This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
I need someone who reads Portuguese to assess the reliability of a Portuguese language source. The query relates to notability claims made at our article on Areopagus Lodge (which is being discussed at AfD). Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the website PopDirt.com reliable for biographical material on notables? I couldn't find an "About" page on the site, but it looks like someone's entertainment or gossip blog. This PopDirt piece was being used to support the following passage in the Prince Azim article:
Prince Azim is known internationally, famous for throwing lavish parties. In the past, Azim has thrown parties with guest lists that have included Michael Jackson...
I also found other instances of that site being cited by Wikipedia, mostly in music-related articles. Here are six examples:
So is it reliable for this material? Nightscream ( talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Robert Agostinelli is an Italian-American financier.
I would like to know if this Forbes article [2] could be considered a reliable source for information regarding both the net worth of Agostinelli and also the value of fund managed by the company he co-founded, Rhone Group. User:Spacevezon talk 21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not if supporting source data is entirely absent. A blog post is not the same thing as a magazine article. There is Forbes.com, which is a clearing house blog on which anyone can write or promote themselves, and then there is Forbes Magazine. The source you identify is the former; a blog posting without either an author or actual data.
See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html
The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all.
Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick [4]: There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.
Article: Australian head of state dispute
Content:
Under the conventions of the Westminster system, the Governor-General's powers are almost always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown. The Governor-General may use the reserve powers of the Crown, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.
Discussion: It is the contention of one editor that the article's wording, specifically the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is supported by the statement from Barwick. In fact, as Barwick notes, the Australian Governor-General ( Sir John Kerr, in this famous instance) is given his express powers by the Constitution, which "leaves no room for any such notion (of reserve powers of the Crown)".
Several additional cites are provided, purporting to source the wording, but only one of these contains the phrase, and that is a low-level source aimed at schoolchildren, which sums up the entire subject of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs.
When pressed, Miesianical is unable to explain the direct contradiction of his opinion, nor provide any exact sources. The key point is that the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are directly assigned in the Constitution. They are not the reserve powers of the Queen. Defining them as "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely obfuscates the reality.-- Pete ( talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Although a government website I am curious if this is in fact RS for use in the Kashmir conflict article, currently it is used to support this text "Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population" I cannot see it as a RS for issues relating to the Kashmir problem at all. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The British paper known as "The Independent" used to be considered one of the United Kingdoms most respected newspapers. But time and a buyout, as well as a change in both format, style and coverage seems to have moved the paper into the realm of "Tabloid Journalism". This is not an issue in regards to the papers format size, but its coverage of news and events.
In researching this out I found a number of indicators that would seem to show the paper as just such a publication, especially over the last few years. Criticism of the publication, its coverage and headlines, and a perception of a lack of fact checking could lead one to speculate....but is that accurate. Is "The Independednt" a tabloid journalism source?
This is in regards to the article Paloma Faith and the source used for dating the subject's date of birth, which appears to be in dispute. We want to get this right....and since there was some recent news coverage involving this paper and its Wikipedia article in regards to the Leveson Inquiry, I felt it best to ask the community for a discussion to determine how to handle this source moving forward. (Disclaimer: I have removed a good deal of content in only the Paloma Faith article, over this being a "tabloid journalism" source, but have decided to bring this here. If the conclusion of the discussion is that it is not a "Tabloid Journalism" source, I will return everything removed. However the dispute over this figure's date of birth will still remain).-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) When
Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Daily Mirror. I do not read his piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. But does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her
GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggests 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving her birth year as Y sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again as they come across
1985 as her birth year in the tabloids --
Senra (
talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Independent seems to me a reliable source for someone's date of birth. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Tabloid is like porn. You know it when you see it. And sometimes tabloids can be considered reliable. Context is key.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The information is likely true, however, I have concerns regarding the reliability of a press release from a non-authoritative source:
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
See this edit [5] - the sources do not say it was the vandalism of the Armenian Christian Cemetery (and a Greek Orthodox Monastery was anti-Armenian, and indeed the editor actually wrote " According to media reports it seemed to be more of an anti-Christian act as the vandals also targeted the Greek orthodox monastery. They spray-painted phrases such as "Death to Christianity", "Jesus, son of a whore", "Happy Hanukkah"." Dougweller ( talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources don't need to literally state that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery is an anti-Armenian act, because as I understand it is too obvious. It's intent may have been anti-Christian, but again, intent does not matter. -- Երևանցի talk 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Pro-life activist Lila Rose says "a 'real War on Women' is being fought by Planned Parenthood" [1], citing the story of Tonya Reaves bleeding to death from a botched abortion performed at Planned Parenthood [2]. Rose says Planned Parenthood hides medical emergencies by lying to women who call them for information by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic [1]. Rose also says, “Planned Parenthood is engaged in numerous illegal, unethical and abusive activities that support the sexual trafficking of minors, sex and race based abortion, failing to report sexual abuse of underage girls, accounting fraud in California, and nine medical emergency 911 calls in the last year alone.” [1]
This has been discussed on the Talk page of this article. The issue is with source 1, which needs verification from this noticeboard that it is a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Continental Kennel Club Currently being used in numerous articles a general source or to establish a type of dog as a 'purebred breed': American Mastiff, Sussex Spaniel, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog.
In 2000, the breed was recognized by the Continental Kennel Club as purebred. - American Mastiff
Although not recognised by any major kennel clubs, the Russian Spaniel is recognised by the Continental Kennel Club [...] - Russian Spaniel
There is an article here that explains some of their practices and why I have an issue with them as a reliable source (I found it as a citation in the Dog breeds article). You may have to ctrl-F 'continental' to find it. -- TKK bark ! 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Moshe Friedman ongoing review and discussion but appreciate if The Vienna Review, a monthly newsletter is Wiki acceptable. If not can editors pls join in removing the source there. A service of the " Open Society Institute" should not be a wiki source. Tellyuer1 ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Two books repeatedly cited in the article Roman Catholic Mariology are Mark I. Miravalle (editor), Mariology with the imprint "Seat of Wisdom Books. A Division of Queenship Publishing", and Mark I. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary with the imprint "Queenship Publishing". Google Books gives Miravalle as publisher for each of the two books :
Is the indication of the publisher given by Google Books false? I think clarity is needed on whether the two books are or are not self-published sources. If they should be judged to be self-published (which is perhaps unlikely), then the further question would arise about whether they are nonetheless reliable sources to cite on Roman Catholic Mariology. I would appreciate a ruling, positive or negative, on the matter. Esoglou ( talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone. History2007 ( talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the Electronic Intifada a releiable source for a claim that that a British charity, Community Security Trust, has connections to the Israeli secret service, Mossad? See the last section in of the CST article, and this source: http://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-uk-charity-mossad-links-secretly-denounced-anti-zionist-jews-government/10717, under the "ISRAEL LOBBY WATCH" section of the Electronic Intifada web site. Dixy flyer ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)What I'm finding interesting here is that in the very sources you're quoting in support of the ideas of how EI can be used, the NYT articles characterize EI in this way: In Beam's opinion piece, "a parallel-universe, pro-Palestinian news organization"; in the other pieces pieces, EI is described as "pro-Palestinian", "a pro-Palestinian Web site", and "a pro-Palestinian blog". The characterization of EI as a "pro-Palestinian blog" is especially interesting, as it's recent (August 2012) and from a regular NYT news article, and was the only piece provided that wasn't a news blog or opinion piece. The one mentioned as a "clear usage of it as a source" again keeps EI at arm's length--EI is only attributed and not used in a narrative way. I'm getting the impression that EI is an interesting but primary source for its own content, and could be used as such in our articles if it's used carefully alongside a secondary source (like a NYT article).
Zad
68
14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This clearly WP:REDFLAG so such claim need much better sources then EI.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sun Myung Moon passed away recently, and his obituaries in the New York Times, LA Times and The Washington Post all state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact, stating respectively:
Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954.
He had a son with her and another with Kim Myung-hee, who lived with Moon during the 1950s.
Meanwhile, his first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding.
These three were used to source the rather bland statement "Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954" to help explain the total number of children in the infobox, but several users at the page have reverted this, claiming that these sources are "heavily biased" or "rumors". Outside input would be appreciated. a13ean ( talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote the following without having seen the above: There's a debate at Talk:Sun Myung Moon over whether Moon's article can include the sentence " Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954.". This has been cited to three obituaries but the only one that specifically states this is the New York Times [19] which says "he fathered a child in 1954". Another editor is calling this a media rumour and arguing that it can't be included unless a sentence saying "was later seduced or raped in Japan and did not come back to him until his next marriage" is included also. This claim is from the website of the True Parents Organization [20] which I don't see as a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
9:28 am, Today (UTC−5)At the risk of being overly cautious, I want to make sure that primary source publications by the Watch Tower Society will be ok to use in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses if it goes to WP:FAC. Relevant examples of primary source references from the lead section are as follows:
I checked WP:PSTS and WP:SELFSOURCE, and the only potential problem I can see is authorship. The WTS publications are authored by the group itself, rather than a notable individual speaking on behalf of the group. So, I'm asking the seasoned pros that patrol this page: Do you see any problems with using these primary sources in a featured article? Ignocrates ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This was very helpful. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
When reading the back cover of the book, I found the author claims the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an act of the British Intelligence Service. When reading the author's article on Wikipedia, Robert Dreyfuss, I found out this book was comissioned by Lyndon LaRouche who is well-known for his conspiracy theory related views about the British Intelligence (among other things of course). I also found illuminati related website praise his book here. The question then is, how much I can rely on this book for Ruhollah Khomeini's article. Thanks.-- 99.119.198.175 ( talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I refer to the above.
