review by a national academy would be expected to be more experts than that) and is being published by the Academy itself. Image if a newspaper's Opinion page had facts that the entire organization stood behind instead opinions that the Editorial board stood behind. That's the situation with publications (pamphlets, books, online guides, whatever) of National Academies. -
Enuja (
talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could we get some additional input on fansites. Since the policy doesn't explicitly mention them, even though they're clearly self-published material and not usable as citation. Discussion is here Talk:Neurotically_Yours#Characters.-- 137.186.84.54 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the AfDs are cited for "notability", the issue is actually about the verifiability of the sources cited - around half-a-dozen separate, independent, non self-published "fansites".
The problem is that '80s pirate radio pre-dated the web, so doesn't leave many traces there, and took place in the "floating world" of record shops, clubs and transient popular culture. Although there are 'zines that describe them too (I've a shelf-full), they don't exactly carry ISBNs and a catalogue ref at the British Library. WP:COPYRIGHT prevents the sort of bulk scanning that would be necessary to demonstrate otherwise.
The claims of these sites are far from exceptional (the station existed, it broadcast, here are streamable recordings) and non-controversial. Although "reputable" sources are obviously to be preferred where possible, it seems appropriate to accept them in this context.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If this has been placed in the wrong section I apologise, and if so anyone should feel free to move it/inform me.
I argue that allmusic cannot be considered a reliable source specifically regarding heavy metal music. My reasoning is thus: They are an authority on mainstream music, something heavy metal generally is not. Ultimately, what actually qualifies them as a reliable source? The fact that they have critics? So what, that doesn't have any bearing on heavy metal music.
Let me give an analogy with regards to the mainstream point: I'm just about to finish a university history course. My tutors, who have doctorates in history, would of course seem greater authorities than me, and in most cases this would be correct. However, I know that to pass a history course you do not need general knowledge of all history, but rather detailed knowledge of a few specific areas. Hence, my tutor in early modern England would of course be the greater authority in that area, but as I have done several years study of Martin Luther King Jr. it is quite possible that I would be a more reliable source on that particular area. My point is that having authority in one area doesn't equal all areas. Having done a lot of work on mainstream music doesn't qualify you to talk about heavy metal music.
I browsed allmusic for half an hour a while back, and here is a list of ridiculous genre points according to the site, ones that are plainly incorrect and discredit it as a source:
Death and black metal are one and the same.
There is no such genre as groove metal, but there are genres "British metal" and "Scandinavian metal"
Alestorm are "rock", not metal
Annihilator are "progressive metal"
Benedictum are "goth metal"
Bullet For My Valentine are "punk metal"
Chimaira are "punk revival"
Draconian are "goth rock"
Epica are "progressive metal"
Evile are "death/black metal"
Godflesh are "grindcore"
Helloween are "thrash metal"
Kamelot are "death/black metal"
Killswitch Engage are "power metal", "thrash metal" and "progressive metal"
Lamb of God are "death/black metal"
Marilyn Manson is several genres of metal, but none rock
Meshuggah are "death/black metal" and "Scandinavian metal"
Nevermore are "alternative metal"
Nightwish are "symphonic black metal"
Nocturnal Breed aren't thrash metal
Persuader are thrash metal, not power metal
Powerman 5000 are "heavy metal"
Razor are "hard rock & heavy metal" but not thrash metal
Reverend Bizarre are "death/black metal"
Strapping Young Lad are "punk metal"
All these points are clearly originating from a source with little real knowledge of the genre, and I can see no good reason whatsoever to consider them a reliable source on that subject area.
Prophaniti (
talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Allmusics unreliability goes well beyond metal. Inhumer ( talk) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I think bands themselves are usually HORRIBLE judges of what genre they are. But if you think about the purpose of genre, it's mostly so people who AREN'T fanatically involved can find, or avoid, whole classes of music just based on what they sound like. If you wanted music in a particular genre, especially one that's looked down on, like emo, or if you wanted to avoid a whole genre without giving individual bands a chance, do you think the band would admit to being in that genre? It's not in the interest of many bands to admit to being in a genre with anyone but their clique. Even nominally identical bands can have epic battles of denying they're influenced by each other.
So who WOULD you trust to tell you what music is similar? What would a good source of genre information look like? Remember that being GOOD is a different criteria than genre. It is the nature of genre as a concept to group good, well-intentioned but failed, bad, and crass imitation music of a style together, and of course practitioners of that style will object. What I would expect of genre is, if I get an album I like, find out what genre it is, and go buy some more in that same genre, that they will sound similar enough that I can get involved with how good the music is and not have to learn the conventions of a new style of music first. I do NOT expect to come back with all, or even mostly, good music - in ANY genre, including "great hits". Bren Flibig ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
On Talk:Megaliths a user is arguing [30] that these are reliable sources. In what circumstances would these be considered reliable sources for this and similar articles? Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a major controversy over at The Mickey Mouse Club several months ago as to whether Zachary Jaydon was really a member or not. Recently, the editor that kept inserting him popped up with [[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>, quite a surprising and complete revelation for someone that couldn't be sourced at all, even by avid Mickey Mouse Club fans. The timing was pretty good, too: every editor that edits the article seems to be on summer vacation. I live on a Dutch speaking island in South America, so I can't pop into a library and look at one of these things. Is there any place on Wikipedia that you can ask for people with access to physical libraries to validate a source? Kww ( talk) 11:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A wikipedian is insisting here that FrontPage magazine is acceptable as a source. He/she is using it to determine the opinion of a living person ( Stephen Schwartz). What do other wikipedians say?
Can we use FrontPage as an acceptable source? Or not? Bless sins ( talk)
I'm having a 'discussion' about whether a book published by the University of Illinois Press on Cahokia [32] is a reliable source (well, the other editor is arguing it isn't verifiable). See discussions here [33], [34] and here: [35]. After several reverts, he has now edited the page to say that 'Young claimed' although Fowler, the 'dean of Cahokia archaeology', is co-author so his edit is factually incorrect. (The whole book is available online at [36]. Young is a professional author and not the sole author of the book, and he is claiming that Young has introduced a fringe claim about human sacrifice into the book and that the claim cannot be verified in professional journals. He thinks I don't understand verifiability and that what has to be verified is the statement in the book, that is, that scholarly journals have to agree with a particular statement in the book. We both think the other has the wrong end of the stick vis-a-vis verifiability. It would be really nice if someone could set one of us straight on this. (I can find two favorable reviews in scholarly journals, one in American Antiquity, the other in The American Historical Review).Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've told Marburg all of this before, but he seems insistent on removing "racist views" from the Cahokia page. I guess I've never asked pointblank before, do you have a sources that says what you argue above? You may be right in your convictions, but your opinion without sources can't be included in the article. If you find a source then both sides can be presented and the reader can make his/her own judgement! Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This important source states nothing about the theory of buried alive or vertical finger bones. The attitude that the burials were alive is not reliable because it was suggested for the first time in Youngs book. The opinion of Young is not supported in Fowlers book. As such, it should be stated on the Cahokia Page that nothing related to buried alive theory was presented in Fowlers book specifically about Mound 72. Marburg72 ( talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
User: Lanternix has been trying to use this source on the Egyptians and Coptic language pages to state that 300 people are native speakers of Coptic, with the statement "The number of people who speak Coptic reaches around 300, an no one is still in Egypt except the family of Titti Mouris." in particular being quoted. How reliable is this source?-- Yolgnu ( talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a difference of opinion with two users who maintain that a PhD thesis is not a reliable source. This seems strange to me, since such a thesis is always peer-reviewed, or rather reviewed by higher qualified scholars. They are easy to verify, too, and I see many references to PhD theses on Wikipedia. Since there is nothing on PhD theses on WP:RS, and the guideline is not exhaustive, I'd like to know how PhD theses are viewed by other users. (Note: I am not asking for a comment on this one specific case. The issue is likely to come up more often.) Guido den Broeder ( talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again it appears we've arrived at the age old question, "What is truth?" Well how perfect must a source be? A PhD dissertation in its final published form should be considered a good source. If not, then the credibility of the university should be in question. A dissertation is not just a standard research paper as is explained here. A dissertation has gone through more than a peer review, given the fact that PhD's have reviewed it, and the author is a PhD candidate. I think the important concern is not to include a draft, but the FINAL VERSION. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is [38] a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions? Although they seem to name their authors, they don't say too much about them. It's quite unclear what their credentials are. Bless sins ( talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the notable people from Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:
In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits [41] [42] [43] [44]) , from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definatly unreilable http://website.lineone.net/~rtfhs/journal5.html -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 10:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This problem, right or wrong, could mean that the most authoritative source possible is false. Like the Gettier problem, it posits the existence of verifiable, believable and justified sources...which are also wrong. And this is just one I've come across; there must be an even better example out there. Is there any way to codify Wikipedia to deal with this? MartinSFSA ( talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
IS The Real News a reliable source? Its an exclusively online news organization with no stated editorial policy. An interview published in The Real News betweenone of its correspondants and an academic is currentl being used 7 times in the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis article. Milner Pilsner ( talk) 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Mae-Wan Ho has been used as a source in a few articles. I beleive there's no evidence Ho is accepted as an authority in any field, and shouldn't be relied on, particularly with respect to science. Ho's article is under AFD, because there are currently, no third party sources about her. I was hoping other editors could review mentions of Ho and her views in these articles, and see what, if any changes, are needed:
-- Rob ( talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:TimVickers#Horizontal gene transfer WAS 4.250 ( talk) 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
can anyone tell me how well this Technocracy Fonds Finding Aid would rate as a source, to me it looks to be good other than a small chunk that is referenced to an old article here, which im not going to use, it looks to be derived from reliable sources and created by a reliable organisation
I'm having a dispute about a list of homeschooled people in the homeschooling article. The only source for the list is another list: [46]. That according to other sources, contains questionable entries. I would be thankful if someone is willing to look into this. Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's have this discussion on Talk:Homeschooling where it belongs. I have responded there. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. Had a question regarding this article on the website Doctor Who Online. Would it be considered a reliable source?
It appears that, perhaps, the author is also a wikipedian, so I asked that user(they say the only stupid questions are those left unasked...but what do they know?).
Thanks for having a look at this.
Mael-Num ( talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are links to a You Tube video allowed? John celona ( talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (moved new question to correct section)00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is this publication (from 1986)? Could anybody provide an academic, Western review of it? It is being used as a source at Polish minority in Lithuania and this has led to a slow revert war over the past weeks.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Many, especially ethnic Poles.....-- Relata refero ( disp.) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I read the "extensive discussion" on the GSE and did not see any consensus. I think that it is quite important that Wikipedia articles not include as sources what is generally thought to be propaganda. The operative phrase from
WP:V is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ultimately, that definition depends on the judgement of the editors, which is why I think the RS noticeboard is needed. What happens when people's judgements differ? My judgement is that all Soviet sources regarding politics and Eastern European history are suspect, and probably not Reliable Sources. Why? Pre-1991, no mainstream Western publication would have considered them reliable. Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, include propaganda as a major theme, and they are widely believed to have been aimed at the Soviet Union. Orwell didn't trust these sources (to put it mildly). I'll also repeat a very well known Russian joke, that I've heard many times from Russians. "There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia." (Pravda = truth in Russian, Izvestia = "News.") This qualifies, in my judgement, as evidence for inaccuracy.
