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 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
File:Tokugawa Ieyasu handprint.jpg.-- Inspector ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a research monograph a RS?
The monograph has been summarized in the following secondary sources; are their summaries not preferable to a WP editor's interpretations?
The material drawn out of the monograph for the Waldorf education article is very different in content and style from what and how the secondary sources report on this monograph. The question is whether the original monograph or the secondary sources is the more reliable source for the Waldorf education article. See discussion at Talk:Waldorf_education#Jelinek_.26_Sun_.282003.29_-_Reliable_Source.3F and Talk:Waldorf_education#Jelinek_.26_Sun_.282003.29_-_Reliable_Source.3F_continued. hgilbert ( talk) 23:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I recently expanded Jacob Little from the poor rudimentary shell he once was, but one particular detail seems to vary between the sources I'm using: the date of the raid on the Erie Company stocks (cited in the fifth paragraph of the article). A number of different sources lay out different numbers:
It's puzzling that such a major event could have such widely divergent dates attached to it. Can anyone help me out with verifying the dates? I nothing can be done, which one should be used? Should there be a disclaimer? Res Mar 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagreements over dates are best resolved using contemporary newspapers. Here is a large collection to look at. From the examples you give, I wouldn't be surprised if there was two similar events, one in the 1830s and one in the 1850s. Zero talk 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What do people know about the Serbian newspaper Blic? It was being used as a source for the entire controversy section [1] at the Predrag Danilović page. Not feeling comfortable with the material, I decided to remove all of it, in the spirit of WP:BLP. However, I don't speak or read Serbo-Croatian, so I'm a bit out of my depth here. Zagalejo ^^^ 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I sought to include information, gathered from a Radio four programme, broadcast 4 February 2013, to the page on Alawites . the programme included the testimony of a woman, anonymous, for reasons of personal safety i assume, about the beliefs of Alawites, and in particular, a somewhat denigratory attitude toward women, [2] 05:09 - 06:30 minutes - and a belief in reincarnation . This material was immediately deleted - and with a most insulting edit summary too I might add, to the effect that only 'retards' believed such things. Looking on amazon I soon found a further source for the belief in reincarnation , Nicolas Pelham, a new Muslim order, p.236 - though i had been assured such ideas were 'fringe' etc. Talk:Alawites Is it true, as FunkMonk says , that claims made on radio programmes are of no account, and are inadmissable for consideration for inclusion on the wp article? The editor judged the programme was nothing short of an attempt to demonise Alawites. i do not believe this is a very helpful approach. so my question is, is the radio programme useless as a source of info on Alawite beliefs and attitudes? Sayerslle ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know more information about this. Unless the tenets are dogma are spelled-out somewhere, it could just be an inside joke or something that is not meant to be taken seriously. One way to figure out how serious this is would be to try and find out if there are any women or men participants who would seriously want to be reincarnated as a woman, and if they are allowed to have any choice in the matter before-hand. And if-so what would they decide and why? Or if being reincarnated as a member of any particular gender was considered a good thing or bad thing or more blessed/lucky whatever. I'm not sure about rendering the radio-guest's comments as "demonizing". That would seem to point-to it not being factual but it is hard to tell
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I have been involved in a DRN and some other attempts at resolving a large-scale removal of information from all of The Real Housewives of...television show article pages.[
[5]] Although I have made numerous attempts at trying to resolve the problem, I have not received any indication that my complaint was taken seriously. I'm pretty sure that I have been tag-teamed and I am hoping that anyone with knowledge of The real Housewives tv franchise could take a look and tell me that I am not losing my mind please. Thanks in advance.
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh-and just because this request may look like it is not in the correct place, coming here was recommended as a remedy on the tag-team page-ty. And sourcing was a problem with this particular section deletion because the material was available on short youtube clips as the primary source and never noted through-out more than the 128 edits that were wiped-out [
[6]]
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 07:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This dif shows a conflict over a primary source. The question is whether or not it should be included in the article, or if any reference should even be made to it at all. Legal threats + history of ArbCom ruling = I look for outside opinions. Thanks. Andrew 327 08:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Can this website be used as a reliable source? It is an academics website which consists solely of user-submitted content (research papers, etc.) and has profiles and followers. This page from the the website was added as a source (the only source) at Pier Giuseppe Monateri last night, a few minutes after an AfD discussion was created. [8] If it cannot be used, can someone please remove it with an edit summary explaining why? Thank you. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What do people think about the reliability of the Citypopulation.de website. I know it's been around for a few years, but does it fall foul of WP:SPS? The particular article I would potentially like to use it on is List of cities and towns in Russia by population although it could potentially be used on various such articles. See also talk discussion at [9]. Eldumpo ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that would be of interest to those that follow this noticeboard. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A group of students has taken on a few articles on Second Life and Machinima. Reliable sources are hard to find in the mainstream because sub-culture news is not very notable to the mainstream. Can inworld papers like The Alphaville Herald] be used for sources of inworld material in articles? I also found a Thesis on machinima for use in the machinima articles. Does a thesis count as a reliable source?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm interested to know if this piece would be acceptable as a source for an article I'm planning to put through FAC. The Girl is a 2012 dramatisation of an alleged obsession the film director Alfred Hitchcock developed for one of his starring actresses, Tippi Hedren, and is based on the content of a book published in 2009. The piece from The Times discusses the same subject, but it predates the book and film by several years, so isn't talking about the topic in the context of the film. It was briefly used to support some information in The Girl's article, but I removed it amid concerns it could be seen as original research and would harm the article's prospects at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light. I have the information backed by a different newspaper, but have held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. Can anyone help? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Razib Khan writes the "Gene Expression" column in Discover (magazine), a science magazine (see here). On the topic of genetics, I assume that this source would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG - "acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So there is some discussion at Talk:Huey P. Newton#John Frey admission about a claim that was recently removed by an IP editor. It intersects with a discussion at WP:BLPN that appears to now be mostly resolved, at least with regard to Newton.
The concern regards an account of a statement by Newton which appears in a book by Hugh Pearson, Shadow of the Panther. The section in Google Books contains the relevant pages, 5-7, leading up to the purported admission, but does not contain the reference, p. 349:
3. Newton admitting to killing Frey: Interview with Robert Trivors, Santa Cruz, October 2, 1992; interview with Willie Payne, Oakland, July 28, 1992.
Additionally, Joe Street in "Historiography of the Black Panther Party ( article, pdf) which is the only source I am aware of that attempts to assess the reliability of the various sources on Newton and the Panthers, does characterize Pearson's work as being "...built on a collection of accounts written by observers and right-wing writers..." though also acknowledges it as a seminal work. Notably, it does not appear that the claims about Newton's admission appear anywhere else that cannot be traced directly to Pearson's Shadow. If it's not clear from the Google Books listing, the Pearson account describes a scene of intoxication, by both Newton and others, surrounding the statement Newton is alleged to have made.
So, the question is, is it acceptable to include this allegation, given:
And, if the allegation is to be included, is the existing wording accurate enough, or should more or less be included about the sourcing of the allegation itself?
From my perspective, I can see this going either way. I have been conservative insofar as I have reverted an attempt to put the allegation back into the article, because I do feel like it could go either way, and I am uncomfortable returning it to the article without more substantial discussion than seems to be available at the article itself.
If this is the wrong venue for this, and perhaps an RfC (or some other mechanism) would be more appropriate, just point me in that direction.
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the Japanese American Veterans Association a reliable source for the article Military history of Asian Americans? They are referenced three times in the article:
If it is not a reliable source, why is it not? If it is a reliable source, why is it? If it is not a reliable source, are there alternate sources that would verify the content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_pgc_jewish_essay.shtml is an essay published by a professor of history at Binghamton University, and "compiled" by the New York State archives. In general, would it count as an RS?
Is Gamer Spawn a reliable sourced? Please see Template:Did you know nominations/My Hands for more details. — AARON • TALK 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The content in question is
She said "I'm thrilled to be collaborating with Square Enix on such a groundbreaking game. I never would have imagined 'My Hands' as such a perfect fit for Final Fantasy XIII, but the strong female protagonist struck a chord with me and I can't wait to see Lightning do her thing."