An editor, User: Sopher99 has (again) deleted without discussion edits on the grounds that "the sources are not reliable for this page, No source is banned of course, but their [sic] is no fact checking in the sources that back the statements".
In essence, the Editor is operating a ban on these sources for this page.
This is the Edit in question (showing the deleted sources): [21]
The sources that Sopher99 has deleted were:
I think the edit I made (and which was reverted by Sopher99) was based on reasonable sources and gave balance to this section of the article. The sources were, in my view, good and used in an appropriate manner. I would like to get the views of others. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll re-add the Russia Today content, but it has to be modified to actually fit what it is saying, given if what it is saying has due weight and editorial accuracy. Sopher99 ( talk) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a discussion that belongs on the article talk page, not here. Tom Harrison Talk 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)Hi, may someone let us know if visfot.com this is the neutral and reliable source to support the claim Owaisi made several inflammatory, disparaging, derogatory and threatening comments against - - - - India - - - (the sentence in the first paragraph of the section., Is it looks not more than a forum.
The discussion is on here regarding the claim. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In the article SHSH blob, I tagged THIS source as unreliable after evaluating the contributing author's credential at the time of his writing. In my opinion, this source does not have a stellar reputation for fact checking by an editorial board and I felt that its fair to consider the information provided about each author into consideration. HERE, the credential of author is "Sayam Aggarwal is a 18-year-old student living in India who has been an Apple fan for almost 5 years. He has worked with ModMyi, one of the leading iPhone communities, as an author for more than a year. He spends most of his free time on the Internet fetching the latest news regarding Apple and its entire product range.". In other words, He's a non established enthusiast writer.
From the same site, this source should be admissible as WP:RS based on the author credential: "John Brownlee is Cult of Mac's Deputy Editor. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his girlfriend and two parakeets.". He's an established journalist.
Is Cult of Mac a respectable source? If so, does this community find my interpretation of source reliability based on author's credential reasonable? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Russia Today banned as a reference source on Wikipedia? I note from the archive RT has been discussed a few times. Is there a clear rule? I have a clear perspective: that no media source is infallible; RT follows a distinctive, Western-ctitical perspective and is trusted by millions of people (whether it should be or not, after all, should people trust any media source?). Every media outlet has its political perspective, whether controlled by a Government or a Corporation.
I've encountered an editor who claims CNN is ok but Russia Today is not. He has (on principle, so we don't even need to discuss the particular article) deleted any statement that is sourced by reference to RT. This is on the Syrian Civil War page and is discussed on the Talk: Syrian Civil War page. By excluding Russia Today (which has journalists in Syria and whose correspondent was the most recent English speaking correspondent to interview the Syrian President), I think a serious distortion emerges. Obviously RT pursues a much more "Assad-tolerant" line than just about all major Western media outlets. As far as I am concerned, that's all the more reason it should not be excluded (as otherwise, how do we present balanced and rounded articles.)
Personally, I think it's a nonsense that I should have to raise this but Censorship and Discrimination and Politics predominate so often here on Wiki. If I get into an edit war, I'll be banned and the other editor will doubtless get away with his behaviour. I expect he will any way and raising this is futile but I'll give it a go. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
He is arguing for its use in the Syrian civil war page, which we agreed to not use it there. Russia Today has commonly referred to one side as "terrorists", and the site itself is state-controlled to reflect Russia view on the Syrian conflict, which tends to be partisan and in favor of the Syrian government. The Site is not known for fact checking, so much so that three reliable sources at one point took time to condemn Russia day, directly or indirectly, which very rarely happens in common newsmedia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/25/wikileaks-julian-assange-russian-tv
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow--the-world-2083869.html
Basically Russia today's lack of fact checking, ubiquitous use of weasel words, and slander of one particular side renders russia today ineliggible for use as a source on the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
From the discussion above, I think it is established that there is no rule banning Russia Today on principle as a source on Wikipedia. Like any other source, an RT article must be assessed on its merits etc.
My next question is whether editors can ban RT as a source in respect of a particular article?
If RT is not a banned source generally, why should it be generally banned from any particular article? Each particular Russia Today article (or CNN article for that matter) needs to be assessed on its own merits is my view.
Is there any rule around this. The context here (as per the above, is that an editor, User:Sopher99, is claiming that Russia Today has been properly banned as a source (regarless of what the RT article says)) on Syrian Civil War. I think this is an abuse.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Its not about banning or prohibiting, its about simply not using a source deemed unreliable for an area of context while we have plenty of other reliable sources that cover the information of the article at hand (BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian, ect) Sopher99 ( talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Wikipedia.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
A few points:
“ | It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States...Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate news gathering. | ” |
“ | The 11 September attacks in New York were an inside job; the South Korean warship torpedoed in March was not sunk by North Korea, but probably by Japan or the US; and the world is run by the secretive Bilderberg Group, who pursue a "New World Order". Not the lonely ravings of a conspiracy-minded blogger, but all opinions aired recently on a satellite channel beamed into millions of American homes. | ” |
“ | Some of the channel's recent offerings suggest a penchant for wild conspiracy theories which may have the opposite effect. Take this segment which gives a platform to a conspiracy theorist seized of the idea that the Bilderberg group is behind the European Union. | ” |
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=530&id=619775 Sopher99 ( talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
conscience-sociale.blogspot.com and conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr appear to be blogs with pages of graphs and data from other (mainly reliable) sources and self-published synthesis by the author (Bruno Paul, who does not appear to be an economic expert). I propose replacing these links with links to the reliable sources themselves, where they are used as a source for primary data, and removing instances where they are is used as a secondary source (synthesis) or as a source for editorial synthesis, due the unreliability of the source according to Wikipedic standards.
These sites clearly are the product of a great deal of very useful work and are excellent places to find good economic sources but, in my opinion, they do not themselves meet the reliability standards of this project. Joja lozzo 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:ELNO do not permit doorway pages. If you found reliable sources within it, you can cite those sources. Similarly, Wikipedia is often not permitted for direct source in academic papers, but it's a good source for finding sources to use for academic papers. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this site being specifically discussed in the archives. A debate at Talk:Paul Watson brought up the issue of the reliability of tumblr.com as a source, so I decided to create a discussion here.
Tumblr.com is a site designed for anyone to share content from any device. As such, 100% of the content would be user-generated (and if not, the content would be copyright violations). I can't see how the Wikipedia community would consider tumblr.com a reliable source, except maybe as a primary source for organizations that own subdomains on tumbler.com, such as this "press release" from a band.
In any case, I am disturbed at the number of links to tumblr.com, more than 5,700: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.tumblr.com
What do others think? Should tumblr.com be added to XLinkBot to discourage future additions? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this source or its reliability [25] specifically the article I'm linking to and the author as a RS for content on the BLP, Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban blogger. Insights on this source would be appreciated.( olive ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC))
John Mueller wrote an article in International Security that mentioned Vojislav Šešelj, and in a footnote, wrote:
20. One of the most fanatical of Serb nationalists, the political scientist Šešelj, who spent a year teaching at the University of Michigan in his younger years, later seems to have become mentally unbalanced as the result of the torture and beatings he endured while in prison in Yugoslavia for counterrevolutionary activities. One academic colleague described him as "disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind." See UN Experts, Final Report, par. 107, 108; see also Judah, The Serbs, p. 187
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This footnote was used partially to reference the factoid that Šešelj had taught at "University of Michigan". At Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#teaching in Michigan, I explored the issue and found that the description may well be inaccurate. While exploring that, I found the rest of the footnote and cited it for its actual meaning - to say what Mueller actually wrote about Šešelj.
Recently, an anonymous POV pusher complained about this and wanted to censor it in the text. I've refrained from insisting on it until I found another source.
Most recently, the gist of that note was removed, and now we're back in the situation where we don't quote the actual main point of that footnote, while the part that's kept is otherwise dubious.
