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 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
I recently saw a series of edits where one editor removed sources because they were unreliable ( self-published and user-generated) and a second editor restored them because they were the only sources and so "must remain". Is this really the case? I read WP:RS and can't find anything that says that unreliable sources are better than no sources. Doesn't the acceptance of unreliable sources give the reader the impression that the information is credible, when it may not be? I ask this as a general question, rather than one about a specific article because it's an issue that exists everywhere. 75.2.209.11 ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe - It may depend. I remember one controversy where I was an involved editor (CISPA/SOPA) where the author of the major implementation (BIND) of a critical networking protocol (DNS) said on a blog or in a speech, I forget which, that yes indeed the proposed law would break the internet. Since the world wide web depends on DNS, this is pretty close to getting it straight from the horse's mouth, but an opposing editor would not allow it to go in, because, no indeed, it did not meet reliability guidelines. And yet his idea of a good source was Newsmax, which, slanted as it is, does have editorial review...gah. Just saying.
I do understand the rationale here, that the average person will not necessarily know who the man is, although -- to complain about this just a little more -- a quick google would have remedied this. My point in sharing this example though is that there are good sources which are not necessarily reliable under Wikipedia policy, and in information technology in particular, since this is where I have run into this, certain personal blogs are very good sources indeed. I do not know how to formulate a rule that will differentiate them from the sort of dross that led to the policy, but....if there is no dispute as to accuracy, I think it depends on whether this is a page someone put up three years ago, or that someone is carefully tending on an ongoing basis, in which case it may be worth discussing the reasons for the sourcing.... Elinruby ( talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that as per the normal guidelines, there is no simple general rule for a question like this. We need to discuss real examples. All the answers above appear to me to be imagining various situations first, before answering. How bad is the bad source? How bad is the rest of the article? etc.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment about removing a citation to an unreliable source: if the passage in the Wikipedia article was written based on an unreliable source, and a reliable source can't readily be found, it is important to remove both the passage and the citation, not just the citation, otherwise it is plagiarism. This applies even if the claim is common knowledge and not challenged. In this situation, the passage could be reworded so as not to plagiarize the unreliable source. On the other hand, if the passage was composed independently by a Wikipedia editor and the citation was added later, just the citation could be removed. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is quite possibly the most well-presented discussion thread I've ever seen. I can't even tell which side of the issue you fall on, which is to your credit.
The relevant part of the RS policy would be this:
David Gorski probably does have relevant expertise per this policy. In introducing his opinion in the article, you can state explicitly that his background is in cardiology.
Where I have a slight problem is with the chosen excerpt from Gorski's work. The fact that he referred to raw food diet film as "highly effective propaganda" does not tell me anything useful. Since Gorski would be quoted in his capacity as a medical expert, and not as a film critic, I would prefer to know what he has to say about the medical science behind the raw food trend. Overall, it seems that it should be possible to use language that is both less sensational and more informative. TheBlueCanoe 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed an article from the Smithsonian magazine claiming that it is wrong -"(His book says that... His book says: "Allegedly there is a book written by somebody stating that... And that is not a reliable source." That link is not a reliable source if it claims sth that was never written in the book. I will find all the citations f)". And [1] "The last days of April 1945. Hitler, Martin Boorman, Eva Braun and core "Nazi" leadership fleeing in Antarctica." If you want to check and have Chrome, it will translate. Dougweller ( talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has made it his business to delete unsourced content from around the project citing WP:CHALLENGE (and ignoring the part where it says, per WP:PRESERVE, that it's better to try to find sources instead of just deleting).
One of the articles that he has recently targeted was Mohammad Ali, where he removed biographical information. In keeping with my ANI assigned responsibility to wikistalk this user, I'm trying to restore the content that he is too lazy to source himself.
Keeping in mind WP:BIAS, this article is likely to be difficult to source. However, I found http://mazhar.dk/film/stars/mohammadali.html to support the biographical information (i.e., family composition, schooling). My question is whether this would be considered a reliable source? Cheers. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure where to bring this concern, but since it concerns sources, I thought I'd start here. Klemen Kocjancic has begun systematically tagging articles with the ref improve tag. (See: [2].) I question whether such mass tagging is really helpful. In addition, some of the tags make no sense. Small town articles are being tagged when, in fact, everything in the articles is templated geographic and demographic information that is fully sourced (e.g., Anson, Wisconsin, Anton, Texas, Antrim Township, Watonwan County, Minnesota, Antreville, South Carolina, etc.)
Can somebody please stop this editor, quickly? 75.0.193.138 ( talk) 16:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the sources for Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos and noticed that some of these may not be reliable. Can anyone shed some light on this?
In particular, I'd like to know about the reliability of the following sources.
Slideshow. "Crimes of the Juggalos Photo Gallery - What is a Juggalo? - Crime Library". Trutv.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Miller, Jessica (2012-10-08). "'Juggalo Killers' a new breed of gang". Standard.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Gibson, Michael. "10 Most Violent Juggalo Attacks Ever". Ranker.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be neutral or reliable)
"Dropping In On The Demented Utopia Of The Gathering Of The Juggalos". Deadspin.com. 2011-08-16. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be a neutral source, in addition to questions of its reliability)
"Juggalos - are they a gang, cult, and/or dangerous?". Realpolice.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Also please check the article for neutrality and check the rest of the sources for any that I didn't list here that might not be reliable. BigBabyChips ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has called into question the wether a snopes.com reference is verifiable as it is used on the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) article. In essence, the question is its reliability. See Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)#Snopes. Is it reliable or not? The archives seem to suggest a slight split in opinion on the site. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes.com is not a reliable source. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.163 ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
They largely do a decent job, probably better than many of the newspapers that do qualify, but we are in danger of slippery slope if we allow personal impressions to determine what qualifies. They are self-published, with no formal training in journalism, as far as I know, and no formal editorial process other than self-editing. We accept newspaper and books by experts, not because they are more accurate, they often aren't, but because they have a formal editorial process for fact-checking. (Although, as an aside, many people are under the misguided impression that science books are peer-reviewed. They typically are not.) I think there are a number of blogs with a better track record for accuracy than Snopes, and both are better than the NYT, but I don't think we would start accepting blogs as reliable sources simply because some editor has followed one closely and thinks it has a good track record for accuracy. (I know there are exceptions for blogs written by individuals who have been reporters at RS's, but that's different). Frankly, I would love it if we could find a way to allow Snopes as an RS, as well as some of the more careful blogs, but I don't see an easy, objective way to identify those which qualify and those which do not.
I tend to use Snopes the same way I use Wikipedia - I accept that they are largely correct, have a bit of a political bias, so certain subjects are more questionable than others, and when in doubt, go tot he sources provided. Snopes is doing a much better job over time of including their refs, which tend to be reliable. This also provides an option for someone wishing to cite Snopes—go to the reference they provide, and cite that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world. Saying that you should use the sources listed on its page instead of snopes.com itself misses the point, in that those original sources may be where certain facts or claims came from, but the article on snopes.com itself sometimes comes to its own conclusions or introduces its own research. Those articles always have been allowed here as reliable sources, and demanding we use other sources they cite instead can force situations where that other source doesn't back up the part needing a reference here. It's also pretty much the same as demanding that whenever we cite any book that is reliable that also has footnotes or end notes in it to only ever use the sources listed in those footnotes or endnotes instead of the reliable source. It's ridiculous. Now, certainly there are going to be cases where some other source is more appropriate (instead of more reliable) than snopes.com, but trying to claim it's not reliable or only reliable for other sources is simply untrue. DreamGuy ( talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has arisen at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (see here) regarding whether WorldNetDaily (WND) is or is not a reliable source for what are generally held to be fringe theories regarding the true meaning of the US Constitution's requirements for the office of President. The person advocating the use of material from WND is also arguing that the alternative theories in question are in fact legitimate viewpoints from "scholarly legal people or groups", which need to be acknowledged in the article in order to preserve NPOV and "illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy" — and that labelling these theories as fringe, and the sources backing them (most of which appear to me to be blogs) as unreliable, is indicative of an attempt "to try to pick a side and suppress the other side".
I challenged the editor in question to take the issue here, but he appeared reluctant to do so (opining instead that "making an 'effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards' is what administrators are for, we're just editors"). I don't agree with this view, but in an effort to move the discussion along and not allow it to simply stagnate, I'm bringing it here. Hopefully I've characterized the other editor's arguments correctly here; if not, I trust he'll correct me.
Comments welcome — here, and/or at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Character from Disney's The Little Mermaid is not a flounder nor a guppy, the character's a yellow and blue colored tropical fish. I looked up other websites for other atlantic tropical fish I couldn't find an actual species for the character (none of the other atlantic fish has the same colors and/or patterns as him. Some of the other fish species (those that has the same colors and/or patterns as the character) only lives in the Indian and Pacific Oceans). That's why I inserted him as a juvenile atlantic blue tang. Although, the Character and the real life juvenile blue tang's fin shapes and body shapes are not similar, but his body shape and fin shapes are more like an Indo-Pacific regal blue tang.
Real life juvenile atlantic blue tangs are bright yellow with golden blue rings around their eyes and the edges of their dorsal and anal fins. Their coloration from yellow juvenile, to yellow-tailed blue subadult, and to blue adult is not a size dependent so they could be larger then the blue adults.
This is in part a BLP issue but I thought I'd bring it here first. I've got doubts about quite a few sources here. Eg:
http://freemontana.com/102_Reasons.pdf for Jerry O'Neil (politician) whose article doesn't say he's libertarian.
Reason.com in general, especially when the article is titled "Libertarian(ish) Candidates" [5] (and again, the subject's article doesn't mention this, see Mia Love.
Ontheissues.org and is [ [6]] which says libertarian sufficient to call him libertarian?
GovTrack - maybe, but [7] calls him a centrist, so how can we use it as a source to call him Libertarian? I'm removing the unsourced entries as BLP violations. Dougweller ( talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. i was wondering if mmajunkie is legit for using as a source. I see it has usatoday at the top. I was wondering about sn nation webdsites such as bloodyelbow? I have also had questions about the validity of bleachereport. Any merit to these questions? And I mean as it relates to enough of these type of articles justifying a fighter/events general notability. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed a recurring trend in articles relating to Japanese topics. If I try to add something that I read in a Japanese book, journal or the like, sometimes I will be asked to give an English source. I can find English sources that say the same thing as the scholarly/reputably Japanese sources, but most of them are some guy's personal website. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that a piece of information that is backed up by both reliable foreign sources and non-reliable English sources should be deleted, but I was wondering which is better?
