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 145 | ← | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | → | Archive 155 |
The University of Westminster claims that "The University of Westminster currently has the largest... Scholarships Programmes in the UK" [1] may we use the given source to make the statement? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguity is a matter or interpretation. I would ask how about using "claimed by the University to be the "most generous"? That is a verifiable fact, isn't it? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The "patron" part is not in doubt; claim by both parties, non-controversial. The "largest" claim is unfortunately, problematic. Have tried a quick search of outside sources, which would be necessary for citation, and (I'm a little shocked), only find re-posting of UW's claim. Agree, it needs a better source.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A follow-up of the lengthy Ataturk discussion above (sorry): an editor wants to readd Buzz Aldrin to the list, after his inclusion was challenged. He supports the claim these four sources: freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, Phoenix Masonry, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. His claimed affiliation is with a lodge in New Jersey (ie, none of the three). Are these enough to keep Aldrin in the list, especially considering WP:BLP?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 11:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Over on the Needle Exchange Programme page a fellow contributor wishes to revert all text [3] which cites either Drug Free Australia or the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) as unreliable.
Re the JGDPP, this issue was discussed on RS/N two years ago here after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source chiefly because its review was one of the only four reviews considered rigorous enough by the 2010 Palmateer review of reviews for inclusion in their study. The aforementioned reverting contributor was not part of that discussion and seems not aware of it.
However the other issue is whether further analysis of these reviews by drug prevention organisation, Drug Free Australia (DFA), can be cited with attribution. Our reverting contributor believes only medical journals are permissible. This is where some other views will be helpful. My reasons for inclusion are 1. Drug Free Australia is the peak body for drug prevention organisations in Australia, with Australia’s previous drug Czar for a whole decade, Maj Brian Watters on their Board – it is therefore a notable and highly credible source 2. Its public statements are guided by its 24 Fellows who are medical practitioners, epidemiologists, addiction medicine specialists p24 here (all of whom have had numerous studies published in the best medical journals as outlined here and here) and along with social researchers with PhDs. Further, the lead author of the JGDPP Kall et al. study, one of the four rigorous reviews used by the same Palmateer cited in the Wikipedia article, is one of those 24 Fellows, so their statements are well-guided 3. In any case, my text is not addressing anything biomedical ie anything biological or physiological about the HIV or HCV viruses – only their relationship to cohort populations given clean needles or not ie statistical 4. It is the most cited source in an Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into drugs in 2007 [4], and all 19 times it is cited favourably 5. The source is reliable even if opinionated as per [5] and I have cited it with attribution according to advice of RS/N a number of years ago here and 6. Importantly, their analysis is quite self-evidently correct, as can be verified by anyone wanting to delve into the broad issue, and I have found no alternate reliable source which contradicts this critique. Talk page text is here. Any wisdom on what is a highly conflicted area of international drug policy? Minphie ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, the position of Drug Free Australia and the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has previously been discussed at this noticeboard in May 2010, early June 2010, late June 2010, March 2011, June 2011, June 2011 and April 2012. I don't think "after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source" is a fair summary of what those discussions resulted in. From what I gander, this is the consensus opinion of these discussions: That the above mentioned sources are not prohibited per se (as few sources ever are on Wikipedia). But given that they aren't up to snuff with the gold standards of biomedical research, they can't be presented as incontrovertible fact either. Their usage in articles is highly dependent on context, including (among other things) questions of "due weight". A concise sentence or two, properly attributed to an advocacy group, might be one thing. The text I reverted comprised 40% of the "Research" section of the article. Gabbe ( talk) 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
caste and tribes of south india by edgar Thurston is considered as the reliable source or not . please let me know . When I want to write about an article I am taking the book as source . but an editor remarks this book is not an reliable source . please clarify me . -- Suryavarman01 ( talk) 06:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The surveyors used the principles of scientific racism in order to conduct their surveys. For example, they used nasal and cranial measurements and colour charts to classify people. As a general rule, and certainly in Thurston's case, they had no understanding of the local languages and relied on native third-parties to translate the statements made by the small, statistically unsound sample groups that were selected. They adopted an uncritical approach, accepting what they were told as being true despite the problems that were then emerging with, for example, the process of sanskritisation. Their translators were not often specialists either.
Despite all this, some sources in India - notably the critically panned The People of India series - have continued to cite Thurston et al in recent times, although as a rule they only select the favourable bits. This is the approach that often appears on Wikipedia also: contributors like Thurston when he is favourable to their community but kick up a fuss when he is not. He should not be relied upon because his methods are discredited, his motives were highly suspect and in many cases it seems he would not have recognised a member of X or Y caste if one of them had sat down with him for a cup of tea. He and his colleagues determined that there were around 1,000 castes in the country as a whole; the figure is now reckoned to be somewhere north of 4,500. The most we can really say is something along the lines of "Edgar Thurston mentions this community in volume X of Castes and Tribes of Southern India". - Sitush ( talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Doctors have successfully taken millions of white blood cells from a then 6 year old girl with leukemia then used genetically altered HIV to change those cells into something that will target and destroy cancer cells. [1] One year later, she has no signs of cancer in body. The treatment was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Clinical trial have thus far included 20 people, with an 80% success rate. [2]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.
Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation. In an e-mailed statement, Shaw said there are “several programs” through which such information is passed to the government, and named two which are public, run by Microsoft and for defensive purposes.
I recently made the following comment at an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, suggesting that expert authority is more reliable / encyclopedic than mere institutional authority.
I'd welcome comments on the merits of this distinction and how it can best be incorporated into WP:RS. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in dispute with another editor at Crossmark over the addition of material sourced to http://www.cspnet.com/ . The two stories are http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-informationweek-500 and http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-top-technology-innovator . The problem I have is that the articles read like press releases from Crossmark and the awards that Crossmark has reported been awarded were awarded by InformationWeek, but I can find no reference to Crossmark winning these awards on the InformationWeek website. Trawling through archive.org I find this which appears to be the extent of the coverage. It all looks like paid coverage / marketting to me. Are any of these reliable sources? Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring reason to bear on Francesco Racanelli, but also to restrain my inclination to delete most of the content as pseudoscientific nonsense. So I'd appreciate the opinion of others on the sources, which are:
Are those sources reliable for basic biographic details such as his place of birth or nickname? And are sources 1 and 2 reliable for this passage:
In Italy, Racanelli inaugurated the first zetetic research relating to animal magnetism and involving a doctor.[2] After having been examined and studied from every angle,[2] Racanelli managed to overcome all stages inherent in rational scepticism.[2] The findings of the aforementioned study revealed the presence of an “amazing fluid”[1][2] combined with “surprising curative properties”.[1][2]
Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Quote from two nobodies an editor states that these authors and this publisher are not "notable or expert or influential" or "distinguished" enough to have this quote (or anything else?) included in Wikipedia.
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This is FORUMSHOPPING. Nobody but OP ever called this an RS issue at the article, on this page, or elsewhere. Any Request for assistance should be posted at the appropriate venue to conserve editors' time and attention and to avoid needless and confusing crosstalk. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Spotted on the blogs this morning:
I request permission to remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles which use it as a citation. Shii (tock) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's go back to the specific claim being made. Here's the citation the book uses for the claim that psychic researchers had sex with Eusapia Palladino: "Eric Dingwall to James Randi, October 10, 1979. From the archives of the James Randi Educational Foundation."
Pull up the Wikipedia article on Eric Dingwall, and what do we see? Go take a look for yourself. Is this letter to Randi good enough to make this claim downright factual? Shii (tock) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw this issue was raised at WP:FTN so I came here to comment. Regarding use of the source The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero: it's reliable insofar as it is an opinion published by a reliable source. There's no need to "remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles". However it should not be stated as fact. Instead per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it should be clearly attributed as the authors opinion, and in this case, (i.e. allegations of sexual promiscuity) a speculation, e.g. "Authors William Kalush and Larry Sloman speculate that blah blah blah, etc." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's concerning the use of sources at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Is a realtor's web site [12] considered a reliable source for house prices? I reverted an edit from an IP editor [13] that quoted a realtor's site, which they they re-reverted [14] claiming that they are verified by the Multiple listing service. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've submitted an article on a Russian computer science conference/symposium for deletion. One of the two editors for the page have submitted a few links that may or may not be usable. If they are, they would be a big help in showing notability. The issue (other than them being in Russian and my using Google Translate) is that I can't really verify how reliable the sources are. Both are from online newspapers in the IT world. The big problem is that I can't verify what the editorial process is. The second link does have mention of an actual editor, whereas the first doesn't seem to. The problem with the first one is that it looks like the type of place where anyone can submit a tip, although I don't know if this means that they write the article or the tip giver does. You can kind of see the issue here. In any case, here are the two links: [15] and [16] Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Commonwealth realm artticle, there are lists of current Commonwealth Realms which include nations with Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch such as Canada, New Zealand etc. and former Commonwealth realms such as Ceylon, Kenya. Pakistan and so on, all of which chose a republican model with a president.
However, Ireland is included in the list of former Commonwealth Realms, despite the fact that the Irish Free State was never described as a Realm. It was a Dominion, a different thing.
There is a great amount of discussion on the talk page, but nobody has been able to find a contemporary source describing the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm. There are various arguments, but they all fall into the WP:SYNTHESIS category. There is no source. -- Pete ( talk) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not really the place for this discussion: See the Header, Here we evaluate sources against claims to determine if the source is reliable for the claim. Suggest you take this back to your article's talk page, to a project page, or to an informal mediation service. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
After weeks of tense negotiations the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed on 6 December 1921. It established the Irish Free State as a self-governing Dominion within the British Commonwealth.
The Irish Free State was to remain a dominion within the British Empire
Why is this same discussion going on in two places at once? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Aggie80 is making a statement about Wikipedia being too inclusionary by creating a stub article for every individual listed on this web page. Can that site be considered a reliable source for the creation of this many articles? Andrew 327 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to advertise here for outside input here. An editor has proposed we use the websites of third-party vendors that sell contact information as a source to say that Publishers Clearing House sells registration information to third-party vendors. An article in The New York Times only says the company collects registrations for their own mailings. I support the article-subject in a PR role, but have no inside knowledge besides what I'm reading in the sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Lumbee wiki article violates the 5 pillars and does not strive to be accurate and is not verifiable or neutral and is extremely contraversial[edit]
We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
The Lumbee keep posting that they were "federally recognized" by the Lumbee Act as an "Indian Tribe" ...this is false The Lumbee Act was far from Federal recognition and was a name Designation only and actually barred the Lumbee from seeking federal recognition under false names like the Cherokee that they had been using because they lacked proof of any historical connection to any Indian tribe,it was all based on legend and the lost colony myth
It would be respectful for them to not stete that they were Federally Recognized by the Lumbee Act as this is completely False..........The Lumbee are trying to get federal recognition because they never were federally recognized just "Designated as Lumbee People" a name gesture a political concession only not recognition.