This sounds like cherry-picking a quote to me. Is Mueller's footnote in an article published in an apparently respectable journal - reliable enough to be used for what it's actually saying? If it isn't, how is it reliable enough to be used to support a tangential factoid that it likely got wrong? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the lovely RSN discussion layout! I love it when the source/article/content are listed so clearly. Regarding the source, it's carried on PUBMED and MEDLINE-indexed, the direct link to the article is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17719708 ... looking at it now.
Zad
68
17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My response:
I have several reservations about the proposed edit using the provided source.
The journal is Social Sciences and Medicine, and the author does not appear to be in medicine--Wahlberg is affiliated with the London School of Economics and Political Science and not a medical department. The abstract of the article appears only to label mid-19th century homeopathy "quackery," and this attribution is to someone else (Roy Porter). The journal article itself appears not to be a review article that might be in a position to make this kind of characterization, but rather an original research paper ("By examining the ways in which regulatory authorities in the UK have come to address what is invariably described as a 'growing interest in CAM', I will show how..."). This makes for rather weak sourcing for the content suggested, especially for an article lead.
This suggested edit appears to be an attempt to get homeopathy labelled as "quackery" in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important points of the body of the article. If homeopathy is broadly and definitively considered "quackery" by the medical community, there should be significant coverage of that in the article, and the article should be carrying several strong sources supporting that content. Isn't there a stronger source in the article you can source this to? It would not surprise me to find that the proposed content is supported by strong sources, but you need to find those strong sources, the one provided here doesn't seem to be it.
Zad
68
18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The question about an appropriate encyclopedic style (no loaded terms in the lead) and contradicting sources, should be discussed on the articles discussion page (I posted there already). It is not really a question for this noticeboard, which primarily tries to assess whether a particular can be considered reliable/reputable. The core dispute in the problem above is not the reliability of a particular source, but whether the article's style and tone is appropriate and whether it is an appropriate summary of all aspects/sources and that beyond this noticeboard.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to include part of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini memoirs through the book of academic historian Jack R. Fischel "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust" page 122 to the articles: Haj Amin al-Husseini and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. My question is therefore wetter Jack Fischel an academic historian, a former professor emeritus of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania is reliable concerning his book "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust"
1. Source. Jack Fischel
2. published by Rowman & Littlefield and printed by Scarecrow Press
3. The quote in concern Al-Husseini memoirs. where he states P:122:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours" [27]
This quote from this academic historian book is supported by numerous secondary sources
1.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse [28]
2.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic JihadBy David Patterson
3.Wiesenthal Holocaust center [30]
4. A. Dershowitz; [31]
5. New York Jewish Times [32]
and numerous other articles. Despite this Jack Fischel book was described as unreliable: [33] [34] [35] and "as useless as tits on a bull on this issue" [36]
Due to WP:NPOV I believe this quotes from Hajj Amin Al-Husseini memoirs from academic historian Jack Fischel are reliable. Extensive debate can be red at Haj Amin al-Husseini and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world talk page. I would highly respect your opinion on this issue as this quote was removed as unreliable.-- Tritomex ( talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As we see from other sources this part of Al-Husseini and Hitler conversation exists before 2001, namely in the book printed in 1940s. [37] so this was hardly "invented by Honig in 2001" as you stated. [38] be .Handžar committed atrocites against Jews, source Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 By Terry Goldsworthy P.110' among others committing massacre of Tuzla Jews [39] Al-Futuwwa Nazi scouts were indeed under Al-Husseini control, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism By David M. Rosen P:106 [40] and All-Husseini played crucial role in its establishment.Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine, Tome 2, Fayard, p.536. Considering Nishadani claims as he did not provided any links or sources for his claim it is impossible to answer them. So by all academic means this book is Reliable -- Tritomex ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following article: D. Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam's Land Reform Reconsidered (Ithaca Cornell University IREA Project, 1972) (A shorter version of this paper was published in The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. V, No. 2, September 1973, pp. 2-15.) deals with the land reform in North Vietnam. It has been cited by other authors, such as Edwin E. Moise. (Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 70-92; Moise generally supports Porter's conclusions, although he disagrees with some minor details), Jonathan London (Viet Nam and the making of market-Leninism. The Pacific Review, Vol. 22 No. 3 July 2009: 375–399), or James P. Harrison (The Endless War: Vietnam's Struggle for Independence. Columbia University Press, 1982 ISBN 023106909X, 9780231069090). In connection to that, I would like to know if Porter a reliable source for the statement:
Thank you in advance, -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
References
Porter's reliance on North Vietnamese state propaganda is likely to have led him to errors, just like his reliance on Khmer Rouge state propaganda led him to errors. The man has no historical training or experience with Indochina, and could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating. The brutality of the Khmer Rouge was obvious to any honest observer. Porter wrote for a "bulletin" founded by graduate students with the goal of presenting a "radical critique" of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, Stumink, Slatersteven, Darkness Shines, and myself are all against Siebert's proposed wording. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
All 5 listed by Paul Siebert are reliable. Fall is reliable. Dang Phong is a very good source. Turner book should be included. Turner paper not significant. Rosefielde and Rummel should both be included although their books cover numerous countries rather than focusing just on VN. Summarise all of these objectively. Do not settle for one figure or another when historians have reached no such consensus. Just set out the different views. Don't get hung up on one aspect when there are other issues that the sources cover. Best of luck and thanks for your work on a contentious area. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There seems to be a disagreement between some users at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)#Possibly unreliable sources regarding the use of ComicBookBin, Active Anime, Teenreads and Read About Comics being questioned as reliable sources. Are all four of these sources considered reliable? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Lets not forget their able to get interviews, its hard to just ignore the site. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This self-proclaimed "one of the most trusted anime news sites in the world" and "one of best review sites on the Internet" (in reality a badly-designed and literally broken anime blog run on WordPress by an IT guy who can't spell the word "administrator") isn't even among the top 6 million most popular websites. That's all. -- Niemti ( talk) 06:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As of "for example Dark Horse": they will simply publish practically any (ANY) review they like. Including by blogcritics [43] that, according to Wikipedia, are "allowing anyone to contribute". And I know you're now going to argue with LB a lot anyway, so I leave you with her, have fun. -- Niemti ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried looking this in various discussions boards and not finding any answer I am posting my question here. I have some confusion after following this debate about Single player health care. My point is if newspaper A publishes an opinion poll about a topic can we quote that article (or poll) as a source for the subject of the article. Shouldn't such polls be considered as ( WP:SELFPUBLISH)? After all the methodologies of these polls is rarely discussed with outsiders and rarely is the data given out to outside auditors. Nor is this data worked upon by independent researchers. Most editors feel that as the publishing newspapers are generally reliable, these polls should also be considered as neutral and independent sources. My point is, as such opinion polls should not be quoted unless the article is about the poll conducted by A (as is allowed under WP:SELFPUBLISH). I invite comments from other editors about this.- Wikishagnik ( talk) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, maybe wp:selfpub was the wrong policy quote, I should have used wp:primary instead. My concern is not about the accuracy of these polls but the very nature of these polls. please consider the following
The bottom line is, can opinion polls be considered to be reliable enough ( WP:RELIABLE) and verifiable enough ( WP:VERIFY) to meet Wikipedia standards? - Wikishagnik ( talk) 04:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this site before, but it appears to fail a number of the criteria (as far as I understand them) of reliability. The staff all appear to be internet handles, and there appears to be little or no administrative or editorial oversight. Hell, I think that I could be a member of the staff, If I were to but add a movie review, and I am certainly not citable enough for that sort of activity. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 21:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.
Here are the sources:
Justiciero1811 ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for the late response for Justiciero1811, who pinged my talk. I've brought this back from archives to respond. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Multiple issues:
In summary, no primicias24.com does not appear to be a reliable source, should not be used to contradict mainstream sources like El Universal (Caracas), but there are much bigger problems in this article. I will crosspost to the BLP noticeboard-- I do not have the time nor the inclination to get involved in this article, and have only responded here because the original editor pinged my talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Much of the content, and much of the claim of notability, of " Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw" rests on the fact that there are several reviews of the episode on ToonZone. I closed the article's GA nomination based on the reliability of this source, but this has been disputed by the article's author. As far as I can see, ToonZone is a self-published website run and written by amateurs. It doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, and I can't see any reason to trust the authors. We're not even sure who the majority of writers are, as they write under pseudonyms/monickers. While not just anyone can post a review, I'm not sure why the reviews of the "staff" should be considered reliable. A third opinion would be helpful. J Milburn ( talk) 20:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
@Khanassassin: Can you post links to the articles that cited this source? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Source First bad URL used: http://http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-accused-was-on-reality-tv-show-2013-01-12-1.489766 Second bad URL used: http://http://http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/india-rape-delhi-accused-juvenile-ramsin-idINDEE90B01S20130112
2. Article about recent Delhi Rape case (2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#cite_note-Reuters-43
3. Content: Bad sources are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"
There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source ( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/delhi-gangrape-fifth-man-md-afroz-nabbed-badaun-uttar-pradesh/1/238782.html) be reinstated.