I ask this now, because on a move request for the page Rashōmon someone brought up the third source it cites, which is the personal website of some guy who doesn't look Japanese but goes by the name Shōriya Aragōrō. He doesn't look like he is a recognized expert in kabuki theatre, much less in the field in question in the article. The question is whether it would be a good idea to go out and locate a Japanese source to replace this one? It's theoretically possible that a reliable source in English says the same thing, but if so it would be very hard to locate; a Japanese source could likely be located with a simple Google search. If self-published English source says the same thing as a reliable foreign source, would it be better to give both for WP:V's sake, or delete the English one as per WP:RS?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The policy on non-English sources is pretty clear. As long as an English source of equal validity is not available, the non-English source is acceptable under the same policies and guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Im seeing this link --> [9] being used as a source for Gundam articles so my question is, is it a reliable source? I have been trying to clean up the Gundam articles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly attempting to use http://www.rockonthenet.com/ as a source for a past Grammy nominee. Specifically, the user is attempting to use [12] as a source for Lita Ford's alleged Grammy nominations from the 1980s and 90s. I'm not familiar at all with this website but it's reliability seems questionable. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2013
Are the sources used here reliable for the proposed content? An editor has objected to the first line so I provided these further sources, Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement Martinus Nijhoff p37. Bonded Labor: Tackling the System of Slavery in South Asia Columbia University Press p130. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts Wiley p98. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review Transaction p128. South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh Amsterdam University Press p101. Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World Cambridge University Press p368. as well as links to online books. "what is widely regarded as genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh" The Changing Character of War p159 [13] "genocide had occurred – a claim that scholars today back up" Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia [14] The editor has also objected to the estimates for women and children raped, however those estimates are backed by excellent sources, but I provided more sources for estimated rape victims [15] [16] [17] [18] He then begin to demand sources for the number of children raped at which point I lost my temper with him as I found such a question distasteful, nobody knows how many were raped and the question struck me as a deliberate attempt to goad. I believe the sources are RS for the content but require community input to resolve the talk page issue. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. [2] and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand [3] and four hundred thousand. [4] women and children [5] were raped and between one million [6] and 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. [7] Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks. [8]
In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. [9] This act only allows those within Bangladesh to be prosecuted and did not allow for those who were not a part of the armed forces to be tried. The act was amended in 2009 and the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure and Evidence were put in place by 2010. Two clauses and an amendment were also made to the 1973 act. Critics maintain that further amendments are needed to bring the act up to the standards of international law. [10]
- ^ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Mystery-of-Bosnias-Ancient-Pyramids.html?c=y&page=2
- ^ Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.
- ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Elizabeth D. Heineman (ed.). Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones: From the Ancient World to the Era of Human Rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8122-4318-5.
- ^ Riedel, Bruce O. (2011). Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad. Brookings Institution. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8157-0557-4.
- ^ Ghadbian, Najib (2002). Kent Worcester; Sally A. Bermanzohn; Mark Ungar (eds.). Violence and politics: globalization's paradox. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 978-0415931113.
- ^ DeGroot, Gerard (2011). The Seventies Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic Look at a Violent Decade. Pan Macmillan. p. 64. ISBN 978-0330455787.
- ^ Totten, Samuel; Paul Robert Bartrop; Steven L. Jacobs (30 November 2007). Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. Volume 1: Greenwood. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-313-32967-8.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link)- ^ Debnath, Angela (2009). Samuel Totten (ed.). Plight and fate of women during and following genocide (7th ed.). Transaction. p. 49. ISBN 978-1412808279.
- ^ Alffram, Henrik (2009). Ignoring Executions and Torture: Impunity for Bangladesh's Security Forces. Human Rights Watch. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-56432-483-2.
- ^ Karim, Bianca; Tirza Theunissen (29 September 2011). Dinah Shelton (ed.). International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0199694907.
Hello! I am looking for input on whether this author is a reliable source. Please comment on the discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Thanks. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 23:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Ugetsu currently cites this website for the release date of the film. Since this factoid is easily verifiable in published books by specialists, and is widely written about in English. I've already located another source which is both (apparently) reliable and fits with WP:NONENG.
However, the Japanese Movie Database is an interesting question. It seems to be less "user-generated" than IMDb, but I would be interested in knowing whether it is a no-no to cite it on English Wikipedia?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit [20] in the article on Ayurveda has dated the Rig Veda to 10,000 years ago and has used as a source a 2011 conference presentation. As you may know, the Rig Veda was originally an oral tradition, and there is some question regarding its date of origin. Is this conference presentation considered a reliable source? Here's the ref that the editor uses:
"A report on the National Seminar, held by 'Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas' Delhi Chapter, (ISERVE-Delhi) on "Scientific Dating of Ancient Events Before 2000 B.C." held on 30th and 31st July, 2011, in which the first concensus was that "The astronomical dates of planetary references in ancient books calculated by the eminent astronomers by making use of planetarium software, indicate the development of an indigenous civilization in India even prior to 6000 BC. Astronomical references in Rigveda represent the sky view of dates belonging to the period from 8000 BC to 4000 BC and those mentioned in Ramayana refer to sky views seen sequentially on dates around 5000 BC."
The editor also sourced the information to the I-SERVE website. [21] Thanks much for your feedback. It's been a matter of ongoing discussion. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We used to have an article on this. See User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. It may be time to revive the topic. See also Scientific foreknowledge in the Vedas, Historiography and nationalism. This is the topic you are looking at here. One thing this has certainly nothing to do with whatsoever is an actual scholarly evaluation of the date of the Rigveda. You are free to believe the Rigveda was composed by ancient aliens, but please do not waste Wikipedia's time with your views. The Rigveda depicts a society of the late Bronze Age. They have wheeled chariots and metal swords. I.e. the oldest hymns remember the earliest arrival of the Indo-Aryans, as reflected by the Gandhara culture. You might as well claim that the Iliad dates to 8000 BC, but you should not expect that anyone will think you worth listening to. See also WP:RANDY. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Relevant Wikipedia article: Talk:Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)
Edit proposal under dispute: Note that the following is from a lead paragraph, which is summarizing (as usual) something basic about the subject which is discussed in detail within the article body. There is no dispute about the details in the body, only how to summarize them.
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of the Horn of Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in the Horn of Africa, and in North Africa. While several variants of E-M215 are only found in the Horn of Africa, some specific types are common in East Africa as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in East Africa, and in North Africa. While several variants of E-M215 are only found in East Africa, some specific types are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. |
Summary of reasoning for the two proposals, and the need for community comment:
Sources which 138.88.60.165 is claiming as being the relevant reliable sources for the geographical terminology:
These are all by the same team, and use the same core data pool of genetic samples.
A bit of extra information. The main article about E-M215 in East Africa, apart from the Horn of Africa is actually not one of the ones above but this one (as Nishidani probably realizes, and also as our article already explains in its body) so readers should not assume that the Cruciani/Trombetta team is the only source for this subject, whose findings should be considered in writing the lead:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To be more precise, I am asking for sources to figure out the most commonly used name for the region that E-M215 is spread in, I am not asking for opinions and beliefs. I have provided (see E-M215 Talk page) not only the authoritative sources that Andrew Lancaster has shown above, but also names for the region used by the main commercial private DNA testing companies, and in all cases what is used is East Africa and I can not even find ONE case where the Horn of Africa terminology is being used for the region in this context. In addition, I am also asking for some consistency in the Article, it shows the E-M215 lineage as originating in East Africa for instance, why are different terminologies being used across the article when it is the same dataset that was used to arrive at both the conclusions of origin and spread ? 138.88.60.165 ( talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area a smaller number of variants are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of East Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area a smaller number of variants are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. |
Ok, so here is your newer proposal, which I admit I made a mistake earlier and said you changed the lead after my last post, when in-fact you did make the change 16 minutes before, in any event, it is hard to settle an argument when the platform of contention keeps changing willy-nilly-
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades, E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is common. In modern populations, the highest frequencies of E-M35 are found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area particular variants are found as far south as South Africa (mainly E-M293), and throughout the Middle East and Europe (mainly E-M78). | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of East Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area particular variants are found as far south as South Africa (mainly E-M293), and throughout the Middle East and Europe (mainly E-M78). |
As you can see, my proposal stays pretty much the same, except for the addition of specifics on E-M293 and E-M78, which I hesitantly accepted, because it is not just E-M78 that is present in the Middle East, but also E-M123, in any case ,is this your final proposal or are you going to change it again? P.S. I am still offcourse also open to my original proposal as well, my above proposal came out of a series of compromises, my original proposal with a slight tweak was as follows-
Let me try to restate this - I think you are getting little comment because of the very technical topic but, if I am reading this correctly, the genetics are irrelevant and the whole dispute centers around what to call a region of Africa. Is that right? A couple of questions:
I have to say, to me, East Africa is the entire right-hand side of the continent. But if you want to use a geographical designation which, to me, is somewhat wrong, you could put it in a quote -- since the reason for using it is that the authors use it -- then clarify the facts in the voice of Wikipedia.
If that doesn't help because the dispute is now about something else then please restate the issue. Elinruby ( talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
On Talk:Jung Myung Seok an argument is being made that the websites providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com are RS for the trial of the group's founder for rape and sexual abuse. Example: [23] Please advise. Shii (tock) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Could these sources be of any uses at all? They could be used to source their own opinions. But I don't see a section of their site that's a simple clear-cut "here's what we believe" section. There's sermons, but the problem with citing those is that it may take some interpretations, and that's getting into WP:OR. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article being cited for the problems with Jung's trial is absolutely a reliable third party news magazine called, "Civil Government" published in Korea. It just happens to also have some translated quotations on ProvidenceTrial.com. Therefore the article passes WP:RS.
The religious movement has a magazine titled, "Joensori" that it publishes that could be used to verify several biographical details about Jung Myung Seok, like his service in Vietnam. Would these be safe to cite for biographical details or teachings? They also include publications of his sermons in both English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Macauthor ( talk) 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Has been added to a large number of BLPs (over 60) as an external link. The site appears to be run by two individuals, Juan Víctor Izquierdo and Francesca Parodi, and is not controlled or operated by any actual RS source. In addition, it appears that the EL may be in violation of copyright law on its face. For each person, large numbers of campaign ads, videos etc. are included - many of which are obviously copyright. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This source [24] mention the topic of the article The Invention of the Jewish People only to represent Sand and to hear his opinion but the book itself is not discussed does its justifiable to use the source for such edits [25] in my opinion is WP:COATRACK.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The YouTube source is from a documentary which claims to be posted under "fair use", however, I'm skeptical that it can be used as such in Wikipedia. Alternatively, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sukhdevsandhu/9132917/Che_Part_Two_and_638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro_killing_Fidel_Castro/ appears to be an acceptable blog source that could be used instead. Requesting feedback on the YouTube source and the blog source. Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Post-American World contained these two sentences: In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception to Zakaria's Thatcherist assertions that there is no alternative to increasingly globalized, free market capitalism. Hari pointed to examples where what Zakaria advocated led to disasters, such as free market policies leading to the collapse of Argentinian economy, and financial deregulation resulting in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, which had begun just after the book was published. →referenced to "Hari, Johann (November 2008). "Zakaria's Bad Timing". The Progressive 72 (11): 42–44." (offline but I can email a copy to anybody).
I request a 3rd opinion on whether this reference can still be used and, if possible, what an acceptable way of wording would be (if the above is found to be unacceptable). Thanks. maclean ( talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Cantaloupe2 has removed references to Erowid from the page List of misconceptions about illegal drugs, with the edit summary:
Erowid is a collection of anecdotal evidence and it is not a reliable source and does not belong here, period.
diff.
I'm not sure if this is true. None of the links go to user experiences, but to various articles and FAQs. Links to other sites, such as acsa2000.net, canorml.org and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were also removed. I'm confused. Is Erowid an RS in this context, and what about the other sites removed? -- Auric talk 11:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia entry of
Erowid gives many reasons why it is a
WP:RS. As the entry says, Erowid provides much accurate information, and they are frequently cited in
WP:RSs. Furthermore, they've published articles in peer-reviwed medical journals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=erowid
As for the
WP:COPYVIO, how do you know that it's copyright violation and not fair use? That's a decision for a lawyer to make. Are you a lawyer? --
Nbauman (
talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Erowid can simply be considered a non reliable sources. Some pages don't have sources, some a few, and others have many. For example this about cannabis has cited sources. Erowid has also been cited many times by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, for example see this. Erowid Center has also a project named ecstasydata.org, which tests street-ecstasy tablets to know its content.