That said - in the 2 footnotes where I saw the Lith. Soviet Enc. cited, these numbers are probably the only data available. I'd think that an in-text notation that "According to Soviet sources" or something similar, would make the context clear. Smallbones ( talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It has been argued that it cannot be used due to WP:SPS, but it seems to be published by an acedemic publisher. DigitalC ( talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee. How can you be so sure that Quackwatch doesn't do that? This author thinks he does; he published an academic book in which he claimed it. I think you're going to have difficulty finding a RS that contradicts that claim, and even if you did, each would have equal weight and would have to included together. I have to agree with PelleSmith: how is anyone claiming that this is SPS? Please try to avoid pursuing dead ends, as they waste people's time. This case is pretty cut and dry. ImpIn | ( t - c)
Replied at your Talk page: I do not mean to harass you, and I apologize for making the above mistake. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We can use interviews as sources, obviously, but as I have heard several times, "it must be verifiable." This brings to me the question of self-conducted interviews. If we conducted an interview with someone and then posted it on OTRS, would this meet verifiability standards and thus be allowed as a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is allmusic.com, for instance, [49], a reliable source? Be critical - this is for a featured article candidate. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion in progress at Talk:Russia Today TV. Perhaps an analogous issue to the late March discussion about The Nation and Daniel Pipes, though there are some differences.
The Jamestown Foundation is basically a neoconservative organization. They are generally pretty careful with their facts (I'd use them as a source for a particular fact, though I wouldn't necessarily expect them to give me a balanced picture), but in this case they are being cited as critics of the TV channel in question. I don't think that's the best choice. I'm not saying they are, in principle, uncitable here. I am saying that we would strengthen the article by citing, instead, similar criticism from international human rights groups (or media critics) with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. In short, they are not a bad source, but why not seek more clearly credible sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel should consider the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski is on the board there. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is much debate centered on what some of the more reliable sources of information on the opposition to water fluoridation are. Some of the most mainstream websites on the topic are being dismissed as WP:FRINGE. As an example, I would describe Fluoride Action Network as one of the better referenced websites out there that take a position against water fluoridation. Another editor disagrees and says that FAN is not a reliable source. Opinions from the gallery? If FAN is not a good source for Water Fluoridation Opposition, what is? Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking input from other individuals. Shot info has indicated a strong opinion that I respectfully disagree with. Everything on FAN appears to be properly cited, referenced, and attributed. I have seen absolutely zero evidence that anything on FAN is incorrect, or doctored.
And Shot, you misspelled fluoridation. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at this essay on convenience links, and that talk page for previous discussions. If FAN is reliable, then we can trust it not to mess with these works. FAN is clearly not just a self-published website, it's an official organization devoted to an issue. It is analagous to Quackwatch, although with a larger staff, less editorializing, and a greater focus on news. I'm inclined to think it is reliable for accurate reproduction -- it is advised largely by PhDs with reputations. It has a lot to lose by corrupting these works and not that much to gain. It is an advocacy organization, but so is the EWG, which is certainly pretty reliable. The other concern is that these articles do not say "reprinted with permission"; you may want to contact them and find out what they say about potential copyright violations, and see if there's a statement on the website. If FAN is not reliable, you can certainly cite to the primary literature if you've verified it...which may be impossible to do in some cases. Also, I think pointing out typos vindictively reflects worse on pointer than the misspeller. ImpIn | ( t - c) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant no malice with the mention of the misspelling. But it is noteworthy that here in cyberspace, [ fluoridation dot com] takes you to a radically different place than the misspelled flouridation dot com. Petergkeyes ( talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just now took a quick look at FAN and agree with DigitalC and Shot info that the actual sources should be cited, and not their summaries on FAN. For example, this FAN summary of a January 2008 Scientific American article reprints selections from the anti-fluoride side of that article, which is hardly a fair summary or an accurate reproduction. (Also, the FAN summary is in clear violation of SciAm's copyright, and Wikipedia should not be linking to copyright violations.) If FAN is publishing its own work, that would be a different story, but the stuff I saw (admittedly a small sample) was all snippets from sources elsewhere. The original sources should be cited instead of FAN's copies. Eubulides ( talk) 07:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The organization is clearly not reliable. I recommend removing every link made to that organization's website at Wikipedia except when sourcing a statement in an article made explicitly by them. They are obviously a group of fringe fanatics. ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides raises the main concerns I have with it: posting selections, and copyright issues. I think we shouldn't be using it as a convenience link. However, they've recently initiated a professionals' statement against fluoridation signed by ~1700 professionals. That could be used in the article -- FAN is clearly (in my mind) less fringe and more reliable than Quackwatch, which was run by largely by single person (two now) and used a source in some articles. FAN is run by a group of people who are qualified in environmental science and health, rather than a single psychiatrist who couldn't pass his board exams. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the year 2000, a researcher named Eugene Albright sent a brief questionnaire to water officials in many countries, asking if they fluoridated the water, and the reasons if they did or did not. [50] Many responses were received, and have been subsequently published on the internet, primarily on websites Fluoridation and Fluoride Action Network . This has formed the basis for what is currently the most global section of the water fluoridation page. Some editors are removing all references to any of the cited sources, leaving the impression that there is no reliable or verified source for the statements. I am concerned that if the citations keep getting removed, the statements will also soon be gone, and so will the burgeoning globalization of the page. Petergkeyes ( talk) 07:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment In addition to FAN, we should determine if fluoridation.com is considered a reliable source or not. I've recently had to remove some cites to copies of letters on that site; it also appears to be a campaign site and a "convenience link". -- Ckatz chat spy 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Are UFO websites valid sources for UFO evidence? See Talk:Unidentified flying object. Clearly, UFO-enthusiast websites can be used to source the opinions of UFO enthusiasts (and that is of some interest to an encyclopedia article on UFOs) but I am firmly of the belief that they should not be used to source "evidence" for UFO encounters, UFO technology, UFO beliefs in the general public, scientific understanding of UFOs, etc. I removed a number of sources from the article that were trying to do just that. Was I justified? [51]. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
Over at Talk:World War II, some editors feel that various sources are not reliable. This debate is in relation to sources which utilize dates other then 1939 as potential start dates for World War II. I would appreciate it if I could get confirmation, one way or the other, if the following sources are reliable or not. I believe they are, as they seem to meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia policies.
Source | Author | Quote |
---|---|---|
Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945 | Werner Gruhl | The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II |
Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence | N. E. H. Hull | ...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China... |
The Rise of Modern Japan | Linda K. Menton, Noren W. Lush, Eileen H. Tamura, Chance I. Gusukuma | The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937. |
A Companion to the Vietnam War | Marilyn Blatt Young, Robert Buzzanco | Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia. |
American History the Easy Way | William O. Kellogg | What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II. |
Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching | Ainslie T. Embree, Carol Gluck | Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia. |
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II | Iris Chang | Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931. |
A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945 | Roger Chickering, Stig Förster, Bernd Greiner | In 1937, when World War II started in the Pacific theater, both Japanese mobilization at home and warfare abroad headed in this direction. |
Critical Perspectives on World War II | James W. Fiscus | World War II started in Europe in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But World War II had been raging in Asia since 1937 when Japan invaded China. |
War and Empire in the Twentieth Century | Imanuel Geiss, University of Aberdeen | The second Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, and it was really the beginning of World War II, because in the Far East it later merged with the Second World |
Causes and Consequences of the Second World War | Stewart Ross | In contrast, the Second World War was much more complicated. Starting in the Far East in 1937, different conflicts started in different regions at different times. These gradually became absorbed into the global struggle. |
The Library of Congress World War II Companion | Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn | Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin. But Japan's military adventurism had as yet only regional implications. Arguably, Japan might have been appeased, and its provocations confined to one corner of Asia, by some recognition of its stake in China -- noxious as that might have been to recognized norms of international behavior, not to mention to the Chinese.But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939. (emphasis mine) |
The Dragon's War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937-1947 | Maochun Yu | On 7 July 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident ingnited a full-scale war between China and Japan, which, in the opinion of many, marked the real beginning of World War II in Asia |
The Origins of the Second World War | A. J. P. Taylor | Most wars begin raggedly. In the minds of Englishmen 4 August 1914 is unshakably fixed as the date when the first World war began; yet by then France and Germany had been at war for twenty-four hours, Russia and Germany for three days, Serbia and Austria-Hungary for almost a week. The second World war is vaguer still in its opening; the Russians date it from 22 June 1941, the Chinese from November 1937, the Abyssinians [or Ethiopians, as we now would say], I suppose, from October 1935, and the Americans from 7 December 1941. The American date is the most sensible. The war truly became world-wide — much more so than the first World war — only after Pearl Harbor. |
The Changing World of Soviet Russia | David J. Dallin | According to Stalin, the first skirmishes of this second World War began in 1937-38. |
Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II | John W. Dower | For Americans, World War II began in December 1941 and ended three years and eight months later. Japan's war, in contrast, began with the conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and expanded to all-out war against China in 1937 |
China: Its History and Culture | William Scott Morton | The date of the outbreak of World War II varies ... Americans usually reckon it from December 7, 1941, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But for Europeans the war began in 1939, and for the Chinese in 1937. |
Research Guide to American Historical Biography | Robert Muccigrosso, Suzanne Niemeyer, Walton Beacham | In foreign policy he led the nation through the dangerous years of turmoil as the Second World War began in Asia in 1937 and in Europe in 1939 |
The United States in the world arena: an essay in recent history | Walt Whitman Rostow | ...On this view, the Second World War began with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931... |
Contemporary China: a reference digest | Trans-Pacific News Service | The second World War started in 1931 when Japan violated the sovereignty and the administrative and territorial integrity of China... |
The Columbia Guide to Asian American History | Gary Y. Okihiro | World War II began for most Americans when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands. But for many Chinese Americans the war started a decade earlier, when Japan's armies marched into northwestern China in 1931 and into Shanghai the following year. |
The long way to freedom | James Thomson Shotwell | ... a condition which grew worse instead of better until in September 1931 - the very time Japan started World War II in Manchuria... |
Gateway to Asia: Sinkiang, Frontier of the Chinese Far West | Martin Richard Norins, Institute of Pacific Relations | Not until 1931, when Japan began World War II by her invasion of Manchuria, was this remote Sinkiang hinterland at last roughly awakened. |
Writers & Company | Eleanor Wachtel | The Chinese call it World War II; they consider that World War II started in China and that the Chinese helped end the war. |
The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge | The New York Times | Japan occupied Manchuria as a protectorate in 1931-1932 and invaded China in 1937—the start of World War II in Asia. ... With Hitler's invasion of Poland in September, World War II began in Europe. (The Asian phase of World War II had begun two years earlier.) |
The War With Japan: The Period of Balance, May 1942-October 1943 | H. P. Willmott | Europeans date World War II from 1939 to 1945 and, with North Americans, date the Japanese part of the conflict from December 1941 to August 1945. The Japanese official histories date it from September 1931 and the start of the campaign in Manchuria; and, if such a date for the outbreak of the war would not command much sympathy in Western histories, there might well be more then a passing sympathy with any account that sought to establish July 1937, and the beginning of the China war, as the real start of the Second World War. |
The Last European War, September 1939/December 1941 | John Lukacs | THE LAST EUROPEAN WAR began in September 1939. It became the Second World War in December 1941. |
The Second World War: An Illustrated History | AJP Taylor | If a formal declaration of war marks the starting point, the Second World War began in April 1932 when Mao Tse- tung and Chou Teh declared war against Japan |
Japanese Army in World War II: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42 | Gordon L. Rottman, Duncan Anderson | Japan (Nippon) viewed World War II, which it called the Greater East Asia War (Dai Toa Senso Senkum) as a series of interrelated wars. It had occupied parts of North China in 1931, and the war in China (Shina Jihen) began in earnest in 1937, in which Japan continued its creeping expansion. Conflict with the Soviet Union had occurred on the Siberian border in 1938-1939 in Manchuria, Manchuko, where a puppet state had been established by Japan in 1932. ... |
Flags of Our Fathers | James Bradley, Ron Powers | America went to war in 1941. The Europeans had been fighting since 1939. But for millions of Asians, World War II had begun a decade before, in 1931. |
War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text | Harry Brinton Henderson, Herman Charles Morris | World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931 |
Paths to Peace | Victor H. Wallace | It has often been said, and with much truth, that World War II began in 1931, when Japan found the League powers unwilling to resist its aggression in Manchuria. |
A History of the Modern World | Robert Roswell Palmer, Joel G. Colton | In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria. |
A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War | Williamson Murray, Allan Reed Millett | Just when World War II began is a matter of interpretation. Western Europeans and Americans tend to ignore the Japanese incursion into China and to mark the war's beginning with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. For Austrians, Czechs, and Slovaks, the war also commenced two years earlier, when the Third Reich used military force to swallow up sovereign nations in Central Europe... |
Japanese Economic History, 1930-1960 | Janet Hunter, Freda Utley, George Cyril Allen | ... If 1937 (when Japan's Second World War began) is taken as the base, ... |
Foreign policies of the United States | Hollis W. Barber | It is by no means out of the realm of reason to state that World War II began in Manchuria in 1931. |
Main Currents in American History | William Glover Fletcher, United States Army | Then the average American slowly began to understand that the second World War broke out in Asia in 1931 and that the Chinese, who refused to bow to the conqueror, had been fighting, for a decade, not only their own battles but those of the Republic of the West. |
Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History | Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts | ...Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign. |
When Men Lost Faith in Reason: Reflections on War and Society in the Twentieth Century | H. P. Willmott | We consider the Second World War in very narrow terms and with precise dates: 1939 and 1945. But Japanese official histories date the Second World War from September 1931 and the conquest of Manchuria. Even if one is inclined to regard July 1937 as a more reasonable starting line, one would not deny that the China Incident was nurtured in Manchuria: ... |
The American Military Tradition: From Colonial Times to the Present | John Martin Carroll, Colin F. Baxter | For Europeans the Second World War is given very precise dates: it began in September 1939... For the United States, this conflict also has very precise dates, but the dates are different from those of Europeans. It began in December 1941... When this war began for Japan, and for China, is quite another matter. |
The History of World War II - A Wall Chart | John Keegan | World War II has a simple story. It is that of the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies by their enemies, eventually to be called the United Nations. The unfolding of the war, however, is by no means simple. It comprised several wars, at least one of which was already in progress when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland on September 1,1939, the date usually chosen to mark the war's beginning in the history books. That war was the one between China and Japan, which had opened in 1937 when Japan captured China's coastal cities; as early as 1931, however, Japan had violated Chinese sovereignty by seizing the northern territory of Manchuria.