Relevant diff explains it all. I am in a dispute with an IP editor at this article. I reverted him twice on "sources" which turned out to be college thesis papers which I contend do not meet the requirements of a reliable scholarly publication acceptable as a source in this article. The problem is that the editor has also added a slew of other names cited to offline sources which are, of course, inaccessible to me for verification. I am demanding verification by the use of the {{ verify source}} template, and I ask the help of others more experienced in these determinations to help me out here. Yes, I have opened a discussion on the talk page, which has so far attracted no discussion. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (using the IPs 146.115.183.148 and 146.115.181.168) has added critical analysis to two articles about short stories by J. D. Salinger, " De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period" and " The Laughing Man (short story)". However, all of this "analysis" is sourced to content on the PBWorks.com website, which says on its main page: "Online team collaboration to get work done. Capture knowledge, share files, and manage projects within a secure, reliable environment." This indicates that all of the content at http://beach42.pbworks.com/w/browse/#view=ViewAllObjects was user-generated, and thus not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I would like some other opinions on this, though. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
On SEOmoz article, there are several sources. Granted, some sources are outdated. Just a few days ago, the company's owner Rand Fishkin contends that the page contains "numerous egregious errors", asserts some media sources are "wrong" and provided his version of corrections. Some are unreferenced while some are self-referenced to SEOmoz's own page. When should we opt to use primary source (company's page) over secondary sources? I'm not sure if it would be right to take his words at face value and replace secondary sources he claims to be incorrect with SEOMoz links. Ideas? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Source: Hoover's Company In-Depth Records
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
First editor: "I added information on the sales modes that the company uses but Rhode Island Red reverted it. [Reversion diff
here.] The contention is that Melaleuca does not sell its products through multilevel marketing, online shopping, and retail sales. I did not mention this before, but Melaleuca's sales operations are officially categorized under the following two NAICS codes (directly quoted):
"454111 - Electronic Shopping"
"454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"
"The first code should be included in the article unless there are reliable sources that state that the company does not offer its products for sale over the Internet or retail. Because the relevant Wikipedia article is entitled online shopping, I opted to use that name instead of "electronic shopping". There are multiple sources that refer to Melaleuca's online sales and retail. Andrew327 12:30 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"
Second editor: "I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 1:16 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"
If everybody agrees, the discussion could be centralized at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Later_discussion Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoover's is generally considered a reliable source in its highly-litigious field. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm
We are having some disagreements on what constitutes a reliable source for the definition of our article. On one hand, this is not formally peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. On the other hand, it is written by an instructor of philosophy and is hosted on a university webspace, for reference by students and staff, where it seems unlikely it would remain for long if it was inaccurate. The statement as it will appear in the article Appeal to nature is "An appeal to nature is a type of argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is argued that a phenomenon is good because it is found in nature, or bad because it is not found in nature". FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 06:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it ever insufficient to base an article on official profiles of the organization where they once worked?
I started the article Sentinel class cutter about seven years ago. I updated it, from time to time. The first three vessels were commissioned this year, another two have been launched, I've started articles on these vessels, as they have been launched. The names of the first fourteen vessels were announced about two years ago. They are all going to be named after individuals from the US Coast Guard, or its precursor services, who were known for their heroism. I started articles on those individuals as well.
Margaret Norvell, a 19th century lighthouse keeper, who used to row out in stormy seas to rescue stranded mariners, had already been written about, as an early example of a strong, independent, heroic woman.
William Flores already had articles written about him and how his heroism had gone unrecognized.
Other namesakes had profiles written about them in their local papers, as the vessel named after them were launched.
But when I wrote an article on Richard Dixon (USCG Boatswains Mate), another contributor challenged the article, with a {{ prod}}, asserting:
Richard Dixon, a Boatswain's Mate stationed at Tillamook Bay, was awarded two Coast Guard Medals for his heroic actions on July Fourth weekend, 1980.
The first six FRCs for District 7 will be homeported in Miami; the next six in Key West; and the remaining six in Puerto Rico.
Petty Officer Dixon is cited for heroism on the afternoon of 3 July 1980 while serving as the coxswain of Coast Guard Motor Lifeboat (MLB) 44409.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I spent some time this morning looking through the archives for the Reliable sources noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. I don't see anything that would support challenging the USCG drafted references. My understanding of the requirement that references be independent would restrict us from relying on references written by Dixon, or his friends, relatives, subordinates and immediate superiors.
I know the wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I could have waited until the vessel was launched, and looked for a profile in Dixon's local paper. I admit I did not do so because, while reading the comments section of an article in the Miami Herald, the city where the first four vessels are homeported, proud readers recommended other readers check out the wikipedia's coverage of the vessels and their namesakes.
But there is nothing in the USCG references that would be considered controversial, or open to challenge. I see absolutely no reason to doubt that these individuals did exactly what the USCG references said they did.
So, when is it insufficient to base an article on official profiles from the organization where an individual once worked? Geo Swan ( talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
After I told the contributor who placed the {{ prod}} that I initiated this discussion, here, they initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question. As per WP:Forum shopping, they should have been cautious about initiating a thread at a second forum, without informing participants at the first forum.
Today they placed another tag, on William Trump, who, like Dixon, was both recognized as a hero, and later had a cutter named after him. As with the earlier article the tagger has repeated the assertion that USCG references, aren't "independent", and can't be relied on.
At Talk:Richard Dixon (USCG) the tagger posed a rhetorical question, which I have chosen to take seriously. They said "So, only having references from a person't employer is now enough to meet GNG? Hey, that means I'm notable because I was written up multiple times in my companies on-line news letter."
In my reply I asserted that an organization's online publication
What I would like to see addressed here is the general principle of whether we can accept publications of organizations where an individual once worked, or whether they can never be considered reliable because they can never be considered "indpendent". Geo Swan ( talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
On this BLP, some editors are insisting that "Nusbacher lived life as a male until a 2007 gender change." can be attributed to the one source it is reported. While we are here this is also being used to pin the persons possible former name rather than attribute it as a writing name they have published under:
• William D. Rubinstein; Michael Jolles; Hilary L. Rubinstein, eds. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.
Two editors have made some observations which I will post for others to see here regarding concerns on this use:
The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.
So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article.
So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.
The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.
My opinion is that we need to be using strong sourcing to make an exceptional claim, on a BLP, against the wishes of the subject. Could uninvolved editors experienced in high-quality sourcing please offer opinions? Insomesia ( talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue is whether a RS source which makes a "contentious claim" by BLP standards, and whose listed sources do not make the claim, sufficient on its own to be the "strong sourcing" required by WP:BLP.
As thorough on-line searches, including the specialised searches available to some editors (Higbheam, Questia et al.), do not show any other "reliable source" (Wikipedia's usage) making the claim, is this one source, which appears to have gotten the information from "online sources" as its listed sources do not make the claim, now a "strong" source? I would note that Wikipedia notes that even the NYT has published "hoaxes" and the like, and that where information is doubted, that even a "newspaper of record" is not then a strong source for a contentious claim in a BLP. I made the edit, which I believe is warranted by sources, that the person changed her name in 2007, which I suggest is all that is actually borne out by sources. Collect ( talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The book has very good credentials. All three authors are historians specialising in this precise field (with a caveat for William S. Rubinstein, who has spread himself into Shakespeare authorship, a bad long-term career move, but who am I to criticise him?) and they had the support of the Jewish Historical Society. You couldn't ask for better. Authors don't have to be academically trained biographers (there are few such) or sex change experts (if they were that, they wouldn't be historians).
But that's irrelevant. The question is about this specific article, and about private information. The subject has already, long ago, asked us to remove this information, which is irrelevant to notability. That was a perfectly reasonable request: the information is irrelevant to notability. You can be a military historian regardless of operations you've had or haven't had. End of question. Andrew Dalby 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I find this discussion confusing. Based on a quick scan of the article, this is not a public figure really, except possibly in a small way through the TV appearances, and, possibly, through being an influential gay figure associated with the British military. It seems to me that the over-riding issue should be that this person apparently would prefer to keep a discussion of his or her genitals out of wikipedia. So I am not sure why we are worrying about reliable sources. But ok. My thoughts, which I suspect are not helpful, are as follows. Is this an extraordinary claim? We refer to this person as "she". Ah, I see the issue, now that I read further. Her claim to notability is under her former name. I am inclined to say the article should be under the former name, then, and if what is left doesn't meet notability guidelines, the problem is solved, is it not? I still don't understand the objection Nusbacher has -- if she is out as transgendered, this is incidental information in my opinion. But to answer the actual question asked here: The source seems to meet reliability guidelines, but it seems uncomfortably slim as a basis for information the subject wants removed. If we really need the statement in there (I don't deal with BLP much) why not go find those Jewish Chronicle articles the dictionary is citing, and use those instead? Elinruby ( talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
I need someone who reads Portuguese to assess the reliability of a Portuguese language source. The query relates to notability claims made at our article on Areopagus Lodge (which is being discussed at AfD). Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the website PopDirt.com reliable for biographical material on notables? I couldn't find an "About" page on the site, but it looks like someone's entertainment or gossip blog. This PopDirt piece was being used to support the following passage in the Prince Azim article:
Prince Azim is known internationally, famous for throwing lavish parties. In the past, Azim has thrown parties with guest lists that have included Michael Jackson...