The references is as follows:
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)As a youtube source, I am wondering if this is a reliable source. I am unaware of a regular webpage for the author. (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of football (soccer) player articles use sites such as soccerbase or transfermarkt, which looking at the RSN archive aren't regarded as being reliable sources. I was wondering what your thoughts are on 11v11.com (operated by the Association of Football Statisticians) and footballdatabase? The references given by both sites are impressive enough - 11v11.com claims to supply the FA, Premier League and Football League, and footballdatabase claim a long list of international clients. Both sites have a log-in system for their forums, comments etc, but the databases don't appear to be user-generated. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work - vs. Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned anti-abortion activist. Which is a reliable source for an analysis of Sanger's motives in founding Planned Parenthood? One user, at Talk:Maafa 21, claims that they are both equally reliable. This is, of course, nonsense. Let's enforce WP:RS. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that the two "outside editors" who offered an opinion on the specific issue, GRuban and Location, agreed that Katz 's criticism of the film should be attributed to her IN-TEXT. Badmintonhist ( talk) 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Confusion caused by poorly worded question
|
---|
|
There is currently a debate on
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I am not a party to the debate (in fact, I have an opinion on the matter, but am withholding it so I can continue to act as an administrator on the page) but in order to try to stop the sniping between the involved editors, I'm bringing the matter here. There is a book entitled
The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qæda.See below
Qwyrxian (
talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) It's published by the University of California, so I'm fairly certain it meets our general RS concerns. The question is what we can actually say from the source. Okay, we have the book's title; the issue in question comes from a chapter entitled "Religious Justification for Terrorism". In that chapter, there is a section that says the following (two quotes):
Collapsed quotation for ease of reading
|
---|
"Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into..."
|
Given the title of the book and chapter, but also given the fact that nowhere in the relevant text does it explicitly use the word "terrorist", can this book/section/quotation be used to support a claim in the article to the effect of "The RSS is a Hindu terrorist group."? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Can this [16] be considered a reliable source for the history of astronomy? My impression is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance, Athenean ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Kition, a relatively new editor ( The long road homw ( talk · contribs), 10 day old account) has added numerous citations and new material to the article, all cited to "According to the text on the only plaque at the Kathari site (as of 2013)", "Excerpt of wall mounted text in exhibit room number two at Larnaca District Museum" and similar statements. Unfortunately, there are no links to images of said plaques. Reliable source of information? He iro 10:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In the alternative medicine section of the 'Medical Uses of Silver' article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver) I added the following sentence...
Colloidal silver is often made at home using a simple electrolysis system comprising little more than a battery or low voltage DC wall adaptor directly connected to two silver wires suspended in a glass of pure water.
I thought this was a pretty uncontroversial statement but it was challenged and a citation was requested, even though its not actually a medical claim. Its very hard to find a single 'reliable source' for this statement (certainly theres nothing in Pubmed) but a Google search of 'How to make Colloidal silver' will turn up 1,590,000 results, mostly describing the electrolysis method using home-made or commercially purchased 'generators' as they are called.
So how do I resolve this? Is a google search a satisfactory way to prove 'the bleedin' obvious'? I feel I'm being asked to cite that the sky is blue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLUE Blakebeau ( talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As for whether its really 'colloidal', I understand, but I think that's a separate issue. The product that is generically called 'colloidal silver' and is made at home or is available in health food stores, is made by electrolysis as I described above. This generic product is what the article/section is referring to whether its technically correct or not. Tens of thousands of Google results will tell you how this generic product is made but so far I'm unable to mention it in the article. (The article possibly does need a fuller description of what 'colloidal' really means to try and cover this problem of mislabelling but thats another concern for the article.) Blakebeau ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the chiropractic talk page regarding the question Is chiropractic is a health care profession?. It is proposed that the first sentence of the lead be amended to include the description: "health care profession".
I'm not totally sure about the others, but the NCCAM definition by itself I'd find sufficient to support the proposed text. I don't know whether chiropractic is effective, but it does indeed at least intend to train and license people to treat disease and improve health, and earn a living doing so. Given these sources, the qualifier "complementary and alternative medicine" is indeed required to be part of the definition, as proposed.
Zad
68
04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone likely to challenge that chiropractors get paid? That really is the hallmark of any profession is that you earn income from your endeavors.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.
However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo?
Aaleksanyants ( talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
See User:Ninthabout/Robert Temple cleanup. I'm involved in an ongoing effort to remove or replace an unreliable source used in some history of China articles. I'm posting a notification here in case anyone wants to help.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This article [19] from The San Antonio Express News is currently in use in the La Luz del Mundo, specifically in the Controversy section. It seems to have a highly sensationalist tone, and seems to pay lots of attention to rumors. The article also relies heavily on a dubious source discussed here. How reliable is this source? Should it be used to make contentious claims?
The source was first introduced here in an extremely biased addition. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to ask if this would be acceptable to be used as a source to prove that bat'leths are sold by Amazon? I thought it would be better to use something like this rather than cite Amazon directly. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 08:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I ask again: is Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work, a reliable source on the history and goals of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger? Per WP:FRINGE, we are asked to contextualize fringe views with mainstream views, so it it is reasonable and not only within policy but called for by policy to write, in Maafa 21, that scholars like Katz find the film's fringe claims "completely wrong and without evidence." (Katz's actual comment is that they are "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," but I thought it more encyclopedic to paraphrase.)
Unfortunately, fans of the film are edit-warring to blank any information that suggests its claims are not true. (OTOH, the last discussion demonstrated clear support for including Katz's view and these users are reverting anyway, so another discussion that confirms the consensus might also not prevent their edit-warring, but...) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
(
edit conflict):Roscelese is of course identifying the subject expert, but not the source which upon further examination will show the proposed edit is a mischaracterization of the source.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a documentary being used as a reliable source for claims bothe on its own article page and on David A. Siegel. I tried to explain that a film is a poor source when no transcript per WP:RS is provided, and even more so when it is used to make allegations about a living person committing a crime, as in the Siegel BLP. See [21], [22] where the editor uses primary court documents to allege crimes [23] etc. On the movie article [24] also argues that a court decision is not a court record per WP:RS <g> (his edit summary is a court judgement is not a 'transcript of court proceedings' and is about a valid a source as you can possibly get)
Will someone please tell that editor why court records are not used per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and why transcripts are used when a film is being cited as a source -- especially when it is being cited as a claim of criminal acts of a living person? Collect ( talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I reject the idea that sourcing is automatically weak just because it is to a film without a transcript. I am not aware of any basis for this in policy or general practice, though as a written medium we obviously prefer to cite other written media where possible. Some editors may not be able to evaluate such a source, for example because they are deaf or hard of hearing or because they don't understand the language well enough. But that can happen even with our best sources, which may only be available in a few libraries, may require an online subscription, or may be written in a rare language. It only becomes problematic if a source requires too much interpretation or is accessible to too few editors. But that can happen with books as well and is certainly not a specific problem with the medium. Whether something said in a documentary can establish noteworthiness for negative information in a biography is a tricky question. I think that depends on the exposure that the documentary got and the amount of attention it gives to the negative information. Hans Adler 15:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully we've established above that court judgements can and are used as reliable sources, and that video does not require a transcript (and often is used eg newscasts to mention just one). Frankly I am amazed this has been questioned by Collect which is why I asked for any declaration of interest. I was not suggesting anything though I can see a request put that way appears so. I apologise if I did imply anything. But I would still appreciate the declaration. I do think my edits were being removed on spurious grounds. Noteworthiness is a very good point and a very different issue... 2.30.146.240 ( talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW and in response to the insinuations made: I have no interests whatsoever which could remotely be considered a "conflict of interest." I have stayed at a Westgate facility as a result of an RCI trade, which I do not think is remotely near a personal conflits at all. I have no connection with Siegel, or anyone associated with him, or with the film. Period. Now that that silly charge has been disposed of, it is clear that we would need an actual transcript of the film to assure that nothing is being misquoted or taken out of context, and that the "court records" are not allowed to be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like generic opinion on these sources. The conversation on the
talk page was not sattisfactory to me. So placing my comments here
Sources -
What I would like to understand is, can such sources regarded as reliable? Or is there some generic exemption for TV series as stated by editors in the talk pages. I have also linked MOS for TV series in the talk page every body is getting quite agitated about this. - Wikishagnik ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Today on reddit an exposee on 247wallst.org was posted. It looked only at one article and determined that the impact of the publication stands in no proportion to their quality. Two mistakes originating from said article on wikipedia were identified. They possibly also outsource the creation of the content to uncredited writers.
This looks very mich like a suspicious source and I suggest that the best idea would be to remove all references to them. This is actually a very fascinating article since it shows how unbelievably huge theirt impact is.
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/18kele/one_blatant_factual_mistake_made_by_a_tiny_but/
The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook (2007), the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States,[56] while NIST has claimed that the United States is the only industrialised country where the metric system is not the official system of units.[57] However, reports published since 2007 hold this is no longer true of Liberia or Burma.[58]
212.183.140.58 ( talk) 21:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Authored article The Oregonian: "Chuck Palahniuk announces titles and release dates for next three books" used per policy in the Chuck Palahniuk article, in the section there on his fiction, to confirm the upcoming novel Doom. [39] As this was being used not as an assertion of notability, but simply to cite a novel's name and announcement by the novelist about its upcoming release, are we to now assume that a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not investigate something they published, before they published it? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The article ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party is from a peer-reviewed BMJ Group journal with editorial oversight. It finds that the Tea Party movement was formed by non-profit organizations that were in turn founded and funded by the tobacco industry and other corporate concerns.
