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 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | → | Archive 150 |
Great Commission church movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following statements have been added to the article citing correspondence with Great Commission Churches as posted on the website of that organization. Please comment on their reliability:
Thank you in advance for your comments. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Is
this source a
reliable source?
It has been used to
verify this content:
Was the only man standing, acts of gallantry and intrepidity, for actions in suppressing the enemy while under heavy fire, personally eliminated multiple enemy-controlled weapon positions, preventing the enemy from overrunning the American troops at Qal'at Dizha, Rayat, border Iraq
It appears to be a self published source, as wix.com title page says:
Create your free stunning website
A search for Ricardo Massa Special Forces does not appear to provide any reliable sources. Additionally I could not find any army sources for Ricardo Massa.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Among other things I find troubling is that the wix page as a source by the editor who posted the change (multiple timers) had been tailored to appear, to a casual observer, to be the home page of the U.S. Army. Of course, we can't tell who created the page. In passing, the page seems to have disappeared from wix.com.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with reliable sources to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've come across Amazing Journey: The Life of Pete Townshend while editing Keith Moon, with the intention of getting the article up to good article status. While I have two good book sources already, Before I Get Old by Dave Marsh and Dear Boy by Tony Fletcher, I felt a third main source to use would be worthwhile, and it's been already used in the article by other editors, such as the large blockquote about blowing up toilets with cherry bombs here. The trouble I have is that its publisher is lulu.com, a well known "vanity press" publisher, the author doesn't appear to be notable ( Mark Wilkerson doesn't appear to be about him), and I can't find any reviews in reliable sources. So therefore I think it's a self published source. Looking through the book itself, it seems to be a large collection of "In year x abc said this, then in year y pqr said that..." and a little disjointed, which is what I'd expect from a non-commercially published source. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
At SimCity (2013 video game), people are reverting facts provided by 4 reliable sources (sources that are used earlier in the artcile, all being from review sites and news sites). The reason is that the fact is about the user review score at amazon. Apparently, having 4 reliable sources providing the stated fact do not have a impact on two other editors in a slight edit war over this half of a sentence: "... and several critics reported that the product on Amazon.com had an average rating of 1 out of 5 stars.". I could dig and find a couple of more sources with the same fact stated in them, but I doubt it would do any good at this point. Help? Belorn ( talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I found this source [1] and this source [2] in the Louis XVII of France article. Does anyone know anything about these sites? Can they be considered a reliable sources? Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
At Council on American-Islamic Relations, there's a slow edit war (eg. [3]) going on over whether Daniel Pipes and FrontPage Magazine are reliable sources. No talk page discussion as yet, but I'm guessing, based on the users and the topic area, that it wouldn't really get anywhere, and so am pre-emptively bringing it here. Pipes and FrontPage, RSN denizens? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article, a theory claiming that Mubarak was involved in the assassination of Sadat is used in a section of his article. The section was sourced to a book on Amazon called "The Search for the Lost Army: The National Geographic and Harvard University Expedition" which is on http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Army-ebook/dp/B0092PABYO/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346782296&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+army+%2B+chafetz. The book does not seem completely factual based on some reviews which say it is "based on a true story" and could've been partially exaggerated to make it more a thriller. I think that the section should be rewritten so it is more neutral to Mubarak. -- Thebirdlover ( talk) 23:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: [4]
Article: Necroshine
Content:
Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585
Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013
An opinion piece from a college newspaper describing a relationship between MLP: FIM fandom and 4Chan was recently removed from relevant articles. So I think it's time to think about the Autostraddle essay again. I believe that the essay is full of personal opinion which is against the reliable sources policy here so should be removed. I also think the related controversy was not huge enough to shake the entire USA; it's hard to find any relevant reliable news reports beside that one. I also remember the user who cited that source even tried to cite TV Tropes wiki entry, also against the policy. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous one was archived without any answer, so I want to start a new one. Seriously, I think the source, being full of biased opinion, doesn't fit Wikipedia's RS policy. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Source: Point of View: May I Bother You With Some Facts? by Rabbi Moshe Grylak. Mishpacha Magazine Issue 310 May 26, 2010
2. Article: Elazar Shach
3. Content:
Shach said on many occasions that the Jewish people consists of both Torah scholars and balabatim (lay people) who support Torah learning. “Everyone is required to serve Hashem,” he said, “but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day.”
.
A while ago I added this quote to the page, and as I explained on the talk page there 1 2, I think this is an accurate and pertinent quote to be included in the article.
Anybody disagree? Yonoson3 ( talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it is clearly an opinion piece. The most it could be used for is something like, "Grylak opines that full time Torah learning is not for everyone." The relevant policy is WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. This cannot be used as a source for what Shach said. Fladrif ( talk) 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually a subscriber of Mishpacha magazine and the difference between their articles and editorial pieces is that the editorials always glorify Shach and his extreme ideology without any sources that can be checked independently. They also usually clash with Shachs published and verifiable written and taped positions.
1)Source http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0415939143
2)Article from the book Google books link
3)Text: The cease fire soon violated because Egypt's Third Army Corps tried to break free of the Israeli Army's encirclement. The Egyptian action and the arrival of more Soviet equipment to Cairo permitted Israel to tighten its grip on the Egyptians Kiwi228 ( talk) 07:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Other Sources like The Office of the Historian http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ArabIsraeliWar73 say competely opposite -Israel's refusal to stop fighting after a United Nations cease-fire was in place on October 22 nearly involved the Soviet Union in the military confrontation. So I'm want to write it like that - one sourse say Egypt broken case-fire, another sourse say Israil broken case-fire...but not to sure about this link to Chronological History of U.S. Foreign Relations by Lester H. Brune and Richard Dean Burns (Nov 22, 2002) -- Kiwi228 ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Colombo, Rose, Fight Back Legal Abuse: How to Protect Yourself From Your Own Attorney, Morgan James Publishing (2010) ISBN 978-1-60037-709-9
Articles: Abuse; Legal abuse
The article Legal abuse had three references. I contend that all of them are self-published sources. The creator of the article concedes that two of the three are self-published sources, but contends that one of them is not, on the basis that Morgan James Publishing, a "pay to play" publisher, says on its website that it only accepts ~130 of the ~4000 manuscripts it receives each year [6]. In fact, Morgan James is a vanity press, operating on a pay-to-play basis. Originally, it required authors to pay up-front for book design, then it required authors to sign up for a Entrepenurial Author University" for $5K, now it requires that authors buy 2500 copies at "cost plus $2. [7] [8] [9] It is clearly and widely regarded as a vanity publisher, and it no wonder that when authors find out after they make their submission that they have to front $10,000 or more that only 3.25% of the authors go forward. Thus, it is simply a self-published source.
Moreover, the book is being used as the peg on which to hang an entire article which tries to pull together, under the label "legal abuse" a myriad of unrelated topics. The book itself is a series of anecdotes and tirades by the author prompted by her experiences in her divorce case. She is not an attorney, has no formal academic training, and has no recognition as an expert, other than on her own a local right-wing radio show and blog [10] [11]. I'd note that the "Irving Award" that she touts has having been won by the book is not a book award, it is a marketing award by the Book Publicists of Southern California, for "Best Motivational Campaign" [12] I see no indication that this book or this author, even if she found a real publisher, is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on the neologism "legal abuse" (not to be confused with the well-defined Abuse of process
Thoughts? Fladrif ( talk) 13:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Fladrif asked me to comment. Based on the book purchase requirement admitted here it's perfectly clear to me that Morgan James is a vanity publisher pretending not to be in order to be more attractive to their authors. So definitely not a reliable source.
The topic covered in legal abuse is of course in principle a legitimate one. I don't know if this umbrella term for abuse of process and various other forms of abuse of the legal system is established or a neologism. It certainly appears useful. But for an article we would need in-depth reliable sources on the topic. The outcome of a quick search on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar suggests to me that "legal abuse" is not an established term but is in fact a neologism that so far appears almost exclusively in self-published books and forum posts. Hans Adler 22:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
One: "Legal abuse" certainly exists. Two: Morgan-James appears to be a vanity publisher. Three: A lot of real authors do end up with copies of their books in their own garage. Four: The concept of "traditional publisher" is changing due to (for example) publishing through Amazon, etc. Result: Books published by M-J do not currently pass the WP:RS-test, but well may in the future depending on how we vet authors using such publishers. Questia finds a number of fairly consistent uses of the phrase. I think they should be examined for such an article. Collect ( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about reviewing the GAN Jill Valentine before I noticed that some of the article's sources have uncertain reliability. Are any of these reliable? [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks hatted until refactored by editor. Fladrif ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
HELLO THERE, would you PLEASE stop telling untruths again? There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.| -- Niemti ( talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Also, please see this. -- Niemti ( talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
Kevyn Orr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a copy of the notice I put up on the NPOV Noticeboard. Please weigh in with your opinions.
I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Truman Starr ( talk) 20:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
An unproductive discussion has long continued about whether there are reliable sources for the existence of more than one view on Ezekiel 16:50. The view contested is that this passage of Ezekiel includes among the wrongdoings for which Sodom was destroyed its townsmen's sexual behaviour (see this edit). The most discussed source cited in support of the existence of this view is a book by Robert A. Gagnon, which states:
Other sources that have been cited for the existence of the view that Ezekiel included sexual misbehaviour among the elements in Sodom's wrongdoing are:
One editor is insistently deleting from Wikipedia recognition of the existence of the view that Ezekiel 16:50 includes sexual sin among the wrongdoings of Sodom, a view that these sources surely show to be notable. Esoglou ( talk) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Two sources are cited in support of the statement now in the article: "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity." The two are Crompton and Gagnon. I am now asking about the reliability of these two sources for the statement that the other editor insists on having in the article. Is the cited passage of Crompton (pp. 37-39) a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Is the cited passage of Gagnon a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Esoglou ( talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been some discussion as to whether this is a reliable source: Dominic Malcolm, Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity (London: Bloomsbury, 2012).
Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why this is not a reliable source. It certainly qualifies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as a book published by a reputable academic press, it will have been peer-reviewed and so vetted by the scholarly community. Its author is Senior Lecturer (equivalent to Associate or even Full Professor in North America) in the Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University.
Your thoughts are welcomed on this matter. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In principle, I am opposed to the use of this book because it promotes theories that are unsound and has been found to contain false and misleading information. However, it does have a reputable publisher and so I daresay it will meet WP criteria. However, it must be used with caution especially as it fails to comply with the consensus view of early cricket history achieved by numerous established sources written by recognised authorities. I would also add that, in another discussion about the book, User:CDTPP (who is a subject expert) has confirmed that he has read and reviewed it and pronounced it "risible". Whenever I see the book cited, I will check other sources that I know to be superior and overwrite as necessary. I am currently doing this at History of cricket (1726–1740) where I have already removed or replaced two complete falsehoods taken from this book; having said that, a section has been added to the article which is useful and only needs copyedit and the source can stand re that section. So, okay, no need to proceed with this discussion except that the book must be used with caution and its supporters must accept that references may be removed or replaced if and when incorrect or dubious content is discovered. ---- Jack | talk page 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the 1755 laws, provision was made to allow an injured batter to retire and to resume his/her innings at a later time (a further indication that such injuries were relatively common), but not to be replaced or substituted. Presumably due to the suspicion that such a regulation would be flouted (and the ramifications this would have for bets placed on matches), an additional law decreed that the umpires were to be judges ‘of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended’ (Rait Kerr 1950: 97–98). Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity, Dominic Malcolm
An editor and an IP have been adding references and material from a self-published book by David J. Hogg ( talk · contribs), who says on my talkpage "I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, U.K. and the National Trust at Tyntesfield. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2010, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. I am a Fellow of teh Royal Geographical society. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these." Our article on the RGS does say fellowship is an honor, but also there are over 10,000 fellow. Worldcat shows it in 8 UK libraries, [25] none in the US. I removed them from Lawley's article but was reverted by an IP which has been also adding them to other articles. I'll go and notify the editor/author now. Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
copying from my talk page again:
All my citations in the article on Sir Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock have been removed by two Wikipedia editors.
I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in existence — "Sir Arthur Lawley, Eloquent Knight Errant". I worked in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, UK and the National Trust at Tyntesfield in England. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. Robert Bell of Langcliffe, Sir Arthur Lawley's great grandson, was also very helpful. All the family portraits, photo albums, books diaries and letters were open to me. The Foreword to the book was written by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. Much of the work was done at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Rhodes Mandela House in Oxford, the British Library and the National Archives in Kew, London. I also researched at Harvard, in New York, in Pretoria, South Africa, and in Zimbabwe. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these. It is quite absurd to reject the leading expert on Sir Arthur Lawley in Wikipedia.
This book was self published in the United Kingdom with the support of the Empire and Commonwealth Museum and Tyntesfield and published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Western Australia. 600 copies have been sold and it is now an iBook. All my references are in the printed books and in the iBook I enclose the Foreword by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia.
I am new to Wikipedia and cannot find my way round your system. Could you please contact the two editors and re-instate my references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.245.173 ( talk) 4:13 pm, Today (UTC+0)
I am reviewing this article's Good Article nomination, and at first glance seems to be in good shape (albeit HUGE), but there are many references to blogs, including Wordpress blogs. The issue is that while such blogs are "largely not acceptable" per WP:SPS, the bloggers seem to be well regarded individuals in their field. The nominating editor makes a case for them at the GA review page, but as I have no expertise with the F1 community, I cannot properly decide if these are acceptable despite the guidelines, or if they are to be considered invalid, and thus result in a fail of the nomination. F1 Fanatic (Keith Collantine) is the most important one as it is used quite heavily, but jamesallenonf1 (James Allen, with a professionally built website), joesaward.wordpress.com (Joe Saward), adamcooperf1.com (Adam Cooper) and scarbsf1.com (Craig Scarborough) are also at issue. Three of these are Wordpress blogs, but I am curious if any of our European/F1 editors with a knowledge of the sport can vouch for the credentials of the bloggers. Thanks, Reso lute 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on a big rework of the article
Italian Hall disaster in my userspace
here. The source in question for this board is — Lehto, Steve (2006). Death's door: the truth behind Michigan's largest mass murder. Momentum Books. p. 232.
ISBN
978-1-879094-77-2. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) According to
the website of Momentum Books, I can't really tell if they are a self-publisher or kind of borderline. On the other hand, sources have described the book (in prose at
User:Chris857/Italian Hall disaster#Literature) as "definitive and authoritative".
I am currently using the book for items of opinion in the draft, and the first name of a person in
Italian Hall. My question is: to what degree and for what material would this source be appropriate? I think points of opinion and uncontroversial information should be appropriate, but I would appreciate outside opinions.
Chris857 (
talk) 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: The book seems well-researched to me, and the author is a lawyer.
Chris857 (
talk) 23:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across an inaccurate inclusion of the late Laura Branigan's name under the Wikipedia page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music." I've been trying to have the inclusion removed, without success.
The two sources cited for this inclusion (Billboard magazine and the New York Times), though considered reliable and verifiable by Wikipedia, have erroneously described Miss Branigan as being a Soprano vocalist. The problem is that she was not a Soprano, but a Contralto; her voice exhibited none of the characteristics of a solo Soprano vocalist, yet exhibited all of the characteristics of a Contralto.
The New York Times article, in particular, was written by a critic with no true knowledge of the classification of solo vocalists and was based off of his observation of a single live concert performance in September, 1983: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/11/arts/pop-concert-laura-branigan.html. The Billboard article is located here: http://books.google.de/books?id=FRMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=laura+branigan+soprano&source=bl&ots=oGVxUF7Z9_&sig=rf2cBywwaM0-6dWdKxnutxl2tMg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=1riJUIOHOcmGswbM5YCADA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=laura%20branigan%20soprano&f=false.
Furthermore, I came across two other such articles written by this same critic (Stephen Holden): one written a year before (March 1982), http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/22/arts/hard-rock-laura-branigan.html, in which he once again described her voice as a Soprano, but praised the quality of it as being "lusty and theatrical"; and one written in September 1984, in which he did not describe her alleged vocal range, but once again changed his opinion of the quality of her voice, this time as being "big and neutral," capable of only "shrill mechanical performances" http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/18/arts/music-noted-in-brief-branigan-s-top-40-style-at-avery-fisher-hall.html. In the cited September 1983 article, he described her voice as "thin and tense."
My point is that a critic who gets paid to write his opinion based off of concert performances is hardly authoritative enough to be considered a reliable or verifiable source, especially given how his opinion of her vocal quality changed over the course of two years, not to mention that he never once took her studio recordings into consideration. We are all entitled to our opinions, but facts are facts: Laura Branigan's vocal quality may sound subjectively different to people at different times, but the fact is that she sang in the Contralto vocal range.
Unfortunately, despite extensive Google searches, I've not been able to find any "reliable" or "verifiable" sources (in Wikipedia's eyes) that correctly describe Miss Branigan's true vocal range. She has been widely known to have had a Dramatic Contralto (erroneously abbreviated to "alto") voice, and it is widely known amongst people, but I've not been able to find any sources considered reliable by Wikipedia that state such.
The fact of the matter is that Laura Branigan was not a Soprano by any means. Her voice was not "thin or tense" on her studio recordings, nor was it "shrill or mechanical," as described by Stephen Holden, but rich, strong, and highly emotive. Her voice did indeed soar, as claimed by Billboard, but it was not a Soprano because she never sang in the Soprano range.
Solo vocalists, unlike choral vocalists, are not categorized solely by the range of notes they are capable of hitting, but by something called tessitura, which is the range in which their voice sounds the most comfortable and natural for the majority of the time. In Laura Branigan's case, she sang most often in the Contralto range, which typically encompasses the notes between F3 (below Middle C) and F5 (two above Middle C), though in extreme cases, the range can extend from E3 (below Middle C) to B-Flat 5 (two above Middle C). Sopranos, on the other hand, sing best in the range between C4 (Middle C) and C6 (High C).
Furthermore, to quote www.dummies.com, which was cited on the Wiki page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music," the greatest strength of a soprano is a strong head voice, which has a bright and ringing tone. Sopranos also have a harder time projecting in the middle register.
Laura Branigan projected remarkably well in the lower and middle ranges; she did not have a strong head voice at all, nor a bright or ringing tone. Her tone was rich, full, thick, and full of weight. Any time she attempted to sing notes up in the head voice range, her voice was being pushed due to her remarkable strength and technique as a vocalist. This means that she simply had a high extension, which was not part of her natural range (her tessitura). Her tessitura closely resembled those of known Contraltos like Tina Turner and Toni Braxton.
While writing this, I found an article from the UK's newspaper The Guardian, which accurately describes Miss Branigan as a "dramatic alto" (though it uses the erroneous abbreviation "alto," rather than the correct term "contralto," but still is accurate in that she is not a soprano). It is located here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/table/2009/mar/20/party-1000-songs-everyone-must-hear. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers the Guardian, but I've included the link for completeness.
I also came across a partial article written in 2010 for a South African publication called The Star. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers it, but I've once again included it for completeness. It is only a partial article from High Beam Research, requiring readers to subscribe to read the rest, but the visible portion does describe Miss Branigan as a "Dramatic Alto." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-232180760.html
In closing, it should also be noted that Laura Branigan was twice described as an "alto" on her main Wikipedia page without any citations, yet no one seems to have noticed. I detect a double standard. 68.44.138.213 ( talk) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
At Ward Churchill#Writing, we find this:
It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim that the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim has been both disputed and supported by other scholars. [1] [2]
My question concerns whether the theracetothebottom.org citation is a reliable source for that claim.