Regarding WP:COPYVIO, that is about including copyright violation content in the Wikipedia article, not about the references. Many times, references include the URL to PDF archives which are hosted in third party sites, evading the pay-wall of many journals, is that fair use? As Nbauman said, that is a decision for a lawyer to make, any way, that is not WP:COPYVIO, bacause it is not content in a WP article, it is a reference. -- KDesk ( talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Before adding further comments, please look at the prior discussion if you haven't already done so:
discussion CLICK HERE
1. Source Ultima 5 and Ultima 6 computer games, and a fan wiki which has a screenshot from the game as evidence as well, plus has taken the dialog from the games and put it on their wiki for anyone to see.
2. Article is Dr. Cat
3. Content [26]
A Dr. Cat character exists as a bartender in Ultima V and Ultima VI. [2]
Wouldn't this screenshot [27] count as proof? No reason to doubt this evidence is there? The guy worked on these games, and included himself in them. Dream Focus 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Topix (website) considered reliable? There is a poll on that website about how Armenians feel about Turks and I wanna include it in an article. Note that I will state the source and make it clear so that it wouldn't be taken as a sociological research. -- Երևանցի talk 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
Gamelan gong gede has no reliable sources. Unsourced material has been thrice restored without any in-line citations (or any citations) in the last hour, thrice violating WP:Verifiability, which suggests posting here. Administrative attention is requested. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The point, that chain maintenance is controversial, is already confirmed by Brown, who has previously been confirmed to be a reliable source, so it seems that www.slowtwitch.com should be fine for independent confirmation. There is a claim that www.slowtwitch.com is self-published, and so inherently unreliable, but I can find no indication of that. It was founded in 1999 by Dan Empfield and provides bios of its contributors, including Technical Editor Greg Kopecky. It has a global Alexa Traffic Rank of 35,263 compared to 11,633 for BikeRadar.com, 19,330 for Bicycling.com, 179,646 for BikeMag.com, and 1,151,976 for VeloNews.com. Here is an article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News about slowtwitch hiring a senior editor. What say ye? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
More generally, all RSs that have any connection to Waldorf education are being contested as sources for this article, even if their work appears in peer-reviewed journals or presses. For example,
hgilbert ( talk) 14:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:
hgilbert ( talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is removing Fox News as a source on this article [28] claiming a consensus that it is unreliable based on [29] this RFC, which I note was not closed and looks like no consensus to me. What is the consensus on Fox as a reliable source? Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you have accused me of removing templates. But that's beside the point. I'm all for discussion of why Fox News is an unreliable source. I'm very puzzled why you've tried to "tell on me" as if we're two kids in a playground. There was ample evidence in the RfC for Fox News that at the very least, it's a highly questionable source to use, even if some of the things it says are factually correct. The other sources are fine (which is why I did not remove them). 2.96.201.168 ( talk) 02:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If the main point of contention is Fox News as a source for the reasons for South Park making changes to an episode, then I'd be cautious. Is this fact or opinion? Are Fox News reports reliable to the extent that we don't expect them to present a guess as a fact? I wouldn't be very sure of that. Formerip ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor is trying to use this page to cite a European border at Boundaries between continents. The site appears to be some sort of personal blog, and I reckon there'd have to be either a very strong source or quite a few to put any definition on the standing of the others. Thoughts? CMD ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Your attention is called to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. Please comment on whether the website at "Billionaire's Bogus Legal Threats Against Bloggers Threaten Free Speech" can be a Reliable Source at Frank L. VanderSloot#Defamation lawsuit threats. The exact statement in the article is
According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal. the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.
Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
We are having a disagreement about these negative Bollywood awards being RS or not. There was a lengthy discussion on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page to include negative awards that had user voting just like the Golden Kelas and Ghantas. Now there are more negative awards like the Film Fail awards which are nominated by some of the most esteemed critics and journalists in India http://filmfailawards.com/jury/. A more detailed discussion is available on the Dabangg 2 talk page. A user keeps on reverting my edits because he says this is not RS. It is clearly RS as the reviews by all of these people are included in the film's pages. Can you help decide if this is RS or not? Thanks. Ashermadan ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Is this a reliable source for the statements
In 2004, Joakim Langer researched Pettersson's family history in Papua New Guinea and wrote two books entitled In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King, which influenced the screenplay for Efraim Longstocking and the Cannibal Princess.
and
He is regarded as the inspiration for Ephraim Longstocking, Pippi's father in Astrid Lindgren's children's series, Pippi Longstocking.
in the article Carl Emil Pettersson? Ryan Vesey 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's see. The site says: "Cineuropa.org is co-funded by the MEDIA Plus Programme of the European Commission, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, the Ministry of the French Community of Belgium, the French Centre National de la Cinématographie, the ICAA, Swiss Films, the Swiss Office Federal de la Culture, Filmunio, German Films, Luxembourg Film Fund, Malta Film Commission, Czech Film Centre and the Irish Film Board" [31] That certainly sounds pretty impressive. I'm guessing bureaucrats from half a dozen countries wouldn't be funding a personal blog. I'd say it's reliable until we have evidence otherwise. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The above links are not for "In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King by Joakim Langer" but for "Pippi & der König : auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf by co-authors Joakim Langer and Hélena Regiusby", in German. My understanding is that an English version was originally planned but has never been published. If an English version does exist, there will be a separate ISBN for it. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for reference, here is a WorldCat search by author for Joakim Langer. Who are you going to believe, WorldCat or twitchfilm.com? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking for someone who brought this up in the IRC help channel. At the article, there seems to be a dispute on the number of works Mishima has created, attributed to different sources. This diff shows the discrepancies. I don't have access to any of the sources and I'm unsure how to proceed, so I'd appreciate it if the folks here could help. Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. GRuban. Henry Scott-Strokes said that Mishima wrote 40 novels, and 18 plays etc., but it isn't right clearly. "18 plays" is too little number. And actually, Mishima wrote 34 novels. I've list up all his 34 novels in Yukio Mishima bibliography. Please see. Then, my "about"(number of plays and books of short stories) means that how include Mishima's childhood works, or unpublished or unfinished stories and plays, or include the luxurious limited editions. So, it is necessary to attach "about" word. It is important to show more precisely about Mishima's works. Sorry for my poor english. -- みしまるもも ( talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. GRuban. Of course, Henry Scott Stokes is an excellent journalist, and is a Mishima's good friend. But Henry do not show list of 40 novels in it, and other newspaper sources do not too. Number of plays "18" is too little. It is wrong cleary Henry researced details about Tatenokai, and relations with Mishima and Japan Self-Defense Forces, but he is not a researcher of Mishima's literature. "Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works"(No.1 - No.42 plus 2) [37] [38] are classified into Novels, Short Stories, Plays, Criticisms (include Essays etc.), These are published by Shinchosha. A lot of Mishima's works were published by Shinchosha in during his life time too. And this "Final edition"'s editors are experts in research of Mishima's iterature. Actually, Mishima's novels are 34. None of Japanese researcher of Mishima say "Mishima wrote 40 novels". Where are 6 (40-34) novels? Mishima's all novels are recorded in No.1 - No.14. Please see [39] , and please count it. And, "Yukio Mishima complete works No.42-Biographical sketch and Bibliography" Amazon site is [40]. I wish for you understand it. Sorry for my poor english. -- みしまるもも ( talk) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works -Novels-" (No.1 - No.14) lists. Mishima's all 34 novels are recorded in them.
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
No.9
No.10
No.11
No.12
No.13
No.14
-- みしまるもも ( talk) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47 t c 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS says: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." The study, "Acute cardiovascular fatalities following cannabis use," is a primary source. Therefore, it can't be included in the article. Making a statement like, "people have died from cannabis" and giving primary sources to support it is original research which is forbidden under
WP:NOR.
If these individual primary sources are accurate, somebody should have done an evidence-based review and published it. An evidence-based review is a reliable, published secondary source. If the editor can find a review article, that should go in. If the editor can't find a review article (a reliable secondary source), he can't include the claim that people have died from cannabis. --
Nbauman (
talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have an anon stating that " The Changing Face of Christian Music", which is on About.com and written by Kim Jones is not a reliable source. It is used three times in the contemporary Christian music article
Is this a reliable source or not? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
: Cite document requires |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) templates where he has admitted they were missing and required due to a lack of verification (those statements are subject to removal). He claims some of the content are [only] in books he owns which is not an acceptable source of verification (original research perhaps). Lastly, he reverted content that he and another user claimed were not properly sourced even though some were from NY Times, MTV.com (music sites), CCM sites and the actual singer's sites verifying the statements he and another user removed. Plus the same content is already found within related articles such as ones about the artists and/or similar topics which "Walter" himself has edited on and/or "watches" (therefore agreeing to it when mentioned on other articles). Not only that, the About.com article includes some of the same musicians I mentioned in the edit that he removed, even though I'm aware it isn't a reliable source (but I provided additional reliable references that he didn't like). It just seems to be a contradition (double-standard). I hope the above users who responded to this source/content not being allowed will finally have it removed. The entire paragraph itself is poorly typed, "unclear" and invalid because it is an opinion by a random writer (I can give examples if necessary). Thank you, have a great day!
99.129.112.89 (
talk) 15:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. The reliable info he recently removed on the CCM article has been included in another article he doesn't "watch" and has not been reverted.I recently removed the following ref
<ref>'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained ''in situ,'' and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'[[Michael Prior (theologian)|Michael Prior]],''Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry,'' Psychology Press 1999 p.201</ref>
from the Palestinian people article, due to the fact Micahel Prior is not a historian. It is being claimed on the talk page that because the material was published by Psychology Press, it may be used in the article for information about history, which is outside Prior's expertise. Is this correct?
And a related question - is it true that anything published by an academic press is considered prima facie reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted here that the article, Palestinian People is not a historical article. The statement the source is being used to support is the first sentence of the lead defining the subject: "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." The definition of Palestinian People is not a historical question and it is reasonable, in my view, to use experts in a number of scholarly disciplines to give a rounded definition of the topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
See "Jon Gibson & others" on talk page. I feel I am being bullied by an editor who reverted good contributions that was being discussed until there was a concensus or improvements made. He got involved when an open discussion was going on about the edits I provided. This seems to happen a lot with this user: Walter Görlitz (talk). I would like someone else unrelated to him and myself to assist. I feel he is not working with me and should leave it until we resolve the matter. He has belittled me and put unnecessary messages on my talk page that were out-of-line when [he] knows I'm not vandalizing. I'm only trying to expand the section and not be stressed by anyone who doesn't like the content even though it's legit. Thank you for your help! I will be going offline for now and reply later. Hopefully those assisting will have more patience than [him]. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Contemporary Christian music and Talk:Contemporary Christian music#Jon Gibson and others
This topic can be removed. I have decided to avoid WALTER. I posted this so that OTHER users participated and "he" is following me and sticking his nose in what was supposed to be unbias and unrelated to him. I do not want to resolve or discuss it anymore simply because he keeps responding to me in a negative manner and not addressing the concerns on the talk page this is about which asked him to list what was wrong or right about the edit, instead he just removed it all. I am not worried about it anymore, and won't be visiting this topic anymore. I have not even read his responses/input since my last edit. I simply do not care what his "opinion" is after he has made a bad impression on me from the start. I don't deal with people like him, they are toxic/cancer. Again, this can be deleted. I would do it, but i am not tip-toeing around Walter's poor attitude and know he will want to read this when he has nothing better to do, plus i don't want it to seem i am violating any policy (unlike "him"). P.S. This goes for the other mediation/noticeboard pages where this is being discussed (this is the one i created). I am not returning to any of them. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern (FYI update only): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kim_Jones_at_About.com_on_Christian_music P.S. I want no contact with/from "Walter" and will not communicate with him nor read any of his comments/responses. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: was advised to repost my contribution per my talk page which is currently on the article talk page for review/editing before I add it back at some point. The above user is currently making changes to the overall article, so I will wait several days more than likely until things are settled down some. FYI only... Thanks! 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 08:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this website reliable to cite only the song's key and tempo? Till 14:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Biographical material was recently removed from this article ( diff), specifically, information relating to his parents and their emigration to America (i.e., not particularly contentious). I've since found two sources: [46], and [47].