There have been concerns raised at Talk:Tea Party movement that the article violates WP:OR for it's own research, that it fails WP:BLP for making contentious claims about a group, that it's phrasing violates WP:WEASEL. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
One would expect experts that special in the dealings of Tobacco companies would be well versed with the politics of tobacco. This source is fine, however I'm a little troubled if their research methods was only google.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm alarmed at the way editors are trying to wriggle round this one. Articles in BMJ journals are reliable, end of story, pretty much. If you find a source of equivalent quality presenting an opposing view, use both. Itsmejudith ( talk)
Whether this particular reliable source should be used in the Tea Party movement article is a separate question, one which is outside the scope of this noticeboard and should be resolved on the article talkpage or via dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 05:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Is www.jainworld.com a reliable source? It is been used in many articles like List of Jains, Indrabhuti Gautama, Islam and Jainism, Jainism in Japan and many more.[ [43]]. Rahul Jain ( talk) 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Author Kailash Chand Jain, Publisher Motilal Banarsidass, 1972
Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1991
Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1972
Kailash Chand Jain, D. K. Print World (P) Limited, 2010
Some are however published by Trusts:
Kailash Chand Jain, Ahimsa Mandir Prakashan, Shri Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, 1998.
He apparently wrote for www.jainworld.com without charging money, or it may have been sponsored by a trust. I would accept works of K.C. Jain as scholarly. However as I said, difference of views is common among scholars. Incidentally, I am an academic too. Malaiya ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
A source making a claim about itself seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS. Thoughts? Location ( talk) 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
On his talkpage User: West Horizon has suggested this article on the Good Man Project website as a source for the history of the Fathers' Rights Movement and Fathers' rights movement in the United States. The material in the article places the origins of the men's rights movement in the 1920s, contradicting multiple scholarly sources that date it from the 1960s. [44] [45] [46] [47].
On the plus side, the Good Man Project website has a named editorial team etc [48]; on the downside the same page suggests that they may publish just about anything. "We shy away from nothing. Our content reflects the multidimensionality of men — we are alternatively funny and serious, provocative and thoughtful, earnest and light-hearted. We search far and wide for new stories and new voices from “the front lines of modern manhood.” Another concern regarding expertise is that the author Robert St-Estephe, who is described as historian but also "a deeply repentant former mangina who has devoted a bit of time to the study of the history of the relations between the sexes", is not traceable on the internet apart from postings on men's rights websites [49]. Any thoughts? -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Jayjg is (probably quite properly) removing citations to the works of discredited historian (and Holocaust denier) David Irving. I have no issue with this. However, out with the bathwater is going to baby of secondary citations, some to the London Times, some to other, non-Irving works, when the citations contain links to Irving's website or other traces of Irving. I am curious as to the correct response to this. An example is Special Operations Executive, where the offending link is to a copy of an article from The Independent. Another is the excision of a primary source (a diary) because it is contained on Irving's site (this might be more reasonable) in Alexander Scotland. What is the correct protocol for a sweeping removal of "bad" or discredited links like this? Malay Agin ( talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Can I have opinions as to the reliability of the following documents, hosted on the websites of the currently active lobbying groups the UK Metric Association (UKMA) and the U.S. Metric Association (USMA).
The documents are being used to support a variety of assertions in the International System of Units article (section: United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa and Commonwealth of Nations), and are cited as if they are original and legitimate documents.
White Paper on Metrication (1972) – Summary and Conclusions. London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.
South Africa Metrication". South African Government. 15 September 177.
Final Annual Report (1980-1981) of the (Australian) Metric Conversion Board (MCB)
Final Report of the Metrication Board (1980). London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.
212.183.140.58 ( talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, Binksternet keeps on believing that Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cities on the list and Hiroshima was not. I don't want to go any further as things will gets ugly in the "leaflet" section " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets". I attempted to remove it in the "leaflet" section, and Bink kept on reversing it back to way it was without providing any legitimate explanation to me whatsoever. Everytime i tried to edit out the problem and everytime i tried to explain he keeps on telling me to go to the talk article and he kept on reversing the back the way it was. The whole thing is he keeps on believing that the Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cites with Hiroshima not on the list which no major sources ever said it as i i said again in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=history Earlier, he puts on this last sentence on late December 2012, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." This is really blatantly dishonest to deceive a reader because two books he put our there said it differently:
"Before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the city was given the standard psychological warfare treatment prior to an incendiary attack. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, indicating, along with several other cities, that they were to be fire bombed within a few days and to evacuate the city. The leaflets are on display at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and were dropped on the city several days prior to the atomic bombing." No Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999."
"But, the leaflet continued, unless the country agreed to immediate surrender, the bombings would continue. On the back of the leaflet, along with a photograph of a superfortress, were listed the cities destined for destruction: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabaru, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima, it will be noted, was absent from that list; so were Nagasaki, Kokura, and Niigata." The Day man lost: Hiroshima, page 215. Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981."
So based on the two links, I then remove that last sentence as i stated above because they are mixed together such as the leaflet was displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Museum (no link even said this nor i know many people who lived there did not say anything about it) to deceive a reader then Bink kept on adding in with the sources continueing on claiming to have that Hiroshima warned with 12 leaflets and Hiroshima was not on the list. He added this link: http://www.gifu-np.co.jp/kikaku/2008/gifu63/g63_20080804.shtml and he claimed that the leaflets were warned on Hiroshima based on the link he provided and said this: "One such leaflet lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed."
He kept on saying this because he believes that Hiroshima was given a 12 city warning when i saw no evidence providing to the contrary whatsoever. And he added the 2nd link in addition to the Japanese link claimed it was based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
Would you read it and does it REALLY says that Hiroshima was given such as 12 city leaflet? I don't think so. This Google link specifically did not say anything about Hiroshima given the 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not which makes no sense and this link did not specifically say anything about it. I like the say the leaflet section is written as earlier on the article earlier didn't say any information about the leaflets, just had problem with the last sentence to claim that Hiroshima received a warning with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not. That link isn't along with the Japanese link reliable enough to support the evidence. XXzoonamiXX
"possibly get?" You were saying to the fact that Hiroshima was WARNED with the leaflet drops which list 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. Also, you already put in the article main page that no warning was going to given to Hiroshima that the atomic bomb was going to be dropped so your argument is moot. I also already know that Hiroshima was preserved from firebombing so they could assess the damage caused by the nuclear bomb. Again that's completely out of the topic what we are focusing now.
2nd of all, it says, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." However, it is clear that after the sentences, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima."
Now it goes off THEN saying Tokyo predicted the invasion then said that all the major cities had been firebombed and the rest nothing said about the Hiroshima residents in the sentences. It also says that the leaflets warned on which mostly like the Japanese cities in general which listed of cities for targeting and Hiroshima was not on the list so it did not say specifically enough that Hiroshima was given such a warning with four cities listed and Hiroshima was not. So you come to the automatic conclusion that Hiroshima was given such a warning of what you put out in which the link specifically nothing about it.
3rd of all, it says four cities in that Miller link yet it did not say about 12 cities listed and and yet that was put on the article main page. This is a bit deceiving at it's best as you mix two link together as you previously did before. Also, Miller's link inaccurately says that Hiroshima only housed 25,000 troops (All the major sources, including the Japanese ones, agreed that it was about 40,000 soldiers in Hiroshima). If Japanese citizens in Hiroshima was given such a warning (12 cities listed/Hiroshima not), then why didn't the residents say anything about the leaflets being warned with leaflet (12 cities/ Hiroshima was not) nor goes on the details that Japanese officers said so itself? The link make it seems like as it was a third-world source and it make no sense at all.
Also, I was talking about Hiroshima warned of a conventional bombing, not a nuclear bomb and I know that. I don’t want to discredit you but when you put out the last link when it does not specifically say it (As I told you above already) makes other sources seems very discreditable and assume to all sources that say leaflets was warned to Hiroshima about the conventional bombings a bunch of lies. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer has independent notability as an advocate of various conspiracy theories and he is certainly a reliable source for his opinion; however, Assassination Research and www.assassinationresearch.com appear to be self-published by Fetzer. I'm seeking other opinions on the permissibility of this source in the article given that WP:SPS refers to claims about third parties. (One confounding factor, the Fetzer article contains one or two of Bugliosi's opinions about Fetzer taken from Reclaiming History. Tit for tat?) Thanks! Location ( talk) 04:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, there is currently the claim that Pope Benedict will choose to remain in the Vatican in order to avoid the possibility of lawsuits. This is clearly a very strong claim, and there has been some dispute about including it. The source being used is Reuters, so that's good, but the article, " Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican", is relying on two anonymous "Vatican officials" as the source for the claim. The article also acknowledges that there are no current cases that name Benedict. So my query is whether or not this is sufficiently reliable for a claim of that strength. - Bilby ( talk) 02:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wiki. I am the computer tech/financial advisor to Gary Webb (racing Driver) from Blue Grass. The last statement about him (married to ...) is wrong & causes family tension & I don't know how to remove. The rest of the article has incorrect dates & numbers I want to submit correct dates & figures but am not sure of the format needed. This is coming from Gary Webb's mouth so am not sure how to list source either....