I also found other instances of that site being cited by Wikipedia, mostly in music-related articles. Here are six examples:
So is it reliable for this material? Nightscream ( talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Robert Agostinelli is an Italian-American financier.
I would like to know if this Forbes article [2] could be considered a reliable source for information regarding both the net worth of Agostinelli and also the value of fund managed by the company he co-founded, Rhone Group. User:Spacevezon talk 21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not if supporting source data is entirely absent. A blog post is not the same thing as a magazine article. There is Forbes.com, which is a clearing house blog on which anyone can write or promote themselves, and then there is Forbes Magazine. The source you identify is the former; a blog posting without either an author or actual data.
See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html
The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all.
Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick [4]: There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.
Article: Australian head of state dispute
Content:
Under the conventions of the Westminster system, the Governor-General's powers are almost always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown. The Governor-General may use the reserve powers of the Crown, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.
Discussion: It is the contention of one editor that the article's wording, specifically the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is supported by the statement from Barwick. In fact, as Barwick notes, the Australian Governor-General ( Sir John Kerr, in this famous instance) is given his express powers by the Constitution, which "leaves no room for any such notion (of reserve powers of the Crown)".
Several additional cites are provided, purporting to source the wording, but only one of these contains the phrase, and that is a low-level source aimed at schoolchildren, which sums up the entire subject of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs.
When pressed, Miesianical is unable to explain the direct contradiction of his opinion, nor provide any exact sources. The key point is that the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are directly assigned in the Constitution. They are not the reserve powers of the Queen. Defining them as "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely obfuscates the reality.-- Pete ( talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Although a government website I am curious if this is in fact RS for use in the Kashmir conflict article, currently it is used to support this text "Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population" I cannot see it as a RS for issues relating to the Kashmir problem at all. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The British paper known as "The Independent" used to be considered one of the United Kingdoms most respected newspapers. But time and a buyout, as well as a change in both format, style and coverage seems to have moved the paper into the realm of "Tabloid Journalism". This is not an issue in regards to the papers format size, but its coverage of news and events.
In researching this out I found a number of indicators that would seem to show the paper as just such a publication, especially over the last few years. Criticism of the publication, its coverage and headlines, and a perception of a lack of fact checking could lead one to speculate....but is that accurate. Is "The Independednt" a tabloid journalism source?
This is in regards to the article Paloma Faith and the source used for dating the subject's date of birth, which appears to be in dispute. We want to get this right....and since there was some recent news coverage involving this paper and its Wikipedia article in regards to the Leveson Inquiry, I felt it best to ask the community for a discussion to determine how to handle this source moving forward. (Disclaimer: I have removed a good deal of content in only the Paloma Faith article, over this being a "tabloid journalism" source, but have decided to bring this here. If the conclusion of the discussion is that it is not a "Tabloid Journalism" source, I will return everything removed. However the dispute over this figure's date of birth will still remain).-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) When
Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Daily Mirror. I do not read his piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. But does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her
GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggests 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving her birth year as Y sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again as they come across
1985 as her birth year in the tabloids --
Senra (
talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Independent seems to me a reliable source for someone's date of birth. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Tabloid is like porn. You know it when you see it. And sometimes tabloids can be considered reliable. Context is key.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The information is likely true, however, I have concerns regarding the reliability of a press release from a non-authoritative source:
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
See this edit [5] - the sources do not say it was the vandalism of the Armenian Christian Cemetery (and a Greek Orthodox Monastery was anti-Armenian, and indeed the editor actually wrote " According to media reports it seemed to be more of an anti-Christian act as the vandals also targeted the Greek orthodox monastery. They spray-painted phrases such as "Death to Christianity", "Jesus, son of a whore", "Happy Hanukkah"." Dougweller ( talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources don't need to literally state that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery is an anti-Armenian act, because as I understand it is too obvious. It's intent may have been anti-Christian, but again, intent does not matter. -- Երևանցի talk 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Pro-life activist Lila Rose says "a 'real War on Women' is being fought by Planned Parenthood" [1], citing the story of Tonya Reaves bleeding to death from a botched abortion performed at Planned Parenthood [2]. Rose says Planned Parenthood hides medical emergencies by lying to women who call them for information by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic [1]. Rose also says, “Planned Parenthood is engaged in numerous illegal, unethical and abusive activities that support the sexual trafficking of minors, sex and race based abortion, failing to report sexual abuse of underage girls, accounting fraud in California, and nine medical emergency 911 calls in the last year alone.” [1]
This has been discussed on the Talk page of this article. The issue is with source 1, which needs verification from this noticeboard that it is a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Continental Kennel Club Currently being used in numerous articles a general source or to establish a type of dog as a 'purebred breed': American Mastiff, Sussex Spaniel, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog.
In 2000, the breed was recognized by the Continental Kennel Club as purebred. - American Mastiff
Although not recognised by any major kennel clubs, the Russian Spaniel is recognised by the Continental Kennel Club [...] - Russian Spaniel
There is an article here that explains some of their practices and why I have an issue with them as a reliable source (I found it as a citation in the Dog breeds article). You may have to ctrl-F 'continental' to find it. -- TKK bark ! 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Moshe Friedman ongoing review and discussion but appreciate if The Vienna Review, a monthly newsletter is Wiki acceptable. If not can editors pls join in removing the source there. A service of the " Open Society Institute" should not be a wiki source. Tellyuer1 ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Two books repeatedly cited in the article Roman Catholic Mariology are Mark I. Miravalle (editor), Mariology with the imprint "Seat of Wisdom Books. A Division of Queenship Publishing", and Mark I. Miravalle, Introduction to Mary with the imprint "Queenship Publishing". Google Books gives Miravalle as publisher for each of the two books :
Is the indication of the publisher given by Google Books false? I think clarity is needed on whether the two books are or are not self-published sources. If they should be judged to be self-published (which is perhaps unlikely), then the further question would arise about whether they are nonetheless reliable sources to cite on Roman Catholic Mariology. I would appreciate a ruling, positive or negative, on the matter. Esoglou ( talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone. History2007 ( talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the Electronic Intifada a releiable source for a claim that that a British charity, Community Security Trust, has connections to the Israeli secret service, Mossad? See the last section in of the CST article, and this source: http://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-uk-charity-mossad-links-secretly-denounced-anti-zionist-jews-government/10717, under the "ISRAEL LOBBY WATCH" section of the Electronic Intifada web site. Dixy flyer ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)What I'm finding interesting here is that in the very sources you're quoting in support of the ideas of how EI can be used, the NYT articles characterize EI in this way: In Beam's opinion piece, "a parallel-universe, pro-Palestinian news organization"; in the other pieces pieces, EI is described as "pro-Palestinian", "a pro-Palestinian Web site", and "a pro-Palestinian blog". The characterization of EI as a "pro-Palestinian blog" is especially interesting, as it's recent (August 2012) and from a regular NYT news article, and was the only piece provided that wasn't a news blog or opinion piece. The one mentioned as a "clear usage of it as a source" again keeps EI at arm's length--EI is only attributed and not used in a narrative way. I'm getting the impression that EI is an interesting but primary source for its own content, and could be used as such in our articles if it's used carefully alongside a secondary source (like a NYT article).
Zad
68
14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This clearly WP:REDFLAG so such claim need much better sources then EI.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sun Myung Moon passed away recently, and his obituaries in the New York Times, LA Times and The Washington Post all state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact, stating respectively:
Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954.
He had a son with her and another with Kim Myung-hee, who lived with Moon during the 1950s.
Meanwhile, his first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding.
These three were used to source the rather bland statement "Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954" to help explain the total number of children in the infobox, but several users at the page have reverted this, claiming that these sources are "heavily biased" or "rumors". Outside input would be appreciated. a13ean ( talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote the following without having seen the above: There's a debate at Talk:Sun Myung Moon over whether Moon's article can include the sentence " Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954.". This has been cited to three obituaries but the only one that specifically states this is the New York Times [19] which says "he fathered a child in 1954". Another editor is calling this a media rumour and arguing that it can't be included unless a sentence saying "was later seduced or raped in Japan and did not come back to him until his next marriage" is included also. This claim is from the website of the True Parents Organization [20] which I don't see as a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
9:28 am, Today (UTC−5)At the risk of being overly cautious, I want to make sure that primary source publications by the Watch Tower Society will be ok to use in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses if it goes to WP:FAC. Relevant examples of primary source references from the lead section are as follows:
I checked WP:PSTS and WP:SELFSOURCE, and the only potential problem I can see is authorship. The WTS publications are authored by the group itself, rather than a notable individual speaking on behalf of the group. So, I'm asking the seasoned pros that patrol this page: Do you see any problems with using these primary sources in a featured article? Ignocrates ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This was very helpful. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
When reading the back cover of the book, I found the author claims the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an act of the British Intelligence Service. When reading the author's article on Wikipedia, Robert Dreyfuss, I found out this book was comissioned by Lyndon LaRouche who is well-known for his conspiracy theory related views about the British Intelligence (among other things of course). I also found illuminati related website praise his book here. The question then is, how much I can rely on this book for Ruhollah Khomeini's article. Thanks.-- 99.119.198.175 ( talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I refer to the above.