No where in the Lumbee Act does it infer Federal Recognition,acknowledgement or wardship by the federal government the Act infact actually forbids a government relationship with the Lumbee,that was its intent.a name only...and not as an Indian Tribe either. no where in the act does it refer or recognize them as an "Indian Tribe" Tribe is the key word here— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50johns ( talk • contribs)
Has an essay by Elizabeth Price Foley on SOVEREIGNTY, REBALANCED: THE TEA PARTY & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. [19] The issue wrt the Tea Party movement is whether this particular essay is primarily an essay reflecting Foley's personal views, or is primarily a factual paper about the Tea Party. Foley has frequently written on the Constitution, and been a pundit on CNN etc.
I suggest its coda suggests the nature of this precise source:
Specifically, is this following quote from the site to be taken as a statement of absolute fact about the Tea Party as a whole, or is it reflective of her own positions and tying them as a matter of opinion to that group? Is this source a valid source for factual claims or is it more aptly a source for matters of Foley's opinions? Is the source a research paper into the Tea Party or is it a discussion of Foley's views about the Constitution?
Lastly, is "constitution.org" itself intrinsically an RS source per Wikipedia policy? That is, are articles published there the same as in a peer-reviewed journal? (I note its founder has a number of articles on that site, which has a huge number of established RS books copied on the site).
Thanks for all opinions, but I shall not engage I argumentation here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment).
For the record, Foley is also the author of a book on the Tea Party movement The Tea Party: Three Principles. There would seem to be a substantial body of evidence to support citation of the above passage, which would seem to be an uncontroversial reiteration of facts. The only opposition being made to using the citation is that the quote is used simply as a statement of fact, whereas the quote was made by a legal scholar that is largely supportive of aspects of the constitutionalism of the Tea Party.
Here are some blurbs from the Amazon page, including reviews
Book Description In The Tea Party: Three Principles, Elizabeth Price Foley asserts that the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement is distorted. Foley sees the decentralized, wide-ranging group as a movement bound by allegiance to three "core principles" of American constitutional law: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. She explains how these principles predict the Tea Party's impact on the American political landscape, connecting them to current issues, such as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism.
"Elizabeth Price Foley has produced an interesting and important work on the constitutional basis for the agenda of the Tea Party movement.... I do believe anyone interested in understanding how the growth of the welfare-regulatory state violates the constitution and threatens liberty can benefit from reading this book." - Ron Paul, United States Congressman (R-TX)
"Elizabeth Price Foley's The Tea Party is a clear and straightforward explication of what the Tea Party Movement is all about, and is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the current political climate. With this slim, provocative volume, Foley once again demonstrates why she is one of constitutional law's rising stars." - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
“By elevating principle above party, the Tea Party has already changed the face of American politics. In this marvelous book, Elizabeth Price Foley clearly identifies and defends the three basic principles that unite the Tea Party movement, all stemming from its commitment to our written Constitution. Politicos beware; the party has just begun.”– Randy E. Barnett, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown Law Center, and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2005)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, Hasdi ( talk · contribs) editted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding the casting of William Fichtner as Shredder (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), adding a statement regarding the casting choice with a citation. However, the website he was citing was The A.V. Club, a newspaper published by the same people as The Onion. While it is not directly satirical as its parent organization, it still is known for its humorous tone (as our article states). The news article Hasdi has been adding is this piece which states, and I quote,
Having apparently determined that no Japanese actors would dare be a part of the Jonathan Liebesman-directed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, presumably given the original text’s importance to the Shinto religion, producer Michael Bay has been forced to make a decision regarding the reboot of a nostalgia property that will potentially upset people, just this one time.
So Hasdi added a claim to the film's page echoing this statement. I reverted and sent him this message. He reverted me and responded. I reverted once more and pointed out the fallacies in the content. He reverted again and refused to acknowledge my argument and insisted on some original research of his to explain why. I once again reverted the claim and specifically spelled out my issues with the statement, particularly because of the source itself, and then stated I would bring up the validity of the source here, while also reminding him of the WP:BRD cycle (he was bold, I reverted, and began discussion, but he proceeded to edit war regardless).
So the short version is, should The A.V. Club, already known to be not that serious in its reporting, be treated as a reliable source for this statement? I can find no other news sources reporting on the fact he wants to add other than many websites mirroring them. A Google search for "william"+"fichtner"+"shredder"+"shinto" has all of 48 results, all of which lead back to AV Club. There's even an MMA forum in there questioning the validity of the claim.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Black Mafia Family makes extensive use of federal court documents that are hosted on Scribd.com. Specifically [25] and [26]. In all, these documents are cited a dozen or more times. While the court documents are a reliable source, should we be trusting them as verbatim here? The editor who added them to the article is the one who uploaded them to the Scribd site. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. The source is reliable or unreliable on its own as a court document (falling under the WP:PRIMARY guidelines). It could be cited purely by case # with no link. That a convenience link is made available does not affect the ultimate reliability (or not) of the source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
@ AndyTheGrump from above : Assuming the source is otherwise acceptable from a Primary perspective etc, Under your logic, removing the link, but leaving a citation so it could be verified by someone else would be acceptable? this seems like a bad precedent to set. There is always the issue of "where you read it", and I will presume that the editor in question read it on scribd and not in person (in this case) - but what is the precedent for someone who has actually read the source document which is generally not available reliably, but there are unreliable convenience links available? Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Women And The Politics Of Violence Har Anand author Tanika Sarkar reliable for this statement of fact? The RSS have carried out acts of violence against Muslims since their founding in 1925 Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Any chance on an uninvolved editor chiming in here please? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the line due to what User:The Four Deuces has said, it now reads as "The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925.(ref name="Sarkur"} and have since formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India.(ref name="Breker")" The second source is from The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security pp87-88. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether bumpshack.com [28] is a reliable source or not? The website is currently being used to source biographical information in the article Tim Urban. It's a blog, which would normally disqualify it from being used on Wikipedia, but given this article - Joshua Holmes (model), it seems to be maintained by someone of note. I'm not sure whether or not he would qualify as an established expert on the subject though. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the most suitable noticeboard for this, as it's a possible spam issue as well as about sources. User:Memgab has been adding text and references to several articles recently (e.g. here, here, here...); the references are all published by Bottletree Books LLC, the website for which is here. The books published by Bottletree Books LLC are all by either Andrew Barger or the unspecified 'Editors of Bottletree Books', suggesting it might be a self-publishing venture, and hence not sufficiently reliable. I am also concerned that if it is self-publishing, User:Memgab's additions might constitute a form of spam (note that their first edit was this, which was later followed by this). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find any specific discussion of this site, currently being used as a source for birthdate, location and name at Dan Schneider (TV producer). The site itself isn't particularly trust inspiring: authors of articles are paid $5 for every "accepted" article, standard bland "as is" content warning, editors (whoever they might be) may reject articles without explanation, etc. Basically, it straddles the line between user-generated content and paid contributors and might have some basic fact checking involved. I do not personally see any indication of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Comemnts? - SummerPhD ( talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article Joint Special Operations Command, Anwar al-Awlaki is referred to as an al-Qaeda member. A new editor User: Paco Charte/ User:24.155.161.68 has challenged this characterization. I presented several top tier sources, including CNN [29], the NYT [30] , Boston Globe [31], the UK's Telegraph [32], NBC [33]. I also pointed out that the source the editor presented himself earlier in the discussion, from the WaPo, called him "al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki" [34]. The issue here is that the editor refuses to accept these sources because "I insist that any allegations that a person is "a member of Al Qaeda" be backed by objective, third party (i.e. not American Government press releases - which in the case of JSOC and the CIA are the only basis on which the major media outlets have to base stories due to mutually acknowledged extreme secrecy)" [35]. When I attempt to explain that he's engaging in OR, I was told "I am beginning to think that you have an agenda which directly aligns with the U.S. government, objectivity be damned." [36] The editor then declares " I will challenge Wikipedia's obviously lacking framework for dealing with propaganda such as the like you're proffering here." [37]. Does anyone else see a reason to dismiss these sources as this editor would have us do? This seems like more of a RS question than an OR question. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See the latest attempt to add a genetic section to Ishmaelites. The first source Eupedia.com, [38] which describes itself as "Guide to European travel, culture, history, linguistics and population genetics. Includes trivia, maps, a discussion forum, and a travel photo gallery." We seem to be using this in other articles, which may need to be examined.
The second source is [39] which is a reliable source but doesn't mention Ishmaelites. There is some copyvio in the article from this source which needs removing.
The third source is similarly a reliable source which doesn't mention the subject of the article.
I'm not sure about the 4th source - I can't find it and I'm not clear what it's being used for - the quote from it doesn't enlighten me at least.