Would anyone have major objections to these two sources (considering they're both essentially personal webpages) for the purpose of providing a citation for the biographical material removed? Alternatively, does anyone know where better information might be found? ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm involved with an AfD where an editor is trying to say that the review website Press+1 is a reliable source. Even though it has been up since 2007, I'm not entirely convinced that it is. It looks to be that the site doesn't have a set reviewing staff and takes random reviews from anyone. There might be some quality checking, but there's no way of actually being able to verify how in-depth it is. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination) and there are also some sources in question, such as this article from AWN. I'm almost convinced it's a press release or taken predominantly from one, as the names of the show and its crew are all in capital letters, something that is pretty common in press releases. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if Typepad.com is reliable to be included. I want to add content into Diane Chambers and Rebecca Howe by using this link: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/06/shelley_what_we.html -- George Ho ( talk) 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Even during the most terrible morning hours when we should all be asleep, like around 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., Medievia has over 100 sickos awake and typing away.
Another editor raised concerns over the reliability of the source, given its use of 'humorous' language. Since it was published by IDG Books, I think it is enough to support the (non contentious) statement, but if I'm wrong, please chime in. The date is quite old, so that might be a problem.
My main concern is sourcing in the rest of the article. The game is primarily notable ( AFAICT) for a legal controversy surrounding its code and licensing, and so the article is (perhaps rightly so) devoted almost exclusively to that controversy. Since we mention the owner's name, this intersects with BLP. Many of the available sources are poor. Some are acceptable, such as Lee-Ming Zen (2003). "The Impacts of Medievia and Medthievia" (PDF). I believe the article in its current state is acceptable, but I'd like outside input to make sure I'm correct. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So far, the article GodWars is a stub mostly supported by primary sources, and we are trying to improve it and provide serious, secondary sources (the references 2 and 4 are not very good either, but this is the worst). We are having a conversation about it on the talk page, but nobody else is participating so I'm bringing it here. I believe it's worth noting that the other editor has a conflict of interest [ [55]]. The source appears to be a lousy text file, not even signed with a real name but with a nickname (Sunangel). It's hosted on a personal website [56] which doesn't look professional or notable (nothing links to it). EternalFlare ( talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we need some guidance on using DNA Tribes [57] as a source for articles. I was reminded of it when I saw it was used at DNA history of Ancient Egypt. We use it in several articles, see [58] and [59] while at the same time its article was deleted as a non-notable organsiation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Tribes. I think we should attempt to stick to peer reviewed articles for genetics information. Dougweller ( talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Eduardo Saverin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor wants to use Saverin's alleged facebook page as his offficial website in the infobox. I've objected saying there is no way to verify that it's Saverin's facebook page. The other editor is insistent. They also seem to see things I don't, perhaps because they are a facebook user (I am not), but claim that even anyone can see them. Although I think the burden is on the other editor to establish a consensus for using the facebook page ( WP:BRD) and have said so on the talk page, I am not going to battle over it. I looked at the archives of this board, but most of it seems geared to using facebook as a source to support material.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I contend that reliable sources patents are insufficient sources for claims that a certain person invented something, especially when other inventors are traditionally credited with the invention. I suggest multiple high quality secondary sources are required to establish who invented something in controversial cases.
This matter has been discussed since early December at Talk:Integrated circuit#Inventors and Patents and concerns this edit, and a number of similar edits since early December. The edit claims that one Frances Hugle invented a process for fabricating an IC (that is, integrated circuit). To further clarify, in the "Integrated circuit" article is only about monolithic integrated circuits, and does not cover Hybrid integrated circuits. The sources cited are US Patents 3226271 and 2994621. The diff also cites the article's talk page.
I leave it to readers to figure out their favorite way to view patents; the US Patent Office makes them available but you have to jump through hoops to install the right TIFF viewer. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I compiled some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) that clearly indicate Frances described how to fabricate an IC long before Kilby or Noyce made any claims in that regard. It lost its formatting and for that I apologize. Before getting into her words though I would like to offer a review of what an IC is. I keep encountering Wiki editors who are quick to tell me Frances did not invent it but aren't clear at all about what it is.
(It seems that the person who brought this to this board is also somewhat confused, so hopefully these definitions will help simplify and clarify the matter.)
That said, I think a very non-controversial interim way to deal with this has been suggested by Masem. Possibly if those interested would read the excerpts I have compiled, we could achieve consensus?
Before we consider the claims Frances received patents for, we need to know what an integrated circuit is...
1) An integrated circuit (IC), also called microelectronic circuit or chip, is an assembly of electronic components, fabricated as a single unit, in which miniaturized active devices (e.g., transistors and diodes) and passive devices (e.g., capacitors and resistors) and their interconnections are built up on a thin substrate of semiconductor material (typically silicon). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289645/integrated-circuit-IC
2) Integrated circuits, also called "chips", are electronic circuits where all the components (transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors) has been manufactured in the surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/integrated_circuit/
And here are some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) proving Frances invented the processes and the equipment to make them (reduction to practice).
From the first set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2994621A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19610801&DB=&locale=en_EP
"The invention relates to the method of preparing semi conductive films and to the products of such methods." (Page 2, column 1, 1st paragraph)
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)
Page 2, Column 1, lines 35-49:
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method of forming semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals in combination, in which stoichiometric proportions may be automatically obtained." (lines 35-38)
"It is an object of the invention to provide semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic materials or combinations which may be selectively of the n or p types." (lines 39-41)
"It is an object of the invention to provide an improved method for making semi-conductive films having alternate areas of n and p characteristics." (lines 42-44)
"It is an object of the invention to provide a mode of manufacturing semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic combinations, wherein the extent, area, disposition and thickness of the films can be easily, cheaply and accurately controlled." (lines 45-49)
"Briefly, in the practice of the invention, a series of films of metals or semi-metals is formed with the films in superposed relationship on a suitable substrate or support." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 67-70)
Page 3, Column 1, lines 42-65:
"In the fashion indicated, either n or p type films may be formed by varying the thicknesses of the layers and/or the temperature and time of the heating procedure. More than two layers maybe deposited of either of the metals or semi-metals." (lines 42-46)
"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:
3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, and wherein certain areas of the substrate surface are masked with a masking substance prior to the formation of the superposed films so as to restrict such formation to another area of the substrate surface, the masking material being removed prior to the reaction of the superposed films under heat.
Second set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3226271A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19651228&DB=&locale=en_EP
Page 2, Column 1, lines 11-14:
This is a division of applicants' copending case, Serial No. 574, 804, filed March 29, 1956 and bearing the same title, which case issued as Patent 2,994,621 on August 1, 1961.
Page 4, Column 2, lines 67-75:
1. A method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, which comprises sequentially exposing a surface of the substrate to vapors of n and p type materials through the meshes of a screen from separate sources of the n and p type material spaced from each other in a plane, substantially parallel to the substrate surface, whereby the films so formed are characterized by alternating areas of different composition, and subjecting the composite so formed to a heat treatment.
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 1-29:
2. The process claimed in claim 1 in which as initially formed the said films comprise alternating heavy and light deposit areas which area are out of register with each other so that the heat treated composite is characterized by alternating areas having respectively n and p characteristics and meeting in a p-n junction. 3. The method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, the said film being characterized by repetitive n and p junctions, which comprises depositing on said substrate by vaporization from separated sources and through the meshes of a screen located in a plane substantially parallel to the substrate surface, two materials which, being deposited through the meshes of said screen by reason of parallax inherent in the separation of said sources, in repetitive areas characterized by varying quantities of the two materials will produce n and p junctions between said areas. 4. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein said materials are respectively anionic and cationic semi-conductive materials. 5. The process claimed in claim 3 including the step of initially forming a film of semi-conductor on said substrate and wherein the said two materials deposited through said screen are respectively acceptors and donors capable of forming with the predeposited film semi-conductors having n- and p- type characteristics. 6. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein the two materials constitute semi-conductors having respectively n- and p-type characteristics.
Page 5, Column 2, Lines 1-8:
7. The method of making a semi-conductive device characterized by adjacent areas of n and p type materials, which comprises evaporating said n and p type materials from separated locations onto a base through a foraminous element characterized by a plurality of small spaced openings, whereby said n and p type materials are deposited in areas having a side by side relationship whereby to form n and p junctions between said areas.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 06:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
History Lesson in a Patent
If one reads the excerpts provided above, we can deduce a few things about the level of semiconductor device production sophistication in the mid fifties.
1) Semiconductor devices were being made in military funded labs at the time this application was written:
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)
This invention claims a major improvement ((cost and ease of production) in that devices would now be grown directly onto the substrate rather than added one by one later (thus making possible 'monolithic' IC production rather than the already current 'hybrid' IC production).
2) Circuitry was already being printed upon ceramic substrates (this is NOT the same as a printed circuit board)(see quote below):
"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)
3) The improvement here is that devices are grown directly onto the substrate rather than added to it (see quote below):
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:
"3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, ..."
These facts of patent tell us that Kilby did not invent the Hybrid IC, it was already in a much more advanced state at the time Frances submitted her patent application describing how to grow devices directly onto a substrate (the monolithic IC, now simply called an IC).
The Kilby story was probably invented to enable commercialization of this technology without disclosing its level of sophistication, which was classified.
Similarly, a very opaque patent was cobbled for Noyce.
If we forget the crucible (classified military) in which such inventions become possible, we are left with nothing but mythology... and that is surely reflected in Wikipedia's present treatment of the invention of the IC, something I sincerely hope will be possible to correct.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Historical Reflections
The Frances Hugle patent(s) were awarded in 1961 and 1965. I imagine that one of the reasons they were delayed was due to decisions to introduce the technologies, declassify them, in a certain way that precluded exposing the classified work at Baldwin.
Additionally, following the death of Frances, a popular journalist, Don Hoefler, entered Silicon Valley and proceeded to codify the history of the industry. Still, according one of Don's close relatives, he admitted privately that he knew Frances had invented the IC and not Noyce.
Regardless, you now have proof of who invented the monolithic IC and the processes involved.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Patents are not a reliable source for invention priority, as can be seen by all the argumentation above. They require interpretation by secondary sources to say, "this patent was issued before any others, and that's good enough evidence of priority." In cases where someone developed a similar technology earlier, we need secondary sources which consider the earlier invention to have priority. We don't have to discuss this particular case, but the sheer length of the discussion is evidence for the need for interpretation, showing that patents are a primary source. Mangoe ( talk) 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Cheryl, you really need to get the point of the replies here. Please stop criticising participants for not understanding what an IC is. I have made ICs and am perfectly capable of understanding and drawing conclusions from Hugle's patents. But I am not permitted to write those conclusions into a Wikipedia article. This is not the place to establish Hugle's claims. You need to establish those claims elsewhere. When the results are published in an independent source then you can add something to Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 18:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
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 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
I recently saw a series of edits where one editor removed sources because they were unreliable ( self-published and user-generated) and a second editor restored them because they were the only sources and so "must remain". Is this really the case? I read WP:RS and can't find anything that says that unreliable sources are better than no sources. Doesn't the acceptance of unreliable sources give the reader the impression that the information is credible, when it may not be? I ask this as a general question, rather than one about a specific article because it's an issue that exists everywhere. 75.2.209.11 ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe - It may depend. I remember one controversy where I was an involved editor (CISPA/SOPA) where the author of the major implementation (BIND) of a critical networking protocol (DNS) said on a blog or in a speech, I forget which, that yes indeed the proposed law would break the internet. Since the world wide web depends on DNS, this is pretty close to getting it straight from the horse's mouth, but an opposing editor would not allow it to go in, because, no indeed, it did not meet reliability guidelines. And yet his idea of a good source was Newsmax, which, slanted as it is, does have editorial review...gah. Just saying.