An editor, User: Sopher99 has (again) deleted without discussion edits on the grounds that "the sources are not reliable for this page, No source is banned of course, but their [sic] is no fact checking in the sources that back the statements".
In essence, the Editor is operating a ban on these sources for this page.
This is the Edit in question (showing the deleted sources): [21]
The sources that Sopher99 has deleted were:
I think the edit I made (and which was reverted by Sopher99) was based on reasonable sources and gave balance to this section of the article. The sources were, in my view, good and used in an appropriate manner. I would like to get the views of others. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll re-add the Russia Today content, but it has to be modified to actually fit what it is saying, given if what it is saying has due weight and editorial accuracy. Sopher99 ( talk) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a discussion that belongs on the article talk page, not here. Tom Harrison Talk 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)Hi, may someone let us know if visfot.com this is the neutral and reliable source to support the claim Owaisi made several inflammatory, disparaging, derogatory and threatening comments against - - - - India - - - (the sentence in the first paragraph of the section., Is it looks not more than a forum.
The discussion is on here regarding the claim. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In the article SHSH blob, I tagged THIS source as unreliable after evaluating the contributing author's credential at the time of his writing. In my opinion, this source does not have a stellar reputation for fact checking by an editorial board and I felt that its fair to consider the information provided about each author into consideration. HERE, the credential of author is "Sayam Aggarwal is a 18-year-old student living in India who has been an Apple fan for almost 5 years. He has worked with ModMyi, one of the leading iPhone communities, as an author for more than a year. He spends most of his free time on the Internet fetching the latest news regarding Apple and its entire product range.". In other words, He's a non established enthusiast writer.
From the same site, this source should be admissible as WP:RS based on the author credential: "John Brownlee is Cult of Mac's Deputy Editor. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his girlfriend and two parakeets.". He's an established journalist.
Is Cult of Mac a respectable source? If so, does this community find my interpretation of source reliability based on author's credential reasonable? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Russia Today banned as a reference source on Wikipedia? I note from the archive RT has been discussed a few times. Is there a clear rule? I have a clear perspective: that no media source is infallible; RT follows a distinctive, Western-ctitical perspective and is trusted by millions of people (whether it should be or not, after all, should people trust any media source?). Every media outlet has its political perspective, whether controlled by a Government or a Corporation.
I've encountered an editor who claims CNN is ok but Russia Today is not. He has (on principle, so we don't even need to discuss the particular article) deleted any statement that is sourced by reference to RT. This is on the Syrian Civil War page and is discussed on the Talk: Syrian Civil War page. By excluding Russia Today (which has journalists in Syria and whose correspondent was the most recent English speaking correspondent to interview the Syrian President), I think a serious distortion emerges. Obviously RT pursues a much more "Assad-tolerant" line than just about all major Western media outlets. As far as I am concerned, that's all the more reason it should not be excluded (as otherwise, how do we present balanced and rounded articles.)
Personally, I think it's a nonsense that I should have to raise this but Censorship and Discrimination and Politics predominate so often here on Wiki. If I get into an edit war, I'll be banned and the other editor will doubtless get away with his behaviour. I expect he will any way and raising this is futile but I'll give it a go. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
He is arguing for its use in the Syrian civil war page, which we agreed to not use it there. Russia Today has commonly referred to one side as "terrorists", and the site itself is state-controlled to reflect Russia view on the Syrian conflict, which tends to be partisan and in favor of the Syrian government. The Site is not known for fact checking, so much so that three reliable sources at one point took time to condemn Russia day, directly or indirectly, which very rarely happens in common newsmedia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/25/wikileaks-julian-assange-russian-tv
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow--the-world-2083869.html
Basically Russia today's lack of fact checking, ubiquitous use of weasel words, and slander of one particular side renders russia today ineliggible for use as a source on the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
From the discussion above, I think it is established that there is no rule banning Russia Today on principle as a source on Wikipedia. Like any other source, an RT article must be assessed on its merits etc.
My next question is whether editors can ban RT as a source in respect of a particular article?
If RT is not a banned source generally, why should it be generally banned from any particular article? Each particular Russia Today article (or CNN article for that matter) needs to be assessed on its own merits is my view.
Is there any rule around this. The context here (as per the above, is that an editor, User:Sopher99, is claiming that Russia Today has been properly banned as a source (regarless of what the RT article says)) on Syrian Civil War. I think this is an abuse.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Its not about banning or prohibiting, its about simply not using a source deemed unreliable for an area of context while we have plenty of other reliable sources that cover the information of the article at hand (BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian, ect) Sopher99 ( talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Wikipedia.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
A few points:
“ | It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States...Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate news gathering. | ” |
“ | The 11 September attacks in New York were an inside job; the South Korean warship torpedoed in March was not sunk by North Korea, but probably by Japan or the US; and the world is run by the secretive Bilderberg Group, who pursue a "New World Order". Not the lonely ravings of a conspiracy-minded blogger, but all opinions aired recently on a satellite channel beamed into millions of American homes. | ” |
“ | Some of the channel's recent offerings suggest a penchant for wild conspiracy theories which may have the opposite effect. Take this segment which gives a platform to a conspiracy theorist seized of the idea that the Bilderberg group is behind the European Union. | ” |
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=530&id=619775 Sopher99 ( talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
conscience-sociale.blogspot.com and conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr appear to be blogs with pages of graphs and data from other (mainly reliable) sources and self-published synthesis by the author (Bruno Paul, who does not appear to be an economic expert). I propose replacing these links with links to the reliable sources themselves, where they are used as a source for primary data, and removing instances where they are is used as a secondary source (synthesis) or as a source for editorial synthesis, due the unreliability of the source according to Wikipedic standards.
These sites clearly are the product of a great deal of very useful work and are excellent places to find good economic sources but, in my opinion, they do not themselves meet the reliability standards of this project. Joja lozzo 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:ELNO do not permit doorway pages. If you found reliable sources within it, you can cite those sources. Similarly, Wikipedia is often not permitted for direct source in academic papers, but it's a good source for finding sources to use for academic papers. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this site being specifically discussed in the archives. A debate at Talk:Paul Watson brought up the issue of the reliability of tumblr.com as a source, so I decided to create a discussion here.
Tumblr.com is a site designed for anyone to share content from any device. As such, 100% of the content would be user-generated (and if not, the content would be copyright violations). I can't see how the Wikipedia community would consider tumblr.com a reliable source, except maybe as a primary source for organizations that own subdomains on tumbler.com, such as this "press release" from a band.
In any case, I am disturbed at the number of links to tumblr.com, more than 5,700: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.tumblr.com
What do others think? Should tumblr.com be added to XLinkBot to discourage future additions? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this source or its reliability [25] specifically the article I'm linking to and the author as a RS for content on the BLP, Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban blogger. Insights on this source would be appreciated.( olive ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC))
John Mueller wrote an article in International Security that mentioned Vojislav Šešelj, and in a footnote, wrote:
20. One of the most fanatical of Serb nationalists, the political scientist Šešelj, who spent a year teaching at the University of Michigan in his younger years, later seems to have become mentally unbalanced as the result of the torture and beatings he endured while in prison in Yugoslavia for counterrevolutionary activities. One academic colleague described him as "disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind." See UN Experts, Final Report, par. 107, 108; see also Judah, The Serbs, p. 187
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This footnote was used partially to reference the factoid that Šešelj had taught at "University of Michigan". At Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#teaching in Michigan, I explored the issue and found that the description may well be inaccurate. While exploring that, I found the rest of the footnote and cited it for its actual meaning - to say what Mueller actually wrote about Šešelj.
Recently, an anonymous POV pusher complained about this and wanted to censor it in the text. I've refrained from insisting on it until I found another source.
Most recently, the gist of that note was removed, and now we're back in the situation where we don't quote the actual main point of that footnote, while the part that's kept is otherwise dubious.
This sounds like cherry-picking a quote to me. Is Mueller's footnote in an article published in an apparently respectable journal - reliable enough to be used for what it's actually saying? If it isn't, how is it reliable enough to be used to support a tangential factoid that it likely got wrong? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the lovely RSN discussion layout! I love it when the source/article/content are listed so clearly. Regarding the source, it's carried on PUBMED and MEDLINE-indexed, the direct link to the article is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17719708 ... looking at it now.