Another of the wars comprising World War II stemmed from Italian aggression in Africa. In 1936 Mussolini annexed Ethiopia and then, after the outbreak of general war in Europe, invaded the British colonial territories on Ethiopia's borders. The first of Britain's victories of the Second World War were the defeat of those invasions, the liberation of Ethiopia and the rout of the Italian army in Libya. |
British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up | Martin Kantor, Nick Smart | The German invasion of Poland began on 1 September 1939, and the British government did, along with the French, declare war on Germany two days later. But these events did not makr the start of the Second World War. That conflict began more than two years later in December 1941 when, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and with Mussolini in tow, Hitler declared war on the United States of America. |
Any feedback, on the reliability/usability of these sources is welcomed.
Oberiko (
talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is NOT ONE global history of World War Two giving the dates 1937-45. All we have above are specialist studies on aspects of the war, often in books which do not have World War Two as the main subject matter. In the article the fringe view that the war started in 1937 is stated as normative and all attempts to put even the smallest sub-heading in the body of the article adverting to the significance of 1939 have been relentlessly deleted. Thus the overwhelming concensus of historians that 1939 was a significant date is not allowed to be mentioned in the article. I feel that it is seriously misleading to delete all reference to the normative, conscensus view of historians that the conflict was 1939-45. I repeat: in the article 1937 is represented as the normative concensus view - which it is not. Colin4C ( talk) 11:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is important to understand the purpose of Oberiko listing these references here. What we have above are, for the most part, sources pulled from Google Books which are being use to support a position that some people say that WWII started at some time other than September 1939. Oberiko's has found these obscure references (including one in a book about Jurisprudence) in order to support the position within thwe WWII article that the conflict between China and Japan in 1937 was the start of WWII and not just a regional conflict that later merged into WWII after the Japanese aggression of 1941. This is very clearly a niche view and it can be proven that is is a niche view because despite repeated demands, and all the trawling through Google Books on Obeiriko's part he has singularly failed to find a global history of WWII which uses the 1937-1945 rather than 1939-1945. Further he has singularly failed to find a noted historian who supports this position. It should be noted that finding a "prominent adherent'" to support a minority view is one of the core principles WP:NPOV. It specifically says that if no prominent adherent can be found the the minority view does not belong in Wikipedia. Oberiko's accusation of OR here is rather galling here given that ColinC has merely listed a small selection of the many global histories of WWII that use the conventional dates all of which can be found in most libraries, whilst Oberiko has gone to a great deal of trouble to find the most obscure references that disagree. Jooler ( talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to get into the content… but I will. Clearly, the consensus is to date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, and to say that (for example) the earlier conquests by Japan and Italy were part of the build-up to the war. And, equally clearly (pace Taylor) this consensus is a convention, not a simple fact. It would seem to me that the article should be clear that historians generally date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, but to word that in a way that makes it clear that this is a fact about historiography more than about history. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
An article has been started on " The Invisible Hand of Fate", an unbroadcast episode of the television series The Venture Bros.. Judging by this thread on his talk page, the editor who added the plot summary, and most of the other content, is working from a copy of the episode that has been "leaked onto the internet". Is this an allowable way to source a television episode article? The policy on verifiability talks of dealing with published sources, so, as this episode is unpublished (in the sense of not yet being broadast), I'm wondering how tenable this practice is. -- Sugarbutty 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm forming the impression, then, that this can't really be viewed as reliable. Any suggestions on what to do? I'd rather not get into an edit war over removing stuff. -- Sugarbutty 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this source considered as reliable:- Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775
The mainstream ideas have several paradoxes and other results, which cannot be understood by even the most intelligent scientists. It is desireable to view different ideas, so as to bring improvement by concensus. Censoring all 'fringe' type ideas will not improve the subject. So please discuss the different views. Daralam ( talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You have formed some wrong impression of NPA. Natural Philosophy Alliance has the following website, consisting of large number of pages on various aspects: - http://www.worldnpa.org Modern physics uses extensive amount of mathematics, which because it can support imaginary terms, gives virtual solutions that cannot occur in real world. Several such solutions (paradoxes) in a virtual world occur in relativity, quantum physics, string-theory etc. Even the most intelligent scientists cannot logically understand such results, with their common sense. Effort is therefore made by NPA to discuss, theorize and understand and publish the fundamental basis of the natural phenomena in a rational manner. Daralam ( talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Many successful theories of modern science can not be logically understood by anybody. For example can you uderstand how measuring rods in moving systems shrink, or the clocks go slow? These results of Relativity theory are accepted without any logical reasoning, because they apparently describe strange irrational behavior of light. Th NPA tries to find different solutions and presents them to the scientists, to make them think of better alternatives. Ultimately that which is logical rational and clearly understood will be acceoted by all. The purpose is to present different alternatives and not to berate or pull down any body. Daralam ( talk) 08:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance are active in analyzing the fundamental basis of the theories of modern physics; and to the modification of those theories, which are illogical or unrealistic, by sounder ideas developed with full evidence, logic, and objectivity. Annual meetings are held, where the members discuss new papers and evaluate them by consensus. These articles are then published in the Proceedings of the NPA. These are the normal practices followed by members of reliable Physics organizations. Therefore Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance,may be accepted as reliable. Daralam ( talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is noted above that in modern physics an intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. On the contrary to logically understand the experiments done in our labs on light, electronics, etc, one needs logical, and rational theories. Quantum theory and relativity, which have been actually setup to explain these very phenomena are totally irrational; and so search must go on to find theories which can logically explain these natural phenomena. Efforts made by NPA members should therefore be strongly supported. Daralam ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear a lot of shouting and whining to support the so called infalliblity of main stream science, without proper understanding of the logic behind theories like Relativity, which may be rationally termed as in the not even wrong category. For example as per Relativity theory, your measuring rod shrinks in the direction in which the earth is moving in space, but not at right angles to it where it remains unshrunk. Then when you hold down one end of this rod on a sheet of paper, and holding a pen on the other end rotate it around, should you see a circle or an ellipse? Discussing such paradoxes is not to be condemned as fringe science, but is essential to bring some order in the irrational and illogical parts of the main stream physics. Daralam ( talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So since the velocity of earth in space is expected to be very much less than C, the ellipse will look like circle due to minute difference in the two axes. But another member may say, if the velocity of earth were say 0.1C, then it would be seen as ellipse. Not so says a third member, as per relativity an observer will not find any contraction of measuring rod in his own system, irrespective of the value of his uniform velocity in space. It is when he is observing another system traveling at say 0.1C relative to him, then in that other system similar figure drawn, will look to him as a clear ellipse. But another observer traveling in that second system will see it only as a circle. Well now is it rationally a circle or an ellipse, this opens out as a paradox. But this is not the place to solve it. So let NPA members do all the work, and if they find some better solutions they can publish it. Let others have access to it in Wikipedia, instead of censoring all the so-called fringe ideas. Daralam ( talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The apparent visual size reduction, as an object moves away from one, is not in anyway comparable to the shrinkage of rods prescribed in relativity. It is good of you not to be inclined to teach your ideas of relativity to others. However if you do feel inclined, you are free to tell them to others, and conversely permit others to state theirs, without insisting on any form of censorship. Daralam ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To separate the crap from the stuff worth reading one must firstly have adequate expert knowledge of the subject. One’s ignorance of the latest knowledge of the subject can cause lot of problems for others. Daralam ( talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There may have been some quarrels and name calling in the distant past, but for the last two years, no real physicist has called a paper approved in the meeting and published by NPA, as crap. Computer science is a practical science clearly understood by mature commonsense, whereas theoretical physics is much more in mathematics, where imaginary terms give unreal solutions (paradoxes). Even experts find it difficult to separate the real from virtual results. Sometime back top experts enthusiastically expected String theory to give out real results, now it is failing to do so. In future some one may even classify it jokingly, as a twelve dimensional crap. Differences in opinion on technical matters are better settled by discussion and concensus. So please consult real physicists to re-evaluate your opinion. Daralam ( talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
In reference to this dispute [1]. The following references are being disregarded, even by a admin!
First reference from "Japan Radio Television" [2] which is the Nippon News Network.
Second reference from "Oricon" [3], one of Japans leading sales ranking companies, that also provides its information to the general public, which is similar to "billboard" in the United States.
Third reference [4] from "GOO", a well known major entertainment site owned by NTT, one of the worlds largest telecommunications companies.
All three companies are well known worldwide, and all three references mention that the musician Michiya Mihashi sold more than 100 million records in 1983. It is easily verified using a web-based translator. In addition two translations were provided and disregarded. [5] [6] The admin mentioned that the Nippon News Network, and Oricon are not reliable sources, and that GOO is perhaps a forum or blog!
How are these references not acceptable? This statement by the admin is even hypocritical "comparable with, for example the RIAA or a page similar to AllMusic"
I also provided an English source [7] which has been disregarded. This article receives much vandalism from editors removing non-UK or US musicians, even those with reliable references written in English. It took a long fight last year to keep them there, and now this! There are many other musicians I was going to add but find it impossible. 220.253.192.72 ( talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Are dissertations considered primary or secondary sources? Here is the dissertation in question:
Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936
Thank you! Renee ( talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The above seems to be a masters "thesis" as opposed to a doctoral "dissertation." At least in the US, we don't tend to call masters theses, "dissertations" precisely to make this distinction. In the fields I have experience within I would not suggest using a masters thesis to source a novel claim. I note, of course, that this thesis was written in South Africa and I have no knowledge of their university system. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The abstract says it is a dissertation (pasted below ver batim):
Abstract (Summary) In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.