Walter Görlitz ( talk · contribs), an editor of some experience, maintains that we should keep a "rumor" in one of our articles, Volkswagen_1-litre_car#.24600_price_rumour, though it is based only on the evidence of a website, "truthorfiction.com": this rumor is reprinted here, with reference made to one single email. If you look at the talk page (unpleasant discussion ongoing; I had asked Gorlitz on their talk page but they moved it to the article talk page) you'll find another link, this one, on an even more questionable site, Resources for Life ("Holistic Wellness! Business Services!"). You'll also see that Gorlitz has defended the section before against two other editors. Now, Gorlitz, I think, claims the information is "reliably sourced" because, I suppose, he looked at a clip from ABC on that Holistic website. The clip is no longer there, and it's impossible to tell "what" ABC it was, or which one of their local (and often not so reliable) affiliates.
It is my contention that neither of these two websites are reliable sources; that the memory of Gorlitz having seen the clip is not enough to verify that the information was indeed every reported on a news program; and that the information should be removed since we don't report internet rumors unless they're reliably sourced and of some value to an article. Drmies ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#onefivenine. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Salvatore Giunta#February 2013. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking for advice -- I'm about to embark on a major edit of the page for Tough Trip through Paradise, and I've got two sources to ask about.
The first is the Andrew Garcia--Mountain Man page on franksrealm.com, which was heavily used as a source by the last editor. The franksrealm page only gives "Donald Gilbert y Chavez" as its source, and I've noticed a number of discrepancies between franksrealm and the handful of print sources I've consulted thus far.
The other question I have is whether an online guide or finding aid to a manuscript collection held in an archives is considered an acceptable/reliable source. I know the manuscript collection itself is a primary source and therefor not to be used, but what of the description of the collection, as published to an online catalog by the historical society that owns the collection? The specific page I have in mind is the Northwest Digital Archives page for the Ben Stein research collection. If it's a no-go I have other sources to use, but I'd like to know before I begin my edits in earnest. (apologies for initial failure to sign; still new to this) RogueArchivist ( talk) 23:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the use at KochPAC proper in using pages from OpenSectrets.org to make statements which use information compiled from that site? Specifically the detailed information about how many candidates received X amount of money from the PAC? In addition, claims are made in that article which do not even seem to originate from Opensecrets.org on the pages cited at all. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Some questions arise about the use of the magazine associated with Careers 360. The main site of the organization is Careers 360 Following is a link to the magazine archives: Magazine archives.
The magazine is used as a source in Indian Institute of Planning and Management and is the subject of discussion in Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy
Both of those articles have cleanup issues, with dead links, citations needed and other issues, but one of the issues to address is whether links to the magazine constitute reliable sources.
Does the magazine arm of a career resource organization enjoy the same status as a news magazine? What should our position be on the use of this source?
This is one of the references used: example
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The source is being used to support, inter alia, this claim:
As per Mahesh B Sarma in Careers 360, NVAO, the accreditation organization for Netherlands and Flanders,[ has clarified that IMI "is not a recognised higher education institution in the Dutch or French speaking part of Belgium" and cannot award recognised degrees.
That claim appears,on its face, to be supported by the reference. However, as the article goes on to note:
In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360.[100] According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360.[92] In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360.
I think we ought to have serious reservations about using as a source a publication which has been found to have published defamatory material. If this is were isolated, it might not be much of an argument. Surely many sources accepted as reliable sources have lost a defamation suit at some time. However, this suit was directly involved with coverage of this incident.
I should note that I am in OTRS email discussions with one of the parties.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martinus_University_Faculty_of_Medicine
In the history section of this page there are multiple reference that are incorrect
St. Martinus University was established on May 22, 2000. In 2010 with escalating debts and low enrollment the university was forced to close.[1] St. Martinus reopened under new ownership in October 2010.[2]
The reference referred [1] does not mention anything about the year it was closed. In fact the university was never closed. A verfiable reference that was provided that shows the university is awarding degrees since 2003 to current is being removed.
[2] In addition the University is designated by Canada as an institute for highr learning. The requirement for the institute to be on higher learning are as follows:
(a) An international post-secondary educational institution located outside the United States must meet the following criteria: be approved for the purpose of student financial assistance in its home country; and demonstrate stability by having been in continuous operation for a minimum of two years prior to designation.
(b) An international post-secondary educational institution must also be listed in one of the following references:
International Handbook of Universities (International Association of Universities, Stockton Press), the World of Learning (Europa Publications), the Commonwealth Universities website at www.acu.ac.uk/home , the International Association of Universities website at www.unesco.org/iau/members_friends/mem_membinst1.html, the federal school look up for FAFSA, (US Department of Education www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0607/fslookup.htm, or Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (Greenwood Publishing Group),
2. International post-secondary educational institutions located outside of the United States offering medical programs must meet the following criteria in addition to the criteria listed above in section 2:
Be listed on the International Medical Education Directory imed.ecfmg.org/ maintained by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) or the World Directory of Medical Schools www.who.int/hrh/documents/wdms_upgrade/en/index.html maintained by the World Health Organization. Be approved by a member of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada; Be in continuous operation for at least ten years.
The university is approved by Canada government in Jan, 3 2013. This implies that the university is continuous operations for the last 10 years.
This is logical that a wrong resource is being put. We kindly make a request to fix this error and correct tthe history sections.-- Sharmauiuc ( talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Magill Magazine
The question here is around Magill, an Irish current affairs magazine which is now out of publication. At the time of the publication of the article in question, the magazine was being edited by Eamon Delaney. There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.
Limerick Leader
The Limerick Leader is one of the Johnston Press Ireland titles. It is a local weekly paper with a relatively small circulation although is the largest paid-for newspaper in the whole Mid-West region of Ireland. On its website the newspaper claims to have "a cherished reputation as the local paper of record". There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed a review from the Blogspot. I wonder if the removed content should be re-inserted. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A number of what I think are questionable sources is used at Politics of global warming to make statements of fact. These include
There seem to be several other questionable sources and WP:OR there as well, so additional eyes would be welcome. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The text in question is highlighted here:
On the other hand, Adeleye et al state that such arguments are often based on less than stable foundations and may collapse like a "house of cards". [1] [50]
A link to the text being cited on google is here: [51]
The source is being used to assert in the article that "Ex silentio arguments stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." That text is an example of usage that dictionaries often provide. This can be easily seen by looking at other italicized texts in the dictionary entries. The source itself is just a dictionary, and not reliable as a source on historical method even if the opinion being expressed were that of the editors. Humanpublic ( talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Claim: " Viet Cong insurgents reportedly sliced off the genitals of village chiefs and sewed them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, rammed bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slashed open the wombs of pregnant women, disemboweled random civilians and draped their mutilated bodies on fences, machine gunned children, hacked men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education."
Source: Reader's Digest, "The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh," November 1968. Originally the claim was cited to this supposed reproduction of the Readers Digest article on a personal blog site. The link to the blog was removed when the source was originally queried but otherwise the citation remains the same. Article: Vietnam War
Primary sources such as journalistic reports from the time shouldn't be used in historical articles, it amounts to original research, see WP:HISTRS for an essay that condenses many past RS/N discussions on this point. Go out and read scholars of PLAF/PRG and NFL actions against civillians. If there's debate in the scholarship, find the scholarship of the scholarship. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We should not use contemporaneous journalism as a source for events that occured decades ago. Much of the coverage of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin incident on is no longer operative. TFD ( talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles that use John G. Fuller's book "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire" as a source for claims in ergotism and 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. I'm wondering if, given Fuller's output, and not having seen the book itself, it can be considered WP:RS for purposes of describing the mass poisoning incident?
from Ergotism: "A severe outbreak of ergot poisoning occurred, however, in the French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951, resulting in five deaths.[2][3] The incident is described in John Grant Fuller's book The Day of St Anthony's Fire.[3]"
from 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning: "However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit were not consistent with this hypothesis.[8]"
Fuller, John (1969). The Day of St Anthony's Fire. London: Hutchinson.
ISBN
0-09-095460-2.