First, it's a blog. Second, the blog cites a Doctor Barbara Alice Mann, who is an Assistant Professor the University of Toledo. [27] who supposedly wrote a book called "The Gift of Disease". Wikipedia has no page on Mann, and it appears that she did not write a book with that title. [28] She did, however write "The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion", [29] which is probably what the blog refers to. Neither book has a Wikipedia page.
Second, the blog describes the testimony of a witness in a trial, a person who "has known Professor Churchill for over 20 years and asked him to write the foreword for one of her books". Even leaving out the personal involvement, is expert testimony ever considered to be a reliable source? Most large civil lawsuits have dueling experts arguing both sides of the issue.
If, as I suspect, this is not a reliable source, the following Wikipedia articles may have a better source:
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas (
This source in particular)
and
Siege of Fort Pitt#Blankets with smallpox.
--
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks reliable to me. I'm not sure what the problem is here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering what the rules are for an article that relates to something that has little or no published material. For example, a spiritual or philosophical belief system that has not necessarily been widely discussed in published work, but is followed by many worldwide. If I have been part of a particular "way of life" community for years, of which there are similar groups in many different countries all of whom follow a particular belief system, and I therefore know the details of that belief system for a fact, can that information not be added to Wikipedia? Because it's discouraging to see incorrect or minimal information on something that is such a big part of your life, simply because there are so few third party sources discussing it...in spite of the fact that many people follow those beliefs and share them throughout the web.
What if there is a website that essentially IS the primary source for people within that community? A place where they connect and can reference material to explain to others what their beliefs are. Can that never qualify as a source? Do people with this kind of philosophy need to wait until someone decides to publish a book about it, even though the information is right there and they already practice that way of life 24/7? I'm just trying to understand how I can present information on wikipedia that is a fact for countless people, yet does not necessarily have a published source. Thanks!
There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. All these draft are attributed with references using mainly secondary sources. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There are six requests at Many-worlds interpretation to verify the credibility of: Price, Michael Clive (1995), The Everett FAQ, BLTC Research...
— Machine Elf 1735 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Formspring acounts from Pendleton Ward and other notable members of the Adventure Time crew like storyboard artist/director Adam Muto (Just to prove they can be verified… For Pendleton Ward, his official website points to his twitter, which directly points to his Formspring. For Adam Muto, his official twitter states the Formspring address in the tagline. His Formspring also verifies Andy Ristaino's official Formspring account, and same with Cole Sanchez).
Article: List of Adventure Time characters, Adventure Time, etc.
Content: The citations support a variety of behind-the-scenes information, such as how the show is animated, evolution of character designs, the role of director, how names are pronounced/spelled, etc. Some are minor (the names), whereas some are major (like how the series is animated, which hasn't turned up anywhere else).
To the best of my ability, the sources comply with WP:V. The info is from an "established expert on the subject matter", whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". In this case, the expert are people who work on the show and thus would know about it, and there reliability has been confirmed by third-party sources (like interviews), as well as the series itself. Next, "the material is neither unduly self-serving" because the information is about the series itself, but it isn't self-serving (ie Muto, Ward, et al are not benefiting overtly from their responses, they just answering questions). The citations do not contain "an exceptional claim"; none of the citations are controversial, and they're only confirming facts. None of the citations "involve claims about third parties", so that one is easy. The sources also do "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source", as they all pertain exactly to what was being asked about in the first place, which is almost always behind-the-scenes info. In addition, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", as the people who have answer these questions are notable in and of themselves, and these account can be definitely linked to them (see first part). Finally, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." List of Adventure Time characters only uses the source 4 times out 77. But what I'm worried about is if there is a systematic "ban" on Formspring, some elements of other articles (Adventure Time in particular) will suffer (for instance, the information regarding how the show is animated).-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
An article has failed two Good Article nomination partly because of a claim that the church was built as a Cathedral. There are three sources for this, all of them seen by at least some editors as unreliable:
I've got some editors who say that the claim is unreliable and another editor (not me) who is rater aggressively claiming that it is totally reliable.
So as far as I can see there are three questions. (1) Should this claim be included at all? (2) If it should be included, should the claim be qualified? (3) If it is qualified how should it be qualified?
There is no one who claims that the church was not intended as a Cathedral and its part of the local colour to the article (it seems to be believed by parishoners), although it's not clear whether the Parish website and the UK attraction article were influenced by the Suffolk Churches article.
JASpencer ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If the original sketches clearly show provision for a "cathedra" (bishop's seat) behind the altar then it is reasonable to so state. (On the order of The architectural plans provided for a 'cathedra' behind the main altar or the like). IMO Collect ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the above I didn't find a link to the article. Here it is: St Pancras Church, Ipswich. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A cathedral is for a diocese. This church is in the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia, which was formed in 1976 out of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton, which itself goes all the way back to the re-establishment of RC dioceses back in 1850. As far as I can determine, Northampton Cathedral was always the cathedral in that diocese: the chancel end was built as a college chapel before re-establishment, and then was extended with the current nave specifically with the intent of making it suitable to function as the cathedral, but I find several books saying that it was considered the cathedral from re-establishment. This work was completed in 1864 by the younger Pugin; I have not found a date for when the expansion began. St. Pancras was started in 1860 and finished the following year. It seems therefore likely that if there was any thought of St P's being the cathedral, it could only have been plausible if the nave extension of the current cathedral had happened after St P's was completed, and if there were some thought on someone's part of it replacing the old chapel.
Reading the parish website, it's quite clear that saying St P's was built as a cathedral is incorrect. Goldie (or someone) apparently hoped that if and when the diocese of Northampton was divided, this building would used as the basis for constructing a cathedral for the new diocese. As it happened, by the time of that division the huge St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich had been built and there was no reason to expand a church in the cleared slums of Ipswich. The parish version of this story is the only one that is plausible, and even then I see no other way to treat it than as a bit of parish lore. The other two versions seem to be based on the parish version with some of the key details misunderstood or filed off. Mangoe ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Michael Morrison (May 9, 2012) "Austerity: The Jobs Killer" Decisions Based on Evidence
Please see also: Morrison's CV (note professional academic experience and sections such as "Economic Development" and related topics as per WP:SPS)
In article: Austerity
Content question: Is this graph suitable for the article's introduction with its caption as shown here? 67.41.205.108 ( talk) 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The source is arguably reliable, but should not be used. Wordpress is reliable where the "expert" clause in WP:SPS applies. I'm not sure it does, because the author is hardly world-renowned. In any event, it would be undue and a bit misleading to include the graph. Morrison himself says that he has assumed that the "change in unemployment is the result of policy". That's a pretty big assumption, and it is obviously also possible that tricky economic circumstances in certain parts of the Eurozone are associated with both increases in unemployment and the implementation of austerity measures. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources that do make a causal link though - you should make use of those and not this. Formerip ( talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if the source were reliable, the graph doesn't make any sense. Lets draw a straight line to indicate a trend. Ok.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would this source [41] be OK to use for the BP article updates on current court findings? For example:
Transocean agreed to admit guilty as well as to pay US$1.4bn in fines. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 11:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: various pages from the website of the Cumbria County History Trust [42]
Article: numerous WP place articles, mainly stubs, such as Arlecdon in Cumbria, NW England.
Content: As a simple External Link using Cite web, for example:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)A new editor recently added an external link to many stub articles of places in Cumbria, NW England. The link to Cumbria County History Trust provide some interesting historical background not previously referenced within the article. They are spam-free. The only obvious concern was that the editor was also adding a “History” section to some of the articles with a sentence saying “see CCHT in the external links below” or similar words to that effect. Potential RS and COI issues were then raised leading to the removal by the editor of the links, in my view to the detriment of the stub. I have therefore offered to present the material for RSN consideration.
The material is NOT biographic and contains no SPAM. An example is [43]. Each page carries a link to a page detailing the numerous historical sources used and includes a standard disclaimer about potential accuracy. Bearing in mind the ancient documents used in some cases the accuracy will always be open to challenge but I do not think the presence of this disclaimer weakens the objectivity of the material presented.
The Cumbria County History Trust is a volunteer membership organisation. It has provided digests on its website of the history of c344 Cumberland villages, towns and cities. Information on the CCHT website has been put together from local history archives & records by experienced amateurs (e.g. retired academics) compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here [44]. There is a future expansion of this information planned as part of the Victoria County History Project under the auspices of the University of London that will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard.
The editor hopes that the inclusion of this external link will encourage WP editors with an interest in the article to use the externally linked historical material to develop the stub articles. Whether or not this happens, I cannot see any negative aspect with using this material. It is non-BLP infringing, is at least secondary source in nature and organised under an academic scheme of control with no spam links. It is an improvement on the total absence of local historical information contained in the majority of these stubs and could be presented through citation as WP:RS without comment.
I would be grateful for the community's consideration on this material for External Link purposes. Leaky Caldron 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Superman: Escape from Krypton for GA, and questioned the use of multiple pages from The Coaster Guy (www.thecoasterguy.com) as a reliable source, on the basis that it looked to me like a self-published blog created by an enthusiastic amateur. The nominator replied that: "From my experience, I've never encountered anything to be wrong on his subject and I know he works with the park from time to time." I'm not convinced, but I'm outside my usual topic areas, so I thought I would bring it here for a second opinion. In particular, the site is used to source the following:
While in the planning stages, the ride was going to be named Velocetron and themed as The Man of Steel. Source
If the Velocetron name was chosen, the queue and station would have had ancient ruins and a giant laser. Source
After 10 months of testing and reengineering, the ride opened on March 15, 1997. Source
Superman: Escape from Krypton closed again on February 5, 2012 (almost a year after the refurbishment) to prepare for the new 2012 attraction Lex Luthor: Drop of Doom. Two drop towers, also built by Intamin, were integrated into the existing sides of Superman: Escape from Krypton's structure. The ride reopened when construction was finished on July 7, 2012. Source
The coaster closed again for a third time after Christmas in 2012 to enable the construction of the park's latest roller coaster, Full Throttle. Its supports were installed over the plaza where Superman's entrance is located. Superman: Escape from Krypton was originally scheduled to reopen when Full Throttle opens in Summer 2013, Source
Thanks for your help. Moswento talky 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: [45]
Article: Bob Menendez
Content: According to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker, it is reported that a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Menendez campaign donor. “That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation.
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
The Daily Caller is very partisan in nature. Its prostitution allegation on Bob Menendez is based entirely on anonymous sources (prostitutes). Furthermore, ABC News has talked to the same sources, but concluded that it is not news because it doesn't pass the smell test. ABC News also said the meeting was arranged by anonymous Republican operatives, clearly a partisan effort.
According to the Washington Post: one of the prostitutes later told Dominican authorities that she never meet Menendez, but was paid to make allegations against him.
The Daily Caller claim that that prostitute is the wrong prostitute, because her name and age doesn't match. The Daily Caller has not verify that the prostitutes use their real names and age.
Illegal Operation ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If WP:BLP has any meaning, then we should be very circumspect when someone is accused of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence and no charges filed. We should be even more circumspect when the accusations are so obviously sustained by one-sided partisan media.
I'm not saying we shouldn't mention these allegations. But if we do, then the coverage needs to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, care, and accuracy - not on dubious partisan media. Such coverage would read, in essence: "The Daily Caller, a conservative website, featured accusations that Menendez had patronized underage prostitutes in the DR. The accusations were unsubstantiated, and multiple other news outlets, including tabloids such as the New York Post, declined to publish them given their lack of credibility. Subsequently, one of the accusers stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate Menendez and had never actually met him. The Daily Caller nonetheless continued to promote the claims ( [52])."
Seriously, folks. This episode is actually exhibit A as to why the Daily Caller is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a BLP. MastCell Talk 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The scope of this forum is whether the source can be considered a reliable source in the context of the content. Can the Daily Caller be a source for the content it is used to site. Let us look what it used to verify:
In an article[111] by The Daily Caller
“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation
The Daily Caller can be used to verify what itself stated, but the content can fall under WP:BLPCRIME, but that is not for this noticeboard that is for WP:BLPN. The article is about emails from CREW ( Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Here is a link directly from CREW of their initial release and the non-redacted version of the email exchange. Here is a link to the redacted emails which is linked in the article which is the subject of this discussion. The Daily Caller content is further verified by this Daily Mail article.
Therefore, the question is not is the Daily Caller article a reliable source for the content, but is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Instead, this is a case where someone was paid to fabricate salacious allegations against a living person, and those allegations continue to be promoted by a partisan website despite a universally appreciated lack of credibility. We should handle such situations with extreme care, but instead we seem to be committed to doing the opposite. MastCell Talk 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
MastCell has left out that the Daily Caller, and reported by others, that the information for the individuals who claimed they were paid to lie is disputed. To only include the one link to the Washington Post regarding this is cherry picking.
I have provided links to the documents which the article which is the subject of this discussion reported on. That is from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington which has called liberal, as indicated on their Wikipedia article. I have issues with the new "revised" version, but this is not the place to discuss it.
The question remains: Is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content? I am of the opinion that they are, and the content was properly attributed to the source.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But I'd also like to put this question of the Daily Caller as a reliable source to bed. This isn't the first time that the Daily Caller has pushed dubious or outright false material for partisan purposes. In fall 2011, The Daily Caller published an article claiming that the EPA under Obama wanted to hire 230,000 additional bureaucrats, at a cost of $21 billion. That claim got repeated a lot - in outlets like FoxNews and the National Review - but it was completely and transparently false ( [54], [55]). When they were called out on the falsehood, the Daily Caller doubled down rather than correcting it ( [56]).
WP:RS demands that we use sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In light of these two incidents, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Daily Caller has or deserves such a reputation. There have been several high-profile instances now where this site has prioritized its ideological goals over basic journalistic accuracy. We should be very cautious about using this website as a source, and should definitely avoid it altogether when it comes to contentious material about living people. MastCell Talk 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Too bad you are omitting the up too part that TDC originally used. I remember that story when it came out and equated it as to "you can lose up to 100lbs on the wikipedia diet". Reading is fundamental.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
That's yellow journalism at its worst. I'd hope no one would seriously suggest that we go to the Harry Reid biography and include a section entitled "Pedophilia allegations" - but we've done essentially the same thing on the Menendez biography, prominently featuring false smears publicized by this "reliable source". I'm not sure how many such examples I need to present to convince people that we shouldn't let this source anywhere near a biography. MastCell Talk 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting read, as it echoes this conversation to a degree, but there was no consensus that TDM was banned as a RS, perhaps for the same reasons I mention here. Look, the bottom line is if an article from TDC or TDM or whatever is unreliable, it should be apparent from the article in question and corroborating sources (or lack thereof). There is no need to cb any RS.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Equating the Daily Caller with reputable journalistic enterprises because they both "get it wrong on occasion" completely misses the mark in terms of what makes a source reliable. Reliability isn't defined by the publication of occasional errors. It's defined by a process of accountability in which errors, when identified, are promptly corrected. A reliable is one that shows some serious interest and accountability in whether or not the stuff it publishes actually turns out to be, like, true. That's why the New York Times is a reliable source, and the Daily Caller isn't. MastCell Talk 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic complaints about the liberal mainstream media |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Over at the Lutici page, a user is removing a map based on the argument that it is based on a "bad source" (whatever that's suppose to be - sounds like "a source I don't like") [61].
The source is a book, "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne" ("Western Slavs. Early feudal monarchies") by Andrzej Michałek, according to Polish Wikipedia and the book itself, a historian with specialty in military history. The publisher is Bellona Publishing House, a publisher which specializes in books in military history. It collaborates and has published works by famous and respected historians such as Henryk Samsonowicz and Lech Wyszczelski. It also published a well established historical journal Mówią Wieki. Additionally, according to Polish wikipedia [62] it is one of the largest publishers in Poland and awards a prestigious annual prize " Nagroda Klio" (apparently called "The Nobel of History", though I'm pretty sure that's just within Poland).
The objection to the source is that... well, I'm not exactly clear, based on talk page discussion [63] - either something to do with the fact that the editor thinks that a particular name of the place didn't exist at the time, or that no place existed at the time, or that... I dunno. Not sure how these arguments are actually relevant to the issue either.
Is this source reliable or not? Volunteer Marek 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am a volunteer at DRN and have closed that request without action, due to this unresolved discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
To sum up what we have got here so far:
I thus maintain that
Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, the "summary" by Skapperod above is incorrect; it's POV falsehood and spin. I thought we were done with the map issue and it was solved. Apparently not.
Rather what we got here is:
That really should be the end of story right there. But just to satisfy Skapperod's IDONTLIKEIT objections I've also provided another reliable source (though a bit old, republished in 1975) which directly backs up the information in the map. So it is simply not true that there are "no secondary sources" to support the claims made. This part is just blatantly incorrect.
At the same time Skapperod has not provided A SINGLE source which would contradict the information contained the map. This is because the map is correct so no such sources exist. I've already provided reliable sources so it is really now up to Skapperod to provide sources which contradict the map or drop the matter per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
As to the other questions
So no, map stays. It is based on reliable sources and that really is the end of story. This board is suppose to help us decide whether these sources are reliable but so far no one else has chimed in, unfortunately. However it seems clear to me that the requirements for reliability and verifiability have been satisfied.
We can tweak the wording with respect to Dymin and Kockow but there is no reason to remove them and replace it with ambiguously worded text.
We can keep the discussion on the Rugia question open. Volunteer Marek 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
And oh yeah. If you really think the map is a copyvio... because it resembles one in the book (it is not identical by any means), in other words, it faithfully reflects information found in a reliable source - then we can ask someone with expertise in copyright question about this, for example User:Moonriddengirl. I would be happy to make a scan of the map in the book itself so that she can compare it to the map I made myself and let us know about this issue. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to continue to assume good faith in the face of edits such as these [102]. You've added a "failed verification" tag on top off the disputed tag and then restored it after I removed it. This is NOT "failed verification", except in your own personal opinion. The info is in the source. What is disputed is the wording. But there is already a tag for that - and honestly, even that should be removed. It appears that you've decided to escalate the dispute, on top of restarting and erasing the compromises that at one point we've achieved. Like I said, these kinds of actions are hard to interpret as being done in good faith. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Is a page obtained from news rack considered a reliable source? See this page which I would like to use to replace a dead link ( "Nandigram violence can't be justified: intellectuals". Hindustan Times. India. dead link) in Teesta Setalvad. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Updates:
In the article Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania an editor insists on using the "Eastern United States Research and Some Mid Atlantic" webpage as a source. [117]. Specifically, User:Carrite is trying to use a page the claims to be a news article from the Washingto Reporter (now the Observer-Reporter). [118]. This isn't a scan of a page or fiche, it's someone retyping it and claiming it is accurate. At this point, we have no evidence that the article ever ran or said what is claimed. This is a Geocities site run by two non-experts. I don't see any editorial oversight or any other reason to claim this is a reliable source. Initially I simply tagged the source as dubious and opened a discussion about it but Carrite insisted on removing the tag and declaring it bogus. So here we are. Previously, there was a discussion about a third party site (publicintelligence.com) hosting a PDF copy of a US Govt. document. [119] Many seems to question if that was allowable, even when it was obvious that the document existed and was reproduced by a scan, not someone retyping it as is the case here. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hazel Kirkwas built in 1901 by the Kirk-Wood Co. of Cleveland to house miners for Hazel Kirk No. 1 mine, which began operations the same year. [155]
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 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | → | Archive 150 |
Great Commission church movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following statements have been added to the article citing correspondence with Great Commission Churches as posted on the website of that organization. Please comment on their reliability:
Thank you in advance for your comments. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Is
this source a
reliable source?
It has been used to
verify this content:
Was the only man standing, acts of gallantry and intrepidity, for actions in suppressing the enemy while under heavy fire, personally eliminated multiple enemy-controlled weapon positions, preventing the enemy from overrunning the American troops at Qal'at Dizha, Rayat, border Iraq
It appears to be a self published source, as wix.com title page says:
Create your free stunning website
A search for Ricardo Massa Special Forces does not appear to provide any reliable sources. Additionally I could not find any army sources for Ricardo Massa.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Among other things I find troubling is that the wix page as a source by the editor who posted the change (multiple timers) had been tailored to appear, to a casual observer, to be the home page of the U.S. Army. Of course, we can't tell who created the page. In passing, the page seems to have disappeared from wix.com.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with reliable sources to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've come across Amazing Journey: The Life of Pete Townshend while editing Keith Moon, with the intention of getting the article up to good article status. While I have two good book sources already, Before I Get Old by Dave Marsh and Dear Boy by Tony Fletcher, I felt a third main source to use would be worthwhile, and it's been already used in the article by other editors, such as the large blockquote about blowing up toilets with cherry bombs here. The trouble I have is that its publisher is lulu.com, a well known "vanity press" publisher, the author doesn't appear to be notable ( Mark Wilkerson doesn't appear to be about him), and I can't find any reviews in reliable sources. So therefore I think it's a self published source. Looking through the book itself, it seems to be a large collection of "In year x abc said this, then in year y pqr said that..." and a little disjointed, which is what I'd expect from a non-commercially published source. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
At SimCity (2013 video game), people are reverting facts provided by 4 reliable sources (sources that are used earlier in the artcile, all being from review sites and news sites). The reason is that the fact is about the user review score at amazon. Apparently, having 4 reliable sources providing the stated fact do not have a impact on two other editors in a slight edit war over this half of a sentence: "... and several critics reported that the product on Amazon.com had an average rating of 1 out of 5 stars.". I could dig and find a couple of more sources with the same fact stated in them, but I doubt it would do any good at this point. Help? Belorn ( talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I found this source [1] and this source [2] in the Louis XVII of France article. Does anyone know anything about these sites? Can they be considered a reliable sources? Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
At Council on American-Islamic Relations, there's a slow edit war (eg. [3]) going on over whether Daniel Pipes and FrontPage Magazine are reliable sources. No talk page discussion as yet, but I'm guessing, based on the users and the topic area, that it wouldn't really get anywhere, and so am pre-emptively bringing it here. Pipes and FrontPage, RSN denizens? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article, a theory claiming that Mubarak was involved in the assassination of Sadat is used in a section of his article. The section was sourced to a book on Amazon called "The Search for the Lost Army: The National Geographic and Harvard University Expedition" which is on http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Army-ebook/dp/B0092PABYO/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346782296&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+army+%2B+chafetz. The book does not seem completely factual based on some reviews which say it is "based on a true story" and could've been partially exaggerated to make it more a thriller. I think that the section should be rewritten so it is more neutral to Mubarak. -- Thebirdlover ( talk) 23:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: [4]
Article: Necroshine
Content:
Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585
Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013
An opinion piece from a college newspaper describing a relationship between MLP: FIM fandom and 4Chan was recently removed from relevant articles. So I think it's time to think about the Autostraddle essay again. I believe that the essay is full of personal opinion which is against the reliable sources policy here so should be removed. I also think the related controversy was not huge enough to shake the entire USA; it's hard to find any relevant reliable news reports beside that one. I also remember the user who cited that source even tried to cite TV Tropes wiki entry, also against the policy. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous one was archived without any answer, so I want to start a new one. Seriously, I think the source, being full of biased opinion, doesn't fit Wikipedia's RS policy. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Source: Point of View: May I Bother You With Some Facts? by Rabbi Moshe Grylak. Mishpacha Magazine Issue 310 May 26, 2010
2. Article: Elazar Shach
3. Content:
Shach said on many occasions that the Jewish people consists of both Torah scholars and balabatim (lay people) who support Torah learning. “Everyone is required to serve Hashem,” he said, “but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day.”
.
A while ago I added this quote to the page, and as I explained on the talk page there 1 2, I think this is an accurate and pertinent quote to be included in the article.
Anybody disagree? Yonoson3 ( talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it is clearly an opinion piece. The most it could be used for is something like, "Grylak opines that full time Torah learning is not for everyone." The relevant policy is WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. This cannot be used as a source for what Shach said. Fladrif ( talk) 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually a subscriber of Mishpacha magazine and the difference between their articles and editorial pieces is that the editorials always glorify Shach and his extreme ideology without any sources that can be checked independently. They also usually clash with Shachs published and verifiable written and taped positions.
1)Source http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0415939143
2)Article from the book Google books link
3)Text: The cease fire soon violated because Egypt's Third Army Corps tried to break free of the Israeli Army's encirclement. The Egyptian action and the arrival of more Soviet equipment to Cairo permitted Israel to tighten its grip on the Egyptians Kiwi228 ( talk) 07:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Other Sources like The Office of the Historian http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ArabIsraeliWar73 say competely opposite -Israel's refusal to stop fighting after a United Nations cease-fire was in place on October 22 nearly involved the Soviet Union in the military confrontation. So I'm want to write it like that - one sourse say Egypt broken case-fire, another sourse say Israil broken case-fire...but not to sure about this link to Chronological History of U.S. Foreign Relations by Lester H. Brune and Richard Dean Burns (Nov 22, 2002) -- Kiwi228 ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Colombo, Rose, Fight Back Legal Abuse: How to Protect Yourself From Your Own Attorney, Morgan James Publishing (2010) ISBN 978-1-60037-709-9
Articles: Abuse; Legal abuse
The article Legal abuse had three references. I contend that all of them are self-published sources. The creator of the article concedes that two of the three are self-published sources, but contends that one of them is not, on the basis that Morgan James Publishing, a "pay to play" publisher, says on its website that it only accepts ~130 of the ~4000 manuscripts it receives each year [6]. In fact, Morgan James is a vanity press, operating on a pay-to-play basis. Originally, it required authors to pay up-front for book design, then it required authors to sign up for a Entrepenurial Author University" for $5K, now it requires that authors buy 2500 copies at "cost plus $2. [7] [8] [9] It is clearly and widely regarded as a vanity publisher, and it no wonder that when authors find out after they make their submission that they have to front $10,000 or more that only 3.25% of the authors go forward. Thus, it is simply a self-published source.
Moreover, the book is being used as the peg on which to hang an entire article which tries to pull together, under the label "legal abuse" a myriad of unrelated topics. The book itself is a series of anecdotes and tirades by the author prompted by her experiences in her divorce case. She is not an attorney, has no formal academic training, and has no recognition as an expert, other than on her own a local right-wing radio show and blog [10] [11]. I'd note that the "Irving Award" that she touts has having been won by the book is not a book award, it is a marketing award by the Book Publicists of Southern California, for "Best Motivational Campaign" [12] I see no indication that this book or this author, even if she found a real publisher, is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on the neologism "legal abuse" (not to be confused with the well-defined Abuse of process
Thoughts? Fladrif ( talk) 13:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Fladrif asked me to comment. Based on the book purchase requirement admitted here it's perfectly clear to me that Morgan James is a vanity publisher pretending not to be in order to be more attractive to their authors. So definitely not a reliable source.
The topic covered in legal abuse is of course in principle a legitimate one. I don't know if this umbrella term for abuse of process and various other forms of abuse of the legal system is established or a neologism. It certainly appears useful. But for an article we would need in-depth reliable sources on the topic. The outcome of a quick search on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar suggests to me that "legal abuse" is not an established term but is in fact a neologism that so far appears almost exclusively in self-published books and forum posts. Hans Adler 22:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
One: "Legal abuse" certainly exists. Two: Morgan-James appears to be a vanity publisher. Three: A lot of real authors do end up with copies of their books in their own garage. Four: The concept of "traditional publisher" is changing due to (for example) publishing through Amazon, etc. Result: Books published by M-J do not currently pass the WP:RS-test, but well may in the future depending on how we vet authors using such publishers. Questia finds a number of fairly consistent uses of the phrase. I think they should be examined for such an article. Collect ( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about reviewing the GAN Jill Valentine before I noticed that some of the article's sources have uncertain reliability. Are any of these reliable? [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks hatted until refactored by editor. Fladrif ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
HELLO THERE, would you PLEASE stop telling untruths again? There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.| -- Niemti ( talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Also, please see this. -- Niemti ( talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
Kevyn Orr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a copy of the notice I put up on the NPOV Noticeboard. Please weigh in with your opinions.
I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Truman Starr ( talk) 20:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
An unproductive discussion has long continued about whether there are reliable sources for the existence of more than one view on Ezekiel 16:50. The view contested is that this passage of Ezekiel includes among the wrongdoings for which Sodom was destroyed its townsmen's sexual behaviour (see this edit). The most discussed source cited in support of the existence of this view is a book by Robert A. Gagnon, which states:
Other sources that have been cited for the existence of the view that Ezekiel included sexual misbehaviour among the elements in Sodom's wrongdoing are:
One editor is insistently deleting from Wikipedia recognition of the existence of the view that Ezekiel 16:50 includes sexual sin among the wrongdoings of Sodom, a view that these sources surely show to be notable. Esoglou ( talk) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Two sources are cited in support of the statement now in the article: "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity." The two are Crompton and Gagnon. I am now asking about the reliability of these two sources for the statement that the other editor insists on having in the article. Is the cited passage of Crompton (pp. 37-39) a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Is the cited passage of Gagnon a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Esoglou ( talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been some discussion as to whether this is a reliable source: Dominic Malcolm, Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity (London: Bloomsbury, 2012).
Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why this is not a reliable source. It certainly qualifies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as a book published by a reputable academic press, it will have been peer-reviewed and so vetted by the scholarly community. Its author is Senior Lecturer (equivalent to Associate or even Full Professor in North America) in the Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University.
Your thoughts are welcomed on this matter. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In principle, I am opposed to the use of this book because it promotes theories that are unsound and has been found to contain false and misleading information. However, it does have a reputable publisher and so I daresay it will meet WP criteria. However, it must be used with caution especially as it fails to comply with the consensus view of early cricket history achieved by numerous established sources written by recognised authorities. I would also add that, in another discussion about the book, User:CDTPP (who is a subject expert) has confirmed that he has read and reviewed it and pronounced it "risible". Whenever I see the book cited, I will check other sources that I know to be superior and overwrite as necessary. I am currently doing this at History of cricket (1726–1740) where I have already removed or replaced two complete falsehoods taken from this book; having said that, a section has been added to the article which is useful and only needs copyedit and the source can stand re that section. So, okay, no need to proceed with this discussion except that the book must be used with caution and its supporters must accept that references may be removed or replaced if and when incorrect or dubious content is discovered. ---- Jack | talk page 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the 1755 laws, provision was made to allow an injured batter to retire and to resume his/her innings at a later time (a further indication that such injuries were relatively common), but not to be replaced or substituted. Presumably due to the suspicion that such a regulation would be flouted (and the ramifications this would have for bets placed on matches), an additional law decreed that the umpires were to be judges ‘of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended’ (Rait Kerr 1950: 97–98). Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity, Dominic Malcolm
An editor and an IP have been adding references and material from a self-published book by David J. Hogg ( talk · contribs), who says on my talkpage "I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, U.K. and the National Trust at Tyntesfield. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2010, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. I am a Fellow of teh Royal Geographical society. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these." Our article on the RGS does say fellowship is an honor, but also there are over 10,000 fellow. Worldcat shows it in 8 UK libraries, [25] none in the US. I removed them from Lawley's article but was reverted by an IP which has been also adding them to other articles. I'll go and notify the editor/author now. Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
copying from my talk page again:
All my citations in the article on Sir Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock have been removed by two Wikipedia editors.
I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in existence — "Sir Arthur Lawley, Eloquent Knight Errant". I worked in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, UK and the National Trust at Tyntesfield in England. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. Robert Bell of Langcliffe, Sir Arthur Lawley's great grandson, was also very helpful. All the family portraits, photo albums, books diaries and letters were open to me. The Foreword to the book was written by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. Much of the work was done at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Rhodes Mandela House in Oxford, the British Library and the National Archives in Kew, London. I also researched at Harvard, in New York, in Pretoria, South Africa, and in Zimbabwe. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these. It is quite absurd to reject the leading expert on Sir Arthur Lawley in Wikipedia.
This book was self published in the United Kingdom with the support of the Empire and Commonwealth Museum and Tyntesfield and published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Western Australia. 600 copies have been sold and it is now an iBook. All my references are in the printed books and in the iBook I enclose the Foreword by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia.
I am new to Wikipedia and cannot find my way round your system. Could you please contact the two editors and re-instate my references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.245.173 ( talk) 4:13 pm, Today (UTC+0)
I am reviewing this article's Good Article nomination, and at first glance seems to be in good shape (albeit HUGE), but there are many references to blogs, including Wordpress blogs. The issue is that while such blogs are "largely not acceptable" per WP:SPS, the bloggers seem to be well regarded individuals in their field. The nominating editor makes a case for them at the GA review page, but as I have no expertise with the F1 community, I cannot properly decide if these are acceptable despite the guidelines, or if they are to be considered invalid, and thus result in a fail of the nomination. F1 Fanatic (Keith Collantine) is the most important one as it is used quite heavily, but jamesallenonf1 (James Allen, with a professionally built website), joesaward.wordpress.com (Joe Saward), adamcooperf1.com (Adam Cooper) and scarbsf1.com (Craig Scarborough) are also at issue. Three of these are Wordpress blogs, but I am curious if any of our European/F1 editors with a knowledge of the sport can vouch for the credentials of the bloggers. Thanks, Reso lute 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on a big rework of the article
Italian Hall disaster in my userspace
here. The source in question for this board is — Lehto, Steve (2006). Death's door: the truth behind Michigan's largest mass murder. Momentum Books. p. 232.
ISBN
978-1-879094-77-2. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) According to
the website of Momentum Books, I can't really tell if they are a self-publisher or kind of borderline. On the other hand, sources have described the book (in prose at
User:Chris857/Italian Hall disaster#Literature) as "definitive and authoritative".
I am currently using the book for items of opinion in the draft, and the first name of a person in
Italian Hall. My question is: to what degree and for what material would this source be appropriate? I think points of opinion and uncontroversial information should be appropriate, but I would appreciate outside opinions.
Chris857 (
talk) 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: The book seems well-researched to me, and the author is a lawyer.
Chris857 (
talk) 23:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across an inaccurate inclusion of the late Laura Branigan's name under the Wikipedia page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music." I've been trying to have the inclusion removed, without success.
The two sources cited for this inclusion (Billboard magazine and the New York Times), though considered reliable and verifiable by Wikipedia, have erroneously described Miss Branigan as being a Soprano vocalist. The problem is that she was not a Soprano, but a Contralto; her voice exhibited none of the characteristics of a solo Soprano vocalist, yet exhibited all of the characteristics of a Contralto.
The New York Times article, in particular, was written by a critic with no true knowledge of the classification of solo vocalists and was based off of his observation of a single live concert performance in September, 1983: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/11/arts/pop-concert-laura-branigan.html. The Billboard article is located here: http://books.google.de/books?id=FRMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=laura+branigan+soprano&source=bl&ots=oGVxUF7Z9_&sig=rf2cBywwaM0-6dWdKxnutxl2tMg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=1riJUIOHOcmGswbM5YCADA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=laura%20branigan%20soprano&f=false.
Furthermore, I came across two other such articles written by this same critic (Stephen Holden): one written a year before (March 1982), http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/22/arts/hard-rock-laura-branigan.html, in which he once again described her voice as a Soprano, but praised the quality of it as being "lusty and theatrical"; and one written in September 1984, in which he did not describe her alleged vocal range, but once again changed his opinion of the quality of her voice, this time as being "big and neutral," capable of only "shrill mechanical performances" http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/18/arts/music-noted-in-brief-branigan-s-top-40-style-at-avery-fisher-hall.html. In the cited September 1983 article, he described her voice as "thin and tense."
My point is that a critic who gets paid to write his opinion based off of concert performances is hardly authoritative enough to be considered a reliable or verifiable source, especially given how his opinion of her vocal quality changed over the course of two years, not to mention that he never once took her studio recordings into consideration. We are all entitled to our opinions, but facts are facts: Laura Branigan's vocal quality may sound subjectively different to people at different times, but the fact is that she sang in the Contralto vocal range.
Unfortunately, despite extensive Google searches, I've not been able to find any "reliable" or "verifiable" sources (in Wikipedia's eyes) that correctly describe Miss Branigan's true vocal range. She has been widely known to have had a Dramatic Contralto (erroneously abbreviated to "alto") voice, and it is widely known amongst people, but I've not been able to find any sources considered reliable by Wikipedia that state such.
The fact of the matter is that Laura Branigan was not a Soprano by any means. Her voice was not "thin or tense" on her studio recordings, nor was it "shrill or mechanical," as described by Stephen Holden, but rich, strong, and highly emotive. Her voice did indeed soar, as claimed by Billboard, but it was not a Soprano because she never sang in the Soprano range.
Solo vocalists, unlike choral vocalists, are not categorized solely by the range of notes they are capable of hitting, but by something called tessitura, which is the range in which their voice sounds the most comfortable and natural for the majority of the time. In Laura Branigan's case, she sang most often in the Contralto range, which typically encompasses the notes between F3 (below Middle C) and F5 (two above Middle C), though in extreme cases, the range can extend from E3 (below Middle C) to B-Flat 5 (two above Middle C). Sopranos, on the other hand, sing best in the range between C4 (Middle C) and C6 (High C).
Furthermore, to quote www.dummies.com, which was cited on the Wiki page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music," the greatest strength of a soprano is a strong head voice, which has a bright and ringing tone. Sopranos also have a harder time projecting in the middle register.
Laura Branigan projected remarkably well in the lower and middle ranges; she did not have a strong head voice at all, nor a bright or ringing tone. Her tone was rich, full, thick, and full of weight. Any time she attempted to sing notes up in the head voice range, her voice was being pushed due to her remarkable strength and technique as a vocalist. This means that she simply had a high extension, which was not part of her natural range (her tessitura). Her tessitura closely resembled those of known Contraltos like Tina Turner and Toni Braxton.
While writing this, I found an article from the UK's newspaper The Guardian, which accurately describes Miss Branigan as a "dramatic alto" (though it uses the erroneous abbreviation "alto," rather than the correct term "contralto," but still is accurate in that she is not a soprano). It is located here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/table/2009/mar/20/party-1000-songs-everyone-must-hear. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers the Guardian, but I've included the link for completeness.
I also came across a partial article written in 2010 for a South African publication called The Star. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers it, but I've once again included it for completeness. It is only a partial article from High Beam Research, requiring readers to subscribe to read the rest, but the visible portion does describe Miss Branigan as a "Dramatic Alto." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-232180760.html
In closing, it should also be noted that Laura Branigan was twice described as an "alto" on her main Wikipedia page without any citations, yet no one seems to have noticed. I detect a double standard. 68.44.138.213 ( talk) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
At Ward Churchill#Writing, we find this:
It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim that the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim has been both disputed and supported by other scholars. [1] [2]
My question concerns whether the theracetothebottom.org citation is a reliable source for that claim.
First, it's a blog. Second, the blog cites a Doctor Barbara Alice Mann, who is an Assistant Professor the University of Toledo. [27] who supposedly wrote a book called "The Gift of Disease". Wikipedia has no page on Mann, and it appears that she did not write a book with that title. [28] She did, however write "The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion", [29] which is probably what the blog refers to. Neither book has a Wikipedia page.
Second, the blog describes the testimony of a witness in a trial, a person who "has known Professor Churchill for over 20 years and asked him to write the foreword for one of her books". Even leaving out the personal involvement, is expert testimony ever considered to be a reliable source? Most large civil lawsuits have dueling experts arguing both sides of the issue.
If, as I suspect, this is not a reliable source, the following Wikipedia articles may have a better source:
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas (
This source in particular)
and
Siege of Fort Pitt#Blankets with smallpox.
--
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks reliable to me. I'm not sure what the problem is here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering what the rules are for an article that relates to something that has little or no published material. For example, a spiritual or philosophical belief system that has not necessarily been widely discussed in published work, but is followed by many worldwide. If I have been part of a particular "way of life" community for years, of which there are similar groups in many different countries all of whom follow a particular belief system, and I therefore know the details of that belief system for a fact, can that information not be added to Wikipedia? Because it's discouraging to see incorrect or minimal information on something that is such a big part of your life, simply because there are so few third party sources discussing it...in spite of the fact that many people follow those beliefs and share them throughout the web.
What if there is a website that essentially IS the primary source for people within that community? A place where they connect and can reference material to explain to others what their beliefs are. Can that never qualify as a source? Do people with this kind of philosophy need to wait until someone decides to publish a book about it, even though the information is right there and they already practice that way of life 24/7? I'm just trying to understand how I can present information on wikipedia that is a fact for countless people, yet does not necessarily have a published source. Thanks!
There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. All these draft are attributed with references using mainly secondary sources. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There are six requests at Many-worlds interpretation to verify the credibility of: Price, Michael Clive (1995), The Everett FAQ, BLTC Research...
— Machine Elf 1735 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Formspring acounts from Pendleton Ward and other notable members of the Adventure Time crew like storyboard artist/director Adam Muto (Just to prove they can be verified… For Pendleton Ward, his official website points to his twitter, which directly points to his Formspring. For Adam Muto, his official twitter states the Formspring address in the tagline. His Formspring also verifies Andy Ristaino's official Formspring account, and same with Cole Sanchez).
Article: List of Adventure Time characters, Adventure Time, etc.
Content: The citations support a variety of behind-the-scenes information, such as how the show is animated, evolution of character designs, the role of director, how names are pronounced/spelled, etc. Some are minor (the names), whereas some are major (like how the series is animated, which hasn't turned up anywhere else).
To the best of my ability, the sources comply with WP:V. The info is from an "established expert on the subject matter", whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". In this case, the expert are people who work on the show and thus would know about it, and there reliability has been confirmed by third-party sources (like interviews), as well as the series itself. Next, "the material is neither unduly self-serving" because the information is about the series itself, but it isn't self-serving (ie Muto, Ward, et al are not benefiting overtly from their responses, they just answering questions). The citations do not contain "an exceptional claim"; none of the citations are controversial, and they're only confirming facts. None of the citations "involve claims about third parties", so that one is easy. The sources also do "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source", as they all pertain exactly to what was being asked about in the first place, which is almost always behind-the-scenes info. In addition, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", as the people who have answer these questions are notable in and of themselves, and these account can be definitely linked to them (see first part). Finally, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." List of Adventure Time characters only uses the source 4 times out 77. But what I'm worried about is if there is a systematic "ban" on Formspring, some elements of other articles (Adventure Time in particular) will suffer (for instance, the information regarding how the show is animated).-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
An article has failed two Good Article nomination partly because of a claim that the church was built as a Cathedral. There are three sources for this, all of them seen by at least some editors as unreliable:
I've got some editors who say that the claim is unreliable and another editor (not me) who is rater aggressively claiming that it is totally reliable.
So as far as I can see there are three questions. (1) Should this claim be included at all? (2) If it should be included, should the claim be qualified? (3) If it is qualified how should it be qualified?
There is no one who claims that the church was not intended as a Cathedral and its part of the local colour to the article (it seems to be believed by parishoners), although it's not clear whether the Parish website and the UK attraction article were influenced by the Suffolk Churches article.
JASpencer ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If the original sketches clearly show provision for a "cathedra" (bishop's seat) behind the altar then it is reasonable to so state. (On the order of The architectural plans provided for a 'cathedra' behind the main altar or the like). IMO Collect ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the above I didn't find a link to the article. Here it is: St Pancras Church, Ipswich. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A cathedral is for a diocese. This church is in the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia, which was formed in 1976 out of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton, which itself goes all the way back to the re-establishment of RC dioceses back in 1850. As far as I can determine, Northampton Cathedral was always the cathedral in that diocese: the chancel end was built as a college chapel before re-establishment, and then was extended with the current nave specifically with the intent of making it suitable to function as the cathedral, but I find several books saying that it was considered the cathedral from re-establishment. This work was completed in 1864 by the younger Pugin; I have not found a date for when the expansion began. St. Pancras was started in 1860 and finished the following year. It seems therefore likely that if there was any thought of St P's being the cathedral, it could only have been plausible if the nave extension of the current cathedral had happened after St P's was completed, and if there were some thought on someone's part of it replacing the old chapel.
Reading the parish website, it's quite clear that saying St P's was built as a cathedral is incorrect. Goldie (or someone) apparently hoped that if and when the diocese of Northampton was divided, this building would used as the basis for constructing a cathedral for the new diocese. As it happened, by the time of that division the huge St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich had been built and there was no reason to expand a church in the cleared slums of Ipswich. The parish version of this story is the only one that is plausible, and even then I see no other way to treat it than as a bit of parish lore. The other two versions seem to be based on the parish version with some of the key details misunderstood or filed off. Mangoe ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: Michael Morrison (May 9, 2012) "Austerity: The Jobs Killer" Decisions Based on Evidence
Please see also: Morrison's CV (note professional academic experience and sections such as "Economic Development" and related topics as per WP:SPS)
In article: Austerity
Content question: Is this graph suitable for the article's introduction with its caption as shown here? 67.41.205.108 ( talk) 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The source is arguably reliable, but should not be used. Wordpress is reliable where the "expert" clause in WP:SPS applies. I'm not sure it does, because the author is hardly world-renowned. In any event, it would be undue and a bit misleading to include the graph. Morrison himself says that he has assumed that the "change in unemployment is the result of policy". That's a pretty big assumption, and it is obviously also possible that tricky economic circumstances in certain parts of the Eurozone are associated with both increases in unemployment and the implementation of austerity measures. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources that do make a causal link though - you should make use of those and not this. Formerip ( talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if the source were reliable, the graph doesn't make any sense. Lets draw a straight line to indicate a trend. Ok.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would this source [41] be OK to use for the BP article updates on current court findings? For example:
Transocean agreed to admit guilty as well as to pay US$1.4bn in fines. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 11:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: various pages from the website of the Cumbria County History Trust [42]
Article: numerous WP place articles, mainly stubs, such as Arlecdon in Cumbria, NW England.
Content: As a simple External Link using Cite web, for example:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)A new editor recently added an external link to many stub articles of places in Cumbria, NW England. The link to Cumbria County History Trust provide some interesting historical background not previously referenced within the article. They are spam-free. The only obvious concern was that the editor was also adding a “History” section to some of the articles with a sentence saying “see CCHT in the external links below” or similar words to that effect. Potential RS and COI issues were then raised leading to the removal by the editor of the links, in my view to the detriment of the stub. I have therefore offered to present the material for RSN consideration.
The material is NOT biographic and contains no SPAM. An example is [43]. Each page carries a link to a page detailing the numerous historical sources used and includes a standard disclaimer about potential accuracy. Bearing in mind the ancient documents used in some cases the accuracy will always be open to challenge but I do not think the presence of this disclaimer weakens the objectivity of the material presented.
The Cumbria County History Trust is a volunteer membership organisation. It has provided digests on its website of the history of c344 Cumberland villages, towns and cities. Information on the CCHT website has been put together from local history archives & records by experienced amateurs (e.g. retired academics) compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here [44]. There is a future expansion of this information planned as part of the Victoria County History Project under the auspices of the University of London that will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard.
The editor hopes that the inclusion of this external link will encourage WP editors with an interest in the article to use the externally linked historical material to develop the stub articles. Whether or not this happens, I cannot see any negative aspect with using this material. It is non-BLP infringing, is at least secondary source in nature and organised under an academic scheme of control with no spam links. It is an improvement on the total absence of local historical information contained in the majority of these stubs and could be presented through citation as WP:RS without comment.
I would be grateful for the community's consideration on this material for External Link purposes. Leaky Caldron 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Superman: Escape from Krypton for GA, and questioned the use of multiple pages from The Coaster Guy (www.thecoasterguy.com) as a reliable source, on the basis that it looked to me like a self-published blog created by an enthusiastic amateur. The nominator replied that: "From my experience, I've never encountered anything to be wrong on his subject and I know he works with the park from time to time." I'm not convinced, but I'm outside my usual topic areas, so I thought I would bring it here for a second opinion. In particular, the site is used to source the following:
While in the planning stages, the ride was going to be named Velocetron and themed as The Man of Steel. Source
If the Velocetron name was chosen, the queue and station would have had ancient ruins and a giant laser. Source
After 10 months of testing and reengineering, the ride opened on March 15, 1997. Source
Superman: Escape from Krypton closed again on February 5, 2012 (almost a year after the refurbishment) to prepare for the new 2012 attraction Lex Luthor: Drop of Doom. Two drop towers, also built by Intamin, were integrated into the existing sides of Superman: Escape from Krypton's structure. The ride reopened when construction was finished on July 7, 2012. Source
The coaster closed again for a third time after Christmas in 2012 to enable the construction of the park's latest roller coaster, Full Throttle. Its supports were installed over the plaza where Superman's entrance is located. Superman: Escape from Krypton was originally scheduled to reopen when Full Throttle opens in Summer 2013, Source
Thanks for your help. Moswento talky 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Source: [45]
Article: Bob Menendez
Content: According to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker, it is reported that a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Menendez campaign donor. “That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation.
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
The Daily Caller is very partisan in nature. Its prostitution allegation on Bob Menendez is based entirely on anonymous sources (prostitutes). Furthermore, ABC News has talked to the same sources, but concluded that it is not news because it doesn't pass the smell test. ABC News also said the meeting was arranged by anonymous Republican operatives, clearly a partisan effort.
According to the Washington Post: one of the prostitutes later told Dominican authorities that she never meet Menendez, but was paid to make allegations against him.
The Daily Caller claim that that prostitute is the wrong prostitute, because her name and age doesn't match. The Daily Caller has not verify that the prostitutes use their real names and age.
Illegal Operation ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If WP:BLP has any meaning, then we should be very circumspect when someone is accused of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence and no charges filed. We should be even more circumspect when the accusations are so obviously sustained by one-sided partisan media.
I'm not saying we shouldn't mention these allegations. But if we do, then the coverage needs to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, care, and accuracy - not on dubious partisan media. Such coverage would read, in essence: "The Daily Caller, a conservative website, featured accusations that Menendez had patronized underage prostitutes in the DR. The accusations were unsubstantiated, and multiple other news outlets, including tabloids such as the New York Post, declined to publish them given their lack of credibility. Subsequently, one of the accusers stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate Menendez and had never actually met him. The Daily Caller nonetheless continued to promote the claims ( [52])."
Seriously, folks. This episode is actually exhibit A as to why the Daily Caller is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a BLP. MastCell Talk 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The scope of this forum is whether the source can be considered a reliable source in the context of the content. Can the Daily Caller be a source for the content it is used to site. Let us look what it used to verify:
In an article[111] by The Daily Caller
“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation
The Daily Caller can be used to verify what itself stated, but the content can fall under WP:BLPCRIME, but that is not for this noticeboard that is for WP:BLPN. The article is about emails from CREW ( Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Here is a link directly from CREW of their initial release and the non-redacted version of the email exchange. Here is a link to the redacted emails which is linked in the article which is the subject of this discussion. The Daily Caller content is further verified by this Daily Mail article.
Therefore, the question is not is the Daily Caller article a reliable source for the content, but is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Instead, this is a case where someone was paid to fabricate salacious allegations against a living person, and those allegations continue to be promoted by a partisan website despite a universally appreciated lack of credibility. We should handle such situations with extreme care, but instead we seem to be committed to doing the opposite. MastCell Talk 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
MastCell has left out that the Daily Caller, and reported by others, that the information for the individuals who claimed they were paid to lie is disputed. To only include the one link to the Washington Post regarding this is cherry picking.
I have provided links to the documents which the article which is the subject of this discussion reported on. That is from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington which has called liberal, as indicated on their Wikipedia article. I have issues with the new "revised" version, but this is not the place to discuss it.
The question remains: Is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content? I am of the opinion that they are, and the content was properly attributed to the source.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But I'd also like to put this question of the Daily Caller as a reliable source to bed. This isn't the first time that the Daily Caller has pushed dubious or outright false material for partisan purposes. In fall 2011, The Daily Caller published an article claiming that the EPA under Obama wanted to hire 230,000 additional bureaucrats, at a cost of $21 billion. That claim got repeated a lot - in outlets like FoxNews and the National Review - but it was completely and transparently false ( [54], [55]). When they were called out on the falsehood, the Daily Caller doubled down rather than correcting it ( [56]).
WP:RS demands that we use sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In light of these two incidents, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Daily Caller has or deserves such a reputation. There have been several high-profile instances now where this site has prioritized its ideological goals over basic journalistic accuracy. We should be very cautious about using this website as a source, and should definitely avoid it altogether when it comes to contentious material about living people. MastCell Talk 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Too bad you are omitting the up too part that TDC originally used. I remember that story when it came out and equated it as to "you can lose up to 100lbs on the wikipedia diet". Reading is fundamental.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
That's yellow journalism at its worst. I'd hope no one would seriously suggest that we go to the Harry Reid biography and include a section entitled "Pedophilia allegations" - but we've done essentially the same thing on the Menendez biography, prominently featuring false smears publicized by this "reliable source". I'm not sure how many such examples I need to present to convince people that we shouldn't let this source anywhere near a biography. MastCell Talk 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting read, as it echoes this conversation to a degree, but there was no consensus that TDM was banned as a RS, perhaps for the same reasons I mention here. Look, the bottom line is if an article from TDC or TDM or whatever is unreliable, it should be apparent from the article in question and corroborating sources (or lack thereof). There is no need to cb any RS.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Equating the Daily Caller with reputable journalistic enterprises because they both "get it wrong on occasion" completely misses the mark in terms of what makes a source reliable. Reliability isn't defined by the publication of occasional errors. It's defined by a process of accountability in which errors, when identified, are promptly corrected. A reliable is one that shows some serious interest and accountability in whether or not the stuff it publishes actually turns out to be, like, true. That's why the New York Times is a reliable source, and the Daily Caller isn't. MastCell Talk 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic complaints about the liberal mainstream media |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Over at the Lutici page, a user is removing a map based on the argument that it is based on a "bad source" (whatever that's suppose to be - sounds like "a source I don't like") [61].
The source is a book, "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne" ("Western Slavs. Early feudal monarchies") by Andrzej Michałek, according to Polish Wikipedia and the book itself, a historian with specialty in military history. The publisher is Bellona Publishing House, a publisher which specializes in books in military history. It collaborates and has published works by famous and respected historians such as Henryk Samsonowicz and Lech Wyszczelski. It also published a well established historical journal Mówią Wieki. Additionally, according to Polish wikipedia [62] it is one of the largest publishers in Poland and awards a prestigious annual prize " Nagroda Klio" (apparently called "The Nobel of History", though I'm pretty sure that's just within Poland).
The objection to the source is that... well, I'm not exactly clear, based on talk page discussion [63] - either something to do with the fact that the editor thinks that a particular name of the place didn't exist at the time, or that no place existed at the time, or that... I dunno. Not sure how these arguments are actually relevant to the issue either.
Is this source reliable or not? Volunteer Marek 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am a volunteer at DRN and have closed that request without action, due to this unresolved discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
To sum up what we have got here so far:
I thus maintain that
Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, the "summary" by Skapperod above is incorrect; it's POV falsehood and spin. I thought we were done with the map issue and it was solved. Apparently not.
Rather what we got here is:
That really should be the end of story right there. But just to satisfy Skapperod's IDONTLIKEIT objections I've also provided another reliable source (though a bit old, republished in 1975) which directly backs up the information in the map. So it is simply not true that there are "no secondary sources" to support the claims made. This part is just blatantly incorrect.
At the same time Skapperod has not provided A SINGLE source which would contradict the information contained the map. This is because the map is correct so no such sources exist. I've already provided reliable sources so it is really now up to Skapperod to provide sources which contradict the map or drop the matter per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
As to the other questions
So no, map stays. It is based on reliable sources and that really is the end of story. This board is suppose to help us decide whether these sources are reliable but so far no one else has chimed in, unfortunately. However it seems clear to me that the requirements for reliability and verifiability have been satisfied.
We can tweak the wording with respect to Dymin and Kockow but there is no reason to remove them and replace it with ambiguously worded text.
We can keep the discussion on the Rugia question open. Volunteer Marek 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
And oh yeah. If you really think the map is a copyvio... because it resembles one in the book (it is not identical by any means), in other words, it faithfully reflects information found in a reliable source - then we can ask someone with expertise in copyright question about this, for example User:Moonriddengirl. I would be happy to make a scan of the map in the book itself so that she can compare it to the map I made myself and let us know about this issue. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to continue to assume good faith in the face of edits such as these [102]. You've added a "failed verification" tag on top off the disputed tag and then restored it after I removed it. This is NOT "failed verification", except in your own personal opinion. The info is in the source. What is disputed is the wording. But there is already a tag for that - and honestly, even that should be removed. It appears that you've decided to escalate the dispute, on top of restarting and erasing the compromises that at one point we've achieved. Like I said, these kinds of actions are hard to interpret as being done in good faith. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Is a page obtained from news rack considered a reliable source? See this page which I would like to use to replace a dead link ( "Nandigram violence can't be justified: intellectuals". Hindustan Times. India. dead link) in Teesta Setalvad. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Updates:
In the article Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania an editor insists on using the "Eastern United States Research and Some Mid Atlantic" webpage as a source. [117]. Specifically, User:Carrite is trying to use a page the claims to be a news article from the Washingto Reporter (now the Observer-Reporter). [118]. This isn't a scan of a page or fiche, it's someone retyping it and claiming it is accurate. At this point, we have no evidence that the article ever ran or said what is claimed. This is a Geocities site run by two non-experts. I don't see any editorial oversight or any other reason to claim this is a reliable source. Initially I simply tagged the source as dubious and opened a discussion about it but Carrite insisted on removing the tag and declaring it bogus. So here we are. Previously, there was a discussion about a third party site (publicintelligence.com) hosting a PDF copy of a US Govt. document. [119] Many seems to question if that was allowable, even when it was obvious that the document existed and was reproduced by a scan, not someone retyping it as is the case here. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hazel Kirkwas built in 1901 by the Kirk-Wood Co. of Cleveland to house miners for Hazel Kirk No. 1 mine, which began operations the same year. [155]