I do understand the rationale here, that the average person will not necessarily know who the man is, although -- to complain about this just a little more -- a quick google would have remedied this. My point in sharing this example though is that there are good sources which are not necessarily reliable under Wikipedia policy, and in information technology in particular, since this is where I have run into this, certain personal blogs are very good sources indeed. I do not know how to formulate a rule that will differentiate them from the sort of dross that led to the policy, but....if there is no dispute as to accuracy, I think it depends on whether this is a page someone put up three years ago, or that someone is carefully tending on an ongoing basis, in which case it may be worth discussing the reasons for the sourcing.... Elinruby ( talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that as per the normal guidelines, there is no simple general rule for a question like this. We need to discuss real examples. All the answers above appear to me to be imagining various situations first, before answering. How bad is the bad source? How bad is the rest of the article? etc.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment about removing a citation to an unreliable source: if the passage in the Wikipedia article was written based on an unreliable source, and a reliable source can't readily be found, it is important to remove both the passage and the citation, not just the citation, otherwise it is plagiarism. This applies even if the claim is common knowledge and not challenged. In this situation, the passage could be reworded so as not to plagiarize the unreliable source. On the other hand, if the passage was composed independently by a Wikipedia editor and the citation was added later, just the citation could be removed. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is quite possibly the most well-presented discussion thread I've ever seen. I can't even tell which side of the issue you fall on, which is to your credit.
The relevant part of the RS policy would be this:
David Gorski probably does have relevant expertise per this policy. In introducing his opinion in the article, you can state explicitly that his background is in cardiology.
Where I have a slight problem is with the chosen excerpt from Gorski's work. The fact that he referred to raw food diet film as "highly effective propaganda" does not tell me anything useful. Since Gorski would be quoted in his capacity as a medical expert, and not as a film critic, I would prefer to know what he has to say about the medical science behind the raw food trend. Overall, it seems that it should be possible to use language that is both less sensational and more informative. TheBlueCanoe 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed an article from the Smithsonian magazine claiming that it is wrong -"(His book says that... His book says: "Allegedly there is a book written by somebody stating that... And that is not a reliable source." That link is not a reliable source if it claims sth that was never written in the book. I will find all the citations f)". And [1] "The last days of April 1945. Hitler, Martin Boorman, Eva Braun and core "Nazi" leadership fleeing in Antarctica." If you want to check and have Chrome, it will translate. Dougweller ( talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has made it his business to delete unsourced content from around the project citing WP:CHALLENGE (and ignoring the part where it says, per WP:PRESERVE, that it's better to try to find sources instead of just deleting).
One of the articles that he has recently targeted was Mohammad Ali, where he removed biographical information. In keeping with my ANI assigned responsibility to wikistalk this user, I'm trying to restore the content that he is too lazy to source himself.
Keeping in mind WP:BIAS, this article is likely to be difficult to source. However, I found http://mazhar.dk/film/stars/mohammadali.html to support the biographical information (i.e., family composition, schooling). My question is whether this would be considered a reliable source? Cheers. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure where to bring this concern, but since it concerns sources, I thought I'd start here. Klemen Kocjancic has begun systematically tagging articles with the ref improve tag. (See: [2].) I question whether such mass tagging is really helpful. In addition, some of the tags make no sense. Small town articles are being tagged when, in fact, everything in the articles is templated geographic and demographic information that is fully sourced (e.g., Anson, Wisconsin, Anton, Texas, Antrim Township, Watonwan County, Minnesota, Antreville, South Carolina, etc.)
Can somebody please stop this editor, quickly? 75.0.193.138 ( talk) 16:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the sources for Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos and noticed that some of these may not be reliable. Can anyone shed some light on this?
In particular, I'd like to know about the reliability of the following sources.
Slideshow. "Crimes of the Juggalos Photo Gallery - What is a Juggalo? - Crime Library". Trutv.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Miller, Jessica (2012-10-08). "'Juggalo Killers' a new breed of gang". Standard.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Gibson, Michael. "10 Most Violent Juggalo Attacks Ever". Ranker.com. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be neutral or reliable)
"Dropping In On The Demented Utopia Of The Gathering Of The Juggalos". Deadspin.com. 2011-08-16. Retrieved 2012-11-08. (might not be a neutral source, in addition to questions of its reliability)
"Juggalos - are they a gang, cult, and/or dangerous?". Realpolice.net. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Also please check the article for neutrality and check the rest of the sources for any that I didn't list here that might not be reliable. BigBabyChips ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has called into question the wether a snopes.com reference is verifiable as it is used on the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) article. In essence, the question is its reliability. See Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)#Snopes. Is it reliable or not? The archives seem to suggest a slight split in opinion on the site. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes.com is not a reliable source. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.163 ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
They largely do a decent job, probably better than many of the newspapers that do qualify, but we are in danger of slippery slope if we allow personal impressions to determine what qualifies. They are self-published, with no formal training in journalism, as far as I know, and no formal editorial process other than self-editing. We accept newspaper and books by experts, not because they are more accurate, they often aren't, but because they have a formal editorial process for fact-checking. (Although, as an aside, many people are under the misguided impression that science books are peer-reviewed. They typically are not.) I think there are a number of blogs with a better track record for accuracy than Snopes, and both are better than the NYT, but I don't think we would start accepting blogs as reliable sources simply because some editor has followed one closely and thinks it has a good track record for accuracy. (I know there are exceptions for blogs written by individuals who have been reporters at RS's, but that's different). Frankly, I would love it if we could find a way to allow Snopes as an RS, as well as some of the more careful blogs, but I don't see an easy, objective way to identify those which qualify and those which do not.
I tend to use Snopes the same way I use Wikipedia - I accept that they are largely correct, have a bit of a political bias, so certain subjects are more questionable than others, and when in doubt, go tot he sources provided. Snopes is doing a much better job over time of including their refs, which tend to be reliable. This also provides an option for someone wishing to cite Snopes—go to the reference they provide, and cite that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world. Saying that you should use the sources listed on its page instead of snopes.com itself misses the point, in that those original sources may be where certain facts or claims came from, but the article on snopes.com itself sometimes comes to its own conclusions or introduces its own research. Those articles always have been allowed here as reliable sources, and demanding we use other sources they cite instead can force situations where that other source doesn't back up the part needing a reference here. It's also pretty much the same as demanding that whenever we cite any book that is reliable that also has footnotes or end notes in it to only ever use the sources listed in those footnotes or endnotes instead of the reliable source. It's ridiculous. Now, certainly there are going to be cases where some other source is more appropriate (instead of more reliable) than snopes.com, but trying to claim it's not reliable or only reliable for other sources is simply untrue. DreamGuy ( talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has arisen at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (see here) regarding whether WorldNetDaily (WND) is or is not a reliable source for what are generally held to be fringe theories regarding the true meaning of the US Constitution's requirements for the office of President. The person advocating the use of material from WND is also arguing that the alternative theories in question are in fact legitimate viewpoints from "scholarly legal people or groups", which need to be acknowledged in the article in order to preserve NPOV and "illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy" — and that labelling these theories as fringe, and the sources backing them (most of which appear to me to be blogs) as unreliable, is indicative of an attempt "to try to pick a side and suppress the other side".
I challenged the editor in question to take the issue here, but he appeared reluctant to do so (opining instead that "making an 'effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards' is what administrators are for, we're just editors"). I don't agree with this view, but in an effort to move the discussion along and not allow it to simply stagnate, I'm bringing it here. Hopefully I've characterized the other editor's arguments correctly here; if not, I trust he'll correct me.
Comments welcome — here, and/or at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Character from Disney's The Little Mermaid is not a flounder nor a guppy, the character's a yellow and blue colored tropical fish. I looked up other websites for other atlantic tropical fish I couldn't find an actual species for the character (none of the other atlantic fish has the same colors and/or patterns as him. Some of the other fish species (those that has the same colors and/or patterns as the character) only lives in the Indian and Pacific Oceans). That's why I inserted him as a juvenile atlantic blue tang. Although, the Character and the real life juvenile blue tang's fin shapes and body shapes are not similar, but his body shape and fin shapes are more like an Indo-Pacific regal blue tang.
Real life juvenile atlantic blue tangs are bright yellow with golden blue rings around their eyes and the edges of their dorsal and anal fins. Their coloration from yellow juvenile, to yellow-tailed blue subadult, and to blue adult is not a size dependent so they could be larger then the blue adults.
This is in part a BLP issue but I thought I'd bring it here first. I've got doubts about quite a few sources here. Eg:
http://freemontana.com/102_Reasons.pdf for Jerry O'Neil (politician) whose article doesn't say he's libertarian.
Reason.com in general, especially when the article is titled "Libertarian(ish) Candidates" [5] (and again, the subject's article doesn't mention this, see Mia Love.
Ontheissues.org and is [ [6]] which says libertarian sufficient to call him libertarian?
GovTrack - maybe, but [7] calls him a centrist, so how can we use it as a source to call him Libertarian? I'm removing the unsourced entries as BLP violations. Dougweller ( talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. i was wondering if mmajunkie is legit for using as a source. I see it has usatoday at the top. I was wondering about sn nation webdsites such as bloodyelbow? I have also had questions about the validity of bleachereport. Any merit to these questions? And I mean as it relates to enough of these type of articles justifying a fighter/events general notability. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed a recurring trend in articles relating to Japanese topics. If I try to add something that I read in a Japanese book, journal or the like, sometimes I will be asked to give an English source. I can find English sources that say the same thing as the scholarly/reputably Japanese sources, but most of them are some guy's personal website. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that a piece of information that is backed up by both reliable foreign sources and non-reliable English sources should be deleted, but I was wondering which is better?