-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
File:Tokugawa Ieyasu handprint.jpg.-- Inspector ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a research monograph a RS?
The monograph has been summarized in the following secondary sources; are their summaries not preferable to a WP editor's interpretations?
The material drawn out of the monograph for the Waldorf education article is very different in content and style from what and how the secondary sources report on this monograph. The question is whether the original monograph or the secondary sources is the more reliable source for the Waldorf education article. See discussion at Talk:Waldorf_education#Jelinek_.26_Sun_.282003.29_-_Reliable_Source.3F and Talk:Waldorf_education#Jelinek_.26_Sun_.282003.29_-_Reliable_Source.3F_continued. hgilbert ( talk) 23:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I recently expanded Jacob Little from the poor rudimentary shell he once was, but one particular detail seems to vary between the sources I'm using: the date of the raid on the Erie Company stocks (cited in the fifth paragraph of the article). A number of different sources lay out different numbers:
It's puzzling that such a major event could have such widely divergent dates attached to it. Can anyone help me out with verifying the dates? I nothing can be done, which one should be used? Should there be a disclaimer? Res Mar 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagreements over dates are best resolved using contemporary newspapers. Here is a large collection to look at. From the examples you give, I wouldn't be surprised if there was two similar events, one in the 1830s and one in the 1850s. Zero talk 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What do people know about the Serbian newspaper Blic? It was being used as a source for the entire controversy section [1] at the Predrag Danilović page. Not feeling comfortable with the material, I decided to remove all of it, in the spirit of WP:BLP. However, I don't speak or read Serbo-Croatian, so I'm a bit out of my depth here. Zagalejo ^^^ 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I sought to include information, gathered from a Radio four programme, broadcast 4 February 2013, to the page on Alawites . the programme included the testimony of a woman, anonymous, for reasons of personal safety i assume, about the beliefs of Alawites, and in particular, a somewhat denigratory attitude toward women, [2] 05:09 - 06:30 minutes - and a belief in reincarnation . This material was immediately deleted - and with a most insulting edit summary too I might add, to the effect that only 'retards' believed such things. Looking on amazon I soon found a further source for the belief in reincarnation , Nicolas Pelham, a new Muslim order, p.236 - though i had been assured such ideas were 'fringe' etc. Talk:Alawites Is it true, as FunkMonk says , that claims made on radio programmes are of no account, and are inadmissable for consideration for inclusion on the wp article? The editor judged the programme was nothing short of an attempt to demonise Alawites. i do not believe this is a very helpful approach. so my question is, is the radio programme useless as a source of info on Alawite beliefs and attitudes? Sayerslle ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know more information about this. Unless the tenets are dogma are spelled-out somewhere, it could just be an inside joke or something that is not meant to be taken seriously. One way to figure out how serious this is would be to try and find out if there are any women or men participants who would seriously want to be reincarnated as a woman, and if they are allowed to have any choice in the matter before-hand. And if-so what would they decide and why? Or if being reincarnated as a member of any particular gender was considered a good thing or bad thing or more blessed/lucky whatever. I'm not sure about rendering the radio-guest's comments as "demonizing". That would seem to point-to it not being factual but it is hard to tell
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I have been involved in a DRN and some other attempts at resolving a large-scale removal of information from all of The Real Housewives of...television show article pages.[
[5]] Although I have made numerous attempts at trying to resolve the problem, I have not received any indication that my complaint was taken seriously. I'm pretty sure that I have been tag-teamed and I am hoping that anyone with knowledge of The real Housewives tv franchise could take a look and tell me that I am not losing my mind please. Thanks in advance.
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh-and just because this request may look like it is not in the correct place, coming here was recommended as a remedy on the tag-team page-ty. And sourcing was a problem with this particular section deletion because the material was available on short youtube clips as the primary source and never noted through-out more than the 128 edits that were wiped-out [
[6]]
24.0.133.234 (
talk) 07:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This dif shows a conflict over a primary source. The question is whether or not it should be included in the article, or if any reference should even be made to it at all. Legal threats + history of ArbCom ruling = I look for outside opinions. Thanks. Andrew 327 08:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Can this website be used as a reliable source? It is an academics website which consists solely of user-submitted content (research papers, etc.) and has profiles and followers. This page from the the website was added as a source (the only source) at Pier Giuseppe Monateri last night, a few minutes after an AfD discussion was created. [8] If it cannot be used, can someone please remove it with an edit summary explaining why? Thank you. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What do people think about the reliability of the Citypopulation.de website. I know it's been around for a few years, but does it fall foul of WP:SPS? The particular article I would potentially like to use it on is List of cities and towns in Russia by population although it could potentially be used on various such articles. See also talk discussion at [9]. Eldumpo ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that would be of interest to those that follow this noticeboard. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A group of students has taken on a few articles on Second Life and Machinima. Reliable sources are hard to find in the mainstream because sub-culture news is not very notable to the mainstream. Can inworld papers like The Alphaville Herald] be used for sources of inworld material in articles? I also found a Thesis on machinima for use in the machinima articles. Does a thesis count as a reliable source?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm interested to know if this piece would be acceptable as a source for an article I'm planning to put through FAC. The Girl is a 2012 dramatisation of an alleged obsession the film director Alfred Hitchcock developed for one of his starring actresses, Tippi Hedren, and is based on the content of a book published in 2009. The piece from The Times discusses the same subject, but it predates the book and film by several years, so isn't talking about the topic in the context of the film. It was briefly used to support some information in The Girl's article, but I removed it amid concerns it could be seen as original research and would harm the article's prospects at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light. I have the information backed by a different newspaper, but have held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. Can anyone help? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Razib Khan writes the "Gene Expression" column in Discover (magazine), a science magazine (see here). On the topic of genetics, I assume that this source would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG - "acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So there is some discussion at Talk:Huey P. Newton#John Frey admission about a claim that was recently removed by an IP editor. It intersects with a discussion at WP:BLPN that appears to now be mostly resolved, at least with regard to Newton.
The concern regards an account of a statement by Newton which appears in a book by Hugh Pearson, Shadow of the Panther. The section in Google Books contains the relevant pages, 5-7, leading up to the purported admission, but does not contain the reference, p. 349:
3. Newton admitting to killing Frey: Interview with Robert Trivors, Santa Cruz, October 2, 1992; interview with Willie Payne, Oakland, July 28, 1992.
Additionally, Joe Street in "Historiography of the Black Panther Party ( article, pdf) which is the only source I am aware of that attempts to assess the reliability of the various sources on Newton and the Panthers, does characterize Pearson's work as being "...built on a collection of accounts written by observers and right-wing writers..." though also acknowledges it as a seminal work. Notably, it does not appear that the claims about Newton's admission appear anywhere else that cannot be traced directly to Pearson's Shadow. If it's not clear from the Google Books listing, the Pearson account describes a scene of intoxication, by both Newton and others, surrounding the statement Newton is alleged to have made.
So, the question is, is it acceptable to include this allegation, given:
And, if the allegation is to be included, is the existing wording accurate enough, or should more or less be included about the sourcing of the allegation itself?
From my perspective, I can see this going either way. I have been conservative insofar as I have reverted an attempt to put the allegation back into the article, because I do feel like it could go either way, and I am uncomfortable returning it to the article without more substantial discussion than seems to be available at the article itself.
If this is the wrong venue for this, and perhaps an RfC (or some other mechanism) would be more appropriate, just point me in that direction.
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the Japanese American Veterans Association a reliable source for the article Military history of Asian Americans? They are referenced three times in the article:
If it is not a reliable source, why is it not? If it is a reliable source, why is it? If it is not a reliable source, are there alternate sources that would verify the content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_pgc_jewish_essay.shtml is an essay published by a professor of history at Binghamton University, and "compiled" by the New York State archives. In general, would it count as an RS?
Is Gamer Spawn a reliable sourced? Please see Template:Did you know nominations/My Hands for more details. — AARON • TALK 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The content in question is
She said "I'm thrilled to be collaborating with Square Enix on such a groundbreaking game. I never would have imagined 'My Hands' as such a perfect fit for Final Fantasy XIII, but the strong female protagonist struck a chord with me and I can't wait to see Lightning do her thing."