Zad
68
17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My response:
I have several reservations about the proposed edit using the provided source.
The journal is Social Sciences and Medicine, and the author does not appear to be in medicine--Wahlberg is affiliated with the London School of Economics and Political Science and not a medical department. The abstract of the article appears only to label mid-19th century homeopathy "quackery," and this attribution is to someone else (Roy Porter). The journal article itself appears not to be a review article that might be in a position to make this kind of characterization, but rather an original research paper ("By examining the ways in which regulatory authorities in the UK have come to address what is invariably described as a 'growing interest in CAM', I will show how..."). This makes for rather weak sourcing for the content suggested, especially for an article lead.
This suggested edit appears to be an attempt to get homeopathy labelled as "quackery" in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important points of the body of the article. If homeopathy is broadly and definitively considered "quackery" by the medical community, there should be significant coverage of that in the article, and the article should be carrying several strong sources supporting that content. Isn't there a stronger source in the article you can source this to? It would not surprise me to find that the proposed content is supported by strong sources, but you need to find those strong sources, the one provided here doesn't seem to be it.
Zad
68
18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The question about an appropriate encyclopedic style (no loaded terms in the lead) and contradicting sources, should be discussed on the articles discussion page (I posted there already). It is not really a question for this noticeboard, which primarily tries to assess whether a particular can be considered reliable/reputable. The core dispute in the problem above is not the reliability of a particular source, but whether the article's style and tone is appropriate and whether it is an appropriate summary of all aspects/sources and that beyond this noticeboard.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to include part of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini memoirs through the book of academic historian Jack R. Fischel "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust" page 122 to the articles: Haj Amin al-Husseini and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. My question is therefore wetter Jack Fischel an academic historian, a former professor emeritus of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania is reliable concerning his book "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust"
1. Source. Jack Fischel
2. published by Rowman & Littlefield and printed by Scarecrow Press
3. The quote in concern Al-Husseini memoirs. where he states P:122:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours" [27]
This quote from this academic historian book is supported by numerous secondary sources
1.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse [28]
2.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic JihadBy David Patterson
3.Wiesenthal Holocaust center [30]
4. A. Dershowitz; [31]
5. New York Jewish Times [32]
and numerous other articles. Despite this Jack Fischel book was described as unreliable: [33] [34] [35] and "as useless as tits on a bull on this issue" [36]
Due to WP:NPOV I believe this quotes from Hajj Amin Al-Husseini memoirs from academic historian Jack Fischel are reliable. Extensive debate can be red at Haj Amin al-Husseini and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world talk page. I would highly respect your opinion on this issue as this quote was removed as unreliable.-- Tritomex ( talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As we see from other sources this part of Al-Husseini and Hitler conversation exists before 2001, namely in the book printed in 1940s. [37] so this was hardly "invented by Honig in 2001" as you stated. [38] be .Handžar committed atrocites against Jews, source Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 By Terry Goldsworthy P.110' among others committing massacre of Tuzla Jews [39] Al-Futuwwa Nazi scouts were indeed under Al-Husseini control, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism By David M. Rosen P:106 [40] and All-Husseini played crucial role in its establishment.Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine, Tome 2, Fayard, p.536. Considering Nishadani claims as he did not provided any links or sources for his claim it is impossible to answer them. So by all academic means this book is Reliable -- Tritomex ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following article: D. Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam's Land Reform Reconsidered (Ithaca Cornell University IREA Project, 1972) (A shorter version of this paper was published in The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. V, No. 2, September 1973, pp. 2-15.) deals with the land reform in North Vietnam. It has been cited by other authors, such as Edwin E. Moise. (Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 70-92; Moise generally supports Porter's conclusions, although he disagrees with some minor details), Jonathan London (Viet Nam and the making of market-Leninism. The Pacific Review, Vol. 22 No. 3 July 2009: 375–399), or James P. Harrison (The Endless War: Vietnam's Struggle for Independence. Columbia University Press, 1982 ISBN 023106909X, 9780231069090). In connection to that, I would like to know if Porter a reliable source for the statement:
Thank you in advance, -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
References
Porter's reliance on North Vietnamese state propaganda is likely to have led him to errors, just like his reliance on Khmer Rouge state propaganda led him to errors. The man has no historical training or experience with Indochina, and could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating. The brutality of the Khmer Rouge was obvious to any honest observer. Porter wrote for a "bulletin" founded by graduate students with the goal of presenting a "radical critique" of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, Stumink, Slatersteven, Darkness Shines, and myself are all against Siebert's proposed wording. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
All 5 listed by Paul Siebert are reliable. Fall is reliable. Dang Phong is a very good source. Turner book should be included. Turner paper not significant. Rosefielde and Rummel should both be included although their books cover numerous countries rather than focusing just on VN. Summarise all of these objectively. Do not settle for one figure or another when historians have reached no such consensus. Just set out the different views. Don't get hung up on one aspect when there are other issues that the sources cover. Best of luck and thanks for your work on a contentious area. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There seems to be a disagreement between some users at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)#Possibly unreliable sources regarding the use of ComicBookBin, Active Anime, Teenreads and Read About Comics being questioned as reliable sources. Are all four of these sources considered reliable? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Lets not forget their able to get interviews, its hard to just ignore the site. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This self-proclaimed "one of the most trusted anime news sites in the world" and "one of best review sites on the Internet" (in reality a badly-designed and literally broken anime blog run on WordPress by an IT guy who can't spell the word "administrator") isn't even among the top 6 million most popular websites. That's all. -- Niemti ( talk) 06:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As of "for example Dark Horse": they will simply publish practically any (ANY) review they like. Including by blogcritics [43] that, according to Wikipedia, are "allowing anyone to contribute". And I know you're now going to argue with LB a lot anyway, so I leave you with her, have fun. -- Niemti ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried looking this in various discussions boards and not finding any answer I am posting my question here. I have some confusion after following this debate about Single player health care. My point is if newspaper A publishes an opinion poll about a topic can we quote that article (or poll) as a source for the subject of the article. Shouldn't such polls be considered as ( WP:SELFPUBLISH)? After all the methodologies of these polls is rarely discussed with outsiders and rarely is the data given out to outside auditors. Nor is this data worked upon by independent researchers. Most editors feel that as the publishing newspapers are generally reliable, these polls should also be considered as neutral and independent sources. My point is, as such opinion polls should not be quoted unless the article is about the poll conducted by A (as is allowed under WP:SELFPUBLISH). I invite comments from other editors about this.- Wikishagnik ( talk) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, maybe wp:selfpub was the wrong policy quote, I should have used wp:primary instead. My concern is not about the accuracy of these polls but the very nature of these polls. please consider the following
The bottom line is, can opinion polls be considered to be reliable enough ( WP:RELIABLE) and verifiable enough ( WP:VERIFY) to meet Wikipedia standards? - Wikishagnik ( talk) 04:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this site before, but it appears to fail a number of the criteria (as far as I understand them) of reliability. The staff all appear to be internet handles, and there appears to be little or no administrative or editorial oversight. Hell, I think that I could be a member of the staff, If I were to but add a movie review, and I am certainly not citable enough for that sort of activity. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 21:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.
Here are the sources:
Justiciero1811 ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for the late response for Justiciero1811, who pinged my talk. I've brought this back from archives to respond. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Multiple issues:
In summary, no primicias24.com does not appear to be a reliable source, should not be used to contradict mainstream sources like El Universal (Caracas), but there are much bigger problems in this article. I will crosspost to the BLP noticeboard-- I do not have the time nor the inclination to get involved in this article, and have only responded here because the original editor pinged my talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Much of the content, and much of the claim of notability, of " Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw" rests on the fact that there are several reviews of the episode on ToonZone. I closed the article's GA nomination based on the reliability of this source, but this has been disputed by the article's author. As far as I can see, ToonZone is a self-published website run and written by amateurs. It doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, and I can't see any reason to trust the authors. We're not even sure who the majority of writers are, as they write under pseudonyms/monickers. While not just anyone can post a review, I'm not sure why the reviews of the "staff" should be considered reliable. A third opinion would be helpful. J Milburn ( talk) 20:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
@Khanassassin: Can you post links to the articles that cited this source? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Source First bad URL used: http://http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-accused-was-on-reality-tv-show-2013-01-12-1.489766 Second bad URL used: http://http://http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/india-rape-delhi-accused-juvenile-ramsin-idINDEE90B01S20130112
2. Article about recent Delhi Rape case (2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#cite_note-Reuters-43
3. Content: Bad sources are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"
There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source ( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/delhi-gangrape-fifth-man-md-afroz-nabbed-badaun-uttar-pradesh/1/238782.html) be reinstated.