I ask this now, because on a move request for the page Rashōmon someone brought up the third source it cites, which is the personal website of some guy who doesn't look Japanese but goes by the name Shōriya Aragōrō. He doesn't look like he is a recognized expert in kabuki theatre, much less in the field in question in the article. The question is whether it would be a good idea to go out and locate a Japanese source to replace this one? It's theoretically possible that a reliable source in English says the same thing, but if so it would be very hard to locate; a Japanese source could likely be located with a simple Google search. If self-published English source says the same thing as a reliable foreign source, would it be better to give both for WP:V's sake, or delete the English one as per WP:RS?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The policy on non-English sources is pretty clear. As long as an English source of equal validity is not available, the non-English source is acceptable under the same policies and guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Im seeing this link --> [9] being used as a source for Gundam articles so my question is, is it a reliable source? I have been trying to clean up the Gundam articles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly attempting to use http://www.rockonthenet.com/ as a source for a past Grammy nominee. Specifically, the user is attempting to use [12] as a source for Lita Ford's alleged Grammy nominations from the 1980s and 90s. I'm not familiar at all with this website but it's reliability seems questionable. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2013
Are the sources used here reliable for the proposed content? An editor has objected to the first line so I provided these further sources, Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement Martinus Nijhoff p37. Bonded Labor: Tackling the System of Slavery in South Asia Columbia University Press p130. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts Wiley p98. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review Transaction p128. South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh Amsterdam University Press p101. Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World Cambridge University Press p368. as well as links to online books. "what is widely regarded as genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh" The Changing Character of War p159 [13] "genocide had occurred – a claim that scholars today back up" Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia [14] The editor has also objected to the estimates for women and children raped, however those estimates are backed by excellent sources, but I provided more sources for estimated rape victims [15] [16] [17] [18] He then begin to demand sources for the number of children raped at which point I lost my temper with him as I found such a question distasteful, nobody knows how many were raped and the question struck me as a deliberate attempt to goad. I believe the sources are RS for the content but require community input to resolve the talk page issue. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. [2] and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand [3] and four hundred thousand. [4] women and children [5] were raped and between one million [6] and 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. [7] Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks. [8]
In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. [9] This act only allows those within Bangladesh to be prosecuted and did not allow for those who were not a part of the armed forces to be tried. The act was amended in 2009 and the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure and Evidence were put in place by 2010. Two clauses and an amendment were also made to the 1973 act. Critics maintain that further amendments are needed to bring the act up to the standards of international law. [10]
- ^ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Mystery-of-Bosnias-Ancient-Pyramids.html?c=y&page=2
- ^ Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.
- ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Elizabeth D. Heineman (ed.). Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones: From the Ancient World to the Era of Human Rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8122-4318-5.
- ^ Riedel, Bruce O. (2011). Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad. Brookings Institution. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8157-0557-4.
- ^ Ghadbian, Najib (2002). Kent Worcester; Sally A. Bermanzohn; Mark Ungar (eds.). Violence and politics: globalization's paradox. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 978-0415931113.
- ^ DeGroot, Gerard (2011). The Seventies Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic Look at a Violent Decade. Pan Macmillan. p. 64. ISBN 978-0330455787.
- ^ Totten, Samuel; Paul Robert Bartrop; Steven L. Jacobs (30 November 2007). Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. Volume 1: Greenwood. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-313-32967-8.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link)- ^ Debnath, Angela (2009). Samuel Totten (ed.). Plight and fate of women during and following genocide (7th ed.). Transaction. p. 49. ISBN 978-1412808279.
- ^ Alffram, Henrik (2009). Ignoring Executions and Torture: Impunity for Bangladesh's Security Forces. Human Rights Watch. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-56432-483-2.
- ^ Karim, Bianca; Tirza Theunissen (29 September 2011). Dinah Shelton (ed.). International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0199694907.
Hello! I am looking for input on whether this author is a reliable source. Please comment on the discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Thanks. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 23:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Ugetsu currently cites this website for the release date of the film. Since this factoid is easily verifiable in published books by specialists, and is widely written about in English. I've already located another source which is both (apparently) reliable and fits with WP:NONENG.
However, the Japanese Movie Database is an interesting question. It seems to be less "user-generated" than IMDb, but I would be interested in knowing whether it is a no-no to cite it on English Wikipedia?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit [20] in the article on Ayurveda has dated the Rig Veda to 10,000 years ago and has used as a source a 2011 conference presentation. As you may know, the Rig Veda was originally an oral tradition, and there is some question regarding its date of origin. Is this conference presentation considered a reliable source? Here's the ref that the editor uses:
"A report on the National Seminar, held by 'Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas' Delhi Chapter, (ISERVE-Delhi) on "Scientific Dating of Ancient Events Before 2000 B.C." held on 30th and 31st July, 2011, in which the first concensus was that "The astronomical dates of planetary references in ancient books calculated by the eminent astronomers by making use of planetarium software, indicate the development of an indigenous civilization in India even prior to 6000 BC. Astronomical references in Rigveda represent the sky view of dates belonging to the period from 8000 BC to 4000 BC and those mentioned in Ramayana refer to sky views seen sequentially on dates around 5000 BC."
The editor also sourced the information to the I-SERVE website. [21] Thanks much for your feedback. It's been a matter of ongoing discussion. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We used to have an article on this. See User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. It may be time to revive the topic. See also Scientific foreknowledge in the Vedas, Historiography and nationalism. This is the topic you are looking at here. One thing this has certainly nothing to do with whatsoever is an actual scholarly evaluation of the date of the Rigveda. You are free to believe the Rigveda was composed by ancient aliens, but please do not waste Wikipedia's time with your views. The Rigveda depicts a society of the late Bronze Age. They have wheeled chariots and metal swords. I.e. the oldest hymns remember the earliest arrival of the Indo-Aryans, as reflected by the Gandhara culture. You might as well claim that the Iliad dates to 8000 BC, but you should not expect that anyone will think you worth listening to. See also WP:RANDY. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Relevant Wikipedia article: Talk:Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)
Edit proposal under dispute: Note that the following is from a lead paragraph, which is summarizing (as usual) something basic about the subject which is discussed in detail within the article body. There is no dispute about the details in the body, only how to summarize them.
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of the Horn of Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in the Horn of Africa, and in North Africa. While several variants of E-M215 are only found in the Horn of Africa, some specific types are common in East Africa as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in East Africa, and in North Africa. While several variants of E-M215 are only found in East Africa, some specific types are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. |
Summary of reasoning for the two proposals, and the need for community comment:
Sources which 138.88.60.165 is claiming as being the relevant reliable sources for the geographical terminology:
These are all by the same team, and use the same core data pool of genetic samples.
A bit of extra information. The main article about E-M215 in East Africa, apart from the Horn of Africa is actually not one of the ones above but this one (as Nishidani probably realizes, and also as our article already explains in its body) so readers should not assume that the Cruciani/Trombetta team is the only source for this subject, whose findings should be considered in writing the lead:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To be more precise, I am asking for sources to figure out the most commonly used name for the region that E-M215 is spread in, I am not asking for opinions and beliefs. I have provided (see E-M215 Talk page) not only the authoritative sources that Andrew Lancaster has shown above, but also names for the region used by the main commercial private DNA testing companies, and in all cases what is used is East Africa and I can not even find ONE case where the Horn of Africa terminology is being used for the region in this context. In addition, I am also asking for some consistency in the Article, it shows the E-M215 lineage as originating in East Africa for instance, why are different terminologies being used across the article when it is the same dataset that was used to arrive at both the conclusions of origin and spread ? 138.88.60.165 ( talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area a smaller number of variants are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of East Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area a smaller number of variants are common as far south as South Africa, or scattered throughout the Middle East and Europe. |
Ok, so here is your newer proposal, which I admit I made a mistake earlier and said you changed the lead after my last post, when in-fact you did make the change 16 minutes before, in any event, it is hard to settle an argument when the platform of contention keeps changing willy-nilly-
Andrew Lancaster proposal | 138.88.60.165 proposal |
---|---|
E-M215 has two subclades, E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is common. In modern populations, the highest frequencies of E-M35 are found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area particular variants are found as far south as South Africa (mainly E-M293), and throughout the Middle East and Europe (mainly E-M78). | E-M215 has two subclades: E-M35 and E-M281, but of these only E-M35 is known to occur outside of East Africa, and it also dominates the modern E-M215 population in that region. In modern populations, E-M35 is most frequently found in parts of East Africa, and North Africa. Several variants of E-M215 have only been found in Ethiopia, while outside this area particular variants are found as far south as South Africa (mainly E-M293), and throughout the Middle East and Europe (mainly E-M78). |
As you can see, my proposal stays pretty much the same, except for the addition of specifics on E-M293 and E-M78, which I hesitantly accepted, because it is not just E-M78 that is present in the Middle East, but also E-M123, in any case ,is this your final proposal or are you going to change it again? P.S. I am still offcourse also open to my original proposal as well, my above proposal came out of a series of compromises, my original proposal with a slight tweak was as follows-
Let me try to restate this - I think you are getting little comment because of the very technical topic but, if I am reading this correctly, the genetics are irrelevant and the whole dispute centers around what to call a region of Africa. Is that right? A couple of questions:
I have to say, to me, East Africa is the entire right-hand side of the continent. But if you want to use a geographical designation which, to me, is somewhat wrong, you could put it in a quote -- since the reason for using it is that the authors use it -- then clarify the facts in the voice of Wikipedia.
If that doesn't help because the dispute is now about something else then please restate the issue. Elinruby ( talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
On Talk:Jung Myung Seok an argument is being made that the websites providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com are RS for the trial of the group's founder for rape and sexual abuse. Example: [23] Please advise. Shii (tock) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Could these sources be of any uses at all? They could be used to source their own opinions. But I don't see a section of their site that's a simple clear-cut "here's what we believe" section. There's sermons, but the problem with citing those is that it may take some interpretations, and that's getting into WP:OR. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article being cited for the problems with Jung's trial is absolutely a reliable third party news magazine called, "Civil Government" published in Korea. It just happens to also have some translated quotations on ProvidenceTrial.com. Therefore the article passes WP:RS.
The religious movement has a magazine titled, "Joensori" that it publishes that could be used to verify several biographical details about Jung Myung Seok, like his service in Vietnam. Would these be safe to cite for biographical details or teachings? They also include publications of his sermons in both English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Macauthor ( talk) 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Has been added to a large number of BLPs (over 60) as an external link. The site appears to be run by two individuals, Juan Víctor Izquierdo and Francesca Parodi, and is not controlled or operated by any actual RS source. In addition, it appears that the EL may be in violation of copyright law on its face. For each person, large numbers of campaign ads, videos etc. are included - many of which are obviously copyright. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This source [24] mention the topic of the article The Invention of the Jewish People only to represent Sand and to hear his opinion but the book itself is not discussed does its justifiable to use the source for such edits [25] in my opinion is WP:COATRACK.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The YouTube source is from a documentary which claims to be posted under "fair use", however, I'm skeptical that it can be used as such in Wikipedia. Alternatively, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sukhdevsandhu/9132917/Che_Part_Two_and_638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro_killing_Fidel_Castro/ appears to be an acceptable blog source that could be used instead. Requesting feedback on the YouTube source and the blog source. Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Post-American World contained these two sentences: In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception to Zakaria's Thatcherist assertions that there is no alternative to increasingly globalized, free market capitalism. Hari pointed to examples where what Zakaria advocated led to disasters, such as free market policies leading to the collapse of Argentinian economy, and financial deregulation resulting in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, which had begun just after the book was published. →referenced to "Hari, Johann (November 2008). "Zakaria's Bad Timing". The Progressive 72 (11): 42–44." (offline but I can email a copy to anybody).
I request a 3rd opinion on whether this reference can still be used and, if possible, what an acceptable way of wording would be (if the above is found to be unacceptable). Thanks. maclean ( talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Cantaloupe2 has removed references to Erowid from the page List of misconceptions about illegal drugs, with the edit summary:
Erowid is a collection of anecdotal evidence and it is not a reliable source and does not belong here, period.
diff.
I'm not sure if this is true. None of the links go to user experiences, but to various articles and FAQs. Links to other sites, such as acsa2000.net, canorml.org and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were also removed. I'm confused. Is Erowid an RS in this context, and what about the other sites removed? -- Auric talk 11:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia entry of
Erowid gives many reasons why it is a
WP:RS. As the entry says, Erowid provides much accurate information, and they are frequently cited in
WP:RSs. Furthermore, they've published articles in peer-reviwed medical journals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=erowid
As for the
WP:COPYVIO, how do you know that it's copyright violation and not fair use? That's a decision for a lawyer to make. Are you a lawyer? --
Nbauman (
talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Erowid can simply be considered a non reliable sources. Some pages don't have sources, some a few, and others have many. For example this about cannabis has cited sources. Erowid has also been cited many times by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, for example see this. Erowid Center has also a project named ecstasydata.org, which tests street-ecstasy tablets to know its content.