The references is as follows:
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)As a youtube source, I am wondering if this is a reliable source. I am unaware of a regular webpage for the author. (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of football (soccer) player articles use sites such as soccerbase or transfermarkt, which looking at the RSN archive aren't regarded as being reliable sources. I was wondering what your thoughts are on 11v11.com (operated by the Association of Football Statisticians) and footballdatabase? The references given by both sites are impressive enough - 11v11.com claims to supply the FA, Premier League and Football League, and footballdatabase claim a long list of international clients. Both sites have a log-in system for their forums, comments etc, but the databases don't appear to be user-generated. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work - vs. Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned anti-abortion activist. Which is a reliable source for an analysis of Sanger's motives in founding Planned Parenthood? One user, at Talk:Maafa 21, claims that they are both equally reliable. This is, of course, nonsense. Let's enforce WP:RS. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that the two "outside editors" who offered an opinion on the specific issue, GRuban and Location, agreed that Katz 's criticism of the film should be attributed to her IN-TEXT. Badmintonhist ( talk) 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Confusion caused by poorly worded question
|
---|
|
There is currently a debate on
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I am not a party to the debate (in fact, I have an opinion on the matter, but am withholding it so I can continue to act as an administrator on the page) but in order to try to stop the sniping between the involved editors, I'm bringing the matter here. There is a book entitled
The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qæda.See below
Qwyrxian (
talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) It's published by the University of California, so I'm fairly certain it meets our general RS concerns. The question is what we can actually say from the source. Okay, we have the book's title; the issue in question comes from a chapter entitled "Religious Justification for Terrorism". In that chapter, there is a section that says the following (two quotes):
Collapsed quotation for ease of reading
|
---|
"Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into..."
|
Given the title of the book and chapter, but also given the fact that nowhere in the relevant text does it explicitly use the word "terrorist", can this book/section/quotation be used to support a claim in the article to the effect of "The RSS is a Hindu terrorist group."? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Can this [16] be considered a reliable source for the history of astronomy? My impression is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance, Athenean ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Kition, a relatively new editor ( The long road homw ( talk · contribs), 10 day old account) has added numerous citations and new material to the article, all cited to "According to the text on the only plaque at the Kathari site (as of 2013)", "Excerpt of wall mounted text in exhibit room number two at Larnaca District Museum" and similar statements. Unfortunately, there are no links to images of said plaques. Reliable source of information? He iro 10:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In the alternative medicine section of the 'Medical Uses of Silver' article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver) I added the following sentence...
Colloidal silver is often made at home using a simple electrolysis system comprising little more than a battery or low voltage DC wall adaptor directly connected to two silver wires suspended in a glass of pure water.
I thought this was a pretty uncontroversial statement but it was challenged and a citation was requested, even though its not actually a medical claim. Its very hard to find a single 'reliable source' for this statement (certainly theres nothing in Pubmed) but a Google search of 'How to make Colloidal silver' will turn up 1,590,000 results, mostly describing the electrolysis method using home-made or commercially purchased 'generators' as they are called.
So how do I resolve this? Is a google search a satisfactory way to prove 'the bleedin' obvious'? I feel I'm being asked to cite that the sky is blue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLUE Blakebeau ( talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As for whether its really 'colloidal', I understand, but I think that's a separate issue. The product that is generically called 'colloidal silver' and is made at home or is available in health food stores, is made by electrolysis as I described above. This generic product is what the article/section is referring to whether its technically correct or not. Tens of thousands of Google results will tell you how this generic product is made but so far I'm unable to mention it in the article. (The article possibly does need a fuller description of what 'colloidal' really means to try and cover this problem of mislabelling but thats another concern for the article.) Blakebeau ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the chiropractic talk page regarding the question Is chiropractic is a health care profession?. It is proposed that the first sentence of the lead be amended to include the description: "health care profession".
I'm not totally sure about the others, but the NCCAM definition by itself I'd find sufficient to support the proposed text. I don't know whether chiropractic is effective, but it does indeed at least intend to train and license people to treat disease and improve health, and earn a living doing so. Given these sources, the qualifier "complementary and alternative medicine" is indeed required to be part of the definition, as proposed.
Zad
68
04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone likely to challenge that chiropractors get paid? That really is the hallmark of any profession is that you earn income from your endeavors.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.
However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo?
Aaleksanyants ( talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
See User:Ninthabout/Robert Temple cleanup. I'm involved in an ongoing effort to remove or replace an unreliable source used in some history of China articles. I'm posting a notification here in case anyone wants to help.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This article [19] from The San Antonio Express News is currently in use in the La Luz del Mundo, specifically in the Controversy section. It seems to have a highly sensationalist tone, and seems to pay lots of attention to rumors. The article also relies heavily on a dubious source discussed here. How reliable is this source? Should it be used to make contentious claims?
The source was first introduced here in an extremely biased addition. Ajaxfiore ( talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to ask if this would be acceptable to be used as a source to prove that bat'leths are sold by Amazon? I thought it would be better to use something like this rather than cite Amazon directly. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 08:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I ask again: is Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work, a reliable source on the history and goals of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger? Per WP:FRINGE, we are asked to contextualize fringe views with mainstream views, so it it is reasonable and not only within policy but called for by policy to write, in Maafa 21, that scholars like Katz find the film's fringe claims "completely wrong and without evidence." (Katz's actual comment is that they are "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," but I thought it more encyclopedic to paraphrase.)
Unfortunately, fans of the film are edit-warring to blank any information that suggests its claims are not true. (OTOH, the last discussion demonstrated clear support for including Katz's view and these users are reverting anyway, so another discussion that confirms the consensus might also not prevent their edit-warring, but...) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
(
edit conflict):Roscelese is of course identifying the subject expert, but not the source which upon further examination will show the proposed edit is a mischaracterization of the source.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a documentary being used as a reliable source for claims bothe on its own article page and on David A. Siegel. I tried to explain that a film is a poor source when no transcript per WP:RS is provided, and even more so when it is used to make allegations about a living person committing a crime, as in the Siegel BLP. See [21], [22] where the editor uses primary court documents to allege crimes [23] etc. On the movie article [24] also argues that a court decision is not a court record per WP:RS <g> (his edit summary is a court judgement is not a 'transcript of court proceedings' and is about a valid a source as you can possibly get)
Will someone please tell that editor why court records are not used per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and why transcripts are used when a film is being cited as a source -- especially when it is being cited as a claim of criminal acts of a living person? Collect ( talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I reject the idea that sourcing is automatically weak just because it is to a film without a transcript. I am not aware of any basis for this in policy or general practice, though as a written medium we obviously prefer to cite other written media where possible. Some editors may not be able to evaluate such a source, for example because they are deaf or hard of hearing or because they don't understand the language well enough. But that can happen even with our best sources, which may only be available in a few libraries, may require an online subscription, or may be written in a rare language. It only becomes problematic if a source requires too much interpretation or is accessible to too few editors. But that can happen with books as well and is certainly not a specific problem with the medium. Whether something said in a documentary can establish noteworthiness for negative information in a biography is a tricky question. I think that depends on the exposure that the documentary got and the amount of attention it gives to the negative information. Hans Adler 15:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully we've established above that court judgements can and are used as reliable sources, and that video does not require a transcript (and often is used eg newscasts to mention just one). Frankly I am amazed this has been questioned by Collect which is why I asked for any declaration of interest. I was not suggesting anything though I can see a request put that way appears so. I apologise if I did imply anything. But I would still appreciate the declaration. I do think my edits were being removed on spurious grounds. Noteworthiness is a very good point and a very different issue... 2.30.146.240 ( talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW and in response to the insinuations made: I have no interests whatsoever which could remotely be considered a "conflict of interest." I have stayed at a Westgate facility as a result of an RCI trade, which I do not think is remotely near a personal conflits at all. I have no connection with Siegel, or anyone associated with him, or with the film. Period. Now that that silly charge has been disposed of, it is clear that we would need an actual transcript of the film to assure that nothing is being misquoted or taken out of context, and that the "court records" are not allowed to be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like generic opinion on these sources. The conversation on the
talk page was not sattisfactory to me. So placing my comments here
Sources -
What I would like to understand is, can such sources regarded as reliable? Or is there some generic exemption for TV series as stated by editors in the talk pages. I have also linked MOS for TV series in the talk page every body is getting quite agitated about this. - Wikishagnik ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Today on reddit an exposee on 247wallst.org was posted. It looked only at one article and determined that the impact of the publication stands in no proportion to their quality. Two mistakes originating from said article on wikipedia were identified. They possibly also outsource the creation of the content to uncredited writers.
This looks very mich like a suspicious source and I suggest that the best idea would be to remove all references to them. This is actually a very fascinating article since it shows how unbelievably huge theirt impact is.
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/18kele/one_blatant_factual_mistake_made_by_a_tiny_but/
The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook (2007), the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States,[56] while NIST has claimed that the United States is the only industrialised country where the metric system is not the official system of units.[57] However, reports published since 2007 hold this is no longer true of Liberia or Burma.[58]
212.183.140.58 ( talk) 21:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Authored article The Oregonian: "Chuck Palahniuk announces titles and release dates for next three books" used per policy in the Chuck Palahniuk article, in the section there on his fiction, to confirm the upcoming novel Doom. [39] As this was being used not as an assertion of notability, but simply to cite a novel's name and announcement by the novelist about its upcoming release, are we to now assume that a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not investigate something they published, before they published it? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The article ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party is from a peer-reviewed BMJ Group journal with editorial oversight. It finds that the Tea Party movement was formed by non-profit organizations that were in turn founded and funded by the tobacco industry and other corporate concerns.
There have been concerns raised at Talk:Tea Party movement that the article violates WP:OR for it's own research, that it fails WP:BLP for making contentious claims about a group, that it's phrasing violates WP:WEASEL. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
One would expect experts that special in the dealings of Tobacco companies would be well versed with the politics of tobacco. This source is fine, however I'm a little troubled if their research methods was only google.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm alarmed at the way editors are trying to wriggle round this one. Articles in BMJ journals are reliable, end of story, pretty much. If you find a source of equivalent quality presenting an opposing view, use both. Itsmejudith ( talk)
Whether this particular reliable source should be used in the Tea Party movement article is a separate question, one which is outside the scope of this noticeboard and should be resolved on the article talkpage or via dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 05:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Is www.jainworld.com a reliable source? It is been used in many articles like List of Jains, Indrabhuti Gautama, Islam and Jainism, Jainism in Japan and many more.[ [43]]. Rahul Jain ( talk) 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Author Kailash Chand Jain, Publisher Motilal Banarsidass, 1972
Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1991
Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1972
Kailash Chand Jain, D. K. Print World (P) Limited, 2010
Some are however published by Trusts:
Kailash Chand Jain, Ahimsa Mandir Prakashan, Shri Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, 1998.
He apparently wrote for www.jainworld.com without charging money, or it may have been sponsored by a trust. I would accept works of K.C. Jain as scholarly. However as I said, difference of views is common among scholars. Incidentally, I am an academic too. Malaiya ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
A source making a claim about itself seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS. Thoughts? Location ( talk) 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
On his talkpage User: West Horizon has suggested this article on the Good Man Project website as a source for the history of the Fathers' Rights Movement and Fathers' rights movement in the United States. The material in the article places the origins of the men's rights movement in the 1920s, contradicting multiple scholarly sources that date it from the 1960s. [44] [45] [46] [47].
On the plus side, the Good Man Project website has a named editorial team etc [48]; on the downside the same page suggests that they may publish just about anything. "We shy away from nothing. Our content reflects the multidimensionality of men — we are alternatively funny and serious, provocative and thoughtful, earnest and light-hearted. We search far and wide for new stories and new voices from “the front lines of modern manhood.” Another concern regarding expertise is that the author Robert St-Estephe, who is described as historian but also "a deeply repentant former mangina who has devoted a bit of time to the study of the history of the relations between the sexes", is not traceable on the internet apart from postings on men's rights websites [49]. Any thoughts? -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Jayjg is (probably quite properly) removing citations to the works of discredited historian (and Holocaust denier) David Irving. I have no issue with this. However, out with the bathwater is going to baby of secondary citations, some to the London Times, some to other, non-Irving works, when the citations contain links to Irving's website or other traces of Irving. I am curious as to the correct response to this. An example is Special Operations Executive, where the offending link is to a copy of an article from The Independent. Another is the excision of a primary source (a diary) because it is contained on Irving's site (this might be more reasonable) in Alexander Scotland. What is the correct protocol for a sweeping removal of "bad" or discredited links like this? Malay Agin ( talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Can I have opinions as to the reliability of the following documents, hosted on the websites of the currently active lobbying groups the UK Metric Association (UKMA) and the U.S. Metric Association (USMA).
The documents are being used to support a variety of assertions in the International System of Units article (section: United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa and Commonwealth of Nations), and are cited as if they are original and legitimate documents.
White Paper on Metrication (1972) – Summary and Conclusions. London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.
South Africa Metrication". South African Government. 15 September 177.
Final Annual Report (1980-1981) of the (Australian) Metric Conversion Board (MCB)
Final Report of the Metrication Board (1980). London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.
212.183.140.58 ( talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, Binksternet keeps on believing that Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cities on the list and Hiroshima was not. I don't want to go any further as things will gets ugly in the "leaflet" section " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets". I attempted to remove it in the "leaflet" section, and Bink kept on reversing it back to way it was without providing any legitimate explanation to me whatsoever. Everytime i tried to edit out the problem and everytime i tried to explain he keeps on telling me to go to the talk article and he kept on reversing the back the way it was. The whole thing is he keeps on believing that the Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cites with Hiroshima not on the list which no major sources ever said it as i i said again in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=history Earlier, he puts on this last sentence on late December 2012, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." This is really blatantly dishonest to deceive a reader because two books he put our there said it differently:
"Before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the city was given the standard psychological warfare treatment prior to an incendiary attack. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, indicating, along with several other cities, that they were to be fire bombed within a few days and to evacuate the city. The leaflets are on display at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and were dropped on the city several days prior to the atomic bombing." No Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999."
"But, the leaflet continued, unless the country agreed to immediate surrender, the bombings would continue. On the back of the leaflet, along with a photograph of a superfortress, were listed the cities destined for destruction: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabaru, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima, it will be noted, was absent from that list; so were Nagasaki, Kokura, and Niigata." The Day man lost: Hiroshima, page 215. Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981."
So based on the two links, I then remove that last sentence as i stated above because they are mixed together such as the leaflet was displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Museum (no link even said this nor i know many people who lived there did not say anything about it) to deceive a reader then Bink kept on adding in with the sources continueing on claiming to have that Hiroshima warned with 12 leaflets and Hiroshima was not on the list. He added this link: http://www.gifu-np.co.jp/kikaku/2008/gifu63/g63_20080804.shtml and he claimed that the leaflets were warned on Hiroshima based on the link he provided and said this: "One such leaflet lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed."
He kept on saying this because he believes that Hiroshima was given a 12 city warning when i saw no evidence providing to the contrary whatsoever. And he added the 2nd link in addition to the Japanese link claimed it was based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
Would you read it and does it REALLY says that Hiroshima was given such as 12 city leaflet? I don't think so. This Google link specifically did not say anything about Hiroshima given the 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not which makes no sense and this link did not specifically say anything about it. I like the say the leaflet section is written as earlier on the article earlier didn't say any information about the leaflets, just had problem with the last sentence to claim that Hiroshima received a warning with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not. That link isn't along with the Japanese link reliable enough to support the evidence. XXzoonamiXX
"possibly get?" You were saying to the fact that Hiroshima was WARNED with the leaflet drops which list 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. Also, you already put in the article main page that no warning was going to given to Hiroshima that the atomic bomb was going to be dropped so your argument is moot. I also already know that Hiroshima was preserved from firebombing so they could assess the damage caused by the nuclear bomb. Again that's completely out of the topic what we are focusing now.
2nd of all, it says, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." However, it is clear that after the sentences, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima."
Now it goes off THEN saying Tokyo predicted the invasion then said that all the major cities had been firebombed and the rest nothing said about the Hiroshima residents in the sentences. It also says that the leaflets warned on which mostly like the Japanese cities in general which listed of cities for targeting and Hiroshima was not on the list so it did not say specifically enough that Hiroshima was given such a warning with four cities listed and Hiroshima was not. So you come to the automatic conclusion that Hiroshima was given such a warning of what you put out in which the link specifically nothing about it.
3rd of all, it says four cities in that Miller link yet it did not say about 12 cities listed and and yet that was put on the article main page. This is a bit deceiving at it's best as you mix two link together as you previously did before. Also, Miller's link inaccurately says that Hiroshima only housed 25,000 troops (All the major sources, including the Japanese ones, agreed that it was about 40,000 soldiers in Hiroshima). If Japanese citizens in Hiroshima was given such a warning (12 cities listed/Hiroshima not), then why didn't the residents say anything about the leaflets being warned with leaflet (12 cities/ Hiroshima was not) nor goes on the details that Japanese officers said so itself? The link make it seems like as it was a third-world source and it make no sense at all.
Also, I was talking about Hiroshima warned of a conventional bombing, not a nuclear bomb and I know that. I don’t want to discredit you but when you put out the last link when it does not specifically say it (As I told you above already) makes other sources seems very discreditable and assume to all sources that say leaflets was warned to Hiroshima about the conventional bombings a bunch of lies. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer has independent notability as an advocate of various conspiracy theories and he is certainly a reliable source for his opinion; however, Assassination Research and www.assassinationresearch.com appear to be self-published by Fetzer. I'm seeking other opinions on the permissibility of this source in the article given that WP:SPS refers to claims about third parties. (One confounding factor, the Fetzer article contains one or two of Bugliosi's opinions about Fetzer taken from Reclaiming History. Tit for tat?) Thanks! Location ( talk) 04:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, there is currently the claim that Pope Benedict will choose to remain in the Vatican in order to avoid the possibility of lawsuits. This is clearly a very strong claim, and there has been some dispute about including it. The source being used is Reuters, so that's good, but the article, " Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican", is relying on two anonymous "Vatican officials" as the source for the claim. The article also acknowledges that there are no current cases that name Benedict. So my query is whether or not this is sufficiently reliable for a claim of that strength. - Bilby ( talk) 02:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wiki. I am the computer tech/financial advisor to Gary Webb (racing Driver) from Blue Grass. The last statement about him (married to ...) is wrong & causes family tension & I don't know how to remove. The rest of the article has incorrect dates & numbers I want to submit correct dates & figures but am not sure of the format needed. This is coming from Gary Webb's mouth so am not sure how to list source either....