Also, the library says it has four copies here: a microfiche copy, an archive copy, and two main open collection copies. I'm not sure of how the South African system works either but some universities call all doctoral and master's documents "theses" for library purposes. My university won't import dissertations through inter-library loan from Africa because of the cost.
If it's Master's thesis I agree that it is not very rigorous and probably not a reliable source; but if it's a doctoral thesis, then I think it probably is. I wonder how we can find out for sure? PelleSmith -- how did you come to the conclusion that it was a Master's thesis? (I was basing my judgment on the abstract.) DGG -- as a librarian did you import dissertations abroad through the inter-loan system? Maybe you would know. (And yes, I know, we may not be able to get it anyways given it's in RSA.) Thanks for the comments everyone. Renee ( talk) 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the sources cited for this content reliable?
Tea cultivation in India has somewhat ambiguous origins. Though the extent of the popularity of tea in Ancient India is unknown, it is known that the tea plant was a wild plant in India that was indeed brewed by local inhabitants of different regions. [1]
The source of this is http://www.coffee-tea-etc.com/, a commercial website.
Indian legends credit the creation of tea as known in the modern sense to Bodhidharma (ca. 460-534), a monk born near Madras, India, and the founder of the Ch'an (or Zen) sect of Buddhism. [2] [3]
The sources of this are the commercial websites http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/, "The World's Most Popular Website Devoted to Men's Clothing Advice!"
Interestingly, ancient Japanese tales credit the origin of tea to Bodhidharma as well. [4] [5]
The sources of this are http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.lcy.net/, a commercial and personal website, respectively.
The first recorded reference to tea in India was in the ancient epic of the Ramayana, when Hanuman was sent to the Himalayas to bring the Sanjeevani tea plant for medicinal use. [6] [7] [8]
The sources of this are http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html, http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx, and the Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana.
http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html is a commercial website.
There is no mention of tea at http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx.
The Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana can be found online, but there is no mention of tea in the sourced Book VI, Canto CII, which can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry476.htm.
In an 1877 pamphlet written by Samuel Baildon, and published by W.Newman and Co. of Calcutta, he writes, "...various merchants in Calcutta were discussing the chance of imported China seeds thriving in Assam, when a native from the province present, seeing some tea said, "We have the plant growing wild in our jungles." It is then documented that the Assamese nobleman, Maniram Dutta Barua, (also known as Maniram Dewan) showed British surveyors existing fields used for tea cultivation and wild tea plants growing in the Assamese jungle. [9]
The source of this is http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/, a personal webpage. 12.15.120.169 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
68.196.117.231 ( talk · contribs) added this link to each of the twenty "sexy wives" listed. Should it be reverted?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding information given to me by my sensei. I'm noticing that the kyudo entry has "This article doesn't cite its sources" warnings on it... a good deal of us learned techniques from senseis who learned the techniques from their senseis... and so on. This means that the information we are citing is verbal, not physical. Some martial arts, such as Karate have a great wealth of knowledge printed in the general media, some, like Kyudo (Which I am a practicioner), only has a handful of books, and, as you might imagine, the rules sometimes conflict as they are from differing schools. How does one cite a Martial Arts Sensei as their source. We practice martial arts for a long time, and the knowledge is handed down this way. If we can't cite sources, will the article simply remain with the warning? Or will it ultimately be removed? Aabh ( talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This has to do with the UltimateBet cheating scandal - more on the talk page there. I need to know whether the included link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=208114 can be considered a reliable source. Ordinarily self-publishing does not qualify, but if you'll look at the information included I believe this is an exception. Useful notes on the talk page there on whether the information on the cheating scandal should be included would also be appreciated. Adam ( talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources says that:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.(emphasis added)
I added emphasis since I only would like to discuss "respected publishing houses[']" status as one of the most reliable sources. I would like to know whether the following qualify as such:
As regards to both I would like to know if they are reliable sources in the field of Religion and philosophy, and perhaps history of religion as well. For example, Brill has published a voluminous Encyclopedia of Islam, while Routledge has printed the the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Encyclopedia of Ethics.
I know that of course the author and publication itself affect the reliability, but can the above publishers be considered "respected" in a similar way as university presses or academic journals are? Bless sins ( talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Among the external links on this article are [ [14]] and [ [15]], both of which are evidently 'authorise' by Rohl. Are these acceptable as external links? Secondly, Rohl himself added a paragraph using one of these lists as a reference to something said by Kenneth Kitchen at a conference which I removed [16] - was my action correct in doing this? Given Kitchen's known opposition to Rohl, I feel something more is required than just a link to a mailing list, verbatim copy of a video recording or not (and you can't read the list unless you are a member). Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The following content was removed [17] because Reporters without borders is considered by that editor WP:UNDUE for stating about Xinhua News Agency that is "the world's biggest propaganda agency".
There is RfC here Talk:Xinhua_News_Agency#Reporters_Without_Borders, which is not commented yet by neutral editors, so please give us your thoughts. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::I do not know what is the reference for your statement "there is no overwhelming consensus about media watchdog groups or reporters that indicate that Xinhua is not a propaganda instrument". Please see wikipedia policy
WP:NOT#OR. My point here is that RWB is a highly controversial organization which has been accused of having ties with the
CIA. I do not know which country you are talking about other than Europe/US respect this organization or how there is a global consensus about the reliability of this organization. I have plenty of sources to prove this organization is simply a propaganda machinery of the western liberal democracies. The organization also receives fund by the
National Endowment for Democracy which itself is a controversial organization.
RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. We cannot reference this article from biased, politically motivated and controversial organization. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: All discussion is going on in Talk:Xinhua News Agency. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm in the process of the WP:GAN review of Cold fusion and I've been challenged on this point, so here I am. I was told to point you guys to the following page, which says nice things about the reliability of this website: http://www.newenergytimes.com/contact/contact.htm#quotes. I have explained that websites by themselves are almost never considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. This website is an important external link for the article, because it's helpful for getting proponents up to speed, but it's an unapologetic proponent's site that admits a financial connection to its subject matter. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
New Energy Times is a project of New Energy Institute, a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to investigate, analyze, educate and report on the progress of new, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources and research. Its primary focus is the subject of low energy nuclear reactions, part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion." New Energy Institute seeks to advance the development and application of clean energy, accessible and affordable for everyone. In order to remain a neutral, unbiased and impartial source of news and analysis, New Energy Timestm and New Energy Institute Inc. do not conduct their own scientific research, do not invest in or maintain ownership in any of the companies or technologies they report on, and do not try to acquire any intellectual property rights in the field.
Whittaker, J. Wilson (2007). "A comparison of neurocognitive functioning in pedophilic child molesters, nonpedophilic child molesters and normal adult males." Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah, United States -- Utah. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3255199).
The above dissertation is currently used in Pedophilia to support its definition as "a sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children." In all, 5 peer-reviewed studies are cited for this definition. If necessary, I can easy find more, given it's the predominant definition in scientific souces.
PetraSchelm believes that dissertations are iffy as reliable sources. Petra and Jack-A-Roe would prefer to cite American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which defines paedophilia as "the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." IMO, sources that specialize in a particular subject, in this case paedophilia, are likely to be more precise and reliable as sources. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow all the discussion here, but I don't see any reason why a Doctoral dissertation would NOT be reliable. DigitalC ( talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an editing war over at Tokwiro Enterprises between user 2005 and members of various online gambling forums who have conducted and continue to conduct a great deal of original research regarding an online poker cheating scandal on UltimateBet. Tokwiro Enterprises owns and operates UltimateBet as well as Absolute Poker which had its own cheating scandal last year. An incredible amount of time, investigation, and collaboration have gone into exposing the truth, which is summed up extensively in this post on the Two Plus Two forums. User 2005 believes, seemingly rightfully, that supplying that post (and by default association, the subsequent replies by other users) as a source goes against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources because it is original research and its writers have an obvious agenda. He argues that linking to this published article, which barely scratches the surface of the scandal and omits most of the damning details, is one way to source the information while still adhering to the guidelines.
Even ignoring the obvious urgency after which these details are being sought, I have two major problems with waiting for the relevant information to be published before being able to cite it. For one thing, this is verified, substantial, and significant research which simply has not been picked up by a website or magazine. The difference between this documentation and other citable sources is simply that no managers have had an interest in being the first to tie his name or the name of his publication to it. Secondly, and most importantly in this particular instance, the publications which we are relying on to get the story out are heavily influenced by the ad money supplied by the same company which is under fire in this investigation. Further, I don't understand how the publication of this research makes it any more reliable in this case. All of the numbers, facts, statistics, screenshots, correspondence, and other proof are there on the message board and as verifiable as they would be if a news source picked up the full story. In other words, the very people who have compiled the facts and broken open the scandal have become some of the major players in this story and therefore are more reliable than anyone who gets their information second-hand just to turn around and publish it.
Basically, I was hoping for some discussion about citing original research as a source when it is obvious that it is more thorough and reliable than anything that has been published about the subject. I didn't post this on the No original research notice board because nobody refutes the claim that it is original research, but its reliability is still debatable. Are there any exceptions or precedences that would allow us to cite the original messageboard post? Albedoa ( talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[18] Is this a reliable source. I have removed this several times, but the user adds back that too in introduction of [19] Mahaakaal ( talk) 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a disagreement going on at the Feng Shui article between myself and another editor. The issue is over whether the web site link http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/daily_mvt_nmp_e.php from the Canadian government is a reliable source. -- Sedonafengshui ( talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We just had an addition to Robot, and I reverted (without prejudice...I left nice notes asking for help with this one), based on a little skepticism and on the source, a website that links to a free newspaper: http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/35/robot-dreams-the-strange-tale-of-a-mans-quest-to-rebuild-his-mechanical-childhood-friend. David Gerard, who has been around for a while and knows a lot, reverted me. Can I get a general ruling on free newspapers, and/or this particular source? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a question on two sources. I am trying to source the DVD release dates for Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1). Two sources I have found are TvShowsonDVD.com and Amazon. Would these two sources be considered reliable for DVD release dates? — Parent5446 ☯ ( message email) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered this part of wikipedia a few days ago and I wanted to post a question about using NFL.com for determining a starting quarterback and getting a definition of a starter in the NFL. A few months ago I questioned whether Trent Green was ever a starter for the St. Louis Rams. I was using the 2007 St. Louis Rams Media Guide as a reference and it did not list Green as being a starter for the franchise during the 2000 season. Others pointed out that Green is listed as starting games for the Rams in 2000 as shown on NFL.com.
I have a problem with using the NFL to determine a starter. First of all the franchise determines whom is a starter and whom is not, not the league. Thus, the media guides and/or franchise web pages would be a better source of information. Secondly, the NFL.com just shows who lined up during the first snap of the ball during a game. I have always thought that a starter was someone who was listed as a first string player, not who lined up at the start of a game. Sometimes a starter (i.e. first string player) will not take the first snap due to injury, but they are still considered the starter. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Nationmaster stats page on Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country cites the source of its reported data as electionworld.org. The Electionworld.org home page says, "Electionworld is transferring its content to the Politics section of Wikipedia ..." and then redirects visitors to the User:Electionworld/Electionworld page on Wikipedia.
WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." This has been discussed to some extent at Talk:Conscription#Pseudo-democracy?.
Question: may the Nationmaster Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country web page be cited as a supporting source? -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a edit war and its causes problems, being new i dont know how to report it well the main argument is, Is Youtube reliable here. First allow me to explian the situation, on a game article fans are discussing the heros love interest and its getting viscious, however somone put up a compromise he deleted all the love edits and added this in their place 'Many Fans think that she and (Heros name here) are in love this has not been decided (Youtube as source and video example)' he put this on both characters they were arguing about as it was true and fair their argument was proof it was true along with the youtube sources. However a few of the arguers werent content with this so they erased it and continued the war say 'Its agaisnt wikipedia to use Youtube as a source' however the guildlines say that infact there is NO blanket ban on this they however also say 'You can use Youtube to tell facts about the game, you must use the official site.' The one who put this down says 'the official site cant speak for fans however videos on youtube can as it is fans who made them.' Anyway question is: Is Youtube a reliable source in this case.