Relevant diff explains it all. I am in a dispute with an IP editor at this article. I reverted him twice on "sources" which turned out to be college thesis papers which I contend do not meet the requirements of a reliable scholarly publication acceptable as a source in this article. The problem is that the editor has also added a slew of other names cited to offline sources which are, of course, inaccessible to me for verification. I am demanding verification by the use of the {{ verify source}} template, and I ask the help of others more experienced in these determinations to help me out here. Yes, I have opened a discussion on the talk page, which has so far attracted no discussion. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (using the IPs 146.115.183.148 and 146.115.181.168) has added critical analysis to two articles about short stories by J. D. Salinger, " De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period" and " The Laughing Man (short story)". However, all of this "analysis" is sourced to content on the PBWorks.com website, which says on its main page: "Online team collaboration to get work done. Capture knowledge, share files, and manage projects within a secure, reliable environment." This indicates that all of the content at http://beach42.pbworks.com/w/browse/#view=ViewAllObjects was user-generated, and thus not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I would like some other opinions on this, though. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
On SEOmoz article, there are several sources. Granted, some sources are outdated. Just a few days ago, the company's owner Rand Fishkin contends that the page contains "numerous egregious errors", asserts some media sources are "wrong" and provided his version of corrections. Some are unreferenced while some are self-referenced to SEOmoz's own page. When should we opt to use primary source (company's page) over secondary sources? I'm not sure if it would be right to take his words at face value and replace secondary sources he claims to be incorrect with SEOMoz links. Ideas? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Source: Hoover's Company In-Depth Records
Article: Frank L. VanderSloot
Content:
First editor: "I added information on the sales modes that the company uses but Rhode Island Red reverted it. [Reversion diff
here.] The contention is that Melaleuca does not sell its products through multilevel marketing, online shopping, and retail sales. I did not mention this before, but Melaleuca's sales operations are officially categorized under the following two NAICS codes (directly quoted):
"454111 - Electronic Shopping"
"454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"
"The first code should be included in the article unless there are reliable sources that state that the company does not offer its products for sale over the Internet or retail. Because the relevant Wikipedia article is entitled online shopping, I opted to use that name instead of "electronic shopping". There are multiple sources that refer to Melaleuca's online sales and retail. Andrew327 12:30 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"
Second editor: "I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 1:16 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"
If everybody agrees, the discussion could be centralized at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Later_discussion Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoover's is generally considered a reliable source in its highly-litigious field. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm
We are having some disagreements on what constitutes a reliable source for the definition of our article. On one hand, this is not formally peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. On the other hand, it is written by an instructor of philosophy and is hosted on a university webspace, for reference by students and staff, where it seems unlikely it would remain for long if it was inaccurate. The statement as it will appear in the article Appeal to nature is "An appeal to nature is a type of argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is argued that a phenomenon is good because it is found in nature, or bad because it is not found in nature". FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 06:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it ever insufficient to base an article on official profiles of the organization where they once worked?
I started the article Sentinel class cutter about seven years ago. I updated it, from time to time. The first three vessels were commissioned this year, another two have been launched, I've started articles on these vessels, as they have been launched. The names of the first fourteen vessels were announced about two years ago. They are all going to be named after individuals from the US Coast Guard, or its precursor services, who were known for their heroism. I started articles on those individuals as well.
Margaret Norvell, a 19th century lighthouse keeper, who used to row out in stormy seas to rescue stranded mariners, had already been written about, as an early example of a strong, independent, heroic woman.
William Flores already had articles written about him and how his heroism had gone unrecognized.
Other namesakes had profiles written about them in their local papers, as the vessel named after them were launched.
But when I wrote an article on Richard Dixon (USCG Boatswains Mate), another contributor challenged the article, with a {{ prod}}, asserting:
Richard Dixon, a Boatswain's Mate stationed at Tillamook Bay, was awarded two Coast Guard Medals for his heroic actions on July Fourth weekend, 1980.
The first six FRCs for District 7 will be homeported in Miami; the next six in Key West; and the remaining six in Puerto Rico.
Petty Officer Dixon is cited for heroism on the afternoon of 3 July 1980 while serving as the coxswain of Coast Guard Motor Lifeboat (MLB) 44409.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I spent some time this morning looking through the archives for the Reliable sources noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. I don't see anything that would support challenging the USCG drafted references. My understanding of the requirement that references be independent would restrict us from relying on references written by Dixon, or his friends, relatives, subordinates and immediate superiors.
I know the wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I could have waited until the vessel was launched, and looked for a profile in Dixon's local paper. I admit I did not do so because, while reading the comments section of an article in the Miami Herald, the city where the first four vessels are homeported, proud readers recommended other readers check out the wikipedia's coverage of the vessels and their namesakes.
But there is nothing in the USCG references that would be considered controversial, or open to challenge. I see absolutely no reason to doubt that these individuals did exactly what the USCG references said they did.
So, when is it insufficient to base an article on official profiles from the organization where an individual once worked? Geo Swan ( talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
After I told the contributor who placed the {{ prod}} that I initiated this discussion, here, they initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question. As per WP:Forum shopping, they should have been cautious about initiating a thread at a second forum, without informing participants at the first forum.
Today they placed another tag, on William Trump, who, like Dixon, was both recognized as a hero, and later had a cutter named after him. As with the earlier article the tagger has repeated the assertion that USCG references, aren't "independent", and can't be relied on.
At Talk:Richard Dixon (USCG) the tagger posed a rhetorical question, which I have chosen to take seriously. They said "So, only having references from a person't employer is now enough to meet GNG? Hey, that means I'm notable because I was written up multiple times in my companies on-line news letter."
In my reply I asserted that an organization's online publication
What I would like to see addressed here is the general principle of whether we can accept publications of organizations where an individual once worked, or whether they can never be considered reliable because they can never be considered "indpendent". Geo Swan ( talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
On this BLP, some editors are insisting that "Nusbacher lived life as a male until a 2007 gender change." can be attributed to the one source it is reported. While we are here this is also being used to pin the persons possible former name rather than attribute it as a writing name they have published under:
• William D. Rubinstein; Michael Jolles; Hilary L. Rubinstein, eds. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.
Two editors have made some observations which I will post for others to see here regarding concerns on this use:
The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.
So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article.
So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.
The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.
My opinion is that we need to be using strong sourcing to make an exceptional claim, on a BLP, against the wishes of the subject. Could uninvolved editors experienced in high-quality sourcing please offer opinions? Insomesia ( talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue is whether a RS source which makes a "contentious claim" by BLP standards, and whose listed sources do not make the claim, sufficient on its own to be the "strong sourcing" required by WP:BLP.
As thorough on-line searches, including the specialised searches available to some editors (Higbheam, Questia et al.), do not show any other "reliable source" (Wikipedia's usage) making the claim, is this one source, which appears to have gotten the information from "online sources" as its listed sources do not make the claim, now a "strong" source? I would note that Wikipedia notes that even the NYT has published "hoaxes" and the like, and that where information is doubted, that even a "newspaper of record" is not then a strong source for a contentious claim in a BLP. I made the edit, which I believe is warranted by sources, that the person changed her name in 2007, which I suggest is all that is actually borne out by sources. Collect ( talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The book has very good credentials. All three authors are historians specialising in this precise field (with a caveat for William S. Rubinstein, who has spread himself into Shakespeare authorship, a bad long-term career move, but who am I to criticise him?) and they had the support of the Jewish Historical Society. You couldn't ask for better. Authors don't have to be academically trained biographers (there are few such) or sex change experts (if they were that, they wouldn't be historians).
But that's irrelevant. The question is about this specific article, and about private information. The subject has already, long ago, asked us to remove this information, which is irrelevant to notability. That was a perfectly reasonable request: the information is irrelevant to notability. You can be a military historian regardless of operations you've had or haven't had. End of question. Andrew Dalby 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I find this discussion confusing. Based on a quick scan of the article, this is not a public figure really, except possibly in a small way through the TV appearances, and, possibly, through being an influential gay figure associated with the British military. It seems to me that the over-riding issue should be that this person apparently would prefer to keep a discussion of his or her genitals out of wikipedia. So I am not sure why we are worrying about reliable sources. But ok. My thoughts, which I suspect are not helpful, are as follows. Is this an extraordinary claim? We refer to this person as "she". Ah, I see the issue, now that I read further. Her claim to notability is under her former name. I am inclined to say the article should be under the former name, then, and if what is left doesn't meet notability guidelines, the problem is solved, is it not? I still don't understand the objection Nusbacher has -- if she is out as transgendered, this is incidental information in my opinion. But to answer the actual question asked here: The source seems to meet reliability guidelines, but it seems uncomfortably slim as a basis for information the subject wants removed. If we really need the statement in there (I don't deal with BLP much) why not go find those Jewish Chronicle articles the dictionary is citing, and use those instead? Elinruby ( talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)