Walter Görlitz ( talk · contribs), an editor of some experience, maintains that we should keep a "rumor" in one of our articles, Volkswagen_1-litre_car#.24600_price_rumour, though it is based only on the evidence of a website, "truthorfiction.com": this rumor is reprinted here, with reference made to one single email. If you look at the talk page (unpleasant discussion ongoing; I had asked Gorlitz on their talk page but they moved it to the article talk page) you'll find another link, this one, on an even more questionable site, Resources for Life ("Holistic Wellness! Business Services!"). You'll also see that Gorlitz has defended the section before against two other editors. Now, Gorlitz, I think, claims the information is "reliably sourced" because, I suppose, he looked at a clip from ABC on that Holistic website. The clip is no longer there, and it's impossible to tell "what" ABC it was, or which one of their local (and often not so reliable) affiliates.
It is my contention that neither of these two websites are reliable sources; that the memory of Gorlitz having seen the clip is not enough to verify that the information was indeed every reported on a news program; and that the information should be removed since we don't report internet rumors unless they're reliably sourced and of some value to an article. Drmies ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#onefivenine. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Salvatore Giunta#February 2013. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking for advice -- I'm about to embark on a major edit of the page for Tough Trip through Paradise, and I've got two sources to ask about.
The first is the Andrew Garcia--Mountain Man page on franksrealm.com, which was heavily used as a source by the last editor. The franksrealm page only gives "Donald Gilbert y Chavez" as its source, and I've noticed a number of discrepancies between franksrealm and the handful of print sources I've consulted thus far.
The other question I have is whether an online guide or finding aid to a manuscript collection held in an archives is considered an acceptable/reliable source. I know the manuscript collection itself is a primary source and therefor not to be used, but what of the description of the collection, as published to an online catalog by the historical society that owns the collection? The specific page I have in mind is the Northwest Digital Archives page for the Ben Stein research collection. If it's a no-go I have other sources to use, but I'd like to know before I begin my edits in earnest. (apologies for initial failure to sign; still new to this) RogueArchivist ( talk) 23:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the use at KochPAC proper in using pages from OpenSectrets.org to make statements which use information compiled from that site? Specifically the detailed information about how many candidates received X amount of money from the PAC? In addition, claims are made in that article which do not even seem to originate from Opensecrets.org on the pages cited at all. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Some questions arise about the use of the magazine associated with Careers 360. The main site of the organization is Careers 360 Following is a link to the magazine archives: Magazine archives.
The magazine is used as a source in Indian Institute of Planning and Management and is the subject of discussion in Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy
Both of those articles have cleanup issues, with dead links, citations needed and other issues, but one of the issues to address is whether links to the magazine constitute reliable sources.
Does the magazine arm of a career resource organization enjoy the same status as a news magazine? What should our position be on the use of this source?
This is one of the references used: example
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The source is being used to support, inter alia, this claim:
As per Mahesh B Sarma in Careers 360, NVAO, the accreditation organization for Netherlands and Flanders,[ has clarified that IMI "is not a recognised higher education institution in the Dutch or French speaking part of Belgium" and cannot award recognised degrees.
That claim appears,on its face, to be supported by the reference. However, as the article goes on to note:
In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360.[100] According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360.[92] In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360.
I think we ought to have serious reservations about using as a source a publication which has been found to have published defamatory material. If this is were isolated, it might not be much of an argument. Surely many sources accepted as reliable sources have lost a defamation suit at some time. However, this suit was directly involved with coverage of this incident.
I should note that I am in OTRS email discussions with one of the parties.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martinus_University_Faculty_of_Medicine
In the history section of this page there are multiple reference that are incorrect
St. Martinus University was established on May 22, 2000. In 2010 with escalating debts and low enrollment the university was forced to close.[1] St. Martinus reopened under new ownership in October 2010.[2]
The reference referred [1] does not mention anything about the year it was closed. In fact the university was never closed. A verfiable reference that was provided that shows the university is awarding degrees since 2003 to current is being removed.
[2] In addition the University is designated by Canada as an institute for highr learning. The requirement for the institute to be on higher learning are as follows:
(a) An international post-secondary educational institution located outside the United States must meet the following criteria: be approved for the purpose of student financial assistance in its home country; and demonstrate stability by having been in continuous operation for a minimum of two years prior to designation.
(b) An international post-secondary educational institution must also be listed in one of the following references:
International Handbook of Universities (International Association of Universities, Stockton Press), the World of Learning (Europa Publications), the Commonwealth Universities website at www.acu.ac.uk/home , the International Association of Universities website at www.unesco.org/iau/members_friends/mem_membinst1.html, the federal school look up for FAFSA, (US Department of Education www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0607/fslookup.htm, or Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (Greenwood Publishing Group),
2. International post-secondary educational institutions located outside of the United States offering medical programs must meet the following criteria in addition to the criteria listed above in section 2:
Be listed on the International Medical Education Directory imed.ecfmg.org/ maintained by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) or the World Directory of Medical Schools www.who.int/hrh/documents/wdms_upgrade/en/index.html maintained by the World Health Organization. Be approved by a member of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada; Be in continuous operation for at least ten years.
The university is approved by Canada government in Jan, 3 2013. This implies that the university is continuous operations for the last 10 years.
This is logical that a wrong resource is being put. We kindly make a request to fix this error and correct tthe history sections.-- Sharmauiuc ( talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Magill Magazine
The question here is around Magill, an Irish current affairs magazine which is now out of publication. At the time of the publication of the article in question, the magazine was being edited by Eamon Delaney. There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.
Limerick Leader
The Limerick Leader is one of the Johnston Press Ireland titles. It is a local weekly paper with a relatively small circulation although is the largest paid-for newspaper in the whole Mid-West region of Ireland. On its website the newspaper claims to have "a cherished reputation as the local paper of record". There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed a review from the Blogspot. I wonder if the removed content should be re-inserted. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A number of what I think are questionable sources is used at Politics of global warming to make statements of fact. These include
There seem to be several other questionable sources and WP:OR there as well, so additional eyes would be welcome. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The text in question is highlighted here:
On the other hand, Adeleye et al state that such arguments are often based on less than stable foundations and may collapse like a "house of cards". [1] [50]
A link to the text being cited on google is here: [51]
The source is being used to assert in the article that "Ex silentio arguments stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." That text is an example of usage that dictionaries often provide. This can be easily seen by looking at other italicized texts in the dictionary entries. The source itself is just a dictionary, and not reliable as a source on historical method even if the opinion being expressed were that of the editors. Humanpublic ( talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Claim: " Viet Cong insurgents reportedly sliced off the genitals of village chiefs and sewed them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, rammed bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slashed open the wombs of pregnant women, disemboweled random civilians and draped their mutilated bodies on fences, machine gunned children, hacked men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education."
Source: Reader's Digest, "The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh," November 1968. Originally the claim was cited to this supposed reproduction of the Readers Digest article on a personal blog site. The link to the blog was removed when the source was originally queried but otherwise the citation remains the same. Article: Vietnam War
Primary sources such as journalistic reports from the time shouldn't be used in historical articles, it amounts to original research, see WP:HISTRS for an essay that condenses many past RS/N discussions on this point. Go out and read scholars of PLAF/PRG and NFL actions against civillians. If there's debate in the scholarship, find the scholarship of the scholarship. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We should not use contemporaneous journalism as a source for events that occured decades ago. Much of the coverage of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin incident on is no longer operative. TFD ( talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles that use John G. Fuller's book "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire" as a source for claims in ergotism and 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. I'm wondering if, given Fuller's output, and not having seen the book itself, it can be considered WP:RS for purposes of describing the mass poisoning incident?
from Ergotism: "A severe outbreak of ergot poisoning occurred, however, in the French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951, resulting in five deaths.[2][3] The incident is described in John Grant Fuller's book The Day of St Anthony's Fire.[3]"
from 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning: "However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit were not consistent with this hypothesis.[8]"
Fuller, John (1969). The Day of St Anthony's Fire. London: Hutchinson.
ISBN
0-09-095460-2.
-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)