Youcallhimdoctorjones ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly citing a report from the New York Post, which miscontrues a comment in an interview with John Hurt in The Times to make it appear he has dismissed the film. I've appealed numerous times to this editor and consensus has been reached on the talk page, but he/she is not listening. Alientraveller ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has objected to my deletion of skepdic.com as a source on a WP page on a controverial topic. The WP page has primary references (peer reviewed articles in mainstream science journals) claiming one thing, and skepdic.com makes the opposite claim, but with no references to the scientific literature. When I deleted skepdic.com as a source, the other editor said, "That book and the companion website dismantle many of the arguments put forth by proponents of PPG."
Am I off base? Any input would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent; thank you. For the future, how can I learn how to search archives before I end up repeatin old questions again?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Author of this article based it to a large degree on the text whose author and his references are unknown, coming from unverified webpage. This is the source [21], it is in Polish and I have doubts if it fulfills the WP:VERIFY as well as WP:FRINGE. Thank you. Tymek ( talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
About 80% of the article Rat Bastard Protective Association is based on material from a personal website, http://lgwilliams.com/ . I have tried to remove the questionable material, however this has been resisted by the editor who is probably also the author of the source material. Although there are likely COI issues here as well, one needs to start somewhere and rather than spamming both COI and RS noticeboards this is where I ended up. This has not gone to Third Opinion as there are some civility issues involved. I'm pretty confident that in this instance a personal website violates RS, so I'm mainly interested in having another editor stick his/her head in as a circuit breaker. Thanks! Debate ( talk) 11:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to get some input here from editors as to whether the publication The Village Voice can be used as a WP:RS source on Wikipedia. The Village Voice has been recognized with numerous awards, including (3) Pulitzer Prize awards 2007, 2000, and 1981, the National Press Foundation Award 2001, the George Polk Award 1960, and many other prestigious awards. However, The Village Voice has also received awards in the " tabloid" genre [22].
My question is this: does the single word "tabloid" negate the other awards such as the (3) Pulitzer Prizes and the George Polk Award? Can we use The Village Voice as a source on Wikipedia? Or should it not be used as a source simply because of the taboo word "tabloid"? Some input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
<< Given the controversies related to that publication, caution needs to be exercised when using it as a source. The reliability of the specific material that wants to be used, need to be assessed in the context of the claim made. If not overly contentious, and if not challenged by other sources, or if this is the only source for a claim, etc. are the questions needed to be asked. Blanket statements about a source being reliable or not as an absolute, do not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor wants to include some scientific claims made by an anonymous author in a newsletter. I don't believe that this meets the criteria of WP:Reliable_Sources. The newsletter is not peer-reviewed, there is no reputation about fact-checking (either positive or negative), it is not a mainstreatm media outlet, and there is no way to verify the reputation of the anonymous author.
The claims are in the newsletter of the GLBT Division of the American Psychological Association (APA), but the newsletter is not part of APA's peer reviewed journal program. Specifically, the other editor wants to use the article on page 3 of this as a source.
The other editor believes that being a newsletter of an otherwise legit organization is sufficient.
Any input would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know this noticeboard existed... what a shame!!! There's ongoing problems at Miss Universe 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the standard of referencing. I've taken a hardline approach (much stricter than I usually do) because I've heard people outside Wikipedia openly criticizing the accuracy of the article. Since I feel that it is possible to make this article as accurate as possible, I have taken the position that each delegate should be referenced and those that cannot be referenced excluded until such time as the information can be verified. There is currently debate over what exactly constitutes a reliable source in this context. I have put a hidden comment stating commonly added sources that I feel do not satisfy WP:RS and WP:SPS: specifically sites like Global Beauties (which is essentially a secondary sourced fan site that has been inaccurate in the past) and blogs like [23]. There has also been a debate over whether an Icelandic source can be used in lieu of an appropriate English-language source. Without getting into the other issues that have developed from the referencing problem, can someone take a look at the article, at the article's history, and give an opinion as to whether what is currently going on is appropriate or too harsh, and whether the statement I have included on what does not constitute a reliable source is accurate or should be removed? Thank you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There is a dispute on the Primal Therapy article regarding no original research. Specifically, one of the edit warriors there has created a self-published website in which he makes anonymous serious claims about 3rd parties. He then inserted quotations from himself of his opinions into the text of the wikipedia article itself.
I removed that quotation (although I didn't remove the reference to the self-published website), and I added something to the discussion in which I pointed out that the quotation violates no original research and WP:verifiability.
My change was reverted, the quotation was re-added to the page, and it was pointed out (in the discussion) that the author was an "eyewitness" so it's supposedly legitimate. I pointed out that no original research specifically forbids "eyewitness" testimony from anonymous, self-published websites; and I removed the quotation again. This time, I provided a detailed explanation on the discussion page of which policies the quotation violates and why (here, at the bottom of the section).
My change was reverted again, and the quotation was re-added, this time without discussion.
I do not wish to revert any further because I would run afoul of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, I don't wish to participate in the ferocious edit war raging there. The user in question (PsychMajor902) has made 12 consecutive reversions to various primal therapy-related pages over the last several days, and it seems probable that he will revert my changes once again. (Note that sometimes he reverts by not using the 'undo' button but by manually reverting the text).
Please note that most of the page editors are "interested parties", including myself--I underwent primal therapy many years ago and did not witness the events claimed on the author's self-published website. However what I witnessed (or didn't witness) is not really relevant; wikipedia is not the place for personal observation or opinion. I just wanted to offer a full disclosure here.
I don't believe there's any possibility of consensus, since I have pointed out (repeatedly and in great detail) the relevant wikipedia policies, but the the editors in question revert relentlessly anyway without any meaningful discussion or explanation.
I would like the page to be protected with the quotation removed, and for the relevant editor (PsychMajor902) to be limited to one reversion. Thanks.
Note that I first added this post to the no original research noticeboard but they told me to put it here. Thanks. Twerges ( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Primal Therapy is a WP:FRINGE theory, therefore, per WP:PARITY top-notch critic sources are not required. Therefore disputed website is (IMHO) perfectly linkable.
Please read WP:FRINGE:
Is Countercurrents.org RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Rupert Sheldrake's training is in biochemistry, but is prominent for his writings on, and claims about, parapsychology and (undetectable) morphic fields. These claims have been dismissed and branded pseudoscience (quite apart from the fact that parapsychology is itself widely considered to be a fringe science). Does he have value as a WP:RS, beyond the minimal standard of WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, and the strict restrictions that this section of WP:V imposes? Particularly, is he a reliable source for claims he makes tangential to his parapsychology/morphic fields claims (particularly tenuous claims that he is somehow following in Charles Darwin's footsteps), or would this be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an unreliable source? Further, is he a reliable source for presenting these claims as fact, as the article on him frequently does? Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the sections, but from my past experience, I guess that a good answer would be that 1) yes, you need to attribute the opinions to Sheldrake, not just present them as fact. But 2) you don't need to continually attribute, but if it is clear you are describing Sheldrake's opinions, continual attribution is not necessary. Sheldrake is not a good RS for other articles, or bald claims of fact, any more than any controversial source would be. Just report in a neutaral tone what he says, what his critics say, etc.
If you are editing the article with the attitude that these things are to be described as "undetectable" instead of unproven to the scientific community as a whole, then you'll have problems with getting the tone right. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This journal is discussed in the article on its current editor, Giuseppe Sermonti. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A web forum would not be an RS. Is that what you mean? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi: it is better to be silent and thought to be ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You have clearly not read the article on Giuseppe Sermonti, and have no idea what Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rivista di Biologia is a reliable source by WP standards. It is a refereed journal publishing articles in "the fields of theoretical biology, in its broadest sense." It has published articles by "many prestigious Italian and international authors (such as E. Giglio-Tos, D. Rosa, J. Eccles, B. Goodwin, G. Webster, R. Thom, F. Varela, A. Lima-de-Faria)." There are over 1100 scholarly articles and 100 review articles from this journal indexed in PubMed, about half of which are "post-Sermonti". Articles from "post-Sermonti" Rivista have dozens of citations from other peer-reviewed journals, for example M Conrad, The Geometry of Evolution (87 citations), M Barbieri, The Organic Codes (54 citations), N Ceyhan, A Ugur, Investigation of in vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Honey (16 citations), etc.. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on Society for Psychical Research seems to claim that it is, but its references for its statement (one of which is to the SPR itself, the other of which is to a brief mention in a list of organisations) that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals" do not appear to verify this claim. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals". I would think that there would be serious questions over both the "peer-reviewed" & the "scientific" parts, that would not be allayed by simply taking the SPR's own word for it. All sorts of fringe science and pseudoscience claim 'peer review' without the credible processes to back it up. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved at least one claim of 'peer review' by a 'peer' who later turned out had never even read the book in question, merely discussed it over the phone with its (then potential) publisher. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The two times that this journal's reliability has been discussed previously, it has been viewed fairly negatively:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I have an article up at FAC at the moment and have encountered an unexpected setback: navweaps.com, a site I use because I feel it to be reliable, has been called questionable by a participant in the FAC. I asked on the coordinator page for the MILHIST project, and my and one other coordinator are of the opinion that the website is a reliable source becuase of the sources section sited on the individual weapon pages used in the inline citations, such as this one on the main guns of the Iowa and Montana class of battleships (scroll all the way to the bottom and you will see what I mean). I bear the editor (Wackymacs, I believe, is his screen name) no malice for his repeated questioning of the sources, but I need an honest, outside opinion on the website's suitability as a source from a group that is independent of the entire review, and from where I stand that would be this venue since no one here has (to my knowledge) commented on the FAC, nor do I believe anyone here has any plans to. That makes this the most neutral place I can ask this question. All I need to know for sure is whether the site qualifies as reliable by Wikipedia standards, or whether I need to go deeper into the sourcing. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alterinfo is an Italian group who's website is hosted on Geocities since 1999 and contains large excerpts from books and articles. With a few exceptions (letters to the webmaster, etc), everything on that website was already published "on paper". I am wondering if it is safe to use those sources. Most of the pages are in a different language (Italian) but it does contain few english pages.
What of Bishop letters and other things posted on the website? Are they citable even though they are on a Geocities page? The letters are all in italian, being of italian origin i understand them perfectly, but other users that are not might have issues with verifying the information. Ncwfl ( talk) 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong of me to ask for a third party opinion on a source? As a base Geocities pages are not allowed, but i overlooked this for a moment and seeked assistance in determining the document's reliability. This is not gaming the system, asking for help from a neutral user that is not involved in the discourse is a perfectly normal way to ensure neutrality and reliability.-- Ncwfl ( talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Before I proceed any further, I would like to have a second opinion (and perhaps a third and fourth one) on Ingrid Ylva. Please note my comments on the talk page. Not a single reputable academic source has been used in this article. The problems that plague this page are similar to those for many other articles on mediaeval and early modern Swedish history.