Regarding WP:COPYVIO, that is about including copyright violation content in the Wikipedia article, not about the references. Many times, references include the URL to PDF archives which are hosted in third party sites, evading the pay-wall of many journals, is that fair use? As Nbauman said, that is a decision for a lawyer to make, any way, that is not WP:COPYVIO, bacause it is not content in a WP article, it is a reference. -- KDesk ( talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Before adding further comments, please look at the prior discussion if you haven't already done so:
discussion CLICK HERE
1. Source Ultima 5 and Ultima 6 computer games, and a fan wiki which has a screenshot from the game as evidence as well, plus has taken the dialog from the games and put it on their wiki for anyone to see.
2. Article is Dr. Cat
3. Content [26]
A Dr. Cat character exists as a bartender in Ultima V and Ultima VI. [2]
Wouldn't this screenshot [27] count as proof? No reason to doubt this evidence is there? The guy worked on these games, and included himself in them. Dream Focus 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Topix (website) considered reliable? There is a poll on that website about how Armenians feel about Turks and I wanna include it in an article. Note that I will state the source and make it clear so that it wouldn't be taken as a sociological research. -- Երևանցի talk 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
Gamelan gong gede has no reliable sources. Unsourced material has been thrice restored without any in-line citations (or any citations) in the last hour, thrice violating WP:Verifiability, which suggests posting here. Administrative attention is requested. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The point, that chain maintenance is controversial, is already confirmed by Brown, who has previously been confirmed to be a reliable source, so it seems that www.slowtwitch.com should be fine for independent confirmation. There is a claim that www.slowtwitch.com is self-published, and so inherently unreliable, but I can find no indication of that. It was founded in 1999 by Dan Empfield and provides bios of its contributors, including Technical Editor Greg Kopecky. It has a global Alexa Traffic Rank of 35,263 compared to 11,633 for BikeRadar.com, 19,330 for Bicycling.com, 179,646 for BikeMag.com, and 1,151,976 for VeloNews.com. Here is an article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News about slowtwitch hiring a senior editor. What say ye? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
More generally, all RSs that have any connection to Waldorf education are being contested as sources for this article, even if their work appears in peer-reviewed journals or presses. For example,
hgilbert ( talk) 14:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:
hgilbert ( talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is removing Fox News as a source on this article [28] claiming a consensus that it is unreliable based on [29] this RFC, which I note was not closed and looks like no consensus to me. What is the consensus on Fox as a reliable source? Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you have accused me of removing templates. But that's beside the point. I'm all for discussion of why Fox News is an unreliable source. I'm very puzzled why you've tried to "tell on me" as if we're two kids in a playground. There was ample evidence in the RfC for Fox News that at the very least, it's a highly questionable source to use, even if some of the things it says are factually correct. The other sources are fine (which is why I did not remove them). 2.96.201.168 ( talk) 02:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If the main point of contention is Fox News as a source for the reasons for South Park making changes to an episode, then I'd be cautious. Is this fact or opinion? Are Fox News reports reliable to the extent that we don't expect them to present a guess as a fact? I wouldn't be very sure of that. Formerip ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor is trying to use this page to cite a European border at Boundaries between continents. The site appears to be some sort of personal blog, and I reckon there'd have to be either a very strong source or quite a few to put any definition on the standing of the others. Thoughts? CMD ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Your attention is called to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. Please comment on whether the website at "Billionaire's Bogus Legal Threats Against Bloggers Threaten Free Speech" can be a Reliable Source at Frank L. VanderSloot#Defamation lawsuit threats. The exact statement in the article is
According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal. the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.
Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
We are having a disagreement about these negative Bollywood awards being RS or not. There was a lengthy discussion on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page to include negative awards that had user voting just like the Golden Kelas and Ghantas. Now there are more negative awards like the Film Fail awards which are nominated by some of the most esteemed critics and journalists in India http://filmfailawards.com/jury/. A more detailed discussion is available on the Dabangg 2 talk page. A user keeps on reverting my edits because he says this is not RS. It is clearly RS as the reviews by all of these people are included in the film's pages. Can you help decide if this is RS or not? Thanks. Ashermadan ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Is this a reliable source for the statements
In 2004, Joakim Langer researched Pettersson's family history in Papua New Guinea and wrote two books entitled In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King, which influenced the screenplay for Efraim Longstocking and the Cannibal Princess.
and
He is regarded as the inspiration for Ephraim Longstocking, Pippi's father in Astrid Lindgren's children's series, Pippi Longstocking.
in the article Carl Emil Pettersson? Ryan Vesey 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's see. The site says: "Cineuropa.org is co-funded by the MEDIA Plus Programme of the European Commission, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, the Ministry of the French Community of Belgium, the French Centre National de la Cinématographie, the ICAA, Swiss Films, the Swiss Office Federal de la Culture, Filmunio, German Films, Luxembourg Film Fund, Malta Film Commission, Czech Film Centre and the Irish Film Board" [31] That certainly sounds pretty impressive. I'm guessing bureaucrats from half a dozen countries wouldn't be funding a personal blog. I'd say it's reliable until we have evidence otherwise. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The above links are not for "In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King by Joakim Langer" but for "Pippi & der König : auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf by co-authors Joakim Langer and Hélena Regiusby", in German. My understanding is that an English version was originally planned but has never been published. If an English version does exist, there will be a separate ISBN for it. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for reference, here is a WorldCat search by author for Joakim Langer. Who are you going to believe, WorldCat or twitchfilm.com? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking for someone who brought this up in the IRC help channel. At the article, there seems to be a dispute on the number of works Mishima has created, attributed to different sources. This diff shows the discrepancies. I don't have access to any of the sources and I'm unsure how to proceed, so I'd appreciate it if the folks here could help. Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. GRuban. Henry Scott-Strokes said that Mishima wrote 40 novels, and 18 plays etc., but it isn't right clearly. "18 plays" is too little number. And actually, Mishima wrote 34 novels. I've list up all his 34 novels in Yukio Mishima bibliography. Please see. Then, my "about"(number of plays and books of short stories) means that how include Mishima's childhood works, or unpublished or unfinished stories and plays, or include the luxurious limited editions. So, it is necessary to attach "about" word. It is important to show more precisely about Mishima's works. Sorry for my poor english. -- みしまるもも ( talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. GRuban. Of course, Henry Scott Stokes is an excellent journalist, and is a Mishima's good friend. But Henry do not show list of 40 novels in it, and other newspaper sources do not too. Number of plays "18" is too little. It is wrong cleary Henry researced details about Tatenokai, and relations with Mishima and Japan Self-Defense Forces, but he is not a researcher of Mishima's literature. "Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works"(No.1 - No.42 plus 2) [37] [38] are classified into Novels, Short Stories, Plays, Criticisms (include Essays etc.), These are published by Shinchosha. A lot of Mishima's works were published by Shinchosha in during his life time too. And this "Final edition"'s editors are experts in research of Mishima's iterature. Actually, Mishima's novels are 34. None of Japanese researcher of Mishima say "Mishima wrote 40 novels". Where are 6 (40-34) novels? Mishima's all novels are recorded in No.1 - No.14. Please see [39] , and please count it. And, "Yukio Mishima complete works No.42-Biographical sketch and Bibliography" Amazon site is [40]. I wish for you understand it. Sorry for my poor english. -- みしまるもも ( talk) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works -Novels-" (No.1 - No.14) lists. Mishima's all 34 novels are recorded in them.
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
No.9
No.10
No.11
No.12
No.13
No.14
-- みしまるもも ( talk) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47 t c 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS says: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." The study, "Acute cardiovascular fatalities following cannabis use," is a primary source. Therefore, it can't be included in the article. Making a statement like, "people have died from cannabis" and giving primary sources to support it is original research which is forbidden under
WP:NOR.
If these individual primary sources are accurate, somebody should have done an evidence-based review and published it. An evidence-based review is a reliable, published secondary source. If the editor can find a review article, that should go in. If the editor can't find a review article (a reliable secondary source), he can't include the claim that people have died from cannabis. --
Nbauman (
talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have an anon stating that " The Changing Face of Christian Music", which is on About.com and written by Kim Jones is not a reliable source. It is used three times in the contemporary Christian music article
Is this a reliable source or not? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
: Cite document requires |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) templates where he has admitted they were missing and required due to a lack of verification (those statements are subject to removal). He claims some of the content are [only] in books he owns which is not an acceptable source of verification (original research perhaps). Lastly, he reverted content that he and another user claimed were not properly sourced even though some were from NY Times, MTV.com (music sites), CCM sites and the actual singer's sites verifying the statements he and another user removed. Plus the same content is already found within related articles such as ones about the artists and/or similar topics which "Walter" himself has edited on and/or "watches" (therefore agreeing to it when mentioned on other articles). Not only that, the About.com article includes some of the same musicians I mentioned in the edit that he removed, even though I'm aware it isn't a reliable source (but I provided additional reliable references that he didn't like). It just seems to be a contradition (double-standard). I hope the above users who responded to this source/content not being allowed will finally have it removed. The entire paragraph itself is poorly typed, "unclear" and invalid because it is an opinion by a random writer (I can give examples if necessary). Thank you, have a great day!
99.129.112.89 (
talk) 15:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. The reliable info he recently removed on the CCM article has been included in another article he doesn't "watch" and has not been reverted.I recently removed the following ref
<ref>'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained ''in situ,'' and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'[[Michael Prior (theologian)|Michael Prior]],''Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry,'' Psychology Press 1999 p.201</ref>
from the Palestinian people article, due to the fact Micahel Prior is not a historian. It is being claimed on the talk page that because the material was published by Psychology Press, it may be used in the article for information about history, which is outside Prior's expertise. Is this correct?
And a related question - is it true that anything published by an academic press is considered prima facie reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted here that the article, Palestinian People is not a historical article. The statement the source is being used to support is the first sentence of the lead defining the subject: "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." The definition of Palestinian People is not a historical question and it is reasonable, in my view, to use experts in a number of scholarly disciplines to give a rounded definition of the topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
See "Jon Gibson & others" on talk page. I feel I am being bullied by an editor who reverted good contributions that was being discussed until there was a concensus or improvements made. He got involved when an open discussion was going on about the edits I provided. This seems to happen a lot with this user: Walter Görlitz (talk). I would like someone else unrelated to him and myself to assist. I feel he is not working with me and should leave it until we resolve the matter. He has belittled me and put unnecessary messages on my talk page that were out-of-line when [he] knows I'm not vandalizing. I'm only trying to expand the section and not be stressed by anyone who doesn't like the content even though it's legit. Thank you for your help! I will be going offline for now and reply later. Hopefully those assisting will have more patience than [him]. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Contemporary Christian music and Talk:Contemporary Christian music#Jon Gibson and others
This topic can be removed. I have decided to avoid WALTER. I posted this so that OTHER users participated and "he" is following me and sticking his nose in what was supposed to be unbias and unrelated to him. I do not want to resolve or discuss it anymore simply because he keeps responding to me in a negative manner and not addressing the concerns on the talk page this is about which asked him to list what was wrong or right about the edit, instead he just removed it all. I am not worried about it anymore, and won't be visiting this topic anymore. I have not even read his responses/input since my last edit. I simply do not care what his "opinion" is after he has made a bad impression on me from the start. I don't deal with people like him, they are toxic/cancer. Again, this can be deleted. I would do it, but i am not tip-toeing around Walter's poor attitude and know he will want to read this when he has nothing better to do, plus i don't want it to seem i am violating any policy (unlike "him"). P.S. This goes for the other mediation/noticeboard pages where this is being discussed (this is the one i created). I am not returning to any of them. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern (FYI update only): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kim_Jones_at_About.com_on_Christian_music P.S. I want no contact with/from "Walter" and will not communicate with him nor read any of his comments/responses. 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: was advised to repost my contribution per my talk page which is currently on the article talk page for review/editing before I add it back at some point. The above user is currently making changes to the overall article, so I will wait several days more than likely until things are settled down some. FYI only... Thanks! 99.129.112.89 ( talk) 08:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this website reliable to cite only the song's key and tempo? Till 14:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Biographical material was recently removed from this article ( diff), specifically, information relating to his parents and their emigration to America (i.e., not particularly contentious). I've since found two sources: [46], and [47].