The response to my raising this issue on the talk page was:
"this is what it says in the article: quote: "were added to the set of haplotypes shown in . All three Arabic haplotypes joined the lower, predomi- nantly non-Jewish branch on the right of . After the addition of the Arab haplotypes, all 25 of the haplotypes in the branch contained 162 mutations on 25 markers, which gives 4,125±525 years to a common ancestor, slightly older that age of the branch without those three haplotypes. This time period is close to that of the legendary Biblical split into the Jewish and the Arab lineages of the Abrahamic tribes," "the most recent common ancestor of Jews and Arabs of haplogroup J1 (subclade J1e) lived 4300�500 years ago, and he had the "J1 Abraham Modal Haplotype", former "Cohen Modal Haplotype" signature. From him a split occurred between the Jewish and the Arabic lineages in haplogroup J1 (J1e*)They were practically the same people, and were called the Bedouins (or we call them Bedouins now). 4200�500 years before 19 .....present they split, on the grounds of some apparently very serious reason, which likely had a religious, that is a cultural and spiritual connotation. The split was, judging from the sharpness of parting of their DNA genealogical lineages, quite a decisive one. Naturally, the split occurred not along the haplogroups J1 and J2, but across them. That was how the Jews and the Arabs had acquired both J1 and J2 haplogroups. The story of Abraham and his siblings, Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Arabs and the Jews, respectively, was told and re-told by the Arabs and the Jews of all the haplogroups. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that each haplogroup which was involved in the separation process, would have had its own "Abraham", who lived about 4,200 years ago. (If some haplogroup does not show such a split involving both the Arabs and the Jews and going back to about 4,200 ybp and earlier, then either there were no Jews and Arabs with such a haplogroup in those times, or they were not involved in the split). To verify this hypothesis, I have composed a 25 marker haplotype tree ..."Valentino2013 (talk) 5:12 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Ishmael is not a religious belief and the Arabs say Ishmael their ancestor.regaRDLESs OF what THE CORRUPTED BIBLE SAYS. tHE REFS "aNCIENT RECORDSW FROM NORTHERN ARABIA" AND MANY OTHER BOOKS SAY THAT iSHMAEL IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSYRIAN ROYAL CHRONICLES (discovered 100 years ago ". Herodotus mentioned that the Nabateans told him they decend from Ishmael in 450 BC. did you publish books? then you can cite them here or you have to look briefly at the references" Dougweller ( talk) 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
as per definition of Genetic genealogy you don't need the grave or the body of the Most Recent common ancestor to prove he existed or he was your common ancestor with a group of people. There is a calculator at ysearch tells you some guy in australia is your third level cousin (so he is your third level cousin by law, you like it or not ,it does not matter, if he has inheritanc from your say grandfather he will take his inheritance , DNA does not lie). We have people who say they are descendents of a man named Ishmael since 850 BC (3 thousand years ago ) and up till now they still make this claim. DNA genealogy proved they are all descendent from a man in the same time they claimed of Ishmael, plus many other documented evidences throughout history such as the 7th century conquest that brought the J1- Modal containg the specific DYS388=17 to north africa which is of that Most Recent common ancestor calculated with certainty, plus the separation of both lineages , which means you can't find a most recent commomn ancestor between some jews and some arabs after the date of the MRCA, while arabs can among themselves, and jews can among themselves, meaning two arabs can have a MCRA who lived 1000 years ago and so on. There are many calculations of MRCA all over the place and in wiki about Europpeans and their ethnic Most Recent Common Ancestor, The Cohanim did their Most Recent common ancestor calculations in 1997 and tens of articles expounding on. Why then finding MCRA of Ishmaelites bother you.Valentino2013 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
check out this site [40] with its example , after all the whole porpuse of Genetic genealogy is to calculate the MRCA . There are hundreds of MRCA calculations on wiki such as the Cohen Modal Haplotype which was calculated in a study in 1997 by Hammer, and many many others such as groups in Europe for the R haplogroup haplotypes of specific historical persons and mythological persons, why them don't bother you, after all this is not legal dispute and we are not in court for that.Let me bring you an example two persons have one father lost at sea, no body no dna, but the dna of the two persons say they are brothers, what do you say about that? and that their father never knew them, and left big inheritance. the father was immigrant from another continent with no known relatives other than he was from mandinga people who had haplogroup specific to that tribe,the two men never knew each other because their mom gave them for adoption 40 years ago. Can the two persons inherit that man with just the historical document a marriage certificate of their mother from that man? Valentino2013 ( talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this source History, Culture and the Indian CityCambridge University Press a reliable source for this edit? [41] The source states as fact that Sena are a facist group, yet an editor added opined to be at As a similar chat is takeing place on another article I had already provided other academic sources which state as fact that Sena are facist. Public Accountability and Transparency: The Imperatives of Good Governance p79 "a Fascist party like the Shiv Sena" Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World p95 "Shiv Sena, the most overtly fascist element in the Hindu right-wing formation" Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Another source Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras University of Chicago Press p274-276 "While secularists often slap the label of "fascist" on the entire Hindu nationalist movement, Shiv Sena is one to which that appellation seems singularly appropriate. Thackery is quite open in his admiration for European fascist leaders and has advocated for the use of their "solutions" for India's "Muslim problem" Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Any chance of getting more that one uninvolved editor to comment on this? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Edy Ganem is lacking in content and has been tagged with {{ BLP sources}}. Is this a WP:RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm trying to get more feedback about reliable sources for the Starcounter Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Starcounter
I was in a help chat with +Huon and he suggested that I ask a question here, specifically about the 451 Group blogs. Are these an issue? If so, can someone explain why? These analyst blogs are extremely reputable in the tech industry so I'm confused as to why they would be a problem. I would appreciate any insight on this and/or other sources listed.
Thanks!
Rachelamarshall ( talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)rachelamarshall
Is a speech made by Enoch Powell, 3 March, 1953, in Westminister against his govenments' Royal Style and Titles Act a reliable source that "The term realm was formally used with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted for the modern royal styles and titles"? There is a discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Powell on the Royal Titles Bill. Also, since neither the act nor Powell use the phrase "Commonwealth Realm", is it relevant to the article? TFD ( talk) 22:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What year did Canada become a realm? TFD ( talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The published website for the Queen, and the report of the debate in Parliament (UK) on the Perth Agreemant legislation, use the term Commonwealth realm: TFD's objection seems to imply that the Queen, or her Royal Household, and her cabinet ministers, are delusional about this. Even on that supposition the phrase is indisputably being used. Qexigator ( talk) 22:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sea draws some statistics on ocean temperature from [43], a Santa Barbara City College online course page. Is this a reliable source? It is from a college course, but I'm also not sure that it has the editorial oversight of a textbook, etc. Thanks, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wusun lead section (current):
The Wūsūn (Chinese: 烏孫; literally "Grandchildren of The Crow") were either a Turkic speaking[1][2][3][4][5] or Indo-European speaking[6]...
Cited sources for Turkic-speaking claim:
Cited sources for Indo-European claim:
1-5 (Turkic claim) are very dubious and I think they are unverifiable and unreliable sources. Indo-European claim cited an article from online version of Britannica:
Are these 6 cited sources are reliable for those specific claims (both Turkic and Indo-European)? I don't find anything about 1-5 and I need to know your opinions about the reliability of Britannica's article for this claim. Zyma ( talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: A questioner at the Reference Desk asked about a reference in the article Emptiness.
Source: The reference is given as "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out. Jennifer Nardozzi, PsyD" - the Ref Desk established that this is a workshop/oral presentation [44], not a published work.
Content: The statement in the article:
Just as religion influences addiction counselling, it has also influenced other therapies. Some eating disorder therapists argue that bulimia and anorexia are caused in part by "spiritual emptiness, recognized as “hunger” of the soul", in which women who face "isolation, emptiness, pain, fear and a profound sense of disembodiment" become an "empty vessel, devoid of life" which needs to be filled with comfort-giving food.[14] People who have an "empty self" may try to "fill up on food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products".
Question: If this can't serve as a source, what should I do? Remove the entire paragraph? Thanks, 184.147.144.173 ( talk) 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and North Bengali."
Chaipau ( talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dan asked me (a randomly selected RSN regular) to comment on this question.
The website is being used to support statements like these: Mustaine, who went on to found Megadeth, has expressed his dislike for Hammett in interviews. He said Hammett "stole my job." This clearly is a contentious, even potentially libelous, statement about a living person. It is also used to support fairly uncontroversial statements about activities by the organization (the band).
According to our policies and guidelines, a reliable source has these characteristics:
Most of these are a matter of degree and not every answer must be 'yes' for every use of every source. The source needs only be strong enough to support the claim being made, and weak sources may be used to support lightweight claims. Having said that, in terms of BLPSPS requirements, item #2 is an absolute requirement for statements about living people (but not bands or other organizations).
For non-BLP related statements, then the usual SPS requirement ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") may be sufficient. In this case, however, there is no reason to believe that the website would qualify under SPS, because while the website is quoted or cited on occasion in reliable third-party publications, the author is not published in them and therefore does not count as "an expert" under Wikipedia's definition. (Put another way, a sentence in The Times that says, "According to Blabbermouth" doesn't count; only an entire article in The Times written by the same person who runs Blabbermouth counts.)
The source also appears to fail item #5. At minimum, item #5 requires some reason to believe that more than one person works on the website.
So in short, I would definitely not accept this for BLP-related statements. It is possible that the source, although weak in some areas, would be barely good enough for relatively lightweight and non-controversial statements. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether a source is considered reputable and reliable within its own field should matter. Within the heavy metal scene few would question that Blabbermouth is well established and one of the leading sources of news. Consensus should not be hard to find on that point. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit late into this, but here are my thoughts on the issue (I contribute to this noticeboard every once and a while):
Now, the following is copied from WP:NEWSORG, with my emphasis and comments added: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. 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 pretty much sums up the statement recently added to album sources list: "if another source can be found for information given, use that source instead." As Krigin presumably authors the news content, most of the news coverage might fall under the "editorials" category.
What follows is the list of basic guidelines for news sources:
Editorial comment: Something that I think needs mention here is the evolution of news media in this internet age. Dan56 seemed to take issue with the structure of the site, accusing it of being a blog. I think this misses the point. The distinctions between "website" and "blog" I think are becoming more and more blurred, and a lot of professional websites, news-related or otherwise, have begun adapting more blog-like features. Thus, I think that the structure and style of the site are of no consequence. Rather, issues of third-party publication, fact-checking and accuracy, reputation, etc. are what should be examined.
My conclusion: Blabbermouth.net is reliable for general news, but with BLP info it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Reviews certainly are fine. Finally, if the story is found elsewhere by a more established agency, that agency takes preference. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the BLP guidelines apply to band members and not the band itself? In other words, if Blabbermouth makes a comment about the style of Metallica's music, that is not a BLP statement, while a statement about Lars Ulrich would be a BLP statement.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Shovon ( talk) 16:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See Ilyas son of Mudar, Qusai ibn Kilab, Mudhar, Nizar (Ishmaelites), Malik ibn Kinanah Mudrikah, Khuzayma and others, all created or edited by Valentino2013 ( talk · contribs) (see above) who doesn't seem to grasp our sourcing policy. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
The article in question, Roy Maloy, is a BLP of an Australian circus performer. The article now states that Maloy holds six world's records in stilt walking and fire breathing. The source is this page on the Record Holders Republic website. I have tried to find sources that would support the reliablity of Record Holders Republic, but can't find much. It looks to me like a Pay to play scheme, selling certificates and medals to the "record holders". Many of the claims in the article are based on this source, starting with
Roy Maloy currently holds six world records, which have been registered with the Record Holders Republic.
Should Record Holders Republic be considered a reliable source in this context? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like some advice. Does any of these:
pass muster as a reliable source for a statement that "scientific research into animal magnetism has also been performed in this century"? Has any one of them been cited in an article in a notable peer-reviewed journal, for example? The titles of the publications suggest at first sight that this is unlikely, but I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some assessment on watch project articles, and I came across g-shock. There were several citation needed tags, so I googled the phrases and added references. The main one is this timezone article http://people.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml631728462093125000 but user Dr-K flew through removing the references replacing them with cn tags. In the talk page he requested I provide credentials for the author. The timezone source was used for this text
around the triple ten concept, the concept for a watch that has a 10 year battery life, is water resistant to 10 bars, and can survive a 10m fall, 200 prototypes were tested by dropping them from rooftops, or third story windows [5]. It's shock resistant design has 10 layers protecting the quartz time mechanism, the major ones being the urethane rubber outer bumper protecting the steel watch case, the stainless steel case, the hardened mineral glass watch crystal, the stainless steel screwed down caseback, and the "floating module" concept where the quartz mechanism floated free in a urethane foam cradle, with things like the outer buttons, and LCD module attached with flexible cables, with the buttons mounted to the watchcase, rather than the quartz module.
, as well as referencing that the DW-5600E is space qualified by NASA. I'd also like to Dr-K to provide credentials for all the authors of all the books cited in the featured article on
Operation Charnwood, and credentials for all websites cited in featured article
SheiKra
TeeTylerToe (
talk) 00:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
here I have just been told that the use of academic articles for an incident in 2002 are "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident" That the acdemices are "conspiracy theorists" That sources such as Princeton University Press, Oxford & The Johns Hopkins are "biased academic crap" And rather that use any academic sources we should use newspapers from the period which covered the incident. I would like a few editors to pop over and explain which sources are the better here on Wikipedia. BTW this is what was removed in favour of PRIMARY sourcesm opinion pieces, and newspaper reports from the time of the incident. Darkness Shines ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines along with User:Dlv999 are inventing a new guideline in wikipedia that we have to only use academic sources and that also western academic sources neglecting what tenured Indian scholars or columnists have said. I will not say that the sources are partisan but they are cherrypicked sources as evident by his various recent page move requests. The Legend of Zorro 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you try to keep most of the sources editors feel are important, rather than trying to eliminate the others? Once again I have not looked at the details, but am just observing the style of discussion. My comments are guided by the spirit of WP:NEUTRAL.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Academic sources will normally be reliable for this article, although they may need balancing. If you want further comments you will need to be more specific. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
A site hosted on Blogspot run by a television ratings analyst named Douglas Pucci, which claims to get its ratings info from Nielsen Media Research ( [56], [57]). Primarily used in episode list articles, where it is used to cite viewing figures (ex. 1, 2). It's been cited by a couple of third-party reliable sources, including Yahoo! ( [58]) and TV by the Numbers/ Zap2it ( [59]).
Seems legitimate on first look, but whether it meets the criteria to be a reliable source has yet to be determined. I'm not decided on whether it can actually be used as a reliable WP reference. It could meet the reliability criteria if it satisfies the following, taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability (" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."). Any feedback? Holiday56 ( talk) 16:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is ADL (a group with a long list of detractors for being a agent of Zionism a R.S for a living persons bio, Malik Zulu Shabazz to be used liberally without caution? I have my own opinion but would like to have some clarity on this issue. Because it is like using a site known for smear campaigns against anyone who speaks ill of zionism. And there is no shortage of people saying this and complaining about Abraham Foxman. It is clear ADL is not a neutral party like Human rights watch, Anti-Slavery Society, or other non-religious, non-political, non-racial org. Moreover, it uses very unbalanced, polemic, language like RACIST, Antisemite very liberally. Why not just use Final Call if we want that type of tone? Basically can it be used so liberally? -- Inayity ( talk) 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Are these two posts reliable sources?:
I believe they are basically press release reposts being used in a very controversial area, where much better sources are available. Another editor alleges they are proper secondary sources. I believe that this source is indeed reliable. I have a disclosed COI.
Hoping to get more input. See related discussion here. Also note, I have annotated the article with Better source needed templates where I believe press releases are used as sources in the controversy, though I certainly know there are enough reliable sources to author a substantial body of content that are based on secondary sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
IMHO the WP:RS aspect is just one component of several. Second is actual reliability with respect to the items which cited it. Actual reliability is a total different topic than being a wp:reliable source.....to its credit this noticeboard usually addresses that as well. Finally, two more question are whether the material is wp:undue, and whether it summarizes what in the sources. The two noted articles I believe meet the letter of wp:rs but, if as you say ( I did not immediately see that/ look into it) , they are basically based only on press releases from the plaintiffs, then I would consider their actual reliability in discretionary areas (wording, spin, choice of emphasis) to be low. The source that you provided at first glance looks pretty good. But I would also deal with this at a content level, not just source credentials. E.G. what is the statement in question? Is it a summary of what is in best available sources? Etc. North8000 ( talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is the content in question:
bullets
|
---|
In September 2010, to settle contempt charges that it had violated one of the 2001 agreements—specifically that they would not mislead consumers to believe that purchasing magazines and other products increases the chance of winning [6] [7] better source needed [8]—the company entered into a supplemental judgment with 33 states to extend consumer protections set forth in its 2000 and 2001 multi-state settlements. They paid a total amount of $3.5 million to cover the total cost of the states' joint investigation. Specific terms of the 2010 settlement include: [9] better source needed [10] better source needed
|
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to respond to this, but this is a lot more simple to determine. If a press release is an RS, then these are fine sources. My general understanding is that press releases are not considered RS. Just because a media outlet decides to use a press release as an article, does not make it reliable if there is no original reporting involved. It is very easy to determine if it is just a reprinted press release, just take the first paragraph, copy it and google it. If you can find that on multiple sites, they did not even bother to do anything other than just print a press release. Which is the case in both of these sources. Randomyesnomaybe ( talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There's been a large number of mass edits to BLPs by Hillbillyholiday and John. I've not reviewed or counted them, but Hillbilly has said its 50 or so. The purpose of these edits appears to have been to remove tabloid, especially Daily Mail, cites from the articles.
I've no problem with someone improving sources; it's what I spend the majority of my time here doing. However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The process seems to be Hillbilly removes all the Daily Mail cites and replaces with {cn} and then John swings by the next day to remove all unsourced claims (and any tabloid-supported points that slipped through the net).
In Sally Bercow these changes were reverted by Obscurasky who asked for an explanation. WP:BLP was cited, but no explanation was forthcoming as to why the Daily Mail was being blanket-removed. Instead, Hillbilly called John in, who said: " WP:BLPSOURCES is the place to look for guidance." One revert and a level-4 warning later, I found out that John was an administrator, but even then he seems to be unable to point to a discussion/judgment/pronouncement/whatever that says the Daily Mail is entirely unsuitable for BLPs.
It does appear that it is a RS for WP as a whole (of course, BLPs are a special case), albeit one that you need to treat with more caution than most (i.e. evaluate on a case-by-case basis). There have been a bunch of discussions around the subject, [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] but this is perhaps the most pertinent (as it is relatively recent and had a vote):
John's expanded WP:BLPSOURCES point was this: " contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fine, but the stress was placed on the wrong part of the quote. Contentious material is the key there; if there's material that's both notable and uncontroversial, and if the Daily Mail article is judged to be reasonable, then why not use it?
The result has been the removal of notable but not contentious points in the Sally Bercow article. Along with some points that shouldn't be there; I'm not pretending that everything they've done is wrong, just that the points have not been considered on their merits. If that's happened on the Sally Bercow page, it's likely happened somewhere else (i.e. Grandiose and Escape Orbit have questions about the changes to the Andy Murray article)
Other examples are John's removal of content because it had a Daily Mail reference, when 5 seconds of searching found a BBC cite to replace it and Hillbilly's removal of a source written by the person in question. These were examples I found quickly (i.e. they were both found in the first articles I looked at).
There seem to be two issues (please feel free to edit this if I've got the format/process wrong). Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Things like confirming middle names and other non-contentious material. Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Things like detailed interviews with the subject, especially when directly quoted, vs. Daily Mail statements about immigrants. Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It is RS for almost everything other than likely slander or libel - thus almost all factual claims are pretty solid in the DM. It is not all that good for "Hilda Gnarph has secret love child by Prince William" or the like. Investigative reports on MP spending etc. have been shown to be accurate, and there is no real reason to disparage it as a source for such matters. Collect ( talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1. Source: the United States Supreme Court Specifically, in footnote 8 of United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)(6-3 decision; dissent did not dispute law in footnote)
2. Article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
3. Content: I want to say in the article:
The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 (1980) that the Miller case held "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Appellate courts from 1942-1997 concurred.
I've been told that I may not mention the Lewis case in the article in any context.
4. Context: United States v. Lewis , 455 U.S. 55 (1980) [68] was a case in which the Supreme Court found a conviction of a defendant who had no attorney may still be the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by a criminal sanction. The court also found in footnote 8 that this legislative restriction on the use of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.
Footnote 8 is provided in full below (emphasis added):
"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines , 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson , 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States , 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied , 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment)."
The debate over whether to include Lewis in the otherwise lengthy article comes in the context of the question of what the law was in 1980. I contend the Supreme Court believed in 1980 what they said they did, as did the 11 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals from 1942 to 1997 who said the same thing or used even stronger language. See, e.g.:
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942);
United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and
United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)
The opposition to including this information claims the Supreme Court and these eleven appellate courts are unreliable sources. Instead they claim the decision was "ambiguous" in these years because some commentators (although no court decisions) say so. (I'm fine with including the commentators' opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions and not fact.) The opposition also claims that the Lewis case cannot be cited because it did not primarily concern the Second Amendment, even though some of the appellate cases did. They also contend that because the Supreme Court disavowed Lewis 28 years later in 2008 that the Supreme Court's holding in Lewis regarding the Second Amendment cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. I contend that in the context of an article purporting to be about the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is OK to state what the law was in 1980 and for 60+ years.
[Although this is a more a NPOV issue, I should note there is a plenty of room in the article. The Second Amendment article focuses at extensive length on one-sided opinion while editors have expressly refused commentators who disagree with this opinion to be represented. There is also extensive 17th Century and 18th Century history prior to adoption of the Amendment and a little bit of 19th Century as well. But the 70 years from 1939-2008 are played down in a brief poorly sourced paragraph at the end of the article that editors have not allowed, after extensive talk page discussion for more than six months, to mention Lewis or these appellate cases. I contend the actual 20th Century law is at least as relevant as the pre-Revolution commentators to the history of the Second Amendment and that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the appellate courts in those years are reliable sources for what the law was during these years.]
We've reached an impasse. Please advise. GreekParadise ( talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Court's comment in Lewis is relevant information on how the Justices of the Court viewed the Second Amendment in 1980. It is not completely authoritative, because as has been noted the Second Amendment was peripheral to the case (in lawyerspeak, the comment was dictum rather than part of the holding of the case). If there were a more relevant Supreme Court case from that era to cite about the Second Amendment one would cite that one instead, but (to the best of my knowledge there isn't). So I think it is permissible to mention the case, but the fact that this was a comment in a case primarily about another topic could also be mentioned. To call a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States an "unreliable source" as to what the law was as of the date of the decision would be to go too far. And to say that because the law has changed since 1980 means that the law as of 1980 can't be mentioned, would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson is a candidate for deletion, which cannot be correct. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.
I'm trying to stop short of an edit war at the Conan chronologies article. By all interpretations, the article has had problems with people adding information from widely popular, but still self-published and unreliable sources. (In this case "REHUPA -- the Robert E. Howard United Press Association. A group of fans devoted to the fanship of the author.)
I would appreciate a second or third pair of eyes on the article. As is, the article is sourced to primary and other sources affiliated with the author/fiction itself. We don't need someone to make things worse by adding fan theories. Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Two editors believe this diff is unreliably sourced [69]. Is the notable source Skeptic's dictionary (see [70] to access specific pages 45-48) by Robert Todd Carroll reliable for the following text in that diff:
IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has numeric name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
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 145 | ← | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | → | Archive 155 |
The University of Westminster claims that "The University of Westminster currently has the largest... Scholarships Programmes in the UK" [1] may we use the given source to make the statement? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguity is a matter or interpretation. I would ask how about using "claimed by the University to be the "most generous"? That is a verifiable fact, isn't it? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The "patron" part is not in doubt; claim by both parties, non-controversial. The "largest" claim is unfortunately, problematic. Have tried a quick search of outside sources, which would be necessary for citation, and (I'm a little shocked), only find re-posting of UW's claim. Agree, it needs a better source.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A follow-up of the lengthy Ataturk discussion above (sorry): an editor wants to readd Buzz Aldrin to the list, after his inclusion was challenged. He supports the claim these four sources: freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, Phoenix Masonry, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. His claimed affiliation is with a lodge in New Jersey (ie, none of the three). Are these enough to keep Aldrin in the list, especially considering WP:BLP?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 11:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Over on the Needle Exchange Programme page a fellow contributor wishes to revert all text [3] which cites either Drug Free Australia or the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) as unreliable.
Re the JGDPP, this issue was discussed on RS/N two years ago here after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source chiefly because its review was one of the only four reviews considered rigorous enough by the 2010 Palmateer review of reviews for inclusion in their study. The aforementioned reverting contributor was not part of that discussion and seems not aware of it.
However the other issue is whether further analysis of these reviews by drug prevention organisation, Drug Free Australia (DFA), can be cited with attribution. Our reverting contributor believes only medical journals are permissible. This is where some other views will be helpful. My reasons for inclusion are 1. Drug Free Australia is the peak body for drug prevention organisations in Australia, with Australia’s previous drug Czar for a whole decade, Maj Brian Watters on their Board – it is therefore a notable and highly credible source 2. Its public statements are guided by its 24 Fellows who are medical practitioners, epidemiologists, addiction medicine specialists p24 here (all of whom have had numerous studies published in the best medical journals as outlined here and here) and along with social researchers with PhDs. Further, the lead author of the JGDPP Kall et al. study, one of the four rigorous reviews used by the same Palmateer cited in the Wikipedia article, is one of those 24 Fellows, so their statements are well-guided 3. In any case, my text is not addressing anything biomedical ie anything biological or physiological about the HIV or HCV viruses – only their relationship to cohort populations given clean needles or not ie statistical 4. It is the most cited source in an Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into drugs in 2007 [4], and all 19 times it is cited favourably 5. The source is reliable even if opinionated as per [5] and I have cited it with attribution according to advice of RS/N a number of years ago here and 6. Importantly, their analysis is quite self-evidently correct, as can be verified by anyone wanting to delve into the broad issue, and I have found no alternate reliable source which contradicts this critique. Talk page text is here. Any wisdom on what is a highly conflicted area of international drug policy? Minphie ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, the position of Drug Free Australia and the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has previously been discussed at this noticeboard in May 2010, early June 2010, late June 2010, March 2011, June 2011, June 2011 and April 2012. I don't think "after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source" is a fair summary of what those discussions resulted in. From what I gander, this is the consensus opinion of these discussions: That the above mentioned sources are not prohibited per se (as few sources ever are on Wikipedia). But given that they aren't up to snuff with the gold standards of biomedical research, they can't be presented as incontrovertible fact either. Their usage in articles is highly dependent on context, including (among other things) questions of "due weight". A concise sentence or two, properly attributed to an advocacy group, might be one thing. The text I reverted comprised 40% of the "Research" section of the article. Gabbe ( talk) 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
caste and tribes of south india by edgar Thurston is considered as the reliable source or not . please let me know . When I want to write about an article I am taking the book as source . but an editor remarks this book is not an reliable source . please clarify me . -- Suryavarman01 ( talk) 06:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The surveyors used the principles of scientific racism in order to conduct their surveys. For example, they used nasal and cranial measurements and colour charts to classify people. As a general rule, and certainly in Thurston's case, they had no understanding of the local languages and relied on native third-parties to translate the statements made by the small, statistically unsound sample groups that were selected. They adopted an uncritical approach, accepting what they were told as being true despite the problems that were then emerging with, for example, the process of sanskritisation. Their translators were not often specialists either.
Despite all this, some sources in India - notably the critically panned The People of India series - have continued to cite Thurston et al in recent times, although as a rule they only select the favourable bits. This is the approach that often appears on Wikipedia also: contributors like Thurston when he is favourable to their community but kick up a fuss when he is not. He should not be relied upon because his methods are discredited, his motives were highly suspect and in many cases it seems he would not have recognised a member of X or Y caste if one of them had sat down with him for a cup of tea. He and his colleagues determined that there were around 1,000 castes in the country as a whole; the figure is now reckoned to be somewhere north of 4,500. The most we can really say is something along the lines of "Edgar Thurston mentions this community in volume X of Castes and Tribes of Southern India". - Sitush ( talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Doctors have successfully taken millions of white blood cells from a then 6 year old girl with leukemia then used genetically altered HIV to change those cells into something that will target and destroy cancer cells. [1] One year later, she has no signs of cancer in body. The treatment was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Clinical trial have thus far included 20 people, with an 80% success rate. [2]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.
Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation. In an e-mailed statement, Shaw said there are “several programs” through which such information is passed to the government, and named two which are public, run by Microsoft and for defensive purposes.
I recently made the following comment at an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, suggesting that expert authority is more reliable / encyclopedic than mere institutional authority.
I'd welcome comments on the merits of this distinction and how it can best be incorporated into WP:RS. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in dispute with another editor at Crossmark over the addition of material sourced to http://www.cspnet.com/ . The two stories are http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-informationweek-500 and http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-top-technology-innovator . The problem I have is that the articles read like press releases from Crossmark and the awards that Crossmark has reported been awarded were awarded by InformationWeek, but I can find no reference to Crossmark winning these awards on the InformationWeek website. Trawling through archive.org I find this which appears to be the extent of the coverage. It all looks like paid coverage / marketting to me. Are any of these reliable sources? Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring reason to bear on Francesco Racanelli, but also to restrain my inclination to delete most of the content as pseudoscientific nonsense. So I'd appreciate the opinion of others on the sources, which are:
Are those sources reliable for basic biographic details such as his place of birth or nickname? And are sources 1 and 2 reliable for this passage:
In Italy, Racanelli inaugurated the first zetetic research relating to animal magnetism and involving a doctor.[2] After having been examined and studied from every angle,[2] Racanelli managed to overcome all stages inherent in rational scepticism.[2] The findings of the aforementioned study revealed the presence of an “amazing fluid”[1][2] combined with “surprising curative properties”.[1][2]
Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Quote from two nobodies an editor states that these authors and this publisher are not "notable or expert or influential" or "distinguished" enough to have this quote (or anything else?) included in Wikipedia.
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This is FORUMSHOPPING. Nobody but OP ever called this an RS issue at the article, on this page, or elsewhere. Any Request for assistance should be posted at the appropriate venue to conserve editors' time and attention and to avoid needless and confusing crosstalk. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Spotted on the blogs this morning:
I request permission to remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles which use it as a citation. Shii (tock) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's go back to the specific claim being made. Here's the citation the book uses for the claim that psychic researchers had sex with Eusapia Palladino: "Eric Dingwall to James Randi, October 10, 1979. From the archives of the James Randi Educational Foundation."
Pull up the Wikipedia article on Eric Dingwall, and what do we see? Go take a look for yourself. Is this letter to Randi good enough to make this claim downright factual? Shii (tock) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw this issue was raised at WP:FTN so I came here to comment. Regarding use of the source The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero: it's reliable insofar as it is an opinion published by a reliable source. There's no need to "remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles". However it should not be stated as fact. Instead per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it should be clearly attributed as the authors opinion, and in this case, (i.e. allegations of sexual promiscuity) a speculation, e.g. "Authors William Kalush and Larry Sloman speculate that blah blah blah, etc." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's concerning the use of sources at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Is a realtor's web site [12] considered a reliable source for house prices? I reverted an edit from an IP editor [13] that quoted a realtor's site, which they they re-reverted [14] claiming that they are verified by the Multiple listing service. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've submitted an article on a Russian computer science conference/symposium for deletion. One of the two editors for the page have submitted a few links that may or may not be usable. If they are, they would be a big help in showing notability. The issue (other than them being in Russian and my using Google Translate) is that I can't really verify how reliable the sources are. Both are from online newspapers in the IT world. The big problem is that I can't verify what the editorial process is. The second link does have mention of an actual editor, whereas the first doesn't seem to. The problem with the first one is that it looks like the type of place where anyone can submit a tip, although I don't know if this means that they write the article or the tip giver does. You can kind of see the issue here. In any case, here are the two links: [15] and [16] Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Commonwealth realm artticle, there are lists of current Commonwealth Realms which include nations with Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch such as Canada, New Zealand etc. and former Commonwealth realms such as Ceylon, Kenya. Pakistan and so on, all of which chose a republican model with a president.
However, Ireland is included in the list of former Commonwealth Realms, despite the fact that the Irish Free State was never described as a Realm. It was a Dominion, a different thing.
There is a great amount of discussion on the talk page, but nobody has been able to find a contemporary source describing the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm. There are various arguments, but they all fall into the WP:SYNTHESIS category. There is no source. -- Pete ( talk) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not really the place for this discussion: See the Header, Here we evaluate sources against claims to determine if the source is reliable for the claim. Suggest you take this back to your article's talk page, to a project page, or to an informal mediation service. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
After weeks of tense negotiations the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed on 6 December 1921. It established the Irish Free State as a self-governing Dominion within the British Commonwealth.
The Irish Free State was to remain a dominion within the British Empire
Why is this same discussion going on in two places at once? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Aggie80 is making a statement about Wikipedia being too inclusionary by creating a stub article for every individual listed on this web page. Can that site be considered a reliable source for the creation of this many articles? Andrew 327 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to advertise here for outside input here. An editor has proposed we use the websites of third-party vendors that sell contact information as a source to say that Publishers Clearing House sells registration information to third-party vendors. An article in The New York Times only says the company collects registrations for their own mailings. I support the article-subject in a PR role, but have no inside knowledge besides what I'm reading in the sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Lumbee wiki article violates the 5 pillars and does not strive to be accurate and is not verifiable or neutral and is extremely contraversial[edit]
We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
The Lumbee keep posting that they were "federally recognized" by the Lumbee Act as an "Indian Tribe" ...this is false The Lumbee Act was far from Federal recognition and was a name Designation only and actually barred the Lumbee from seeking federal recognition under false names like the Cherokee that they had been using because they lacked proof of any historical connection to any Indian tribe,it was all based on legend and the lost colony myth
It would be respectful for them to not stete that they were Federally Recognized by the Lumbee Act as this is completely False..........The Lumbee are trying to get federal recognition because they never were federally recognized just "Designated as Lumbee People" a name gesture a political concession only not recognition.
No where in the Lumbee Act does it infer Federal Recognition,acknowledgement or wardship by the federal government the Act infact actually forbids a government relationship with the Lumbee,that was its intent.a name only...and not as an Indian Tribe either. no where in the act does it refer or recognize them as an "Indian Tribe" Tribe is the key word here— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50johns ( talk • contribs)
Has an essay by Elizabeth Price Foley on SOVEREIGNTY, REBALANCED: THE TEA PARTY & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. [19] The issue wrt the Tea Party movement is whether this particular essay is primarily an essay reflecting Foley's personal views, or is primarily a factual paper about the Tea Party. Foley has frequently written on the Constitution, and been a pundit on CNN etc.
I suggest its coda suggests the nature of this precise source:
Specifically, is this following quote from the site to be taken as a statement of absolute fact about the Tea Party as a whole, or is it reflective of her own positions and tying them as a matter of opinion to that group? Is this source a valid source for factual claims or is it more aptly a source for matters of Foley's opinions? Is the source a research paper into the Tea Party or is it a discussion of Foley's views about the Constitution?
Lastly, is "constitution.org" itself intrinsically an RS source per Wikipedia policy? That is, are articles published there the same as in a peer-reviewed journal? (I note its founder has a number of articles on that site, which has a huge number of established RS books copied on the site).
Thanks for all opinions, but I shall not engage I argumentation here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment).
For the record, Foley is also the author of a book on the Tea Party movement The Tea Party: Three Principles. There would seem to be a substantial body of evidence to support citation of the above passage, which would seem to be an uncontroversial reiteration of facts. The only opposition being made to using the citation is that the quote is used simply as a statement of fact, whereas the quote was made by a legal scholar that is largely supportive of aspects of the constitutionalism of the Tea Party.
Here are some blurbs from the Amazon page, including reviews
Book Description In The Tea Party: Three Principles, Elizabeth Price Foley asserts that the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement is distorted. Foley sees the decentralized, wide-ranging group as a movement bound by allegiance to three "core principles" of American constitutional law: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. She explains how these principles predict the Tea Party's impact on the American political landscape, connecting them to current issues, such as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism.
"Elizabeth Price Foley has produced an interesting and important work on the constitutional basis for the agenda of the Tea Party movement.... I do believe anyone interested in understanding how the growth of the welfare-regulatory state violates the constitution and threatens liberty can benefit from reading this book." - Ron Paul, United States Congressman (R-TX)
"Elizabeth Price Foley's The Tea Party is a clear and straightforward explication of what the Tea Party Movement is all about, and is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the current political climate. With this slim, provocative volume, Foley once again demonstrates why she is one of constitutional law's rising stars." - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
“By elevating principle above party, the Tea Party has already changed the face of American politics. In this marvelous book, Elizabeth Price Foley clearly identifies and defends the three basic principles that unite the Tea Party movement, all stemming from its commitment to our written Constitution. Politicos beware; the party has just begun.”– Randy E. Barnett, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown Law Center, and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2005)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, Hasdi ( talk · contribs) editted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding the casting of William Fichtner as Shredder (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), adding a statement regarding the casting choice with a citation. However, the website he was citing was The A.V. Club, a newspaper published by the same people as The Onion. While it is not directly satirical as its parent organization, it still is known for its humorous tone (as our article states). The news article Hasdi has been adding is this piece which states, and I quote,
Having apparently determined that no Japanese actors would dare be a part of the Jonathan Liebesman-directed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, presumably given the original text’s importance to the Shinto religion, producer Michael Bay has been forced to make a decision regarding the reboot of a nostalgia property that will potentially upset people, just this one time.
So Hasdi added a claim to the film's page echoing this statement. I reverted and sent him this message. He reverted me and responded. I reverted once more and pointed out the fallacies in the content. He reverted again and refused to acknowledge my argument and insisted on some original research of his to explain why. I once again reverted the claim and specifically spelled out my issues with the statement, particularly because of the source itself, and then stated I would bring up the validity of the source here, while also reminding him of the WP:BRD cycle (he was bold, I reverted, and began discussion, but he proceeded to edit war regardless).
So the short version is, should The A.V. Club, already known to be not that serious in its reporting, be treated as a reliable source for this statement? I can find no other news sources reporting on the fact he wants to add other than many websites mirroring them. A Google search for "william"+"fichtner"+"shredder"+"shinto" has all of 48 results, all of which lead back to AV Club. There's even an MMA forum in there questioning the validity of the claim.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Black Mafia Family makes extensive use of federal court documents that are hosted on Scribd.com. Specifically [25] and [26]. In all, these documents are cited a dozen or more times. While the court documents are a reliable source, should we be trusting them as verbatim here? The editor who added them to the article is the one who uploaded them to the Scribd site. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. The source is reliable or unreliable on its own as a court document (falling under the WP:PRIMARY guidelines). It could be cited purely by case # with no link. That a convenience link is made available does not affect the ultimate reliability (or not) of the source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
@ AndyTheGrump from above : Assuming the source is otherwise acceptable from a Primary perspective etc, Under your logic, removing the link, but leaving a citation so it could be verified by someone else would be acceptable? this seems like a bad precedent to set. There is always the issue of "where you read it", and I will presume that the editor in question read it on scribd and not in person (in this case) - but what is the precedent for someone who has actually read the source document which is generally not available reliably, but there are unreliable convenience links available? Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Women And The Politics Of Violence Har Anand author Tanika Sarkar reliable for this statement of fact? The RSS have carried out acts of violence against Muslims since their founding in 1925 Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Any chance on an uninvolved editor chiming in here please? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the line due to what User:The Four Deuces has said, it now reads as "The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925.(ref name="Sarkur"} and have since formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India.(ref name="Breker")" The second source is from The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security pp87-88. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether bumpshack.com [28] is a reliable source or not? The website is currently being used to source biographical information in the article Tim Urban. It's a blog, which would normally disqualify it from being used on Wikipedia, but given this article - Joshua Holmes (model), it seems to be maintained by someone of note. I'm not sure whether or not he would qualify as an established expert on the subject though. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the most suitable noticeboard for this, as it's a possible spam issue as well as about sources. User:Memgab has been adding text and references to several articles recently (e.g. here, here, here...); the references are all published by Bottletree Books LLC, the website for which is here. The books published by Bottletree Books LLC are all by either Andrew Barger or the unspecified 'Editors of Bottletree Books', suggesting it might be a self-publishing venture, and hence not sufficiently reliable. I am also concerned that if it is self-publishing, User:Memgab's additions might constitute a form of spam (note that their first edit was this, which was later followed by this). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find any specific discussion of this site, currently being used as a source for birthdate, location and name at Dan Schneider (TV producer). The site itself isn't particularly trust inspiring: authors of articles are paid $5 for every "accepted" article, standard bland "as is" content warning, editors (whoever they might be) may reject articles without explanation, etc. Basically, it straddles the line between user-generated content and paid contributors and might have some basic fact checking involved. I do not personally see any indication of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Comemnts? - SummerPhD ( talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article Joint Special Operations Command, Anwar al-Awlaki is referred to as an al-Qaeda member. A new editor User: Paco Charte/ User:24.155.161.68 has challenged this characterization. I presented several top tier sources, including CNN [29], the NYT [30] , Boston Globe [31], the UK's Telegraph [32], NBC [33]. I also pointed out that the source the editor presented himself earlier in the discussion, from the WaPo, called him "al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki" [34]. The issue here is that the editor refuses to accept these sources because "I insist that any allegations that a person is "a member of Al Qaeda" be backed by objective, third party (i.e. not American Government press releases - which in the case of JSOC and the CIA are the only basis on which the major media outlets have to base stories due to mutually acknowledged extreme secrecy)" [35]. When I attempt to explain that he's engaging in OR, I was told "I am beginning to think that you have an agenda which directly aligns with the U.S. government, objectivity be damned." [36] The editor then declares " I will challenge Wikipedia's obviously lacking framework for dealing with propaganda such as the like you're proffering here." [37]. Does anyone else see a reason to dismiss these sources as this editor would have us do? This seems like more of a RS question than an OR question. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See the latest attempt to add a genetic section to Ishmaelites. The first source Eupedia.com, [38] which describes itself as "Guide to European travel, culture, history, linguistics and population genetics. Includes trivia, maps, a discussion forum, and a travel photo gallery." We seem to be using this in other articles, which may need to be examined.
The second source is [39] which is a reliable source but doesn't mention Ishmaelites. There is some copyvio in the article from this source which needs removing.
The third source is similarly a reliable source which doesn't mention the subject of the article.
I'm not sure about the 4th source - I can't find it and I'm not clear what it's being used for - the quote from it doesn't enlighten me at least.
The response to my raising this issue on the talk page was:
"this is what it says in the article: quote: "were added to the set of haplotypes shown in . All three Arabic haplotypes joined the lower, predomi- nantly non-Jewish branch on the right of . After the addition of the Arab haplotypes, all 25 of the haplotypes in the branch contained 162 mutations on 25 markers, which gives 4,125±525 years to a common ancestor, slightly older that age of the branch without those three haplotypes. This time period is close to that of the legendary Biblical split into the Jewish and the Arab lineages of the Abrahamic tribes," "the most recent common ancestor of Jews and Arabs of haplogroup J1 (subclade J1e) lived 4300�500 years ago, and he had the "J1 Abraham Modal Haplotype", former "Cohen Modal Haplotype" signature. From him a split occurred between the Jewish and the Arabic lineages in haplogroup J1 (J1e*)They were practically the same people, and were called the Bedouins (or we call them Bedouins now). 4200�500 years before 19 .....present they split, on the grounds of some apparently very serious reason, which likely had a religious, that is a cultural and spiritual connotation. The split was, judging from the sharpness of parting of their DNA genealogical lineages, quite a decisive one. Naturally, the split occurred not along the haplogroups J1 and J2, but across them. That was how the Jews and the Arabs had acquired both J1 and J2 haplogroups. The story of Abraham and his siblings, Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Arabs and the Jews, respectively, was told and re-told by the Arabs and the Jews of all the haplogroups. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that each haplogroup which was involved in the separation process, would have had its own "Abraham", who lived about 4,200 years ago. (If some haplogroup does not show such a split involving both the Arabs and the Jews and going back to about 4,200 ybp and earlier, then either there were no Jews and Arabs with such a haplogroup in those times, or they were not involved in the split). To verify this hypothesis, I have composed a 25 marker haplotype tree ..."Valentino2013 (talk) 5:12 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Ishmael is not a religious belief and the Arabs say Ishmael their ancestor.regaRDLESs OF what THE CORRUPTED BIBLE SAYS. tHE REFS "aNCIENT RECORDSW FROM NORTHERN ARABIA" AND MANY OTHER BOOKS SAY THAT iSHMAEL IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSYRIAN ROYAL CHRONICLES (discovered 100 years ago ". Herodotus mentioned that the Nabateans told him they decend from Ishmael in 450 BC. did you publish books? then you can cite them here or you have to look briefly at the references" Dougweller ( talk) 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
as per definition of Genetic genealogy you don't need the grave or the body of the Most Recent common ancestor to prove he existed or he was your common ancestor with a group of people. There is a calculator at ysearch tells you some guy in australia is your third level cousin (so he is your third level cousin by law, you like it or not ,it does not matter, if he has inheritanc from your say grandfather he will take his inheritance , DNA does not lie). We have people who say they are descendents of a man named Ishmael since 850 BC (3 thousand years ago ) and up till now they still make this claim. DNA genealogy proved they are all descendent from a man in the same time they claimed of Ishmael, plus many other documented evidences throughout history such as the 7th century conquest that brought the J1- Modal containg the specific DYS388=17 to north africa which is of that Most Recent common ancestor calculated with certainty, plus the separation of both lineages , which means you can't find a most recent commomn ancestor between some jews and some arabs after the date of the MRCA, while arabs can among themselves, and jews can among themselves, meaning two arabs can have a MCRA who lived 1000 years ago and so on. There are many calculations of MRCA all over the place and in wiki about Europpeans and their ethnic Most Recent Common Ancestor, The Cohanim did their Most Recent common ancestor calculations in 1997 and tens of articles expounding on. Why then finding MCRA of Ishmaelites bother you.Valentino2013 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
check out this site [40] with its example , after all the whole porpuse of Genetic genealogy is to calculate the MRCA . There are hundreds of MRCA calculations on wiki such as the Cohen Modal Haplotype which was calculated in a study in 1997 by Hammer, and many many others such as groups in Europe for the R haplogroup haplotypes of specific historical persons and mythological persons, why them don't bother you, after all this is not legal dispute and we are not in court for that.Let me bring you an example two persons have one father lost at sea, no body no dna, but the dna of the two persons say they are brothers, what do you say about that? and that their father never knew them, and left big inheritance. the father was immigrant from another continent with no known relatives other than he was from mandinga people who had haplogroup specific to that tribe,the two men never knew each other because their mom gave them for adoption 40 years ago. Can the two persons inherit that man with just the historical document a marriage certificate of their mother from that man? Valentino2013 ( talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this source History, Culture and the Indian CityCambridge University Press a reliable source for this edit? [41] The source states as fact that Sena are a facist group, yet an editor added opined to be at As a similar chat is takeing place on another article I had already provided other academic sources which state as fact that Sena are facist. Public Accountability and Transparency: The Imperatives of Good Governance p79 "a Fascist party like the Shiv Sena" Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World p95 "Shiv Sena, the most overtly fascist element in the Hindu right-wing formation" Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Another source Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras University of Chicago Press p274-276 "While secularists often slap the label of "fascist" on the entire Hindu nationalist movement, Shiv Sena is one to which that appellation seems singularly appropriate. Thackery is quite open in his admiration for European fascist leaders and has advocated for the use of their "solutions" for India's "Muslim problem" Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Any chance of getting more that one uninvolved editor to comment on this? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Edy Ganem is lacking in content and has been tagged with {{ BLP sources}}. Is this a WP:RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm trying to get more feedback about reliable sources for the Starcounter Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Starcounter
I was in a help chat with +Huon and he suggested that I ask a question here, specifically about the 451 Group blogs. Are these an issue? If so, can someone explain why? These analyst blogs are extremely reputable in the tech industry so I'm confused as to why they would be a problem. I would appreciate any insight on this and/or other sources listed.
Thanks!
Rachelamarshall ( talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)rachelamarshall
Is a speech made by Enoch Powell, 3 March, 1953, in Westminister against his govenments' Royal Style and Titles Act a reliable source that "The term realm was formally used with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted for the modern royal styles and titles"? There is a discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Powell on the Royal Titles Bill. Also, since neither the act nor Powell use the phrase "Commonwealth Realm", is it relevant to the article? TFD ( talk) 22:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What year did Canada become a realm? TFD ( talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The published website for the Queen, and the report of the debate in Parliament (UK) on the Perth Agreemant legislation, use the term Commonwealth realm: TFD's objection seems to imply that the Queen, or her Royal Household, and her cabinet ministers, are delusional about this. Even on that supposition the phrase is indisputably being used. Qexigator ( talk) 22:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sea draws some statistics on ocean temperature from [43], a Santa Barbara City College online course page. Is this a reliable source? It is from a college course, but I'm also not sure that it has the editorial oversight of a textbook, etc. Thanks, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wusun lead section (current):
The Wūsūn (Chinese: 烏孫; literally "Grandchildren of The Crow") were either a Turkic speaking[1][2][3][4][5] or Indo-European speaking[6]...
Cited sources for Turkic-speaking claim:
Cited sources for Indo-European claim:
1-5 (Turkic claim) are very dubious and I think they are unverifiable and unreliable sources. Indo-European claim cited an article from online version of Britannica:
Are these 6 cited sources are reliable for those specific claims (both Turkic and Indo-European)? I don't find anything about 1-5 and I need to know your opinions about the reliability of Britannica's article for this claim. Zyma ( talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: A questioner at the Reference Desk asked about a reference in the article Emptiness.
Source: The reference is given as "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out. Jennifer Nardozzi, PsyD" - the Ref Desk established that this is a workshop/oral presentation [44], not a published work.
Content: The statement in the article:
Just as religion influences addiction counselling, it has also influenced other therapies. Some eating disorder therapists argue that bulimia and anorexia are caused in part by "spiritual emptiness, recognized as “hunger” of the soul", in which women who face "isolation, emptiness, pain, fear and a profound sense of disembodiment" become an "empty vessel, devoid of life" which needs to be filled with comfort-giving food.[14] People who have an "empty self" may try to "fill up on food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products".
Question: If this can't serve as a source, what should I do? Remove the entire paragraph? Thanks, 184.147.144.173 ( talk) 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and North Bengali."
Chaipau ( talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dan asked me (a randomly selected RSN regular) to comment on this question.
The website is being used to support statements like these: Mustaine, who went on to found Megadeth, has expressed his dislike for Hammett in interviews. He said Hammett "stole my job." This clearly is a contentious, even potentially libelous, statement about a living person. It is also used to support fairly uncontroversial statements about activities by the organization (the band).
According to our policies and guidelines, a reliable source has these characteristics:
Most of these are a matter of degree and not every answer must be 'yes' for every use of every source. The source needs only be strong enough to support the claim being made, and weak sources may be used to support lightweight claims. Having said that, in terms of BLPSPS requirements, item #2 is an absolute requirement for statements about living people (but not bands or other organizations).
For non-BLP related statements, then the usual SPS requirement ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") may be sufficient. In this case, however, there is no reason to believe that the website would qualify under SPS, because while the website is quoted or cited on occasion in reliable third-party publications, the author is not published in them and therefore does not count as "an expert" under Wikipedia's definition. (Put another way, a sentence in The Times that says, "According to Blabbermouth" doesn't count; only an entire article in The Times written by the same person who runs Blabbermouth counts.)
The source also appears to fail item #5. At minimum, item #5 requires some reason to believe that more than one person works on the website.
So in short, I would definitely not accept this for BLP-related statements. It is possible that the source, although weak in some areas, would be barely good enough for relatively lightweight and non-controversial statements. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether a source is considered reputable and reliable within its own field should matter. Within the heavy metal scene few would question that Blabbermouth is well established and one of the leading sources of news. Consensus should not be hard to find on that point. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit late into this, but here are my thoughts on the issue (I contribute to this noticeboard every once and a while):
Now, the following is copied from WP:NEWSORG, with my emphasis and comments added: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. 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 pretty much sums up the statement recently added to album sources list: "if another source can be found for information given, use that source instead." As Krigin presumably authors the news content, most of the news coverage might fall under the "editorials" category.
What follows is the list of basic guidelines for news sources:
Editorial comment: Something that I think needs mention here is the evolution of news media in this internet age. Dan56 seemed to take issue with the structure of the site, accusing it of being a blog. I think this misses the point. The distinctions between "website" and "blog" I think are becoming more and more blurred, and a lot of professional websites, news-related or otherwise, have begun adapting more blog-like features. Thus, I think that the structure and style of the site are of no consequence. Rather, issues of third-party publication, fact-checking and accuracy, reputation, etc. are what should be examined.
My conclusion: Blabbermouth.net is reliable for general news, but with BLP info it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Reviews certainly are fine. Finally, if the story is found elsewhere by a more established agency, that agency takes preference. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the BLP guidelines apply to band members and not the band itself? In other words, if Blabbermouth makes a comment about the style of Metallica's music, that is not a BLP statement, while a statement about Lars Ulrich would be a BLP statement.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Shovon ( talk) 16:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See Ilyas son of Mudar, Qusai ibn Kilab, Mudhar, Nizar (Ishmaelites), Malik ibn Kinanah Mudrikah, Khuzayma and others, all created or edited by Valentino2013 ( talk · contribs) (see above) who doesn't seem to grasp our sourcing policy. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
The article in question, Roy Maloy, is a BLP of an Australian circus performer. The article now states that Maloy holds six world's records in stilt walking and fire breathing. The source is this page on the Record Holders Republic website. I have tried to find sources that would support the reliablity of Record Holders Republic, but can't find much. It looks to me like a Pay to play scheme, selling certificates and medals to the "record holders". Many of the claims in the article are based on this source, starting with
Roy Maloy currently holds six world records, which have been registered with the Record Holders Republic.
Should Record Holders Republic be considered a reliable source in this context? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like some advice. Does any of these:
pass muster as a reliable source for a statement that "scientific research into animal magnetism has also been performed in this century"? Has any one of them been cited in an article in a notable peer-reviewed journal, for example? The titles of the publications suggest at first sight that this is unlikely, but I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some assessment on watch project articles, and I came across g-shock. There were several citation needed tags, so I googled the phrases and added references. The main one is this timezone article http://people.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml631728462093125000 but user Dr-K flew through removing the references replacing them with cn tags. In the talk page he requested I provide credentials for the author. The timezone source was used for this text
around the triple ten concept, the concept for a watch that has a 10 year battery life, is water resistant to 10 bars, and can survive a 10m fall, 200 prototypes were tested by dropping them from rooftops, or third story windows [5]. It's shock resistant design has 10 layers protecting the quartz time mechanism, the major ones being the urethane rubber outer bumper protecting the steel watch case, the stainless steel case, the hardened mineral glass watch crystal, the stainless steel screwed down caseback, and the "floating module" concept where the quartz mechanism floated free in a urethane foam cradle, with things like the outer buttons, and LCD module attached with flexible cables, with the buttons mounted to the watchcase, rather than the quartz module.
, as well as referencing that the DW-5600E is space qualified by NASA. I'd also like to Dr-K to provide credentials for all the authors of all the books cited in the featured article on
Operation Charnwood, and credentials for all websites cited in featured article
SheiKra
TeeTylerToe (
talk) 00:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
here I have just been told that the use of academic articles for an incident in 2002 are "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident" That the acdemices are "conspiracy theorists" That sources such as Princeton University Press, Oxford & The Johns Hopkins are "biased academic crap" And rather that use any academic sources we should use newspapers from the period which covered the incident. I would like a few editors to pop over and explain which sources are the better here on Wikipedia. BTW this is what was removed in favour of PRIMARY sourcesm opinion pieces, and newspaper reports from the time of the incident. Darkness Shines ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines along with User:Dlv999 are inventing a new guideline in wikipedia that we have to only use academic sources and that also western academic sources neglecting what tenured Indian scholars or columnists have said. I will not say that the sources are partisan but they are cherrypicked sources as evident by his various recent page move requests. The Legend of Zorro 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you try to keep most of the sources editors feel are important, rather than trying to eliminate the others? Once again I have not looked at the details, but am just observing the style of discussion. My comments are guided by the spirit of WP:NEUTRAL.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Academic sources will normally be reliable for this article, although they may need balancing. If you want further comments you will need to be more specific. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
A site hosted on Blogspot run by a television ratings analyst named Douglas Pucci, which claims to get its ratings info from Nielsen Media Research ( [56], [57]). Primarily used in episode list articles, where it is used to cite viewing figures (ex. 1, 2). It's been cited by a couple of third-party reliable sources, including Yahoo! ( [58]) and TV by the Numbers/ Zap2it ( [59]).
Seems legitimate on first look, but whether it meets the criteria to be a reliable source has yet to be determined. I'm not decided on whether it can actually be used as a reliable WP reference. It could meet the reliability criteria if it satisfies the following, taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability (" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."). Any feedback? Holiday56 ( talk) 16:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is ADL (a group with a long list of detractors for being a agent of Zionism a R.S for a living persons bio, Malik Zulu Shabazz to be used liberally without caution? I have my own opinion but would like to have some clarity on this issue. Because it is like using a site known for smear campaigns against anyone who speaks ill of zionism. And there is no shortage of people saying this and complaining about Abraham Foxman. It is clear ADL is not a neutral party like Human rights watch, Anti-Slavery Society, or other non-religious, non-political, non-racial org. Moreover, it uses very unbalanced, polemic, language like RACIST, Antisemite very liberally. Why not just use Final Call if we want that type of tone? Basically can it be used so liberally? -- Inayity ( talk) 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Are these two posts reliable sources?:
I believe they are basically press release reposts being used in a very controversial area, where much better sources are available. Another editor alleges they are proper secondary sources. I believe that this source is indeed reliable. I have a disclosed COI.
Hoping to get more input. See related discussion here. Also note, I have annotated the article with Better source needed templates where I believe press releases are used as sources in the controversy, though I certainly know there are enough reliable sources to author a substantial body of content that are based on secondary sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
IMHO the WP:RS aspect is just one component of several. Second is actual reliability with respect to the items which cited it. Actual reliability is a total different topic than being a wp:reliable source.....to its credit this noticeboard usually addresses that as well. Finally, two more question are whether the material is wp:undue, and whether it summarizes what in the sources. The two noted articles I believe meet the letter of wp:rs but, if as you say ( I did not immediately see that/ look into it) , they are basically based only on press releases from the plaintiffs, then I would consider their actual reliability in discretionary areas (wording, spin, choice of emphasis) to be low. The source that you provided at first glance looks pretty good. But I would also deal with this at a content level, not just source credentials. E.G. what is the statement in question? Is it a summary of what is in best available sources? Etc. North8000 ( talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is the content in question:
bullets
|
---|
In September 2010, to settle contempt charges that it had violated one of the 2001 agreements—specifically that they would not mislead consumers to believe that purchasing magazines and other products increases the chance of winning [6] [7] better source needed [8]—the company entered into a supplemental judgment with 33 states to extend consumer protections set forth in its 2000 and 2001 multi-state settlements. They paid a total amount of $3.5 million to cover the total cost of the states' joint investigation. Specific terms of the 2010 settlement include: [9] better source needed [10] better source needed
|
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to respond to this, but this is a lot more simple to determine. If a press release is an RS, then these are fine sources. My general understanding is that press releases are not considered RS. Just because a media outlet decides to use a press release as an article, does not make it reliable if there is no original reporting involved. It is very easy to determine if it is just a reprinted press release, just take the first paragraph, copy it and google it. If you can find that on multiple sites, they did not even bother to do anything other than just print a press release. Which is the case in both of these sources. Randomyesnomaybe ( talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There's been a large number of mass edits to BLPs by Hillbillyholiday and John. I've not reviewed or counted them, but Hillbilly has said its 50 or so. The purpose of these edits appears to have been to remove tabloid, especially Daily Mail, cites from the articles.
I've no problem with someone improving sources; it's what I spend the majority of my time here doing. However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The process seems to be Hillbilly removes all the Daily Mail cites and replaces with {cn} and then John swings by the next day to remove all unsourced claims (and any tabloid-supported points that slipped through the net).
In Sally Bercow these changes were reverted by Obscurasky who asked for an explanation. WP:BLP was cited, but no explanation was forthcoming as to why the Daily Mail was being blanket-removed. Instead, Hillbilly called John in, who said: " WP:BLPSOURCES is the place to look for guidance." One revert and a level-4 warning later, I found out that John was an administrator, but even then he seems to be unable to point to a discussion/judgment/pronouncement/whatever that says the Daily Mail is entirely unsuitable for BLPs.
It does appear that it is a RS for WP as a whole (of course, BLPs are a special case), albeit one that you need to treat with more caution than most (i.e. evaluate on a case-by-case basis). There have been a bunch of discussions around the subject, [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] but this is perhaps the most pertinent (as it is relatively recent and had a vote):
John's expanded WP:BLPSOURCES point was this: " contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fine, but the stress was placed on the wrong part of the quote. Contentious material is the key there; if there's material that's both notable and uncontroversial, and if the Daily Mail article is judged to be reasonable, then why not use it?
The result has been the removal of notable but not contentious points in the Sally Bercow article. Along with some points that shouldn't be there; I'm not pretending that everything they've done is wrong, just that the points have not been considered on their merits. If that's happened on the Sally Bercow page, it's likely happened somewhere else (i.e. Grandiose and Escape Orbit have questions about the changes to the Andy Murray article)
Other examples are John's removal of content because it had a Daily Mail reference, when 5 seconds of searching found a BBC cite to replace it and Hillbilly's removal of a source written by the person in question. These were examples I found quickly (i.e. they were both found in the first articles I looked at).
There seem to be two issues (please feel free to edit this if I've got the format/process wrong). Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Things like confirming middle names and other non-contentious material. Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Things like detailed interviews with the subject, especially when directly quoted, vs. Daily Mail statements about immigrants. Bromley86 ( talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It is RS for almost everything other than likely slander or libel - thus almost all factual claims are pretty solid in the DM. It is not all that good for "Hilda Gnarph has secret love child by Prince William" or the like. Investigative reports on MP spending etc. have been shown to be accurate, and there is no real reason to disparage it as a source for such matters. Collect ( talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1. Source: the United States Supreme Court Specifically, in footnote 8 of United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)(6-3 decision; dissent did not dispute law in footnote)
2. Article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
3. Content: I want to say in the article:
The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 (1980) that the Miller case held "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Appellate courts from 1942-1997 concurred.
I've been told that I may not mention the Lewis case in the article in any context.
4. Context: United States v. Lewis , 455 U.S. 55 (1980) [68] was a case in which the Supreme Court found a conviction of a defendant who had no attorney may still be the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by a criminal sanction. The court also found in footnote 8 that this legislative restriction on the use of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.
Footnote 8 is provided in full below (emphasis added):
"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines , 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson , 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States , 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied , 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment)."
The debate over whether to include Lewis in the otherwise lengthy article comes in the context of the question of what the law was in 1980. I contend the Supreme Court believed in 1980 what they said they did, as did the 11 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals from 1942 to 1997 who said the same thing or used even stronger language. See, e.g.:
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942);
United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and
United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)
The opposition to including this information claims the Supreme Court and these eleven appellate courts are unreliable sources. Instead they claim the decision was "ambiguous" in these years because some commentators (although no court decisions) say so. (I'm fine with including the commentators' opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions and not fact.) The opposition also claims that the Lewis case cannot be cited because it did not primarily concern the Second Amendment, even though some of the appellate cases did. They also contend that because the Supreme Court disavowed Lewis 28 years later in 2008 that the Supreme Court's holding in Lewis regarding the Second Amendment cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. I contend that in the context of an article purporting to be about the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is OK to state what the law was in 1980 and for 60+ years.
[Although this is a more a NPOV issue, I should note there is a plenty of room in the article. The Second Amendment article focuses at extensive length on one-sided opinion while editors have expressly refused commentators who disagree with this opinion to be represented. There is also extensive 17th Century and 18th Century history prior to adoption of the Amendment and a little bit of 19th Century as well. But the 70 years from 1939-2008 are played down in a brief poorly sourced paragraph at the end of the article that editors have not allowed, after extensive talk page discussion for more than six months, to mention Lewis or these appellate cases. I contend the actual 20th Century law is at least as relevant as the pre-Revolution commentators to the history of the Second Amendment and that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the appellate courts in those years are reliable sources for what the law was during these years.]
We've reached an impasse. Please advise. GreekParadise ( talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Court's comment in Lewis is relevant information on how the Justices of the Court viewed the Second Amendment in 1980. It is not completely authoritative, because as has been noted the Second Amendment was peripheral to the case (in lawyerspeak, the comment was dictum rather than part of the holding of the case). If there were a more relevant Supreme Court case from that era to cite about the Second Amendment one would cite that one instead, but (to the best of my knowledge there isn't). So I think it is permissible to mention the case, but the fact that this was a comment in a case primarily about another topic could also be mentioned. To call a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States an "unreliable source" as to what the law was as of the date of the decision would be to go too far. And to say that because the law has changed since 1980 means that the law as of 1980 can't be mentioned, would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson is a candidate for deletion, which cannot be correct. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.
I'm trying to stop short of an edit war at the Conan chronologies article. By all interpretations, the article has had problems with people adding information from widely popular, but still self-published and unreliable sources. (In this case "REHUPA -- the Robert E. Howard United Press Association. A group of fans devoted to the fanship of the author.)
I would appreciate a second or third pair of eyes on the article. As is, the article is sourced to primary and other sources affiliated with the author/fiction itself. We don't need someone to make things worse by adding fan theories. Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Two editors believe this diff is unreliably sourced [69]. Is the notable source Skeptic's dictionary (see [70] to access specific pages 45-48) by Robert Todd Carroll reliable for the following text in that diff:
IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has numeric name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)