What is one to do? Delete? Shorten articles to contain only what can be verified in reputable academic publications? Or does "verifiability, not truth" mean that anything any amateur or popular author has ever written has an equal claim to inclusion as stuff written by specialists? Olaus ( talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a longish comment to the talk page of the article last night. Olaus ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a disagreement going on at the Sollog article between myself and other editors. The issue is over whether Philadelphia City Paper is a reliable source for a BLP. My view is that it is not an acceptable source because the newspaper is a tabloid and is not a high quality source that is required for a BLP. Some of the information from this tabloid is highly defamatory in my opinion. Arnold1 ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
User:J Readings persists in removing a source from Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), claiming that it is a self-published source. The source is An Introduction to Intelligent Design which is part of Molecular Biosciences program at The University of Kansas-Lawrence Evolution Homepage. The source is, in fact, used as a source in the program syllabus at the university. I don't see SPS as an issue at all, so I'm reverting the user's edit. If someone here feels otherwise, please feel free to correct me. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please evaluate reliability of this source which is repeatedly inserted in article Holodomor denial by a group of users? This e-mail type source was used to "disprove" academic books published by notable historians in Harvard University Press and other similar places. Some relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you for consideration. Biophys ( talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG and Relata refero. Tauger could have easily put this summary in his book; no publisher would have raised a fuss about it. He's not criticizing Conquest, he's disagreeing Conquest's work. However, we should change WP:V if we're going to take the position that this is acceptable, should we not? Should I put up a section at WP:V about it and link to this discussion at Talk.Origins? ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Many editors have insisted that, because a certain organization is notable and authoritative, everything they publish should be considered as a reliable source. For example, an internet pamphlet, showing up on the National Academy of Sciences website, is called a reliable source because the NAS wrote it and they are considered highly notable and authoritative.
However, what if such pamphlet does not meet any of the other criteria used by wikipedians to consider a source as credible? For example, what if such a pamphlet:
It seems to me that using the 'came from an authoritative organization' as the only test of a source's crebility is equavilent to placing absolute infallibility on the organization. This seems extreme to me an needs to be looked at. Does anyone else agree with this?-- Sirwells ( talk) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
National Academies of Science, be they of England (The Royal Society) or of the United States (The National Academy of Science), are a special case. They usually do publish a peer reviewed scientific journal, but they also exist to create reliable reports about various scientific questions. If something is authored by a reliable National Academy, that means that is has been reviewed by several experts (peer review is usually only two experts and an editor or two; the expert review by a national academy would be expected to be more experts than that) and is being published by the Academy itself. Image if a newspaper's Opinion page had facts that the entire organization stood behind instead opinions that the Editorial board stood behind. That's the situation with publications (pamphlets, books, online guides, whatever) of National Academies. -
Enuja (
talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could we get some additional input on fansites. Since the policy doesn't explicitly mention them, even though they're clearly self-published material and not usable as citation. Discussion is here Talk:Neurotically_Yours#Characters.-- 137.186.84.54 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the AfDs are cited for "notability", the issue is actually about the verifiability of the sources cited - around half-a-dozen separate, independent, non self-published "fansites".
The problem is that '80s pirate radio pre-dated the web, so doesn't leave many traces there, and took place in the "floating world" of record shops, clubs and transient popular culture. Although there are 'zines that describe them too (I've a shelf-full), they don't exactly carry ISBNs and a catalogue ref at the British Library. WP:COPYRIGHT prevents the sort of bulk scanning that would be necessary to demonstrate otherwise.
The claims of these sites are far from exceptional (the station existed, it broadcast, here are streamable recordings) and non-controversial. Although "reputable" sources are obviously to be preferred where possible, it seems appropriate to accept them in this context.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If this has been placed in the wrong section I apologise, and if so anyone should feel free to move it/inform me.
I argue that allmusic cannot be considered a reliable source specifically regarding heavy metal music. My reasoning is thus: They are an authority on mainstream music, something heavy metal generally is not. Ultimately, what actually qualifies them as a reliable source? The fact that they have critics? So what, that doesn't have any bearing on heavy metal music.
Let me give an analogy with regards to the mainstream point: I'm just about to finish a university history course. My tutors, who have doctorates in history, would of course seem greater authorities than me, and in most cases this would be correct. However, I know that to pass a history course you do not need general knowledge of all history, but rather detailed knowledge of a few specific areas. Hence, my tutor in early modern England would of course be the greater authority in that area, but as I have done several years study of Martin Luther King Jr. it is quite possible that I would be a more reliable source on that particular area. My point is that having authority in one area doesn't equal all areas. Having done a lot of work on mainstream music doesn't qualify you to talk about heavy metal music.
I browsed allmusic for half an hour a while back, and here is a list of ridiculous genre points according to the site, ones that are plainly incorrect and discredit it as a source:
Death and black metal are one and the same.
There is no such genre as groove metal, but there are genres "British metal" and "Scandinavian metal"
Alestorm are "rock", not metal
Annihilator are "progressive metal"
Benedictum are "goth metal"
Bullet For My Valentine are "punk metal"
Chimaira are "punk revival"
Draconian are "goth rock"
Epica are "progressive metal"
Evile are "death/black metal"
Godflesh are "grindcore"
Helloween are "thrash metal"
Kamelot are "death/black metal"
Killswitch Engage are "power metal", "thrash metal" and "progressive metal"
Lamb of God are "death/black metal"
Marilyn Manson is several genres of metal, but none rock
Meshuggah are "death/black metal" and "Scandinavian metal"
Nevermore are "alternative metal"
Nightwish are "symphonic black metal"
Nocturnal Breed aren't thrash metal
Persuader are thrash metal, not power metal
Powerman 5000 are "heavy metal"
Razor are "hard rock & heavy metal" but not thrash metal
Reverend Bizarre are "death/black metal"
Strapping Young Lad are "punk metal"
All these points are clearly originating from a source with little real knowledge of the genre, and I can see no good reason whatsoever to consider them a reliable source on that subject area.
Prophaniti (
talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Allmusics unreliability goes well beyond metal. Inhumer ( talk) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I think bands themselves are usually HORRIBLE judges of what genre they are. But if you think about the purpose of genre, it's mostly so people who AREN'T fanatically involved can find, or avoid, whole classes of music just based on what they sound like. If you wanted music in a particular genre, especially one that's looked down on, like emo, or if you wanted to avoid a whole genre without giving individual bands a chance, do you think the band would admit to being in that genre? It's not in the interest of many bands to admit to being in a genre with anyone but their clique. Even nominally identical bands can have epic battles of denying they're influenced by each other.
So who WOULD you trust to tell you what music is similar? What would a good source of genre information look like? Remember that being GOOD is a different criteria than genre. It is the nature of genre as a concept to group good, well-intentioned but failed, bad, and crass imitation music of a style together, and of course practitioners of that style will object. What I would expect of genre is, if I get an album I like, find out what genre it is, and go buy some more in that same genre, that they will sound similar enough that I can get involved with how good the music is and not have to learn the conventions of a new style of music first. I do NOT expect to come back with all, or even mostly, good music - in ANY genre, including "great hits". Bren Flibig ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
On Talk:Megaliths a user is arguing [30] that these are reliable sources. In what circumstances would these be considered reliable sources for this and similar articles? Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a major controversy over at The Mickey Mouse Club several months ago as to whether Zachary Jaydon was really a member or not. Recently, the editor that kept inserting him popped up with [[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>, quite a surprising and complete revelation for someone that couldn't be sourced at all, even by avid Mickey Mouse Club fans. The timing was pretty good, too: every editor that edits the article seems to be on summer vacation. I live on a Dutch speaking island in South America, so I can't pop into a library and look at one of these things. Is there any place on Wikipedia that you can ask for people with access to physical libraries to validate a source? Kww ( talk) 11:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A wikipedian is insisting here that FrontPage magazine is acceptable as a source. He/she is using it to determine the opinion of a living person ( Stephen Schwartz). What do other wikipedians say?
Can we use FrontPage as an acceptable source? Or not? Bless sins ( talk)
I'm having a 'discussion' about whether a book published by the University of Illinois Press on Cahokia [32] is a reliable source (well, the other editor is arguing it isn't verifiable). See discussions here [33], [34] and here: [35]. After several reverts, he has now edited the page to say that 'Young claimed' although Fowler, the 'dean of Cahokia archaeology', is co-author so his edit is factually incorrect. (The whole book is available online at [36]. Young is a professional author and not the sole author of the book, and he is claiming that Young has introduced a fringe claim about human sacrifice into the book and that the claim cannot be verified in professional journals. He thinks I don't understand verifiability and that what has to be verified is the statement in the book, that is, that scholarly journals have to agree with a particular statement in the book. We both think the other has the wrong end of the stick vis-a-vis verifiability. It would be really nice if someone could set one of us straight on this. (I can find two favorable reviews in scholarly journals, one in American Antiquity, the other in The American Historical Review).Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've told Marburg all of this before, but he seems insistent on removing "racist views" from the Cahokia page. I guess I've never asked pointblank before, do you have a sources that says what you argue above? You may be right in your convictions, but your opinion without sources can't be included in the article. If you find a source then both sides can be presented and the reader can make his/her own judgement! Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This important source states nothing about the theory of buried alive or vertical finger bones. The attitude that the burials were alive is not reliable because it was suggested for the first time in Youngs book. The opinion of Young is not supported in Fowlers book. As such, it should be stated on the Cahokia Page that nothing related to buried alive theory was presented in Fowlers book specifically about Mound 72. Marburg72 ( talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
User: Lanternix has been trying to use this source on the Egyptians and Coptic language pages to state that 300 people are native speakers of Coptic, with the statement "The number of people who speak Coptic reaches around 300, an no one is still in Egypt except the family of Titti Mouris." in particular being quoted. How reliable is this source?-- Yolgnu ( talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a difference of opinion with two users who maintain that a PhD thesis is not a reliable source. This seems strange to me, since such a thesis is always peer-reviewed, or rather reviewed by higher qualified scholars. They are easy to verify, too, and I see many references to PhD theses on Wikipedia. Since there is nothing on PhD theses on WP:RS, and the guideline is not exhaustive, I'd like to know how PhD theses are viewed by other users. (Note: I am not asking for a comment on this one specific case. The issue is likely to come up more often.) Guido den Broeder ( talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again it appears we've arrived at the age old question, "What is truth?" Well how perfect must a source be? A PhD dissertation in its final published form should be considered a good source. If not, then the credibility of the university should be in question. A dissertation is not just a standard research paper as is explained here. A dissertation has gone through more than a peer review, given the fact that PhD's have reviewed it, and the author is a PhD candidate. I think the important concern is not to include a draft, but the FINAL VERSION. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is [38] a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions? Although they seem to name their authors, they don't say too much about them. It's quite unclear what their credentials are. Bless sins ( talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the notable people from Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:
In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits [41] [42] [43] [44]) , from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definatly unreilable http://website.lineone.net/~rtfhs/journal5.html -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 10:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This problem, right or wrong, could mean that the most authoritative source possible is false. Like the Gettier problem, it posits the existence of verifiable, believable and justified sources...which are also wrong. And this is just one I've come across; there must be an even better example out there. Is there any way to codify Wikipedia to deal with this? MartinSFSA ( talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
IS The Real News a reliable source? Its an exclusively online news organization with no stated editorial policy. An interview published in The Real News betweenone of its correspondants and an academic is currentl being used 7 times in the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis article. Milner Pilsner ( talk) 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Mae-Wan Ho has been used as a source in a few articles. I beleive there's no evidence Ho is accepted as an authority in any field, and shouldn't be relied on, particularly with respect to science. Ho's article is under AFD, because there are currently, no third party sources about her. I was hoping other editors could review mentions of Ho and her views in these articles, and see what, if any changes, are needed:
-- Rob ( talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:TimVickers#Horizontal gene transfer WAS 4.250 ( talk) 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
can anyone tell me how well this Technocracy Fonds Finding Aid would rate as a source, to me it looks to be good other than a small chunk that is referenced to an old article here, which im not going to use, it looks to be derived from reliable sources and created by a reliable organisation
I'm having a dispute about a list of homeschooled people in the homeschooling article. The only source for the list is another list: [46]. That according to other sources, contains questionable entries. I would be thankful if someone is willing to look into this. Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's have this discussion on Talk:Homeschooling where it belongs. I have responded there. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. Had a question regarding this article on the website Doctor Who Online. Would it be considered a reliable source?
It appears that, perhaps, the author is also a wikipedian, so I asked that user(they say the only stupid questions are those left unasked...but what do they know?).
Thanks for having a look at this.
Mael-Num ( talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are links to a You Tube video allowed? John celona ( talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (moved new question to correct section)00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is this publication (from 1986)? Could anybody provide an academic, Western review of it? It is being used as a source at Polish minority in Lithuania and this has led to a slow revert war over the past weeks.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Many, especially ethnic Poles.....-- Relata refero ( disp.) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I read the "extensive discussion" on the GSE and did not see any consensus. I think that it is quite important that Wikipedia articles not include as sources what is generally thought to be propaganda. The operative phrase from
WP:V is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ultimately, that definition depends on the judgement of the editors, which is why I think the RS noticeboard is needed. What happens when people's judgements differ? My judgement is that all Soviet sources regarding politics and Eastern European history are suspect, and probably not Reliable Sources. Why? Pre-1991, no mainstream Western publication would have considered them reliable. Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, include propaganda as a major theme, and they are widely believed to have been aimed at the Soviet Union. Orwell didn't trust these sources (to put it mildly). I'll also repeat a very well known Russian joke, that I've heard many times from Russians. "There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia." (Pravda = truth in Russian, Izvestia = "News.") This qualifies, in my judgement, as evidence for inaccuracy.
That said - in the 2 footnotes where I saw the Lith. Soviet Enc. cited, these numbers are probably the only data available. I'd think that an in-text notation that "According to Soviet sources" or something similar, would make the context clear. Smallbones ( talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It has been argued that it cannot be used due to WP:SPS, but it seems to be published by an acedemic publisher. DigitalC ( talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee. How can you be so sure that Quackwatch doesn't do that? This author thinks he does; he published an academic book in which he claimed it. I think you're going to have difficulty finding a RS that contradicts that claim, and even if you did, each would have equal weight and would have to included together. I have to agree with PelleSmith: how is anyone claiming that this is SPS? Please try to avoid pursuing dead ends, as they waste people's time. This case is pretty cut and dry. ImpIn | ( t - c)
Replied at your Talk page: I do not mean to harass you, and I apologize for making the above mistake. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We can use interviews as sources, obviously, but as I have heard several times, "it must be verifiable." This brings to me the question of self-conducted interviews. If we conducted an interview with someone and then posted it on OTRS, would this meet verifiability standards and thus be allowed as a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is allmusic.com, for instance, [49], a reliable source? Be critical - this is for a featured article candidate. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion in progress at Talk:Russia Today TV. Perhaps an analogous issue to the late March discussion about The Nation and Daniel Pipes, though there are some differences.
The Jamestown Foundation is basically a neoconservative organization. They are generally pretty careful with their facts (I'd use them as a source for a particular fact, though I wouldn't necessarily expect them to give me a balanced picture), but in this case they are being cited as critics of the TV channel in question. I don't think that's the best choice. I'm not saying they are, in principle, uncitable here. I am saying that we would strengthen the article by citing, instead, similar criticism from international human rights groups (or media critics) with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. In short, they are not a bad source, but why not seek more clearly credible sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel should consider the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski is on the board there. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is much debate centered on what some of the more reliable sources of information on the opposition to water fluoridation are. Some of the most mainstream websites on the topic are being dismissed as WP:FRINGE. As an example, I would describe Fluoride Action Network as one of the better referenced websites out there that take a position against water fluoridation. Another editor disagrees and says that FAN is not a reliable source. Opinions from the gallery? If FAN is not a good source for Water Fluoridation Opposition, what is? Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking input from other individuals. Shot info has indicated a strong opinion that I respectfully disagree with. Everything on FAN appears to be properly cited, referenced, and attributed. I have seen absolutely zero evidence that anything on FAN is incorrect, or doctored.
And Shot, you misspelled fluoridation. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at this essay on convenience links, and that talk page for previous discussions. If FAN is reliable, then we can trust it not to mess with these works. FAN is clearly not just a self-published website, it's an official organization devoted to an issue. It is analagous to Quackwatch, although with a larger staff, less editorializing, and a greater focus on news. I'm inclined to think it is reliable for accurate reproduction -- it is advised largely by PhDs with reputations. It has a lot to lose by corrupting these works and not that much to gain. It is an advocacy organization, but so is the EWG, which is certainly pretty reliable. The other concern is that these articles do not say "reprinted with permission"; you may want to contact them and find out what they say about potential copyright violations, and see if there's a statement on the website. If FAN is not reliable, you can certainly cite to the primary literature if you've verified it...which may be impossible to do in some cases. Also, I think pointing out typos vindictively reflects worse on pointer than the misspeller. ImpIn | ( t - c) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant no malice with the mention of the misspelling. But it is noteworthy that here in cyberspace, [ fluoridation dot com] takes you to a radically different place than the misspelled flouridation dot com. Petergkeyes ( talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just now took a quick look at FAN and agree with DigitalC and Shot info that the actual sources should be cited, and not their summaries on FAN. For example, this FAN summary of a January 2008 Scientific American article reprints selections from the anti-fluoride side of that article, which is hardly a fair summary or an accurate reproduction. (Also, the FAN summary is in clear violation of SciAm's copyright, and Wikipedia should not be linking to copyright violations.) If FAN is publishing its own work, that would be a different story, but the stuff I saw (admittedly a small sample) was all snippets from sources elsewhere. The original sources should be cited instead of FAN's copies. Eubulides ( talk) 07:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The organization is clearly not reliable. I recommend removing every link made to that organization's website at Wikipedia except when sourcing a statement in an article made explicitly by them. They are obviously a group of fringe fanatics. ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides raises the main concerns I have with it: posting selections, and copyright issues. I think we shouldn't be using it as a convenience link. However, they've recently initiated a professionals' statement against fluoridation signed by ~1700 professionals. That could be used in the article -- FAN is clearly (in my mind) less fringe and more reliable than Quackwatch, which was run by largely by single person (two now) and used a source in some articles. FAN is run by a group of people who are qualified in environmental science and health, rather than a single psychiatrist who couldn't pass his board exams. ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the year 2000, a researcher named Eugene Albright sent a brief questionnaire to water officials in many countries, asking if they fluoridated the water, and the reasons if they did or did not. [50] Many responses were received, and have been subsequently published on the internet, primarily on websites Fluoridation and Fluoride Action Network . This has formed the basis for what is currently the most global section of the water fluoridation page. Some editors are removing all references to any of the cited sources, leaving the impression that there is no reliable or verified source for the statements. I am concerned that if the citations keep getting removed, the statements will also soon be gone, and so will the burgeoning globalization of the page. Petergkeyes ( talk) 07:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment In addition to FAN, we should determine if fluoridation.com is considered a reliable source or not. I've recently had to remove some cites to copies of letters on that site; it also appears to be a campaign site and a "convenience link". -- Ckatz chat spy 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Are UFO websites valid sources for UFO evidence? See Talk:Unidentified flying object. Clearly, UFO-enthusiast websites can be used to source the opinions of UFO enthusiasts (and that is of some interest to an encyclopedia article on UFOs) but I am firmly of the belief that they should not be used to source "evidence" for UFO encounters, UFO technology, UFO beliefs in the general public, scientific understanding of UFOs, etc. I removed a number of sources from the article that were trying to do just that. Was I justified? [51]. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
Over at Talk:World War II, some editors feel that various sources are not reliable. This debate is in relation to sources which utilize dates other then 1939 as potential start dates for World War II. I would appreciate it if I could get confirmation, one way or the other, if the following sources are reliable or not. I believe they are, as they seem to meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia policies.
Source | Author | Quote |
---|---|---|
Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945 | Werner Gruhl | The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II |
Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence | N. E. H. Hull | ...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China... |
The Rise of Modern Japan | Linda K. Menton, Noren W. Lush, Eileen H. Tamura, Chance I. Gusukuma | The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937. |
A Companion to the Vietnam War | Marilyn Blatt Young, Robert Buzzanco | Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia. |
American History the Easy Way | William O. Kellogg | What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II. |
Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching | Ainslie T. Embree, Carol Gluck | Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia. |
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II | Iris Chang | Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931. |
A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945 | Roger Chickering, Stig Förster, Bernd Greiner | In 1937, when World War II started in the Pacific theater, both Japanese mobilization at home and warfare abroad headed in this direction. |
Critical Perspectives on World War II | James W. Fiscus | World War II started in Europe in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But World War II had been raging in Asia since 1937 when Japan invaded China. |
War and Empire in the Twentieth Century | Imanuel Geiss, University of Aberdeen | The second Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, and it was really the beginning of World War II, because in the Far East it later merged with the Second World |
Causes and Consequences of the Second World War | Stewart Ross | In contrast, the Second World War was much more complicated. Starting in the Far East in 1937, different conflicts started in different regions at different times. These gradually became absorbed into the global struggle. |
The Library of Congress World War II Companion | Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn | Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin. But Japan's military adventurism had as yet only regional implications. Arguably, Japan might have been appeased, and its provocations confined to one corner of Asia, by some recognition of its stake in China -- noxious as that might have been to recognized norms of international behavior, not to mention to the Chinese.But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939. (emphasis mine) |
The Dragon's War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937-1947 | Maochun Yu | On 7 July 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident ingnited a full-scale war between China and Japan, which, in the opinion of many, marked the real beginning of World War II in Asia |
The Origins of the Second World War | A. J. P. Taylor | Most wars begin raggedly. In the minds of Englishmen 4 August 1914 is unshakably fixed as the date when the first World war began; yet by then France and Germany had been at war for twenty-four hours, Russia and Germany for three days, Serbia and Austria-Hungary for almost a week. The second World war is vaguer still in its opening; the Russians date it from 22 June 1941, the Chinese from November 1937, the Abyssinians [or Ethiopians, as we now would say], I suppose, from October 1935, and the Americans from 7 December 1941. The American date is the most sensible. The war truly became world-wide — much more so than the first World war — only after Pearl Harbor. |
The Changing World of Soviet Russia | David J. Dallin | According to Stalin, the first skirmishes of this second World War began in 1937-38. |
Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II | John W. Dower | For Americans, World War II began in December 1941 and ended three years and eight months later. Japan's war, in contrast, began with the conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and expanded to all-out war against China in 1937 |
China: Its History and Culture | William Scott Morton | The date of the outbreak of World War II varies ... Americans usually reckon it from December 7, 1941, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But for Europeans the war began in 1939, and for the Chinese in 1937. |
Research Guide to American Historical Biography | Robert Muccigrosso, Suzanne Niemeyer, Walton Beacham | In foreign policy he led the nation through the dangerous years of turmoil as the Second World War began in Asia in 1937 and in Europe in 1939 |
The United States in the world arena: an essay in recent history | Walt Whitman Rostow | ...On this view, the Second World War began with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931... |
Contemporary China: a reference digest | Trans-Pacific News Service | The second World War started in 1931 when Japan violated the sovereignty and the administrative and territorial integrity of China... |
The Columbia Guide to Asian American History | Gary Y. Okihiro | World War II began for most Americans when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands. But for many Chinese Americans the war started a decade earlier, when Japan's armies marched into northwestern China in 1931 and into Shanghai the following year. |
The long way to freedom | James Thomson Shotwell | ... a condition which grew worse instead of better until in September 1931 - the very time Japan started World War II in Manchuria... |
Gateway to Asia: Sinkiang, Frontier of the Chinese Far West | Martin Richard Norins, Institute of Pacific Relations | Not until 1931, when Japan began World War II by her invasion of Manchuria, was this remote Sinkiang hinterland at last roughly awakened. |
Writers & Company | Eleanor Wachtel | The Chinese call it World War II; they consider that World War II started in China and that the Chinese helped end the war. |
The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge | The New York Times | Japan occupied Manchuria as a protectorate in 1931-1932 and invaded China in 1937—the start of World War II in Asia. ... With Hitler's invasion of Poland in September, World War II began in Europe. (The Asian phase of World War II had begun two years earlier.) |
The War With Japan: The Period of Balance, May 1942-October 1943 | H. P. Willmott | Europeans date World War II from 1939 to 1945 and, with North Americans, date the Japanese part of the conflict from December 1941 to August 1945. The Japanese official histories date it from September 1931 and the start of the campaign in Manchuria; and, if such a date for the outbreak of the war would not command much sympathy in Western histories, there might well be more then a passing sympathy with any account that sought to establish July 1937, and the beginning of the China war, as the real start of the Second World War. |
The Last European War, September 1939/December 1941 | John Lukacs | THE LAST EUROPEAN WAR began in September 1939. It became the Second World War in December 1941. |
The Second World War: An Illustrated History | AJP Taylor | If a formal declaration of war marks the starting point, the Second World War began in April 1932 when Mao Tse- tung and Chou Teh declared war against Japan |
Japanese Army in World War II: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42 | Gordon L. Rottman, Duncan Anderson | Japan (Nippon) viewed World War II, which it called the Greater East Asia War (Dai Toa Senso Senkum) as a series of interrelated wars. It had occupied parts of North China in 1931, and the war in China (Shina Jihen) began in earnest in 1937, in which Japan continued its creeping expansion. Conflict with the Soviet Union had occurred on the Siberian border in 1938-1939 in Manchuria, Manchuko, where a puppet state had been established by Japan in 1932. ... |
Flags of Our Fathers | James Bradley, Ron Powers | America went to war in 1941. The Europeans had been fighting since 1939. But for millions of Asians, World War II had begun a decade before, in 1931. |
War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text | Harry Brinton Henderson, Herman Charles Morris | World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931 |
Paths to Peace | Victor H. Wallace | It has often been said, and with much truth, that World War II began in 1931, when Japan found the League powers unwilling to resist its aggression in Manchuria. |
A History of the Modern World | Robert Roswell Palmer, Joel G. Colton | In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria. |
A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War | Williamson Murray, Allan Reed Millett | Just when World War II began is a matter of interpretation. Western Europeans and Americans tend to ignore the Japanese incursion into China and to mark the war's beginning with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. For Austrians, Czechs, and Slovaks, the war also commenced two years earlier, when the Third Reich used military force to swallow up sovereign nations in Central Europe... |
Japanese Economic History, 1930-1960 | Janet Hunter, Freda Utley, George Cyril Allen | ... If 1937 (when Japan's Second World War began) is taken as the base, ... |
Foreign policies of the United States | Hollis W. Barber | It is by no means out of the realm of reason to state that World War II began in Manchuria in 1931. |
Main Currents in American History | William Glover Fletcher, United States Army | Then the average American slowly began to understand that the second World War broke out in Asia in 1931 and that the Chinese, who refused to bow to the conqueror, had been fighting, for a decade, not only their own battles but those of the Republic of the West. |
Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History | Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts | ...Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign. |
When Men Lost Faith in Reason: Reflections on War and Society in the Twentieth Century | H. P. Willmott | We consider the Second World War in very narrow terms and with precise dates: 1939 and 1945. But Japanese official histories date the Second World War from September 1931 and the conquest of Manchuria. Even if one is inclined to regard July 1937 as a more reasonable starting line, one would not deny that the China Incident was nurtured in Manchuria: ... |
The American Military Tradition: From Colonial Times to the Present | John Martin Carroll, Colin F. Baxter | For Europeans the Second World War is given very precise dates: it began in September 1939... For the United States, this conflict also has very precise dates, but the dates are different from those of Europeans. It began in December 1941... When this war began for Japan, and for China, is quite another matter. |
The History of World War II - A Wall Chart | John Keegan | World War II has a simple story. It is that of the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies by their enemies, eventually to be called the United Nations. The unfolding of the war, however, is by no means simple. It comprised several wars, at least one of which was already in progress when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland on September 1,1939, the date usually chosen to mark the war's beginning in the history books. That war was the one between China and Japan, which had opened in 1937 when Japan captured China's coastal cities; as early as 1931, however, Japan had violated Chinese sovereignty by seizing the northern territory of Manchuria.
Another of the wars comprising World War II stemmed from Italian aggression in Africa. In 1936 Mussolini annexed Ethiopia and then, after the outbreak of general war in Europe, invaded the British colonial territories on Ethiopia's borders. The first of Britain's victories of the Second World War were the defeat of those invasions, the liberation of Ethiopia and the rout of the Italian army in Libya. |
British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up | Martin Kantor, Nick Smart | The German invasion of Poland began on 1 September 1939, and the British government did, along with the French, declare war on Germany two days later. But these events did not makr the start of the Second World War. That conflict began more than two years later in December 1941 when, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and with Mussolini in tow, Hitler declared war on the United States of America. |
Any feedback, on the reliability/usability of these sources is welcomed.
Oberiko (
talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is NOT ONE global history of World War Two giving the dates 1937-45. All we have above are specialist studies on aspects of the war, often in books which do not have World War Two as the main subject matter. In the article the fringe view that the war started in 1937 is stated as normative and all attempts to put even the smallest sub-heading in the body of the article adverting to the significance of 1939 have been relentlessly deleted. Thus the overwhelming concensus of historians that 1939 was a significant date is not allowed to be mentioned in the article. I feel that it is seriously misleading to delete all reference to the normative, conscensus view of historians that the conflict was 1939-45. I repeat: in the article 1937 is represented as the normative concensus view - which it is not. Colin4C ( talk) 11:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is important to understand the purpose of Oberiko listing these references here. What we have above are, for the most part, sources pulled from Google Books which are being use to support a position that some people say that WWII started at some time other than September 1939. Oberiko's has found these obscure references (including one in a book about Jurisprudence) in order to support the position within thwe WWII article that the conflict between China and Japan in 1937 was the start of WWII and not just a regional conflict that later merged into WWII after the Japanese aggression of 1941. This is very clearly a niche view and it can be proven that is is a niche view because despite repeated demands, and all the trawling through Google Books on Obeiriko's part he has singularly failed to find a global history of WWII which uses the 1937-1945 rather than 1939-1945. Further he has singularly failed to find a noted historian who supports this position. It should be noted that finding a "prominent adherent'" to support a minority view is one of the core principles WP:NPOV. It specifically says that if no prominent adherent can be found the the minority view does not belong in Wikipedia. Oberiko's accusation of OR here is rather galling here given that ColinC has merely listed a small selection of the many global histories of WWII that use the conventional dates all of which can be found in most libraries, whilst Oberiko has gone to a great deal of trouble to find the most obscure references that disagree. Jooler ( talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to get into the content… but I will. Clearly, the consensus is to date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, and to say that (for example) the earlier conquests by Japan and Italy were part of the build-up to the war. And, equally clearly (pace Taylor) this consensus is a convention, not a simple fact. It would seem to me that the article should be clear that historians generally date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, but to word that in a way that makes it clear that this is a fact about historiography more than about history. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
An article has been started on " The Invisible Hand of Fate", an unbroadcast episode of the television series The Venture Bros.. Judging by this thread on his talk page, the editor who added the plot summary, and most of the other content, is working from a copy of the episode that has been "leaked onto the internet". Is this an allowable way to source a television episode article? The policy on verifiability talks of dealing with published sources, so, as this episode is unpublished (in the sense of not yet being broadast), I'm wondering how tenable this practice is. -- Sugarbutty 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm forming the impression, then, that this can't really be viewed as reliable. Any suggestions on what to do? I'd rather not get into an edit war over removing stuff. -- Sugarbutty 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this source considered as reliable:- Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775
The mainstream ideas have several paradoxes and other results, which cannot be understood by even the most intelligent scientists. It is desireable to view different ideas, so as to bring improvement by concensus. Censoring all 'fringe' type ideas will not improve the subject. So please discuss the different views. Daralam ( talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You have formed some wrong impression of NPA. Natural Philosophy Alliance has the following website, consisting of large number of pages on various aspects: - http://www.worldnpa.org Modern physics uses extensive amount of mathematics, which because it can support imaginary terms, gives virtual solutions that cannot occur in real world. Several such solutions (paradoxes) in a virtual world occur in relativity, quantum physics, string-theory etc. Even the most intelligent scientists cannot logically understand such results, with their common sense. Effort is therefore made by NPA to discuss, theorize and understand and publish the fundamental basis of the natural phenomena in a rational manner. Daralam ( talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Many successful theories of modern science can not be logically understood by anybody. For example can you uderstand how measuring rods in moving systems shrink, or the clocks go slow? These results of Relativity theory are accepted without any logical reasoning, because they apparently describe strange irrational behavior of light. Th NPA tries to find different solutions and presents them to the scientists, to make them think of better alternatives. Ultimately that which is logical rational and clearly understood will be acceoted by all. The purpose is to present different alternatives and not to berate or pull down any body. Daralam ( talk) 08:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance are active in analyzing the fundamental basis of the theories of modern physics; and to the modification of those theories, which are illogical or unrealistic, by sounder ideas developed with full evidence, logic, and objectivity. Annual meetings are held, where the members discuss new papers and evaluate them by consensus. These articles are then published in the Proceedings of the NPA. These are the normal practices followed by members of reliable Physics organizations. Therefore Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance,may be accepted as reliable. Daralam ( talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is noted above that in modern physics an intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. On the contrary to logically understand the experiments done in our labs on light, electronics, etc, one needs logical, and rational theories. Quantum theory and relativity, which have been actually setup to explain these very phenomena are totally irrational; and so search must go on to find theories which can logically explain these natural phenomena. Efforts made by NPA members should therefore be strongly supported. Daralam ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear a lot of shouting and whining to support the so called infalliblity of main stream science, without proper understanding of the logic behind theories like Relativity, which may be rationally termed as in the not even wrong category. For example as per Relativity theory, your measuring rod shrinks in the direction in which the earth is moving in space, but not at right angles to it where it remains unshrunk. Then when you hold down one end of this rod on a sheet of paper, and holding a pen on the other end rotate it around, should you see a circle or an ellipse? Discussing such paradoxes is not to be condemned as fringe science, but is essential to bring some order in the irrational and illogical parts of the main stream physics. Daralam ( talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So since the velocity of earth in space is expected to be very much less than C, the ellipse will look like circle due to minute difference in the two axes. But another member may say, if the velocity of earth were say 0.1C, then it would be seen as ellipse. Not so says a third member, as per relativity an observer will not find any contraction of measuring rod in his own system, irrespective of the value of his uniform velocity in space. It is when he is observing another system traveling at say 0.1C relative to him, then in that other system similar figure drawn, will look to him as a clear ellipse. But another observer traveling in that second system will see it only as a circle. Well now is it rationally a circle or an ellipse, this opens out as a paradox. But this is not the place to solve it. So let NPA members do all the work, and if they find some better solutions they can publish it. Let others have access to it in Wikipedia, instead of censoring all the so-called fringe ideas. Daralam ( talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The apparent visual size reduction, as an object moves away from one, is not in anyway comparable to the shrinkage of rods prescribed in relativity. It is good of you not to be inclined to teach your ideas of relativity to others. However if you do feel inclined, you are free to tell them to others, and conversely permit others to state theirs, without insisting on any form of censorship. Daralam ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To separate the crap from the stuff worth reading one must firstly have adequate expert knowledge of the subject. One’s ignorance of the latest knowledge of the subject can cause lot of problems for others. Daralam ( talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There may have been some quarrels and name calling in the distant past, but for the last two years, no real physicist has called a paper approved in the meeting and published by NPA, as crap. Computer science is a practical science clearly understood by mature commonsense, whereas theoretical physics is much more in mathematics, where imaginary terms give unreal solutions (paradoxes). Even experts find it difficult to separate the real from virtual results. Sometime back top experts enthusiastically expected String theory to give out real results, now it is failing to do so. In future some one may even classify it jokingly, as a twelve dimensional crap. Differences in opinion on technical matters are better settled by discussion and concensus. So please consult real physicists to re-evaluate your opinion. Daralam ( talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)