Would anyone have major objections to these two sources (considering they're both essentially personal webpages) for the purpose of providing a citation for the biographical material removed? Alternatively, does anyone know where better information might be found? ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm involved with an AfD where an editor is trying to say that the review website Press+1 is a reliable source. Even though it has been up since 2007, I'm not entirely convinced that it is. It looks to be that the site doesn't have a set reviewing staff and takes random reviews from anyone. There might be some quality checking, but there's no way of actually being able to verify how in-depth it is. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination) and there are also some sources in question, such as this article from AWN. I'm almost convinced it's a press release or taken predominantly from one, as the names of the show and its crew are all in capital letters, something that is pretty common in press releases. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if Typepad.com is reliable to be included. I want to add content into Diane Chambers and Rebecca Howe by using this link: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/06/shelley_what_we.html -- George Ho ( talk) 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Even during the most terrible morning hours when we should all be asleep, like around 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., Medievia has over 100 sickos awake and typing away.
Another editor raised concerns over the reliability of the source, given its use of 'humorous' language. Since it was published by IDG Books, I think it is enough to support the (non contentious) statement, but if I'm wrong, please chime in. The date is quite old, so that might be a problem.
My main concern is sourcing in the rest of the article. The game is primarily notable ( AFAICT) for a legal controversy surrounding its code and licensing, and so the article is (perhaps rightly so) devoted almost exclusively to that controversy. Since we mention the owner's name, this intersects with BLP. Many of the available sources are poor. Some are acceptable, such as Lee-Ming Zen (2003). "The Impacts of Medievia and Medthievia" (PDF). I believe the article in its current state is acceptable, but I'd like outside input to make sure I'm correct. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So far, the article GodWars is a stub mostly supported by primary sources, and we are trying to improve it and provide serious, secondary sources (the references 2 and 4 are not very good either, but this is the worst). We are having a conversation about it on the talk page, but nobody else is participating so I'm bringing it here. I believe it's worth noting that the other editor has a conflict of interest [ [55]]. The source appears to be a lousy text file, not even signed with a real name but with a nickname (Sunangel). It's hosted on a personal website [56] which doesn't look professional or notable (nothing links to it). EternalFlare ( talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we need some guidance on using DNA Tribes [57] as a source for articles. I was reminded of it when I saw it was used at DNA history of Ancient Egypt. We use it in several articles, see [58] and [59] while at the same time its article was deleted as a non-notable organsiation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Tribes. I think we should attempt to stick to peer reviewed articles for genetics information. Dougweller ( talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Eduardo Saverin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor wants to use Saverin's alleged facebook page as his offficial website in the infobox. I've objected saying there is no way to verify that it's Saverin's facebook page. The other editor is insistent. They also seem to see things I don't, perhaps because they are a facebook user (I am not), but claim that even anyone can see them. Although I think the burden is on the other editor to establish a consensus for using the facebook page ( WP:BRD) and have said so on the talk page, I am not going to battle over it. I looked at the archives of this board, but most of it seems geared to using facebook as a source to support material.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I contend that reliable sources patents are insufficient sources for claims that a certain person invented something, especially when other inventors are traditionally credited with the invention. I suggest multiple high quality secondary sources are required to establish who invented something in controversial cases.
This matter has been discussed since early December at Talk:Integrated circuit#Inventors and Patents and concerns this edit, and a number of similar edits since early December. The edit claims that one Frances Hugle invented a process for fabricating an IC (that is, integrated circuit). To further clarify, in the "Integrated circuit" article is only about monolithic integrated circuits, and does not cover Hybrid integrated circuits. The sources cited are US Patents 3226271 and 2994621. The diff also cites the article's talk page.
I leave it to readers to figure out their favorite way to view patents; the US Patent Office makes them available but you have to jump through hoops to install the right TIFF viewer. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I compiled some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) that clearly indicate Frances described how to fabricate an IC long before Kilby or Noyce made any claims in that regard. It lost its formatting and for that I apologize. Before getting into her words though I would like to offer a review of what an IC is. I keep encountering Wiki editors who are quick to tell me Frances did not invent it but aren't clear at all about what it is.
(It seems that the person who brought this to this board is also somewhat confused, so hopefully these definitions will help simplify and clarify the matter.)
That said, I think a very non-controversial interim way to deal with this has been suggested by Masem. Possibly if those interested would read the excerpts I have compiled, we could achieve consensus?
Before we consider the claims Frances received patents for, we need to know what an integrated circuit is...
1) An integrated circuit (IC), also called microelectronic circuit or chip, is an assembly of electronic components, fabricated as a single unit, in which miniaturized active devices (e.g., transistors and diodes) and passive devices (e.g., capacitors and resistors) and their interconnections are built up on a thin substrate of semiconductor material (typically silicon). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289645/integrated-circuit-IC
2) Integrated circuits, also called "chips", are electronic circuits where all the components (transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors) has been manufactured in the surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/integrated_circuit/
And here are some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) proving Frances invented the processes and the equipment to make them (reduction to practice).
From the first set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2994621A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19610801&DB=&locale=en_EP
"The invention relates to the method of preparing semi conductive films and to the products of such methods." (Page 2, column 1, 1st paragraph)
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)
Page 2, Column 1, lines 35-49:
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method of forming semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals in combination, in which stoichiometric proportions may be automatically obtained." (lines 35-38)
"It is an object of the invention to provide semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic materials or combinations which may be selectively of the n or p types." (lines 39-41)
"It is an object of the invention to provide an improved method for making semi-conductive films having alternate areas of n and p characteristics." (lines 42-44)
"It is an object of the invention to provide a mode of manufacturing semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic combinations, wherein the extent, area, disposition and thickness of the films can be easily, cheaply and accurately controlled." (lines 45-49)
"Briefly, in the practice of the invention, a series of films of metals or semi-metals is formed with the films in superposed relationship on a suitable substrate or support." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 67-70)
Page 3, Column 1, lines 42-65:
"In the fashion indicated, either n or p type films may be formed by varying the thicknesses of the layers and/or the temperature and time of the heating procedure. More than two layers maybe deposited of either of the metals or semi-metals." (lines 42-46)
"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:
3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, and wherein certain areas of the substrate surface are masked with a masking substance prior to the formation of the superposed films so as to restrict such formation to another area of the substrate surface, the masking material being removed prior to the reaction of the superposed films under heat.
Second set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3226271A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19651228&DB=&locale=en_EP
Page 2, Column 1, lines 11-14:
This is a division of applicants' copending case, Serial No. 574, 804, filed March 29, 1956 and bearing the same title, which case issued as Patent 2,994,621 on August 1, 1961.
Page 4, Column 2, lines 67-75:
1. A method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, which comprises sequentially exposing a surface of the substrate to vapors of n and p type materials through the meshes of a screen from separate sources of the n and p type material spaced from each other in a plane, substantially parallel to the substrate surface, whereby the films so formed are characterized by alternating areas of different composition, and subjecting the composite so formed to a heat treatment.
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 1-29:
2. The process claimed in claim 1 in which as initially formed the said films comprise alternating heavy and light deposit areas which area are out of register with each other so that the heat treated composite is characterized by alternating areas having respectively n and p characteristics and meeting in a p-n junction. 3. The method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, the said film being characterized by repetitive n and p junctions, which comprises depositing on said substrate by vaporization from separated sources and through the meshes of a screen located in a plane substantially parallel to the substrate surface, two materials which, being deposited through the meshes of said screen by reason of parallax inherent in the separation of said sources, in repetitive areas characterized by varying quantities of the two materials will produce n and p junctions between said areas. 4. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein said materials are respectively anionic and cationic semi-conductive materials. 5. The process claimed in claim 3 including the step of initially forming a film of semi-conductor on said substrate and wherein the said two materials deposited through said screen are respectively acceptors and donors capable of forming with the predeposited film semi-conductors having n- and p- type characteristics. 6. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein the two materials constitute semi-conductors having respectively n- and p-type characteristics.
Page 5, Column 2, Lines 1-8:
7. The method of making a semi-conductive device characterized by adjacent areas of n and p type materials, which comprises evaporating said n and p type materials from separated locations onto a base through a foraminous element characterized by a plurality of small spaced openings, whereby said n and p type materials are deposited in areas having a side by side relationship whereby to form n and p junctions between said areas.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 06:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
History Lesson in a Patent
If one reads the excerpts provided above, we can deduce a few things about the level of semiconductor device production sophistication in the mid fifties.
1) Semiconductor devices were being made in military funded labs at the time this application was written:
"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)
This invention claims a major improvement ((cost and ease of production) in that devices would now be grown directly onto the substrate rather than added one by one later (thus making possible 'monolithic' IC production rather than the already current 'hybrid' IC production).
2) Circuitry was already being printed upon ceramic substrates (this is NOT the same as a printed circuit board)(see quote below):
"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)
3) The improvement here is that devices are grown directly onto the substrate rather than added to it (see quote below):
Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:
"3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, ..."
These facts of patent tell us that Kilby did not invent the Hybrid IC, it was already in a much more advanced state at the time Frances submitted her patent application describing how to grow devices directly onto a substrate (the monolithic IC, now simply called an IC).
The Kilby story was probably invented to enable commercialization of this technology without disclosing its level of sophistication, which was classified.
Similarly, a very opaque patent was cobbled for Noyce.
If we forget the crucible (classified military) in which such inventions become possible, we are left with nothing but mythology... and that is surely reflected in Wikipedia's present treatment of the invention of the IC, something I sincerely hope will be possible to correct.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Historical Reflections
The Frances Hugle patent(s) were awarded in 1961 and 1965. I imagine that one of the reasons they were delayed was due to decisions to introduce the technologies, declassify them, in a certain way that precluded exposing the classified work at Baldwin.
Additionally, following the death of Frances, a popular journalist, Don Hoefler, entered Silicon Valley and proceeded to codify the history of the industry. Still, according one of Don's close relatives, he admitted privately that he knew Frances had invented the IC and not Noyce.
Regardless, you now have proof of who invented the monolithic IC and the processes involved.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Patents are not a reliable source for invention priority, as can be seen by all the argumentation above. They require interpretation by secondary sources to say, "this patent was issued before any others, and that's good enough evidence of priority." In cases where someone developed a similar technology earlier, we need secondary sources which consider the earlier invention to have priority. We don't have to discuss this particular case, but the sheer length of the discussion is evidence for the need for interpretation, showing that patents are a primary source. Mangoe ( talk) 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Cheryl, you really need to get the point of the replies here. Please stop criticising participants for not understanding what an IC is. I have made ICs and am perfectly capable of understanding and drawing conclusions from Hugle's patents. But I am not permitted to write those conclusions into a Wikipedia article. This is not the place to establish Hugle's claims. You need to establish those claims elsewhere. When the results are published in an independent source then you can add something to Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 18:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle